GOP Introduces Health Care Replacement "Health Care Choices Act"

[Matt Collins]

Here is the scoop:
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2011/01/20/marshas-choice/


Read the actual 31 page bill here:
http://blackburn.house.gov/UploadedFiles/112_Health_Choices_Act.pdf

[Brett85]

Well, 31 pages is at least better than 2,500 pages.

[fisharmor]

The webpage is a little confusing: at no point does it say whether it's a state or federal bill, and it's all about TN politics....


Well, 31 pages is at least better than 2,500 pages.

Yeah, and the Constitution is what, 6?

[Brett85]

The webpage is a little confusing: at no point does it say whether it's a state or federal bill, and it's all about TN politics....



Yeah, and the Constitution is what, 6?

Yeah. Is there anything in the GOP bill that is unconstitutional? Most of the ideas like allowing people to buy insurance across state lines are just reforms that promote less government involvement in health care.

[kahless]

Mandates for health care coverage established by title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will significantly elevate health insurance costs beyond State and Federal ability to pay

Now I did not read it word for word, but what I take away from that section and browsing through, is that the only concern is the increased cost burden of the state and federal government. In other words they think it is ok for government to force individuals to buy products against their will as long as it does not add to the state and federal budget.

I suspect the compromise bill will decrease the burden to the state and federal spending which is good, but they will place another mandate burden on individuals. This would of course satisfy both the Progressives and the Corporatists in both parties, all whom worship at the altar of whatever corporate America dictates.

[Brett85]

Now I did not read it word for word, but what I take away from that section and browsing through, is that the only concern is the increased cost burden of the state and federal government. In other words they think it is ok for government to force individuals to buy products against their will as long as it does not add to the state and federal budget.

I suspect the compromise bill will decrease the burden to the state and federal spending which is good, but they will place another mandate burden on individuals. This would of course satisfy both the Progressives and the Corporatists in both parties, all whom worship at the altar of whatever corporate America dictates.

I'm pretty sure the Republicans in Congress don't support the individual mandate. Many of them spoke out against it during the health care debate. They're going to be voting on repealing that later on, and I'm pretty sure there won't be a single Republican who will vote against repealing the individual mandate.

[nobody's_hero]

Yeah. Is there anything in the GOP bill that is unconstitutional? Most of the ideas like allowing people to buy insurance across state lines are just reforms that promote less government involvement in health care.

Practically speaking, it's a move in the right direction.

Constitutionally speaking, it is dead-in-the-water.

It's like the abortion issue. If the Constitution does not mention 'abortion', then Congress has no power to consider the issue either for or against abortion. In essence, it is a state-level issue. The states may give up such decision-making to the federal government by ratifying amendments to the Constitution, but the Federal government may not make the decision for them.

And if the people have not given their states the authority in their state constitutions, then healthcare isn't even an issue for the states to consider.

[Brett85]

Practically speaking, it's a move in the right direction.

Constitutionally speaking, it is dead-in-the-water.

It's like the abortion issue. If the Constitution does not mention 'abortion', then Congress has no power to consider the issue either for or against abortion. In essence, it is a state-level issue. The states may give up such decision-making to the federal government by ratifying amendments to the Constitution, but the Federal government may not make the decision for them.

And if the people have not given their states the authority in their state constitutions, then healthcare isn't even an issue for the states to consider.

I agree that the federal government shouldn't be involved in health care at all, but like you said this is still a step in the right direction.

[nobody's_hero]

I agree that the federal government shouldn't be involved in health care at all, but like you said this is still a step in the right direction.

I just thought of this perspective, which takes my thoughts a bit deeper:

If they gear the discussion towards loosening restrictions on the market, then I could see it easily as being Constitutional (this goes hand-in-hand with the true intent of the 'interstate commerce clause', which is to 'make commerce regular' between the states). Specifically to address healthcare, or to mandate or pass laws that still end up in a centrally-managed system, then I don't see how it could be Constitutional.

Things they should stay away from, IMO, are health (or medical) savings accounts. These are good ideas that I think would change things for the better, but then again you have to ask yourself, 'is even this something that I want the Federal government to manage from Washington?' I might not even want my state managing it from Atlanta.

[edit: Had something else here but I'm trying to figure out how I want to word this]

[tangent4ronpaul]

Anyone watch the 5 hour "debate" about this today? With the exception of one Dem that broke with the rest, and accused the Repubs of repeating something enough not making it true and that this was a Nazi tactic, The dems marched in lockstep repeating the same 3 things over and over and over again. They were all dusted off from the talking points when Pelosi shoved this down our throats. The repubs generally said different things than each other.

At a certain point, the realization dawned on me that had I been playing a drinking game and downing a shot every time the phrase "donut hole" was repeated, I would currently be embalmed!

It was a long and tedious five hours. Quite reminiscent of prisoners having to listen to the Barney(?) the dinosaur song over and over and over. A practice that has been deemed to be torture. Maybe I should call the ACLU and inquire about filing a civil suite against the DNC? :D

-t

[Matt Collins]

The webpage is a little confusing: at no point does it say whether it's a state or federal bill, and it's all about TN politics....Sorry, yeah it was introduced by Rep Marsha Blackburn a US Congresswoman from TN in the district next to me.