Romney Adviser Norm Coleman: It's Unrealistic To Think We'll Ever Completely Repeal ObamaCare

Ed tackles this thoroughly.

I don't know what to say, except that Romney had better authentically repudiate this. And in fact he ought to disassociate himself from Coleman.

However, as far as context, bear in mind True Conservative Michele Bachmann spoke grimly, herself, about the actual likelihood of fully repealing ObamaCare: She said (and I never heard her contradicted) it will take 60 Senate votes to do it.

Although I had previously thought it would take 51 (through the "reconciliation" route that birthed this monstrosity), she consistently said it would need 60.

I don't know if she's right. I haven't heard anyone dispute her.

So this could be a matter of simply saying that, realistically, it's a difficult thing.

To this day I don't know if you need 51 or 60. I wish someone would explain why they can't do 51 + reconciliation.

Update: From John McCormack on Twitter - Paul Ryan is of the belief that most (why most?) of ObamaCare can be dispensed with via reconciliation.

He clarifies that the "most" applies to anything having to do with spending. Some non-spending aspects involving revenue-neutral regulation may not be touchable via reconciliation, depending on the ruling of the parliamentarian.

Posted by: Ace at 02:39 PM



Comments

1 I no longer believe any Republicans will repeal it.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 02:40 PM (ZPrif)

2

Okay we need someone else to enter this race.

This is f'n ridiculous.

Talk about a primary FAIL.

Posted by: dan-O at January 25, 2012 02:41 PM (sWycd)

3 Norm!

Posted by: dagny at January 25, 2012 02:41 PM (w+PM8)

4 Obama is a Stammering Cluster++++ Of A Malicious Failure.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at January 25, 2012 02:41 PM (hLRSq)

5 The goal of Obama was to permanently increase the size and scope of government control of the economy.

He succeeded.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 02:42 PM (ZPrif)

6 ace

Ramesh Ponnurru -is on this.

This actually might be a good gambit.

Ramesh has Romney taking Coleman to the woodshed.

Posted by: tasker at January 25, 2012 02:42 PM (r2PLg)

7 God, what a clusterfuck. How the hell did we get here?

Posted by: jewells45 at January 25, 2012 02:43 PM (l/N7H)

8 Let me go fetch it brb.

Posted by: tasker at January 25, 2012 02:43 PM (r2PLg)

9 Norm Effin' Coleman? The putz who gave away an election to Al Franken? Of course this ass wouldn't fight for anything!

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars at January 25, 2012 02:43 PM (0AClR)

10

I must be stupid, because it seems to me that repealing one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation in US history is actually quite a realistic goal.

Posted by: dan-O at January 25, 2012 02:44 PM (sWycd)

11 You know, we just say the shit the wingnuts want to hear. Heh.

Posted by: Sen. Norm Coleman at January 25, 2012 02:44 PM (QKKT0)

12 Ace,
All I can think of is it the 60 votes to close debate unless they go the nuclear option, then 51.

Posted by: WisRich at January 25, 2012 02:44 PM (hdpay)

13 Romney already repudiated it.

Posted by: packsoldier at January 25, 2012 02:44 PM (MVPJc)

14
Norm Coleman is exactly right.
Congress has neither the will nor the desire to do anything that requires political courage.

Posted by: soothsayer, ballbuster extraordinaire at January 25, 2012 02:44 PM (sqkOB)

15

Senior political adviser is the guy who managed to lose to Al Frankin.

Seems -- unwise.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 25, 2012 02:45 PM (3wBRE)

16 In one of the debates Romney said he would repeal it and claimed it could be done with 51 votes.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 25, 2012 02:45 PM (+lsX1)

17 He will not repeal it, he thinks it's actually a great idea (which is why he did it in Massachusetts) but understands that it would be suicidal to come out and say that in a primary. Again, where is this faith that Romney is actually telling the truth on anything coming from? He brazenly contradicted himself on the Iraq War and abortion as well.

Posted by: Chris at January 25, 2012 02:45 PM (XGZYX)

18 I wish someone would explain why they can't do 51 + reconciliation.


You need that big assgavel, Ace. You want to knowknow where I keep it?

Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at January 25, 2012 02:45 PM (RVYt5)

19 Give me Liberty, or don't.

Posted by: Sen. Norm Coleman at January 25, 2012 02:45 PM (QKKT0)

20 ace, I assume Bachmann was talking about 60 votes because that is what is needed for a vote of cloture, to end a filibuster. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Dems will want to fillibuster the hell out of any attempts to repeal. Now some of the smarter Dems (are there any left?) could certainly migrate to the Repeal side of the aisle, but I don't think it would be enough, especially if the 'pubs don't maintain or increase their numbers in the Senate.
Again, this is just an assumption. I invite anyone with more info to correct me.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at January 25, 2012 02:46 PM (4df7R)

21 Cripes it's not quite as effective as I first thought.

It's from a Romney spokeswoman.

*******************

Former senator Norm Coleman, a prominent Romney backer, suggested that the full repeal of Obamacare was probably not going to happen but the law would see “major changes” if Republicans take the White House next year. A Romney spokeswoman said that while the candidate respects Coleman he disagrees with this assessment.

Getting Obamacare repealed will be very difficult. But it’s not clear what alternative Coleman has in mind, or could have in mind. Some Republicans have talked about getting rid of the law’s least popular provisions, notably the individual mandate, while keeping its most popular provisions, especially the command that insurance companies not take account of customers’ pre-existing health conditions. Coleman himself suggested that the courts might strike down the mandate and Congress might strike down IPAB (the Medicare cost-cutting/rationing board). But if the mandate goes, the insurance regulations have to go too: There’s no way insurance markets could work if you could wait until you were sick to buy insurance. The subsidized exchanges wouldn’t work either if people could jump on them when convenient. Take out IPAB, too, and all that’s left of Obamacare is the expansion of Medicaid. It’s hard to believe that you could build a legislative coalition to get rid of all of Obamacare except for that-especially since undoing that expansion would be key to any Republican bill’s claims to cut the deficit and thus to qualify for the “reconciliation” process needed to avoid a filibuster.

(Ramesh Ponnurru, The Corner at NRO)

*********************************

Posted by: tasker at January 25, 2012 02:46 PM (r2PLg)

22
FWIW:

"With all due respect to Sen. Coleman, he's wrong," campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said via e-mail. "Gov. Romney can and will repeal Obamacare and is committed to doing so."

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 25, 2012 02:46 PM (3wBRE)

23 You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea,
land, and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can
give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the
dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime.

If that doesn't work, give up. No sense in being a damn fool about it.

Posted by: Sen. Norm Coleman at January 25, 2012 02:47 PM (QKKT0)

24 Just rip its guts out one small amendment at a time leaving only, well...a bunch of empty paragraphs with titles eventually. Attach those small amendments to other legislation that HAS to be passed.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 25, 2012 02:47 PM (0I4YH)

25
This is way way down on my Wish List.


Posted by: soothsayer, ballbuster extraordinaire at January 25, 2012 02:47 PM (sqkOB)

26 "It's a very vague and complex rule, as everyone knows."


-- The Ben Bernanke

Posted by: Quote Of The Day at January 25, 2012 02:47 PM (X3lox)

27 It is unrealistic to think that it will be repealed. Getting even 51 votes will be tough (because you can't count on every Republican Senator to go along, either in substance of procedure).

Given that, it is also smart politics to say what Coleman did. While the public doesn't like Obamacare, there are aspects they like. Coleman shields Romney from Obama claims that the GOP is so dogmatic that Romney would throw out the baby with the bathwater. Romney can promise to keep the good parts and get rid of the bad.

Substantively Coleman's approach it is no different from a 'repeal and replace' approach.. but this will play better with the mushy middle voters whose support Romney needs this fall (if he gets that far).

Posted by: steve at January 25, 2012 02:47 PM (L9End)

28 Repair Medicare Act, restore the funds Obamacare stole from Medicare - and repeal Obamacare line by line. Have draft bill delivered by 100 seniors to ever Senator, just to ensure they get the message.

Posted by: Jean at January 25, 2012 02:47 PM (WkuV6)

29 I mean I like the details of it-but it would be more effective coming from Romney directly.

This might be sort of a trail balloon to see how they can rehabilitate Romney on RomneyCare with Coleman playing the bad guy.

(Or-I could be giving them too much credit.)

Posted by: tasker at January 25, 2012 02:47 PM (r2PLg)

30 We need to draft another candidate and fast! I do not trust Romney to repeal Obamacare. Coleman lost to a comedian, we need help here.

Posted by: CarolT at January 25, 2012 02:48 PM (z4WKX)

31 *trial* balloon..damnit.

Posted by: tasker at January 25, 2012 02:48 PM (r2PLg)

32
Our 2012 Priorities, In Order:
1. Keep control of House
2. Take Senate
3. Defeat Obama
4. Reverse all of Obama's shitty policies


Posted by: soothsayer, ballbuster extraordinaire at January 25, 2012 02:48 PM (sqkOB)

33 ObamaCare RomneyCare: now with scented lube... for your pleasure!

Posted by: Norm Effin' Coleman, Al Franken's Beeyotch at January 25, 2012 02:48 PM (0AClR)

34 If I recall correctly, they were able to use reconciliation to pass the companion bill because it "saved" money. It's a budget move that can only be used once per year and can't be filibustered. If a bill gets a CBO score that shows repeal saves money I don't see why they can't use reconciliation.

Posted by: the dandy at January 25, 2012 02:48 PM (lVK3L)

35 What if the Black robes say it's a non-starter?

Posted by: Brian at January 25, 2012 02:49 PM (wTSvK)

36 OT: Ok which of you numbskulls got careless with your hobo hunting & made Drudge this time? My money is on Chemjeff or NC Ref since both have new houses they talked about hobo proofing.

Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at January 25, 2012 02:49 PM (zyI/5)

37 "trial balloon to see how they can rehabilitate Romney on RomneyCar"

If he were to drop out now, all is forgiven.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 25, 2012 02:49 PM (0I4YH)

38 >>> I assume Bachmann was talking about 60 votes because that is what is needed for a vote of cloture, to end a filibuster. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Dems will want to fillibuster the hell out of any attempts to repeal.

of course I know that. But the democrats evaded the filibuster by saying they were passing it through reconciliation.

