Repealing Obama's health care law won't be easy

WASHINGTON — Yes, if Mitt Romney wins the White House and his Republican allies retake the Senate, he could shred most of President Barack Obama's health care law without having to overpower a Democratic filibuster.

But it won't be as easy as some Republicans portend, and it certainly won't be quick.

Why?

Because any realistic effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act — as opposed to last week's quixotic vote in the GOP-controlled House — is sure to get jumbled together with lots of other issues, including Medicare, taxes, food stamps and defense spending.

And that's because Republicans have to first pass a budget. It's the only way than can invoke special Senate rules that allow legislation to pass with just a simple majority vote — instead of the 60 votes needed in the 100-member Senate to beat a filibuster.

Passing a budget requires answering a raft of questions unrelated to the relatively simple idea of repealing "Obamacare." How much to cut the deficit? Should Medicare be overhauled and Medicaid bear sharp cuts? Is it realistic to sharply boost defense programs, as Romney would like, in such an atmosphere?

The first step is to pass a budget resolution — a nonbinding, broad-brush outline of budget goals like cutting or increasing taxes, or slowing increases in Medicare. A budget resolution sets the terms for follow-up legislation that's called a reconciliation bill in Washington argot.

Two years ago, Democrats used a reconciliation bill to enact the health care law with a 56-43, party-line vote in the Senate.

Republicans have a problem in that there's a lot more on their agenda than just repealing the health care law, and it's all going to have to be crammed into a budget resolution and follow-up reconciliation bill, too.

"They're going to want to use that budget resolution to set up a tax bill, they're going to want to do other deficit reduction," said Hazen Marshall, a GOP lobbyist and the Senate Budget Committee's top aide in 2001 and 2003 when reconciliation bills were used to push former President George W. Bush's tax cuts through Congress.

"So I would think it's just going to take some time to get everybody on the same page as to what the budget resolution's going to look like," Marshall said.

In 2001, when Republicans set about the relatively simple task of cutting taxes in an era of unprecedented budget surpluses, it took them until Memorial Day to pass the legislation.

What Republicans would confront next year is far more difficult — wrenching cuts to programs popular with voters. A more apt comparison might be the GOP's budget efforts of 1995, when it took the party until November to complete action on its budget plan.

"It's not that it's not doable. It absolutely is doable," said a senior House GOP budget aide . "It's just going to take a lot longer than everybody wants it to. And people aren't anticipating the pain of each step to get to that point." The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak on the record.

Republicans currently hold 47 Senate seats. If they take control of the Senate, it's not likely to be by more than 1 to 4 votes, well short of 60. That would put lots of leverage in the hands of Senate GOP moderates like Susan Collins of Maine and Scott Brown of Massachusetts, should he win his difficult re-election bid.

Both Collins and Brown cast votes earlier this year against the House GOP budget plan, authored by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. At the center of Ryan's plan was controversial overhaul of Medicare that would transform it into a voucher-like program for those who retire in 10 years. Also voting against Ryan's plan was Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., who Republicans are counting on to win a Senate seat this fall as a building block to a GOP majority.

Keith Hennessey, a former GOP Senate and White House official, says that if Republicans follow past practice, they'll try to forge a center-right agreement that includes spending cuts but no tax increases. But he noted that the willingness of some Republicans to embrace tax increases could complicate matters.

"You look at the Republicans and you see that there's going to be a spectrum on how deep they're going to be willing to cut various things," said Hennessey, currently a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. "The question is just how far toward the Ryan plan can you get the moderate Republicans."

On the other hand, combining the repeal of Obama's health care law with other GOP priorities like curbing the deficit gives lawmakers who are not part of the leadership plenty of incentive to vote for the package.

"When elections are about certain policies and are defined on that, you've got momentum to do those things," said House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy of California.

A simple-majority reconciliation bill could certainly cover the health care law's tax increases — including the penalties used to enforce the individual mandate to buy insurance — and subsidies for insurance premiums.

