Putting the Brakes on ObamaCare

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,506
194
63
Bowling Green Ky
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703649004575437271015655924.html


How a Republican Congress could begin the process of repealing this unpopular law.

By GRACE-MARIE TURNER

If Republicans take control of one or both houses of Congress this fall, many will have been elected with a promise to "repeal and replace" ObamaCare. But what are their options, really? There likely will be an initial showdown, but President Obama will surely veto any challenge to the law, and it would be hard to imagine mustering the votes to overturn it.

Information is the key weapon. Republicans can use congressional hearings to explain what ObamaCare is doing to the economy and the health sector. Their strongest cases would be built around jobs, the cost of health care, and the rising deficit.
If evidence shows that looming mandates on employers are crippling job-creation, they should be repealed. If health costs are rising, as they inevitably will be, Congress needs to hold hearings to investigate the causes and explain why the offending taxes and regulations must be repealed.

Here are six key strategies that a Republican Congress could employ to put on the brakes:

? Defund it. House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio has vowed to choke off funding for implementation of the legislation, starting with parts that are especially egregious such as the "army of new IRS agents" needed to police compliance.
While Republicans could target the most damaging provisions of the legislation and tie their defunding measures to appropriations legislation that the president wants and needs to sign, they'd better be ready for battles. When former House Speaker Newt Gingrich lost a stand-down with President Clinton over closing down the government in 1996, it was widely seen as a setback for GOP efforts to scale back big government.


? Dismantle it. To focus committee action and floor votes, Republicans can look for provisions in the law that Democrats are on record as opposing. For example, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) has said that the new federal program to fund long-term care?the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, or CLASS Act?is "a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of." Mr. Conrad and five of his Democratic colleagues sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) before the legislation passed opposing the program and expressing "grave concerns" about its fiscal sustainability.
Other highly unpopular provisions include the requirement that all businesses must file 1099 forms with the IRS to report any purchases totaling more than $600 in a year. This is designed to raise about $17 billion over 10 years from tax cheats. Rep. Dan Lungren (R., Calif.) was the first to introduce legislation to repeal this gigantic paperwork burden. Many Democrats in vulnerable districts who voted for the health law are also anxious to repeal this provision, which the National Federation of Independent Business says will impact 40 million businesses.

? Delay it. Republicans can also vote to postpone cuts to the popular Medicare Advantage program, postpone mandates requiring that individuals and businesses purchase and provide health insurance, and delay imposition of the $500 billion in taxes required by the law. Mr. Obama wouldn't likely sign such legislation, but the debate would shine a light on problems that haven't received nearly enough attention.

? Disapprove regulations. The Congressional Review Act of 1996 (CRA) gives Congress the authority to overturn regulations issued by federal agencies if both houses approve, with a two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto. This would be difficult to pull off. But proposing a resolution of disapproval under the CRA gives Republicans a platform to express strong disagreement and bring attention to especially egregious rules.

The current congressional majority wants to gut the CRA, and the House passed a bill that would eliminate the requirement that federal agencies submit their rules to Congress before they can take effect. The Senate has not yet acted, but this measure should be on the Republicans' watch list for the rest of the year.

? Direct oversight and investigation. Other aspects of ObamaCare are ripe for public hearings. For example, rules dictating how much insurance companies must spend on direct medical benefits are already hugely controversial?even before they have been issued. Businesses are also aghast at the narrow openings they have to protect their current health plans from onerous federal regulation. Republicans could summon many witnesses to testify about the impact of this regulatory straightjacket.
Congress also must keep a careful eye on the evolving cost estimates and deficits. Former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin estimates that the cost of the subsidies for private insurance could rise to $1.4 trillion ?triple the $450 billion assumed by the current CBO. This is because the legislation creates strong incentives for businesses to drop coverage and dump their employees into federally subsidized insurance. Congress has a responsibility to protect taxpayers from what surely will be exploding costs.
Republicans also will want to call Donald Berwick, head of the powerful Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to testify before Congress and detail his regulatory agenda for implementing the health-care law. He escaped that duty earlier this year when the White House avoided his Senate confirmation by giving him a controversial recess appointment.

? Delegate to the states. Congress should encourage states to press forward with their own innovative programs. For example, Gov. Mitch Daniels's popular and fiscally responsible Healthy Indiana Plan expands coverage to the uninsured using a health savings account model. And the lightly regulated Utah Health Exchange provides a marketplace for individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable, portable health insurance. Both are threatened by ObamaCare. The more that states are marching forward with reform that suits the needs and pocketbooks of their citizens, the easier it will be for Congress to repeal ObamaCare and start over.

Americans intuitively understand that government can't pay for huge new entitlement programs and the expansion of Medicaid with imagined cuts to Medicare, while still improving Medicare's long-term solvency. They also know that job creation is flat and that employers' fear of ever-rising health benefit costs is part of the problem. They need to hear the evidence that their fears are valid.
The real wallop of ObamaCare will come in 2014, when most of the spending begins and businesses and individuals are hit with intrusive and expensive mandates. The main job of Republicans, should they capture Congress, will be to slow down implementation of the law and explain to the American people the damage it will do?and already is doing?to our economy. If the White House changes hands in 2012, they can be ready to start with a clean slate and begin a step-by-step approach to sensible reform.
Ms. Turner is president of the Galen Institute.
 

bleedingpurple

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 23, 2008
22,416
242
63
52
Where it is real F ing COLD
If this happens::

Will the republicans attempt a step by step sesnible program? What makes you think they are going to come up with some great plan when they did nothing when they had the chance? You can't give everyone health care without increasing the deficit just like you can't have 2 wars, give tax breaks to the rich without increasing deficit..
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
What will you do with the uninsured? Who will pay for their care? Where will that money come from? Any Republicans got an answer to any of those questions?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,506
194
63
Bowling Green Ky
We each our views--fair enough.

I'm with the 70% of americans that have group ins--like it as it is -and want to keep it.

If someone comes up with idea (which I doubt) to lower cost (like tort reform) I'll be all for.

Common sense tells me--adding 13 million (including illegals) to the role--is not going to "save" the tax payor money.

Maybe we could compromise and let each state say yea or nay and live with their convictions.

Simple fact of matter is if you follow O --you got a 1-2 punch --
--Against states trying to stop inflow of illegals--and wanting to foot illegals bills.

Then only problem is stopping the stampede across state lines when they figure out the consequences.
 

Chef K

Culinary God
Forum Member
Aug 19, 2010
97
2
0
Pennsylvania
We each our views--fair enough.

I'm with the 70% of americans that have group ins--like it as it is -and want to keep it.

If someone comes up with idea (which I doubt) to lower cost (like tort reform) I'll be all for.

Common sense tells me--adding 13 million (including illegals) to the role--is not going to "save" the tax payor money.

Maybe we could compromise and let each state say yea or nay and live with their convictions.

Simple fact of matter is if you follow O --you got a 1-2 punch --
--Against states trying to stop inflow of illegals--and wanting to foot illegals bills.

Then only problem is stopping the stampede across state lines when they figure out the consequences.

Always with the "tort reform".....

Despite malpractice case on a decline over the years.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/NPDBFinal.pdf

Right wingers love to use this excuse, I remember reading an article in Maxim about quack doctors and how they bounce around from practice to practice {Kinda like pedophile priests getting shuffled to new hunting grounds} with very little oversight from the medical community.

They also stated that over 50% of malpractice claims are against 5% of all doctors. Why isn't something done about this to lower health care costs?
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
If someone comes up with idea (which I doubt) to lower cost (like tort reform) I'll be all for.

.

This worked great in Kansas. Insurance revenues sky rocketed and the customer got nothing in return. This work about as well as big tax breaks for the wealthy. They got more wealth and the deficit grew another 500 billion on the rest of the country. Both instances u would lose but somehow u support :mj07:
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Always with the "tort reform".....

Despite malpractice case on a decline over the years.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/NPDBFinal.pdf

Right wingers love to use this excuse, I remember reading an article in Maxim about quack doctors and how they bounce around from practice to practice {Kinda like pedophile priests getting shuffled to new hunting grounds} with very little oversight from the medical community.

They also stated that over 50% of malpractice claims are against 5% of all doctors. Why isn't something done about this to lower health care costs?

Chef the good thing is they shift those qauck doctors down South. Not positive on this but i think in Florida u are not allowed to sue.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,511
271
83
Victory Lane
with very little oversight from the medical community.

They also stated that over 50% of malpractice claims are against 5% of all doctors. Why isn't something done about this to lower health care costs?
...............................................................

They dont do anything because alot of Doctors are in cahoots with the drug companies taking cash, trips, gifts, vacations from them to use their dirty pill industry.

When will America wake up to the crooks in the medical industry.

Chop their nuts off .

Costs will drop and

DTBlackgumby will think Cheney was re-elected President all of a sudden.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,506
194
63
Bowling Green Ky
Well we have 2 people in this thread who belong to 70% with group benefits and are satisfied-- and the others wanting that gov tit.

Now for a minute of common sense--

on the tort reform-

Fill in the blank--
Tort reform will increase healthcare cost because_______________.

