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

posted at 9:49 pm on May 16, 2012 by Allahpundit

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.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

What part of “the government has no business in the healthcare business” do these idiots not understand?

It is precisely because of the government that healthcare inflation is skyrocketing. Medicare and Medicaid pay do not reimburse healthcare providers in whole and, in some cases, the providers suffer a net loss. As a result, the healthcare providers must shift the costs to those with insurance or paying cash.

For all of the idiotic screaming about the “tremendous strain” that the uninsured put on the healthcare system by showing up at ERs, we are talking about approximately $40.6 billion a year. That’s not chump change, but it is hardly the “insignificant and trivial amount” that we are told that healthcare providers spend on defencive medicine every year (between $60 and $80 billion). Even defencive medicine is not the main driver of healthcare inflation.

The US GDP is around $15.2 trillion per year of which $2.6 trillion is spent on the healthcare. Government-provided healthcare accounts for about 50% of that or $1.3 trillion. If $1.3 trillion of the value of the services is being consumed by those that the government is paying for at a reduced cost, then the remaining people have to pick up the slack…and the slack is much greater than “their fair share” of $1.3 trillion.

Government IS the cause of healthcare inflation…not uninsured people…not illegal immigrants (who should be sent home)…not even defencive medicine. This is another example of the government creating a problem and claiming that the only solution is more cowbell.

Resist We Much on May 16, 2012 at 10:36 PM

..and get that %$@*^%! hoagie out of your mouth.

The War Planner on May 16, 2012 at 10:28 PM

ROFL. Good one, WP.

4Grace on May 16, 2012 at 10:37 PM

You all are killing me tonight. Haven’t laughed this hard in a long time.
Uppereastside on May 16, 2012 at 10:24 PM
Yeah b/c the gov’t has such a great track record of running things!
Can you name one gov’t program that has reduced costs and improved quality?
LevinFan on May 16, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Even if we don’t reform the waste fraud and abuse in Medicare, it’ still turns out to be more efficient than any of your overly expensive private insurance system.

Uppereastside on May 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM

forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Ripping these provisions from law is too politically risky, Republicans say.

I GIVE UP. If the Republicans can’t explain to the public that forcing any company to pay for the house after it’s burned is NOT insurance, then I quit.

Marcus on May 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Third rate troll at best. Not even funny, Can’t even pick a dang song for QOTD. What does that tell you?

Bmore on May 16, 2012 at 10:39 PM

HitNRun – you miss something – what is the average profit of insurance companies? Its less than a 5% business – but steady almost like an annuity. Insurance has its issues but they aren’t the problem driving accelerating costs.

Zomcon JEM on May 16, 2012 at 10:29 PM

You’re right, but the insurance companies will be the rational actors that makes the Democrat “make insurance illegal and mandatory at the same time and pay for the difference with unicorns of hope and goodwill toward man” plan fall apart. They’ll be the point men whose books first don’t add up – like you say, small steady margins – and whose failure will be a synonymous with “the healthcare crisis” when it inevitably comes.

Not coincidentally, they’ll also be the demonic figures attacked by Democrats and the media. Undoubtedly their executives will make it worse by taking on the biggest bonuses they can get on their way out the door. One can hardly blame them – why leave the money for the vultures?

HitNRun on May 16, 2012 at 10:39 PM

You can tell Upper knows what is coming . Obamacare is going to get struck down.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Before someone corrects me.

Can’t=can’t

Bmore on May 16, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Even if we don’t reform the waste fraud and abuse in Medicare, it’ still turns out to be more efficient than any of your overly expensive private insurance system.

Uppereastside on May 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM

But…it still pays the same private sector medical doctor/nurse/etc.
as the private insurance does…
Just will smaller dollars…
Sound like a winning plan..

Nothing could go wrong….

Electrongod on May 16, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Occupy Emergency Rooms! Don’t you just love the way that the left graciously accepts defeat? Win or lose, they’re just gracious, gracious, gracious.

4Grace on May 16, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Oh My God I absolutely LOVE this approach! All emergency rooms should immediately announce free and compulsory spay or neutering to any and all OWS stinkers showing up to disrupt, without pain killers. Since the OWS stinkers have no problem with compulsory mandates they should be thrilled, I would also suggest frontal labatomies but we all are painfully aware that would be an unnecessary waste of scarce resources, searching for that which doesn’t exist!
Maybe compulsory circumcision also since basic hygiene is so lacking

ConcealedKerry on May 16, 2012 at 10:42 PM

It’s time for conservatives to band together to primary Boehner in Ohio!!

LevinFan on May 16, 2012 at 10:20 PM

He was primaried by a 26 year old Tea Party activist named David Lewis. But Boehner is so entrenched in SW Ohio politics the kid couldn’t garner much attention. Plus his entire platform was based on his anti-abortion stance. IIRC, he got trounced by Boehner.

Flora Duh on May 16, 2012 at 10:42 PM

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

Heh… We shouldn’t even be talking in these terms.

And how is it the government’s duty to regulate how long people can or should stay on their parent’s plan?

