Getty Images
Remember when the 2012 presidential election ended the debate over repealing the Affordable Care Act? To a degree that is truly comical, congressional Republicans didn't get the memo.
The Senate on Friday rejected another GOP attempt to repeal President Obama's healthcare law.
An amendment to the Senate budget resolution from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) failed on a 45-54 vote on Friday. Cruz's amendment would have repealed the Affordable Care Act and encouraged patient-centered reforms to reduce costs.
Senate Republicans knew Cruz's amendment was pointless, and knew it wouldn't pass, but literally every GOP senator voted for it anyway -- just because.
At this point, some of you may be wondering, "Exactly how many Obamacare repeal votes are we up to now?" By one estimate, the new total is 39 times.
Ted Cruz pushed a nearly identical measure a week ago, and according to the Washington Post, that was repeal vote #35. Earlier this week, the House voted on a Republican Study Committee budget plan that eliminates the entirety of the Affordable Care Act, which was #36. Yesterday, House Republicans voted for Paul Ryan's budget plan, which also eliminates most of the health care law (#37), and then last night, Senate Republicans voted on the same plan (#38).
That makes this morning's Senate vote the 39th time congressional Republicans have voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, in whole or in part, just over the last two years.
Note, the point here is not to just point and laugh at the nonsensical GOP approach to policymaking -- though I suppose that's part of the fun -- but to appreciate a larger substantive dynamic.
To reiterate what we discussed last week, this new Congress has only been in session for two months. At least in theory, members of both parties should be hard at work at, you know, governing. There are all kinds of problems in need of policymakers' attention, and pointless vanity exercises about repealing a law that isn't going anywhere may make Republicans feel warm inside, but they're clearly not serious.
There is a certain irony underscoring recent events. To listen to Republican rhetoric on Capitol Hill is to hear a series of complaints about President Obama: he's not being "serious" enough about getting things done; he's too focused on electoral considerations; he's not "leading" in a way the far-right finds satisfactory; he's reaching out to his rivals on the other side of the aisle but he doesn't really mean it.
But it's against this backdrop that Republicans vote, over and over again, to repeal a health care law they know won't be repealed. They do so, in part because they have a radicalized base that expects near-constant pandering, in part because some of their leaders have broader ambitions and see these tactics as useful, and in part because these votes just seem to help Republicans feel better about themselves.
We can debate the relative merits of these motivations, but can we also keep this in mind the next time we hear whining about the White House not being "serious" enough about constructive policymaking?
Leave a Comment:
I find myself wondering, as Congress takes two weeks more off, just why? Are Republicans trying to demonstrate what life would be like without a national government? Why do they run for election or re-election if they don't like government? What do they plan to do if their jobs are eliminated?
I understand that their base needs to be appeased. I guess I am just ranting today because I am trying to understand something that can't be understood.
RM 126, #1
Welcome to the "taxation without representation" era.
I think it is time for another revolution.
"Consider a Congressman, then consider an idiot. Ah, but I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain, 1873
What they get for being elected is a guaranteed salary, benefits and perks and if they manage to get re-elected, not only more of the same, on the taxpayer backs, but retirement benefits and a nice cushy job trying to destroy America with some teapub corporation if they decide not to run again or if they lose the next time. All for working less than two days a week and being liars.
I think part of the reason for so much time off is that it provides less chance to have to vote that will be on record.
India . . . If the Republicans get their way, it's going to be more like the "representation without taxation" era.
Perhaps I'm remembering wrong but, isn't this the THIRD break they've taken since the first of the year? Hmmm...and all on our dollar. If we worked like that we'd get fired. we should fire them all since they aren't doing their jobs either.
This is a prime example of what happens when a group buys into its own pr material. They manufactured the issue of opposition to health reform because President Obama chose to make that his signature issue, and the Republicans were then compelled to make opposition to it their signature stance, and they've been selling that opposition ever since.
This is now a mandatory position for any Republican or "conservative" group, but is it really so passionate an issue for the public? Is there really an outcry from the American people to repeal this law and go back to the previous status quo? If there was, you'd think Republicans would have fared better in 2012.
