A little later today, House Republicans will vote once again to eliminate every word of every page of the Affordable Care Act. I noted yesterday that it will be the 31st time the House GOP has voted to repeal all, part, or some of "Obamacare," but it turns out I understated matters -- I've since been informed by the House Republican Whip's office that today will be the 33rd repeal vote.
Regardless, the GOP believes it has a political winner on its hands, which is why they keep going through this charade, knowing repeal will never pass the Senate. Polls show support for the law growing in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling -- less than a third of Americans endorse Republicans demand for full repeal -- but the House majority doesn't care.
What this offers is an opportunity for Democrats -- if they choose to take advantage of it. Greg Sargent reports today on whether the tables can be turned in advance of the election.
Today, in the wake of the House GOP vote to repeal Obamacare, the [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] will use the vote to attack House GOPers who are running for Senate -- mostly in red states.
The DSCC will hit Rep. Rick Berg, who's running against Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota; Rep. Denny Rehberg, who's running to unseat Jon Tester in Montana; Rep. Connie Mack, the favorite to face Bill Nelson in Florida; and Rep. Jeff Flake, who's running for the open seat being vacated by retiring Senator Jon Kyl in Arizona.
The details matter, of course. The message isn't "Obamacare's great"; the message is "Republicans are playing games when they should be focusing on jobs." That's not a bad campaign message, but it's only taking advantage of the opportunity half-way.
The Democratic message doesn't note, for example, that every Republican supporting full repeal is voting to take away health coverage for young adults staying on their family plans. They're also voting to raise prescription drug prices for seniors, ending protections for those with pre-existing conditions, reinstating lifetime insurance caps, scrapping tax breaks for small businesses, and raising the deficit the GOP sometimes pretends to care about.
In other words, Republicans are trying to kill popular health care measures because they think it'll help them politically. Maybe someone ought to let voters know.
Still, for Dems to get out of a defensive crouch on health care is itself a step in the right direction.
Leave a Comment:
This summer and fall many consumers will receive rebate checks from their insurance company who were over spending on marketing, compensation, corporate junkets etc
80/20 rule
Will the repbulicans ask for those funds to be returned?
Do not use that anticipated 'rebate' as collateral for a payday loan from Tony Soprano.
The money will either go directly to your employer, or be credited toward your future payments.
Actually it's not totally fair to say Repubs are willing to let kids get kicked off their parent's insurance policy and so on and so forth.
Every single Repub and now some Dems who support a repeal, when asked, have promised to immediately reinstate the "good" parts of this Health Care Act and let go of the parts the majority of American citizens oppose.... but you already know that, right MSNBC? Spinnnnnnnnnnnnnn
When did supporting a Congress's actions that truly represent the wishes of the majority of American Citizens become a bad thing?
@FromDownHere
Where do you get the idea that "every single Repub and now some Dems who support a repeal, when asked, have promised to immediately reinstate the "good" parts of this Health Care Act"? MOST Republicans do NOT want ANY of the good or bad parts of the ACA retained. They say 'repeal and replace' when it seems advisable. They do NOT use that nasty word 'replace' when speaking to fellow Republicans.
In my view, the whole law is unacceptable...but definitely NOT because there is anything particularly wrong with it or bad for either the American people or the nation as a whole. It simply doesn't solve the problem of the massive cost of health care in America, about half of which is driven by private insurers since Medicare and Medicaid pay only a percentage of what care providers get from the insurance companies. Much of the 18% of GDP that the whole ridiculously disorganized system eats is the direct result of the waste, corruption and greed of the insurance corporations. However, medical care providers are obviously complicit in the exceptionally high cost of care (compared to our international competitors).
NONE of those cost issues (expected to rise to 35% of GDP by 2040) can be resolved and reduced without a government managed single payer system. It has to happen...not because it would provide good health care to everyone, but because there is simply no choice. No choice at all, unless we all want to live in a third world economy.
FromDownHere
Every single Repub and now some Dems who support a repeal, when asked, have promised to immediately reinstate the "good" parts of this Health Care Act and let go of the parts the majority of American citizens oppose....
