RSS Feed MenuThat sounds like it will be the Republican slogan in 2010. One question:
The Senate healthcare bill offers $250 to seniors who enter the prescription drug “doughnut hold” (the no-coverage zone from $2700 to $6154 in drug expenses). The House bill closes the doughnut hole entirely. It’s expected that under reconciliation, the House view would prevail. And this portion of Obamacare goes into effect immediately.
So … if the final product is enacted … and if it does close the doughnut hole … and if seniors are already benefiting … will Republicans repeal THAT? More relevantly: What will they say in the fall if asked whether they intend to repeal it?
sinz54 // Mar 11, 2010 at 9:39 am
More to the point, one thing that both the House and Senate bills do offer is guaranteed issue: That no one will lose their health insurance, or be turned down for insurance, due to a pre-existing condition.
I can just see the debates in which Dem candidates force the GOP candidates to say whether they’re going to repeal that (which would be extremely unpopular with Independent voters)–or else say how they intend to pay for those with pre-existing conditions without a general mandate. (The existing GOP plan–to create state risk pools on an individual state basis–has been shown to create premiums so high that those with pre-existing conditions won’t be able to afford them.)
To demand that the bill be repealed is only consistent with keeping the pre-existing condition problem as it is–a disaster for anyone unlucky enough to get sick. Yet over on RedState.com, posters actually called guaranteed issue “welfare.”
The pre-existing condition problem is the GOP’s last best hope to show Americans that they’re not really crude Social Darwinists at heart like the posters at RedState.com. They must propose a plan to make health care affordable for those unfortunate Americans (I’m one of them).
Independent // Mar 11, 2010 at 10:07 am
sinz54, I am sorry that you’re one of the less fortunate Americans that can’t afford health care. The GOP hasn’t been against health care reform –we’ve tried repeatedly to convince the Democrats to drop the massive, unneeded program they propose and hit the biggest issues, piecemeal, cautiously and not send the economy into another Obama recession.
The truth is that no GOP candidate need get boxed into the false choices you outline above.
And DavidF is writing copy for the sole purpose of generating outrage, it seems.
No GOP candidate need run on a platform of “Just Repeal ObamaCare”… we’ve got a lot to run on –the massive deficits, the whomping and job killing trade imbalance, the almost assured middle class tax hikes, the coarsening of politics by Obama’s Chicago Thug leadership, the Democrats’ failed Stimuli Spending Spree, expanding unemployment, staggering financial failures in dozens of state capitols, the adverse impact of Obama’s Apology Tour, etc etc etc.
For anyone, including DavidF, to claim that the GOP is just going to be running on “Repeal ObamaCare” is silly on its face. And seriously uninformed given the last 14 months of debate and discussion –even if it wasn’t on CSPAN.
LFC // Mar 11, 2010 at 10:58 am
Does anybody know if, historically, bills are typically repealed wholesale or if they tend to have portions repealed?
If it’s by portion, then the GOP has two choices. They can hit the bill really hard and face any political fallout which, according to them, will be minor because everybody hates the bill. Of course, as David points out, they could be wrong. The other choice is to repeal fewer portions of the bill, but that quickly becomes an admission that the bill was mostly good so why did they oppose it so vehemently?
My bet is that if they regained the Senate or House, they wouldn’t do much of anything to it. Sometimes pushing something in to the dustbin of memory is the best strategy.
sparty // Mar 11, 2010 at 11:02 am
Independent:
“…and not send the economy into another Obama recession.”
Well, if you’re going to re-write history, you might as well get a jump on it.
Independent // Mar 11, 2010 at 11:35 am
Sparty, did you miss the first Obama recession? Official unemployment tipping the 10% mark? Unofficial unemployment figures pegged by economists and social workers at closer to 18%… among black inner city youth, 68%?
The first Obama recession was so bad that Obama had to start talking about a fictional number of jobs saved –not the usual created– to make his effort look good.
Irrespective of a strict definition of recession, few in America think the US is on the right track. Most feel the Obama sCare Plan will hurt, not help, the economy. Most know that middle class tax hikes are coming… but only after the 2010 election and at the behest of lameduck Nancy Pelosi and Harry gReid.
No need to rewrite anything. Just ask any of the 26+ million Americans who are unemployed or underemployed right now if there’s a recession still going on… ask them if they feel the Obama Love yet. Gallup says the number is closer to 30 million on just the underemployed portion right now.
