ObamaCare Repeal?

[madanthonywayne]

Over a year after it's passage, ObamaCare remains unpopular with the American people.. A recent article gives three reasons the author believes ObamaCare is in serious trouble and likely to be repealed or struck down (in whole or part) by the US Supreme Court.

First – and this undergirds the other two reasons by making them more likely – *Obamacare is not popular. Recent polls show opposition running ahead of support by, on average, about a seven point margin. Obama and his Democratic allies jammed nation-changing legislation through Congress even though the measure was unpopular. They promised to make people like it, and they have so far failed. It’s hard to maintain a law people don’t like.

Second, it appears Republicans may only need 50 Senate votes – assuming a Republican is elected president – to sink the law. Many have assumed until now they would have to get 60 to break a Democratic filibuster.

But according to an analysis by former Bush National Economic Council Director Keith Hennessey – an analysis that was also described today in a Wall Street Journal column by Karl Rove – Republicans can destroy much of the law through the “reconciliation” process used to pass the budget. A reconciliation bill avoids the usual Senate rules and requires only 50 votes to pass. According to Hennessey:

Reconciliation is a procedural tool primarily used to change spending and revenues, deficits and debt.* Repeal of the subsidies, the individual mandate, the insurance provisions, and the Medicaid expansions would, in each case, directly affect spending and revenues, so it would be a straight-up-the-middle use of reconciliation for deficit reduction.

Republicans need gain only three more Senate seats – hardly an improbability – to get to 50. They’ll also have to steal the White House, and that’s not an improbability, but it’s no easy task. The health care law itself, unpopular as it is, may make each of these outcomes more likely.

The third reason Obamacare is imperiled is what we’ve seen in the courts. Two federal judges have ruled against the insurance purchasing mandate, without which the law – as a practical matter and possibly as a legal matter – can’t stand. The Supreme Court will eventually decide, and many expect a 5-4 decision to go whichever way Justice Anthony Kennedy says it will go.

And don’t be mistaken, popular sentiment is a factor here too. It is often said that the Supreme Court is influenced by public opinion to a far greater degree than the Justices would acknowledge, even to themselves.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/201...-deep-doo-doo/

Basically, if the Republicans take the presidency and the Senate, ObamaCare is dead. (It's pretty ironic that the same parliamentary trick that allowed the passage of ObamaCare (reconciliation), may also allow it to be repealed with only 50 votes in the Senate).

Also, if the Republicans don't take the Senate and the presidency, the Supreme Court may still kill ObamaCare.

[spidergoat]

The Republicans won't take the presidency. And these conservative judges can be appealed, the law is clearly legal because it regulates interstate commerce.

How do Americans even know what to think about it as most of it's provisions haven't even come into effect? This is 100% political. The insurance companies even like it because it forces people to buy their product!

[Dominic]

Also, if the Republicans don't take the Senate and the presidency, the Supreme Court may still kill ObamaCare.

I wholeheartedly concur. However, in the event of a Republican and Supreme Court FAIL, we Conservatives do have one final recourse. An Appeal to the Final Arbiter, God Himself! I truly believe that if we pray hard enough, the Democrats will have a change of heart and repeal the bill themselves

The insurance companies even like it because it forces people to buy their product!

People have choices in a Free Market. No one is forced to buy anything!

[spidergoat]

We don't have anything like a free market.

[chimpkin]

We don't have anything like a free market.

Right, my state legislature is in bed with the insurance industry. Probably not using protection.
I'm not certain exactly how Obamacare is going to effect my medical access, but I think it may improve it.
Mad, this is a survival issue with me.

So the idea of just striking down Obamacare without offering anything good/better in its' place, while the current system is letting people die?

Really ticks me the F off. I mean really.
Not that I necessarily think it's good? But I know of other people online who are all like "Thankya Jeebus!" because they will finally get health insurance.

In a few years I'm highly likely to be one of them. I can't afford $600 a month for good insurance under the state risk pool-I looked into it.

And that would still involve copays. The thing is is that premium's half my fracking take-home. I CAN'T DO THAT!

I need to be able to get good coverage for under $200 a month unless I start making drastically more $$$

The current system cannot give me that. And untreated, my asthma can and will kill me, it d@mn near did so in '03 when I was buying stuff out of pocket and living in an apartment. I whipped through $3500 in savings in less than 6 months, then I and my wife moved in with my mom just so I could afford medication.

