By Steve Vaughan
The House of Representatives just got through wasting time debating the repeal of last year’s health care reform bill. To no great surprise, the repeal bill passed the GOP-controlled House, 245-189, with every Republican and three Democrats voting to repeal it.
The debate and vote were largely symbolic.
Democrats control the Senate. Even if they did not, President Barack Obama would veto any repeal of “Obamacare.”
So Republicans were just engaging in political grandstanding and pandering, they knew they weren’t actually accomplishing anything.
And that’s okay, because very few people really want to repeal health care reform, including (shhh, keep this under your hat) the Republicans who just made such a show of trying to do so.
Polling on the issue has been shifting. A Gallup poll in early January found 46% in favor of repealing the law and 40% against. An Associated Press-GfK poll last week finds only 25% favoring repeal and only 30% against the health care reform law. Finally, an NBC-Wall Street Journal polls split the difference, with 39% opposing health care reform and 39% supporting it, and 46% opposing repeal while 45% favored it.
I don’t doubt there are about a third of the voters who are strongly for repealing health care reform. That’s the hardcore Tea Party “we’re-against-anything-Obama-does” crowd.
There’s no question the GOP majority in the House owes them a debt. They turned out in disproportionate numbers in November’s election and fueled a Republican landslide.
Hopefully. now that we’ve got the symbolic repeal out of the way, Congress can get down to doing the people’s business.
Because, let’s be honest here, everybody knows we need health care reform — including Republicans.
That’s why “Obamacare” bears a striking resemblence to “Romneycare,” the state health insurance plan once-and-future Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney signed into law as governor of Massachusetts. It’s also pretty similar to proposals former Republican presidential candidate and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole made back in the late ’90s.
The individual mandate to buy health insurance that so inflamed the Tea Party and prompted Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to sue the federal government? That was a Republican idea.
While I’m not a big fan of that individual mandate, it did get the insurance companies to sign on to the bill and agree to other concessions, like not denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions or canceling clients’ insurance when they get sick.
Those and other provisions of the bill, like allowing children to remain covered under their parents’ policy until their mid twenties, are actually quite popular. Republicans will tamper with them at their own political peril.
Since there’s no longer any need to slander the bill for political purposes by calling it a “government takeover of health care,” maybe now Republicans can start to help to fix the bill.
Because it’s not a government takeover — unfortunately, all health care and health care insurance remains private, any one who is happy with their present coverage can keep it. And it doesn’t “cover illegal immigrants” — who are specifically excluded from coverage in the bill. Nor does it contain “death panels” — if you choose to consult with a doctor about end of life decisions for a loved one, the bill requires the insurance company to pay the doctor’s bill for that meeting,
There are improvements to be made. In another poll, 42% of respondents said they wished the health care reform law did more. And some of the ideas that Republicans have championed in the past could help make the law better.
For instance, the law says that people who are not insured through their employee will be able to join state insurance pools, hopefully to be able to buy coverage at lower rates than individual coverage is currently available at by spreading the risk over a larger number of people.
Republicans have proposed in the past to allow health insurance companies to operate across state lines. That’s a great idea because it will increase competition for the business represented by the state insurance pools. And insurance companies would compete for that business, because those pools will represent huge amounts of business.
Think how many car insurance commercials you see every evening from Geico and Progressive and State Farm and Nationwide and All State, all competing for your car insurance business and trying to get you to switch because they all say they’ve got the best price. They are allowed to compete nationwide and they do. That competition keeps car insurance rates down.
There are some wrinkles that would have to be worked out. Insurance regulations are largely the function of state governments. Would the insurers be bound by the regulations of the state they operate from or the buyer’s state?
I’m pro-consumer, so I’d say make them bound by whichever set of regulations is most benificial to the customer. Some folks in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, who get a lot of money from insurance companies would likely disagree.
There are probably other Republican ideas that could improve the health care law. They should trot them out. Yelling “No!” at the top of your lungs may be a great way to gain political power. It’s not the way to keep it. Neither is appealing to the 25%-30% of the country furthest to the right — or left.
Voters who chose change in 2008 and then change again in 2010, when it wasn’t working out the way they thought it should, obviously don’t have any deep-seated party loyalty. They may change their minds again in 2012.
