Despite 2014 Promises, Republicans Not Sure If They Want to Repeal ObamaCare

[Coolidge/Dawes '24]

Article here (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/repeal-obamacare-well-see-say-republicans/article/2559520?custom_click=rss).

http://i.picresize.com/images/2015/02/02/hMCLg.jpg


They promised it on the 2014 campaign trail, but the new Republican majority in Congress is facing the reality of trying to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act, and they're not sure yet how to do it.

They'll vote to fully repeal Obamacare, an exercise that the GOP-led House has conducted a half-dozen times since the law passed.

Republicans know the repeal legislation isn't ever going to become law.

"We're just getting it out of the way," one GOP aide told the Examiner when asked about the repeal vote.

Conservatives in both the House and Senate are eager to use a procedural maneuver, known as budget reconciliation, which would allow the Senate to pass legislation repealing Obamacare with just 51 votes, not the typical 60 votes.

"Obamacare is the big issue," Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas, told the Examiner. "Are they going to use reconciliation to take out the law? Because that is the only way to do it. We haven't gotten started. The Republican leadership has got to decide if they are going to use it."

But there is much hesitation among Senate GOP lawmakers when it comes to using reconciliation, despite Obamacare's passage using the same procedure. The move would be limited to only parts of the law, critics said, and would be vetoed by Obama.

"Well, you are very limited in your capability of doing that, as I understand the process," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told the Examiner.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a top member of the Senate Finance Committee, was also hesitant to support it.

"Oh, I am very cautious about using reconciliation," Hatch said when asked about repealing the healthcare law.

"If we don't like Obamacare, what do we like?" Sen. Lindsey Graham said in an interview. "I think the party needs to challenge itself to produce alternatives on multiple fronts."

[Ronin Truth]

Congresscritter's weaseling out on electoral promises as ....... ALWAYS.:p :mad:

[ClydeCoulter]

"If we don't like Obamacare, what do we like?" Sen. Lindsey Graham said in an interview. "I think the party needs to challenge itself to produce alternatives on multiple fronts."

That, right there is it. They don't want to get rid of it, unless they can replace it with just as much crap, that will line their pockets and PAC's.

[DamianTV]

That, right there is it. They don't want to get rid of it, unless they can replace it with just as much crap, that will line their pockets and PAC's.

I think we ought take Ron Paul's approach and replace the Department of Education with NOTHING. We should replace Mandatory Insurance with NOTHING. Let the Free Market, between the Doctors and the Patients, set the value of the care to be provided.

[Mr.NoSmile]

They were never going to be able to get rid of it, anyway. It's here.

[Occam's Banana]

"If we don't like Obamacare, what do we like?" Sen. Lindsey Graham said in an interview. "I think the party needs to challenge itself to produce alternatives on multiple fronts."That, right there is it. They don't want to get rid of it, unless they can replace it with just as much crap, that will line their pockets and PAC's.

Exactly. That's what "Repeal and Replace" (remember that?) was all about.

The ONLY thing that Graham et al. don't like about Obamacare is that it wasn't Team Red's brainchildfart.

[ClydeCoulter]

Just defund the whole damned thing!

[thoughtomator]

The same people who paid the Democrats to pass the legislation also own many if not most of the Republicans in DC as well. The true patrons of ACA are insurers, pharmas, and other health industry profiteers, and they'll pay whoever they have to to protect their unearned gains.

[Stratovarious]

Obama himself was against 'forced Obama Care' until he got into the postition to make it happen.
Obama's agenda is not to inhance the quality of life for Americans.

[Acala]

The Republicans have nothing to replace it with because they are just as beholden to the crony-capitalist health care industry as are the Dems. Obamacare is here until it goes broke.

[Stratovarious]

The Republicans have nothing to replace it with because they are just as beholden to the crony-capitalist health care industry as are the Dems. Obamacare is here until it goes broke.

Replacing it with air would work for me , anything short of that is not acceptable.
They could start by burnning 20,000 pages of socialism, but you're right they probably won't.

[Working Poor]

I think they should just repeal the "mandate" that would make a lot of people happy.

[Peace Piper]

I think they should just repeal the "mandate" that would make a lot of people happy.

Why would they repeal a Heritage Foundation creation?

Both sides wanted this- only the D side could have passed a mandate that required everyone to buy corporate insurance without a public option- which Obama promised (and which Democrats have forgotten)


The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at The Heritage Foundation in a publication titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans".[23] This was also the model for Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation#Policy_influence

If you read this you will know more about the roots of Obamacare than 99% of the nation


Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans

By Stuart M. Butler, Heritage Foundation

Section 5-8

...Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. This mandate is based on two important principles.

First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is the family that carries the first responsibility.

Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance...
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R-z-fFnuh0

Obama was against mandatory health insurance before he was for it. Then he had Max Baucus arrest single payer doctor and nurse advocates at a hearing. Democrats pretend that didn't happen.