Report: GOP might keep parts of ObamaCare if law is struck down

Hotair ^ | 05/17/2012 | AllahPundit

[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 they’ll 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, we’ll be ready.”

But Boehner warned that they’ll 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 Obama’s 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 don’t 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.”

[svcw]

To the headline: of course they will.

[opentalk]

related:

Mark Levin calls out Boehner over plan to keep ‘popular’ parts of ObamaCare

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

[GreaterSwiss]

f the law is partially or fully overturned they’ll 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?

[trebb]

If the law is partially or fully overturned they’ll 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...

[circlecity]

"they’ll 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."

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.

[sickoflibs]

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.)

[Sirius Lee]

It’s okay. Boehner is going to hold Mitt’s feet to the fire and “force him to be Conservative.”

[apillar]

Don't worry! If elected Romney's first priority is going to be repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something conservatives will LOVE...Romneycare!...which actually is exactly the same as Obamacare...but conservatives should accept it and get on the bandwagon because Romney has a “R” after his name instead of a “D” and that makes all the difference! /sarcasm

[Sgt_Schultze]

Agreed. You cannot remove the lifetime cap on payouts while simultaneously requiring companies to cover individuals without regard for existing health concerns and expect anything but bankruptcy to result. Congress might as well mandate must cover without regard to existing circumstances with respect to homeowners insurance too. Who would pay before they needed coverage?

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.

[Diogenesis]

IT’S UNANIMOUS FOR RINO ROMNEY
From the Kennedy Seat in Massachusetts to the entire DNC

Mitt Romney wins much coveted Jimmy Carter endorsement

Gore Praises Romney's 'Climate Protection Plan'

Carville(D):
"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."

George Soros Wants Mitt Romney

---

[Yashcheritsiy]

"I expect Obama-Care will be overturned and rendered moot..."

Perhaps you should revise your estimation.

[MEGoody]

A child is not 26! Can I get in an autoaccident and then get insurance?

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.

[cotton1706]

No! Repeal the whole damn thing. Then throw the signed repeal on Ted Kennedy’s grave!

[apillar]

...like allowing adult children to remain on parents’ health care plans until age 26...

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.

[svcw]

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.

[cymbeline]

“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.

[Perdogg]

The story came from Politico, so unless there is more sourcing I am going to treat it like a UFO siting.

[Yashcheritsiy]

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?

[kabar]

Obamacare is 2700 pages long. It is a catch-all bill with all types of issues involved. The Reps will have to come up with an alternative. Repeal and replace should be the motto.

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.