If the Republicans Regain Control

[Free Palestine]

That is, of the House, Senate, and presidency.  In such a case, would Republicans try to repeal the health care legislation?  Or would they pussy out?

[tpfkaw]

Depends on how big a margin they control the three houses. If control of either house of Congress or the Presidency belongs to the pussy Mike Castle types, then it will never be repealed. That's why they weren't able to pass a left-wing Social Security reform bill in 2005.

[Free Palestine]

Of course, health care will go the way of the Department of Education, becoming a non-issue for "smaller government" Republicans.

[tpfkaw]

Of course, health care will go the way of the Department of Education, becoming a non-issue for "smaller government" Republicans.

Well, the DoE isn't really that important. Hell - it could even be useful, if it were used to enforce school choice.

I am much more concerned about the proliferation of unfunded, hugely expensive, and massively complex entitlement programs.  Cut those first, and the bureaucracies associated with them will wither and die.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If it lasts long enough and for people to see that it actually helps them, it will become unrepealable. Just like Medicare.

[Dr. Cynic]

I don't think they will get the votes and once it starts helping people, most won't want it repealed.

[Bo]

They would pussy out. They sure didn't try to repeal Social Security or Medicare. Heck, they even expanded Medicare.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No because they're fascists who secretly supported the bill and only voted against it to look good.


(That was a joke, by the way)

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I don't think they will get the votes and once it starts helping people, most won't want it repealed.

The corporate elites who will be 'helped' by this bill don't make up that large of a voting bloc.

[Frodo]

I have been reading that they are going to try to strip out the less popular cost-containment provisions of the Patient Protection Act if they can't get the votes to override President Obama's veto of an outright repeal. 

[Lief 🗽]

That's why they weren't able to pass a left-wing Social Security reform bill in 2005.

huh?

[Bo]

That's why they weren't able to pass a left-wing Social Security reform bill in 2005.

Privatizing Social Security isn't a left-wing idea.

[tpfkaw]

That's why they weren't able to pass a left-wing Social Security reform bill in 2005.

huh?

That's why they weren't able to pass a left-wing Social Security reform bill in 2005.

Privatizing Social Security isn't a left-wing idea.

Bush's bill was.

Its provisions were to:

1. Cut benefits for wealthy retirees while raising benefits for poorer retirees.

2. Allow employees the option of investing 4% of their income from their payroll taxes, or $1000, whichever was lower, into a government-managed fund consisting of treasury and high-grade corporate bonds. This would, by the way, allow for Social Security to be solvent quite a bit longer before the invevitable massive benefit cuts.


It was a bill that the Democrats could have come up with - at least when the Democrats were even slightly reasonable.  If Obamacare is "right-wing," then Bush's Social Security proposal was most certainly "left-wing."

[Хahar 🤔]

You're not making any sense.

[SPC]

Of course not. It will simply go down the memory hole to be replaced by the imminent threat of _________ (ethnic group/country/sexual orientation).

[Marokai Backbeat]

Bush's bill was.

Its provisions were to:

1. Cut benefits for wealthy retirees while raising benefits for poorer retirees.

Determination of that would undoubtedly be subjective and allow people to fall through the cracks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Social Security will be solvent for nearly 30 more years and be able to pay nearly 80% of benefits after that point indefinitely. There is no Social Security crisis. Any reduction of benefits or creeping privatization is by no means a left-wing idea. Like Xahar said, you're making no sense.

Let it be said, however, that I haven't dived into the Bush proposal in depth because there really wasn't much of one.

[Bo]

That's why they weren't able to pass a left-wing Social Security reform bill in 2005.

huh?

That's why they weren't able to pass a left-wing Social Security reform bill in 2005.

Privatizing Social Security isn't a left-wing idea.

Bush's bill was.

Its provisions were to:

1. Cut benefits for wealthy retirees while raising benefits for poorer retirees.

2. Allow employees the option of investing 4% of their income from their payroll taxes, or $1000, whichever was lower, into a government-managed fund consisting of treasury and high-grade corporate bonds. This would, by the way, allow for Social Security to be solvent quite a bit longer before the invevitable massive benefit cuts.


It was a bill that the Democrats could have come up with - at least when the Democrats were even slightly reasonable.  If Obamacare is "right-wing," then Bush's Social Security proposal was most certainly "left-wing."

I read that the cutting benefits for wealthy retirees was just on the table--it wasn't necessarily going to be included in the plan. And allowing people to invest their Social Security money in the stock market is a right wing idea.

http://seniorliving.about.com/od/lawpolitics/a/socialsecstudy.htm

Also, this one study showed that Bush's Social Security plan would have favored big banks at the expense of seniors. This makes Bush's plan even more right-wing.