And 60% of those underemployed don’t think things are going to get better anytime soon –and they’ll turn over a less productive, less wealthy future to their children. A similar number don’t think they’ll find full employment anytime soon.
GOPers have been warning all about the threat of a double dip recession –and this one can’t be excused away by ill-meaning Democrats as Bush’s, Cheney’s, Rove’s or Palin’s fault.
LFC // Mar 11, 2010 at 11:48 am
Sparty, did you miss the first Obama recession? Official unemployment tipping the 10% mark?
Please explain, it detail, how Obama caused a recession that officially started in December of 2007. While you’re at it, learn to read a graph.
So you think Obama is responsible for a recession that was at least 14 months old when he entered office. So, by your logic, Reagan caused a huge spike in unemployment in 1981. I guess you give Carter’s economic policies a pass and call it the Reagan Recession. And Bush was responsible for the January, 2001 recession right? So we do have a Bush Recession. I’m just trying to be consistent with your “logic”.
sinz54 // Mar 11, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Independent: For anyone, including DavidF, to claim that the GOP is just going to be running on “Repeal ObamaCare” is silly on its face.
Silly?
“Passage of the Senate health-care bill will make a GOP takeover of the House more likely this fall, especially if all Republican candidates pledge to make pushing for repeal their first order of business next year.”
— Karl Rove
http://tinyurl.com/yenkohg
“If the bill becomes law, it will suffer a legitimacy gap that will make it vulnerable to repeal.”
— Rich Lowry, National Review
http://tinyurl.com/yffk6ax
“I think you’re going to see a split in the party on it. There certainly are going to be some elements that are emphatically campaigning on a repeal but I think that’s probably not going to be a part of the party platform because there are going to be some who don’t want to be tagged with that ‘party of no’ rap. They’re going to want to be the ‘party of reform ‘– ‘let’s improve it.’ Now, that said, in some places in this country, certainly Red States — places like Wyoming come to mind — an out-and-out campaign of ‘let’s repeal it’ will certainly play well.”
— Jonathan Martin, Politico
Independent // Mar 11, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Silly, yes.
I did not say it wouldn’t be a legitimate issue, but there are lots of other issues that GOP candidates will be running on this summer and fall –all surrounding the horrible incompetence of the Obama WH and Democrats in Congress.
Of course, in all that, GOP candidates will also be outlining why things have gotten so skewed in DC and what the candidate intends to do in order to fix it.
Silly claim to say the slogan for 2010 by GOPers will be “Repeal ObamaCare”. A more apt slogan for the bumper sticker types would be “al Qaeda (hearts) Democrats” or “Help Free a Terrorist: Keep Holder as AG” or “Napping Napolitano: Asleep on 12-25-2009″…
But, hey, sinz54, if you think the GOP candidates only have some vague proposal to repeal ObamaCare as the only issue to run on, you go with that… but again you show how much you don’t know about GOP issues and campaigns.
At least you’re still trotting out false choices. That’s a start, at least, on the road to education for you.
Independent // Mar 11, 2010 at 12:49 pm
LFC, logic and your comments are mutually exclusive… in fact, they’re probably antagonists.
#8 correction: “At least you’re NOT still trotting out false choices. That’s a start, at least, on the road to education for you.”
sparty // Mar 11, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Independent:
“Sparty, did you miss the first Obama recession?”
Was that the one that began in 2007? Or are you referring to the one that began back to the 1930s?
“GOPers have been warning all about the threat of a double dip recession –and this one can’t be excused away by ill-meaning Democrats as Bush’s, Cheney’s, Rove’s or Palin’s fault.”
Well, according to your foolishness, these “ill-meaning Democrats” were wrong to attribute Bush’s Recession to Bush in the first place, so of course the second (or third, or forth) are not their fault either. Remember those “ill-meaning” Republicans who tried to pin the 2000-01 downturn on Clinton?!?! What morons!
And no one attributes Palin to anything.
BoolaBoola // Mar 11, 2010 at 3:02 pm
DF is right here. As a Dem, I’m drooling over the prospect of Republicans running on a “we’ll repeal your health care” ticket.
WillyP // Mar 11, 2010 at 3:15 pm
DF is a liberal democrat… of course he doesn’t favor repealing any statist healthcare policies that may pass. He doesn’t seem to get that once such a bill passes, it’s permanent liberal majority – like Canada.