Republicans, however, could not use the filibuster-proof budget process to repeal provisions in the health care that don't have a direct impact on the government's balance sheet. For example, it still would likely take 60 Senate votes to repeal the law's requirement that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Experts say leaving the insurance reforms intact on their own is economically unsustainable because the ratio of sick to healthy people in the plans would be out of balance.

"If you were to remove everything else in reconciliation and be left with the insurance provisions, you have something that everybody recognizes is unworkable," said former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin. "I think if you take enough out, the rest probably has to go."

  • Discuss
  • Print

Related Topics

Related Stories

Comments » 72

Pragmatic1 writes:

in response to RobinofLocksley:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Agreed.

Just for openers ....

What do Republicans tell someone who will end up with no insurance because they have a pre-existing condition and will be turned down?

CarpeVeritas writes:

in response to Pragmatic1:

Agreed.

Just for openers ....

What do Republicans tell someone who will end up with no insurance because they have a pre-existing condition and will be turned down?

I imagine a kindly Republican would say, "have you considered moving to Canada?

staghorn writes:

in response to Pragmatic1:

Agreed.

Just for openers ....

What do Republicans tell someone who will end up with no insurance because they have a pre-existing condition and will be turned down?

NO!

Gifted1 writes:

Love karma. My long time GOP friend has a huge bill coming and now looking for federal help. Typical, typical, and more typical. Like most bloggers here, personal responsibility only matters when it is some one else that has to be responsible. When it is you, it is a matter of all hands on deck to get as much as assistance as you can.

cgbexec writes:

Nearly everyone with a meger knowledge of government and politics knows the Affordable Healthcare Act gives our Federal Government too much power and control. This power can be abused by either side of the aisle. The entire thing needs to be repealed or gutted and common sense legislation passed in its stead. A series of short bills to cover pre-existing conditions, children to stay on their parents plans and cross State purchasing power will do everything we need without handing the Federal Government the keys to our lives. It will do so without the nearly 3000 pages of overreaching lawyer speak, that none of us fully comprehend. Liberals should understand the dangers of this bill just as independents and conservatives. It is beyond my comprehension why anyone that has even a meager grasp of politics wants this bill to stand as is.

Bramble writes:

This is a good and necessary program. It has been tested for years in Massachusetts and will work for our nation.

Assuring access to basic medical care for everyone is what civilized people do and why we call ourselves a society.

Pre-ObamaCare was obviously not working, was heading downhill and picking up speed.

We can modify it as the need arises.

Germany, Canada, Australia and many other economic powerhouses have universal care. It's about time the USA shook off its fears and showed the world how it's done.

DinNaples writes:

in response to cgbexec:

Nearly everyone with a meger knowledge of government and politics knows the Affordable Healthcare Act gives our Federal Government too much power and control. This power can be abused by either side of the aisle. The entire thing needs to be repealed or gutted and common sense legislation passed in its stead. A series of short bills to cover pre-existing conditions, children to stay on their parents plans and cross State purchasing power will do everything we need without handing the Federal Government the keys to our lives. It will do so without the nearly 3000 pages of overreaching lawyer speak, that none of us fully comprehend. Liberals should understand the dangers of this bill just as independents and conservatives. It is beyond my comprehension why anyone that has even a meager grasp of politics wants this bill to stand as is.

Completly agree. And repeal it quickly. The sooner the better.

Gifted1 writes:

in response to cgbexec:

Nearly everyone with a meger knowledge of government and politics knows the Affordable Healthcare Act gives our Federal Government too much power and control. This power can be abused by either side of the aisle. The entire thing needs to be repealed or gutted and common sense legislation passed in its stead. A series of short bills to cover pre-existing conditions, children to stay on their parents plans and cross State purchasing power will do everything we need without handing the Federal Government the keys to our lives. It will do so without the nearly 3000 pages of overreaching lawyer speak, that none of us fully comprehend. Liberals should understand the dangers of this bill just as independents and conservatives. It is beyond my comprehension why anyone that has even a meager grasp of politics wants this bill to stand as is.

