Repeal and replace with ... nothing

[ProSense]

Repeal and replace with ... nothing

By Steve Benen

Even before the Affordable Care Act was signed into law two years ago, congressional Republicans adopted a simple, three-word, poll-tested phrase: "repeal and replace." The GOP would repeal the moderate reform law, which is based on a model Republicans used to support, and replace it with something new.

Shortly after the 2010 midterms, Republicans still paid some lip service to the idea, but 15 months after taking the House majority, the GOP plan to reform the nation's health care system -- the "replace" part of the equation -- doesn't exist. There have been no plans circulated, no hearings scheduled, nothing. It's almost as if Republicans weren't sincere about following through on their promises to reform the old, dysfunctional health care system.

Maybe in 2013 we'll see GOP lawmakers follow through? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) suggested to Ramesh Ponnuru that the Republican plan has changed a bit -- and only the first of the three words still matters.

If the court keeps the law and McConnell becomes Senate majority leader, he vows that "the first item up would be to try to repeal Obamacare."

But he doesn't favor comprehensive legislation to replace it. "We would want to more modestly approach this with more incremental fixes," he told me. "Not a massive Republican alternative."

Two ideas McConnell mentions are allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines and reforming medical-malpractice laws.

As Jon Chait explained, "The choice we face is not between Obamacare and some different, even more 'market-friendly' alternative reform. It's between Obamacare and subjecting millions of Americans to the insecurity and suffering of lacking health insurance. The uninsured can have the Republicans' answer now. Their offer is this: nothing."

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/27/10887708-repeal-and-replace-with-nothing

The notion that Republicans will see the light of universal health care if the law is struck down is preposterous.

[tabatha]

1. The Supreme Court appears to be ready to strike down something proposed by the Heritage Foundation.

The Supreme Court is also responsible for Citizens United.

[ProSense]

2. One thing is certain

Republicans are not going to ride in to save the day.

[villager]

3. We don't need Republicans to see that light -- we need our Democratic "leaders" to

n/t

[ProSense]

4. No one

"We don't need Republicans to see that light -- we need our Democratic 'leaders' to"

...in the current Congress who didn't support such a bill is going to suddenly see the light, especially given the filibuster.

Still, the point about Republicans is specifically because some are arguing that Republicans would suddenly be willing to negotiate single payer.

[villager]

5. If you subscribe to the model of "waiting for career politicians to gift us with 'change'"

...then you might have a point.

We have to weigh on our so-called "leaders" hard and resolutely, to let them know what's in the best interest of We the People.

And if they filibuster a good bill the first couple times, at least the sides will become clearly drawn for all to see...

On edit: And of course the Republicans won't come around. We can't keep holding history at bay, waiting for some bipartisan fantasy of sudden illumination for them, either.

[ProSense]

6. Yeah,

If you subscribe to the model of "waiting for career politicians to gift us with 'change'"

...then you might have a point.

We have to weigh on our so-called "leaders" hard and resolutely, to let them know what's in the best interest of We the People.

...I'm hoping a for a groundswell of opposition to oil subsidies: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002478093

People can't count on change to come from Washington, but people need to be a lot more motivated to pressure their representatives. They could also use more educating.

From the much-hyped NYT poll:

26. Do you think the health care law passed in 2010, creates too much government involvement in the health care system, not enough government involvement in the health care system, or about the right amount of government involvement in the health care system?

3/21-25/12
Too much 54
Not enough 12
Right amount 27

Question read: “Do you think the current health care reform bill will lead to too much government involvement in the health care system, not enough government involvement in the health care system, or about the right amount of government involvement in the health care system?”

3/18-21/10
Too much 51
Not enough 14
Right amount 28

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/328334/nyt-cbs-poll.pdf

[Tommy_Carcetti]

7. I'm sure they'll try to shove "tort reform" down our throats as an alternative.

Even though it is proven that caps on medical malpractice suits have nearly zero effect on the cost of health insurance.

[karynnj]

8. Thanks for this sane article

I have been stunned by the number of "now we get single payer" responses.

I think the ONLY path to single payer is via something like the ACA that will allow a state to have something approaching single payer. Then, assuming it succeeds to cut costs - as it does all over the world - other states may copy. Then if the large business roundtable group committed their companies to providing their employees insurance via that single payer like option, you might end up with nearly every one in the state on it.

[bluestate10]

9. The one state that may get to Single Payer first, coincidentally.

Is Massachusetts, if democrats continue to lead. Single Payer dreamers will surely demand that Vermont will be the first state. I doubt Vermont will get to Single Payer before the Bay State. Vermont's path is cloudy for two reasons, first Vermont need federal approval, second, Vermont is the only blue tax beggar state in existence. The Bay State is a blue donor state by a large margin, has a health care plan that Romney left a shell but the democrat Governor has reformed to the condition where health care costs are growing slower than anywhere else in the country and where citizens are among the healthiest in the country. The Bay State has the framework for moving to Single Payer over time, Vermont does not have the framework in place and working.

[TheWraith]

10. Kicked and recommended. nt