Remember? We got the 41st vote, and thus should have been able to block it, but they said "reconciliation" and did whatever they wanted.

Posted by: ace at January 25, 2012 02:49 PM (nj1bB)

39 32

Our 2012 Priorities, In Order:
1. Keep control of House
2. Take Senate
3. Defeat Obama
4. Reverse all of Obama's shitty policies
Posted by: soothsayer, ballbuster extraordinaire at January 25, 2012 02:48 PM (sqkOB)


I wish #3 were higher, but I agree that the first two are crucial.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars at January 25, 2012 02:50 PM (0AClR)

40 It may not be repealed in the short term, but if it is as un-workable as prohibition was, it will eventually go the same route.

Posted by: profligatewaste at January 25, 2012 02:50 PM (q5wLf)

41 Where did this blog pick up all the squishes, build a fast ship and take it into harms way.

Posted by: Jean at January 25, 2012 02:50 PM (WkuV6)

42 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 25, 2012 02:50 PM (8y9MW)

43 Although I had previously thought it would take 51 (through the
"reconciliation" route that birthed this monstrosity), she consistently
said it would need 60.

That is a myth that everyone keeps repeating. Obamacare was not passed with reconciliation. It was passed in December through a "deal" made by McConnell before Scott was elected in MA. The tax fix in January was passed via reconciliation.

The Republicans will not use reconciliation and we will not have 60 votes. It will not be repealed. Better pray for Kennedy to be on the right side of the bed because that is the only way we will get rid of it.

Posted by: Vic at January 25, 2012 02:50 PM (YdQQY)

44 Stupid wing nuts want to repeal more government control over your lives? Hah! Why would Republicans want LESS power? They want more, they are nanny staters just like the Democrats.

Posted by: Max Power at January 25, 2012 02:51 PM (q177U)

45 >>>What if the Black robes say it's a non-starter?

That would sure get Mittens' ass off the hot seat.

Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at January 25, 2012 02:51 PM (QKKT0)

46 Damn it I can't really tell what is the Romney Campaign spokesperson's rebuttal and what is coming from Ramesh-the way I dropped it in this thread...

Posted by: tasker at January 25, 2012 02:51 PM (r2PLg)

47
Well this is the last straw, I'm all in for Newt.

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at January 25, 2012 02:51 PM (mFxQX)

48 Repeal what you can and then start handing out waivers like they were candy.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 25, 2012 02:52 PM (lVGED)

49 All the more reason to scrap the unconstitutional filibuster. If the Founding Fathers wanted 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate, they would have specified that. Instead that chose a simple majority, with the Vice President being designated as the tie-breaking, 51st vote.

If Republicans are serious about reforming entitlements, they are going to have to get rid of the filibuster because Democrats will NEVER go along with Republicans on this, and a 60 seat majority for one party comes around about once in a hundred years.

Posted by: 8 Track at January 25, 2012 02:53 PM (0kf1G)

50
oops, I forgot #5 and added a #3.5

Our 2012 Priorities, In Order:
1. Keep control of House
2. Take Senate
3. Defeat Obama
3.5 Celebrate
4. Reverse all of Obama's shitty policies
5. Worry and complain about how lousy a president Newt or Mitt is.

Posted by: soothsayer, ballbuster extraordinaire at January 25, 2012 02:53 PM (sqkOB)

51 "I assume Bachmann was talking about 60 votes because that is what is needed for a vote of cloture, to end a filibuster."

The whole point of Reconciliation is that it's not subject to Filibuster.

And, yes- Romney needs to come out, forcefully and authentically, and repudiate this statement and kick Coleman off his team.

However, given that I'm pretty sure Romney would rather the whole subject of ObamaCare (and any repeal) and, by extension RomneyCare go away, I'm not sure he will.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 25, 2012 02:53 PM (8y9MW)

52 47 Well this is the last straw, I'm all in for Newt.
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at January 25, 2012 02:51 PM (mFxQX)
Brace yourself.

Posted by: dagny at January 25, 2012 02:53 PM (w+PM8)

53 34 If I recall correctly, they were able to use reconciliation to pass the companion bill because it "saved" money. It's a budget move that can only be used once per year and can't be filibustered. If a bill gets a CBO score that shows repeal saves money I don't see why they can't use reconciliation.
Posted by: the dandy at January 25, 2012 02:48 PM (lVK3L)

--------------

I wonder if the CBO score would show such a thing. After all, the CBO score that allowed the invocation of reconciliation in the first place claimed that Obamacare itself wouldn't add to the deficit, which is utter horseshit. It's all about the screwy accounting.

Which raises the question -- is reconciliationallowed if a measure saves money? Or if it simply doesn't increase the deficit? I can't recall.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at January 25, 2012 02:53 PM (4df7R)

54 A President Newt might just "deem" a repeal to have passed. Does anyone think either Romney or Santorum would do that?

Posted by: Not an Artist at January 25, 2012 02:54 PM (YUwuZ)

55 While the public doesn't like Obamacare, there are aspects they like.
Coleman shields Romney from Obama claims that the GOP is so dogmatic
that Romney would throw out the baby with the bathwater. Romney can
promise to keep the good parts and get rid of the bad.

No, he can't. He either completely repudiates OCare and all its works, or he is done. He won't win the primary. I think my bona fides in making that claim are solid.

Repeal it in its entirely, then discuss what comes next. That is the only way.

Posted by: pep at January 25, 2012 02:54 PM (YXmuI)

56 13 Romney already repudiated it.
--------------------------

And he admonished Coleman to stop speaking publically about what he's REALLY going to do if elected.

Posted by: Helpful Pundit at January 25, 2012 02:54 PM (jiwQf)

57 I'm shocked!!


Shocked!!

Posted by: runninrebel at January 25, 2012 02:54 PM (RTFZc)

58

If some Republicans have it in their mind that they will kill the individual mandate, while keeping the ban on insurance companies considering pre-existing medical conditions, then they are out of their minds. That is actually even more of a demagogic position to take than keeping both aspects of the law.

If there were no mandate to have insurance, but insurance companies could not take pre-existing conditions into account, then they would be effectively making health insurance illegal.

Why get health insurance in advance if you know you can just buy it the moment you break your leg, or catch the flu? This is the entire point of insurance. I know people's brains turn off when they hear the term "pre-existing condition", but this is how insurance works.

At least with the individual mandate, one would not be allowed to game the system like that.

But if the Republicans actually try to enact this, they will bring down the entire insurance industry, and by association, the health industry, in a shockingly short amount of time.

Posted by: dan-O at January 25, 2012 02:55 PM (sWycd)

59 Nice to see Sheldon Adelson, Newt's bag man, come out of hiding. The elite and status quo, offering up a couple of their own.

The worship line forms here, kids.

Posted by: Deus Ex Machina at January 25, 2012 02:55 PM (GOG1H)

60 What's more, all "reconciliation" bills automatically expire after 10 years if I am not mistaken.

Posted by: Vic at January 25, 2012 02:55 PM (YdQQY)

61 Hey, Reid's already shown you can change Senate rules using a simple majority vote, including Cloture rules. So, first vote of the next Senate is to repeal all of ObamaCare. If Democrats filibuster, 50 Republicans plus the VP vote to do away with the filibuster, and then we repeal ObamaCare.

Then the Senate Democrats get told to screw off, because w/ the filibuster gone they've got nothing, and if they try to find any other way to obstruct business, we'll just use "51 votes to change Senate rules" to get rid of that way, too.

2013, the year we make the Democrats really pay for every game they've played for the last 50 years.

Posted by: Greg Q at January 25, 2012 02:55 PM (/0a60)

62 This kind of roll-over-and-die attitude from Willard's Wimps is what'll kill his campaign. And is why he can't score with the base. Its not just that Willard's a weasel, his supporters are weasels. Hell Willard has Charlie Crist advisors on his staff. WHAT THE FUCK?
We know Santorum will fight. He died on hills for us.
We know Newt will fight.
Willard? Not so much.

This is a 2 man race, between Newt and Rick.

Posted by: Iblis at January 25, 2012 02:55 PM (9221z)

63 Which one of you sent me to Drudge without telling me I'd get an eyefull of Calista? Freaky-diky, ugh

Posted by: dagny at January 25, 2012 02:56 PM (w+PM8)

64
See this is where I call bull. If a president comes along that makes it a priority to rid us of this monstrous evil socialist healthcare law, it can be done. Simply announce nothing and I mean nothing gets a presidential signature until it is gone. No budget, no funding, govt shutdown total, etc.

Will we find a person of such courage in the oval office?, probably not, certainly wouldn't be Mitt, he loves him some socialist healthcare.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 25, 2012 02:56 PM (XrrP7)

65 I miss the simplicity of Rick Perry.

Posted by: Helpful Pundit at January 25, 2012 02:56 PM (jiwQf)

66 If Mitt keeps Coleman employed, it will basically be an admission that Romney is full of shit about repealing Obamacare. I'm not talking a spokesman issuing some lame ass rebuttal, I'm talking about Mitt out in public calling this a lie and running this dufus Norm off of the reservation.

WTH do you need the guy who lost to Al F'n Franken on board for?

Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 25, 2012 02:56 PM (kaOJx)

67 The ObamaCare thing only got a positive CBO score because it had 10 years of taxes vs. 6 years of outlays.

By 2013, repealing it will be net-positive on the budget. Even if it weren't, you could restore $450 billion to Medicare, rather than the full $500 billion, and call it $50 billion in savings.

Posted by: ace at January 25, 2012 02:56 PM (nj1bB)

68 20 ace, I assume Bachmann was talking about 60 votes because that is what is needed for a vote of cloture, to end a filibuster. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Dems will want to fillibuster the hell out of any attempts to repeal. Now some of the smarter Dems (are there any left?) could certainly migrate to the Repeal side of the aisle, but I don't think it would be enough, especially if the 'pubs don't maintain or increase their numbers in the Senate.
Again, this is just an assumption. I invite anyone with more info to correct me.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at January 25, 2012 02:46 PM (4df7R)

This.