Obviously your meager grasp of politics provides you with just one opinion. That's all it is, is one opinion. Your comforting words like "everyone" and "anyone" which are meant to include large groups of people just don't.

xmanxray writes:

in response to cgbexec:

Nearly everyone with a meger knowledge of government and politics knows the Affordable Healthcare Act gives our Federal Government too much power and control. This power can be abused by either side of the aisle. The entire thing needs to be repealed or gutted and common sense legislation passed in its stead. A series of short bills to cover pre-existing conditions, children to stay on their parents plans and cross State purchasing power will do everything we need without handing the Federal Government the keys to our lives. It will do so without the nearly 3000 pages of overreaching lawyer speak, that none of us fully comprehend. Liberals should understand the dangers of this bill just as independents and conservatives. It is beyond my comprehension why anyone that has even a meager grasp of politics wants this bill to stand as is.

I think most of the Liberals don't understand the dangers of the bill because they just plain don't understand the bill.

leneggs writes:

in response to DinNaples:

Completly agree. And repeal it quickly. The sooner the better.

The republicans have been against every single piece of legislation that makes life a bit more livable. Minimum wage, social security, medicare, Medicaid..they have been for slavery, sweat shops, no regulations for any business. Is that the kind of America you want to live in?

Coastal writes:

Obama: making more slaves than the Barbary pirates.

Pragmatic1 writes:

in response to xmanxray:

I think most of the Liberals don't understand the dangers of the bill because they just plain don't understand the bill.

We know insurance is guaranteed.
We know we cannot be denied because of pre-conditions
We know insurance limits cannot be exceeded.
We know children will be covered until 26.
We know deadbeats will now have to buy insurance.
We know there is preventive medical in the plan.
We know we can keep what insurance we have now.
We know we WERE the only westernized country without a health plan.
We know we cannot now go bankrupt because of unpaid medical bills.

That is just for openers.

Now, please enlighten us about what we don't know.

Coastal writes:

in response to Pragmatic1:

We know insurance is guaranteed.
We know we cannot be denied because of pre-conditions
We know insurance limits cannot be exceeded.
We know children will be covered until 26.
We know deadbeats will now have to buy insurance.
We know there is preventive medical in the plan.
We know we can keep what insurance we have now.
We know we WERE the only westernized country without a health plan.
We know we cannot now go bankrupt because of unpaid medical bills.

That is just for openers.

Now, please enlighten us about what we don't know.

How are you going to pay for all that for anyone who is within our borders?

DinNaples writes:

in response to leneggs:

The republicans have been against every single piece of legislation that makes life a bit more livable. Minimum wage, social security, medicare, Medicaid..they have been for slavery, sweat shops, no regulations for any business. Is that the kind of America you want to live in?

If what you said were true, of course not. However, I have seen no votes to establish sweatshops, adopt slavery, or eliminate all regulations for any business. Where do you get this from?

romneygate writes:

in response to cgbexec:

Nearly everyone with a meger knowledge of government and politics knows the Affordable Healthcare Act gives our Federal Government too much power and control. This power can be abused by either side of the aisle. The entire thing needs to be repealed or gutted and common sense legislation passed in its stead. A series of short bills to cover pre-existing conditions, children to stay on their parents plans and cross State purchasing power will do everything we need without handing the Federal Government the keys to our lives. It will do so without the nearly 3000 pages of overreaching lawyer speak, that none of us fully comprehend. Liberals should understand the dangers of this bill just as independents and conservatives. It is beyond my comprehension why anyone that has even a meager grasp of politics wants this bill to stand as is.

Right! The government has entirely TOO MUCH CONTROL. You hear that all the time when Senior citizens get their Social Security monthly payments and particularly LOUD when their Medicare payments are made. How dare the government provide relief in the areas of retirement and health issues? It simply isn't "democratic", "patriotic", or "capitalistic", right? Don't get sick, and if you do, die quickly, right? Drink tea, it's got a special curative dogma for those with their heads buried in the sand.

romneygate writes:

in response to Coastal:

How are you going to pay for all that for anyone who is within our borders?

