Results 1 to 10 of 51
#1 Modern Republicanism' Is Protecting Obamacare09-25-2013, 01:43 PM
A defunding debate scorecard: How 'Modern Republicanism' is protecting Obamacare
Sen. Ted Cruz stood for hours on end Tuesday and into Wednesday this week making the case for defunding Obamacare.
It's a compelling case because Obamacare increasingly appears to be converting America into a nation of part-time workers, crushing the opportunity of businesses to expand and create new jobs, robbing millions of families and individuals of the doctors and health insurance President Obama promised they could keep, stifling medical innovation that could someday save countless lives, compromising the financial and medical privacy that was before sacrosanct, and in countless other ways subverting a private sector-based health care system that draws the lame, the ill and the injured from around the world.
And it is doing all of that even before its first full official day in effect.
Cruz has turned himself into a hero to many outside of Washington, and a thorn to many more inside the Beltway. >>>
Here's how it will play out: McConnell and Cornyn will support – or at least not vigorously oppose - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s forthcoming motion to cut off debate and silence Cruz.
Then, when the defunding issue is put to a vote (requiring only a simple majority to pass), they will “support” defunding, which will almost certainly be defeated on a straight-party line, 54-46.
Here’s the key: The motion to end debate will require 60 votes, which a unified Senate GOP can defeat. Doing so would preserve the House continuing resolution that defunds Obamacare and vindicate Cruz, at least temporarily, by preventing the second simple majority vote that Democrats will surely win.
By voting first to silence Cruz and then casting a doomed vote to defund Obamacare, McConnell, Cornyn and other Senate GOPers who follow their lead will appear to be opposing Obamacare, but in reality will effectively be protecting President Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement.
Somewhere, Roosevelt and Larson will be beaming, >>>
That expectation is why a growing number of GOP incumbents, including McConnell, are being "primaried" by Tea Party rivals. In other words, adherence to Modern Republicanism long ago almost certainly made a split in the GOP all but inevitable and made it seem all-but-impossible to restore limited government.
Those who only fight when victory is assured cannot be called warriors.
Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
09-25-2013, 02:06 PM
Good post. The GOP has alot to answer for, for where we are now.
I don't agree with the conclusion of this cartoon, that it's "conservatives" pushing for it today, but it's spot on for it's history. It was the Heritage foundation that pushed the study to compete with Hillary care. And guys like Romney helped write it into early blueprint laws.
I'm glad Cruz is bringing this to light.Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown
The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
09-25-2013, 02:35 PM
I just listened to Ted Cruz explain this almost word for word on Rush's show. The way McConnell, Cornyn and other Senate GOPers are behaving is the very reason I have lost any enthusiasm or interest in the election process in the last couple of years. I am encouraged by the stand that Cruz is taking & just wish we had more representatives like him in elected office.Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
09-25-2013, 04:53 PM
Column: Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate
By Stuart Butler
Updated 2/6/2012 10:40 AM
Is the individual mandate at the heart of "ObamaCare" a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.
The U.S. Supreme Court will put the middle issue to rest. The answers to the first and last can come from me. After all, I headed Heritage's health work for 30 years. And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation," Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC's Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate "has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation." Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.
The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative.
My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts. Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid "with a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy."
My idea was hardly new. Heritage did not invent the individual mandate.
But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.
Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.
And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.
So why the change in this position in the past 20 years?
First, health research and advances in economic analysis have convinced people like me that an insurance mandate isn't needed to achieve stable, near-universal coverage. For example, the new field of behavioral economics taught me that default auto-enrollment in employer or nonemployer insurance plans can lead many people to buy coverage without a requirement.
Also, advances in "risk adjustment" tools are improving the stability of voluntary insurance. And Heritage-funded research on federal employees' coverage — which has no mandate — caused me to conclude we had made a mistake in the 1990s. That's why we believe that President Obama and others are dead wrong about the need for a mandate.
Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have "invented" has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders.
Moreover, I agree with my legal colleagues at Heritage that today's version of a mandate exceeds the constitutional powers granted to the federal government. Forcing those Americans not in the insurance market to purchase comprehensive insurance for themselves goes beyond even the most expansive precedents of the courts.
And there's another thing. Changing one's mind about the best policy to pursue — but not one's principles — is part of being a researcher at a major think tank such as Heritage or the Brookings Institution. Serious professional analysts actually take part in a continuous bipartisan and collegial discussion about major policy questions. We read each other's research. We look at the facts. We talk through ideas with those who agree or disagree with us. And we change our policy views over time based on new facts, new research or good counterarguments.
Thanks to this good process, I've altered my views on many things. The individual mandate in health care is one of them.
Stuart Butler, Ph.D., is a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org), where he is the director of the Center for Policy Innovation.
This became the Republican alternative to Hillarycare, which is why the cartoon claims that Gingrich had a hand in it. But the whole point of this was to provide a market-drive approach to health insurance that mimicked auto insurance, with the requirement for a catastrophic coverage plan with high deductibles and low premiums as the recommended coverage. It was not Obamacare, which imposes massive mandates on insurers to cover all manner of things. This, BTW, is the major difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. Debra Saunders addressed this during the campaign:
There are a lot of differences between Obamacare and Romneycare, even though President Obama said that the two plans were based on an "identical model" during the first presidential debate in Denver Wednesday night.
"We've seen this model work very well," said Obama, "in Massachusetts."
Wrong, countered his GOP opponent Mitt Romney. As Massachusetts governor, he passed a health care plan "on a bipartisan basis."
President Obama, Romney said, instead of bringing America together, rammed through a bill that garnered no support across the aisle. "Something this big, this important," Romney concluded, "has to be done on a bipartisan basis."
Note this: Romney had to work with Democrats. They comprised 87 percent of the Massachusetts Legislature. In Obama's first two years in the White House, Democrats controlled the House and enjoyed a large majority in the Senate. Obama was able to pass his health care bill without courting GOP votes. Still, it was a poor choice with consequences.
Obama sulked that his plan was based on a Republican idea, which begs the question: Why did he fail to win a single Republican vote?
If he cannot sell Republicans on what he says is a Republican idea, then what good is he?
Despite what the president said, Romneycare and Obamacare are very different. Romney worked to promote flexibility; Obama and the Democrats imposed uniformity.
While Romney worked to limit mandates in Massachusetts health care, Obama and a Democratic Congress president threw into the Affordable Care Act a host of goodies - such as an end to co-payments for "preventive care." Employers now will have to pay for services for which workers used to chip in.
This administration has refined passing the hat. With Congress, the president enacted mandates - "free" birth control, adult children can stay on their parents' insurance plans up to age 26 - for which Washington pols do not have to pay. The private sector pays.
They don't even have to pretend that Congress will have to pay in the future.
"If you've got health insurance," Obama said of his plan, "it doesn't mean a government takeover."
It's a government takeover without government responsibility for the bill.
Early in the debate, Romney quipped that Obama seems to have levied an "economy tax." Well put. What employer wants to hire new workers when that employer knows Washington pols are confident they can add new mandates to the package at no cost to themselves?
Even before Obamacare goes into full effect, it's clear that this model cannot, as the president promised, "get the cost down so it's more affordable." That's not possible - do the math.
And, let's remember that the Romneycare law is only a few pages long, while Obamacare was over 2,000 pages long. How can the substance of the two laws be the same with that much disparity in content?
This talking point about Obamacare coming from Republicans is a way for Democrats to distance themselves from a fiasco that they conceived and executed, and which is rapidly becoming a train wreck of epic proportions. They don't want this around their necks going into the midterm elections, so they are doing what they do best, which is lying about it.--Odysseus
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
09-25-2013, 10:38 PM
The key to this debacle is to contact your senators and tell them to vote NO on cloture on the Continuing Resolution.
As is so often the case in the Senate, the actual vote on final passage of the Continuing Resolution (H.J.Res. 59) is not the place where those who claim to want to defund ObamaCare should make a stand. Cloture is a procedure that is invoked to limit the debate on a bill, to put an end to any potential filibuster of the bill, and to proceed to amendment votes and eventually to final passage of the bill.
Most Republicans in the Senate are claiming that they oppose ObamaCare, and that they will therefore vote against passing the bill, but final passage requires only a simple majority vote. This means that Democratic senators can pass a bill funding ObamaCare with zero Republican votes.
Cloture, on the other hand, requires 60 votes, meaning that if only 41 of the 46 Republicans in the Senate stand together against ObamaCare, they can use cloture to hold the line until Democrats agree to come to the table and negotiate. Yet, a number of Republicans have already publicly stated that they intend to vote yes on cloture, effectively giving Senator Harry Reid and the Democrats free rein to fund the flawed health care law.