Yeah.

This s#it sucks, Madanthonywayne.

So how it looks from my front porch is this: the GOP wants to take it back to the old and deteriorating system we have...no matter that we will waste more money and kill more people that way.

Because of their ideology of "making government so weak we can drown it in the bathtub," or some such.

[joepistole]

Here is the bottom line, the nation already pays almost 20 percent it's income on healthcare. And healthcare costs have consistently risen year after year at least twice the growth in the nation’s income. It doesn't take a great mathematician to figure out that our current healthcare system is not a sustainable model. At some point the house of cards must collapse. People like you who are profiteering from the current system obviously like the current set up. But I think you like others in your industry know the numbers just do not add up. But it is just so profitable that you and the industry want to drain it for all you can.

You like other healthcare providers want to keep the current set up for as long as possible. Just like the farmers want to continue their farm subsidies and oil companies want their subsidies for as long as possible; you want to maintain your government imposed locks on the American healthcare consumer market that keeps healthcare prices high and rising at twice the rate of income growth for as long as possible.

At some point in the future the nation when the nation can no longer afford healthcare and the healthcare system collapses, you and those like you will be pushing for Obamacare as it is the option that least impacts your bottom line. I would argue that now is that time. The nation can no longer afford its’ healthcare system. But if the healthcare industry can push another 10 years or 5 years or even another year out of the American healthcare consumer, they will do it, because the current system is just so profitable for the industry. As has been pointed out numerous times, Americans pay more than twice what any other industrial country pays for healthcare and our healthcare outcomes are not better than those found in other industrial nations. So we are paying more than twice what anyone else pays and only providing care for a fraction of the population while other industrial countries provide health coverage for all of their citizens and the quality of US healthcare is below that found in other industrial nations and falling.

Rasmusen, known for it’s Republican bias, really did not ask the relevant questions. Are people unhappy with healthcare reform (AKA Obamacare)? Yeah I am. Not because it does too much but because it does too little. But Obamacare is far better than the set up you are pushing…to do nothing.

I think the big threat to PPCA (AKA Obamacare) is the Supreme Court. The court is dominated by Republicans who appear to be more intent on advancing partisan objectives and lining their pockets along the way than they are with law and the Constitution. If Republicans attain more power next year, they are going to be facing responsiblilty for the nation's spending (deficits and debt). And a big portion of that is spending on healthcare. Republicans nor Democrats can not make a dent on the nation's deficits and debt unless and until they fix the out of control spending on healthcare. If the nation repeals PPCA (AKA Obamacare) it will add hundreds of billions to the nations deficit and debt per the CBO. So Republicans would need to explain to the nation why they are choosing to add hundreds of billions to the nations debt in repealling heatlhcare reform.

They can play games with the nations debt and deficit as the Ryan/Republican plan does - push the real Medicare cuts out into the future (10 years) . But that really is just another shell game that games the healthcare system at the expense of the average American. After extending the current status quo for another 10 years, the Ryan Plan (Republican Plan) shifts the Medicare healhcare cost from the federal government on to people who will not be able to afford it. And that amounts to rationing rather than making the market more competitive and actually driving down healthcare prices/costs. Ironically, Medicare was created because seniors could not afford healthcare back in 1965. What makes Republicans think seniors will be better able to afford healthcare 10 years from now if they cannot afford it today and healthcare costs continue to grow at twice the growth in income?

If Republicans and their special interest backers (healthcare industry) cannot kill healthcare reform prior to it's full implemenation in 2014, it will be very difficult if not impossible for them to kill after it is fully implemented. Because as Americans learn healthcare reform (AKA Obamacare) is to their benefit and discover the Republican/industry lies about healthcare, Obamacare will become as important to Americans as Medicare has become to senior citizens.

[madanthonywayne]

Right, my state legislature is in bed with the insurance industry. Probably not using protection.
I'm not certain exactly how Obamacare is going to effect my medical access, but I think it may improve it.
Mad, this is a survival issue with me.

I certainly empathize with you. I have a disabled son who I insure thru my state's high risk pool and I'm told that my recent surgery may force me onto the same policy despite the fact that I'm otherwise in excellent health.