I have't a clue what reconciliation does or means, but if it leaves the law on the books, that it does not advance the cause.

Or do we expect the next Democrat president to respect the fact it has been defunded.

Posted by: blindside at January 25, 2012 02:56 PM (x7g7t)

69 "All the more reason to scrap the unconstitutional filibuster."

The Constitution is a permissive document except when it states explicit prohibitions. There is nothing unconstitutional about fillibuster since the Senate gets to operate by its own internally agreed upon rules.

It would take a constitutional amendment TO prohibit fillibuster.


Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 25, 2012 02:57 PM (0I4YH)

70 Even if it does take 60 votes, I would be surprised if there weren't enough scared shitless southern Democrats to carry the ball over the goal line.

Posted by: maddogg at January 25, 2012 02:57 PM (OlN4e)

71 This is what passes for the Republican party these days. Yeesh

Posted by: SFGoth at January 25, 2012 02:57 PM (dZ756)

72 It seems good old Norm took a giant Yoshi on Mittens campaign with this statement.

Do any of these idiots actually pay attention to what the peasants are pissed off about?

Posted by: mpfs at January 25, 2012 02:57 PM (iYbLN)

73 >>> is reconciliationallowed if a measure saves money?

it must save money but it could be a small amount.

Posted by: ace at January 25, 2012 02:57 PM (nj1bB)

74 We'd need like 63 Repubs. No way Scott Brown or the Maine sisters vote to repeal Obamacare if it comes down to an actual vote.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 02:58 PM (ZPrif)

75 Yes, we could eliinate cloture in the Senate rules, but only in the opening days of the new Senate and House when the rules are established. It takes a super majority to change them after that.

But nobody wants to eliminate the 60 vote cloture.

Posted by: Vic at January 25, 2012 02:58 PM (YdQQY)

76 See this is bullshit. Nobody knows the rules. Where the fuck are they written down? And for these shit heads to shove this crap through and make it irrevocable is bullshit. I'd like to throw them all in prison. Antidemocratic assholes. They are nothing but petty little dictators.

Posted by: mike at January 25, 2012 02:58 PM (RRSlp)

77 Then the only thing left is to nuke it from space, just to be sure.

Posted by: tcn at January 25, 2012 02:58 PM (ZOUmX)

78 >>>Even if it does take 60 votes, I would be surprised if there weren't enough scared shitless southern Democrats to carry the ball over the goal line.

There are few of such Democrats left. A couple.

Even if we could get, say, 5 Democrats to flip, that would still mean we needed 55.

Posted by: ace at January 25, 2012 02:58 PM (nj1bB)

79 "Substantively Coleman's approach it is no different from a 'repeal and
replace' approach.. but this will play better with the mushy middle
voters whose support Romney needs this fall (if he gets that far)."

Even if we were to grant that (I don't by the way), he should reserve that for the General. Right now he's supposed to be pandering to me, not some squish who isn't even paying attention, yet.

What it really says is, "Eh, well, it's not going to happen anyway, so I'm not actually going to spend any effort on doing it." And since he's "a big supporter" and closely linked with the campaign- it's the same (politically speaking) as if Romney had said it himself, unless Romney (not a spokes-person: Romney) comes out and forcefully rejects the statement.

Something along the lines of "I completely reject the notion that we should give up, before the battle is even waged, on repealing ObamaCare. I certainly believe it can be done- simply because I believe it must be done." And then lay out (vaguely, of course) a couple of tactics he might use to do it.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 25, 2012 02:58 PM (8y9MW)

80 >>By 2013, repealing it will be net-positive on the budget. Even if it
weren't, you could restore $450 billion to Medicare, rather than the
full $500 billion, and call it $50 billion in savings.


So you're saying we could save Romney-type money?

Posted by: Jon Stewart at January 25, 2012 02:59 PM (lVGED)

81 2013, the year we make the Democrats really pay for every game they've played for the last 50 years.
Posted by: Greg Q at January 25, 2012 02:55 PM (/0a60) I want whatever you are smoking

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at January 25, 2012 02:59 PM (mFxQX)

82
Scott Brown won't be in the Senate in 2013, so don't worry about it.

Posted by: soothsayer, ballbuster extraordinaire at January 25, 2012 02:59 PM (sqkOB)

83 Coleman delenda est.

Posted by: pep at January 25, 2012 02:59 PM (YXmuI)

84 63 Dagny

Sorry, didn't see the pic of her when I mentioned the hobo story.

Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at January 25, 2012 02:59 PM (zyI/5)

85 Meh ... Our 2012 Priorities, In Order:
1. Keep control of House
2. Take Senate
3. Defeat Obama
4. Reverse all of Obama's shitty policies
1. Find good conservative challengers for moderates in red districts.
2. Replace RINO committee chairs with conservatives.
3. Pump up base turn out in key states
4. Pudding bath on election night




Posted by: Jean at January 25, 2012 03:00 PM (WkuV6)

86 IDK if any of you guys saw it, but yesterday CDC released studies saying amputations for diabetes have fallen dramatically by more than half since the mid-90s.
Which means that greedy foot-lopping doctors have apparently foregone that sweet sweet amputation money for longer than Obama had been telling them to. Or something.

Posted by: Least I can do at January 25, 2012 03:00 PM (3ZtZW)

87 >>> Remember? We got the 41st vote, and thus should have been able to block
it, but they said "reconciliation" and did whatever they wanted.

Ace, I have heard Levin talk about this a bit. This is the basis of one of the most serious challenges to Obamacare. The way Levin puts it, the same exact "Affordable Healthcare Act" was not voted on in both chambers of Congress. This is what "reconciliation" is, apparently. But in order for a bill to become law, it has to be passed by both chambers. With the Affordable Care Act, two slightly different bills were passed in each chamber, then they were "reconciled".

So once GOP got the 41st vote, the Senate "reconciled" a version of the bill that had previously passed in the Senate (or parts of the bill that had passed) with the different version of the bill that passed in the House.

This is what I understand on the issue from listening to his show a few weeks ago. It is his organization that is making this particular challenge to the law, and he seems to think that it is the most serious case against it.

To be honest, as he was explaining it, it seemed pretty clear that he is right.

Posted by: dan-O at January 25, 2012 03:01 PM (sWycd)

88 "nobody wants to eliminate the 60 vote cloture."

I'd like to see cloture eliminated completely as a way of ending fillibuster. I'd also like to see them actually have to execute one physically rather than just threaten. The spectacle of Senators being forced to tag-team read phone books into the congressional record 7x24 for months on end would be most instructive to the public.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 25, 2012 03:01 PM (0I4YH)

89 Scott Brown won't be in the Senate in 2013, so don't worry about it.

Heh. I ate all of the pudding.

Posted by: Scottt Browne at January 25, 2012 03:01 PM (vbh31)

90 Looks like Newt pulled the "anti-immigrant" ad. Or did somebody already mention that? I'm having a hard time keeping up today. Except ace's post about making a sandwich. That was just classic.

Posted by: jewells45 at January 25, 2012 03:01 PM (l/N7H)

91 I love how the rules that actually govern our system seem to be only understood be 6 or 7 people in the whole fucking country -- the Senate and House parlimentarians and and 4 or 5 16 year old Model UN geeks.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 03:01 PM (ZPrif)

92 "Politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing"

People pile on Newt for being too grandiose, and they tout Romney for his managerial ability to get along.

Ok, but that seems to suggest that Newt would sweat bullets to get his name in history books as the guy who reversed Obamacare, whereas Romney as manager would ease the status quo a little further up into our GI tract.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at January 25, 2012 03:02 PM (tPc5m)

93 can't Boehner just deem it repealed right now?

Posted by: X at January 25, 2012 03:02 PM (uRsCM)

94 There are some elements of ObamaCare -- like insurance under parents' policies through age 26, or eliminating the pre-existing condition thing -- which are probably not going to be repealed. Ever.

Because they're popular.

Posted by: ace at January 25, 2012 03:02 PM (nj1bB)

95 This is the best crew that the big Romney bucks and 6+ years of campaign organizing can come up with?
And this on the heels of his revelation the other day that they were caught off guard by the excessive interest in his tax returns.

WTF?

This guy and his advisers are so piss poor at running how is anyone supposed to believe that there would be any momentum to be had after the Nomination.

Romney = McStain Redux

Posted by: ontherocks at January 25, 2012 03:02 PM (ZJCDy)

96 Guess strikethru is still turned off

Posted by: Jean at January 25, 2012 03:02 PM (WkuV6)

97 The pre-existing condition thing is crazy (I mean, claiming to eliminate it is crazy, as it encourages gaming of the system) but there will have to be some method of addressing this to the public's political satisfaction.

Posted by: ace at January 25, 2012 03:02 PM (nj1bB)

98 I have no problem with the fillibuster. What I DO have a problem with is the Senate changing it's own rules about how to HANDLE a fillibuster. The fillibuster itself is there to provide the minority party with the ability to check the power of the majority. It sucks when the majority has a SUPER majority, as the Dems did, because they can just shut down the fillibuster through cloture. But in a more balanced situation, a simple majority would give the majority party a huge advantage. If a party has 55 members in the Senate and the other has 45, then a simple majority would require only 51 votes to pass whatever is up for a vote. That gives shelter to four or fivemembers of the majority party to vote "nay" while not endangering the bill/motion/legislation (provided the VP is a member of the majority party, too, and there are no defectors from the minority).
But when the Senate decides, "Oh, we don't like having to do X to stop a fillibuster, so we're just going to say Y is good enough," THAT'S a problem. Hello, Harry Fucking Reid. I can't wait until you're burning in Hell, you effeminate ass.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at January 25, 2012 03:03 PM (4df7R)

99 76
See this is bullshit. Nobody knows the rules. Where the fuck are they
written down? And for these shit heads to shove this crap through and
make it irrevocable is bullshit. I'd like to throw them all in prison.
Antidemocratic assholes. They are nothing but petty little dictators.

