You have to wonder whether Republicans in Congress are starting to regret having voted to repeal health care reform. Many people are up in arms over the prospect of losing some of the reform act’s more popular provisions such as being able to get insurance despite having a pre-existing condition, and keeping kids on their insurance until age 26. The GOP’s answer to those complaints has been that if the repeal is passed, they would work out those pesky, popular details at the tail-end of the process. Of course, no one expects repeal to pass the full Congress, so Republicans thought they could get away with threatening valued aspects of health care reform without paying a political price for it. Ain’t workin’ out that way.
Now, the GOP wants the U.S. Senate to vote on the matter, saying it has to do so since that’s what their party promised voters during the 2010 campaign. Never mind the weird argument that Democrats are obliged to fulfill Republican campaign promises. The real issue, considering that several individual parts of the reform act are very popular, is how much embarrassment does the GOP want to bring on itself? Democrats in the Senate are rubbing the Republicans’ noses in it today, in the form of a letter to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor from Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ). The two Dems asked Cantor whether the passage of a repeal measure would mean that the government would tell old people that they have to send back the $250 they received to help pay for prescription drugs. It’s a good question, and it’s also good politics. Republicans who were expecting to slide through the whole “repeal Obamacare” charade without being called out for the negative impacts that an actual repeal would generate may be having second thoughts. That is, if you really want to call what goes through Reps. Virginia Foxx , Louie Gohmert, and Steve King’s minds actual “thoughts.”
This article appears in Jan 18-24, 2011.
They answered this question before repealing it. No, seniors will not have to.
http://majorityleader.house.gov/newsroom/2011/01/transcript-majority-leader-eric-cantors-pen-pad.html
But for many hardworking families, affordable insurance can be hard to find. The new “Wise Health Insurance” is giving you more control over your family’s health care by expanding your options for health insurance and making them more affordable.
Awesome, more theatre of the absurd. It’s all just a show for the GOP to be able to say, “See voters, we tried to repeal healthcare”.
I believe it’s this simple: whenever government gets involved, the quality goes down and the cost goes up.
And you shouldn’t be able to get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition. By definition, that would not be insurance. Those with pre-existing conditions should have an option of some sort but you can’t call it insurance. If my house was on fire, I wouldn’t be able to call and get homeowner’s insurance at that point.
SP, please don’t spoil Grooms’s self-pleasing demagoguery with something as inconvenient as truth.
Your observation about homeowner’s insurance is spot-on. Here’s another example:
If you are financing your automobile you are required by the lender to carry collision and comprehensive insurance. But if you own your car free and clear you are only required (by the state) to carry liability. If you try to add collision, the insurance company will send a representative to your home to examine the car, so that you don’t try to submit a claim for any pre-existing damages.
Back to healthcare – the reason the CBO claims that Maobamacare will “reduce the federal deficit” is because it dumps a huge portion of its costs on the states via Medicaid. Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo of NY gave a very GOP-like “State of the State” where he explained how he audited Medicaid spending as Attorney General and recognized how unsustainable it was, even pre-Maobamacare.