Repeal, not repair
Published October 13, 2013
by Jeffrey Anderson, National Review, October 11, 2013.
Republicans have long been united, as a general principle, against the partial repeal of Obamacare. Their focus has wisely been on repealing, rather than fixing, President Obama’s signature legislation. Indeed, the very nature of Obamacare almost necessitates this approach. As Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius explained about Obamacare even before the Democrats passed it without a single Republican vote, “[W]e have to have a comprehensive approach, because the pieces of the puzzle are too closely tied to one another.” She added, “Pieces of the puzzle are necessarily tied together if you have a comprehensive approach.” Comprehensive legislation, it follows, calls for comprehensive repeal. The last thing Republicans should be trying to do is incrementally improve Obamacare.
Yet today’s lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal counsels Republicans to do exactly that. The Journal calls for budget negotiations leading to “some improvements to ObamaCare, such as repeal of the medical-device tax.” But when did Republicans become a part of the “improve” coalition?
To be clear, efforts that would improve Obamacare shouldn’t be confused with efforts that would undermine it at its core. Obamacare cannot function without its individual mandate or its exchange subsidies, for example, so repealing those would amount to something close to full repeal while helping to ensure that result. Republicans should therefore take clear aim at such targets at every turn, whether targeting them for repeal or delay. They should also stand up against the lawless implementation of Obamacare, as they have by passing a bill to delay the employer mandate by law rather than by executive fiat, and another to prevent the illegal Obamacare congressional carve-out.
In other words, they should stick with, and give renewed voice to, their budgetary proposal: fund the federal government, delay Obamacare’s individual mandate by a year, and end the congressional carve-out.
Quite unlike this sensible budgetary proposal, repealing the medical-device tax wouldn’t undermine Obamacare at its core. It wouldn’t affect Obamacare’s workings in any serious way. It wouldn’t involve standing up for the rule of law. It wouldn’t weaken Obamacare. It would merely make Obamacare just a little bit less objectionable, thereby making it just a little bit harder to repeal.
Far from being a worthwhile victory for Obamacare’s opponents, therefore, repealing the medical-device tax would actually be a minor victory for Obamacare’s supporters. Republicans should showcase their ongoing commitment to repealing Obamacare, not repairing it.
October 13, 2013 at 8:52 am
Hampton Brady says:
Mr. Anderson...
in order to repeal the law of the (ACA), you republicans will need to have a majority in the House and in the Senate, and you will be required to occupy the Office of the Presidency. Presently, you don't have that. So until then, "suck up and get a damn life..."
Personally, I hope that you and your republican friends will continue to harp and rant, and rave about (ACA) in the 2014 and in the 2016 campaigns. I want to see you folk get your butt "kicked" again by the people of the USA. Of course we know that even when you get licked in an election, you won't accept that either. Like the energizer bunny rabbit...you keep on going, and going, and going. You cannot accept defect until your enemy is dead, and therein lies your problem, HATE. You hate your opponents and look upon them (not as patriots too, but as the ENEMY). In your heart, "a win" involves the death of your enemy, even if you have to kill the whole damn government, first.
October 13, 2013 at 11:19 am
Richard Bunce says:
... and for ACA to be funded in the FY2015 Federal Budget the proponents will have to get a budget passed through the House.
October 13, 2013 at 11:34 am
Norm Kelly says:
Hampton is looking in the wrong direction. Misled by liberal buddies.
It's the Democrats who decided that closing the government was the proper way to overcome an impasse. It's the Democrats who have refused to negotiate on ANYTHING. It's the Democrats who have violated the socialized medicine law. Remember, it's Obama who changed the law to postpone the mandate on business. Remember, it's Obama who found a loophole in the law that allows Congress & it's staff to 'get around' the law. Remember it was Obama & the Democrats who said:
1.) if you like your insurance you can keep it. not true.
2.) if you like your doctor, you can keep 'it'. not true.
3.) premiums will be lower under socialized medicine. not true.
4.) the total cost for socialized medicine in the first 10 years would be less than 1 trillion dollars. not true. the most recent estimate that I recall hearing is well over 2 trillion dollars.