Gosh, how do you pay for these "entitlements", right? Social Security has been going broke since 1935. Medicare is already broke but the government simply ignores and forbids conservatives to prove it, right? Now how is this all going on day by day? Why? How? It's a conservative nightmare. It will probably go on as the means to pay for these programs will come from those people who prefer having accounts in Bermuda, The Cayman Islands and Switzerland. How "selfish" and "unpatriotic", right?

romneygate writes:

in response to DinNaples:

If what you said were true, of course not. However, I have seen no votes to establish sweatshops, adopt slavery, or eliminate all regulations for any business. Where do you get this from?

Probably from those "lucky" enough to have a job in a right to work state.

DinNaples writes:

in response to Pragmatic1:

We know insurance is guaranteed.
We know we cannot be denied because of pre-conditions
We know insurance limits cannot be exceeded.
We know children will be covered until 26.
We know deadbeats will now have to buy insurance.
We know there is preventive medical in the plan.
We know we can keep what insurance we have now.
We know we WERE the only westernized country without a health plan.
We know we cannot now go bankrupt because of unpaid medical bills.

That is just for openers.

Now, please enlighten us about what we don't know.

It is obvious from that you do not know what you think you know.

Here's another point. Even after full implementation of ObamaCare there will still be between 15 and 25 million people, legal Americans, still without health insurance. Plus how many million illegals?

Or perhaps you do know that.

rags123 writes:

Romney said that the first thing he would do is repeal "Romney Care" ANA Obama Care.
Presidents don't pass legislation--Congress does.
Good luck with that.
It is great legislation and should remain and will remain on the books or the Repubs, after checking with Grover Norquist to get permission to govern, won't get back in in this century.
Just a Independent's thought.

romneygate writes:

in response to DinNaples:

It is obvious from that you do not know what you think you know.

Here's another point. Even after full implementation of ObamaCare there will still be between 15 and 25 million people, legal Americans, still without health insurance. Plus how many million illegals?

Or perhaps you do know that.

Each great journey begins with a single step. It will come for EVERYBODY after all the screaming, whining objectors are defeated.

romneygate writes:

in response to Coastal:

Obama: making more slaves than the Barbary pirates.

Oh those 1% slaves. They sure can scream and squeal, right?

bluffguy writes:

in response to Pragmatic1:

Agreed.

Just for openers ....

What do Republicans tell someone who will end up with no insurance because they have a pre-existing condition and will be turned down?

Simple, they will tell them that they should have been born rich ! Failing that they should get a government job !

NeezDutz writes:

No mandate. And I will agree.
Instead provide something that is competitive.
Then provide an insurance option for the lower income who can't afford the Govt provided options

straighttalkinnaples writes:

The liberals who actually believe Obamacare won't be repealed through reconciliation by the Republicans when they take control are kidding themselves.

ACA is an unaffordable monstrosity that must be replaced with a reasonable alternative to the costly and unrealistic one-size-fits-all plan. If not, the U.S. transitions to fiscal unsustainability with a dysfunctional government similar to California's.

Under democratic control in both houses since 1997, California democrats do what democrats always do…tax and spend.
Spending has more than doubled, from $45.4 billion in 1996 to more than $92.5 billion today.

California's 2012 budget is still $15.7 billion in the red. So what does Gov. Jerry Brown want to do? Raise taxes again, of course. He proposal would: 1) raise sales taxes on everyone and 2) raise incomes taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year (like Obama has proposed to do nationally).

But even Brown's $8.5 billion tax hike still leaves the state $7.5 billion short. Where will California get that money? Who knows and who cares? And they still intend to approve a $4.8 billion bond sale in order to initially fund construction on a massive $68.4 billion high-speed rail project connecting SF to LA.

