Obamacare

The GOP vs. ObamaCare

|

The politics of red vs. blue

Congressional Republicans hoping to pare back the health care law between now and 2012 are going to face a lot of challenges. Thanks to Obama's veto power, outright repeal is off the table. An aggressive defunding effort, while appealing in some ways, could lead to politically difficult showdowns over the budget. And while there may be some opportunities to make it more difficult for the Department of Health and Human Services to implement the law, a large portion of the implementation battle will take place at the state level.

But Congressional Republicans ran against the health care overhaul, which means they'll have to pursue it somehow. We'll probably see a symbolic vote to overturn it—perhaps several. But the most effective and practical way to contain the law between now and 2012 will probably be to go after single sections, as the David Gratzer and Paul Howard of the Manhattan Institute suggest here and here. There are a host of controversial provisions that could be modified or wiped out—starting with the 1099 reporting requirement, which even President Obama has said is probably too burdensome on business.

As Howard says, the chipping-away strategy will probably work best if the party can find some bipartisan support. I'm typically wary of kneejerk bipartisanship, but he's right in this case. The politics of the health care law are such that a few Democrats might be willing to join Republicans in taking out selected parts of the law. Sen. Max Baucus, who oversaw a lot of the early negotiations over the law, is already indicating that he may be open to making changes in the legislation. And Republicans are reportedly on the hunt for other potential Democratic allies.

The upside of a strategy like this is that it stands a chance to result in actual (if small) changes to the law. It's a path toward opposing the legislation that doesn't rely mostly on erecting procedural barriers, as defunding strategies and state-led efforts to block or slow implementation would. The downside, at least for those who'd like to scrap the law entirely, is that it could reduce the urgency to repeal the law. Relying on an ongoing series of small tweaks, especially bipartisan tweaks, risks implying that the law doesn't eventually need to be fully overturned.

My take on how the recent elections will shape the coming health care policy battles here

NEXT: Reason Morning Links: Nazis, the TSA, and 4chan

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No, don’t let the Dems take off the worst parts of the law. Make them suffer for passing the whole thing in the first place. Total repeal or nothing.

    1. I’m totally with you on this.

      If you start tinkering, you have given up on the idea of ever repealing it.

    2. The House Republicans should just pass a simple bill that repeals all of the Obamacare package.

      Let the Senate or Obama deal with the consequences. The Senate can either pass it, straight up, or Obama can Veto. Then we will know who to hold responsible in 2012.

      1. I completely agree. While I think it is highly likely that Obama would veto repeal, I don’t think it is 100%. The GOP needs to put together a free market/limited govt alternative to Obamacare and explain to voters how the proposal would address the issues of cost and access. Then, pass a repeal bill in the House that includes the alternative proposal. When the bill gets to the Senate, I would imagine we would see rallies supporting passage of the new bill just like people came out to oppose Obamacare. Yes, the Senate Dems could vote it down, or pass it and the President could veto it, but by doing so against the will of massive public support they would be left with zero legitimacy for the remainder of the current congress. It would create a clear difference between ones sides desire to pursue ideology and anothers to pursue results

        1. Great idea! A lot of Dems, possibly including Obama, are looking for a way out from under Obamacare. Repeal is a nonstarter, and the old Repub nostrums of “interstate competition,” and “tort reform” are so deficient as to be comical, but if the House passes a well-thought-out, popular alternative to Obamacare, the Senate is going to have a tough time saying no, as is Obama.

        2. I agree with you, negative liberty. It is an excellent plan. The Republican alternative, however, should include at least some of Obamacare’s best parts, such as government coverage for those who don’t have any other healthcare options, and any insurance company (or the government) must cover those with pre-existing conditions.

          But it does make you wonder exactly what is in those 2,000 + pages?! What other bits were included that were, in essence, put in to “incentivize” reluctant Dems to vote for it?

