Republicans Will Repeal Obamacare If They Get The Chance, Mitch McConnell Says
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Politics
Republicans Will Repeal Obamacare If They Get The Chance, Mitch McConnell Says
Jonathan Cohn, HuffPost Wed, Oct 17 4:21 PM EDTRepublicans could make another run at repealing the Affordable Care Act if they retain control of Congress next year, the Senate ’s GOP leader said on Wednesday.
The statement, which Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made in an interview with Reuters , came in response to a question about what the GOP had accomplished since President Donald Trump took office ― and what business McConnell felt was unfinished.
He called the failure to repeal the law known as Obamacare his singular disappointment but promised that Republicans haven’t given up. “If we had the votes to completely start over, we’d do it,” McConnell said. “But that depends on what happens in a couple weeks. ... We’re not satisfied with the way Obamacare is working.”
The statement should surprise nobody. Wiping Obamacare off the books has been a defining cause of the Republican Party since President Barack Obama signed the bill in March 2010. In 2017, when the GOP finally controlled both the White House and Congress, Republicans spent most of the year trying to pass legislation that would have finally realized that goal.
The closest they came was in July, after the House had already passed repeal legislation, when then-Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) famously gave a thumbs-down to the Senate’s bill ― in the process, providing a critical third “no” vote that likely prevented the bill from becoming law. But McCain has since passed away, a different Republican has taken his seat, and Vice President Mike Pence has already said he would like to see Republicans try again.
Whether Republicans would succeed, of course, is another question. Repeal proved to be spectacularly unpopular and the votes that House Republicans took in favor of their bill are now hurting them politically ― so much so that, all across the country, Republicans who supported repeal are now insisting, falsely , they never tried to take away the law’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
But it’s not difficult to imagine Republicans learning from their tactical errors, fashioning a similar bill designed to win over a handful of lawmakers who resisted repeal last time, and finally getting something through Congress.
The stakes in this fight are enormous. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid, subsidies for people buying private insurance, and prohibitions on discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, the number of people without health insurance has plunged to historic lows . Studies have shown that, as a result, people are struggling less with medical bills and have better access to care .
Some people are paying more for insurance than they otherwise would and, in some states, prices have gone so high that people paying entirely on their own ― without the benefit of federal tax credits ― are finding insurance flat-out unaffordable. Even Democrats concede that this represents one of the Affordable Care Act’s failings.
But where Democrats would bolster the law with additional financial assistance or simply replace it with a straightforward government insurance program, Republicans would ratchet back the regulations, cut funding for Medicaid and provide less assistance to the poor.
That is why, according to the Congressional Budget Office and other independent analysts, all of their schemes would leave millions more people without insurance ― and struggling to find affordable medical care as a result.
- This article originally appeared on HuffPost .
Tags
Who is online
81 visitors
Republicans Will Repeal Obamacare If They Get The Chance, Mitch McConnell Says
Poor Mitch, short term memory loss at His age is not unusual, they did have the chance only last year and failed.
Would you care to try for double jeopardy Mr. McConnell?
there is no right to healthcare.
Yes, there is.
Why is it that the people who claim to be the most vocal followers of Jesus reject his core teachings?
that law does not constitute a "right" under any understanding of law. it merely agrees that the Govt will steal from other tax payers to pay for someone's healthcare
Secondly, Jesus NEVER advocated to steal from others and redistribute to someone else. Nor did HE EVER advocate for compulsory and coerced government charity.
Thirdly, all charity from Christians is to do so as unto Jesus Himself and to glorify God the Father. Is that what you truly want to advocate for?
Nobody is stealing anything from anyone, so drop the libertarian hyperbole. Taxes are not theft and the caregivers are being well paid for their work.
Once again, taxes aren't theft. Jesus told his followers to give their money away. Jesus told his followers to give to Caeser what was Caeasers.
The right of healthcare is a public statement that we all deserve effective medical care when we are sick, regardless of the ability to pay. Treating everyone else, regardless of beliefs as you want to be treated is not limited to Christianity. You might be the least Christian person that I have ever known. Jesus wasn't an Ayn Rand libertarian.
This does as well as any to explain why healthcare cannot be a right except under totalitarian government
In a newly published essay, “There is No ‘Right’ to Healthcare,” the late historian John David Lewis challenges this presumption at its core. The essay appears in the textbook Medical Ethics , 2nd edition , edited by Michael Boylan of Marymount University.
Lewis describes two basic and conflicting views of rights in America today. One is the idea of rights as entitlements to goods and services. The other is the idea of rights as moral prerogatives to freedom of action.
The first view holds that if a person has an unmet human need—a need that could be satisfied by some good or service—then it is incumbent upon others who are able to satisfy that need to do so. In other words, needs impose duties.