With more and more businesses cutting employees’ hours, dropping their insurance coverage, and downsizing their workforces because of ObamaCare, the law is harming thousands of Americans before it has even taken effect. Congress must act now, before the people start signing up on October 1st for a law that is unready, unworkable, unfair, and unaffordable.
I urge you to call your senators and ask them to vote NO on the cloture vote to end debate on the Continuing Resolution.
This all happens btw Friday, the day after tomorrow. Please make the calls now.
Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
09-25-2013, 11:05 PM
And for others who worry thusly:
Why the Establishment Is Wrong and the Defund Gambit Can Work
"Dumbest idea I've ever heard." "Can't happen." "Picket had a better chance."
So say some of the right's sharpest and most experienced political minds of the defund ObamaCare effort. Finding Beltway critics of the defund gambit is like finding oil in the Bakken Formation (in that critics are plentiful, not that the Beltway oozes unrefined black sludge under pressure).
The defund gambit carries risk; there is no way around that. As long as Harry Reid and Barack Obama are willing to shut down the government rather than spare people from the added expense, reduced choice, and invasions of privacy that ObamaCare brings, things will get dicey. Ironically, however, it will be the Democrats themselves who serve as the catalyst for conservative success.
Here's how it can happen.
In order to score a political win in a government shutdown, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and others must portray the situation as intolerable. That portrayal stimulates an incentive within the Beltway crowd, the media, and (to a lesser extent) the citizenry to end the shutdown.
Once the demand to open non-essential government services reaches a fever pitch, the GOP (who have no incentive to extend the shutdown) can simply say, "Great, let's hammer out a deal and reopen government." Once Obama's party comes to the table, the GOP will have won, because any negotiations will mean repealing, delaying, and/or de-funding ObamaCare -- not a 100% repeal/delay/defund, but something higher than 0%.
Certainly the Democrats will realize that negotiation will mean giving away some of their precious domestic "achievement," and thus they will resist coming to the bargaining table. But Obama, Reid, et al. will be trapped by their own rhetoric. If the shutdown is so bad, and the GOP want to end it, then the pressure to negotiate a deal becomes more and more intense. >>>
There is zero measurable historical evidence that suggestions of shutting down the government will be electorally damaging to the Republican Party. None. Republicans held the House and Senate before the last partial shutdown. They held it after. Bill Clinton's approval ratings cratered from 53% when the first shutdown began to 42% by the tail-end of the second (a period of about seven weeks). >>>
Besides the utter absence of electoral damage done by the prolonged 1995-1996 shutdown, the Newt Gingrich-led Congress successfully wrested the agenda-setting power in Washington away from the presidency. As then-Majority Whip Tom Delay said on the Mark Levin Show last week, "[the shutdown] was the most important thing we ever did," adding, "The result of that was for six years Bill Clinton did not get to sign one major bill that he initiated."
Looking past the politics of the next election, we must recognize that there may be no "next time" for stopping ObamaCare. Once the main subsidies begin, there is little doubt that the law's politics will only get more difficult. >>>
Government programs don't come and go based on performance. Social Security, for example, is popular not because it's a good way to provide for retirement; the opposite is true. Social Security is popular because ending it would put people without other means of income in a dire situation. Yes, those people could have made other provisions in the absence of the program (which would serve them better than Social Security), but the reality is that the program wasn't absent, and now many can't make other provisions.
The ObamaCare subsidies will lead to the same brand of dependency. ObamaCare will be poorly run, unable to fulfill the promises made at its passing, but as long as millions of people are receiving billions of dollars based on the law's provisions, history cautions us that repeal becomes virtually impossible.
Given a concrete path to victory and the shrinking prospects of future success, the defund effort is not only winnable, but the most urgent and realistic attempt yet at stopping the law. It's time for the establishment to get in line. It's time for conservatives to unite. We are not guaranteed a win, but we have a strong game plan. Now we need the whole team to buy in.
Ted Cruz is Fighting for Freedom - Rush Limbaugh
Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
09-25-2013, 11:40 PM
Any of this group of legislators that whines that we might look bad opposing Obamacare or complains that we might get hurt or blamed for a government shutdown needs to be marked for removal at the earliest possible time, what we have is a government hell bent on destroying it's citizens, replace the spineless or whither and die.The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
09-25-2013, 11:46 PM
What our children are seeing right now is a resolute single minded Democrat party that stays steadfast to their goals at all costs and a Republican party whose leaders openly cry in public and change what they believe in on a whim, a threat, or even a threatening glance. What side do you think they will be joining when they can vote?The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|