Posted by: mike at January 25, 2012 02:58 PM (RRSlp)


This. They are just pulling things out of their asses and rules be damned. Jail every last one of these mofos, but not before clapping them in irons and having them do a turn or two in the stocks.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars at January 25, 2012 03:03 PM (0AClR)

100 Paul Ryan is correct. Anything budget related (which includes the mandate, obviously) can be done away with via reconciliation. Also, re the parliamentarian, he can actually be overruled by a simple majority vote. In reality, the only thing keeping Republicans from repealing ObamaCare is their own will. All that's needed in any case is 51 votes.

Posted by: Mr. Estrada at January 25, 2012 03:03 PM (15s+i)

101 Exactly. The pre-existing condition thing is designed to destroy private insurance.

It's never going to be repealed.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 03:04 PM (ZPrif)

102 Our 2012 Priorities, In Order:
1. Keep control of House
2. Take Senate
3. Defeat Obama
4. Reverse all of Obama's shitty policies

Posted by: soothsayer

Point of order. Your list appears to be missing the voodoo dolls of Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at January 25, 2012 03:04 PM (/jOyr)

103 When people get massively increased premium bills for all the popular shit, it might not be so popular anymore. They're already grousing about the big rate hikes that have already hit.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 25, 2012 03:04 PM (0I4YH)

104 97
The pre-existing condition thing is crazy (I mean, claiming to eliminate
it is crazy, as it encourages gaming of the system) but there will have
to be some method of addressing this to the public's political
satisfaction.

Posted by: ace at January 25, 2012 03:02 PM (nj1bB)
Allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines might address this. That competition thingy really works.

Posted by: Tami at January 25, 2012 03:05 PM (X6akg)

105 Well, it's not like Obamacare is an important issue or anything. Not compared to the rhetoric someone uses about illegal alien families.
/s

Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2012 03:05 PM (5H6zj)

106
speaking of Scott Brown...

Did you know that he and Elizabeth "the founder of the OWS movement" Warren have agreed to a pact not to allow negative ads by themselves or by third-party sources?

It was Scott's idea.
Elizabeth Warren agreed to it, of course, because 1) it makes her look good, and 2) she doesn't really have to adhere to it. Scott is an idiot.

Posted by: soothsayer, ballbuster extraordinaire at January 25, 2012 03:05 PM (sqkOB)

107 Plus, insurance premiums are already price controlled and only allowed to rise a certain amount -- regardless of actual costs rising for the insurance companies.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 03:05 PM (ZPrif)

108 See this is bullshit. Nobody knows the rules.

You can get the rules on the Senate web site. This is Senate rule 22.

Posted by: Vic at January 25, 2012 03:05 PM (YdQQY)

109 Under the pre-existing condition part of the bill, why would anyone buy health insurance until they were sick?

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 25, 2012 03:06 PM (lVGED)

110 Today's GOP: George B. McClellan is our hero!

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars at January 25, 2012 03:06 PM (0AClR)

111 Anything passed on reconciliiation can be unpassed the same way. Don't let the cowards in the GOP tell you otherwise.

Posted by: montgomery burns at January 25, 2012 03:06 PM (K/USr)

112 >>>It would take a constitutional amendment TO prohibit fillibuster.

The Senate could amend its rules to eliminate the filibuster without changing the Constitution, but they could be amended back by a later vote. Amending the Constitution could prevent any restoration of the filibuster permanently (or until the Dems are in charge again, whichever comes first).

Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at January 25, 2012 03:06 PM (QKKT0)

113 Coming on the heels of the resignation of Gabby Giffords ...

JEFFERSON CITY• Authorities in Missouri were
investigating the discovery Tuesday of small stickers resembling
gun targets that were found near the office doors of several state
lawmakers.




Senators widely condemned the orange, round stickers displaying
crosshairs as an affront to their safety, and police appeared to
step up their presence in the Capitol hallways. The stickers were
placed next to the doors of at least five Democratic state
senators. The House clerk said a sticker also was found next to the
doorway of at least one House Republican office.

Posted by: Charlton Heston at January 25, 2012 03:06 PM (e8kgV)

114 of course I know that. But the democrats evaded the filibuster by saying they were passing it through reconciliation. Remember? We got the 41st vote, and thus should have been able to block it, but they said "reconciliation" and did whatever they wanted.
Posted by: ace at January 25, 2012 02:49 PM (nj1bB)



Defund Ocareand/or take away the mandate and Ocare will die on the vine.

Posted by: Soona at January 25, 2012 03:06 PM (NWQfv)

115
you missed my revised list:

Our 2012 Priorities, In Order:
1. Keep control of House
2. Take Senate
3. Defeat Obama
3.5 Celebrate
4. Reverse all of Obama's shitty policies
5. Worry and complain about how lousy a president Newt or Mitt is.

Posted by: soothsayer, ballbuster extraordinaire at January 25, 2012 03:06 PM (sqkOB)

116 Scott Brown is an idiot. Elizabeth Warren gets free media on the Daily Show tonight.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 03:06 PM (ZPrif)

117 Also, apparently Coleman is in Mitt's slot for prospective HHS Secretary if Mitt wins.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 25, 2012 03:06 PM (kaOJx)

118 >>>Under the pre-existing condition part of the bill, why would anyone buy health insurance until they were sick?

No idea.

Posted by: ace at January 25, 2012 03:06 PM (nj1bB)

119 And the GOP chattering class wonders why Republicans don't fall in line blindly behind Mittens

Posted by: The Political Hat at January 25, 2012 03:07 PM (XvHmy)

120 Obamacare was passed in the night against the public's wishes. Just do a one-line bill that says Obamacare is repealed. The public would like that regardless of the elements within the bill that might be popular.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 25, 2012 03:07 PM (Iyg03)

121 "Under the pre-existing condition part of the bill, why would anyone buy health insurance until they were sick?"

Because ummmm....I got nothing.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 25, 2012 03:08 PM (0I4YH)

122 MACACCA!

Posted by: George Allen at January 25, 2012 03:08 PM (jucos)

123 "The pre-existing condition thing is crazy (I mean, claiming to eliminate
it is crazy, as it encourages gaming of the system) but there will have
to be some method of addressing this to the public's political
satisfaction."

If we give up that ground (instead of educating the public on what a pre-existing condition really is, and why they're not covered by individual policies, and that that lack of coverage is typically 1 year or less), we've given up the game.

Don't think we haven't. Everything else flows from that. The individual mandate, for certain, but also the "efficiency (death) panels" the "end of life discussion," and everything else we raged against. That absolutely must go and not be replaced in any form.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 25, 2012 03:08 PM (8y9MW)

124 Nobody can repeal this, but NEWT is a nobody.
Suck on that.

I am hitting 200,000 visits in the next 20 hours or so.
If you’re no is no 200,000 I will spend a whole post slagging you and why you should not be the next president. Now that is worth more than 200,000 of Sierra Leone, leones.
So as they say in Chicago and Freetown, visit soon and visit again and again.

Posted by: keeskennis at January 25, 2012 03:09 PM (aAjhw)

125 "Under the pre-existing condition part of the bill, why would anyone buy health insurance until they were sick?"

The smart ones won't.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 25, 2012 03:09 PM (8y9MW)

126
Guess strikethru is still turned off


It's kind of hard to fathom that one idiot sock poster could cause all of this discombobulation.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at January 25, 2012 03:09 PM (vbh31)

127 Oh yeah, the mandate.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 25, 2012 03:10 PM (lVGED)

128
Pre-existing conditions in 10 years under obamacare will only be treated at the Logan's Run Hospital.

its funny how these people think that their pre-existing condition will be similarly viewed now as then. They will be rationed out of care.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 25, 2012 03:10 PM (XrrP7)

129 This. They are just pulling things out of their
asses and rules be damned.




Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars at January 25, 2012 03:03 PM (0AClR)

We make the rules up as we go along. What are you going to do about it?

Posted by: Alcee Hastings, Disgraced Ex-Fedral Judge and Proud Dem Congress Critter at January 25, 2012 03:10 PM (X3lox)

130 When people get massively increased premium bills for all the popular shit, it might not be so popular anymore.

It's going to get worse!?

Posted by: garrett at January 25, 2012 03:11 PM (RVYt5)

131 I finally listened to the speech. He talked about a doubling of interest income on student loans. I tried to tell all my friends that this was in the health bill which wasn't a health bill, like they thought. And no one believed me. Today, in shock, they believe me.

Posted by: ambrosia at January 25, 2012 03:11 PM (oZfic)

132 Reconciliation might enable them to pull some financing, but the only way for full and complete repeal would be to pass a bill that would read something like:

"H R 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is hereby repealed."

They would need a simple majority in the House to pass it, 60 votes in the Senate for cloture (close debate) and then 51 votes for passage.

Even if Republicans capture the Senate, they would need some Dems to vote with them for cloture. Someone like Joe Manchin might, but there would have to be others.

Posted by: Reno_Dave at January 25, 2012 03:11 PM (OL4L4)

133 Hey, we had to pop that festering boil so we could find out what is in it.

Posted by: Botox McRetard at January 25, 2012 03:11 PM (OlN4e)

134 Left unspoken is what role Norm Coleman would play in a Romney White House. Consider yourselves warned....

Posted by: montgomery burns at January 25, 2012 03:11 PM (K/USr)

135 I will repeat what I wrote in the earlier Newt post: YOU MUST READ R. EMMITT TYRELL'S ARTICLE LINKED ON DRUDGE. It's about Newt. It's brutal. He very clearly says that there are a ton more cheating scandals with Newt waiting to come out of the closet, that he's personally aware of several, and the Democrats are too.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 25, 2012 03:11 PM (TsYLl)

136 TAMALE!!

Posted by: George Costanza at January 25, 2012 03:11 PM (RVYt5)

137 I mean I like the details of it-but it would be more effective coming from Romney directly.



This might be sort of a trail balloon to see how they can rehabilitate Romney on RomneyCare with Coleman playing the bad guy

****

It was on some obscure Sunday morning health care forum that nobody watched. I doubt that they'd choose such a venue to float a trial balloon.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 25, 2012 03:12 PM (SY2Kh)

138
I tried to tell all my friends....

Posted by: ambrosia at January 25, 2012 03:11 PM (oZfic)


Bat shit crazy!

