Home » Obamacare: repeal and replace

Comments

Obamacare: repeal and replace — 15 Comments

  1. The GOP is its own worst enemy and has been for years. We had over 30 years notice this was coming, from Ted Kennedy through Hillary working in Bill’s administration, yet the Congress never effectively moved to correct serious problems in our nation’s health insurance system.

    Beyond Congress’ typical fecklessness, why was there no national movement to privately provide insurance for those in need? A Conservative group could have initiated and fostered a national campaign that paid premiums and deductibles for the uninsured.

    As much as I loathe the ACA and how it was passed, Conservatives and Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. They had more than sufficient warning and time to eliminate the need.

  2. Rufus T. Firefly:

    I agree that Congressional inaction led to the problem. However, most states had high-risk pools to deal with at least one of the difficulties.

    I think that, in general, Republicans in Congress favored letting the states deal with the situation, on a state-by-state basis.

  3. “It may be “too little, too late” for you”

    Apres le Trumpening it is all too late for Republican apologists. Raw meat is what’s on the menu for teh G[L]OP.

  4. The problem is not insurance per se, but monopolies that undermine market regulation, underpeforming economies that are subsidize through redistributive change, and environmental conditions that prevent providing services.

  5. Unfortunately, the Republicans still have a major task in 2016 in retaining control of the Senate. Only ten Democrats are up for re-election vs 24 Republicans. Trump has made this into somewhat of a throw-all-the-bums-out election, which could actually help the Dems in the Senate.

    Even with a Replubican POTUS, but without the Senate, we’ll be back to McConnell slurring “but we only control 1/2 of 1/3, plus all of another 1/3 of the government, so to prevent us from being blamed for a government shutdown caused by the Democrat Senate, our only choice is to give the Democrats everything they want” or something.

  6. I am in sync with snopercod and n.n. The health care system is rife with crony capitalism. Prices are fixed and monopolies are enabled by government regulations.

  7. Doing this during a campaign year makes more sense because it can be served up as a campaign issue that will be “fresh.” Candidates can say, “See, we passed legislation to repeal and replace the ACA, but the President, who doesn’t care that the new legislation will provide relief to millions of citizens and improve the economy, has vetoed it in a partisan way.” Using this to argue for both, more Republicans in Congress and a Republican President, should be a winning major campaign issue. More people than ever are feeling the effects of the ACA and are not happy.

  8. Did any of the “more than 50 bills by congressional Republicans to repeal all or part of the health law” make it to Obama’s desk to be vetoed?

    Without vetoed legislation, how do Republican candidates disprove the leftist charge that they have nothing to offer as an alternative? Stating that they would have… if only they hadn’t been certain that Obama would veto them is an unpersuasive argument.

    “I think it is a real change, albeit a moderate one.”

    IMHO, the Omnibus bill decisively disproves that assertion.

    “I believe the change is at least in part a reaction to the growing sense that Congressional Republicans must have that their base is very very angry.”

    Once again, the Omnibus bill demonstrates just how ‘concerned’ they are with their bases anger.

    “many people (and I was one of them) were hoping that Congress would be placing bill after bill on Obama’s desk–bills he would veto, but which would highlight what he was blocking and show what the Republicans stood for in contrast. That didn’t happen, and the reason was probably threefold, in no particular order: Boehner’s “leadership,” the Senate filibuster giving the Democrats the power to block legislation there, and a lack of understanding on the part of some of the more moderate Republicans about how angry the base had become.”

    Boehner could not ‘lead’ where a majority was unwilling to follow.

    The democrat demolition of the Senate filibuster using the “nuclear option” was a clear signal to the Republicans that they were no longer in a ‘knife fight’. By not responding equally, the GOP demonstrated their unfitness. They rolled over and showed their bellies.

    ‘moderate’ (RINO) Republicans knew long ago how angry the base had become, they simply didn’t care and they still don’t. It’s another “dog and pony show” for the ‘rubes’.

  9. Geoffrey Britain:

    In the links it explained what I think the post also implied, which is that, in the Senate, the Democrats blocked the vote through the filibuster/cloture rule. That has been true of a lot of bills. It wasn’t until early December, when the Republicans decided to use reconciliation to pass this particular bill (a process that can only be used for a few bills), that it has a chance to pass both houses and therefore find its way to Obama’s desk.

    The Democrats did not end the filibuster/cloture rule, even for Obamacare. They used reconciliation. They ended the filibuster/cloture rule for federal judge approval only.

  10. neo-neocon, if the GOP thought it were best left to the states why not make it easier for companies to compete across state borders.

    If Conservatives believe certain important issues are not the purview of a centralized, Federal government then they need to work to eliminate those important issues. Millions of folks lacking insurance is a tragedy. Help those folks.

    It shouldn’t have required a political solution from Washington, but private and charitable institutions were not stepping up to sufficiently help those in need and Congress was not passing legislation to free up the private insurance marketplace.

    Look at what Glenn Beck is doing with his “Nazarene Fund.” He believes Syrian refugees need homes and so he is privately soliciting contributions and acting to help them.

    Democrats only have a hammer and will see every problem as a nail. Take away the problems through private and individual action and there will be no nails they can hit.

  11. snopercod and Geoffrey Britain,

    I don’t understand why so many who dislike what Liberals and Progressives do in politics continue to believe the GOP has an answer. The GOP has been awful for a long, long time. True, they are less awful less often than the Democrats, but they are awful. And, the Democrats are much better organized.

    Isn’t the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? Expecting the GOP to be Conservative or to reduce the size of Government or to play political hardball is the definition of insanity.

  12. Neo-neocon said:

    “…a shutdown, a move they’ve been understandably reluctant to take…”
    When confronted by a recalcitrant opponent, you keep ratcheting up the pressure. Eventually, you either surrender or go to war. It is unconscionable that Republicans refuse to use the power of the purse.

    “…conservative members of Congress using their influence to pressure Boehner to resign…”
    Boehner didn’t resign under pressure. He took the easy way out on his path to his golden parachute of K street. He gave the lobbyists one last, giant gift knowing that if he’d tried to stay in office after it, he would have been removed.

    “It demonstrates that if you have a president prepared to support health care reform, it could pass next time.”
    It does indeed demonstrate that, which is why McConnell allowed it to happen. This is his way of saying that not only will we need a Republican president (Which IMO we are likely to get), but we will also need to preserve the GOP majority in the Senate.
    Mitch McConnell is a scheming crapweasel, and he sees his majority endangered by his own actions. Voters may be so incensed that they just don’t care any more.

    I have no more patience for the traitors and cowards who led us to this place. They are dead to me.

  13. My prediction:

    I assume that either Trump or Cruz will win the presidency. Assuming that Trump is an actual reformer (I already know Cruz is), here’s what will happen:

    The bipartisan fusion party will stymie most reform, especially government downsizing. If there’s any belligerent action on the part of the president, the Congress will discover a newfound respect for impeachment.
    The only thing that will be accomplished domestically over the next 4 years is for a reformer president to highlight just who in Congress is the obstructionist, so that the voters can REMOVE them.

    By 2020, we should start making progress. Sorry that’s not quicker or happier, but fighting corruption is a long haul.

    I suppose things might go faster if the economy collapses, but these days I’m more leaning toward the Japanese slow-bleedout scenario.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>