Skip to comments.Report: GOP might keep parts of ObamaCare if law is struck down
Posted on 05/17/2012 6:44:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The sourcing on this one is awfully thin, which raises two possibilities. One: The details are exaggerated or outright made up to try to start a firestorm among ObamaCare-hating conservatives. Two: The details are spot-on and are being deliberately leaked to see how ObamaCare-hating conservatives react. Can some parts of this thing be preserved or must the stench of The One's greatest victory be completely expunged before Congress takes another run at health care?
If the law is upheld, Republicans will take to the floor to tear out its most controversial pieces, such as the individual mandate and requirements that employers provide insurance or face fines.
If the law is partially or fully overturned theyll draw up bills to keep the popular, consumer-friendly portions in place like allowing adult children to remain on parents health care plans until age 26, and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Ripping these provisions from law is too politically risky, Republicans say...
Then on Wednesday, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) gave the entire House Republican Conference a preview of where the party is heading. His message: When the court rules, well be ready.
But Boehner warned that theyll relegislate the issue in smaller, bite sizes, rather than putting together an unwieldy new health care bill.
If all or part of the law is struck down, we are not going to repeat the Democrats mistakes, Boehner said, according to several sources present. We have better ideas on health care lots of them. We have solutions, of course, for patients with pre-existing conditions and other challenges.
Reminds me of the furor back in November 2010 when The Hill claimed Eric Cantor wanted to keep parts of ObamaCare after getting rid of the mandate. They corrected their story later that same day to say that in fact Cantor wanted to get rid of the whole law but that the GOP would come up with its own way to pay for the more popular policies introduced in the bill, like the coverage guarantee for people with preexisting conditions. I think that’s the upshot of Politico’s story. You can’t really keep parts of ObamaCare’s framework intact without the mandate; the whole point of the conservative severability argument is that the mandate is the payment mechanism for all the goodies in the bill such that if the former goes the latter have to go with it. What you could do instead is come up with a smaller bill or bills that would reintroduce some of those provisions but in an entirely new payment framework. Which, it seems, is what the GOP’s thinking of doing:
DeMint a power broker on the right said the public opposes Obamas healthcare law in part because of the messy process through which it passed. He wants conservatives to take an incremental approach that keeps the focus on individual policies.
We have a number of simple, common-sense solutions, including allowing folks to buy health plans in other states, giving tax equity to those who dont get healthcare from their employer, expanding health savings accounts, and state pools for those with pre-existing conditions, DeMint said.
These can be passed in a step-by-step process that would allow Americans to digest each new reform and build trust that each of these ideas stand on their own and will improve quality and lower costs.
But then there’s this:
Representative Tom Price, an orthopedic surgeon who heads the House Republican Policy Committee, said stopgap legislation could be crafted for 2012 if the court ended health insurance safeguards for young adults and children with pre-existing medical conditions.
“That would present a significant void and vacuum in health policy,” Price said. “There will be a need to have some things to fill that vacuum.”
I’m not too worried about that stopgap legislation somehow drifting into permanence through congressional neglect just because, as I say, they’d need to find a payment mechanism for it sooner rather than later. But if you’re looking for a way in which pieces of O-Care might actually be preserved, that’s it.
There’s bound to be more on this from the GOP leadership tomorrow so stay tuned. While we wait, enjoy this memo obtained by BuzzFeed from a leftist group about the various health-care theatrics they’re planning around next month’s Supreme Court ruling. Can’t wait to see what they have in mind for “hospital emergency rooms.”
To the headline: of course they will.
Mark Levin is livid over a Politico article suggesting that Republicans are already planning to play politics and leave popular, consumer friendly portions of Obamacare in place if the Supreme Court partially or fully overturns the law.
Levin says if this is true that Boehner needs to go
f the law is partially or fully overturned theyll draw up bills to keep the popular, consumer-friendly portions in place like allowing adult children to remain on parents health care plans until age 26, and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Ripping these provisions from law is too politically risky, Republicans say...
-The above two reasons will bankrupt health insurance companies. Anyone who votes for them should be kicked out of office.
A child is not 26!
Can I get in an autoaccident and then get insurance?
This is impossible. You can't get rid of the individual mandate and still require Insurance Co.s to "insure" preexisting condition. Every insurance company would go bankrupt within a year. Nobody would buy insurance until they were sick or injured. Accepting a preexisting condition isn't insurance - its a subsidy.
This post is what I referenced earlier without a link.
Let’s assume that this is simply an election year strategy to puts Dems on the defensive assuming that any house passed bills will die in the Senate, much like Reid is doing in the Senate to Republicans.
Then we still have to ask what Republicans would pass if they had control of both Houses (but under the 60 in the Senate) and Romney in the WH in 2013.
And Romney has also consistently said that he wants to keep the popular mandates in law just as Republican House leaders do, Those popular handout mandates are terrible policies but good politically (in the short term anyway.)
It’s okay. Boehner is going to hold Mitt’s feet to the fire and “force him to be Conservative.”