Aside from national defense, the only thing he is good at is stabbing conservatives in the back!
mlindroo // Mar 11, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Independent wrote:
> A more apt slogan for the bumper sticker types would be “al Qaeda (hearts) Democrats”
> or “Help Free a Terrorist: Keep Holder as AG” or
>“Napping Napolitano: Asleep on 12-25-2009″…
As long as there have been zero casualties due to terrorist attacks and as long as the previous Administration’s neocon missteps are still in fresh memory, a much better approach for the GOP would be to focus on the economy and jobs.
That’s what real people care about in 2010, after all.
MARCU$
jabbermule // Mar 11, 2010 at 4:00 pm
LFC:
“Please explain, it (sic) detail, how Obama caused a recession that officially started in December of 2007″
Well, using farLeft logic, I would have to call it the Reid-Pelosi Recession, as they were in control of Congress for about 11 months leading up to it. Last time I checked, Congress is the branch of government that passes budgets.
Beyond that, the psychological impact alone of having Democrats control our legislative body can send the economy into a tailspin. The private sector, upon seeing Dems win the House and Senate, anticipates higher taxes and therefore cuts back on investment and hiring…self-fulfilling prophecy and instant recession.
kevin47 // Mar 11, 2010 at 4:09 pm
In general, this would be a valid criticism, but I think people are sick of massive governmental programs that exists solely because 2% of what they accomplish is very popular. Most people are aware that there is good in the bill, and the Republicans can promise to scrap it, while immediately passing provisions to close the doughnut holes.
This will put Democrats in the position of choosing between filibustering a singularly popular bill, or helping the Republicans achieve their desired aims.
“To demand that the bill be repealed is only consistent with keeping the pre-existing condition problem as it is–a disaster for anyone unlucky enough to get sick.”
Not anyone. Just those who were unprepared enough not to acquire health coverage. Everything else can be solved with minor tweaks to the system to ensure portability.
LFC // Mar 11, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Jabbermule… It takes a true partisan to ignore a historically high housing bubble (per the Case-Shiller index) and an unregulated derivatives market that was “worth” about 8x the underlying debt it was based upon.
But that’s fine. You cling to your belief that business was afraid of Reid and Pelosi, so the economy tanked in less than a year from executives afraid of making money.
WillyP // Mar 11, 2010 at 4:58 pm
People, the whole boom/bust thing – it’s inflationary monetary policy.
Having said that, Obama is acting like Hoover and FDR.
PracticalGirl // Mar 11, 2010 at 5:00 pm
kevin47:
“Not anyone. Just those who were unprepared enough not to acquire health coverage. Everything else can be solved with minor tweaks to the system to ensure portability.”
Your ignorance equals your arrogance and mirrors that of too many in the public at large. You really should educate yourself, before you just spout a talking point. There are a myriad reasons for Americans who cannot get affordable health care, and being “unprepared” isn’t the reason for most. Your comments smack of elitism and, well, ignorance. Full circle, in less than 5 sentences. You sound a lot like MiGOPer/GOProud/Independent (yes, I know he’s one and the same) with that post.
Since I can assume that you are one who has health insurance (employer provided, I’m sure. You don’t strike me as somebody who would strike out too far from Daddy)), then you must know how much the uninsured cost you extra in health care premiums last year. Yep, a little more than $1000. And it goes up again next year. Add to that the increase in health care costs you pay as well, and it would appear that you ain’t as smart as ya think ya are…YOU are paying for the “unprepared” and the denied and the laid off. And the illegals as well. And you’ll just keep dumping money in for them all, I guess.
LFC // Mar 11, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Independent dodged… LFC, logic and your comments are mutually exclusive… in fact, they’re probably antagonists.
“(This is a comment), told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
But nice try at dodging factual information that destroyed your silly talking point.
jabbermule // Mar 11, 2010 at 5:48 pm
LFC:
“It takes a true partisan to ignore a historically high housing bubble” etc etc
I didn’t say I was – I was merely applying farLeft logic to my argument in the same manner that all the lefty trolls in here blame Bush 43 for everything wrong in the world. But of course, I wouldn’t expect a lefty to understand such high-minded concepts as irony and sarcasm…next time I’ll be more explicit.
jabbermule // Mar 11, 2010 at 6:06 pm
LFC:
By the way, upon whom do you place the blame for the housing bubble?