5.) this law would apply to Congress as well as the people (probably for the first time in decades Washington would be held to the same laws they force on the rest of us).
It's the Democrats who are comparing Republicans to Hitler. It's the Democrats who tried to get socialized medicine the law of the land over 100 years ago. They failed. Hillary failed in the 90s to get her version of socialized medicine passed. It's the Democrats who continue to push their agenda over and over and over again, refusing to recognize defeat when they get it handed to them. It's the Democrats who overthrow the will of the people by using the court system. When the majority of the voters make a choice, Democrats refuse to accept defeat, turn to the courts, overthrow the majority by using judges who make up the rules as they go along.
It's liberals in Washington, and people like yourself, who project your hatred onto others. Nothing in the post you replied to indicated hate for anyone, anywhere. Yet the conclusion you draw, the reason you believe we oppose socialized medicine is because we HATE people/certain people. We HATE Obama not because he's a socialist leading our country in the wrong direction but because he's a partially black man. We HATE Eric Holder not because he is a racist, not because his justice department paid people to protest a legitimate self-defense case in Florida, but because he's a black man.
Nothing in the post you reply to indicated hate of anything except socialism and total disregard for the law. Nothing indicated hatred of anyone. You injected your personal feelings into the 'discussion'. Obama is a socialist with the intent of fundamentally transforming our country. Into what? Democrats in Washington can think of nothing other than taxing producers more, giving more away to their constituents, opposing the will of the people, implementing more socialism. And hating rich people, and hating people who are independently successful (independent of government support that is). And it's Democrats who have specifically talked about killing their opponents, eliminating their opponents, changing rules to insure their opponents have limited power.
The man in the mirror is accusing you of being blind & ignorant.
October 13, 2013 at 11:53 am
Norm Kelly says:
So, by having the federal government force a 'comprehensive approach' on citizens, they are saying that the pieces will be forced to be tied together. Therefore, nothing short of a complete/total takeover of the health care delivery system in the country will be acceptable. By using the Democrat approach to 'solving' the health care crisis they are willing to let it be known that this is only step one in completely socializing the medical business in the US. This is NOT the first time Democrats/socialists have admitted that this is their goal.
Socialized medicine can NOT be repaired. Every aspect of the idea is doomed to failure. Central planning is not the way to 'solve' any issue. How successful is medicare? How successful is medicaid? How successful is social security? Which federal budget item is at or below expected budget? What federal give-away program have socialists been willing to negotiate on?
Owning a cell phone has become a right! I pay every month to be able to use my cell phone. Plus my bill is higher than it needs to be so the feds can give free phones to drug dealers. When I paid for television service my bill was inflated by the feds so they could give away service to 'poor' communities or rural areas. My home phone bill is automatically inflated by the feds so they can provide phone service to other areas of the country. As a producer, my expenses are automatically inflated by government, at EVERY level, so I can help pay for somebody elses discounted or free service. I choose NOT to pay the outrageous charges from the cable companies. 'Poor' people continue to pay for cable service, with lots of extras, cuz they can afford it. When the majority of their other expenses, including luxuries like cell phones, are paid by people like me, they can afford to pay for other luxuries like cable tv service.
At what point should socialism be stopped? If not with a complete take-over of the medical business, then when? Where in the world can any Democrat point to that socialized medicine has done what it claimed before implementation? Where in the world have people from around the world come to get medical care (for decades this was true, though it may not be anymore)? People from socialized countries around the world came to the US for medical care because it was the best in the world. If socialized medicine is so darn good, then why did those people leave those countries to come here?
How exactly will a central planners implementation of socialized medicine in the US result in a 'comprehensive approach' that is successful? Socialized medicine can NOT be 'fixed'. It can only be stopped before it gets too far. Look at Greece. The country is going bankrupt because of rampant socialism, government give-aways. When the government is forced to change it's ways, the takers riot. At some point, in every country of the world, including the US, producers will get respect; takers will be forced to change their ways, will be forced to take responsibility for themselves. The sooner it happens, the better off we will ALL be. And the more likely that the freest country in the history of the world will survive.
Who is John Galt?