Posted by: Doctor Fish at January 25, 2012 03:12 PM (TkGkA)

139 >>>>>94
There are some elements of ObamaCare -- like insurance under parents'
policies through age 26, or eliminating the pre-existing condition thing
-- which are probably not going to be repealed. Ever.
Because they're popular.

There are 2 distinct problems. One is repealing OCare. Two is specific to Romney. If he can't convince people that he is totally committed to repeal and will move heaven and earth to achieve it, he won't be the nom. Any equivocation or hedging at this point is fatal. Period.

Posted by: pep at January 25, 2012 03:12 PM (YXmuI)

140 130
When people get massively increased premium bills for all the popular shit, it might not be so popular anymore.


It's going to get worse!?
Posted by: garrett at January 25, 2012 03:11 PM (RVYt5)

Not worse... better! Please don't let my brilliance confound you.

Posted by: Barky O'BenDoin', Preznint De Luxe at January 25, 2012 03:12 PM (0AClR)

141 "Even if Republicans capture the Senate, they would need some Dems to
vote with them for cloture. Someone like Joe Manchin might, but there
would have to be others."

You could probably get them to vote for cloture with the correct inducements (read: pork- but I'm willing to do a little pork spending to kill ObamaCare) and the promise that they can vote against it (and give long speeches against it on the floor) when the bill comes for final vote.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 25, 2012 03:13 PM (8y9MW)

142 Times like this I am reminded of one of the better things to come out of the 1970's.

Posted by: Lord Monochromicorn at January 25, 2012 03:13 PM (q1flQ)

143 I no longer believe any Republicans will repeal it.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 02:40 PM

Same.

Posted by: Random at January 25, 2012 03:13 PM (YiE0S)

144 You can't repeal the mandate without repealing the pre-existing condition provision of the bill.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 25, 2012 03:13 PM (lVGED)

145 You'll love our revolutionary auto liability coverage. You don't buy it until someone sues you for auto-related injuries. Just think of all the money you'll save!

Posted by: Flo at January 25, 2012 03:13 PM (QKKT0)

146 This makes it impossible for me to
Vote for Romney if he's the nominee

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 25, 2012 03:13 PM (wzUWQ)

147 Actually, not same. I never thought it would be repealed, although it should be.

Posted by: Random at January 25, 2012 03:13 PM (YiE0S)

148 My link fu is weak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ2t5e7stVM

Posted by: Lord Monochromicorn at January 25, 2012 03:13 PM (q1flQ)

149 You are going to need 60 to repeal it in it's entirety and 51 to take it apart with reconciliation.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at January 25, 2012 03:14 PM (fuUYY)

150 Jeff, any idea why a Romney cmpaign advisor and possible HHS Secretary in a Romney Administration is saying Obamacare won't be completely repealed if Mitt wins?

To me, that is more important than someone claiming Newt got some strange pussy back in the day.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 25, 2012 03:14 PM (kaOJx)

151 Every time the federal gov't runs out of money--which happens every two months or so--another opportunity to repeal Obamneycare root and branch is presented....and missed.

Posted by: montgomery burns at January 25, 2012 03:14 PM (K/USr)

152 You know, somebody ought to shove a pitchfork up Noot's ass for playing my dupe on that couch.

Posted by: Botox McRetard at January 25, 2012 03:14 PM (OlN4e)

153

Eliminating the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage to people already sick or injured (for that particular condition), coupled with eliminating the individual mandate, will render the entire business of selling insurance invalid.

Insurance companies will collapse overnight.

Then, the government will step in and save the day by providing "free" health care.

Everything is working according to plan, it seems.

The idea that this popular aspect of the law can't be repealed is nonsense. People are not that stupid. And however uphill a battle it is, it ABSOLUTELY need to be fought. Are you guys kidding me giving up on this battle??

Posted by: dan-O at January 25, 2012 03:14 PM (sWycd)

154 It would be good if a Conservative think tank like Heritage would do a study of what kind of money and power are at stake to those entrenched DC types of both parties in maintaining the status quo of Obamacare until/if the transitory outcry were to pass.

Maybe that's what us fools out here that see a national health plan as a descent into bankruptcy and marxism aren't getting.

Because after all the Tea Party is stoopid and raaacist.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 25, 2012 03:14 PM (ZJCDy)

155 Posted by: Flo at January 25, 2012 03:13 PM (QKKT0)



You pumpkin-headed, whiny liberal, you.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at January 25, 2012 03:15 PM (vbh31)

156 What a bunch of disheartening mother-fuckers.
*
**spit**

Posted by: dananjcon at January 25, 2012 03:15 PM (8ieXv)

157 phoenixgirl, blow it out your arse.

Defeating Obama is important, even if Romney is the nominee. And anyway, this was defeated-by-Franken senator Norm Coleman's opinion, not Romney's stated one.

Posted by: Random at January 25, 2012 03:15 PM (YiE0S)

158 How to handle the pre-existing conditions thing -- not interfere with the market. Insurers have to offer a policy with no pre-existing conditions clause - and are free to price it accordingly. They can offer plans with varying pre-existing condition restrictions and price those accordingly.

Posted by: Jean at January 25, 2012 03:15 PM (WkuV6)

159 Romney loves him some Obamacare. Newt's gone amnesty. Paul is kookoobananas. Santorum is in the single digits.

Take me, Lord! I'm ready for the Promised Land!

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 25, 2012 03:16 PM (Hx5uv)

160
Random, stairs, now.

Posted by: soothsayer, ballbuster extraordinaire at January 25, 2012 03:16 PM (sqkOB)

161
Let's see Jeff B., would I rather vote for Newt who has bagged himself some women or Mitt who has bagged himself some socialism?

I'll go with Newt. or a squirrel.


Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 25, 2012 03:16 PM (XrrP7)

162 It was on some obscure Sunday morning health care forum that nobody watched. I doubt that they'd choose such a venue to float a trial balloon.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 25, 2012 03:12 PM (SY2Kh)

****
So, in other words my hopes that this is some super genius plan...are..deader than Nancy Pelosi's rabbit?

Posted by: tasker at January 25, 2012 03:16 PM (r2PLg)

163 Random at January 25, 2012 03:15 PM

Who is ol' Norm working for these days?

Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 25, 2012 03:16 PM (kaOJx)

164 Random FOAD.

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 25, 2012 03:16 PM (wzUWQ)

165 I tried to tell all my friends....Posted by: ambrosia at January 25, 2012 03:11 PM (oZfic)

----------


Cats don't vote.

Posted by: Flo at January 25, 2012 03:16 PM (QKKT0)

166 JeffB I think Elliot Abrams article gives it a run for the money on must reads.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at January 25, 2012 03:16 PM (fuUYY)

167 Random, winning friends and influencing people all.day.long.

Posted by: Tami at January 25, 2012 03:17 PM (X6akg)

168 The whole point is to spike insurance private insurance premiums and drive private insurance out of business.

Companies will stop offering medical insurance and people will have to be their own plans.

Obamacare plans will offer lower subsidized premiums. People will choose Obamacare over Aetna or Kaiser, because Obamacare plans will be cheaper and subsidized with tax revenue.

By the 202s private insurance will be dying on the vine.

That's the entire point of Obamacare.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 03:18 PM (ZPrif)

169 Who is ol' Norm working for these days?
Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 25, 2012 03:16 PM (kaOJx)
--------------------------------------------------------
ME! Bitches!!!!!!

Posted by: Preznit B to the O Holla at January 25, 2012 03:18 PM (jucos)

170
...specific to Romney. If he can't convince people that he is totally committed to repeal and will move heaven and earth to achieve it, he won't be the nom. Any equivocation or hedging at this point is fatal. Period.
Posted by: pep




Don't worry. As soon as the Florida primary is over and Mitt doesn't have to butter up the government health-care loving greyhairs, he'll pivot once again.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 25, 2012 03:19 PM (3wBRE)

171 If Romney doesn't swear on his wife's life that he won't work to repeal every fucking aspect of obama Romney care he will not get my vote

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 25, 2012 03:19 PM (wzUWQ)

172 If you leave it in the hands of the private sector there will be people with an appetite for the risk of insuring those with pre existing conditions. Just like there are bain capitals out there. If it is underwritten correctly, they can make money. That will be attractive to some companies, just like some of the things bain did were attractive to investors.

Posted by: ambrosia at January 25, 2012 03:19 PM (oZfic)

173 "How to handle the pre-existing conditions thing -- not interfere with
the market. Insurers have to offer a policy with no pre-existing
conditions clause - and are free to price it accordingly"

Nope. Won't work. That still concedes the ideological ground about covering pre-existing conditions. Once you've conceded that ground, you can't get it back. And we're back to ratchet effect. It won't be long before stories of people who have to sell their homes and cars to afford their insurance- without which they couldn't afford their cancer treatment- and how that's "unfair."

We must absolutely kill the idea that pre-existing conditions have to be covered.

As it is, we've given too much ideological ground away- outside of very, very narrow circumstances, insurers already have to cover pre-existing conditions (if they offer coverage at all) after (at most) 12 - 18 months of continuous coverage.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 25, 2012 03:19 PM (8y9MW)

174 States already use price controls to limit premium increase. The state level commissions won't allow insurance companies to price the no-pre-existing conditions plans properly.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 03:20 PM (ZPrif)

175 The most pernicious parts can be changed with just 51 votes - but you don't end up with something I'd call "Conservative" either. It does gut the -route- to single payer though.

1) Increase the penalty for employers who fail to provide hc. The level is set at like $8000, so most employers will say "to hell with this" and drop out -> leaving their employees to the tender mercies of the -government- plan. Make the penalty $50,000 and suddenly there's zero people doing this. (Yes, it would still suck.)

2) Make the -personal- mandate $1.

If those two aspects are changed, then miles of other stuff is simply extraneous crap. And would eventually be haggled off and killed.

Amusingly enough, both of these pieces should have rank-and-file "Democrat" appeal. The leaders would say "Hey, you're gutting things here", but you -should- be able to get some D's to cross over if you just pound "Hey, the fee for failing the mandate is just too damn high for everyone to pay" and "Look! Employers aren't -providing- health care!!! They're dropping people!!! Make them stop!!!"