    3. I’ve suggested amending the healthcare law to allow states to opt-out. That would lead to a lot of states effectively repealing Obamacare. Also it would be hard to object since Americans like to have choices. For example, the representative delegation from Texas could say ‘our people want out of it, we need out of obamacare’. If denied, this would strengthen the case for states nullifying obamacare

    4. Minor tinkering is going to make the overall law more palatable, and making Obamacare shitty-but-tolerable will entrench it forever. See, e.g., Social Security & Medicare.

  2. That’s what Saul Alanski would do.

  3. Outright repeal is not off the table. Let’s not pretend that the healthcare law is just any old law. It’s an unconstitutional abomination that was unpopular and unsupported by most Americans from the get-go, and it could be a fatal blow to American economic dominance.

    Usually, laws like this are just allowed to stand, with some minor adjustments to compromise. If the GOP is worth anything as a reform movement right now, it will pull out the stops to force Obama to sign a repeal. Normally, pure obstructionism is dangerous, but these aren’t normal times.

    1. Not that I expect this to happen, of course. Despite all the rhetoric, it’s all hugs and kisses between these two parties in practice.

      1. Very true. And it makes me all the more happier with the outcomes of the Republican primaries. Castle, Crist and Murchowski are just the types of vermin who would do what you describe. Their losing stands as a warning to every Republican up in 2012 who wants to play bi partisan footsie in hopes of being David Brooks’ favorite Republican. There is a real chance that they can be challenged and beat in the primary if they do that. Yeah, they might be able to run as independents after losing the primary, but that is a tough row to hoe. Putting those motherfuckers on notice is well worth Chris Coons being in the Senate.

        1. Glad to see you spelling Murkowski’s last name wrong.

            1. Murkowski is likely going to be the next Senator from Alaska, John.

            2. I thought it was a joke wrto the whole write in vote-counting dealy-whacker.

              1. Yeah. I heard it was spelled M-I-L-L-E-R.

  4. Can we please call it what it really is? Yes, from now on it should be referred to as MarxistCare.

    1. You say potayto, I say potahto . . .

      1. If only we could call the whole thing off.

    2. Marx probably could have come up with a better plan.

  5. I know they said raising the debt limit was a stand alone thing, but I say add ObamaCare repeal to it. Refuse to raise the debt ceiling w/o repeal.

    1. I like that idea just for the hissy fits I’d get to see on MSNBC.

  6. MarxistCare

    Like we said, ObamaCare. 🙂

  7. The media can scream and howl all they want but the House of Representatives can shut down the government at will. It is merely a question of balls. Simply shut down the government until the liberals capitulate. If they fail to, keep the government in shut down all the way into 2012.

  8. Never going to happen. Stuff involving children is off the table. Stuff involving the elderly is off the table. Preexisting condition stuff is off the table.

    1. Shorter obijuan:

      ObamaCare is off the table.

    2. Any attempts at repeal with negatively affect almost 50 million Americans and I’m sure a good number of these citizens do vote. Repeal is a no go and that is a good thing. Denying care to clients because of lack of money and/or insurance is never a good thing or haven’t any of you figured this out or do you even care?

      1. You can’t back up those numbers, but that’s a aide issue.

        “Denying care to clients because of lack of money and/or insurance is never a good thing or haven’t any of you figured this out or do you even care?”

        Denying care to clients because of lack of money or insurance is both moral and practical. Nothing in life is free. Forcing you to pay for my health care is immoral and impractical.

        Attempting to do so only distorts price signals even further and undermines the market system that makes supplying health care services possible. Not least, it’s unconstitutional from start to finish. It violates the right of free trade and individual sovereignty as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

        If you wish to engage in private charity, by all means devote your resources to supplying health care to anyone you wish. Coercing others to do so is wrong in every way.

  9. Getting Obama to put in a veto is the symbolic act Republicans should be fighting for. You veto it, you own it.

    1. Forcing the Senate to block a repeal and/or forcing Obama to veto a repeal, repeatedly if possible, is excellent politics. The public opinion battle in favor of repeal has already been won. Getting down and dirty with details, compromises and partial repeals will dilute the narrative, confuse the public and make disenchanted voters suspicious about what is really going on. Furthermore, the Democrats, having already paid the political price for Obamacare, will never compromise on the particular details designed to destroy the private health insurance industry. If they do, what will have been the point of their political sacrifice?

      Delay and obstruct implementation. Push for repeal. Do this continuously until the next election, then reassess the situation.

      1. Yep. Let the good times roll!

      2. I think they should do both. The house should pass a full repeal on a weekly basis. And every other thing that gets passed should pick repeal one small random sliver of the monster.

        1. How about passing individual reform measures that are contingent on full repeal? For example, private insurance deregulation. That way, repeal is tied to real reform and the pro-repeal critters won’t be anti-reform, party-of-no critters.

    2. Likes this

  10. I’m typically wary of kneejerk bipartisanship…

    I don’t think that I have ever seen it put that way; What a wonderful turn of a phrase.

  11. An aggressive defunding effort, while appealing in some ways, could lead to politically difficult showdowns over the budget.

    Cry me a fucking river. We don’t send these clowns to Washington to do the easy shit; we can manage that ourselves.

    They’re there to do the hard stuff, and for no other purpose.

    1. We don’t send these clowns to Washington to do the easy shit; we can manage that ourselves.

      Hey, speak for yourself!

  12. I offer up a modest proposal …

    1. Not sure what the Irish have to do with this…

  13. Sen. Max Baucus, who oversaw a lot of the early negotiations over the law, is already indicating that he may be open to making changes in the legislation.

    “Beware of Klingons bearing gifts.”

    1. A lot may depend on what happens to Montana’s junior Senator, Democrat Jon Tester, who voted for most of Team Obama’s monstrosities, who is up for re-election in 2012, and who barely won his last election.

      If Montanans eject Tester in 2012 by a large majority, Baucus — who has generally steered as far right as he can go in the Democratic Party — may read the tea leaves and become a Democratic vote for repeal. Indeed, if Obama loses in 2012 as well I would see that as pretty much given.

  14. There are a host of controversial provisions that could be modified or wiped out?starting with the 1099 reporting requirement, which even President Obama has said is probably too burdensome on business.

    The provision was meant to place a check on gold purchases by ordinary people. It will be a good thing if that provision was made to go away.

    1. The provision was meant to place a check on gold purchases

      That does it. I’m putting my money into platinum.

      1. Silver is running about 1/4 of its traditional ratio to gold.

      2. Re: insuficiently renumerated,

        That does it. I’m putting my money into platinum.

        Platinum too, my friend. Platinum too.

        Better stick with silver. I am.

  15. BIG IF: If the Republicans were smart, they wouldn’t touch a single word of it. Let the public experience how truly screwed up it is. Otherwise if they start to tinker with it, we will inevitably hear the refrain from the progressives ‘it would have worked only if…’

    1. …we will inevitably hear the refrain from the progressives ‘it would have worked only if…’

      We’re going to hear that anyway. If it’s not the GOP, it will be “if not for those greedy insurance companies…”

      1. ^^^ this

        Every shortcoming of Obamacare will be successfully blamed on that portion of the health care sector that is not specifically regulated or under direct government control. Anything that goes wrong will be the fault of the insurance companies, which are underregulated.

        That’s the narrative. Get used to it, because every time grandma doesn’t get the operation she needs, there’s going to be a call for single payer.

  16. Whether or not Obama’s healthcare plans will turn out well or not is unknown. Passionately arguing for or against it is more or less pointless. If it goes ahead, it will have some beneficial effects and some disadvantageous effects. If you’re smart enough to be able to make informed arguments on political issues, then you should be smart enough to earn enough money so that, whether through the government or private insurance, you and your family will have medical care, making this debate a non-issue for you. If you aren’t smart enough to secure gainfull employment and earn a comfortable income, then what makes you think you’re smart enough to justifying making comment on social policy? So, there’s no reason to comment here. Please go do something else.