Instead, I think they've just told themselves the lie so often that they've internalized it and believe it, much like their recent anti-Keynesian economic philosophy. And that makes the prospect of a Republican Senate majority or White House pretty scary (or even scarier than it would otherwise be, at least). Would they abandon their irrational positions once they recover governing authority and accountability, or would they continue on this course simply because they've been charting it long enough to know no other?
Tactically infiltrating the government from within constitutes the Republican methodology of their Destroy the Government As We Know It agenda. This way, they can pretend to run on a patriotic platform, but once they get in they proceed to wreak havoc. Unbeknownst to them, their amateurish clandestine ploys come across as more adolescent than professional, and that is why we wearily shake our heads in constant disappointment. This will continue until they are voted out.
For India and mpguy: India is right for the 99%, we get taxation without representation. mpguy is right or the 1% that gets representation without taxation. We are all created equal, but some of us are more equal than others. G Orwell.
39th vote to repeal the ACA, no Judicial nominees getting confirmed, no consensus on budget proposals, DOMA sitting on the SCOTUS's desk, waiting to see what part of gun violence restrictions the
NRAGOP will allow to be voted on, no movement on the ERA... who WOULDN'T be shooting hoops waiting for something good to happen?Any place else these clowns would be indicted for malpractice, only in white America is daily undermining of the Constitution and votes to introduce genocide as a proper policy, seen as part of a political debate and dishonest brokers like Cruze, and Harry Reid, allowed to thrive.
Dishonesty, thy name is GOP. I think the problem is that none of these newbies to Congress know what to do or how to do it. It's a bit like applying for a position on the scientific faculty without ever having studied any of the Natural Sciences..
I believe we can do without politicians. Another job market gone by the wayside because of electronic filing. If we know what we want and can read and push a button then why to we need Congress or any other politician for that matter. We don't need travel agencies, we don't even have to leave the house to go to the bank. Therefore we surely don't need a bunch of people to represent us who in the end represent only themselves. OMG what a concept!
And you have been on the internet how long? Allowing the unfiltered Id of the average American to do more than choose whether or not to have a ham on rye for lunch would be a terrifying thing. Consider that the morons like Bachmann, Cruz, and the rest of the drooling clowns, are the intelligent ones in their districts. Every time I think they're the problem, I run across one of their constituents. Given that the average American is a political illiterate, what you suggest would be quickly the necessary proof that "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people," as Mencken put it 90 years ago.
We are rapidly demonstrating that Madison and Jefferson and the rest were right when they said an informed citizenry was crucial to the success of a constitutional republic.
we surely don't need a bunch of people to represent us who in the end represent only themselves.
Amen to that. Kerry and Kennedy used to be my senators.
The insurance lobby is a powerful influence in Washington. They don't like anything that threatens the golden calf.
which is why these votes are hysterical.... the insurance industry is going to make a KILLING off the ACA.
]
The republicans need to get rid of the darn TEA PARTY.Things were much BETTER WITHOUT THEM.
#6,
I sure agree. These T-party people are the ones who claim to care about the constitution and yet keep ignoring the decisions taken by the Supreme Court.
Cruz is a constitutional scholar. Really? Then why does he disregard it?
T in T-party stands for terrorist.
The Republicans ARE the Tea Party, also the Confederate White People's White Supremacy and Treason Party. And we can definitely now use the T word, since the evidence is now in that Nixon sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks in 1968 to deny the Democrats the chance of ending the Vietnam War so he could get elected (and thus continue the war another 4 years, doubling the casualty lists and tripling the destruction), as Reagan sabotaged the negotiations with Tehran to get the hostages out, in order to insure his election. Traitors both of them - the two main Republicans of the past half century, and both scum.