--and extra question for you Stevie per your--
"What will you do with the uninsured? Who will pay for their care? "

Which uninsured is it your speaking of--it isn't the poor--they have 100% coverage under Medicade--nor the over 65 and disable have medicare----Vets have VA.

--other than the 16 million illegals--who did you have in mind??
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Soooooooo only illegals don't have insurance? When you can show me one of your crooked insurance charts to prove that one I will answer your question. Until then my question stands, who is going to pay for the uninsured Americans. Let's see, maybe working people who got laid off and lost their coverage.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I personally have not met one person (other than the resident insurance salesman here) that is happy with their insurance premiums or having to fight and claw for reimbursements from them when they need it. Not one. At least not one that isn't commenting for political brownie points. The verbiage used on this issue, and many others, is blurry, and this is a great example.

The ANSWER to bleedingpurple's question is that the conservatives will do NOTHING to address the problem at all. They clearly have fought against any kind of reform, and did NOTHING about it - other than to help the major corporations make more money - when they had the majority. The only reason they came up with anything of late was because the dems took the lead on the issue. Period.

Speaking of tort reform, I believe there has been tort reform in most states, and it remains a state issue. In the states where tort reform HAS happened, there has not been a lowering of healthcare costs, far from it. The companies merely pass the bill along to consumers.

I have a simple question for those continually harping on tort reform for the medical cost issue. If attorneys and lawsuits are such a big factor in our medical costs, how come medical malpractice insurance companies showed a greater increase in profits than 99% of all Fortune 500 companies last year? Seems to me that if these companies were getting hit with such high litigation costs, they would not be among the most profitable companies in the past years?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,506
194
63
Bowling Green Ky
I personally have not met one person (other than the resident insurance salesman here) that is happy with their insurance premiums or having to fight and claw for reimbursements from them when they need it. Not one. At least not one that isn't commenting for political brownie points. The verbiage used on this issue, and many others, is blurry, and this is a great example.

The ANSWER to bleedingpurple's question is that the conservatives will do NOTHING to address the problem at all. They clearly have fought against any kind of reform, and did NOTHING about it - other than to help the major corporations make more money - when they had the majority. The only reason they came up with anything of late was because the dems took the lead on the issue. Period.

Speaking of tort reform, I believe there has been tort reform in most states, and it remains a state issue. In the states where tort reform HAS happened, there has not been a lowering of healthcare costs, far from it. The companies merely pass the bill along to consumers.

I have a simple question for those continually harping on tort reform for the medical cost issue. If attorneys and lawsuits are such a big factor in our medical costs, how come medical malpractice insurance companies showed a greater increase in profits than 99% of all Fortune 500 companies last year? Seems to me that if these companies were getting hit with such high litigation costs, they would not be among the most profitable companies in the past years?

Only one question for you Chad--

Which catagory you in--70% with group ins

--or other?

Let me take a wild stab--

P.S. Lots of insurance people out their evidently :)

from the ultra liberal newsweek--

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-g...ricans-happy-with-their-health-insurance.html


Poll Finds Large Majority Of Americans Happy with Their Health Insurance

Gallup has today released some analysis on public perceptions of health insurers based on polls conducted from 2006-08. The data cuts to the heart of why the the President is having such difficulty in selling plans to reform health insurance: public or private, people like their health insurance. According to Gallup's data, 87% of people with private insurance and 82% of people on Medicare or Medicaid say that the quality of their health care is excellent or good.


Next---
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
Only one question for you Chad--

Which catagory you in--70% with group ins

--or other?

Let me take a wild stab--

P.S. Lots of insurance people out their evidently :)

from the ultra liberal newsweek--

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-g...ricans-happy-with-their-health-insurance.html


Poll Finds Large Majority Of Americans Happy with Their Health Insurance

Gallup has today released some analysis on public perceptions of health insurers based on polls conducted from 2006-08. The data cuts to the heart of why the the President is having such difficulty in selling plans to reform health insurance: public or private, people like their health insurance. According to Gallup's data, 87% of people with private insurance and 82% of people on Medicare or Medicaid say that the quality of their health care is excellent or good.


Next---

Just look at this post. Besides the usual BS, look at his attempt to put a post together. I would wager that doggie has a GED at best. At best.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,511
271
83
Victory Lane
Its really is hard to determine just wtf point he is trying to make.

Its impossible to ask him anything because he just is incapable of responding logically with a thoughtfull understanding of the subject matter.:shrug:

I dont think he was on any debate team.
:)

No offense DTBlackgumby :)
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top