Change of tactics?

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

Do you think there's a point at which the Republicans have to change their tactics via health care? At the moment, they're fired up about repeal, and that makes sense given the current opinion and the impending election.

But let's say that Obama wins a second term (and that the House and Senate aren't 2/3 controlled by Republicans). Does the GOP continue to completely oppose AHA and support only repeal, waiting another 4 years to try again? That seems like a very dangerous gambit politically, since by the 2016 election many of the provisions of AHA will have been in effect for two years, meaning that repealing the law will actually result in health care being yanked away from people, including people who normally vote Republican. At the moment the GOP has very little to offer in the "replace" category but the usual "lower taxes and regulation and hope everything works out". This isn't so bad for them in the short term because if Romney does win, they can attempt to repeal AHA before a lot of its provisions come into effect (assuming Congress has the right makeup as well). But long term I don't know if that's a viable strategy.

It's also tricky because AHA provides direct, tangible benefits -- the proponents can say "You will have health care, and here's what is in the bill to make sure you get it." All of the GOP suggestions involve things that will hopefully make it easier and cheaper to get insurance through the private market (and to bring down health care costs), but they can't guarantee that it will happen. It seems like this also makes it difficult to repeal AHA if it gets to a point where people have actually been benefiting directly from it for two years.

Is there a point at which the GOP needs to abandon the "repeal only" strategy and start to see if they can amend or modify AHA or take other steps to reduce health care costs?

Comments

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

If on the other hand AHA does not deliver on it's promises repealing it will be that much easier.

Right now the Democrats can blame any percieved shortcomings on the argument that "it hasn't taken effect yet". In 4 years they wont have that excuse.

Of course the deeply Maciavellian part of me wants to believe that the act was specifically designed to spark a crisis 4 years down the line (preferably while a Republican's in office) so that Dems will be able to use it to push the system that they really want (single payer).

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

House republicans have already tried to repeal AHA 86 times. They won't stop until they get booted out.

It's interesting that when you ask people what they don't like about AHA they generally can't answer.

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

"when you ask people what they don't like about AHA"

You didn't ask me. If you had, I have a long list.

It's not authorized, so it's forbidden by the Constitution. (the 10th amendment leaves it up to the states)

It's more big government.

It's the government taking over one seventh of the American economy.

It is 21 new taxes on the American people, mostly middle-class. Most of these taxes are taking money from the people who earn it and giving it to those who don't earn it in the form of health care. It's a blatant example of American incremental socialism. It's the final example because all of us will then be dependent on the government for something.

Its ultimate goal is to create a single-payer system with the government as the only provider. What that will do is make every American even those who have productive jobs and careers, all of us will be dependent on the government for something.

[caerbannogbunny.livejournal.com]

"House republicans have already tried to repeal AHA 86 times. They won't stop until they get booted out."

Or--theoretically--return to a big enough majority to make it stick.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Let's not forget the administrative costs of a repeal. Businesses and governments have already invested a lot of time and money into these policy changes. Reversing course would require even more time and money in admin costs.

On a side note, I'd love to see how much money has been wasted trying to repeal it (broken down by public and private sector). CBS recently did a report that House Republicans have wasted over $50 million on their 31 attempts to repeal the ACA.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I'm of the opinion that Obama and Reid should tell Pelosi tohave the House Dems surprise the GOP by voting for the repeal, and then starting up a public option replacement the next day.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I'm of the opinion that the GOP is so lost in their own convoluted and destructive logic that they're self-destructing and will be unrecognizable in 12-20 years time. They are standing full-bore against a demographic wave that will utterly destroy them as a major player in American politics, and the term "Republican" will become a meaningless epithet for whomever comes by to pick up the pieces and adopt the name. One thing is clear: the GOP of a generation from now will be utterly different than the GOP of today. Because the GOP of today has so utterly lost itself in its media-induced logics that they can't remember when they're bullshitting for votes or when they're saying something seriously. The Democrats say a lot of bullshit, but Democrats know when they're bullshitting. Once a party establishment loses itself to it's own bullshit, you end up with a self-destructive circus of insane logic. They've lost their grip over their own rhetoric.