The facts you cited on Nixon and Reagan are true. There is an actual tape of Johnson discussing Nixon's treason. And the weapons were sent to Iran with Israeli help shortly after Reagan's ignauguration. When the Iran/Contra affair went viral and Reagan finally admitted that weapons were sold to Iran, he acted as though this was all done behind his back. But in reality, he knew about this all along. He conspired with our enemy to win an election, and he prolonged the suffering of those hostages. I hope historians will tell the truth about these men.
Reagan sabotaged the negotiations with Tehran
??
I'd love to hear that story!!!
Really Wang, this is news to you? I suggest you pick up the book Drift, it is spelled out in good detail there.
I suggest you pick up the book Drift, it is spelled out in good detail there.
LOL
Since we know that the author has absolutely no way of knowing what went on during the Reagan era....I'll pass. If you know the author's politics you know what's in the book.
You're a pathetic, annoying troll. Just go to Wikipedia then, douche bag.
Wikipedia???????
You really believe what you read in Wikipedia??????????
LOL
"Since we know that the author has absolutely no way of knowing what went on during the Reagan era"
Rick
there this little law called the Freedom of Information Act. Look through the government documents it allows the public access to. sometime you might find it useful
I'd really like to see the government documents that say " Reagan sabotaged the negotiations with Tehran"
You don't have a copy kicking around, do you?
"Since we know that the author has absolutely no way of knowing what went on during the Reagan era."
Boy, did you nail it! I mean nobody wrote any memoirs, there's absolutely no place to file records or papers or look at back copies of newspapers or TV news broadcasts and everybody involved must be dead so, yeah, there's absolutely no way Rachel Maddow could know what happened thirty years ago!
This counts as a "refutation"? Certainly explains why RW (subtle, those initials) and his fellow tbaggers (they no longer rate capitalization) keep making the same mistakes...
Thank you Doug I was thinking RW to be Emperor Wang the Perverted from Flesh Gordon
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068595/?ref_=sr_1
Remind me again what Einstein's definition of insanity was ... The GOPTP really needs to move on.
They only do it so they can go to their constituents and say "I wrote the bill to repeal Obamacare," without pointing out that they were just one of dozens to do so. Pathetic.
What's pathetic is the mouth-breathing goat ropers (a species of Homo Sap not merely native to Texico) who vote for them will believe them.
If republicans spent half the time working with the President on job creation as they spend on repealing Obamacare. We'd all have a Merry Christmas.
Is someone keeping track of the dollars wasted on legislative actions which go nowhere? It would be great to have a realtime clock somewhere on the internet showing the up-to-the-minute total of tax dollars our government has wasted on itself through ineffective legislative action.
It would be a great clock to post on my website!
Yes! It appears being an elected official these days in the GOP does NOT mean solving problems and getting things done, it means pandering to a K-K-Krazy group of malcontents and putting up, time after time, legislation they know will not pass and only wastes time and draws energy from the serious issues.
I think they should be on a "merit" system ... paid by what they accomplish ... like a lot of them want to measure teachers! I'll bet we'd see a lot more action in NO time....
Nice idea Jason; we need a Malfeasance Counter.
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/health-care/what-cost-house-vote Here is one estimate based on the cost of the House per day = $2million x # of times the House has voted to repeal the ACA.
I seems to me the way to stop this sillness would be a law requiring congresspersons who submit a bill for consideration that has already been rejected, having to pay out of pocket the cost of bringing the bill for a vote. I assure you if they had to pay to make their points they would be a whole lot more circumspect.
There should be an amendment put forth to stop trying to repeal the healthcare plan. It's already 3 yrs in and to change things now rather than tweaking some things would do more harm than good. Starting people all over again is not the answer.
I think if the GOP stays on it's current path we will windup with two parties in this country, Democrats and Independents.
That wouldn't be a bad thing!
if they were paid a commission on bills-- maybe they would worry if they pass or waste time.
They are paid a commission on bills but it is sanitized as contributions and healthcare related companies pay the most.
Truly the Party of No.
Alber Einstein must be rolling in his grave. "Keep on doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a form of insanity".
I had to check out the source for the article quote, given that the quote uses a complete and total false GOP talking point ('patient-centered care'). Needless to say, I wasn't too surprised to see it was The Hill the quote was pulled from.
