The House of Representatives will vote to repeal ObaminableCare

From :


House takes step on health repeal

It’s a symbolic move, as Senate Democrats will block any move. But governors opened a new front.

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – House Republicans cleared a hurdle Friday in their first attempt to scrap President Obama’s landmark health-care overhaul, yet it was little more than a symbolic swipe.The real action is in states, where Republicans are using federal courts and governors’ offices to lead the assault against Obama’s signature domestic achievement, a law aimed at covering nearly all Americans.

In a postelection bow to tea partyers by the new GOP House majority, Republican lawmakers are undertaking an effort to repeal the health-care law in full knowledge that the Democratic Senate will stop them from doing so.

Republicans prevailed Friday in a 236-181 procedural vote, largely along party lines, that sets the stage for the House to vote next week on the repeal.

Shortly before the House vote, GOP governors representing 30 states opened up a new line of attack, potentially more successful.

In a letter to Obama and congressional leaders, the governors complained that provisions of the health-care law were restricting their ability to control Medicaid spending, raising the threat of devastating cuts to other critical programs, from education to law enforcement in a weak economy. It’s ammunition for critics trying to dismantle the overhaul piece by piece.

Moreover, a federal judge in Florida is expected to rule shortly in a lawsuit brought by 20 states that challenges the law’s requirement that most Americans carry health insurance. A judge in Virginia ruled it unconstitutional last month, while courts in two other cases have upheld it. It is expected that the Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve the issue.

The move may be symbolic, but it is also the keeping of a promise: most of the Republican congressional candidates promised to work for repeal.

Of course, the goal is not just the keeping of a promise; it’s also political. The Republicans want to force the Democrats to vote, once again, on a program that, as Gallup noted,”Americans (are) generally more opposed to than in favor of the healthcare law.”

Would you want your representative in Congress to vote yes to repeal the healthcare law or vote no and let the healthcare law stand? January 2011

Views of Healthcare Law Repeal, by Political Party, January 2011

The Republicans ran hard against the health care plan, and they won the 2010 election; they believe that their opposition to ObaminableCare was one of the reasons they won. Note that even 24% of Democrats believe it ought to be repealed, a far larger percentage of Democrats than Republicans who believe it ought to be retained. That, on the margins, is significant; whether it changes before the 2012 elections remains to be seen.

There’s a potentially interesting sideshow which could occur in the Senate. There are 51 Democrats and two independents who caucus with the Democrats in the United States Senate. In the 2012 elections, 23 Democrats will be up for re-election¹, compared to only 10 Republicans.² It’s not difficult to pick out seven Democrats who could be vulnerable if they vote (again) in favor of ObaminableCare: Senators Joe Lieberman³, Bill Nelson, Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad and Carte Goodwin. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might have to resort to not allowing a vote at all rather than expose these Democrats to having to vote for an unpopular plan in states where such a vote could cost them. The Republicans wouldn’t filibuster a vote if Senator Reid allowed it, because it’s to the GOP’s advantage, whether they win or lose the vote.

Like TO says, “Get your popcorn!” It could be a fun show! :)
________________________
¹ – This includes the two “independents” who caucus with the Democrats.
² – Senators up for re-election in 2012:

  • Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
  • Dianne Feinstein(D-CA)
  • Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
  • Thomas Carper (D-DE)
  • Bill Nelson (D-FL)
  • Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
  • Richard Lugar (R-IN)
  • Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
  • Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
  • Scott Brown (R-MA)
  • Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
  • Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
  • Roger Wicker (R-MS)
  • Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
  • Jon Tester (D-MT)
  • Ben Nelson (D-NE)
  • John Ensign (R-NV)
  • Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
  • Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
  • Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
  • Kent Conrad (D-ND)
  • Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
  • Robert Casey, Jr. (D-PA)
  • Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
  • Bob Corker (R-TN)
  • Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
  • Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
  • Bernard Sanders (S-VT)
  • Jim Webb (D-VA)
  • Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
  • Carte Goodwin (D-WV)
  • Herb Kohl (D-WI)
  • John Barrasso (R-WY)

³ – Senator Lieberman would be worried about losing the Republican votes on which he counts.

19 Comments

  1. If BO wants the Debt Ceiling Raised, then tie these two Bills together. The best of all outcomes -BO gets his debt ceiling raised, and the country is not saddled with this monster that will control our lives.

  2. Hitchcock gets down and dirty, again:

    Just attach this two-page bill to every single bill in the House. (Not my suggestion; I stole it from someone else.)

    Right, obstruct, this is the way to do the people’s business, correct?