I rest my case. (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/romney-naacp-booing-if-they-want-more-free)

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Wow, the unmitigated arrogance of Romney there.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

The head of Obama's SuperPAC described running a focus group, and telling the participants that Romney supported a policy of voucher-izing Medicare and simultaneously cutting taxes for rich people - the Ryan budget plan in a nutshell. The participants simply refused to believe it. A common interpretation of this is that Republicans have been saying outlandish things for so long, and generally not doing things quite in line with their rhetoric, that voters have simply been trained not to believe them anymore.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I think that this could very-well apply to both parties.

The GOP has long since abandoned any pretense of self-consistancy, and the Dems have basically jumped through the looking glass wherein messaging is more important than results and the proper response to any mistake is "to do it again only harder".

[telemann.livejournal.com]

They are standing full-bore against a demographic wave that will utterly destroy them as a major player in American politics, and the term "Republican" will become a meaningless epithet for whomever comes by to pick up the pieces and adopt the name.

I would have thought that was heralded with the 2008 election. And I don't know how to explain how the Republicans do so well on the state level (they currently have the highest number of state legislatures and governorships since the late 1920s).

[caerbannogbunny.livejournal.com]

You mean like healthcare?







(Sorry, had to take that jab...)

[telemann.livejournal.com]

This was on Maddow last night, showing how the polling has changed (and it's reflecting what NBC News political director Chuck Todd said their pollsters were finding: once the decision was made, people want to move on and rehashing the policy would be actually backfire against those fighting it.

A poll from The Washington Post/ABC News, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_20120708.html) which asked respondents, "[O]verall, do you support or oppose the federal law making changes to the health care system?" I put together a chart showing how much the results changed in the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling. In April, before the decision, 39% expressed support for the Affordable Care Act, while a 53% majority disapproved of the law. Now, support has gone up eight points, but opposition has gone down six points.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

so basically people are honest?

that's encouraging.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Obamacare is the TSA, SOPA, NDAA, patriot act, iraq war of healthcare.

A repeal is the least it deserves. D:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Because Americans are too stupid for the healthcare systems existing in all the other rich countries?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I wonder when the GOP will vote on one of the President's Jobs Bills, what with it caring about the economy so much and everything.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Repealing ACA IS a jobs bill! See how that works?

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Why not just step back and let the Dems push it through?

They've made their objections - and no one denies this is Obama and the Democrat's baby.

If the Republican's predictions come true - sick people start piling up, quality of healthcare nosedives, our best doctors leave the country for better jobs, and hundreds of billions of dollars are pissed away - they'll have one of the greatest pieces of leverage you can use in future elections, and that is 'I told you so'.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The best doctors are not in it for the money. The doctors whose motive is primarily financial are the ones that cost the system the most in terms of malpractice.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Pretty much. ^

...and part of me wonders if Roberts wasn't trying to pull a Maybury with this exact outcome in mind.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Where are the doctors going to go? Every other first world country has socialized medicine. Also, we don't have very far to fall when it comes to quality of US health care.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Because they aren't actually evil, which is what you would need to be to stand by and let the Dems run the country into the ground like that.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

They're trying to get in a few last ineffective punches before we cross into the Point of No Return. As mentioned before, soon the time and costs of repeal will outweigh just letting it run its course (if it hasn't already), and to repeal would suddenly leave a shitload of people without effective insurance or worse, no insurance at all. If the GOP is right about costs rising in every area of healthcare to deal with Obamacare, do you think they'll just go back down after its repeal? No, costs never go back down, because you've left it in the hands of private enterprise. Once they know people will pay a certain amount for their services, they'll never charge anything less.

The problem with private health insurance is that they have a captive audience. Having health insurance is part of living in a modern country, and having large risk pools reduces costs for everyone. Ultimately, the negative externalities of not having insurance for society in general is much larger than having insurance, even if it's government sponsored, and it's the government's job to mitigate negative externalities.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

We have something similar here with our carbon tax. The right are going on a repeal policy because it's politically popular (Rupert Murdoch owns 75% of the media in this country, it's hard for the left to get their message out). The problem is that due to the nature of our political system it's effectively impossible to withdraw the tax now. When the right wins the next election, which they will, they won't have control of the senate, meaning a special "double dissolution" election will be necessary to gain control of the senate. By this time the tax will have been in for about 3 years and will be a part of every business' model (ie it will cost business a fortune to no longer have to pay the tax). They're effectively able to electioneer on a policy that has 0% chance of implementation and the blame will be able to be pushed to the other guys.