That term doesn't even make sense. Is there a "non-patient centered care" or a "patient-centered non-care"? Another silly, made up term.
I think they were going for "patient-centered care" as opposed to "insurance company profit-centered care." I'm an Obamacare supporter, but it does still leave us in a for-profit insurance company model, and I will never truly be comfortable with that when the population's health is at stake. We absolutely need to move forward to single payer as soon as we possibly can.
(Also, the idea that the GOP is more concerned with my health than with the health/profits of my insurance company is laughable in and of itself, so that talking point is ridiculous.)
Freddie - may I suggest you check out the link in my post. The only thing the GOP was going for with 'patient-centered-care' was a re-branding. In typical GOP fashion, 'patient-centered' meant stopping healthcare reform so that insurance companies would be able to drop-kick people to the curb, drive them to bankruptcy and otherwise rake them over. 'Patient-centered' in GOP-speak means 'insurance-lobbyists-centered.'
June, I did read it. I think we are both essentially saying the same thing here, I just didn't express myself very well. I totally agree they are trying to make it look like "patient-centered" is actually a good thing, but in reality they are only concerned with keeping the for-profit insurance industry intact because that industry pulls a lot of their strings.
What most of these high minded concepts miss is that the patient is the locus of care and not a customer or consumer; only doctors that are. Only a doctor can cause a charge to take place in a hospital (patients get to choose TV rental plans).
Patient-centered care is not a Republican invention. It is actually a care model that works well for the doctors, the patients, and the health care facility. Physicians are employed by the hospital. When a patient is admitted and evaluated, physicians with the necessary expertise, along with the appropriate technicians, work for the patient as a team. This is tremendously helpful to the communication process, as doctors are constantly in touch with each other. It is also cost effective, because it reduces the possibility that there will be duplicate procedures, pharmacy errors, or missed lab results. Teams are evaluated based on the outcome for the patient, not by number of procedures performed (something that has driven up healthcare costs during the last couple of decades). It's a good care model, and one that is used in many cancer treatment centers.
Physicians are employed by the hospital.
My doctors aren't.
Your doctors should be made aware that you have escaped from the asylum...
Say What????????????
The meaning of "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Teabilly Republicans....get a @!$%#ing grip!!!!
The penalty for a citizen filing a frivolous tax return...$25,000
The penalty (in some states) for a frivolous law suit....court costs + penalty $.
The penalty for frivolous legislation...????
I hope they're done now.
Bernie Sanders and some other liberal Democrats and Independents should continually propose amendments to convert the ACA into single payer just as a counterweight to those on the other side of the aisle.
Maybe, in light of their obstructionism, the president should just reverse all his policies. Say, tell them he wants No taxes on the wealthy, NO universal health care, NO Obama- care, No Social Security or Medicare, no help for the uninsured and NO food for the poor. No more Pell grants, head start or Planned Parenthood. No more EPA or any regulation that prevents corporations from polluting the air. No help for veterans, the elderly or the disabled. No gay rights or any civil rights. No help for the economy through jobs bills. No bailouts and stimulus money. It is every man for himself.
They would suddenly be FOR all these things, wouldn't they? I mean, we've tried everything else!
mpguy, Representation without taxation IS more like it. LOL
Cruz' amendment "encouraged" patient-centered reforms to reduce costs.
Yes, I can see it now. The "Encouragement Act of 2013". However, he could be onto something because if the patient-centered reforms to reduce costs center around providing fewer services to those patients, costs will definitely go down!
I wonder what percentage of the time they've been in session this year has been wasted on this bs.
100%
No, the point here is that these folks are supposed to be working on running the government! Every second they spend on this foolishness is another second that they could have been using for productive purposes.
As Congress prepares to take time off, nobody notices because they haven't done anything anyway in several years.
Down here in the Lone Star State, we've taken to calling the junior senator from Texas "Carnival Cruz." It's not original to me, but I think it has a nice ring and hope it gets traction north of the Red River.