Posted by: Al at January 25, 2012 03:20 PM (MzQOZ)

176 Personally. I think Norm would find his calling kicking rocks.

Posted by: maddogg at January 25, 2012 03:20 PM (OlN4e)

177 Look people, this isn't hard:

If Romney doesn't repudiate this (and his spokeswoman already has, in no uncertain terms -- see #22 in this thread), then fine: fuck him. He deserves to lose.

If he does (and he has), then what the fuck is the problem here? A guy on his "advisory staff" (which is always a bunch of BS) said something dumb and objectionable? Unless Romney said it himself, and didn't repudiate it, it's not Romney's fucking fault.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 25, 2012 03:21 PM (TsYLl)

178 Question: What should the "fair" monthly premium to a private insurer be for a person with a disease that is known to cost $20,000/month to treat and whose treatment is demanded by the federal government?



ObamaCare: $223.71/month

Posted by: Ask ObamaCare ... at January 25, 2012 03:21 PM (X3lox)

179 Random, internet strongman.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 25, 2012 03:22 PM (ZJCDy)

180 >>Senators widely condemned the orange, round stickers displaying

crosshairs as an affront to their safety,<<


An insult to safety? WTF?

Posted by: HeatherRadish needs italics. And a beer. at January 25, 2012 03:23 PM (ZKzrr)

181 The no pre-existing conditions clause is popular with like 80% of the public. It's overwhelmingly popular. It's economically stupid, but it's overwhelming popular. So it will never be repealed. We could get 80 Republicans in the Senate and they wouldn't repeal it.

Most Republicans I know support that part of Obamacare.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 03:23 PM (ZPrif)

182 Isn't Norm C.the guy that sat idley by while Franken spread his ass cheeks and corn-holed him with a bigorangepylon.

Posted by: dananjcon at January 25, 2012 03:23 PM (8ieXv)

183 Everthing, I think, hinges on the mandate. If the mandate is gone, Ocare is gone. No one wants it.

Posted by: Soona at January 25, 2012 03:23 PM (NWQfv)

184 Jeff-
the problem is that a tepid "he's wrong" sort of response won't do it. It needs to be a scorched earth, he's got no role in my admin sort of response. Nothing else will reassure the Romney doubters that he really means it.

Ironically, that could help in dispelling Mitt's other problem-the perception that he is too nice to ever get mean. He needs that.

Posted by: pep at January 25, 2012 03:25 PM (YXmuI)

185 I think I've now developed a 6th sense for when a new thread has started.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 03:25 PM (ZPrif)

186 "It's economically stupid, but it's overwhelming popular."

Even more reason to educate the public on why it's so bad.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 25, 2012 03:25 PM (8y9MW)

187 Don't worry. As soon as the Florida primary is over
and Mitt doesn't have to butter up the government health-care loving
greyhairs, he'll pivot once again.


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 25, 2012 03:19 PM (3wBRE)
At least we know he doesn't suffer from vertigo. Jeez, he spins like a top.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at January 25, 2012 03:25 PM (cPJUK)

188 I need to see Romney stand on stage with a knife to one of his daughter's throats screaming "As God is my witness, I will knife my kids if I don't go to each and every length, no matter what the cost, to repeal OZerocare in it's entirity". Now thats whatI call a forceful repudiation.

Posted by: maddogg at January 25, 2012 03:25 PM (OlN4e)

189 I thee nothing wong with mandates.

Posted by: Bawney Fwank at January 25, 2012 03:25 PM (jucos)

190 Gee Jeff b i thought you had established that what a supporter of a candidate says is just like the candidate saying it. Even if the candidate immediatle renounces the statement.

Posted by: buzzion at January 25, 2012 03:26 PM (cGCKP)

191 Norm being a pussy is a huge reason we even have Obamacare -- it gave them Franken and the 60th vote.

Fuck Norm.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 03:26 PM (ZPrif)

192 Posted by: maddogg at January 25, 2012 03:25 PM (OlN4e)

He has no daughters, he has 5 sons.

Posted by: ambrosia at January 25, 2012 03:26 PM (oZfic)

193 Was Norm the fucking genius on Willard's staff that sent Noot the cake? What a crew of best and brightest he's accumulated.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 25, 2012 03:26 PM (yowgW)

194 He has no daughters, he has 5 sons.
Posted by: ambrosia at January 25, 2012 03:26 PM (oZfic)

Well, then...his wife will do, as long as I see a little dribble of blood due to handshake during the proclaimation.

Posted by: maddogg at January 25, 2012 03:28 PM (OlN4e)

195 You can try to educate the public. Reason and Cato and AEI try. But that's a long term tactic.

People like free shit. Obamacare offers them free shit.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 03:28 PM (ZPrif)

196 Unless it's a one page repeal of the whole 2,700 page law, then it is <u>not</u> repeal!

Posted by: zDale at January 25, 2012 03:29 PM (TPM/C)

197 >>> The no pre-existing conditions clause is popular with like 80% of the
public. It's overwhelmingly popular. It's economically stupid, but it's
overwhelming popular. So it will never be repealed. We could get 80
Republicans in the Senate and they wouldn't repeal it.

Most Republicans I know support that part of Obamacare

I agree that it is popular (I don't know about 80%, but whatever).

So that means they need to start educating people. Start airing ads. Get out on the campaign trail in preparation for the battle. Get townhalls going. When it comes down to it, the people aren't THAT stupid.

This must be fought. The other option is to just give up and accept single-payer state insurance.

And frankly, if we are not going to get rid of the pre-existing condition aspect of the law, then we should not get rid of the mandate.

Posted by: dan-O at January 25, 2012 03:29 PM (sWycd)

198 >>Isn't Norm C.the guy that sat idley by while Franken spread his ass cheeks and corn-holed him with a bigorangepylon.

Posted by: dananjcon at January 25, 2012 03:23 PM (8ieXv)

Apparently that's why the Romney people thought he would be such a natural fit in their campaign.The more of d'ohs we see out of Team Romney I'm scratching my head over how this guy actually fed his family, let alone banked millions.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 25, 2012 03:30 PM (ZJCDy)

199
>>>Norm being a pussy is a huge reason we even have Obamacare -- it gave them Franken and the 60th vote.

*****

Coleman didn't lose for being a pussy, he lost because he ran the exact sort of campaign that most of you would've wanted him to run- bash, bash, bash his opponent. It turn voters off in a cycle favorable to Dems.

Having a partisan Dem as MN AG didn't help either.


Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 25, 2012 03:32 PM (SY2Kh)

200 Mitt Romney’s campaign is attacking Newt Gingrich as an "influence peddler." But it turns out that some of Romney’s closest advisers (or the firms
they lobbied for) were paid hundreds of thousands — maybe millions — of dollars on behalf of failed mortgage giant Freddie Mac.
Full story at the Daily Caller, who seems to be one of the 'conservative' outlets not fully in the tank for Mitt.

http://tinyurl.com/7gy93b5

Posted by: Y-not at January 25, 2012 03:32 PM (5H6zj)

201 It won't matter what Ryan says if the Republican president isn't going to be behind it. Ryan's right when he says we need a leader.

If there was only a well-spoken, young, good-looking conservative who knows policy really well, preferably from a swing state that could lay out the differences between conservatism and Obamaism with over ten years experience in Washington DC who could lead an effort like that of repealing Obamacare by running for president.

Oh well, I guess that's just wishful thinking.

Posted by: carl at January 25, 2012 03:33 PM (QocR4)

202 Well that's it, I'm all in for Mitt

Well that's it, I'm all in for Newt

Damn it, why can't I live in a Super Tuesday state?

Posted by: Dave in Fla at January 25, 2012 03:34 PM (RI0fC)

203
...specific to Romney. If he can't convince people that he is totally committed to repeal and will move heaven and earth to achieve it, he won't be the nom. Any equivocation or hedging at this point is fatal. Period.
Posted by: pep






"By Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Warvan, it shall be repealed!"

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 25, 2012 03:34 PM (3wBRE)

204 To those who don't want to cover pre existing conditions. Try telling that to all the diabetics out there. Almost every family has at least one diabetic, that'll fly. I can just see it now "the republicans want to kill my mom, my dad, my sister, my brother, auntie...whoever in the family is the diabetic.

Posted by: ambrosia at January 25, 2012 03:34 PM (oZfic)

205 #198 Who do you think will win in VA?

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at January 25, 2012 03:35 PM (fuUYY)

206 <<<If he does (and he has), then what the fuck is the problem here? A guy on his "advisory staff" (which is always a bunch of BS) said something dumb and objectionable? Unless Romney said it himself, and didn't repudiate it, it's not Romney's fucking fault.>>>



Remember when the introductory speaker at an event for a candidatesaying something to reporters afterwards was an idication of what the candidate believed and wanted it to be saidno matter what even if they immediately denounced it. Now a member of a candidate's advisory board cannot reflect on the candidate at all in any way shape or form.

Posted by: buzzion at January 25, 2012 03:36 PM (GULKT)

207 I have pre-existing conditions. My husband I are both out of work. As it stands now in my state, carriers that write a lot of business have to write a certain number of "guaranteed issue" policies for people with pre-existing conditions. Our insurance is not cheap but we can get it and we had the choice of 3 carriers multiple plans (It was cheaper than COBRA!). This is how it should work. Figure out how to help those that can't afford the premiums, not change the system for every living being in the country. (Some states are already all guaranteed issue, like NJ, so premiums are much higher there).

Posted by: jeannebodine at January 25, 2012 03:36 PM (byR8d)

208 @199 Bullshit.

Norm was a pussy because he didn't fight as Franken and the Dems stole the election via voter fraud and lost ballots and rigged vote counting.

He didn't fight when it mattered -- when the vote was being stolen after the election.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 03:37 PM (ZPrif)

209 Ron Paul is going to win in Virginia. I know you think romney but no, the people who support the other candidates are going to go out and vote against romney by voting for paul.

Posted by: ambrosia at January 25, 2012 03:37 PM (oZfic)

210 Something along the lines of "I completely reject the notion that we should give up, before the battle is even waged,
---------------------------
Foolish Americans, will you never learn?

Posted by: The French at January 25, 2012 03:37 PM (joSBv)

211 So... we are going to listen to a guy who lost to both Al -frickin kidding me- Franken and Jesse -I don't hunt game, I hunt man- Ventura?