    1. I’ll go do something else – right after you hand me your wallet…

      …so I can give your money away to charities you don’t agree with.

      1. Fuck the stupid poor.

    2. ^
      So it was passed by our betters and we should just clam up about it?
      My, that’s the most honest statement that “voters don’t matter” that I’ve ever seen.

    3. Obvious troll is obvious.

    4. ob_vious troll is ob_vious.

    5. Oh, and the fact that it’s going to add trillions to our debt in the coming decades is just something we should assume we aren’t smart enough to understand?

    6. Re: Jake,

      If it goes ahead, it will have some beneficial effects and some disadvantageous effects.

      Invariably, if the State has to place something in law that has NOTHING to do with protection of life or property, is because the “advantages” are obscure and the disadvantages visible enough people would not place it by themselves.

      Take for instance Jim Crow laws – if the States had to place them in law, is because people would not do it themselves. The same with licensing laws, legal tender laws, you take your pick.

    7. Can one of the tests be the ability to spell “gainful” correctly?

      1. With that attitude, I assumed he was a time-travelling royalist or somesuch. They were looser about spelling in colonial times.

  17. Sen. Max Baucus, who oversaw a lot of the early negotiations over the law, is already indicating that he

    believes in nothing whatsoever, other than keeping his seat in the Senate.

    1. The Democrats from red states who are up in 2012 are going to be better small government advocates than many Republicans. Creatures like the Nelsons and Baucus must be terrified right now.

  18. If the GOP is worth anything as a reform movement right now

    Hahahahahaha, good one.

  19. White House hands out 111 Obamacare waivers. Unions pepper list.

    http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regul…..aiver.html

    1. But, but, but, it’s good for the nation! And for America! It’s protects us from the greedy doctors/insurance companies! Healthcare for all! No blood for oil!

      ROADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. unions. Unions & … Ruby Tuesday?

  20. Unfortunately, Max was easily re-elected two years ago, as a member of the Not-Bush Party. If he had been up for re-election this year, he might* have gotten the boot. Unfortunately, we’re stuck with him for another four years, and he definitely keeps a close eye on which way the wind is blowing.

    * Montanans are not nearly as opposed to sucking the federal teat as they would like the rest of the nation to believe.

    1. I wonder if this is the Max who posts here.

      1. Come to think of it, I’ve never seen Baucus and our Max in the same blogosphere together.

    2. The Democrats will have to get another ass kicking in 2012 for him to come around. He might try to play “bi partisan” to be Mr. Important in Washington. But, he will not do anything drastic until his re-election is actually in doubt.

      Dems up in 2012, however, will be a little more willing.

  21. Thanks to Obama’s veto power, outright repeal is off the table.

    Not really. Obama is a hardcore statist who wants a really large government. That takes money — which can only be appropriated if the House votes to do so. So, every appropriations bills can contain repeal legislation, leaving Obama the choice of signing the repeal, or shutting down the federal government.

    Would take some cojones by the House Rs, though, which seem to be conspicuously missing since at least 1994.

    1. That would be awesome.

  22. Don’t forget Commonwealth v. Sebelius, and the Florida case. It is not-unlikely that both judges will hold the Obamanation unconstitutional. DOJ has hinted in its briefing that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the whole law must be struck down. Two such rulings would give the Dems political cover to vote for repeal “so that the issue is not tied up in litigation for the foreseeable future with the adverse impact of such uncertainty on our healthcare system.”

    Boehner and company could then propose more modest reforms that they were not allowed to get out of committee the last time around–things like allowing folks to buy insurance across state lines, and a subsidized risk pool for those denied coverage for pre-existing conditions (all 8,000 of them covered under the current Federal program). The two compbined could give Obama cover to sign the repeal and still claim he achieved healthcare reform in time to rescue a 2012 presidential bid.

  23. Let’s be realistic – the Repubs are going to strip out all of the revenue generating bits while keeping all of the handouts. It’s what they do. The Republicans are the scorpion & the tea partiers are the frog.