Sorry , but that is complete garbage , they have had a chance to pass an alternative and have refused to , when questioned after the aca ruling about it , alls they could refer to was the messed up joke they presented from 2009 , that did nothing to address H C reform , and they refuse to vote on it even to this day
Romney and the whole gop team have said out right they must repeal , and refuse to say anything beyond that , they say they will address it after they repeal the aca , just like they addressed it the last 30 years , please do not come on here and lie to people , if you do not know what your own people are saying , maybe you should spend some time taking care of that instead
So funny how liberals label those that don't agree with everything they say as Republican, like it's a worse label than Democrat. I consider myself politically bi-polar. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Watch out who you are calling a Repub, there are more of us out there than you know and we are among you.
So are you telling me politicians lie? SHOCK! Kind of like Harry Reid, Prez Obama, and Nancy Pelosi when they proclaimed the Affordable Health Care Act as budget neutral to coerce votes from their own party's Congressional members. One year after passed the number was changed to 500 billion and now three years after passed, before it's even been implemented, will cost us 2.6 trillion. What will it really cost us?
You are backing a lie.
No.
Keep hammering the fact these guys haven't focused on "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" like they sid they were going to.
Point out the fact they attempted to pass more legislation regarding social issues and the like, instead of focusing on bills that could create more jobs.
Short, sweet and to the point, don't cloud it with statistics.
I, as a viewer, am tired of seeing stats. Give me facts and the truth that they did not do the job they were elected to do.
Start it off with John Boehner talking about "Jobs, Jobs Jobs," and then vowing to make the President a one termer. Then hit it home with the jobs they have not created.
Democrats need to get started, now!
Aggressive campaign making just those points to follow soon. Whadaya bet?
I am hope that Connie Mack (Republican) Loses to Bill Nelson (Democrat). Connie Mack is completely useless and only had his job in Congress because of his Daddy. I cannot see him holding any useful job if he loses-- hopefully he does! He never did anything constructive in SW Florida; whatsoever--- He is a Total Fail!
There are so many people down and out. There are so many people that cannot even afford to go to a walk-in clinic--- they have no money. If the 1st Stage of HCR does not pass-- it is the 1st step of America's decline; I think. What a shame if HCR does not pass.
Diana B
Rachel-- I will not be tweeting much today; because I came down "with a really bad case of Jewish guilt"; I think. And I feel like I am a puppy walking with my tail between my hind legs
Diana B
Another thing about Connie Mack (Republican) in SW Florida. I really think that he has only stayed in Congress this long on pure luck. For example, with the last election-- the only person running against him had a last name of Roach. Someone with the name of Roach runs against Connie Mack? I still voted for Mr Roach! LOL
I think Connie Mack also only won by 30 %; I don't know; I don't think that is that good?
http://thanksobamacare.org/ is the best KISS site I've seen on ObamaCare, and I think it fits into what the Ragin' Cajun was saying about "talking with the people" last night. I'm telling you, there are a majority of people on Medicare who think they are losing Medicare and having to pay the Individual Mandate. I know it's hard to believe, but come on, think about your aunts and uncles and ALL their friends out there. They do NOT tune in to informative news and all the programs that allow he said she said interviews only further confuse them. Encourage Democratic candidates to use this web site to KISS ObamaCare.
The site points out the popular and beneficial aspects of the act. It doesn't go near the cost or revenue raising aspects. It doesn't mention half the revenue will come through cuts in Medicare. It doesn't mention the taxes, in addition to the mandate, that will be raised. It doesn't direct readers to sites which dispute the CBO study on the effect on deficits.
Sorry, call me a skeptic. When first passed, Medicare was only going to cost a modest amount.
"It doesn't mention half the revenue will come through cuts in Medicare."
$50 billion in Medicare cuts per year are NOT mandated. In fact, the Republicans insisted that $100 billion in annual Medicare cuts could be made. Both Republicans and Democrats were/are planning to achieve those cuts via elimination of fraudulent billing of the Medicare system. Personally, I don't think they'll get to $50 billion per year, but it's possible. On the other hand, if they don't get there, it will simply mean that more revenue will have to be raised for ACA expenses. Money will NOT be taken out of the Medicare budget UNLESS there is a savings in that budget from elimination of fraud.