Posted by: squidgrunt at January 25, 2012 03:38 PM (5rzho)

212
This is why a lot of people are saying they won't vote Romney, even if he's the nominee:

If Obamacare isn't repealed in toto within two years, it no longer matters whether the President is a Republican or Democrat. Just look at Britain. The "conservatives" there make Romney look like Atilla the Hun by comparison.

Posted by: K~Bob at January 25, 2012 03:39 PM (qvo7a)

213
No insurance company that I know of will accept someone with a pre-existing condition unless you work for a large company where they do not require a physical exam. Try getting insurance after a stroke.
I agree that to cover pre-existing conditions is welfare not insurance. We need to decide if we want welfare for pre-existing conditions, or will we let people die because the have no money.

Posted by: zDale at January 25, 2012 03:39 PM (TPM/C)

214 He's right, of course. Like it or not, OCare is a New Entitlement.

And Entitlements never go away. Ever.

Under any circumstances.

Posted by: Count Orlock at January 25, 2012 03:40 PM (RurGt)

215 Until O-care came along 95% of insurance regulations were state regulated so they differ from state. All the fear mongering about dropping people and even a lot about not taking people with pre-existing conditions was just that. I'm not saying it isn't expensive without a group.

Posted by: jeannebodine at January 25, 2012 03:42 PM (byR8d)

216 I freaking knew it. I said this was my biggest fear, once in office he'd spout the technical difficulties on repealing ObamaCare.

And that's it. I'm voting Newt.

Posted by: Jypsea Rose~AoSHQ Graveyard Shift at January 25, 2012 03:46 PM (mjy0n)

217 "The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system" Gingrich wrote.'"we agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at January 25, 2012 03:46 PM (fuUYY)

218 >>>Norm was a pussy because he didn't fight as Franken and the Dems
stole the election via voter fraud and lost ballots and rigged vote
counting.



He didn't fight when it mattered -- when the vote was being stolen after the election.

****

He did fight it. He might have done things differently, but with a Dem AG running the recount, it's expected that he'd come out on the losing end.

Point is, it shouldn't have been close enough for there to be a recount. Coleman blew a huge lead because of a lousy campaign.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 25, 2012 03:48 PM (SY2Kh)

219
204-You are absolutely correct. Tell anyone that suffers from a chronic condition that, well, you are going to have to die to clean up the gene pool. Multiple sclerosis-sorry, got to die or be confined to a home for the rest of your life. Diabetes-hurry up and die, already.Oops, you've taken anti-depressants, sorry, can't be insured. There are reasons that insurance companies have taken it on the chin that have nothing to do with the godless Democrats.

Posted by: ejo at January 25, 2012 03:48 PM (J7B50)

220 The future of healthcare in America is morphine and hospice. We are going to end up like Britain. Once you hit a certain age or degree of infirmity the death panel will rule you don't get any more treatments because it wouldn't be cost-effective.

You will be offered all the morphine you want. And you will be offered a bed in hospice where an immigrant nurse with terrible English will, poorly, pretend to care that you are dying.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 03:50 PM (ZPrif)

221 97
The pre-existing condition thing is crazy (I mean, claiming to eliminate
it is crazy, as it encourages gaming of the system) but there will have
to be some method of addressing this to the public's political
satisfaction.

Posted by: ace at January 25, 2012 03:02 PM (nj1bB)
Can they do a thing wherein the condition had to have existed for [insert some period of time] before you can get insurance? It'll have to be addressed somehow, even if the solution is just federally guaranteed catastrophic insurance.

Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 25, 2012 03:52 PM (RD7QR)

222 Even if Michelle Bachmann's statement should be taken as a sincere expression of politics as the art of the possible, no such benefit of the doubt is owed to Romney or anyone in his camp, given both his record as Governor and his refusals to repudiate O-care and work with Congress to repeal it.

Posted by: Ed Snyder at January 25, 2012 03:52 PM (lQ+ve)

223 All these pre-existing conditions stories are why it won't be repealed. Everybody is willing to bankrupt everyone else when it's their health on the line.

I know I am. Fuck the rest of the world. If it costs a billion dollars to keep me or my family alive an extra 6 months then fuckin do it. I don't care how much misery that inflicts on other people.

That's how most people think. It's why politicians offer free lunches. It's why Obama was elected.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 03:52 PM (ZPrif)

224 Posted by: ejo at January 25, 2012 03:48 PM (J7B50)


You feel obligated to pay for every second of every person's existence and care, then fine. You do it with your money. This simple-minded and retarded argument that people are going to die for not having money is annoying, already. People die. Everyone dies, money or not, but the people with the money pay for the R+D that allows life-saving operations and procedures to even be available at a reasonable cost to those with little money. But, you'd like to fuck that whole development up to just deliver EVERYTHING to the poor, the diseased (sorry that you have an expensive illness, but that's life, you know) right now, while killing off future developments because you're jealous that someone else is being treated for something now - that THEY ARE PAYING FOR.

I'm almost surprised that people don't sue for the daths of their great-grandparents 100 years ago, when the hospital didn't do the correct CAT scans that everyone is entitled to, today. Great-granny would have been saved! She could have lived forever ... if not for the greedy hospital that refused to allow her a CAT scan in 1912 ...

Posted by: really ... at January 25, 2012 03:54 PM (X3lox)

225 #213 if you have a preexisting that prevents you from working the you probably are on medicaid. If you are working you probably have insurance through your company. If you are self employed you probably get an insurance policy with an exclusion for your preexisting condition and or very high ded. If you are a minor you have SCHIP. If you fit in none of these categories , then life is going to be tougher.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at January 25, 2012 03:56 PM (fuUYY)

226 183
Everthing, I think, hinges on the mandate. If the mandate is gone, Ocare is gone. No one wants it.

Posted by: Soona at January 25, 2012 03:23 PM (NWQfv)

We need the Supreme court to say that the individual mandate is not only unconstitutional but also unseverable. That's a tough hurdle, but if we get it BambiCare is dead dead dead.

Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 25, 2012 03:56 PM (RD7QR)

227 Federal catastrophe insurance is a boondoggle. It's not insurance. It's just welfare to political powerful groups.

I have a step-cousin who the Feds have paid to rebuild her house like 3 times. She lives in Carolina hurricane country.

She's a staunch Republican, but thinks it's totally fair that everybody else rebuilds her house 3x over because she likes to live on the fucking beach. She could move inland, and she would if she had to pay a market rate for insurance. But she doesn't. She gets subsidized federal "insurance".

Government insurance isn't insurance. Because it's not actuarially sound. It's just welfare.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 03:57 PM (ZPrif)

228 204 -Where areyou located because that sounds like full on scare tactics.You can buy insurance with a pre-existing condition. Its not cheap but I know my sister and others have purchased insurance. One has diabetes, one has had a heart attack that nearly killed him. They did receive a slight discount because they had carried insurance consistently for years and had either retired or were laid off from their job.There was also a standard waiting period of 6 months that was reduced to 3 months for covered expenses. Those three months could be reimbursed after carrying the coverage for a year. The consistent coverage and wait period may be the key to keeping people from dialing up insurance from the ambulance.Thisis not Joe's insurance either -itsa major carrier everyone knows.

Posted by: ol' miss at January 25, 2012 03:57 PM (QBKYa)

229 I can't believe how this whole healthcare debate has conservatives actually arguing policy regarding pre-existing conditions. You are actually doing that? Moving so damned far to the left that you want to play their game? That's why this whole issue is killing healthcare.

It never should have gotten so far. You should be able to buy your care with your own cash. Or make you own contract with a gambler.

This acceptance of the regulated insurance industry as the model to stick with is what empowers the left, and removes all pretentions to free-market economics from the right.

Good job, everyone. We're already Britain.

Posted by: K~Bob at January 25, 2012 03:58 PM (qvo7a)

230 Really-good argument. That will win the election. Fuck you diseased folks. People die every day-if you do have a chronic condition, fuck you. When you collapse on the sidewalk because you can't get treatment, the crows can pick your eyeballs out and I, Really, will be satisfied because, well, fuck you.If only the R's had a brilliant oraclelike you on the campaign trail making arguments like Ann "You southerners are toothless inbred imbeciles" Coulter.

Posted by: ejo at January 25, 2012 04:00 PM (J7B50)

231

Posted by: ejo at January 25, 2012 04:00 PM (J7B50)

You're demanding that I pay for your illnesses. All of them. Because YOU said so. And I must do it through the government, which makes it 5 times as expensive, causing the deaths of many others who you trample over in your hurry to argue that I and everyone on Earth OWES YOU TREATMENT.

Why don't you blame me that you weren't born smarter? Guess what party you should be in?

Posted by: really ... at January 25, 2012 04:04 PM (X3lox)

232
Why have insurance at all?

Why not let the user of healthcarenegotiate with the provider of healthcare? This will bring down cost. It's the third party payor that preverts the system. More regulations. More costs. We'll pay for this, but not for that. Get rid of the insurance companies entirely.

Posted by: zDale at January 25, 2012 04:04 PM (TPM/C)

233 Fuck you ejo, nobody is making that argument.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 25, 2012 04:05 PM (ZPrif)

234 ejo thinks that the US health care system needs to be destroyed so that he can get care he can't pay for. He didn't invent the care or have any idea how it's delivered, but he's entitled to it, at any cost.

Posted by: really ... at January 25, 2012 04:11 PM (X3lox)

235 Actually, really is making that argument and apparently thinks it should be the centerpiece of any discussion on health care reform. Fuck you, sick people,isn't a very smart argument.

Posted by: ejo at January 25, 2012 04:14 PM (J7B50)

236 So, should diabetics die slowly or should we hasten their deaths if they can't hack it according to "really" standards?

Posted by: ejo at January 25, 2012 04:16 PM (J7B50)

237 If my wife needs treatment, I don't care who pays. "Socialism", "Capitalism", "Marxism", all become just words. This becomes a survival situation in which I will do whatever it takes to save her. I believe that most people will do the same.

