Skip to comments.Are Republicans Bending On ‘Obamacare’? (Allen West is "wavering"???)
Posted on 06/02/2012 7:16:29 PM PDT by ak267
As the landmark Supreme Court decision looms next month, Republicans have been privately considering a plan to reinstate some popular provisions of Obamacare if its struck down.
The revelation sent conservative advocates who have demanded nothing less than total repeal into a tizzy, which forced House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to reaffirm his commitment to repealing Obamacare in its entirety, declaring that [a]nything short of that is unacceptable.
But more evidence is emerging that Republicans believe thats not tenable.
Rep. Allen West (R-FL), a tea party darling, told ThinkProgress that he supports preserving three popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act the same three that his partys leaders are reportedly considering.
Youve got to replace it with something, West said. If people want to keep their kid on insurance at 26, fine. Weve got to make sure no American gets turned back for pre-existing conditions, thats fine. Keep the doughnut hole closed, thats fine. But what I just talked to you about maybe 20, 25 pages of legislation.
(Excerpt) Read more at tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com ...
However the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) is nothing more than the cure being systemically worse than the symptom.
Congress expressed its dereliction of duty and responsibility when Pelosi admitted that the bill had not even been read in its entirety.
If the Supreme Court finds one or more parts unconstitutional, keeping any part(s) of the bill is untenable! To say otherwise is indefensible.
I don’t support any of it. If any of it is left in; it will be like a cancer spreading.
Why? None of the things he said had anything to do with us being forced to take government-controlled health care...
If people want to keep their kid on insurance at 26, fine. Weve got to make sure no American gets turned back for pre-existing conditions, thats fine. Keep the doughnut hole closed, thats fine. But what I just talked to you about maybe 20, 25 pages of legislation.
Donut hole good and works - nothing wrong with making folks aware of generic drugs, especially if they're on the tax-payers dollar.
The phrase was 'if folks want to keep their kids on insurance at 26, who cares" (or similar) - nothing about government paying for it.
Waiving preexisting conditions is a contentious item - if you or yours had some conditions that prevented your ability to obtain insurance, and couldn't afford to pay out of pocket for everything, would you just want to let yourself and/or yours roll over and die?
One saves money, one is a personal parental choice, and the other needs to be addressed as a form of "death panel" which is something you would agree is really bad about Obama-Care.
And the RINO Renaissance shifts leftward... I have no confidence that this monstrosity will be repealed, even if the Republicans take Congress and the Presidency.
The real problem is the laws that make “socialized medicine” and mandatory insurance the remedy. For example, hospitals being legally obligated to treat some patients who cannot pay.
Next? You have proven my point!
If the drug involved had cost you NOTHING? You would probably still be taking that drug!
I do not think you understand the issue.
I KNOW you do not understand my post and my point.
Part D was a much better program, on balance, the way George Bush designed it.
Eliminating the “Donut Hole” is a Democrat idea, a very bad idea.
trebb, you can spin this all you want, but keeping something from Obamacare is just leaving the door open for it to come back bit by bit. Med D already has a footprint obligation of one-trillion and it won’t get any smaller. Gov’t grows yet again.
Kids covered to age 26? It’s none of the government’s DAMN business dictating age. That can be negotiated by the customers and the insurance company. By having the gov’t dictating terms, it only acts as a first step to dictating other edicts. We’ve got enough of those already.
Pre-existing conditions should be market priced or have special pools admined by the states but Obamacare threw the baby out of with the bathwater on that front. By having pre-existing patients on the rolls, it skews the concept of an insurance pool. If you have PE’s entering the market, it will be a drain on private insurance system without properly pricing the the product. Leave the solutions up to the states, the insured, and the companies to decide. Keep the Feds out of it. Again, another doorway for the Fed to insert themselves.
So trebb, don’t try to sweet talk it and realize that keeping something out of Obamacare is just begging for future congresses to use as an excuse to grow it yet again. One only need to see the bastard case known as Romneycare (which now needs stimulus money to keep afloat).
I did go to the act and search what you were writing about. But admittedly as a lay person, no I don't understand the nuances of the prescription coverage. All I read is more "subsidies" in almost every part of the act
The way I understood your writing, was that which you were expressing was in the new act.
Again my bad, my apologies, Thank you for clarifying.
I appreciate your honesty and your concern.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.