    And if you think a little deeper about this tactic, you will obstruct your own party from getting on the record with majority votes in the House on the bills that supports your party’s agenda.

    Really stupid, huh Hitchcock?

  3. And if you think a little deeper about this tactic, you will obstruct your own party from getting on the record with majority votes in the House on the bills that supports your party’s agenda.

    Repealing the wholly destructive and unconstitutional ObamaCare has full Republican support. Attaching it to other legislation the Republicans support will in no way prevent Republicans from getting on record on that other legislation. Or had you forgotten that it is the Republicans that run the House now?

  4. Yorkshire suggests:

    If BO wants the Debt Ceiling Raised, then tie these two Bills together. The best of all outcomes -BO gets his debt ceiling raised, and the country is not saddled with this monster that will control our lives.

    That might work, Yorkshire, but don’t you think it is better to keep the two issues separate so that each members position on each issue can be duly recorded? I prefer that!

  5. On the Gallup polling, I think it would have been better to give four choices: Vote to repeal; Vote to improve; Vote to let stand; No opinion.

    I am suggesting that many of the high ‘no opinion’ votes would have gone to ‘vote to improve’ votes. When asked about the provisions kicking in now, something like 70% of those polled approve of them, in a recent poll.

    I think it is the mandated insurance which is the main sticking point with many Americans, because they don’t know how much it is going to cost and what the options will be. This goes for small businesses too, who are also upset with the over/under 50 issue, as well as the paperwork and cost.

  6. Dana thinks:

    The move may be symbolic, but it is also the keeping of a promise: most of the Republican congressional candidates promised to work for repeal.

    Yeah right, and repeal will add another $230 billion to the deficit, on top of the $940 billion you already voted for just so you can pass on a tax cut for the already rich, all according to that pesky old CBO that you righties would just as soon trash because their projections don’t mesh with your ideology.

    Kindly, Dana, never again lecture us on here about the deficit, because your words ring mighty hollow to me!

    Let us instead hope for some leadership from the right, regarding making health care reform better. Is this too much to expect from you people?

  7. Yorkshire also mentions:

    And the HITECH Act shoved into the Stimulus Bill to digitize our medical records.

    I am not in favor of combining any bills, by either party, though I know they do that to get bills passed. Let each congressperson be accountable for each vote on each bill.

  8. Perry wrote:

    Dana thinks:

    The move may be symbolic, but it is also the keeping of a promise: most of the Republican congressional candidates promised to work for repeal.

    Yeah right, and repeal will add another $230 billion to the deficit, on top of the $940 billion you already voted for just so you can pass on a tax cut for the already rich, all according to that pesky old CBO that you righties would just as soon trash because their projections don’t mesh with your ideology.

    Kindly, Dana, never again lecture us on here about the deficit, because your words ring mighty hollow to me!

    You assume that the CBO projection is somehow holy writ; it isn’t. It is a projection, based upon a set of assumptions, which I do not accept.

    Really, it’s pretty simple: ObaminableCare proposes to extend health care coverage to something like 30 million people who don’t have it currently, and cover people who are otherwise uninsurable, and pay for those who can’t afford health care coverage, and somehow, someway this is supposed to make things cost less? ObaminableCare is supposed to cover more people, and provide the same level of care, yet cost less? Only if you believe that 4 + 2 = 3.

    ObaminableCare hasn’t come into full effect yet, so there are really only a few projections which have been real-world tested, but the few we have had don’t look very promising for the accuracy of the overall guesstimates. As The Washington Post reported, and John related, on just one (supposedly) small part, the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan projected it would cover 375,000 people by the end of 2010, yet covered only 8,000 (projection missed by almost 98%!) yet those 8,000 enrollees are going to cost in one year what the PECIP had budgeted for five.

    Small scale, to be sure, but to misoverestimate the number of people to be covered by such a huge number, while misunderestimating the cost by a factor of (at least) five doesn’t give me much confidence in the projections made, or in the people who made them.

    Kind of like the Porkulus Plan was going to hold unemployment to 8%, while unemployment would rise to a shocking 9% if it wasn’t passed; those fine economists couldn’t get it right either, for projections for just a year into the future.

    To say that I have zero confidence in the people making such projections would be to overstate how much confidence I have in them.

    ObaminableCare will cost much much more than projected, and the quality of care we’ll receive will decline, period. With any luck, that statement will never be proved, because we’ll get the whole damned thing cancelled before it really starts.

  9. Perry wrote:

    Let us instead hope for some leadership from the right, regarding making health care reform better. Is this too much to expect from you people?

    We’re trying to make our health care system better, by returning to what we had before ObaminableCare was ever passed. That would be better than any changes the government could make.

