House To Vote On Obamacare Attack For 38th Time
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again, and try 36 more times after that:
House Republicans, politically emboldened by President Barack Obama’s delay of a key requirement of his health care law, are taking another run at scrapping his signature domestic policy.
The House has scheduled votes Wednesday to delay the law’s individual and employer mandates, the 38th time the GOP majority has tried to eliminate, defund or scale back the program since Republicans took control of the House in January 2011.
The votes are a chance to score political points and highlight public skepticism over the law. The legislation is going nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate and the administration said emphatically Tuesday the president would veto the measures.
The goal of the health care law was to provide coverage to nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance in a massive overhaul of the current system. In a surprise move earlier this month, the Obama administration announced a one-year delay in requiring businesses with 50 or more employees to provide health coverage for their workers or pay a penalty.
Republicans seized on that decision as new evidence that the law is unworkable and should be repealed. The GOP also accused a Democratic president of favoring businesses over average Americans, who will still be required to carry health insurance starting next Jan. 1 or risk fines.
In advance of the votes, Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, stood on the House floor Tuesday and ridiculed Democratic comments that the law has been ”wonderful” for the country.
”The law isn’t wonderful, it’s a train wreck. You know it. I know it. And the American people know it. Even the president knows it. That’s why he proposed delaying his mandate on employers,” Boehner said. ”But it’s unfair to protect big businesses without giving the same relief to American families and small businesses.”
The House will vote on two bills: one by Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., to implement the president’s one-year delay in the employer mandate, and another by Rep. Todd Young, R-Ind., to delay the individual mandate. Although Griffin’s bill would implement a policy the Obama administration has already announced, it’s part of a broader GOP attack on the health care law with the goal of repeal.
The White House said in a statement vowing a veto that ”it’s time for the Congress to stop fighting old political battles and join the president” in boosting the economy and helping the middle class.
Of course, the White House would be on firmer political ground if they hadn’t just recently delayed implementation of the employer mandate, but it’s obvious that this is another political move by the House GOP to appease its base.
I wonder what the cost to the tax payer each of these votes has cost? The might as well read the constitution. Oh wait they did that.
Geez, it’s getting so these votes to repeal ObamaCare are like liberal pushes for gun control or amnesty for illegal aliens. It ain’t gonna happen, so why even try?
Besides we already have a way to get rid of ObamaCare. Just get a Republican president to “indefinitely postpone” any and all enforcement and implementation of it. Or have it get challenged in court again and refuse to defend it, as well as denying anyone else the chance to defend it.
Repeal is such an outdated concept.
Self-pay health insurance premiums in New York are set to drop 50%, thanks to Obamacare.
So I can see why the Republicans would be desperate to stop it.
They were going to hold this vote before the delay, so throwing that in as a justification is a transparent lie.
We all know there is a dog & pony show aspect to policies. But 38 frickin’ times? Seriously? So the newcomers can get their merit badges? Pathetic.
And thus we see the sum total of the usefulness of the Republican Party.
Basic math: 38×0=0
It works in Mass…children and seniors are covered at something like 99%…compare that to Texas where children are covered at about 87%.
It works in California…in a state that amounts to 1/5th of our economy, premiums for the law’s new insurance options came in lower than expected.
What terrifies the Republicanists is that they see that it is working…thus undercutting everything they haven’t done for the past several years.
Obamacare has provided 54 million Americans free access to preventive services like check-ups and mammograms. Over 6M million seniors have saved more than $1000 apiece…over $6B on prescriptions. Millions of consumers have received more than $1B dollars in rebates from insurance companies that overcharged them. 3M kids have been allowed to stay on their parents’ health insurance until they turn 26.
Worse yet…Republicans have no proposal for replacement…for they are arguing for the status quo…which no one…no one…thinks is sustainable.
In case anyone missed the symbolic meaning of the prior 37 votes…
Considering we have a
hostage situationdebate upcoming over the debt ceiling, we will most likely see the 39th and 40th attempt at repeal by the end of the year.Here in illiterate Fla Individual health insurance through Obamacare’s PCIP is also 50% less expensive, for better coverage and no preexisting condition exclusions, than the private market ($311 mo vs $1800/qtr)
@C. Clavin: Oh, how typically Cliffy. An amazing dearth of citations, just a bunch of happy statements that can’t stand up to scrutiny.
Children staying on their parents’ plans until 26… yay, another triumph for dependence!
“Free” exams and treatments… No Such Thing. Cliffy just means “someone else pays for it,” ‘cuz the people providing these aren’t doing it for free.