Is Boehner setting up Romney so he won’t have to repeal O-care entirely?

Dongemaharu on May 16, 2012 at 10:42 PM

This isn’t news.

It’s the same position they took when Barry was ramming this through.

Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, Coburn, etc…all had an agreed upon list of things Barry wanted, and in return they wanted a few things, such as tort reform across and nation-wide competition. Barry said no.

So what we’re going to get was the original GOP plan, minus the insurance pools, mandates, IRS agents, crazy-batsht-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-healthcare, etc… plus naitonal competition, tort reform and a few other aspects.

What we need to be alert for, is pandering to the AMA or insurance agencies.

Both sold us out for Barry, and they don’t deserve squat in return.

budfox on May 16, 2012 at 10:42 PM

His frame of reference for math. A share cost $10.00. He will only pay $2:00. Now that is kinda funny. On second thought, not really. Pathetic actually.

Bmore on May 16, 2012 at 10:42 PM

The GOP will betray you.

Bishop on May 16, 2012 at 9:52 PM

That’s because there are no consequences for betraying the people, they are easily manipulated and have short memories, they only pay a price if they betray their cronies.

FloatingRock on May 16, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Can’t=can’t

Bmore on May 16, 2012 at 10:40 PM

You are forgivin..
:)

Electrongod on May 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Even if we don’t reform the waste fraud and abuse in Medicare, it’ still turns out to be more efficient than any of your overly expensive private insurance system.

Uppereastside on May 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM

NO it isn’t! Nothing in gov’t is cheaper than the free market!

And nice job avoiding my question b/c you can’t answer it:

Name one gov’t program that has redcued cost and improved quality??

LevinFan on May 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM

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

Children? at up to 26?

This is similar to Italians living in their mother’s apron into their 40s.

Schadenfreude on May 16, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Name one gov’t program that has redcued cost and improved quality??

LevinFan on May 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Ues just got very busy.

Schadenfreude on May 16, 2012 at 10:45 PM

It would not surprise me one bit if Romney, elected with a GOP Congress, pushes ahead with a “reform” of ObamaCare instead of repeal.

Trust these snakes at your own peril.

Norwegian on May 16, 2012 at 10:46 PM

So the GOP was willing to compromise….hmmm where did I hear the opposite?

CW on May 16, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Even if we don’t reform the waste fraud and abuse in Medicare,

Uppereastside on May 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM

There are those words again! They don’t even need commas anymore, do they? They’re like Newspeak. “Obama will be reconfirmed and remove the wastefraudabuse next year! When the economy gets better!”

it’ still turns out to be more efficient than any of your overly expensive private insurance system.

You mean “family” and “charity?” Yeah, they were a total disaster before LBJ came along.

Or maybe you mean the health industry overall. Yeah, you’re right, a program slated to grow to consume 1/10th of the national GDP just to cover people in the last years of life (and to only be the second most expensive government program doing so) is wonderfully efficient. Ok, maybe not efficient, or even possible, but it feels good to support it, and that’s what matters, right?

HitNRun on May 16, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Can’t=can’t

Bmore on May 16, 2012 at 10:40 PM

You are forgivin..
:)

Electrongod on May 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM

If only that was the worst of my typos ….

CW on May 16, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Even if we don’t reform the waste fraud and abuse in Medicare, it’ still turns out to be more efficient than any of your overly expensive private insurance system.

Uppereastside on May 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Medicare turns down more claims as a percentage than private insurance companies do and you have no recourse against it. As the Supreme Court said in Heckler v. Ringer, you have no right to Medicare…even if you paid into the programme for 40 years…and the HHS Secretary decides what treatment you get.

As for efficiency, see how “efficient” Medicare and Medicaid are when you are looking for a doctor that will take you as a patient. In most states, you can start out by cutting the healthcare provider rolls in half…and that’s before you even start narrowing it down to specific areas and specialties.*

* States licence doctors, not the Federal government, so good luck on forcing doctors to participate in either programme. Besides, the Supreme Court has upheld the basic premise that each individual physician and practitioner “has the ability to choose whether or not to participate in the system.”

Resist We Much on May 16, 2012 at 10:48 PM

ConcealedKerry on May 16, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Haha. I like the way you think, CK!

4Grace on May 16, 2012 at 10:48 PM

There is no such thing as INSURING against pre-existing conditions.

The political class perverts the language to fool the stupid.

Insuring against pre-existing conditions is socialism and as such all that vote for it should be voted out as it is the path to ever increasing socialism as was the George Bush free and cheap drugs scam which led us naturally to Obamacare.

Insurance insures against RISK with higher payments for higher risk and taking into account the cost of the risky event should it actually occur. Insurance does not “insure” against known and certain occurrences.
That is not spreading the risk that is socialism. Watch how many Repunks are socialists and vote their asses out.

ConcealedKerry on May 16, 2012 at 10:49 PM

LevinFan on May 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Pay attention I did. It’s called MEDICARE.

Uppereastside on May 16, 2012 at 10:49 PM

I’m sorry, but the GOP had better tread very carefully here. The Democrats completely screwed the health care deal up and, if the Republicans try to play Democrat lite with health care, they’ll do even worse.

It’s time for the free market to get into health care. I’ve always believed that employers should NOT be providing health insurance, health insurance should be a commodity that employees could purchase, just like their car insurance and their homeowners insurance. The beauty of that is you’re never required to work in a place you don’t like, just to maintain your health insurance. Secondly, the market would truly determine the price because employers, for the most part, are looking at their bottom line and keeping their costs low and providing a good basic package for all employees, rather than filling the slots for the individual employees. Let’s face it, if you’re 60, you don’t need maternity insurance, etc.

If the Republicans really want to make waves, change the health care subsidy, as it is now given to the employers, and give it to the employee. With that tax incentive, they can purchase insurance and chip in the difference. It’s not as simple as that, obviously, but it shouldn’t take 2600 pages to fill in the blanks, unless of course you’re trying to hide a whole bunch of stuff.

bflat879 on May 16, 2012 at 10:49 PM

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

Oxymoron, hold the oxy.

Resist We Much on May 16, 2012 at 10:50 PM

I think this trial Balloon is going to go over like a lead balloon..:)

Dire Straits on May 16, 2012 at 10:50 PM

it’ still turns out to be more efficient than any of your overly expensive private insurance system.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that Medicare prices itself against that horribly inefficient private insurance system.

In fact, Medicare is a piece of paper that says “find out what the overly expensive private insurance system pays and pay 80% of that.” Wow, that’s some efficient government innovation.

And then it says “but don’t start cutting off 20% until next year, pay the full amount this year, ad infinitum,” because it turns out doctors won’t work for 80% of their market value, even if told by a compassionately efficient system. Crazy, huh?

HitNRun on May 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Next thing you know he’ll be telling us about the FB shares he bought. 10,000 at 34. Now that as it turns out can be quite humorous. Just ask our bud galtani. ; )

Bmore on May 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM

forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.

This is a big one. There is no point in buying health insurance before you need it if you can wait and buy it when you need it.

This will make health insurance premiums skyrocket, than higher than they already have.

If someone can afford health insurance after becoming ill they could have afforded to buy it before becoming ill. They made a bet and lost. If health insurance companies are forced to cover bets that go bad the bet becomes a no-risk bet. People with an option to buy health insurance simply will not buy it it until they needed to.

What if I could buy fire insurance after my house burns down that must cover the house that burned down? I would not buy fire insurance unless my house burns down. Imagine what would happen to the fire insurance business?

farsighted on May 16, 2012 at 10:52 PM

I GIVE UP. If the Republicans can’t explain to the public that forcing any company to pay for the house after it’s burned is NOT insurance, then I quit.

Marcus on May 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM

+ 100..:)

Dire Straits on May 16, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Upper you know Obamacare is going down don’t you?

Too hilarious the little game you are playing.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 10:54 PM

That’s because there are no consequences for betraying the people, they are easily manipulated and have short memories, they only pay a price if they betray their cronies.

FloatingRock on May 16, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Yep. Having the seat is more important than having principled conservatives in the seat. This is the establishment/moderate motto. So where’s the pressure to do the right thing? They’re career politicians, and Republican voters will elect them no matter what because they don’t want to risk it. That is, unless of course, Republicans ever get the nads to primary these guys. Well, some states have been showing some fortitude recently.

Dongemaharu on May 16, 2012 at 10:55 PM

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

Probably stated already, but should said individuals be allowed to vote..?

affenhauer on May 16, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Pay attention I did. It’s called MEDICARE.

Uppereastside on May 16, 2012 at 10:49 PM

You’re either ignorant or a blatant liar.

As “Resist We Much” already said Medicare turns down more people than private insurance. And you can’t always get the doctor you want do to the gov’t not reimbursing the doctors at full value.

Not to mention that Medicare is bankrupt and leading to our insolvency as a nation.

LevinFan on May 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM

It has no severability clause. Nancy saw to that, or she’s incredibly stupid. If found unconstitutional, the whole thing sinks. It’s not the duty of SCOTUS to salvage lousy legislation.

GarandFan on May 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM

They’re career politicians, and Republican voters will elect them no matter what because they don’t want to risk it. That is, unless of course, Republicans ever get the nads to primary these guys. Well, some states have been showing some fortitude recently.

Dongemaharu on May 16, 2012 at 10:55 PM

And if a majority of American voters get the nads to demand that such stipulations like the extension of benefits to age 26 be nixed then politicians would not support such silliness. Americans like this provision.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Probably stated already, but should said individuals be allowed to vote..?

I wonder how the Democrats would swallow a Republican initiative to recategorize their handouts to young adults as an “option to delay adult citizenship,” with all the pejorative connotations of that phrase, including voting rights.

HitNRun on May 16, 2012 at 10:59 PM

It’s not the duty of SCOTUS to salvage lousy legislation.

GarandFan on May 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM

That’s assuming they understand their charge. If you remember the SCOTUS discussed the benefits of OBAMACARE as if the benefits should play a part in the ruling on constitutionality.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 10:59 PM

You’re either ignorant or a blatant liar.
LevinFan on May 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM

In the case of UES, the two are not mutually exclusive.

4Grace on May 16, 2012 at 11:00 PM

I wonder how the Democrats would swallow a Republican initiative to recategorize their handouts to young adults as an “option to delay adult citizenship,” with all the pejorative connotations of that phrase, including voting rights.

HitNRun on May 16, 2012 at 10:59 PM

I say we treat people as adults at age 18 but if 26 is it then let it be it. No voting til age 26.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:01 PM

I GIVE UP. If the Republicans can’t explain to the public that forcing any company to pay for the house after it’s burned is NOT insurance, then I quit.

Marcus on May 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM

+ 100..:)

Dire Straits on May 16, 2012 at 10:53

And I’ll raise that another +100.

I think even a child of ten should be able to understand this simple concept.

farsighted on May 16, 2012 at 11:02 PM

I say we treat people as adults at age 18 but if 26 is it then let it be it. No voting til age 26.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Good point. No more having it both ways!

LevinFan on May 16, 2012 at 11:02 PM

You’re either ignorant or a blatant liar.
LevinFan on May 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Uppers knows the hammer is going to be dropped on O’care and is just trying to save face.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:03 PM

I GIVE UP. If the Republicans can’t explain to the public that forcing any company to pay for the house after it’s burned is NOT insurance, then I quit.
Marcus on May 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM

I think most liberals would admit it. They want a single payer health care system and it would not be classical insurance. That is their stated goal.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:05 PM

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

headline: Allahpundit

.
(MEGA multiple expletives) : (
.

Now lets say No to John Boehner.

Electrongod on May 16, 2012 at 9:56 PM

.
YES.

listens2glenn on May 16, 2012 at 11:08 PM

there’s very little rationality left in the system. A sane country would be satisfied with a basic insurance. But no. The child of 25 will get something which covers in-vitro fertilization and dozen’s of other items. For example…clinical psych, chiropractics should not be in a basic h/c plan (imho)…if you want to buy a rider, then fine.

a single guy at 23 shouldn’t have to fund abortions, ivf, etc.

the one-size fits all is the problem…and that is borne of decades of lobbying by quacks in every state in the union.

r keller on May 16, 2012 at 11:08 PM

And if a majority of American voters get the nads to demand that such stipulations like the extension of benefits to age 26 be nixed then politicians would not support such silliness. Americans like this provision.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 10:58 PM

I was talking about Republicans. If Republicans want to support the same things as Democrats, then oh well. If not, we should clearly state that and not simply give people a choice of massive government or slightly less massive government.

Dongemaharu on May 16, 2012 at 11:09 PM

This legislation is tainted by the way it was conceived and rammed through as the ‘first step toward a single payer system’. We all recall how this legislation was pieced together by staffers, no one having actually read the thing, and rammed through using every nefarious and arcane means that the Democrats could dredge up including ‘reconciliation’ and very nearly ‘The Slaughter Solution’ AKA “Deem and Pass” AKA “DEMON PASS”, on CHRISTMAS EVE in the middle of the night.

IT ended the myth of the ‘Blue Dog Democrats’ and proved, since all Democrats in congress voted lock step for the legislation without a single Republican vote, that there are no ‘Pro Life Democrats’ or even ‘Moderate Democrats’. There are only Progressive democrats.

All of this wrangling, chiseling, manipulating and calculated misuse of procedural order occurred over the vociferous objections of millions of Americans, many of whom were voicing their objections at the town halls and even on the National Mall. These Americans who objected to this massive new piece of legislation, and/or the way in which it was being written and subsequently passed, were roundly vilified, slandered, libeled, and defamed by the Democrats, both private citizens and elected officials, and especially in the media. They were called ‘upatriotic and un-American’ by no less than Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer. Citizens speaking up in town halls were accused of being ‘an angry mob’, ‘racist’ ,’ Nazi’s', and the derisive sexual term “teabaggers” was substituted when Democrats, including, on at least one occasion, the President, referred to the Taxed Enough Already Party AKA TEA Party.

In order to do away with the stigma attached to this legislation, it should be completely stricken. The GOP should present a new and better considered plan.

No denial for pre-existing conditions.

Portability, so that the health care insurance stays with the individual, not the job, as employees move from one job to the next.

Tax equalization, so that small businesses get the same low rates for health insurance that the larger corporations enjoy.

TORT REFORM, so that doctors and health care providers don’t have to charge extremely high rates for care or order duplicate or unnecessary tests in order to afford malpractice insurance.

The ability to buy and sell health care insurance across state lines.

These five items should form the basis of any new health care legislation in order to begin the process of actually lowering the cost of health care insurance AND health care costs by eliminating redundant testing,which drives up cost of care,by increasing competition and thus driving down costs of heath care insurance, doing away with frivolous lawsuits and capping liabilities to bring down the cost of care, by equalizing taxes on small business and corporations to spur hiring and enable employers to better afford insurance, and by tagging the insurance to the individual to provide for more freedom to afford the employee greater mobility and career opportunity.