Secondly, sites which dispute the CBO study are all shills for either the Republican party or a corporate or political interest which has an ideological or market rigging agenda. The CBO had/has no such agenda and is bipartisan.
Third, Medicare was inexpensive. That was before the insurance industry discovered that they could raise premium rates about 4% higher than the inflation rate each and every year and still have businesses and individuals continue to pay through the nose.That, of course, prompted the actual care providers to put out their hands to demand their continually increasing share each year. Medicare had to follow that lead or there would be no hospitals or doctors who would take Medicare patients. So, the overall cost of health care went from 6% of GDP to 18% of GDP, and is projected to rise to 35% of GDP by 2040.
It's not Medicare or the new ACA which is the problem. Under the current system, they can do nothing but go along for the ride at the direction of the insurance industry. Unfortunately, the ACA does not address the cost issue effectively...although it does employ creative ways to cover an additional 30,000,000 people at a relatively minor increase in cost over the $2.65 trillion we currently pay (pre-ACA) for all health care in the U.S. each year.
They could use this issue a hell of a lot better than just to point out Republicans are in a holding pattern hoping the Boehner economy goes even more south. They should also point out what the Republicans want to take away while they're wasting time on the economy.
Republicans will become more jobs-oriented but only if they are in control. Then their inner Keynesian selves will show up.
I used to believe that their inner Keynes would surface once they had total control of Congress and the White House. I don't believe that's true anymore. I'm pretty sure now that they're just as incredibly ignorant as they keep insisting that they are. In fact, I'm certain that they'd take down the country, with the upside (from their p.o.v.) being that the muppets in the labor market could all be hired as temps for a few dollars an hour. After all, if we voted them in, they would certainly feel that we deserved that...and, in fact, they would feel that we would pose no problems for them as we camped in cardboard boxes under overpasses and went dumpster diving for dinner by the thousands.
And they would have a point.
1) Where are those JOBS Speaker Boehner?
2) Why has most of your legislation not been about JOBS, Mr. Speaker?
3) Why don't you and your party like working Americans Mr Speaker?
4) So far you & your party have voted against JOBS, women's health, LGBT, Immigrants, the elderly, students, and the unemployed, how can you stand there and say with a straight face that you support the American people Mr. Speaker?
5) So where are those JOBS bills, again Mr. Speaker?
Got health?
i watched the news last night on abc, and this morning on cbs, and they both kept emphasizing that the house had already voted on repeal 31 times. do you think even the (not)liberal media is beginning to catch on?
Dems hope to play offense on health care: What a sad aspiration. "Hoping" a party could lead so as to fight off attacks from the other party on a law-passed, court-settled issue of the day. That's a defense, not an offense. Going on the offense in health care would be extending Medi-Care to everyone. Instead, Democrats continue compromising without reciprocation, which is neither an offense or a defense, it's a complicity against their own constituents.
The GOP should try something sneaky...
Here's what they need to do. Quickly pass an extension on Bush tax cuts for sub-$500k peeps (don't worry about $250k, that's something the President would give in to in a heartbeat if he got the gist of what he wanted), and hide in the small print a permanent adjustment to the penaltax health care law mandate thingy that sets the tax penalty to 50 cents.
Don't make a big fuss about it until after the President signs it into law...
I'd like to see a summary of House GOP votes for each time they've tried to repeal ACA. Is it always the same, or is it going down or up?
Rachel, in your discussion with the Cajun, Skeletor, he noted a demographic cause for the shortfall in Medicare/Social Security revenues. That is mentioned - right and left - nearly every time the issue arises. It is utterly, contemptuously, false.
The demographic issue was addressed in 1983, quite successfully I might add. The reason - the ONLY reason - why there is a shortfall in revenue today is the direct result of the massive transfer of income from the bottom 98% to the top 2% (and mostly, of course, to the top 1%) since 1980.
What amounts to 21% of today's income for the bottom 98% of the population now goes to the top 2% (19% to the top 1%). Instead of earning 91% of all income in the U.S. as was the case in 1980, the bottom 98% now receive 75%.
(91 - 75) / 75 = 21.333
If that income were still being paid to the bottom 98%, every penny of it would be subject to the payroll tax. Instead, it now goes to the top 2%, and not a single penny of it is subject to the payroll tax since the top 2% would already exceed the contribution limit even without the extra income.
