Mitt Romney, April 11th, 2006: "Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian."And while Josh is right, you have to just shake your head at how exceedingly simple it was to get the GOP to run as the party of no health care reform. Already, the battle cry of "REPEAL!" is running into a serious problem in the GOP ranks.
Like I said, I think Mitt's done. Unless Health Care Reform ends up having no part in the 2012 presidential election. And even if that's true, too much of the early spadework for the nomination will have to be done in the period where the GOP is the anti-Health Care Reform party.
In a brief chat with the Huffington Post on Tuesday, National Republican Senatorial Committee chair John Cornyn (R-Tex.) implicitly acknowledged that Republicans are content with allowing some elements of Obama's reform into law. And they'd generally ignore those elements when taking the fight to their Democrat opponents as November approaches.Wait, repeal only SOME of the provisions? Gosh, you guys said this plan was 100% evil and you hated it. Now you have Republicans admitting parts of it were a good idea?
"There is non-controversial stuff here like the preexisting conditions exclusion and those sorts of things," the Texas Republican said. "Now we are not interested in repealing that. And that is frankly a distraction."
That's not going to go over well. Even Ross Douthat thinks that's a bad idea.
This is incoherent, of course, because the preexisting conditions exclusion is one of the things that could end up increasing premium costs for the already-insured. But to the extent that Cornyn’s vision coheres, what he seems to be proposing is a reform of the reform that keeps the goodies and takes away the spending cuts and tax increases that pay for them.Of course, that's how Republicans have been operating for some time now. Not like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Bush tax cuts, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit were paid for. The Democrats proposed a plan that...surprise!...included plans to pay for it! The party of "fiscal responsibility" doesn't want to pay for it, and has no problem apparently wanting to run up the debt all of a sudden if it means they can try to get back into political power.
California, here we come …
If even Ross can see this mess coming a mile away, I know the rest of the GOP can. And that leads us back to Mittens. Will he throw his own health care plan under the bus for a shot in 2012?
Doesn't he have to?
Well it was all or nothing with the bill, so they chose what the American people wanted which was nothing. Now I agree repealing the whole thing would be fail, it would be taking a step back to move forward. Now they should modify provisions that were ass and fail. I agree with plenty of the bill, the problem is I also disagree with plenty of the bill.
ReplyDeleteAlso it's amazing that you are still holding onto a false talking point that it will pay for it self. If you honestly believe that then I've got a bridge for sale in San Francisco, I'll give you a good deal. I've asked you repeatedly to tell me a Government entitlement that has come in at or under budget and you can't. This will be the exact same. History is on my side here with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Something I would not agree with as an example
ReplyDelete"Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday."
"Full protection for children would not come until 2014..."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_CHILDRENS_COVERAGE?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT