Reversing the Healthcare Bill

[SleepIsGood]

So question for you guys.

If you are watching the news today... You will see that MANY state primary senator and congressional races are being held. In MULTIPLE states incumbent democrats are either ousted and it appears a landslide victory for the Republicans is on the horizon in November. Clearly, the fight needs to be strong until then.

My question though is this. There have been candidates running on the platform to overturn the Obama Healthcare plan. Seeing as though most of those changes are for 2014 per the bill. Is it possible if the Republicans win this year that they can fight to prevent actualizing the bill even though it has 'passed'? Is there a period of time that a bill signed into law must be carried out prior to it expiring (like tax cuts)? Or can it be repealed right away?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[IlDestriero]

It's not likely to go anywhere. Taking it away would be like cancelling all those insurance policies. Taking away peoples healthcare is not very popular. All we should hope for is modifications and delays. A few extra years of the status quo could be a real benefit to early-mid career anesthesiologists, especially if it delays universal coverage. We need to really work and spend to try to fix our unfair Medicaid payments. Any expanded govt coverage will be based on that anyway, and private plans use it to attempt to negotiate lower rates. That's the smartest thing we can do now.

 

[starsop93]

So question for you guys.

If you are watching the news today... You will see that MANY state primary senator and congressional races are being held. In MULTIPLE states incumbent democrats are either ousted and it appears a landslide victory for the Republicans is on the horizon in November. Clearly, the fight needs to be strong until then.

It won't be repealed, just like Medicare and Social Security will never be repealed. It will be changed though.

Don't be so optimistic about Republicans in November. They are still less liked than Democrats, and Obama is still popular. Also the incumbent Democrats who are struggling are getting challenged from the left not the right. Democrats are unhappy that they haven't done more, not because they did too much. The Tea Party candidates could be too extreme for the independents in usually reliably Republican districts, giving an opening for a Democrat. I still think the Republicans will make gains, but not a landslide, and likely no switching of majorities.

 

[Surfer]

Don't be so optimistic about Republicans in November. They are still less liked than Democrats, and Obama is still popular. Also the incumbent Democrats who are struggling are getting challenged from the left not the right. Democrats are unhappy that they haven't done more, not because they did too much. The Tea Party candidates could be too extreme for the independents in usually reliably Republican districts, giving an opening for a Democrat. I still think the Republicans will make gains, but not a landslide, and likely no switching of majorities.

You don't read the paper much do you? The republicans are KILLING the democrats, even in normally highly democratic regions. The Tea Party is not a republican movement, its a grass-roots conservative movement and it is spreading like wild-fire. It is neither extreme nor far-right.

 

[starsop93]

You don't read the paper much do you? The republicans are KILLING the democrats, even in normally highly democratic regions. The Tea Party is not a republican movement, its a grass-roots conservative movement and it is spreading like wild-fire. It is neither extreme nor far-right.

I read a lot of papers. Not "all of 'em", but a lot. Anyway, here's a link to Rasmussen (generally regarded as having a conservative bias) which corroborates and refutes some of my post: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

Also, polls are increasingly suspect nowadays, given that most are conducted on land lines, and a majority of young people either don't use them anymore or don't even have them; probably biasing them in favor of conservatives. Nevertheless, I see conflicting things on many sites, so it's not as clear cut that, despite the overwhelming press advantage the Tea Party and Republicans have gotten, that they have moved the polls as far as you think.

Anyway, the characterization of the Tea Party as "grass-roots" is pushing it, given that it was started and has been heavily funded and promoted by large right-wing organizations and Fox News. Also, the Tea Party, while increasingly influential, remains small. Yeah, there are a few progressives mixed in there, but as a whole, it is very right-wing and extreme relative to other Americans: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html

Tea Partiers are motivated by their hatred of Obama, and the left is demoralized by the Democrats inability to move their agenda despite their majority. Republicans will gain in November, but it's not clear how popular the Tea Party is outside of those who watch Fox News. Remember Doug Hoffman?

 

[Surfer]

interesting post. i don't remember doug hoffman.

 

[lord_jeebus]

My question though is this. There have been candidates running on the platform to overturn the Obama Healthcare plan. Seeing as though most of those changes are for 2014 per the bill. Is it possible if the Republicans win this year that they can fight to prevent actualizing the bill even though it has 'passed'? Is there a period of time that a bill signed into law must be carried out prior to it expiring (like tax cuts)? Or can it be repealed right away?

They would need a veto-overriding 2/3 majority which isn't going to happen.

Even if it did, you may be overestimating how much incentive the GOP has to fight for pro-physician legislation.

 

[Surfer]

They would need a veto-overriding 2/3 majority which isn't going to happen.

Even if it did, you may be overestimating how much incentive the GOP has to fight for pro-physician legislation.

its not "pro-physician." remember, about 2/3 of america is against this bill. its hugely unpopular, for many reasons.

to block it they don't necessarily need to repeal it. they can also refuse to fund it each year, if they get a majority in either house. without money, the bill is dead.

 

[lord_jeebus]

its not "pro-physician." remember, about 2/3 of america is against this bill. its hugely unpopular, for many reasons.

to block it they don't necessarily need to repeal it. they can also refuse to fund it each year, if they get a majority in either house. without money, the bill is dead.

I'm not sure where I said this bill was pro-physician. I meant that you could give the GOP the presidency and a 100% majority and they still would be unlikely to do anything good for physicians.

We have little to offer either party in return, and so they have little to offer us.

 

[Surfer]

my point was reversing it would not be considered "pro-physician." it would be done because america hates the bill.

 

[aneftp]

The healthcare bill that passed WILL never be repealed. Once Americans get used to "free stuff/entitlements" they will never let go.

Just look at the Tea Party members. They want small government. But when asked a point blank question, "sir, how to you feel about social security/medicare" The tea party member states, he's "earned his medicare/social security."

That's why it's so hypocritical of of everyone, Republicans/Democrats/Independents. They claim to be against entitlement programs but when it comes down to "their entitlements," no one wants it to be taken from them.

I am very opposed to this health-care entitlement bill. That's what it really is. It's going to place an even bigger strain on social security. Why? Because so many people now are opting for early social security at 62 (most of them have younger spouses who are still working so they piggy back onto their health plans).

But guess what? Now there's no incentive to work pass age 62 if you plan on collecting social security. Most people keep working till they are eligible for medicare but if they can retire at age 62, stay below the 43K salary mark for singles or 88K for families, the government is essentially going to subsidize 70-80% of all of their healthcare cost.

Than there's going to be outcry that even at 70-80% subsidy, the common people can't afford to pay out the other 20%. Guess what happens next, the government will start subsiding 100% of all healthcare costs. This is not a 1 trillion dollar bill. It's going to be a bill that starts at 3 trillion and goes up from there as more and more people game the system and are sucked into it.

This is just the beginning of socialized medicine. We physicians who are in the business know that. Except there's one big difference between the US and other countries. We won't get to work 35 hours a week like they do in Europe. We won't get the majority of our medical education subsidized at taxpayer expenses. We still are liable to get sued more than our Europeans colleagues.

I tell everyone I will gladly trade my $450K plus income and make $180K IF the government gives me back the $120K loans I already paid back and IF I get to work 35 hours a week and IF I get 8 weeks Paid vacation plus another 2 more weeks of paid CME plus make it even harder to sue me. Than I will except socialized medicine. Oh, I forgot a couple of my European colleagues also get 1-2 hour tea breaks in the mid morning. I want that too.