Partisan gridlock and political gamesmanship isn’t the kind of change anyone voted for in 2008, or last year. In fact, it isn’t any kind of change at all.
If this Republican Congress is seen as obstructionist and more concerned with political games than governance, they’ll find that they’ve made the same mistake that the class of 1994 made when they shut down the government to make a political point and insured Bill Clinton’s re-election.
Cross posted to Virginia Pundit
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
A simple, cynical question: do campaign promises matter? And if so, how much?
I know someone with a really good story about an inexperienced candidate who felt like he couldn’t make a campaign promise to an interest group when he knew that he couldn’t possibly deliver on it. The gist of it is that the candidate’s friend was nearly driven into a rage when he found out that he’d prevaricated over the matter because as a more-experienced politician, he recognized that those are the very best campaign promises to make: a campaign promise you can never, ever deliver will also never, ever cost you anything. Not one red cent, not one political favor, not one compromise.
Anyway, the short answer to your question is “no.” The longer answer is “haha, no.”
Here’s why I asked:
If this vote hadn’t happened, the Tea Party movement would’ve gone ballistic, because that’s what the majority of the new Republicans in Congress (and most of the old ones too) said they were going to do.
It’s kinda like the left’s frustration with, say, closing Gitmo. Many people knew it wasn’t going to happen, but Obama promised it…and caught all kinds of crap for not being able to do it (and if that example doesn’t work for use, substitute the crap he got for not repealing DADT “fast enough” and all the praise that came along when it finally did almost happen).
I’m with Max, the entire bill doesn’t need to go away (and most of what does will probably get struck when the individual mandate does). That said, though, I think the fufillment of the promise to do it matters, even if forces outside their control keep it from completely happening.
I would rather have a politician try to do something and run into a roadblock then say he’s going to try to do something and not.
I think the analogy you may be looking for is this: remember how angry some liberals were that we couldn’t roll back the Bush tax cuts even for just the wealthiest one percent of Americans even though we controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House at the time?
Yeah, the Republicans only control one chamber of Congress. Does anyone seriously believe the House GOP has the leverage to get anything done? That law is staying on the books forever unless Democrats decide they want a second bite at the apple.
Quick review:
The promise to repeal was obviously one of those special, perfect campaign promises because it was never going to cost you anything, as it was completely unrealistic. Most thinking people knew it was impossible, but a lot of people voted based on that promise anyway. Thanks for playing. Strike one.
Now stepping into the batter’s box: de-funding. Sounds great as a sound bite, but how does that work? There isn’t actually a public option buried somewhere in there to de-fund, so a ton of the provisions are actually regulations places on private industry. And you can’t de-fund a law that says private insurers have to extend coverage to dependents under 26 years of age, just for instance, any more than you can make homicide legal by de-funding some sections of criminal code. They can try to de-fund medicaid and medicare, that’s true — but the demographic that suffers from that isn’t the newly-covered so much as all of those white babyboomers just rounding the corner into 65 who have to rely on medicare as their primary provider. Many of whom just voted Republican a couple months back. Non-starter. Strike two.
At some point Republicans are going to have to put their campaign strategy on the back burner and start thinking up a legislative strategy — which is nearly impossible now, as they’ve spent a year telling their base how we want to kill grandma. You can’t compromise with alleged grandma-killers; your base won’t forgive you for it. There will be inevitable Neville Chamberlain references from Limbaugh and Beck. Yet unless they can find a way to start coming to the table and talking things over like adults, that law, like the Bush tax cuts, is going to stay on the books forever.
And apparently the base is fine with that.
Well, yeah, eventually that has to happen for us…but if the base can’t yet accept compromise with good governance, you get votes like this. Had to happen and means a lot (the backlash from doing it is far less than the backlash from not doing it), but doesn’t really accomplish much.
But maybe it’s just me…
I’d argue that you shouldn’t make campaign promises that you can’t possibly keep, which “repeal Obamacare” was. Nobody ever thought, even if they bought the best-case GOP scenario, that Republicans were going to have enough votes to override a veto.
Making such a promise is itself cynical.
I’ve been saying all along, much to dismay of any Tea Partier who hears it, that repealing Obamacare (should be called Ezekiel Care because Ezekiel Emanuel is the one who wrote the bill) is a waste of time. Even Republicans say between 50 and 75% of the bill is fine.
As far as parliamentary strategy goes, the correct course of action would be to repeal the sections they don’t like and replace them simultaneously within the same piece of legislation.
No need for two votes when one will do the job. Sadly people in the Tea Party and elsewhere are too ignorant to understand how the legislative process really works, let alone comprehend the nuances of it all.
The more time Congress wastes, the better off the citizens are.
Max-that doesn’t actually call for the repeal of anything, just amending the parts of the law you don’t like. And you’re right, that would only take one vote…and might actually attract bi-partisan support on some sections. But that would actually be LEGISLATING as opposed to scoring partisan points.
I think it would technically still be repealing. When you look at a bill repealing a section of the USC or state code it just strikes through everything. Such a bill as I’m talking about would still contain a ton of striking through as well as a ton of italic text.
It’s all semantics though and your right, ti would be legislating instead of scoring partisan points. Sadly partisan points is how we keep score.
Even Obama says the bill could be improved, but sadly with a two party system, any victory means one less thing to campaign against the other side on.
Partisan points is how lots of people keep score, but it’s short-sighted. Elections come and go. Legislation is forever. That’s why people like David Frum were standing on the sidelines in 2010 screaming at the minority leadership “WTF are you doing?!”
Good post, Steve.
Coby: I agree with you. The Tea Party certainly performed for the GOP in 2010. So they were owed this much. I’m just saying now that we’ve had our symbolic vote, let’s get down to business.
I see Rigell came out with this statement full of disproved right wing lies on the reform efforts. Republicans talking and the truth are mostly mutually exclusive.
“Last year, Congress passed and the President signed into law, a health care plan that I believe is unconstitutional. It creates a government-run health care system that will further bankrupt America while threatening the coverage of those already insured. By repealing this law, we will have the opportunity to focus on the challenging issues facing our health care system while implementing market based solutions. Government run health care is not the answer: addressing issues like improved access and increased quality of care is,”
Don’t be so hard on Scott, its not like he makes any of his own decisions on this kind of stuff. He’s at the mercy of his staff and the House leadership, he is literally in an information cocoon. I feel bad for the guy honestly, he got conned into running so he could buy the seat back for the GOP.
If its all a stunt, then Senator Reid should allow it to come to a vote in the Senate and call their “bluff.”
Hey, Steve. Some said the same thing about Obamacare in the first place. Sometimes, things magically change when politicians have to actually stop talking and vote.
> And it doesn’t ‘cover illegal immigrants’ —
> who are specifically excluded from coverage in the bill.”
True. Federal law still requires hospitals to treat illegal immigrants. The individual mandate does not apply to them — they cannot be punished for not getting insurance.
> Nor does it contain ‘death panels’”
The “death panel” is the Independent Medical Advisory Board (IMAB), which will decide (not you and your doctor) which potentially life-saving treatments Medicare and Medicaid will pay for.
Can anyone explain to me why they want to repeal the whole bill? There clearly are some good provisions so I think they should only get rid of the bad ones. What is bad about allowing children to have health insurance regardless of their pre-existing condition?
Simple — the insurance companies cannot afford the losses, so they stop offering such insurance.
Let’s put it this way, why should an insurance company be liable for something that happened (the pre-existing condition) before you bought a policy?
The only good part I can think of is the Medicare cuts, which were put in as a budget gimmick so the CBO would have to say it wouldn’t cost so very much, and which everyone knows will never really go into effect.
Echoing Brian & Warren:
Obamacare WAS impossible. One of the reasons this reform is a bad reform is the same reason it was impossible – all the sleazy horse trading needed to pass it!
This healthcare reform is damaging to the economy. Part of that damage was due to the paralysis in the business community due to their not knowing if the would get such a crazy legislation and if their taxes would be increased by repealing the cuts Bush made years ago. Thus the hoarding of assets and little development.