Posted by: zDale at January 25, 2012 04:19 PM (TPM/C)

238 In 5 to 7 years, we will have single payer government medicine. It will be signed into law by a Republican president.

Posted by: Nostradamus at January 25, 2012 04:20 PM (7whvo)

239 > 235
Fuck you, sick people,isn't a very smart argument.


Posted by: ejo at January 25, 2012 04:14 PM (J7B50)

Making up shit that your opponent supposedly believes isn't a very smart argument either. If you want to argue with yourself, you don't have to waste bandwidth here to do it.

Posted by: K~Bob at January 25, 2012 04:20 PM (qvo7a)

240 So, should diabetics die slowly or should we hasten their deaths if they can't hack it according to "really" standards?

Posted by: ejo at January 25, 2012 04:16 PM (J7B50)
Diabetics should be charged commensurate with the costs they'll incur, as with everyone. Private charity can handle the overload.
If you think that diabetics need extra state welfare (as was mentioned in a comment above) then just say that and fight for exactly that. You want welfare for diabetics. Fine. But don't try and destroy the whole health care system just so that you don't have to frame it that way.

Posted by: really ... at January 25, 2012 04:21 PM (X3lox)

241 CarolT at January 25, 2012 02:48 PM (z4WKX)

i thought coleman lost to al franken?

Posted by: chas at January 25, 2012 04:22 PM (TKF1Y)

242 This alone and on its face is enough reason to say goodbye to his Most Inevitable Foreheadedness.

This is one point upon which it is important for the GOP (and that other thing, liberty) to be most unreasonable.

Newt at least says the time for talking has just begun, instead of "you know what, get used to it".

Obamacare as ORomnacare is the end. If you assure me R. will be "competent" at getting "things done" in this fashion, that is very poor salesmanship.

The GOP stamp of approval on Ocare is the end of America, and I say that really believing it is not hyperbolic.

Posted by: sarahw at January 25, 2012 04:30 PM (tFGP6)

243 It's this kind of stuff that is leading me to vote for anybody but Romney as the Republican nominee. I hear him speak, and he says the right things, but somehow I just don't believe it. Then this kind of statement comes out and confirms my worst fears about him.

Posted by: Cardin Drake at January 25, 2012 04:34 PM (8LOIL)

244 They should be able to repeal via reconciliation that which was passed under reconciliation rules. You can't argue it fits under the guidelines to pass it and not to repeal it.

60 votes could be cobbled together anyway if we win a big enough victory in the fall to intimidate a few of the Democrats who come up for reelection in 2014, which will include the freshman from the wave year of 2008.

Of course, if Gingrich is the nominee we probably lose seats in the House and gain far fewer in the Senate than we would with any other choice, and perhaps lose the White House race too.

Posted by: Adjoran at January 25, 2012 04:37 PM (VfmLu)

245 What if Christina Piglosi is the love child of Nancy Piglosi and Newt Gingrich and that's why she's so ugly? That could be the Big Secret!

Posted by: jeannebodine at January 25, 2012 04:51 PM (byR8d)

246 Knowing Norm Coleman is Romney's adviser is enough to solidify my concern about whether he is a RINO.

Posted by: JayBee at January 25, 2012 04:55 PM (Xwgt3)

247 If Gingrich is the nominee I say we pick up seats. Allen in VA at the very least.

Posted by: sarahw at January 25, 2012 04:57 PM (tFGP6)

248 The turning point for Romney-




***Norm Coleman's Remarks Prove We Can't Trust Mitt Romney To Repeal Obamacare, Unless...


or


Finally, A Real Test of Romney's Conservative Bona Fides***


http://tinyurl.com/6pl5bfy




Posted by: naturalfake at January 25, 2012 05:09 PM (XBdI0)

249 But the whole point of health insurance, or any insurance for that matter, is that you aren't going to pay commensurate to the costs that are incurred. You pay your premium and if nothing happens, it's money out the door. If you incur a loss of some sort or a serious health issue, everyone else gets to pay for your problem.Is this form of subsidy fine because the insurer says it is and it benefits you?

Posted by: ejo at January 25, 2012 05:12 PM (J7B50)

250 But don't you need a budget to do reconciliation? And to do a budget requires Senate 60 votes.
Senate has gone 1000+ days without passing a budget, which means the USG does not have a budget, it just has a bunch of approp bills. No reason why that cannot continue indefinitely if there are 41 Senate Dems unalterable committed to retaining ObamaCare.

Posted by: Marty at January 25, 2012 05:21 PM (XD+u1)

251 And pre-existing conditions are covered under group plans? Can I expect that really is in favor of eliminating this form of health care destroying welfare? If not, then can I assume, in the interest of fairness, that anyone should be able to buy such a policy which covers pre-existing conditions?

Posted by: ejo at January 25, 2012 05:24 PM (J7B50)

252 ejo, that's only how "government" insurance works. Actual "insurance" requires the insurer to build up a fund. He can build it from selling premiums, buying bonds, acquiring property and selling it, putting some profits in it, and owning stock. But it's the insurer's fund to manage. It isn't using *your* money to pay for my healthcare. If his funds get low due to many claims, or a catastrophe, and he can't cover costs, all those who gambled on getting a payout from him will find they took a bad risk. That's the breaks.

Government, though, simply takes more from you to pay for my healthcare.

The difference is highly significant.

Posted by: K~Bob at January 25, 2012 05:26 PM (qvo7a)

253 But don't you need a budget to do reconciliation? And to do a budget requires Senate 60 votes.

From Wikipedia:

Budget bills are governed under special rules called "reconciliation" which do not allow filibusters. Reconciliation once only applied to bills that would reduce the budget
deficit, but since 1996 it has been used for all matters related to
budget issues.

Posted by: pbrown at January 25, 2012 05:33 PM (HASDo)

254 " You pay your premium and if nothing happens, it's money out the door. "

You paid for the coverage for that time period. Your benefit was to be covered by the contract for the time you had paid for.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 25, 2012 05:33 PM (kaOJx)

255 But the whole point of health insurance, or any
insurance for that matter, is that you aren't going to pay commensurate
to the costs that are incurred. You pay your premium and if nothing
happens, it's money out the door. If you incur a loss of some sort or a
serious health issue, everyone else gets to pay for your problem.Is this
form of subsidy fine because the insurer says it is and it benefits
you?

Posted by: ejo at January 25, 2012 05:12 PM (J7B50)

You have it exactly backwards, as one would expect. In normal INSURANCE, the insurance figures out what the odds are that it will have to pay out for you and comes to a figure for that. They charge more than that to pay for the insurance business. That is how insurance works. You pay EXTRA to have a limit put on what you are at risk for. EXTRA. You get worse than an even odds bet with insurance, because there must be profit in the industry (as with all industries that charge you more than they pay to put the product together). That is how insurance works.
What you are describing is WELFARE - getting other people to pay for your shit. It is not insurance. Looking to have every expense paid for by ... "someone else" ... is not what insurance is. But, in your confusion, you are looking to destroy the real insurance that is available to me in order to secure welfare for yourself and call it "insurance", so that you feel better about it. And then you have the temerity to call me names. LOL.

Posted by: really ... at January 25, 2012 05:35 PM (X3lox)

256 "It's Unrealistic To Think We'll Ever Completely Repeal ObamaCare"

Given the nutless state of the Republican Party, I fear he's right.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 25, 2012 05:40 PM (r4wIV)

257 Too bad linking is disabled (may the fleas of a thousand camels strike the perps). Here is a link to the history of passage of ObamaCare. Not one Republican Senator voted for it in the Senate, and not one Congressman voted for it or the companionbill in the House.
healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003712
The whole perverted process is laid out, what led to the "say it don't spray it" moment as the Dems marchedto the Capitol building to gloat over this abomination.

Posted by: Count de Monet at January 25, 2012 06:11 PM (4q5tP)

258 Here's the truth. It won't be repealed because Republicans and Democrats are the same. Progressive elites. Now shut up and pick up that shovel.

Posted by: EROWMER at January 25, 2012 07:14 PM (sIm3i)

259 Hoe do you spell clusterfark?

Posted by: Mr. Khan at January 25, 2012 07:23 PM (P8mj5)

260 Don't repeal then. Just DEFUND IT. No money, no honey.

Posted by: Vic at January 25, 2012 07:28 PM (PhcVl)

261 " Romney Adviser Norm Coleman: It's Unrealistic To Think We'll Ever Completely Repeal ObamaCare"

Okay then, Fuckface, it's unrealistic to think we'll ever completely elect your candidate either.

Posted by: cackfinger at January 25, 2012 08:43 PM (a9mQu)

262 As Reagan said, "Nothing on this earth has eternal life, except a government program." We may get a Preznit willing to sign the law, but we have to get it through both the house and Senate. Total repeal is unlikely IMO, however, the more egregious garbage will likely be repealed as soon as Hussein joins the ranks of the unemployed.

Posted by: Don't hate the playa hate the game at January 25, 2012 09:01 PM (1GlXg)

263 There are several states contesting Obama to be on the ballot, since he is not constitutionally eligible, I.e., he is a usurper. Most specifically, judge Michael Malihi rejected Obsma's motion to dismiss the World in Georgia.
If he is removed from office by "quo warranto", which is the correct method, anything he has signed will be null and void.
Malihi's subpoena is for today Jan 26,2012. BTW the Supreme Court did make a legally biding definition of "natural born citizen". In Minor v. Happersett (1875)

Posted by: Bobbi at January 26, 2012 05:40 AM (/s7hl)

264 Still don't make any sense. Youposit that if pre-existing conditions get any coverage, the health care system will collapse. The problem is that group plans already are required to cover such conditions (ie. offer welfare, because it is mandatory). You offer the no duh position that insurance assesses risks. If pre-existing coverage is already offered, they must be capable of assessing those risks as well and factoring them into their rate plans. Or, to be perfectly fair, you should favor excluding any pre-existing condition from any plan, group or individual, and leaving those folks out to hang. Just as with any insurance, those that haveno health problems are going to be paying for those that do (I had no accidents last year, why do I have to payanything for my auto insurance).

Posted by: ejo at January 26, 2012 12:57 PM (J7B50)






Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0593 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0264 seconds, 273 records returned.
Page size 149 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat