Handling ObamaCare: How To Build Support And Square The Circle Of The Republican Pledge
by Larry Perrault on January 9, 2011 at 4:41 PM
Critics, obviously mostly Democrats, say it’s empty grandstanding, but House Republicans plan to vote for an outright repeal of Obamacare in the coming legislative days. It’s called posturing because if The Senate doesn’t kill it, Obama surely will veto it. I think they should approach it differently, but it isn’t an empty gesture.
The House MUST act against Obamacare and they know it. Democrat and media noise about it being a waste of time is just noise. Republicans campaigned against the unpopular bill (some states may feel more favorably, but others simply HATE it. I think it’s entirely odious; unconstitutional and economically calamitous in a country that’s already in a disastrous fiscal state. The House must pass it and put the others on record, which they surely would rather avoid. On a straight vote, Democrats still have a majority in The Senate. But in 2012, Democrats have to defend 23 seats, while Republicans will defend ten. Let Claire McCaskell of MO (who is already questioning the lynchpin individual mandate), Ben Nelson of NE, Bill Nelson of FL, Jim Webb of VA, and maybe even Sherrod Brown of OH and Debbie Stabenow of MI, go on record in defense of Obamacare. Others could be vulnerable if the economy remains weak. And Obamacare is part of the reason it's weak. There are 47 Republicans and a repeal could pass. Surely some Democrat would filibuster a repeal, like CA’ Barbara Boxer or NY’s Ch arles Schumer, or Vermont’s Socialist Independent Bernie Sanders. But, get them on record as much as possible.
But I think Republicans should present their own plans beforehead or in tandem with a repeal. I know they favor equal tax deductions for individuals and businesses, allowing small businesses to pool their purchasing power for the market, and allowing the purchasing of policies across state lines, which ironically could later make the issue more vulnerable to “interstate commerce” claims of federal jurisdiction. But, I also think federal intervention should be explicitly rules out. Republicans are also certain that there should be tort reform. But I think that’s better left to state experimentation. And I personally favor a “loser pays” (Obviously the lawyer[s], not the plaintiff[s]) system more than an award cap.
But, I think they should build favor among the states and people by offering relief of the Medicaid burden on the states of the new bill and perhaps the entire program, in exchange for the states’ agreement to provide their own plans, including to provide for their ill-advised an unconstitutional promise of coverage of preexisting conditions. A state plan a) could experiment with different systems, and b) would not be unconstitutional. Actually I think states should just refuse to cooperate. But, as long as everyone seems to assume that they are helplessly bondslaves…
As written, a) I don't think it can be practically implemented. And b) it restricts personal freedom to select plan benefits, will explode cost (that expand the debt stuff: TOTAL and demonstrable BS), and would bankrupt insurers.