If California begins construction on the train before this December 31, Obama has agreed to give the state $3.5 billion in federal money (some of which Florida turned down) to help. But that still leaves a $62.3 billion hole.

At 10.8 percent, California has the third-highest unemployment rate in the country. There are fewer private-sector jobs in the state today, 11.9 million, then there were in 2000, 12.2 million.

And thanks to liberal welfare requirements like Obamacare, a third of all the nation's welfare recipients live in California despite the state only containing one-eighth of the national population.

The California dream is dead and America's could be also. Democrats killed it and the middle-class. This is why Obama and his flawed agenda must be replaced in November.

philsco writes:

in response to xmanxray:

I think most of the Liberals don't understand the dangers of the bill because they just plain don't understand the bill.

,,,"because they just plain don't understand the bill..."
Well not really, it was the republicans who refused to read it.

lb5361 writes:

in response to xmanxray:

I think most of the Liberals don't understand the dangers of the bill because they just plain don't understand the bill.

Wrong Xrayman. I work in the healthcare field and have to deal with the health insurance industry on a daily basis. Some say I am an "expert". The ACA WILL drive down costs. The ACA will make insurance companies pay for services regardless of pre-existing conditions. The ACA is the best thing for people, yes people, since Medicare and Social Security. It was the right thing to do. Those of you who continue to choose hatred and ignorance will just have to be miserable for the rest of your miserable lives. Get over it!

Obama 2012

lb5361 writes:

in response to romneygate:

Gosh, how do you pay for these "entitlements", right? Social Security has been going broke since 1935. Medicare is already broke but the government simply ignores and forbids conservatives to prove it, right? Now how is this all going on day by day? Why? How? It's a conservative nightmare. It will probably go on as the means to pay for these programs will come from those people who prefer having accounts in Bermuda, The Cayman Islands and Switzerland. How "selfish" and "unpatriotic", right?

Why do people who support the GOP always vote against their own best interests? Amazing.

WadeGarrett (Inactive) writes:

in response to romneygate:

Right! The government has entirely TOO MUCH CONTROL. You hear that all the time when Senior citizens get their Social Security monthly payments and particularly LOUD when their Medicare payments are made. How dare the government provide relief in the areas of retirement and health issues? It simply isn't "democratic", "patriotic", or "capitalistic", right? Don't get sick, and if you do, die quickly, right? Drink tea, it's got a special curative dogma for those with their heads buried in the sand.

Social Security is not an entitlement. Ever hear of Social Security Withholding Tax?

Coastal writes:

in response to romneygate:

Gosh, how do you pay for these "entitlements", right? Social Security has been going broke since 1935. Medicare is already broke but the government simply ignores and forbids conservatives to prove it, right? Now how is this all going on day by day? Why? How? It's a conservative nightmare. It will probably go on as the means to pay for these programs will come from those people who prefer having accounts in Bermuda, The Cayman Islands and Switzerland. How "selfish" and "unpatriotic", right?

So what you are saying is that we can’t pay for it and we will borrow the money from China.

xmanxray writes:

That was a great read. Wow, some Libs really got stirred up on that last comment I made. I never claimed to be an expert on this topic. I have never read the 3000 page document and never will. I do know this, that it has the potential to take away more freedoms and liberties than any other piece of legislation. Who knows what will come next? There just seems to be too much control of our lives with the Act. I agree that healthcare needed reform and improvement. There are millions of Americans without insurance, we can agree on that. Why don't law makers just work on getting those people insurance rather than change the entire system we had? The danger that I was pointing out is that not many people really do know what else is tucked inside of the act. I'm not going to repeat it but everyone has got to remember the famous quote from Nancy Pelosi. That kind of thinking scares the crap out of people like me.

brown writes:

The conservative Heritage Foundation developed the mandate blueprint. Newt Gingrich & Mitt Romney loved it. Why not repeal Ronald Reagan's 1986 Emergency Medical Act (which RR loved) which allows all uninsured to get free healthcare at ER rooms. Isn't RR black enough you dummies.

Quietcat writes:

in response to Pragmatic1:

Agreed.

Just for openers ....

What do Republicans tell someone who will end up with no insurance because they have a pre-existing condition and will be turned down?

Why do liberals always have to confuse emotions with facts? In a perfect world everyone would be free from want but unfortunately reality intrudes. Are you aware of a survey recently taken of several hundred doctors where 65% say gov't involvement is most to blame for health care problems, and where 83% say they're considering quitting the profession? Even if only a fraction follow through on that, where are all these new patients coming into the system supposed to get care? We have a doctor shortage now. Also in the survey 49% said they'll stop accepting Medicaid patients and 74% said they'll stop taking Medicare patients. What good is an insurance policy if nobody will honor it?
Are you also aware that even a state as liberal as Maine is moving to cut 20,000 people from it's Medicaid rolls because it will be prohibitively expensive to run? That's why Florida and many other states are refusing to increase their exposure to more Medicaid patients. So, I guess all those people will just pay the "fine" or will have to try and get coverage through an exchange.
As far as the exchanges go are you aware that if an individual state doesn't set up an exchange the Feds will do it for them? Why would they let them do it for them? It's good for businesses, that's why. Because under the law insurance subsidies can only be run through state-administered exchanges, not Federal ones. And the penalty only applies if employees can get subsidized coverage through an exchange. No state-run exchange, no business mandate. I guess now that the bill's been passed we're learning what is (and isn't) in it.
And none of this begins to address the cost problems. CBO has to rescore the entire bill since the Supreme Court ruling allowing the states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion and they're already warning most of the promised "savings" are evaporating.
Yeah, this is going to be just great.

WadeGarrett (Inactive) writes:

in response to xmanxray:

That was a great read. Wow, some Libs really got stirred up on that last comment I made. I never claimed to be an expert on this topic. I have never read the 3000 page document and never will. I do know this, that it has the potential to take away more freedoms and liberties than any other piece of legislation. Who knows what will come next? There just seems to be too much control of our lives with the Act. I agree that healthcare needed reform and improvement. There are millions of Americans without insurance, we can agree on that. Why don't law makers just work on getting those people insurance rather than change the entire system we had? The danger that I was pointing out is that not many people really do know what else is tucked inside of the act. I'm not going to repeat it but everyone has got to remember the famous quote from Nancy Pelosi. That kind of thinking scares the crap out of people like me.

That's most like what the next administration will do. Also, Nancy Pelosi scares the crap out of most people.

Quietcat writes:

in response to brown:

The conservative Heritage Foundation developed the mandate blueprint. Newt Gingrich & Mitt Romney loved it. Why not repeal Ronald Reagan's 1986 Emergency Medical Act (which RR loved) which allows all uninsured to get free healthcare at ER rooms. Isn't RR black enough you dummies.

I thought then, and I believe now that piece of legislation was the straw that finally broke the camel's back as far as controlling medical costs in this country. First was Medicare and then was Medicaid. Once people were removed from the payment equation it was all over but the shouting.

Bramble writes:

in response to lb5361:

Wrong Xrayman. I work in the healthcare field and have to deal with the health insurance industry on a daily basis. Some say I am an "expert". The ACA WILL drive down costs. The ACA will make insurance companies pay for services regardless of pre-existing conditions. The ACA is the best thing for people, yes people, since Medicare and Social Security. It was the right thing to do. Those of you who continue to choose hatred and ignorance will just have to be miserable for the rest of your miserable lives. Get over it!

Obama 2012

Well said.

romneygate writes:

in response to WadeGarrett:

Social Security is not an entitlement. Ever hear of Social Security Withholding Tax?

I know that, but Paul Ryan and the "gang" don't!

romneygate writes:

in response to Coastal:

So what you are saying is that we can’t pay for it and we will borrow the money from China.

No genius. What I'm saying is that it will be paid for by eliminating the FICA cap and raising the retirement age. Of course, that's too deep for you to grasp.

rasputin writes:

in response to xmanxray:

I think most of the Liberals don't understand the dangers of the bill because they just plain don't understand the bill.

Unlike the tbaggging republicans that claim to understand the Constitution? They wouldn't know it if it hit them upside their air filled head. Do you understand why there are lawyers? My guess is no. Try reading any of the US Code, and I can pretty much guarantee you would be oblivious to the meaning.

You d-bags need to get over it. Romney is unelectable, and the Affordable Care Act (and the NDN should be censured for reporting the law as Obamacare) is here to stay

naples759 writes:

in response to Pragmatic1:

Agreed.

Just for openers ....

What do Republicans tell someone who will end up with no insurance because they have a pre-existing condition and will be turned down?

my conservative closet and open racist church-going republican 'friends' wouldn't even bother to talk to someone like that.

it would be beneath them. they would consider those people low class and probably deserved getting themselves in such a mess.

honestly...

Quietcat writes:

in response to rasputin:

Unlike the tbaggging republicans that claim to understand the Constitution? They wouldn't know it if it hit them upside their air filled head. Do you understand why there are lawyers? My guess is no. Try reading any of the US Code, and I can pretty much guarantee you would be oblivious to the meaning.

You d-bags need to get over it. Romney is unelectable, and the Affordable Care Act (and the NDN should be censured for reporting the law as Obamacare) is here to stay

Obamacare may be here to stay but I can pretty much guarantee that all of you who think the ACA is going to be good for you are going to be very disappointed.

dmarko326 writes:

Politicians (Repub or Dem) reasoning to repeal it = major pressure from of the biggest lobbying groups in the US=$$$$$$
------------------------
Ordinary US citizen who believes in the Constitution and liberties reasoning =
It's unjust! It's on attack on personal liberties and sets a dangerous precedece from the Highest Court down to local enforecement.
-------------------
So 2 schools of reasoning with a common purpose.

The only ones supporting it are:
#1 politicians who stand to profit from secret business deals with certain insurers.
#2 ordinary citizens who actually believe its utopian spouted arguments are actually for the better of this nation.

It will be an interesting fight!

WadeGarrett (Inactive) writes:

in response to romneygate:

I know that, but Paul Ryan and the "gang" don't!

You don't know squat, your comments prove it.

naples759 writes:

true story...

up here in suburban chicago my wife and i accompanied her racist, fox news watching and agreeing with girlfriend to the clinic to get an mri.

before the procedure she was asked at the desk what kind of insurance she had. she replied "none" and nudged my wife who was standing next to her.

we left after the mri and asked her in the car why she said she had no insurance when in fact we know she does.

her reply???

"if i have insurance, the mri is $1,500 and my insurance pays the first $600 and i am responsible for the rest.

if i don't have insurance, the mri is only $500."

she hates obama and thinks he has no right to try to fix the insurance industry.

oh yeah, eight years ago she had breast cancer (stage 2) but her current insurance still considers it pre-existing.

thank you jesus that i am retired from the government and get the same health benefits all the retired gop politicians get.

they will never mess with that...

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to RobinofLocksley:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Not true.

There were a lot of "social programs" under FDR's "New Deal" that were ruled unconstitutional and subsequently repealed.

Obamacare is a bad law a) because of all of the other "stuff" not relating to health care that was nefariously buried in its bowels and b) because of the way that it chooses to address some of the issues it seeks to reform.

I agree with many of the bedrock ideas that Obamacare tries to address, I just disagree with how Obama and the Democrats chose to address them.

Would a massive overhaul be easier than a full repeal?

We'll have to see, but one of the two is necessary to make the law better.

Coastal writes:

in response to romneygate:

No genius. What I'm saying is that it will be paid for by eliminating the FICA cap and raising the retirement age. Of course, that's too deep for you to grasp.

