Jump to content
270soft Forum

Historic Vote #5: Obamacare


vcczar
 Share

Historic Vote #5: Obamacare  

28 members have voted

  1. 1. How would you vote on Obamacare if you were a US Senator?

  2. 2. Which kind of Senator would you have been (Note: only including those that existed at the time)

    • Establishment Democrat supportive of Obamacare
    • Establishment Republican opposed to Obamacare because of the mandate.
    • Moderate-to-conservative Democrat (or Ind Dem) supportive of Obamacare now that concessions on abortion and public option have been made.
    • Traditionalist-to-Libertarian Republican opposed to Obamacare because healthcare should be left exclusively to the states or private sector.
    • Progressive Democrat reluctantly supportive of Obamacare because, although imperfect, at least it will expand healthcare coverage.
    • Moderate Republican who, while supportive of the idea of Obamacare, is sticking with the party in opposing the bill in hopes that a 2nd bill will receive more support.
  3. 3. Was the individual mandate the deciding factor in you opposing Obamacare as a Senate?

    • Does not apply to me because I support Obamacare even with the Individual Mandate.
    • Yes.
    • No. I oppose the bill for reasons that might include the mandate but also for other reasons.
  4. 4. In the future, would you favor legislation that replaces or repeals Obamacare?

    • No.
    • Yes, I would replace it with single-payer, universal healthcare
    • Yes, I would replace it with a system that provides Medicare for all.
      0
    • Yes, I would replace it with a bipartisan bill that does not have a mandate and gives more power to the states and private sector in decreasing costs.
    • Yes, repeal it right away, but with the idea that we could try and replace it sometime in the future if everyone is in agreement, whether that's next session or 20 sessions from now.
      0
    • Yes, but not to replace it. Repeal it all together.
  5. 5. Considering later that the Supreme Court has upheld Obamacare and that efforts to repeal Obamacare have failed, is Obamacare now the "law of the land."

    • Yes, efforts to repeal Obamacare in Congress or in the Supreme Court should be discouraged.
    • No, continual efforts to repeal Obamacare via Congress or the Supreme Court should be encouraged.


Recommended Posts

vcczar @Reagan04 @Actinguy @Patine @Conservative Elector 2 @TheMiddlePolitical @WVProgressive @SilentLiberty @pilight @admin_270 @Hestia11 @Herbert Hoover @mlcorcoran @Leuser @upandaway @jvikings1 @Rodja @Edouard @jnewt @Nentomat @Kingthero @Sunnymentoaddict @RFK/JFKfan @Mr.Blood @Zenobiyl @Wiw @MBDemSoc @ThePotatoWalrus @Alxeu @Allyn @Cenzonico @CentristGuy @Ishan @billay @wolves @RI Democrat @lizarraba @lizphairphreak @TheLiberalKitten @MysteryKnight @avatarmushi @servo75 @Mark_W

You are a US Senator on Dec. 24th, 2009. 

Affordable healthcare reform was arguably the top issue of the 2008 election, with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney and others all advocating reform. 

One model for Obamacare was the Massachusetts Healthcare program (also known as RomneyCare) that mandated that residents have health insurance. 

The initial crafting of a filibuster-proof bill had bipartisan support. A group of three Democrats and three Republicans, including Chuck Grassley (R-IA) created the foundation of the senate bill. Former Senators such as Bob Dole (R-KS), Howard Baker (R-TN), Tom Daschle (D-SD), and George Mitchell (D-ME) approved of the bill.

However, after an individual mandate was included in the bill, Sen. Mitch McConnell and other Republicans threatened a filibuster, since they believed the mandate to be unconstitutional. 

In an attempt to keep support, Democrats made several compromises, such as omitting a public option, giving states the right to prohibit coverage of abortion, and etc. 

How would you have voted as a US Senator on Obamacare?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm receptive to replacing any law at all, including Obamacare, with a better law -- but you'd better know just what the heck the new law is going to be before you overturn the current one.  

Twelve years later, Republicans still have no plan for how to actually improve it.

I also don't think you can actually reform health insurance at all without having the mandate.  If insurance companies have to grant you affordable healthcare if you want it, regardless of pre-existing conditions -- then everyone will just drop their healthcare until they actually need some because they have some huge medical bill incoming.  That's not how insurance works.  You pay for the super expensive sick people from the premiums of the healthy people.  If there are no healthy people in the system, and you can't fleece the sick, then you're going out of business.

There is no reform without a mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I'm receptive to replacing any law at all, including Obamacare, with a better law -- but you'd better know just what the heck the new law is going to be before you overturn the current one.  

Twelve years later, Republicans still have no plan for how to actually improve it.