But just because our current system is flawed doesn't mean ObamaCare will be an improvement.

So the idea of just striking down Obamacare without offering anything good/better in its' place, while the current system is letting people die?

ObamaCare is thousands of pages of law that no one really understands that will give rise to hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations. Fuck that! Medicare was only about 100 pages.

Give me a clean bill that specifically addresses the problems And I might support it. But not this monstrosity.

I need to be able to get good coverage for under $200 a month unless I start making drastically more $$$

perhaps a different job with a company that offers insurance? Or do you qualify for Medicaid?

The current system cannot give me that. And untreated, my asthma can and will kill me, it d@mn near did so in '03 when I was buying stuff out of pocket and living in an apartment. I whipped through $3500 in savings in less than 6 months, then I and my wife moved in with my mom just so I could afford medication.

Have you tried contacting the companies that make your medications? Most companies provide medications free or at a reduced cost if your doctor will fill out a form certifying that you can't afford your medicine. I know I've done that for many patients in the past.

So how it looks from my front porch is this: the GOP wants to take it back to the old and deteriorating system we have...no matter that we will waste more money and kill more people that way

Because of their ideology of "making government so weak we can drown it in the bathtub," or some such.

We see ObamaCare as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I acknowledge that our system is flawed but sincerely believe that ObamaCare will make things much worse.

While I was waiting for surgery the other day, another patient was from Canada and was going on and on about the greatness of the Canadian healthcare system. I was too worried about my own impending operation to engage her in debate, but I couldn't help wondering........if Canadian healthcare is so great WTF is she doing here? (the surgeon is, I'm told, world renowned and on the cutting edge in his field).

[chimpkin]

Have you tried contacting the companies that make your medications? Most companies provide medications free or at a reduced cost if your doctor will fill out a form certifying that you can't afford your medicine. I know I've done that for many patients in the past.

Right now I'm getting county care...and it kinda sucks. I had a county doc a while back say "You aren't asthmatic, you're just fat!"

That was before I became the assertive person I am today.
The new me would have torn that bleephead a new anal orifice.
So I'm supplementing with...meds that aren't exactly legal. Because they are cheap and they work. Hopefully not high in lead.

Some of the brand-name ones are/were from Australia, which annoyed Asgard no end when I said that.

I tried the PParX site at one point, and it said I make too much to qualify.

I can't get medicaid b/c I'm not pregnant and don't have a child-the only conditions which allow a working person in my state to get medicaid.
Whaddaya gonna do

ATM I pay $10 for precription, but considering the rumbligs from the TX legislature? likely to be paying more by next year.

Ought to just move to a better state, but schools are cheap...need to get back in...

[iceaura]

I acknowledge that our system is flawed but sincerely believe that ObamaCare will make things much worse.

You supported the political factions and forces that made it what it is.

You like the short, sweet, reasonable Medicare bill, in its original pre-Republican vandalism form? You were offered it, offered a simple and incremental expansion of Medicare, instead of Obamacare. You went apeshit.

Before that, you were offered the Clinton compromise insurance proposal. You went apeshit.

Before that, you were offered Wellstone's eminently attractive (to the groups of citizens it was tried on, who favored it above all other proposals at the time) single payer plan. You went apeshit.

No one I know likes this TeaParty-trashed abomination of a reform bill. The only reason it exists, rather than a more reasonable bill with some hope of controlling costs etc, is because nothing else could get past the rightwing "leadership" in Congress.

Will it be repealed? Who knows. But as unpopular as it may be, I know something even less popular, less justifiable, more complicated, more expensive, and more likely to collapse in disaster: the current situation.

[quadraphonics]

Give me a clean bill that specifically addresses the problems And I might support it.

At this late juncture, the cheap posture of nay-saying and demanding that someone (who?) "give" you some unspecified bill that somehow addresses all of your unspecified complaints, simply won't do.

Nor will the alternating between assertions that the bill is incomprehensible, and assertions of surety about its effects. You need to pick one or the other: either you don't know what it means, or you do. If it's the latter, you need an actual argument about what's wrong with it, and not bald professions of opposition.