This is just another of the corrosive effects of the panicked retreat of the middle class from the all out class war which has been waged against them since St. Ronnie took the reins as America's almighty god of snake oil sales. After 32 years, one would think that we would all suddenly turn around and cut his zombie army to bits...but Noooooooo.
Martel: The president that facilitated your scenario more than any was Bill Clinton with his 1996 Welfare Reform Act (taking from those with the least) and his 1999 Citicorp Relief Act and 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act (giving to those with the most). Bush2 just ran with what Clinton gave him. I don't think Reagan put anything together as much as Clinton did that had such impact as you describe.
The top 1% share of all income paid in the U.S. increased 79.2% during Reagan's two terms in office. The same top 1% share of all income paid in the U.S. increased 46% during Clinton's two terms in office. So, was the top 1% siphoning income from the rest of us faster during the Clinton administration? Obviously not. However, the situation was not improving, it was just getting worse at a slower rate.
The indirect, but dominant, cause of the massive income redistribution from the rest of us to the top 1% which has taken place over the last 32 years is the dramatic cut in real average tax rates for those in the top 1%. During the Reagan administration, the top 1% average tax rate was cut from 34.47% to 24.04%. During the Clinton administration, the rate was increased from 25.05% to 27.45%. Taxes matter. Who pays how much in taxes matters greatly in terms of what kind of society we live in. Seemingly small changes can make a huge difference...and they have certainly done that in the arena of taxation.
I agree. I wasn't comparing income measurements based on presidential years but what policies, in addition to your stated tax policies, were instrumental in getting us into this position where tax policies work best for the kinds of policies Clinton passed for those at the top end. Clinton literally took from the poor and gave to the rich. Deregulation of financial product, including derivatives such as credit-default swaps, in the 2000 Commodity Act that was a singular key in the 2008 recession .
Clinton signed the bills deregulating investment banking. They were not his bills, though. Banking and investment deregulation began with Reagan. It ended at the end of Clinton's second term. The whole program was a Republican supply-side game which Democrats grudgingly accepted, piece by piece, until very recently...and some still do accept it. Hell, we still don't have investment banking regulations; and we probably shouldn't, since there should be no such thing as an investment bank. What we need is the Glass-Steagall Act improved with a few updates to handle the new scams at the Wall Street casino. In addition, the stock options market, generally, creates instability. It always has, it always will. When it was impermissible to short a stock, the market was stable since there was no possibility that money could be made by dumping stock on a large scale and then even more money made by buying back in on a large scale. That whipsaw effect caused by the biggest players in the market eventually leads to both bubbles and crashes, if for no other reason than that it creates a perpetual expectation that high percentage gains are always and continually attainable, leading to the creation of massive scams when the market begins to run out of steam.
"In other words, Republicans are trying to kill popular health care measures because they think it'll help them politically. Maybe someone ought to let voters know."
Like a true journalist, it looks like you just did. Thank you very much.
"What this offers is an opportunity for Democrats -- if they choose to take advantage of it.
As an African American this is why I have nothing to do w/ either party, especially the Dummycrats. All they care about is there sinecures. Neither the President or the party wants to defend their landmark legislation or promote it. Defending it on the echo chamber of the internet or TV programs like your own is hollow(this not your fault)
PS I am one of those who dislike the bill because it does not have enough government intervention
They don't want to defend or promote it because a supposed majority of the electorate opposes the law. For a politician who will almost certainly be outspent during his/her campaign, taking a minority position on such a contentious topic as the ACA is a nearly certain formula for defeat. The president can lead on the subject, but he will have a difficult time rounding up the herd of cats to move them all in the same direction.
The problem with defending or promoting a public good is that the really big money is mostly on the side of defeating anything that might be to the advantage of anyone in the bottom 99% of wage earners in this country. You can thank the radical right-wing SCOTUS for that. They voted to crush representative democracy in America...but we voted to put the boys in office who appointed them.
"..but we voted to put the boys in office who appointed them."
And we could do it again, hence the single most important reason for whom we vote that may appoint 2 to 4 new justices over the next 4 1/2 years.