I also don't think you can actually reform health insurance at all without having the mandate.  If insurance companies have to grant you affordable healthcare if you want it, regardless of pre-existing conditions -- then everyone will just drop their healthcare until they actually need some because they have some huge medical bill incoming.  That's not how insurance works.  You pay for the super expensive sick people from the premiums of the healthy people.  If there are no healthy people in the system, and you can't fleece the sick, then you're going out of business.

There is no reform without a mandate.

I agree with you in theory, but the mandate has essentially been dead ever since they zeroed out the penalty in the tax cut bill a few years ago, and as far as I know, it hasn't led to people gaming the system in this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I'm receptive to replacing any law at all, including Obamacare, with a better law -- but you'd better know just what the heck the new law is going to be before you overturn the current one.  

Twelve years later, Republicans still have no plan for how to actually improve it.

I also don't think you can actually reform health insurance at all without having the mandate.  If insurance companies have to grant you affordable healthcare if you want it, regardless of pre-existing conditions -- then everyone will just drop their healthcare until they actually need some because they have some huge medical bill incoming.  That's not how insurance works.  You pay for the super expensive sick people from the premiums of the healthy people.  If there are no healthy people in the system, and you can't fleece the sick, then you're going out of business.

There is no reform without a mandate.

Yes, but the precedent of the government being able to force everyone to buy something is a dangerous one.  Next thing you know president Pence will be forcing everyone to pay a tithe to a church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pilight said:

Yes, but the precedent of the government being able to force everyone to buy something is a dangerous one.  Next thing you know president Pence will be forcing everyone to pay a tithe to a church.

Slippery Slope fallacy. Also, there's an implied separation of church and state. That would not pass the SC at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pilight said:

Yes, but the precedent of the government being able to force everyone to buy something is a dangerous one.  Next thing you know president Pence will be forcing everyone to pay a tithe to a church.

No, you take things on a case by case basis.

The government requires you to pay your taxes.  They don't require you to pay MY taxes.  
The government requires that you drive on the right side of the road.  They don't require you to walk down the right side of the sidewalk.
The government requires that you have a license to drive a car.  They don't require you to have a license to ride in a car.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

Slippery Slope fallacy. Also, there's an implied separation of church and state. That would not pass the SC at all. 

You think this court, with Barrett confirmed, would invalidate it?

Slippery slopes are not inherently fallacious.  Laws, and especially courts, work off of precedents.  This is a bad one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, pilight said:

You think this court, with Barrett confirmed, would invalidate it?

Slippery slopes are not inherently fallacious.  Laws, and especially courts, work off of precedents.  This is a bad one.

If the lower courts don't block it first, then I do think the SC court would vote down a law enforcing tithes to a church --- I mean which church gets it? Which sect? We have no official religion. Who decides where it goes? I think Barrett and Thomas, and possibly Alito might try to keep the law, but I know Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch would be opposed to it, as would all the liberals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

If the lower courts don't block it first, then I do think the SC court would vote down a law enforcing tithes to a church --- I mean which church gets it? Which sect? We have no official religion. Who decides where it goes? I think Barrett and Thomas, and possibly Alito might try to keep the law, but I know Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch would be opposed to it, as would all the liberals. 

That anyone thinks Barrett would affirm this law demonstrates supreme lack of understanding of who Amy Coney Barrett is as a jurist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

That anyone thinks Barrett would affirm this law demonstrates supreme lack of understanding of who Amy Coney Barrett is as a jurist.

I will have to be convinced by her actions on the Supreme Court. Until she proves to me otherwise, I'm going to fear that her faith is her guiding principle and that she will just use the Constitution to cherry pick her faith-based decisions. I hope my assumptions on this are and will be proven wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would've been a strong progressive democrat at the time, a strong advocate of the Affordable Health Care for America Act. I would've been disappointed to see the Senate unable to pass a public option, but would've voted yea on the Affordable Care Act because incremental change is better than no change. Probably would've gotten expelled from Congress for getting in a fight with Joe Lieberman on the floor of the senate.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would’ve been one of the conservacrats (conservative democrats) haggling for moderate planks in the bill. Probably a moderation on abortion etc although I would’ve supported the overall bill because of the increased access to healthcare it would provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, pilight said:

Obamacare is a poorly thought out half-measure.  When the next step towards the inevitable single payer system happens, it will become a footnote. It will be forgotten in the long run, the Articles of Confederation of health care.

Yet, you, me, and probably everyone else here recall the Articles of Confederation, which is definitely neither a footnote nor forgotten. However, I do think it will lose much of its historic importance when it is replaced with a SandersCare or ScandinavianCare-like system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Yet, you, me, and probably everyone else here recall the Articles of Confederation, which is definitely neither a footnote nor forgotten. However, I do think it will lose much of its historic importance when it is replaced with a SandersCare or ScandinavianCare-like system. 

The vast majority of Americans either have forgotten the Articles or remember them as a footnote.  Rightly so, as they are of minimal importance to their daily lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...