  10. Dana states:

    We’re trying to make our health care system better, by returning to what we had before ObaminableCare was ever passed. That would be better than any changes the government could make.

    After all the facts brought forth on your blog about the shortcomings of our former health care system, of which there were many, cost being one that should have attracted your attention, though compassion does not seem to have an attraction to you, after all those facts, it is difficult for me to understand that you would persist with your just stated opinion. It is as if you have not been paying attention, Dana, or simply don’t care about anything else but your ideology. You choose!

  11. Dana concludes:

    ObaminableCare will cost much much more than projected, and the quality of care we’ll receive will decline, period. With any luck, that statement will never be proved, because we’ll get the whole damned thing cancelled before it really starts.

    And replace ObamaCare with what, Dana? Nevermind, you said you are satisfied with the status quo, typical, I might say, of those who apparently have no vision or plan for years down the road.

    Your entire screed is a denial of an attempt to bend the cost curve, so that you would just as soon see health care costs continue to skyrocket. Let me make a prediction: When you are 75 or 80, at a time when you will probably understand very well the byproducts of aging, your views on health care reform will change. I am assuming that by then you will not have put away enough to pay the bills and stay solvent, in which case you well may be very thankful for Medicare, for Social Security, and for health care costs under better control. Otherwise, you may be a heavy burden on your wife and daughters. Have you looked seriously at 20 years down the road, Dana? I suggest not!

    Time for football. Go Iggles!!!

  12. Perry wrote:

    Time for football. Go Iggles!!!

    And the ObaminableCare bill will turn out just like the Iggles: it will fall short. Either it will be repealed (unlikely before 2013) or the major part of it, the individual mandate, will be thrown out by the courts, rendering the whole thing unworkable, or it will stay in place and provide worse coverage than planned at a lot more money than projected.

    We all know what you want: you want a system in which good health care is guaranteed to all, because you believe that health care is somehow a right. Me, I believe that our rights are things we possess of ourselves, things that the government cannot take away or infringe upon.

    The difference? I see rights as things we possess of ourselves, while you see rights as the ability to compel other people to do things for you. I think that everybody should have health insurance; that’s the smart thing to do. But I do not believe that the government has the right to compel you to buy it.

  13. Dana wrote:

    We all know what you want: you want a system in which good health care is guaranteed to all, because you believe that health care is somehow a right. Me, I believe that our rights are things we possess of ourselves, things that the government cannot take away or infringe upon.

    Dana, have you forgotten the Ninth Amendment?

    Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Dana further argues:

    The difference? I see rights as things we possess of ourselves, while you see rights as the ability to compel other people to do things for you. I think that everybody should have health insurance; that’s the smart thing to do. But I do not believe that the government has the right to compel you to buy it.

    All the more reason why, Dana, we should have single payer health insurance, paid for by a progressive health care tax system. This way, the right to health is a shared burden on all of us.

  14. Dana Pico says:
    10 January 2011 at 07:20

    Perry wrote:

    Time for football. Go Iggles!!!

    And the ObaminableCare bill will turn out just like the Iggles: it will fall short. Either it will be repealed (unlikely before 2013) or the major part of it, the individual mandate, will be thrown out by the courts, rendering the whole thing unworkable, or it will stay in place and provide worse coverage than planned at a lot more money than projected.

    We all know what you want: you want a system in which good health care is guaranteed to all, because you believe that health care is somehow a right. Me, I believe that our rights are things we possess of ourselves, things that the government cannot take away or infringe upon.

    The difference? I see rights as things we possess of ourselves, while you see rights as the ability to compel other people to do things for you. I think that everybody should have health insurance; that’s the smart thing to do. But I do not believe that the government has the right to compel you to buy it.”

    The difference? I see rights as things we possess of ourselves …”

    That distinction explains why conversations on rights, natural or otherwise, and despite the highest hopes of persons like yourself, typically go nowhere with a leftist.

  15. Perry wrote:

    Dana further argues:

    The difference? I see rights as things we possess of ourselves, while you see rights as the ability to compel other people to do things for you. I think that everybody should have health insurance; that’s the smart thing to do. But I do not believe that the government has the right to compel you to buy it.

    All the more reason why, Dana, we should have single payer health insurance, paid for by a progressive health care tax system. This way, the right to health is a shared burden on all of us.

    How you find my statement to be “all the more reason why” is beyond me. What you have argued for, a “single payer health insurance, paid for by a progressive health care tax system,” is precisely government compelling some people — the higher earners — to buy things for others.

Comments are closed.