House Votes to Repeal Obamacare Provision

[Dreadnaught]

except that if congress doesn't like ipab's proposal it can make its own proposal

The problem is they are setting a very high standard for our legislature to revoke a proposal. They will basically need two separate majority votes plus the President's signature to appeal what this panel dictates.

Sure, big things could lead to controversies. But the panel's decisions are basically untouchable.

And what do we have now? Wealth decides health?

We have a broken health insurance market. That's why we need comprehensive health care reform. Which is completely opposite of what we got in 2010.

[Aimless]

The problem is they are setting a very high standard for our legislature to revoke a proposal. They will basically need two separate majority votes plus the President's signature to appeal what this panel dictates.

Why is that, specifically, a problem?

[Veldan Rath]

Why is that, specifically, a problem?

Because we (read the political hacks we elect) politicize EVERYTHING, (see Terry Schivo and the poor kid the got shot fiasco now) so getting majorities from BOTH houses AND getting the POTUS to sign on is f-ing laughable at best.

[GGT]

Legislators are the problem, so lets give more power to legislators?

We are a nation of laws. We are a United States that fights over federal vs state laws, and jurisdiction, and ultimately agrees to the breadth and scope of our Supreme Court, with their interpretations of the US Constitution and legal precedence. This case falls under the Commerce Clause, something "congress" (legislators) have routinely complied with and even encouraged. Our legislative branch is tied to our judicial branch, by purpose, because we are a Union. Not just a bunch of disconnected states acting independently.

[Veldan Rath]

We are a nation of laws. We are a United States that fights over federal vs state laws, and jurisdiction, and ultimately agrees to the breadth and scope of our Supreme Court, with their interpretations of the US Constitution and legal precedence. This case falls under the Commerce Clause, something "congress" (legislators) have routinely abused and willfully misinterpreted. Our legislative branch is tied to our judicial branch, by purpose, because we are a Union. Not just a bunch of disconnected states acting independently.

Fixed.

[Aimless]

Because we (read the political hacks we elect) politicize EVERYTHING, (see Terry Schivo and the poor kid the got shot fiasco now) so getting majorities from BOTH houses AND getting the POTUS to sign on is f-ing laughable at best.

Great, then it'll be more difficult for that sort of politics to influence medicine. There're data from decades of thorough research into medicare to help guide the board in making recommendations for how to rein in costs. Everyone's yelling about death panels and blocking miracle-cures, as if those are the only conceivable solutions to the problem of increasing medicare costs.

[CitizenCain]

Great, then it'll be more difficult for that sort of politics to influence medicine. There're data from decades of thorough research into medicare to help guide the board in making recommendations for how to rein in costs.

That would be hilarious, except that you actually believe it.

When has is ever worked that way, on either side of the pond? Or put another way, do you actually expect the politicians who appoint these guys to appoint the best-suited candidates for the job, over the candidate(s) who are gonna give the properly politically-aligned answers?

A sad statement on humanity that you somehow expect this time to be different, when we have eons of history, and our present political landscape to tell us otherwise.

[Aimless]

When has is ever worked that way, on either side of the pond?

Which side of the pond has the greatest problems with healthcare costs?

Or put another way, do you actually expect the politicians who appoint these guys to appoint the best-suited candidates for the job

Of course I do.

over the candidate(s) who are gonna give the properly politically-aligned answers?

And which specific politically aligned answers are going to become the most relevant when it comes to the question of handling medicare costs?