These core items were discussed during the health care debate before Republicans were physically locked out of negotiations, and the legislation that came to be known as Obamacare was rammed through the congress in the dead of night on Christmas Eve. The case has been made for these measures, pair them with Paul Ryan’s plan, and perhaps we can begin to see the daylight of something like Reagan’s “Morning in America” in the wake of that long, winter’s night when the Obamacare legislation was signed, unread.

thatsafactjack on May 16, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Only the RINOs would do this. Get rid of the whole damn thing and leave us the hell alone!

RZuendt on May 16, 2012 at 11:09 PM

So… we didn’t see this coming? This is exactly what “repeal and replace” means. If it didn’t, it would simply be – as it should – “repeal”. The “replace” bit means the GOP (and Romney, sorry) are very slightly less big-government than the DNC and Obama are on the issue.

Midas on May 16, 2012 at 11:11 PM

I think even a child of ten should be able to understand this simple concept.

farsighted on May 16, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Hear!!..Hear!!..:)

Dire Straits on May 16, 2012 at 11:11 PM

What?!?!?!

Vote these scum out!!!

KMC1 on May 16, 2012 at 11:13 PM

I say we treat people as adults at age 18 but if 26 is it then let it be it. No voting til age 26.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Nor drinking.

Nor driving.

Etc.

Midas on May 16, 2012 at 11:13 PM

the fact is that the left has been ideologically rigid in single payer since Truman (at least). The left (St. Kennedy) blocked Nixon and Carter. The left is purist.

Everything they do, everything they agree to, is aimed at nudging the country into single payer. Their fealty to an single ideology is scary really. They really are unfit to govern

r keller on May 16, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Even if we don’t reform the waste fraud and abuse in Medicare, it’ still turns out to be more efficient than any of your overly expensive private insurance system.

Uppereastside on May 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM

.
The “overly expensive private insurance companies” are in that state of condition due to government regulation.

In other words, they’ve been LEGISLATED into that condition.

listens2glenn on May 16, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Complete stupidity.

aniptofar on May 16, 2012 at 11:17 PM

I really cant believe that. We got a frickin Senate seat in Taxachusetts because we opposed this stuff loud and clear. Democrats basicly managed to make promising free stuff unpopular and now these genuises want to tie the Republican brand to it??? What?

I actually cant believe the story is true, but if its true I want the Speakers head and I dont care if it makes him cry!

Valkyriepundit on May 16, 2012 at 11:17 PM

I was talking about Republicans. If Republicans want to support the same things as Democrats, then oh well. If not, we should clearly state that and not simply give people a choice of massive government or slightly less massive government.

Dongemaharu on May 16, 2012 at 11:09 PM

You do realize that GOP reps and senators represent all people not just GOP voters right? BTW if you go back in the past year and see how some of the more popular parts of O’care poll I bet you will find that many GOPers do like things like the parts about extending benefits to 26 years of age and the stipulation preventing the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Yeah b/c the gov’t has such a great track record of running things!

Can you name one gov’t program that has reduced costs and improved quality?

LevinFan on May 16, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Even if we don’t reform the waste fraud and abuse in Medicare, it’ still turns out to be more efficient than any of your overly expensive private insurance system.

Uppereastside on May 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Paging bayam…

Del Dolemonte on May 16, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Nor drinking.

Nor driving.

Etc.

Midas on May 16, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Yep though my personal preference is they receive all adult rights and bear all responsibilities at age 18. If they can vote and go to war they should be able to drink and negotiate their own health insurance (if they want it) among other things.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:21 PM

I GIVE UP. If the Republicans can’t explain to the public that forcing any company to pay for the house after it’s burned is NOT insurance, then I quit.

Marcus on May 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM
.

+ 100..:)

Dire Straits on May 16, 2012 at 10:53

.
And I’ll raise that another +100.

I think even a child of ten should be able to understand this simple concept.

farsighted on May 16, 2012 at 11:02 PM

.
Would all Hotair.com members who DISAGREE with the above speak up and identify yourselves, please?

C’mon Uppereastside, I know you’re out there.

libfreeordie? Anyone?

listens2glenn on May 16, 2012 at 11:22 PM

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Un-Constitutional is un-Constitutional, no matter how “popular” anything might be. We live in a Constitutional Republic. The feral government has no business making any of these laws determing some sort of national health care policy or national health care rules. We have a FEDERAL government, not a NATIONAL one. Their job in Washington is nothing but aiding the flow and ease of inter-state commerce in the elements surrounding health care, not making national policy about any of it.

ANyone who votes for any of this cr@p needs to be tossed out and if it comes from the White House then impeachment is in order.

THis is why 2012 is the last GOP vote I will be casting. Just to get the Dog-Eating America-hater out (who’s ineligible, anyway). After that, I am done with the back-stabbing GOP. 2010 and 2011 was more than enough for me.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 16, 2012 at 11:23 PM

FIRST
We get rid of Boner.

Tim_CA on May 16, 2012 at 11:25 PM

FIRST
We get rid of Boner.