One of the main reasons that Obama's healthcare reform is valuable is simply that the status quo is unsustainable and now, with the reform's passage, broken from. It's not enough for you to simply aver that you think it's a bad idea. You need to propose something that improves on both the status quo, and Obama's reforms, if you want to be taken seriously. This tack of craven partisan attacks - let's just repeal anything with Obama's name attached to it, and that's it - is pathetic.

I.e., if you're going to go around saying things like this:

But just because our current system is flawed doesn't mean ObamaCare will be an improvement.

Then you need to come up with some positive program that you think would be an improvement, and explain why that is, and why Obamacare won't be as suitable. And, no, abstract complaints about the length of the bills doesn't cut that mustard. These complaints that other people haven't somehow proven to you - someone with an obvious, overriding partisan interest - that ObamaCare is an improvement, are not impressive.

[madanthonywayne]

At this late juncture, the cheap posture of nay-saying and demanding that someone (who?) "give" you some unspecified bill that somehow addresses all of your unspecified complaints, simply won't do.

We'll see about that next November. I say ObamaCare is an albatross around Obama's neck that will drag both him and his party down to defeat.

Nor will the alternating between assertions that the bill is incomprehensible, and assertions of surety about its effects. You need to pick one or the other: either you don't know what it means, or you do. If it's the latter, you need an actual argument about what's wrong with it, and not bald professions of opposition.

The law is an incomprehensible mess, but every so often some bit of it is deciphered and what we find out is invariably bad. One example is the 1099's to every supplier nonsense (already repealed), another is the individual mandate which is probably unconstitutional, it will force up to 50% of employers to drop insurance coverage altogether, it will encourage many other companies to not hire extra employees, It will most likely increase costs rather than decrease them, it puts bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions, it creates an Independent Advisory Board able to make rules that become law unless congress overrides them with a 3/5 majority. This last bit is also probably unconstitutional.

[spidergoat]

Typical Con tactics, attack the opponent on their strengths. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is one of Obama's triumphs.

[Asguard]

Typical Con tactics, attack the opponent on their strengths. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is one of Obama's triumphs.

I disagree with you there, he sold out and ripped the best bits out of the legislation to please the right and now the right are holding it up as a failure which if it is is because he "compromised". It should have been either a British style NHS (I belive this is how the millatry in the US works) or an Australian style Medicare (a state payer system)

[quadraphonics]

We'll see about that next November. I say ObamaCare is an albatross around Obama's neck that will drag both him and his party down to defeat.

Wishful thinking. That "ObamaCare" has become a dogwhistle to the teabag set, doesn't mean that the rest of the electorate has gone in for this whole circular "Obama is bad, therefor healthcare reform is bad, therefor Obama is bad, etc." inanity.

Obama will live or die on the performance of the economy, just like every other modern president. The idea that some kind of grass-roots anti-socialist movement enraged by ObamaCare is going to drive the election is silly.

One example is the 1099's to every supplier nonsense (already repealed),

Who cares about provisions that have already been repealed, under Obama?

another is the individual mandate which is probably unconstitutional,

Note that that part was insisted upon by (drumroll please...) big business. It's a hand-out to insurance companies.

But, wait, Obama is anti-business, so that can't be right. This must be SOCIALISM!

it will force up to 50% of employers to drop insurance coverage altogether,

Speculation.

Not that the employer-provided model was a good one, to begin with.

it will encourage many other companies to not hire extra employees,

You know what else will discourage hiring? The ongoing economic catastrophe that is our existant health-care system.

It will most likely increase costs rather than decrease them,

Says who?

it puts bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions,

Bureaocrats are already in charge of medical decisions. Your complaint is that these will be government bureaocrats, answerable to the voters, instead of private insurance company bureaocrats?

it creates an Independent Advisory Board able to make rules that become law unless congress overrides them with a 3/5 majority.

So? How is that any different from the FCC, the Fed, the FAA, DHS, etc.?

[spidergoat]

I disagree with you there, he sold out and ripped the best bits out of the legislation to please the right and now the right are holding it up as a failure which if it is is because he "compromised". It should have been either a British style NHS (I belive this is how the millatry in the US works) or an Australian style Medicare (a state payer system)

He got through what he thought could pass, but the compromised nature of this bill as seen from the left is not the right's criticism. Imagine their reaction to true universal health care!