Democrat socialist always move to hate and name calling when they lose an argument. You are true to form.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to Pragmatic1:

We know insurance is guaranteed.
We know we cannot be denied because of pre-conditions
We know insurance limits cannot be exceeded.
We know children will be covered until 26.
We know deadbeats will now have to buy insurance.
We know there is preventive medical in the plan.
We know we can keep what insurance we have now.
We know we WERE the only westernized country without a health plan.
We know we cannot now go bankrupt because of unpaid medical bills.

That is just for openers.

Now, please enlighten us about what we don't know.

We know insurance is guaranteed. - A good thing, one of the provisions that I agree with.
We know we cannot be denied because of pre-conditions. - Another good thing, and another one of the provisions that I agree with.
We know insurance limits cannot be exceeded. - Another good thing, and another one of the provisions that I agree with.
We know children will be covered until 26. - A bad thing. If someone isn't able to provide their own insurance by the time they are 26-years-old there are larger, more significant issues at play. This should be capped at 22 (the age that someone should theorhetically be out of college and employed).
We know deadbeats will now have to buy insurance. - Why do you assume that only "deadbeats" don'y buy health insurance? What about those who can't afford it (i.e. championed by Obama as one of the reasons for enacting this boondoggle law in the first place), who will be subsidized by the taxpayers so that they can afford it?
We know there is preventive medical in the plan. - Another good thing, and another one of the provisions that I agree with.
We know we can keep what insurance we have now. - If you actually believe this, you haven't read the whole bill. For example, what happens if you have employer-provided health insurance and you get laid off once the full law takes effect?
We know we WERE the only westernized country without a health plan. - Not true. We have had Medicaid and Medicare for decades.
We know we cannot now go bankrupt because of unpaid medical bills. - Another good thing, and another one of the ideas that I agree with, just not in how they accomplished it.

You're not as informed as you think you are.

swampbuggy writes:

This won't be hard to do at all. Obama taught us how to do it. Romney can issue waivers to any state that requests it just like Obama did with the unions.
He can issue an executive order to the IRS ordering them not to enforce the law just like Obama did with immigration.
Pass a budget that does not provide one dime for Obamacare. Problem solved.

tampacoco writes:

Like Mitt care about health care, That is unless he has stocks into it.

doubtful writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

We know insurance is guaranteed. - A good thing, one of the provisions that I agree with.
We know we cannot be denied because of pre-conditions. - Another good thing, and another one of the provisions that I agree with.
We know insurance limits cannot be exceeded. - Another good thing, and another one of the provisions that I agree with.
We know children will be covered until 26. - A bad thing. If someone isn't able to provide their own insurance by the time they are 26-years-old there are larger, more significant issues at play. This should be capped at 22 (the age that someone should theorhetically be out of college and employed).
We know deadbeats will now have to buy insurance. - Why do you assume that only "deadbeats" don'y buy health insurance? What about those who can't afford it (i.e. championed by Obama as one of the reasons for enacting this boondoggle law in the first place), who will be subsidized by the taxpayers so that they can afford it?
We know there is preventive medical in the plan. - Another good thing, and another one of the provisions that I agree with.
We know we can keep what insurance we have now. - If you actually believe this, you haven't read the whole bill. For example, what happens if you have employer-provided health insurance and you get laid off once the full law takes effect?
We know we WERE the only westernized country without a health plan. - Not true. We have had Medicaid and Medicare for decades.
We know we cannot now go bankrupt because of unpaid medical bills. - Another good thing, and another one of the ideas that I agree with, just not in how they accomplished it.

You're not as informed as you think you are.

I find your reply to this post interesting. Out of the 8 benefits to the law, you outright agree with 5 of them and feel one needs tweaking. From your tone, I can't tell if you agree that citizens who cannot afford it should get help from the rest of us.

BobinNaples writes:

"Romney sat on board of directors of Bain portfolio company Damon Clinical Laboratories, which in 1996 was fined over $100 million for Medicare fraud committed during Romney’s tenure."

Boy, you GOP sure love those Medicare scammers.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features