Tim_CA on May 16, 2012 at 11:25 PM

.
Unfortunately that conjures multiple unrelated mental images, most of which I could do without.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you meant the good “mental images”.

listens2glenn on May 16, 2012 at 11:28 PM

LevinFan on May 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Pay attention I did. It’s called MEDICARE.

Uppereastside on May 16, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Uh, clearly you have no personal experience with Medicare if you’re actually making this ludicrous claim.

NoLeftTurn on May 16, 2012 at 11:29 PM

Have these idiots been paying attention?

Do the names Dick Lugar and Jon Bruning mean anything at all to them?

Do they really want the Tea Party to go out and form a third party?

“In America we have the Two party System;
There is the Evil Party,
And there is the Stupid Party!”

jaydee_007 on May 16, 2012 at 11:33 PM

i think all the trolls are reading their instructions from HCAN, emailing and IMing their friends, and thinking up slogans for their signs…heady days, love the smell of riots in June

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/93839511?access_key=key-2e10hnl029fpxitalx0w

this is the memo that was in the main post. Funny reading it. This is what organizers do…agitprop. Get ‘real people’ to plan and show up and wave signs for the TV cameras so that the TV anchors can say…oh my, look we have a spontaneous demonstration..let’s talk to some ‘real people’

r keller on May 16, 2012 at 11:33 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 16, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Second that! First we had McDumbass foisted upon us and then the ever Bawling Boehner who CUT NOT A DAMN THING, barely cut the rate of the increase. Any ass clown who thinks pre-existing conditions should be covered for a previously uninsured is a socialist. Free stuff is not free, some pay some don’t its socialism. Jorge’ Bushs’ drug give away was socialism!
Disability social security has become socialism. Any who piush this crap must be gone. i should nbot be forced to pay for things others are too stupid, lazy, inept, to find and or provide for themselves.

I am tired of paying for food, housing, clothing,medicine, cell phones, for a bunch of entitled, tattooed, cigarette smoking, drug taking, booze drinking, slackers, takers, do nothing leeches and professional baby makers! Ef Em All, every dam one of em!

ConcealedKerry on May 16, 2012 at 11:33 PM

You do realize that GOP reps and senators represent all people not just GOP voters right? BTW if you go back in the past year and see how some of the more popular parts of O’care poll I bet you will find that many GOPers do like things like the parts about extending benefits to 26 years of age and the stipulation preventing the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:19 PM

You do realize that all people don’t elect Republicans, don’t you?

And yes, I wouldn’t be surprised if Republicans are evol..devolving into nanny-staters, the possibility of which was hinted at in my previous post.

Dongemaharu on May 16, 2012 at 11:37 PM

I am tired of paying for food, housing, clothing,medicine, cell phones, for a bunch of entitled, tattooed, cigarette smoking, drug taking, booze drinking, slackers, takers, do nothing leeches and professional baby makers!

ConcealedKerry on May 16, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Haven’t you heard? It’s the will of the people. Don’t bother fretting about it./src

Dongemaharu on May 16, 2012 at 11:40 PM

I say we treat people as adults at age 18 but if 26 is it then let it be it. No voting til age 26.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Nor drinking.

Nor driving.

Etc.

Midas on May 16, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Bar them from serving in the military while you’re at it.

blammm on May 16, 2012 at 11:43 PM

The sourcing on this one is awfully thin,


Are you there Lord? It’s me BoxHead1;

:(
What happened?! I was led to believe that the repubs were going to repeal the WHOLE thing.

I want to trust our repub pols. If it turns out they are lying about BOcare then I won’t be able to trust them on ANYTHING. What should I do?

BoxHead1 on May 16, 2012 at 11:47 PM

but that the GOP would come up with its own way to pay for the more popular policies introduced in the bill

Insanity.

What part of the US is broke is so very very hard to understand RINOs?

Thank goodness there are at least a few here with some sense.

What we need to do is undo the free care for illegals. If you are illegal you get no job and no care unless you pay top dollar. Same if you are here on a visa. You have to pay top dollar. This would cause a very quick self deportation. Also charge lodging if they contest in court anything. They have to pay to stay in jail no money then bye bye.

Steveangell on May 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM

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.”

Throw the RINO bums out!!! Arrrgh!

At least in our 1st 100 years, you could run them out with a measure of pain to boot, i.e. tar & feathering, for sullying our intelligence. Now they’re untouchable beyond losing their seat.

There is no fix, other than to get the govt out of the way with their silly regs and mandates and stick to ensuring fair access to cross-border markets. FIN

AH_C on May 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM

You do realize that all people don’t elect Republicans, don’t you?

And yes, I wouldn’t be surprised if Republicans are evol..devolving into nanny-staters, the possibility of which was hinted at in my previous post.

Dongemaharu on May 16, 2012 at 11:37 PM

Actually people of many different beliefs including Dems and Indies DO elect Republicans. If you are SIMPLY talking the primaries you missed it when Dems were voting in the GOP primary . In the general elections all people do play a part and there are people that do vote across party lines. Obama nor Romney cannot win without voters that ARE not in their own parties. Sorry but your posts are turning inane.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM

I say we treat people as adults at age 18 but if 26 is it then let it be it. No voting til age 26.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Nor drinking.

Nor driving.

Etc.

Midas on May 16, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Bar them from serving in the military while you’re at it.

blammm on May 16, 2012 at 11:43

Yep though my personal preference is they receive all adult rights and bear all responsibilities at age 18. If they can vote and go to war they should be able to drink and negotiate their own health insurance (if they want it) among other things.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Blamm do you pay attention?

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Funny too how the Donges ignore the reality and MY post that most GOPers will support the 26 year age deal and the provision regarding pre-existing conditions. This is tiring.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Actually people of many different beliefs including Dems and Indies DO elect Republicans. If you are SIMPLY talking the primaries you missed it when Dems were voting in the GOP primary . In the general elections all people do play a part and there are people that do vote across party lines. Obama nor Romney cannot win without voters that ARE not in their own parties. Sorry but your posts are turning inane.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM

If Republicans continue to act like Democrat-lites, pretty soon you have to entirely rely on Dems and Indies. People will seriously consider Tea Party favored candidates over GOP ones, or even 3rd party candidates. I know the pesky core voters and what they stand for aren’t that important to you, but unless there’s some kind of base left, the party is doomed. But hey, yeah, the government should be guaranteeing “children” to leech of their parents insurance into adulthood. The Republican voting Democrats said so. Wow, and you have the nerve to call my posts inane.

Dongemaharu on May 17, 2012 at 12:03 AM

I wonder how the Democrats would swallow a Republican initiative to recategorize their handouts to young adults as an “option to delay adult citizenship,” with all the pejorative connotations of that phrase, including voting rights.

HitNRun on May 16, 2012 at 10:59 PM

That is something I could compromise. Or, as a form of voter ID, present proof you’re not on the family plan, then you can vote. If you show up and you’re still on daddy/mommy’s plan, you’ll be given a red or blue sucker and sent on your way.

Voting is only for mature & responsible people. Beyond that and taking aim at the entitlement moochers, the price for getting a handout from Uncle Sam is that you don’t get to vote until you disentitle yourself.

AH_C on May 17, 2012 at 12:04 AM

I say we treat people as adults at age 18 but if 26 is it then let it be it. No voting til age 26.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Too young.

Change everything to 21. You have to be 21 to drink thus you should have to be 21 to vote. But in reality 24 would be better or a college grad.

Steveangell on May 17, 2012 at 12:05 AM

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

Only those parts of the GOP that wish to be unemployed.

Abiss on May 17, 2012 at 12:06 AM

Funny too how the Donges ignore the reality and MY post that most GOPers will support the 26 year age deal and the provision regarding pre-existing conditions. This is tiring.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:55 PM

What is this, part 2 of your reply? I already addressed your reality. I get it. Capitulation is key. It’s easier to let the left control the argument. Understood loud and clear. You’re the genius who absolutely knows for sure what everyone wants. God, I bet you’re impressed with yourself, aren’t ya?

Dongemaharu on May 17, 2012 at 12:10 AM

I despise / loathe the spineless despicable leadership of the gop in Congress.

Both parties deserve LESS THAN 10% approval ratings.

LIMITED Government will NEVER NEVER NEVER happen with the current gop leadership in Congress.

If you can’t see that…. You’re freeking blind!!

PappyD61 on May 17, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Children? at up to 26?

This is similar to Italians living in their mother’s apron into their 40s.

Schadenfreude on May 16, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Clearly NOT the parent of a young adult.

Look, I believe that government has no business involved in healthcare in any way. But until you repeal every single government intervention in healthcare, including at the state level, the marketplace won’t be free and a large number of people will continue to go without insurance.

Health insurance needs to be severed from employment, it’s the main cause for being uninsured. All mandates need to be repealed, covering everything but the kitchen sink for everyone is a big part of what makes insurance so expensive. Let insurance companies come up with packages that consumers want to buy. Any insurance package should be available to anyone in the country just like any other product. If a package is cheaper in Wyoming, someone in New York should be able to buy it.

As for young adults, college students are covered under their parent’s policies, why shouldn’t any young adult get the same? Not everyone goes to college and entry-level jobs don’t always include insurance. If my 25-year-old can’t be on my policy because he lost his job, then your college student shouldn’t be on yours.

The real answer is to allow anyone to form a group for insurance purposes – family, friends, neighborhoods, etc. Why shouldn’t I be able to include my young adults children or my parents on my policy? An insurance company should be able to review a group and determine the risk rating of the group and charge accordingly.

Except for my eldest son’t recent job loss, all three of my young adult children have insurance available to them through their jobs, but we all know people who aren’t so lucky, regardless of their age.

Common Sense on May 17, 2012 at 12:32 AM

I say we treat people as adults at age 18 but if 26 is it then let it be it. No voting til age 26.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:01 PM

.
Nor drinking.

Nor driving.

Etc.

Midas on May 16, 2012 at 11:13 PM
.

Bar them from serving in the military while you’re at it.

blammm on May 16, 2012 at 11:43 PM

.
No deal, blammm.