Lewis explains that this view fails in two important ways. First, because human needs are boundless, the consistent application of the notion that needs impose duties would lead to an endless creation of duties, and to ever-increasing government control over the lives of citizens, precisely because there is no end to the needs that one person may demand that others satisfy.
The other main problem, Lewis explains, is that imposing duties upon one person in the name of satisfying the unmet needs of another inescapably violates the rights of the first person. Applying this to health care, Lewis writes, “There is no right to medical care because there is no right to coerce medical professionals to provide it.”
The correct conception of rights, Lewis explains, is that rights define the scope of an individual’s freedom of action against which others may not infringe. Health care cannot be a right because health care consists of goods and services that are provided by medical professionals—people who have a right to think and act in pursuit of their own happiness and values just as anyone does. “To claim a right to medical care,” explains Lewis, “is to claim nothing less than a right to run the lives of those who must provide the care.”
in fact libetarianism comes closest to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles
Christian charity is from the heart and with acknowledgement that God will provide
You must each decide in your heart how much to give. And don’t give reluctantly or in response to pressure. “For God loves a person who gives cheerfully.” And God will generously provide all you need. Then you will always have everything you need and plenty left over to share with others. As the Scriptures say,
“They share freely and give generously to the poor.
Their good deeds will be remembered forever.”
For God is the one who provides seed for the farmer and then bread to eat. In the same way, he will provide and increase your resources and then produce a great harvest of generosity in you.
Yes, you will be enriched in every way so that you can always be generous. And when we take your gifts to those who need them, they will thank God. So two good things will result from this ministry of giving—the needs of the believers in Jerusalem will be met, and they will joyfully express their thanks to God.
As a result of your ministry, they will give glory to God. For your generosity to them and to all believers will prove that you are obedient to the Good News of Christ. And they will pray for you with deep affection because of the overflowing grace God has given to you. Thank God for this gift too wonderful for words! 2 Corinthians 9:7-15
Jesus taught that we are our brother's keepers and that we are to care for others as we care for ourselves or for Jesus, which is the opposite of libertarian selfishness. You need to learn and embrace the ideas of the Sermon on the Mount. According to Jesus you were not put here to accumulate personal wealth and power. His followers are to reject wealth.
There are more than a few times when I think that you try to claim to be a Christian as a way to rationalize your libertarian selfishness because deep in your heart that you know it's wrong.
You might be the least Christian person that I have ever known. Jesus wasn't an Ayn Rand libertarian.
Your last comment shows how much you are driven by your prejudices and willingness to form conclusions without any evidence.
Our ministry which I have been part of for nearly 30 years is dedicated to caring for the needs of others, not just in the US but around the world.
Feeding the hungry
Sheltering the homeless
providing emergency and disaster relief including food, medical assistance, medical supplies, blankets, clothing, and more. We build wells, schools, dormitories for homeless and poor children in 3rd world countries and on Native American Reservations. Not one person in our ministry takes a dime of salary. Most live on one of our ministry sites as I do myself at times. I walked away from a corporate executive position decades ago and all material niceties.
He was an Ayn Rand objectivist, so his selfish views are obvious.
How do you rationalize that with your libertarian beliefs or the rejection of being a part of a very interdependent society?
How much of your religious charity is based on converting them to your religious beliefs?
It most certainly does. It establishes a legal right to emergency medical treatment regardless of ability to pay. If you break a bone and can get to an emergency room, then they have to help you even if you are homeless and penniless. It is your right to receive emergency help, no matter what.
I'm not religious, and I'm certainly not a Bible scholar, but even I've heard of that 'render unto Caesar' stuff, as well as that 'governing authorities are established by God' stuff.
Considering the fact that every last penny government takes in gets redistributed to someone else (whether it be for social welfare, the military, infrastructure, whatever), and that God supposedly establishes governing authorities on Earth (according to the Bible), then you seem to have quite a contradiction on your hands. It's almost as if you're flat out denying Jesus.
What's up with that? You're supposed to be a pastor or something, aren't you?
Must be the Pat Robertson evangelical values, money is more important than a life, unless of course that life is still in utero.
He is worse the older he gets. But hey, VA beach has the ARE, which more than makes up for the old coot.
I'm sorry, but based on your comments on NT I wouldn't think that you'd be involved in such a charitable organization, because you'd wouldn't get any satisfaction or feeling accomplishment from helping people like that. You must work a different section of it, perhaps.
Trump said the ACA was repealed on day one? What's the hold up?
Trump also promised, "wonderful cheap healthcare for all"....anyone seen this wonderful plan of his?
Maybe he is using a golf course to design it...
I hope the republicans are able to accomplish slashing medicare and SSI although I'm a little baffled why they would do this because it's almost self sabotage.
This is like the republican version of "death panels". It is going to have long term consequences for the average republican voter by targeting the lower class, the lower educated and the elderly. Talk about a rush to eradicate the white republican population.