The polling numbers indicated that Obamacare is not the answer. The reaction of business indicated this was a bad alternative. The Democrats publicly acknowledging their project was less than perfect indicates one thing. Egos and legacy aside they knew this was BAD. The fact that Harry Reid has stated he will refuse to allow a repeal vote in the Democrat controlled Senate indicates Fear.
Sorry, Palin was at least right on death panels…….sorta. maybe the hyperbole was pushed too far, but as Warren points to, there is that issue.
The crux of this pitiful excuse for reform was based on an unconstitutional use of the Commerce Clause. The clause is specifically meant to regulate “interstate” commerce. How freakin’ ironic that there is no interstate competition even allowed under Obamacare.
Meaningless bluster? Lol! Ha! Only if there is a rapid turn around in polling and what was recently polled ain’t enuff. Meaningless only if Democrats embrace this for the horror it is and act now to patch it in bi-partisan fashion. Initiating interstate competition and removing the mandate would be great first steps that might stave off a full repeal.
And it will get repealed.
If nothing is done, this is what happens:
1)Republicans will beat the Democrat Senators with this issue after it goes nowhere in the Senate.
2)The GOP will make gains in the Senate races
3) Obama may veto continued attempts
4) Some of the worst portions of Obamacare will near implementation dates and this will be talked about. Plus more repeal attempts.
5) Pres. Obama will get shellacked with this and just about any Republican could beat him.
Democrats are playing with fire and dancing on the edge. This “meaningless” attempt at repeal is a win-win for the GOP. The Democrats need to fess up to making a big mistake and go about fixing it. Meanwhile claim the honest credential of getting something started. The Republicans after all did nothing and are usually as equally smug and self-important when they have a lock on Congress and the White House.
Britt,
Have it all figured out don’t you. I must remind you that what you think will happen does not always happen- first of all millions will have health care by the next presidential election and they will never vote for those who wanted to take it from them and force them to suffer. Second thing is that all of your candidates on the repug side have major flaws and their campaign rhetoric will look to be very evil as compared to President Obama’s. Third thing is demographics and your party cannot just win with the white vote anymore and seeing as you have no agenda for people of other races then you will of course lose handily. Last thing is if you check your history you will realize there have been individual mandates put on other groups to buy health care and so it is not against the law.Of course five justices can rule it against the law based only on politics. By the way you do not believe the uninsured have any responsibility to take the weight off the taxpayers backs concerning their health care. you know we are paying for their free health care.
Then why don’t we just repeal the law that forces hospitals to pay for people who have no insurance?
For Jay, there are 3 reasons to talk repeal:
1. Political – the Republicans can probably score more painful wins. The. GOP might not be able to resist piling on an opponent that made a fatal mistake.
2. There is a LOT bad. If Democrats refuse to help, there will be little choice.
3. Good honest leverage to coax Democrats to help.
Let’s hope some good Dems can go against hardliners and openly act to fix this regardless of what party any partners are in. Same goes for Republicans. Why wait to fix it? Why jeopardize American’s chance for a better reform by gambling on full repeal or nothing.
Gene, you have a few valid points there. I do have a nice grip on reality and there is a good deal of evidence to support my view. That said, you are correct. I don’t have everthing figured out anymore than the Democrats did when they laid out that baiting of healthcare knowing the public would likely resist having it removed. Unanticipated hurdles appeared don’t you think Gene?
You are also correct in that some of the GOP candidates are very flawed. Webb is likely going to face one. I do wish the Republicans could do better.
I must say I try to not use ad hominem like “Repugs”. Eventhough I am not a Republican. I take them to task too, Gene. Name calling is unattractive.
Again, I am not a Republican, but Coby Dillard is. He can speak better for them. My party is all inclusive, btw. I can show you pictures of James Quigley’s family marching at the invite of Best Kept Secret/Stop the Violence in the MLK march on the penninsula. I can also point to text on this site from a Democrat operative that has a big problem with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. My party locally is probably doing more for minorities than the GOP, but to say the Republicans do mothing and have no minorities as members is to miss the obvious.
Yes, the mandate is unconstitutional.
Yes, the uninsured need to pay their way. Failing to do so should result in consequences on not having every option available. It might also mean charitable arrangements and or debt. There are other concepts out there to address the ease of getting insurance. Some of them address that.