That’s the only experience in maturity most of them will ever see.

I say don’t let them vote before age thirty, unless they serve.
By age thirty, most of today’s young adults will have had enough experience in “real life” to know what priorities should and shouldn’t be.

Damn shame that way too many parents today, can’t “parent”.

listens2glenn on May 17, 2012 at 12:43 AM

This isn’t news.

It’s the same position they took when Barry was ramming this through.

Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, Coburn, etc…all had an agreed upon list of things Barry wanted, and in return they wanted a few things, such as tort reform across and nation-wide competition. Barry said no.

So what we’re going to get was the original GOP plan, minus the insurance pools, mandates, IRS agents, crazy-batsht-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-healthcare, etc… plus naitonal competition, tort reform and a few other aspects.

What we need to be alert for, is pandering to the AMA or insurance agencies.

Both sold us out for Barry, and they don’t deserve squat in return.

budfox on May 16, 2012 at 10:42 PM

I think you’ve got the right perspective on it. Most likely the Republicans are planning to enact the exact same reforms they already proposed, and that the Democrats refused. While some individual parts of what the Republicans enact may resemble individual parts of Obamacare, the difference should be obvious.

But if they do try to be over-clever and “keep the parts they like,” that would be a colossal mistake. Scrap the whole thing, and let people get their own insurance on their own terms instead of a hundred and one separate mandates that appease special interest groups.

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 17, 2012 at 12:45 AM

They are preparing the way (and our brains) for mittens. We all know he will keep it anyway. They are just warning us to how it is gonna be with mittens at the wheel. Charming. Can’t wait!

American Dream 246 on May 17, 2012 at 12:45 AM

I say we treat people as adults at age 18 but if 26 is it then let it be it. No voting til age 26.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 11:01 PM

And no drinking until age 26, either. Also, they must ride the bus to school every day, and they must not be out on the streets after the 11PM curfew. And they MUST be accompanied by an adult in order to drive a car or to see R-rated shows!! All social events involving these non-adults must be properly chaperoned, too.

We’ll call the ones which opt for full adulthood at 18 “Conservatives”…and we’ll call the others “Liberals”!

landlines on May 17, 2012 at 1:11 AM

We need more true Conservatives in the House.
We want the health care laws repealed and NOT replaced.
We want Free markets, where we choose the company we want and we choose the things we want or don’t want in our policy’s, is what we want. Nothing more and nothing less.
Get the damn RINO’s out of the House Leadership.

Delsa on May 17, 2012 at 1:27 AM

We need more true Conservatives in the House.
We want the health care laws repealed and NOT replaced.
We want Free markets, where We choose the company we want and we choose the things we want or don’t want in our policy’s.
Nothing more and nothing less.
Get the damn RINO’s out of the House Leadership.

Delsa on May 17, 2012 at 1:29 AM

Let’s see…where do I begin?

I HATE THEM!

PattyJ on May 17, 2012 at 1:37 AM

Politico is not a news source, they are enemy agitprop. The presumption must be to disbelieve them and NEVER to link them (see Ace for guidance on that part).

Adjoran on May 17, 2012 at 1:44 AM

Boehner and DeMint are both WRONG on this.

We do NOT need to “replace” any part of Obamacare.

If the goal is to reduce the cost of healthcare, we simply need to:

1. Require health providers to publish prices in advance, allow insurance companies to sell whatever health policies they want nationwide,
2. Reform tort laws,
3. Make health costs deductible (or not) by EVERYBODY: not just employers.
4. We should require ALL government or third-party payer health reimbursement requests to be signed by the patient, who would be responsible for verifying that a treatment was actually performed: no more “direct billing” without patient involvement!! This will eliminate a huge amount of fraud: it would bring the abusive multi-million dollar practice of “farming” the inner-city homeless for insurance claims to a very sudden halt. It would also force the medical community to produce bills that patients can read and understand, and to advise patients of actual payments – which should greatly reduce both billing and pricing fraud.
5. We also need to scale back Medicare and Medicaid so that they cover only major costs: no more wasteful insurance for $6 prescriptions or routine office visits!! Welfare programs should not be intertwined with healthcare choices: measures which do this should be repealed and (if really necessary) replaced.

Requiring health providers to publish prices (1 above) may not require any new laws: it could be done by simply refusing use of government or the courts to enforce collection of bills if the customer was not fully advised of the cost (and reasons for any additions to that cost) in advance: this would just be a straightforward application of existing contract law, which requires a “meeting of minds”.

landlines on May 17, 2012 at 1:48 AM

IF true, the Spelunker of the House will yet again, cave…

Gohawgs on May 17, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Ripping these provisions from law is too politically risky, Republicans say…

That is a really stupid thing to say. If the Supreme Court strikes down the law, we are free of the monstrosity. If this story is true, Republicans are being way too jittery, just as they were in the pathetic debt ceiling fight.

Crispian on May 17, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Let’s see…where do I begin?

I HATE THEM!

PattyJ on May 17, 2012 at 1:37 AM

Good answer, good answer…

Gohawgs on May 17, 2012 at 1:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3