Independent // Mar 11, 2010 at 6:40 pm
jabbermule, if LFC or Practical Girl could be intellectually honest, they’d lay the blame for the housing bubble squarely at the feet of the democrats in the House and Senate who stymied repeated GOP attempts to regulate Fannie & Freddie, the single most responsible entity for creating the housing bubble. Of course, we’ve learned after the fact that both GSEs were dumping grounds for democrat hacks, failed democrat Congressional staffers, ACORN pals and the like. And the entire FannieMae “diplomats” program–where by the Fannie Foundation placed 5-7 and up to 29 full time staff personnel on the ground in each state (paid on average a whopping $119,000 per year, not including benefits) to pimp for Fannie and coordinate local political networks like ACORN to lobby democrat Congressional members against proposed GOP and WH reforms.
In April 2001, Bush pushed a reform proposal that was fiercely fought by Fannie and Freddie and the democrat activists who most benefited from the hyper easy mortgage money and anti-redlining/democrat favoritism policies of both GSEs. Democrat Senate leaders threatened to fillibuster any reform effort –and 8 yrs later, those exact same Democrat Senate leaders revived Bush’s reform proposals AFTER the housing bubble collapsed and the damage was done. Dodd, especially, was the most duplicitous but he had lots of peers in the Senate Dem caucus helping him and Barney Frank & all his lovers in the Dem House caucus for a rooting section against reform
It took 58 yrs for the GSE’s to build a portfolio of $2t. After Bush pushed his reform efforts, the GSE’s double downed and made that a $4.1t portfolio of rotten derivatives in 2 yrs. By 2008, the malcontents at Fannie & Freddie had added another $1.3t to the portfolio to push it over $5.5t. The more the GOP pushed for reform, the more Fannie & Freddie bought. The harder the Democrats fought against reform.
Insanity.
At one point, those two GSEs held just over 50% of all American mortgages and their derivatives were traded across the globe because “hey, they’re backed by the US govt; they can’t go bankrupt.”
In 2008, the AEI estimated the subprime mess inside the 2 GSEs amounted to nearly $1.1t –just south of 20% of the entire portfolio.
Democrats, coupled with the corruption represented by the Fannie and Freddie “foundation’ network, aided and abetted the housing bubble build up by thwarting responsible, prudent regulation called for by Bush-Cheney.
Of course to democrats the rallying cry is that Bush wanted to eliminate regulation. In some areas of the economy, yes; but not in housing. It was one of the few areas of expanded regulations that nearly everyone in the Bush White House and Congressional GOPers agreed upon.
It’s a story that needs to be told. But I sincerely doubt, jabbermule, that partisan headcases like Practical Girl and LFC could admit any of that. Why, their collective liberal brains would implode or something.
Independent // Mar 11, 2010 at 6:44 pm
LFC at #19: asked and answered, go back to trolling. As was already pointed out ratherly tersely: “LFC, logic and your comments are mutually exclusive… in fact, they’re probably antagonists”.
As for Practical Girl, I think you’ve allowed that chip on your shoulder to block your perspective. Trying looking both right and left –we know you’ve got the far Left glance down pat.
Independent // Mar 11, 2010 at 6:48 pm
to wit: “jabbermule, IF Practical Girl or LFC could be intellectually honest”.
jabbermule it’s a big “if”… I doubt the girls have it in them.
PracticalGirl // Mar 11, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Independent/jabbermule:
As usual, the giantly intellectually dishonesty in you fails to actually remember what happened with housing reforms. After 2001, The GOP made 2 extremely weak, half-hearted attempts (first in 2003, then in 2005-06) to bring legislation to the table regarding Freddie and Fannie. Each time, they had a majority in both the House and the Senate to get it done, should they have chosen to put their weight behind it. And each time, they let it die in committee. And then pissed and moaned as if they didn’t have the power to get it through.
So what did the party of fiscal responsibility do-the one YOU say was so hot to reform lending and Fanny and Freddie? Did they continue to seek reform? Nope. They went on to propose and adopt the most damaging mortgage programs in history, the American Dream Act and Zero Down Act. They didn’t do it on their own, but it was their agenda (Bush sold this zealously, as they were both his baby) that decimated acceptableloan practices that had protected lenders and homeowners alike for decades.
Lots of blame to go around, but Bush and the GOP drove the bus completely over a cliff. Good God, do you ever do any real research and think for yourself, or do you just listen to Beck and Limbaugh?