“Premiums… came in lower than expected” translates to “went up, but not as much as we feared.”
And many of the unions who fought so hard for Obama and ObamaCare are begging to be spared from its blessings. It’s remarkable how their concerns today were pretty much the same ones opponents cited way back when.
Wait’ll they figure out that the “immigration reform” the Democrats are pushing excludes newly-legalized aliens from ObamaCare. Meaning that employers will have quite the financial incentive to hire those folks instead of non-exempted workers, or even replace workers entirely…
@michael reynolds:
Not so fast – http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2013/07/a-big-win-for-obamacare.html
So, one state out of 50, with some of the country’s highest premiums, might see a drop? Note that these rates are being set in anticipation of new subscribers, not because there is a groundswell.
Of the 37 previous tries, how many times has the senate voted? None? Surely, given the bill’s immense popularity, it would fail, right? But Dingy Harry won’t bring it up.
Mr. Clavin, virtually every word in your comment is false, including the pronouns and conjunctions.
MA has 99% coverage for seniors and children? sounds good on the surface…but what’s the cost?
In CA, they had to do quite a bit of cherry-picking to make the claim that prices would be lower.
Please, all the “free” stuff? No such thing. It’s paid for by someone else – not that you care, as long as you get yours.
If it’s so wonderful, why all the waivers and delays?
Being afraid that it’s working? Um, no. We are afraid that the program will be impossible to get rid of, no matter what damage it causes, because it will be “popular” among the low-info voters that form the base of the Democratic party.
But, to repeat, there’s no need to repeal it. Obama’s set enough precedents to kill the program without actually following the legal process to repeal it.
Hell, using the Sequester and the WARN Act precedent, a future president could even offer to have the federal government pick up the legal tab for any company that refuses to comply with the law.
@Jenos Idanian:
Yes, welcome to Jenos’ AMURRICA! where rich and poor alike have the right to live lives of painful suffering and die in squalor if they so choose. Or are born to parents who aren’t rich.
Sorry, Republicans, you’re full of it. Obamacare is working in all the states that have tried it. Lower premiums, more access. A distinct lack of jackbooted tyranny and death panels.
Question: are Republicans ever right? About anything?
Why don’t we have an exchange with North Korea – we’ll give them the entire House Republican delegation and a six-pack of Miller Lite, and they give us all those who want to come to America and (unlike House Republicans) be productive. It’s a win/win situation for America.
@michael reynolds: My premiums have doubled since the PPACA passed, and my out-of-pocket costs have increased as well. Not too happy about any of that.
On the plus side, I still have great access to providers of my choice and the ability to keep my grad-student daughter on my plan has been a great worry reducer.
@al-Ameda:
Why do you hate North Korea so much?
@Jenos Idanian:
Yeah, that darn dearth of citations. I mean compare it to your post, which was just chock full of citations, and I can see how you would be upset…
@Neil Hudelson: For the most part, I was simply paraphrasing his claims into more honest forms. The union thing, I did cite.
But you’re right, I should toss up a link to the California rates thingie…
Avik Roy is just as dishonest about the rate increases as the rest of conservative entertainers.
@Mikey:
Obamacare hasn’t even taken effect yet. Your raised premiums are part of the old system. You know, the system the Republicans want to return to.
@michael reynolds: You’re absolutely right. It was completely unforeseeable that insurers might look at ObamaCare and say, “this is going to completely bone us. We need to jack up the rates now while we still can.”
@michael reynolds:
@michael reynolds:
Anything good that happen is my guy’s responsibility. Anything bad that happens is your guy’s responsibility.
@Stormy Dragon:
Premiums have been rising for a long time, long before Obamacare.
@Stormy Dragon: Michael’s citation is for the rates to be used when New York’s exchange opens in October. Try again.
@ Alanstorm…
So…I am wrong…but I’m right?
I guess you are one of those post-modern Republicanists.
So this clown Alanstorm links to some whacko…ranting like a far more literate version Jenos…who in the last paragraph comes to this brilliant conclusion:
Well…duh!!!
That’s the entire point of how the thing works.
So thanks Alanstorm…for confirming what the rest of us have been saying…and what you are trying so hard to deny.
This. This is what it means to vote Republican. No matter how much you like your personal guy this type of thing is all they are going to do. Any Republican strong enough to stand up to their clownish party leadership or, god forbid, the Repub squawk machine, lost in the primary. Even if your guy is better than the rest, the fact that they made it to the general is virtual proof they won’t behave any differently than the rest.
@ Jenos…
So…I am wrong…but I’m right?
I guess you are one of those post-modern Republicanists.
@Jenos Idanian: I can only assume from your comment that your solution to unaffordable health insurance rates is to legally bar insurance companies from raising their rates. How…. socialist of you, Jenos.
Of course, the alternative is that you’re tossing out knee-jerk criticisms of the name of the person attached to an idea rather than actually evaluating the idea itself in any sort of rational manner, but you’d never do something that thoughtlessly childish, would you?
Again, an article based on a distortion.
The House has voted on health-care related issues that would change or repeal “Obamacare” 38 times. Some of them have been silly, grandstanding repeal votes; some of them have been policy changes. Some of them have been attempts to defund it – a perfectly legitimate thing for the House to do. See this WaPo fact check article for more information. “Significant omissions and/or exaggerations”.
NY had coverage for preexisting conditions with out a mandate. The mandate forces healthy into the system to bring costs down. You can argue until you are blue in the face about whether it is good or bad but it demonstrates the relationship of the two components. My opinion is covering preexisting conditions without a mandate is meaningless. I support both of these principals but I am very disappointed in overall law and how it came to be. It also remains to be seen how many healthy people enter the market which will determine future rates.
Pinky…
I’m not really comfortable defending Doug…but I fail to see how this WaPo quote;
…renders Doug’s post as a distortion.
Nice try though.
Doug – 1
Pinky – 0
@C. Clavin: The first line, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again, and try 36 more times after that”, implies that the House is doing the same thing over and over.
They votes to repeal might be useful if they had actually proposed a plan to replace Obamacare, but it doesn’t appear that they are interested in anything but grandstanding.
Isn’t delaying the mandates for a year something the Obama Administration itself has called for? So if the President unilaterally announces we’re just going to ignore the law for the year, that’s fine, but if congress tries to actually pass that executive order into law, they’re being obstructionist?
WTF, Doug?
Admittedly, this may be a case of the boy who cried wolf not being believed when the wolf finally shows up for real, but this seems to be a legitimate vote for a change.
Will someone spring my comment from moderation?
This from a Jonathan Cohn post which quotes the Times article (in italics):
So lets be crystal clear…what Jenos and Alanstorm and Pinky are arguing for is paying $550+ a month instead of $145 (worst case). I don’t know what more you need to know about this collection of ignoramuses.
@ Pinky…
Are you being serious???
@C. Clavin:
I think so, Brain, but where are we going to find a store that sells fire extinguishers at this time of night?
@Stormy Dragon:
The vote to delay the individual mandate is not serious, and the vote to delay the employer mandate is pointless, so no these aren’t substantive proposals.
Stormy…
Do you understand the difference between the employer mandate and the individual mandate?
@David M:
So if your guy proposes delaying the individual mandate, you support it, but if the other guy does, you oppose it, because he must have been thinking impure thoughts when he voted for the delay.
Newt Gingrich:
Not all Republicans are stupid…but most stupid people are Republicans.
@Stormy Dragon:
The individual mandate is not delayed, GOP attempts to do so are nothing more than trying to make Obamacare fail.
The employer mandate is already delayed, the GOP can’t delay it more, so it’s pointless.
Stormy…the only ones proposing to delay the individual mandate is the 38’ers.
@David M:
Was it pointless for Obama too?
White House To Delay Obamacare’s Employer Mandate Until 2015
@Pinky:
Actually, The House is substantively and materially doing the same thing over and over and over again.
@David M:
Is it? If next year someone sues their employer for not providing the coverage required in the law, do you think “well Obama says I don’t have to obey the law” is going to hold up in court?
Does that hold for any law? For example, if a Republican is elected in 2016 can they just announce no one has to pay more than a 20% income tax rate regardless of what the tax code states?
@C. Clavin:
So to be clear, you favor fining individuals for not having insurance coverage, but want to give giant corporations a pass on their requirements to provide it?
@Stormy Dragon:
Oh FFS, you’re being intentionally obtuse here. Obama first delayed the employer mandate until 2015, then the GOP decided to vote on delaying the employer mandate until 2015.
@David M:
The distinction being that congress has the power to delay a law, the president does not. Do you really want to argue presidents should have the power to unilaterally nullify any law they don’t like?
@Stormy Dragon:
The employer mandate delay is routine, and there’s no reason to take the GOP grandstanding on this issue seriously.
Stormy…
Delaying the employer mandate actually makes the implementation of the law smoother. Delaying the individual mandate by a year, on the other hand creates an incentive for healthy people to delay coverage…while premiums skyrocket for everyone else.
You are pretending the two things are equal they are not. The employer mandate affects less than 1% of employees. The employer mandate should actually be eliminated. Employers should actually be removed from the insurance equation all together.
So yeah…for a number of completely logical reasons that you will refuse to acknowledge.
California, New York, Massachusetts.
All successful.
That’s almost a quarter (23.6%) of the nations economy being helped by Obamacare.
That’s all you need to know about why Republicans are so friggin’ terrified.
Like Reynolds asked; Are Republicans ever right about anything?
Here’s why health insurance premiums are tumbling in New York | Washington Post
@al-Ameda:
from the WaPo link I provided:
“In the course of nearly 40 repeal votes, Congress has also managed to change the Affordable Care Act in some substantive ways. It repealed a small-business tax reporting requirement that legislators in both parties derided as onerous. Congress changed the way income gets counted under the Affordable Care Act in determining who receives a tax subsidy to purchase health insurance coverage.
“Congress has cut off funding to a program that was meant to fund new, nonprofit health plans in all states. It also cut into the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which pays for everything from primary care residencies to healthy corner store programs.
“These are actual changes to the Affordable Care Act which have not dismantled the law but have certainly affected what the final product will look like.”
@C. Clavin:
And where did I argue for this?
@ Pinky…
Sorry…I didn’t realize you were in favor of Obamacare.
@Pinky:
To be fair, that’s the alternative to Obamacare. Unless you don’t support the GOP efforts to repeal the law?
@Pinky: So, out of 37 votes, 8 of them were modifications that passed the senate and were signed into law. So the republicans only did a useless vote 29 times. Sounds so much better.
@David in KC: As I initially said,
You and David and Cliff should realize that I’m not advocating a position here, I’m only saying that the “38 times” line is one side’s rhetoric and doesn’t correspond particularly well to reality.
@Pinky:
So the GOP hasn’t voted quite a few times to to repeal Obamacare? The GOP doesn’t want to repeal Obamacare? The GOP didn’t hold a special vote on repealing Obamacare for the new freshman, while admitting it was pointless? I’m struggling to see how the phrase you’re objecting to would leave anyone with a mistaken idea of what the GOP wants.
Specifically, a lot of the votes have been nothing more than grandstanding, including the two votes today.
@Pinky: as far as DC spin goes, 29 vs 37 is pretty low on the spinometer. I’ll give you that 29 is the more accurate number, and its not as “impressive” as 37, but 29 is bad enough and arguing the issue just gets people to look at each individual vote and you end up with a point that really doesn’t have much of a point.
@ C. Clavin
Here
A full 1/5th of the nations population will be operating successfully under Obamacare (or it’s predecessor; Romneycare) and at reduced insurance costs.
If I’m in Texas or one of the other states not participating because of partisan ideology I’m going to be asking WTF???
And here’s the kicker…just wait for the Republicans…after voting to repeal the PPACA either 29 or 38 times…to then say; “Well, it was our idea”.
Remember…The mandate originated a Heritage Foundation brief titled “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,” as a counter to the systems actually favored by Democrats at the time.
It’s going to be pretty hard to explain that they are now in favor of it…after 29 or 38 votes to get rid of it.
Since the Florida ACA Exchange was mentioned up-thread as one of the four ‘major’ (my word) determinants of success or failure for the health-care insurance reform (the others CA, NY, TX), let me weigh in as a concerned Floridian.
My wife is finishing up (successfully) a two-year battle with breast cancer. When we got the original diagnosis, I was only 3 months from retirement. She did free-lance work. I carried the insurance. There was no alternative to continuing to work full time at what is generally regarded as a pretty demanding job. (I’m an ICU nurse.)
We’ve been waiting for the ACA to kick in (Jan 1st) and anxiously keeping track of the specifically Florida aspects. The state refused to establish an exchange of it’s own, so the Feds are doing so. This has slowed development of her insurance future. Recently it became publicized that 10 insurance companies will compete to offer her health insurance. It will come with no lifetime limits and no penalty for her having cancer. No cost data is available for Florida, but extrapolating from the CA & NY numbers, she’ll pay $3-400/month. She will have federal subsidies so that she can continue to work the same job she’s had. (http://insuranceexchangehq.com/florida-health-insurance-exchange-companies-list/) I will be able to retire — at the age of 68, with my cardiac stent and my prosthetic hip.
If the House of Representative Repubs successfully demolish the ACA, I will be committed to working full-time until she becomes Medicare-elligible, another 6 1/2 years (that whole ‘better or worse, richer or poorer, sickness and health’ promise). I’ll be working at a pretty damn hard job until I’m 75, in other words.
So you can imagine that my opinion of the Republcans in the House is … well … unprintable.