  24. DOJ has hinted in its briefing that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the whole law must be struck down.

    I have read that the bill lacks the usual “severability” clause, which means that if it is voided in part, it is voided in its entirety.

    My healthcare reform proposal for next year:

    (1) Repeal Medicaid. Let the states provide coverage for the po’, if and to the extent they want.

    (2) Cut taxes equal to the amount saved by repealing Medicaid. This leaves the money that was going back to the states, in the states, so the states can collect it themselves, if they want, and use it to fund their new coverage-for-the-po’ plans.

  25. Doing tweaks to the current law allows its structure to remain intact. This structure fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the private citizen in very dangerous ways. We need to get every Democrat on record voting against “repeal and replace” so they can be voted out in 2012. Who knows, maybe there will be enough scared Democrats to permit the 2/3 in each house needed to override a Presidential veto!

  26. Repeal ObamaCare – I don’t think so. That law affects every American in this country and goes a long way to abolishing the bad practices that private health insurers have fostered on the American public. Things like refusing to pay for covered procedures, canceling paid up health insurance when you get sick, lifetime limits on coverage, refusing to cover sick newborns, increasing premiums to the level that is not feasible for most people, eliminating out-of-network coverage benefits, etc.

    Not to mention that 50 million Americans are now eligible to get some kind of coverage once the insurance exchanges are up and running. 50 MILLION AMERICAN GET COVERAGE THAT HAD NO ACCESS TO PRIVATE COVERAGE BEFORE!
    Are you insane? Must be a GOP elitist to think that 50 million Americans without medical insurance coverage is a good thing!

    I have worked in the healthcare field as a licensed practitioner for over 30 years and this is a great change in the law and I fully support the changes so EVERY American can get coverage and obtain medical care before the situation is so bad and becomes untreatable. I hope none of you ever get sick, loose a job, or have a sick newborn because without Obamacare you would be burnt toast when you show up at the ER for care and that is assuming they will even let you walk in the door with coverage.

    1. You can’t back up those numbers, but that’s a side issue.

      “Denying care to clients because of lack of money and/or insurance is never a good thing or haven’t any of you figured this out or do you even care?”

      Denying care to clients because of lack of money or insurance is both moral and practical. Nothing in life is free. Forcing you to pay for my health care is immoral and impractical.

      Attempting to do so only distorts price signals even further and undermines the market system that makes supplying health care services possible. Not least, it’s unconstitutional from start to finish. It violates the right of free trade and individual sovereignty as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

      If you wish to engage in private charity, by all means devote your resources to supplying health care to anyone you wish. Coercing others to do so is wrong in every way.

    2. Rockerbabe, it is NOT a great law if it (1) bankrupts the country or (2) violates the very principles upon which this country was founded. The problem with any of the health care proposals I’ve seen is that they all ASSUME the ONLY way to pay for health care is via insurance. Give me Health Savings Accounts and low-interest Health Compensation Loans as an alternative – after all, wouldn’t you really rather tell the insurance companies to go screw themselves rather than be forced to do business with them?

  27. how about we send up a bill every single week to the senate and make them shoot it down. make them defend this monstrosity. get them on official record numerous times as being for the horrible bill. then, i would put clauses rescinding the bill in spending bills that obama is for. with no line item veto, he would have a choice to veto the spending bill and thus defunding something else he is for, or he could approve the spending bill and let the clause go through and the law would be defunct. make this bastard stand up and continue to tell the american people how wonderful these onerous infringements of our freedom are. make him continue to captain a sinking ship, otherwise known as his administration. make him do it for 2 yrs so that we have strong, consistent records of his willingness to oppose the american people.

  28. Author is right that a flat out repeal will be vetoed and such a veto will stick. A good 2 year strategy would be to repeal the few positive elements, tweek ’em to make them better and then pass that as standalone legislation. Then when when the Supreme Court strikes down the entire original law because of the gross abuse of the commerce clause, what will be left is only the items pulled out and passed separately. Things like parental coverage of children up to 26. Maybe 26 is too high, but 24 isn’t so bad. Or keep it at 26 if that makes sense. But pull that stuff out of the original legislation ‘cuz the Supremes are gonna nuke Obamacare in its entirety. After Obama is gone post 2112, the Republicans will be able to implement other, more reasonable reforms.