Regarding covering "children" up to 26 years old, In exchange for this mandate, the personal exemption on income taxes should revert to the parents under whose policy the "child" is covered. The excess insurance cost has surely shifted onto the parents policy.
"It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing.
Romney is an ascendant guy."
Sen. John Kerry (D) to Don Imus on RomneyCARE:
"I like this health care bill".
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) on RomneyCARE:
"To come up with a bipartisan plan in this polarized environment is commendable."
Perhaps you should revise your estimation.
Amen and amen.
The one exception I can see with the "pre-existing condition" issue is when someone is forced to leave one plan and join another (i.e. is laid off from a job and then has to find their own insurance).
I completely agree that insurance companies should not be forced to take on someone who, for example, waits until they are diagnosed with cancer to purchase health insurance.
No! Repeal the whole damn thing. Then throw the signed repeal on Ted Kennedy’s grave!
Hey if we are going to redefine childhood to age 26 for insurance purposes, why stop there? Lets change the voting age to 26 and the smoking / drinking age to 26 as well. In fact why not add another mandatory school above high-school for ages 18-26. Of course mandatory curfews and driving restrictions would also apply.
I can hear the young adults screaming bloody murder already! But the fact is, you all shouldn't be able to have it both ways. If you want considered a child to stay on your parents insurance, then you should be considered a child in all other facets of your life as well.
Both of my daughters had finished their MBAs and owned their own homes while raising children - oh ye they had their own health insurance, car insurance, house insurance, life insurance......they were not children at 26, they were fully functioning adults.
“GOP might keep parts of ObamaCare ...”
The law as it stands has thousands of “parts”. Some are bound to be good.
Hopefully they’ll annhiliate the current law and create a new one from scratch rather than try to modify the current law.
The story came from Politico, so unless there is more sourcing I am going to treat it like a UFO siting.
Wait a second - I thought that all of the “no other choice” Freepers were telling us that surely, against all available evidence, Romney was going to take an axe to ObamaCare, and that if he didn’t, then the heroic GOP in Congress was going to hold his feet to the fire until he did.
You mean we got snookered again?
Obamcare should be abolished completely and the Reps should not indicate in any way that they will try to salvage and revise it. It doesn't make good sense, politically or otherwise. Their alternative could address those with pre-existing conditions, health care coverage for "children," etc. I have no doubt that the Reps would like to get rid of the Medicare Advantage programs as is the case with Obamacare, which cuts $500 billion from Medicare.
And the Reps could highlight what will be gained with the repeal of Obamacare including the costs and the elimination of the death panels.
single biggest thing that could be done to “fix” insurance access for those currently denied or priced out would be the very simple thing that some states already have...
Require Community Pricing, and you get rid of the biggest issue with folks not being able to get coverage.
Exactly. This pre existing condition is ridiculous. The insurance companies exist to make money and maximize shareholder wealth. Being stupid and throwing money at the already diseased and dying isn’t doing any of that.
What needs to happen is everybody taking care of themselves, so having insurance beforehand and be responsible in their health so that they aren’t dependent on mercy of others.
I'm still remembering how Republicans ran successfully in 2010, with all the big talk if they controlled the House, Obamacare would be defunded. Of course, after they gained control, it was then said there was nothing they could do.
This is today's GOP, publicly talking tough (in opposition) while supporting the growth and control of government behind the scenes.
The article itself says this about it:
"The sourcing on this one is awfully thin."
The Title says what "might" happen.
Boener is going to get hobbled in his go along to get along attitude as more and more Tea Party reps are elected and put in the House. I have said over and over that this is what we must do along with getting the Kenyan Marxist, Obama out, precisely to keep this kind of thing fromg going on.
So I do not revise it at all. If we get the House and Seante and elect Tea Party candidates to keep things in line, Romney will govern accordingly. Romney is not an ideolog...he will want to be seen as being the ;eader that worked with congress to turn this mess around using his positions on the issues.
In order to do that, he will work with the Congress...and if he does turn it around, he'll get four more years in a second term...and his VP will probably get 4-8 after that. All very good for America.
Time will tell...but things are looking better on all counts (ie. the Tea Party candidates are winning primaries and getting in position to win their November races) as we move along.
I hope and pray that continues.
I know this...the very prosepect and chance of any portion of this happening is orders of magnitude better than what we would face with four more years of Obama.
Have a great day!
Wrong. We oppose Obamneycare because we don't want government making our health care decisions. PERIOD.
Jeff, I do have to say, if wishful thinking were gold coin, you'd be the richest man in the realm.
Why is there a double standard. They are children to 26 when it comes to insurance, but adults when it comes to voting. Let’s change the voting age.
Of course they will.
Romney Republicans have been signalling this all along. “Repeal and Replace,” anyone?
Romney doesn’t oppose socialism. He just thinks he can do socialism better than Obama. And he’s probably right.
The old joke is that in DC in the Democrats propose to tear down the Washington Monument, and the Republicans respond with a workable plan to do it in three easy stages.
I find that unfunny joke to be more appropriate and accurate all the time.
If elected, Mitt Romney’s role is to consolidate the socialist gains of Barack Obama.