[madanthonywayne]

Note that that part was insisted upon by (drumroll please...) big business. It's a hand-out to insurance companies.

But, wait, Obama is anti-business, so that can't be right. This must be SOCIALISM!

Obama is most definitely anti-business,that is, unless said business has the right political connections and donates to the right party.

"Right now, businesses across this country are proving that America can compete," Obama explained, listing a number of businesses that get it, such as Caterpillar, Whirlpool, Dow, and a company named Geomagic.

All of these phenomenal success stories (thanks to Ira Stoll at the blog "The Future of Capitalism" for pointing this out) also share, in one way or another, the privilege of feeding at gov'ment's welfare trough. Oh, yes, these exemplars of good corporate citizenry prove they can compete in a marketplace with taxpayer funds. Which will no doubt make them more compliant with the administration's wishes.

General Electric's CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, whom Obama recently appointed to lead his new panel on "job creation," understands this new reality. One of the nation's most effective cronies, Immelt's company has benefited from government bailouts, waivers, and lines of credit. A real icon of capitalism, Immelt.

On a completely separate issue, Immelt has also supported every initiative the president has forwarded from the stimulus—"Bold, visionary action!"—and cap and trade (under which, unlike you, GE would benefit financially), and he embraces all the subsidies that come with the progressive green agenda.

Obama's brand of crony capitalism mixed with socialism gives us the worst of both worlds. His general anti-business policies choke off economic growth and innovation while his special favors for those businesses that play ball ensure that upstart companies can't compete.

So we have a socialist president who is at the same time in the pocket of big business. Or maybe they're in his pocket............it's really hard to tell. Meanwhile:

Now, we hear that the putrid job situation—kept at an illusory 9 percent through an exodus from the job marketplace—has nothing to do with instability created by regulatory overreach in various departments of government. It has nothing to do with a $1 trillion federal deficit or a $14 trillion debt hanging over the entire economy. And it's got absolutely nothing to do with a new health insurance mandate that brings higher taxes and costs with every new hire a company undertakes.

If this were true, the administration wouldn't have had to grant more than 700 waivers—40 percent to unions representing only 7 percent of the private work force of the nation—to help companies avoid the regulatory burden and cost of Obamacare even before all the goodness trickles down to the common man. These entities will be very grateful, no doubt.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/0...ony-capitalism

[Asguard]

He got through what he thought could pass, but the compromised nature of this bill as seen from the left is not the right's criticism. Imagine their reaction to true universal health care!

There are only 2 options here, either the republicans passed the bill or the Democrats passed it without there surport. If they passed it with surport then they only have themselves to blame and if the Democrats passed it alone then why the hell isn't the legislation better. I know your Congress is undisaplined compaired to our Parliament but it can't possibly be THAT chaotic

[iceaura]

So we have a socialist president who is at the same time in the pocket of big business

Sooner or later you guys have to just give up on the "socialist" hooey, before pretzel rhetoric sprains your brains. Obama is to the right of Dwight Eisenhower. He is no more socialist than Herbert Hoover.

He didn't even attempt to nationalize the Federal Reserve - the flipping central bank of the country, item number one on the socialist list of to dos, and handed to him on platter. He never proposed socializing even medical insurance - let alone medicine in general.

Obamacare, or Tea Party health care reform as it came to be, will fail because it does not control costs - it's the costs that are killing us. But its repeal or other failure will not help us - when health care goes over 20% of the GDP, and most US people get care provision inferior to what others obtain for half the money, having repealed Obamacare will be of little comfort.

[Asguard]

i love the retoric about evil socialisium, it always makes me wonder if:

a) the US right is so ego centric that they dont realise there is anyone else in the world

or

b) the US right is so ego centric they think they are the only capitist nation in the world

Because if having UHC (which BTW is a LABOR policy, its good for buiness because it means workers are healthy and able to work increasing productivity) means a country is socilist then every developed country in the WORLD (All of whom have UHC) must be socilist including the US which has it for the millatry

[chimpkin]

Nobody seems to realize that our insurance industry is a drain on all the other ones, because most insurance is paid for by employers.

I imagine it does a lot to help kill small businesses.

Government-run single payer, or an extremely regulated-industry like I believe the Swiss have, would not only serve us better, it would help business.