    1. “Things like parental coverage of children up to 26.”

      Congress has no Constitutional authority to dictate the terms of an insurance contract, including mandating who must be covered up to what age.

      [As a practical note, 26 is particularly absurd. Why should insurance companies be forced to cover individuals who have been legal adults for a full 8 years?]

      Of course, I won’t hold my breath waiting for SCOTUS in this century to uphold the sanctity of contract, but let’s not encourage more violations, eh?

      Insurance companies are private enterprises in theory, and should be in practice. No one has the right to dictate by force of law the terms under which they choose to offer that financial service. (Though the various states do have the legal obligation to enforce contracts, and to punish fraud.)

  29. Boy, you guys need to get out more often. Here’s an interesting story about one of your twisted Republican politicians and his take on healthcare.
    http://www.salon.com/news/heal…..healthcare

  30. All of you who want to repeal health care reform, I challenge you to give up your employer or government provided health insurance, and try to buy a policy in the individual insurance market. If you are over 40, you are probably a walking pre-existing condition – even seasonal allergies or a single prescription can cause denial of a policy (unless you are in MA or NY). And see what premiums you have to pay.

    Then maybe you’ll get a bit of what it’s like for the self-employed (aren’t Republicans & libertarians supposed to be champions of entrepreneurs?), the people w/o employer-provided insurance, the not-quite-poor-enough-for-aid who can’t afford the many hundreds of dollars per month, etc. How are you going to handle that problem?

    1. I’m a middle-aged self-employed writer with less than stellar health who makes an absurdly low annual income. I choose not to afford health insurance and accept the responsibility if my health goes south.

      You have no moral or Constitutional obligation to pay for my health care or to provide me health insurance. Your money does not belong to me.

      As to the question “how do you handle that problem?” it’s no one’s problem to handle but mine. I don’t owe you any support and you do not owe me any.

      Life is not free. It costs money to sustain. Those who can not afford it must rely on voluntary charity.

      Even if one granted that government had a role to play in that charity, there’s no valid argument whatever for the Federal government to play that role. All American citizens live in some state (or territory). What justification can there be for the taxpayers of Illinois to pay for the health insurance of a resident of Idaho?

      1. P.S. Not that it’s all that relevant, but I have many “pre-existing conditions” and I obtained a policy easily over the web that – until I canceled it a year ago – cost less than $150 per month. The deductible was $1,000 (not a poverty-inducing amount even for low income individuals) and the doctor visits were about $50.

        The idea that low-income individuals can never afford health insurance without government assistance is simply false. That said, government programs only raise the costs – of insurance, health care, and everything else. The free market ALWAYS does it better. If we had ones in insurance and health care services, the prices would be so low we would have no need for this debate.

    2. i’m self-employed without insurance, and now that you HAVE to buy insurance, the costs for a policy have exploded. healthcare reform is nothing less than a gift to insurers and a pox on the people of this nation, the elderly and small business owners foremost. thank god it lacks a severibility clause. if one little piece is ruled unconstitutional, so is the whole. maybe they should have read it before they passed it.

  31. NO! All this will do is make obamanationcare the law and let the Democrats off the hook! America wants this mess repealed and tinkering won’t fix this. No matter how hard you try, it is not possible to polish a ……..

  32. Nancy, you boob. You think “many hundreds of dollars per month” is a lot for health insurance? I have a wife & four kids and health insurance costs my company and me (together) north of $13k/year. That’s what it costs. My company (300 people or so) “paying” for part of the cost reduces the income I would otherwise earn. And the insurance is not one iota cheaper through my company than can be had through an outside broker. Insurance is expensive. Obamacare, by eliminating companies’ ability to charge more for preexisting conditions, will INCREASE the cost of my premiums. It’s that simple. There is no free money tree. I went the first 30 years of my life without health insurance. I didn’t boo hoo about it, and I didn’t demand that others pay for it for me. I should always have the option of ceasing to buy health insurance. It’s supposed to be a free country. Get your hands out of my g0ddamn wallet.

  33. Vote to Repeal First.
    If that fails, CUT Funding Second.
    If that fails, cut funding to parts you can Third.
    Wait until 2012, and then Repeal the whole thing with a new President after Obama vetoes 1 thru 3.

  34. The law needs to be repealed. If there are any vestiges of the law it will be resurrected in the future.

    You would think with over 100 corporate and union exemptions to the law you would be able to get a court to overturn it on technicalities.

  35. The Republicans would have the best chance of ridding us of ObamaCare if they offer a superior alternative.

    Don’t just repeal it; replace it.

    1. Yes, this a big opportunity for the House Repubs. Let them pass their best bill, and watch the Senate follow the polls. May the better plan win.

  36. Iska, your ad hominem towards Nancy was uncalled for. She’s right; anything, no matter how trivial, is a pre-existing condition on the individual market. Ride bareback? Here’s the problem. I had a lipid panel done; list price was $250.00. My insurance company paid under $5.00 for the test. Yes, if we could all get”network pricing” for our healthcare, we wouldn’t need insurance, except perhaps for a catastrophic policy (say, with a $10,000 deductible). But that’s not the system we have. You’re a businessman, so you know that health care costs threaten to strangle your business. Obamacare isn’t the answer, but neither is a return to the past.

    1. There is no answer in controlling medical cost if you want every procedure available to you. On Jan 1, 2011, Preventive care will include colonoscopy as dictated by the new law. That is a $1500 procedure that has to be paid for through your policy premium even if you don’t want or qualify for the procedure. What do you think the doctors will do?

      Let the states handle the health insurance with no mandates. You pick and chose what you want and can afford.

      The best solution is, you buy yours and I buy mine.

  37. This is where the conservatives have to take responsibility for teaching people why limited government is better for everyone. The Dept of Health & Human Svcs is already slipping pro-Obamacare propaganda into all of their public service announcements about Medicare fraud prevention and the upcoming open-enrollment period…designed to start their target market salivating about their new handouts: “Have you heard about the new benefits we get under the new health care law? Like 50% off name-brand prescriptions for everyone in the ‘doughnut hole’?”

    If the Tea Parties and the true limited government conservatives don’t get out there and explain why saying NO to handouts like this is so important, the left is going to win…and it has to be better than “because handouts are socialist, and socialism is wrong,” because that’s not nearly as compelling as 50% off medications to most people.

    Instead, they need to get REALLY good at communicating why governing using leftist ideologies has always historically led democratic governments to destroy themselves from within and transform into tyrannies.

    The reason we all desire to adhere to strictly to the Constitution is because the founders DESIGNED the document to counter all of the forces that have historically brought down other democracies and republics…it was specifically to keep the government SMALL and LIMITED that those protections were adopted. NO government of men can be trusted with the kind of power that the left seeks to have (and that the progressive Republicans have supported).

    Every handout comes with a fishhook in it — they will use it to control your behavior (i.e. steal your freedom). Every new social program and every new tax comes at the expense of your freedom. Every dollar borrowed by the federal government costs us freedom.

    Governments are instituted among men to preserve the natural rights that we are born with — to prevent other people from depriving you of your life, liberty, or property. The government cannot Constitutionally PROVIDE anything that you were not born with or that you gained by the fruits of your own labors.

    We need people to understand that by maintaining their own autonomy (and respecting the autonomy of others), they keep this country from tyranny. It’s a tough message to convey, but they NEED TO DO IT.

  38. The courts could end this pernicious legislation with a decision that guts the Individual Mandate – which in turn would collapse the funding inflows and doom Obamacare.

    BUT

    The Republicans must have reform legislation in process for votes as this occurs. Sometime in May as I understand.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.