The law as it stands has thousands of parts. Some are bound to be good.
Hopefully theyll annhiliate the current law and create a new one from scratch rather than try to modify the current law.
I would not assume the bill has any good parts. It may have good parts only if you assume as the democrats did: the problems in our health care system are caused by too little government regulation and too much free market. I heartily agree with you, they should nuke the whole thing
Health care is already one of the most heavily regulated industries in the nation. Many of the 'problems' with the current system that is so horrible (until you compare to every other country with socialized medicine) is the amount of regulation. The courts have allowed malpractice suits to be made and successful even with very little grounds. The FDA drives the up the costs of prescription drugs, and the list goes on. More regulation is not and is almost never the answer.
I have said before that this is one of my greatest concerns if the Republicans simply reform the health care bill. It allows the principles of the bill to stand and simply pushes the most tyrannically aspects of the law down the road to be added the next time the Democrats get the chance. It will be interesting if this story starts to emerge in the drive-by or moderate media. I would expect those (Ann Coulter) who have already been willing to endorse Romney care to by fine with having him oversee a reform of Obama care. Only time will tell.
it's the way I was raised and it has helped me tremndously in my own life and how I have conducted it. For that, I am grateful to wonderful parents (my WW II Combat Vet father of the PTO who has passed now, and may he continue to RIP, and my mother who we care for in a facility near our home now), and to a wonderful wife, and to God in Heaven and my Savior, Jesus Christ.
Mark Steyn, as usual, nailed it a while back. He said that Republicans were like European conservatives in that they never repeal a Socialist law, just claim to "make it work better".
Sorry Jeff, but I just can’t say that America is right with God when our two major candidates are both satanic.
As predicted by a writer on another article I posted yesterday, the GOP-e loves power and wants that control that ObamaCare promises. And money.
They are not conservatives.
Sadly, the GOP-nc'ers have already signaled that they are ABO, so Romney has absolutely no incentive to stay to the right.
We'll continue to hear about his moving to the left.
GOP RomneyCare now.
At some point in time, the GOP-nc'ers are going to think Rush was talking about them when he did his Sandra Fluke riff. They're getting used like that by the GOP-e.
For crying out loud the story came from Politico. We here at FR complain about the liberal media yet we wet our pants over every story that comes out of it that is not properly sourced.
God bless you, Jeff. We need more optimism and positive thinking on FR. Negativity breeds more negativity, and there is an awful lot of negativity on FR these days.
Obama must be defeated, and as of now, Romney is the only option for doing so. We have to play the hand we have been dealt. It’s not the hand I wanted, but it is what it is.
Thank you for your posts.
Some months back, Rush Limbaugh was on Greta VanSustren’s show. On that show he listed who he saw as the three unapologetic conservatives in the race who would never sell out their ideals. He listed Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann.
On that show he said that for the first time in decades, the GOP wouldn’t need to pander to moderates. Unfortunately the GOP not only seems interested in pandering to moderates, they seem to prefer them.
They ought to defund the entire abomination.
If the law is partially or fully overturned theyll draw up bills to keep the popular, consumer-friendly portions in place like allowing adult children to remain on parents health care plans until age 26, and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.
If the Supreme Court actually does its job and tosses the whole abomination out, the Republicans should START FROM SCRATCH and devise a market-based set of solutions to our health care crisis - specifically including tort reform and portable insurance from state to state.
Anything else is a complete sell-out to the Socialists, and a reaffirmation of the principle that the Republicans are nothing but Democrat-lite. If that happens, I'll never vote for a single Republican candidate again - not even for dog-catcher. BE WARNED, RNC!!!
The nanny-state needs to stay entirely out of the health-care business. Every incursion has resulted in disaster!
If thrown out....do nothing!
If it survives, kill it and then do nothing...
“I would not assume the bill has any good parts”
Well, the most frightening thing is not the parts but the whole thing, which is running us broke, is incomprehensible, and is orchestrated by people with impure motives. We citizens have a tough problem.
Running out of money might be the only thing that stops the growth of our governmental monsters.
” And Romney has also consistently said that he wants to keep the popular mandates in law just as Republican House leaders do, Those popular handout mandates are terrible policies but good politically (in the short term anyway.)”
Lord, give me stregnth
Thank you KG and God’s best to you and yours.
Here’s some potentiall good news from Arizona today.
Arizona to Hawaii: Provide verification of Obama birth
I hope more states climb on board this wagon.
Yes, but how do you run out of money when we can't pass a budget to limit spending?
Both of which would raise the cost of health-care tremendously. So much for holding Romney's feet to the fire.
What about Obama’s private army? Will they keep that, or discard it?
Planet Earth to Planet Kolob: Provide verification of Romney's claim to be "spirit born" on Kolob...
Doesn't that make Romney an alien "non-citizen" of this planet...sent to take over a human body here?
And Jeff, be honest with all the posters here: Don't you believe you're one of these "spirit birth" aliens, too?
I hope states mount an effort to get Romney to publicly confess what he already privately believes...that his origin was NOT as a U.S. Citizen nor even as an earthling!