Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire GOP starts to 'fix' Obamacare

Why can't these idiots just leave the law alone and let it crumble under it's own weight.


WASHINGTON (AP) - At the prodding of business organizations, House Republicans quietly secured a recent change in President Barack Obama's health law to expand coverage choices, a striking, one-of-a-kind departure from dozens of high-decibel attempts to repeal or dismember it.

Democrats describe the change involving small-business coverage options as a straightforward improvement of the type they are eager to make, and Obama signed it into law. Republicans are loath to agree, given the strong sentiment among the rank and file that the only fix the law deserves is a burial.

"Maybe you say it helps (Obamacare), but it really helps the small businessman," said Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., one of several physician-lawmakers among Republicans and an advocate of repeal.

No member of the House GOP leadership has publicly hailed the fix, which was tucked, at Republicans' request, into legislation preventing a cut in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients.

It is unclear how many members of the House rank and file knew of it because the legislation was passed by a highly unusual voice vote without debate.

Several lobbyists and Republican aides who monitored the issue said the provision reflects a calculation that no matter how hard the party tries, the earliest the law can be repealed is after Obama leaves office in 2017. In the meantime, according to this line of thinking, small-business owners need all the flexibility that can get to comply with it.

One repeal-favoring Republican lawmaker took a similar view. "I was brought up in a family of 12. My mother taught me to be patient," said Rep. Tom Reed of New York, who backed a stand-alone bill to make the same change.

The provision itself was relatively minor. It eliminated a cap on deductibles for small group policies offered inside the law's health care exchanges as well as outside; the cap was set at $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families.

Republicans said they sought it so small businesses can offer high-deductible plans that could be purchased by individuals who also have health savings accounts. These tax-preferred accounts are a long-time favorite of many Republicans, who say they give consumers greater control over their own health care.

The health law contains no deductible caps for individual plans or those offered by large employers, and the Department of Health and Human Services already had waived them for small businesses through 2015. The legislation means they will never go into effect.

As yet, there is no indication the change in course heralds any sort of significant pre-election change in attitude by Republicans, who last week engineered their 52nd vote in the House to repeal or dismember the law. They have said they intend to make its elimination a key element in the November election.

At the same time, though, administration officials announced last week that more than 7 million people have signed up for coverage. Democrats hope to counter demands for repeal by challenging critics to explain why they want to eliminate some of politically popular provisions such as guaranteed of coverage for pre-existing condition or plans without a lifetime cap in coverage costs.

Fittingly in an era of divided government, now that the change has been made, officials in both parties are once more at odds, each describing it as a victory for their side in a ceaseless political struggle.

Asked if the legislation strengthened the law, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "I would hope so. I believe that" it does. He added, "So there are changes being made. But the Republicans have to get over if they hate 'Obamacare' and are going to repeal it," he added.

Rory Cooper, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said, "This is another in a series of changes to Obamacare that the House has supported to help save Americans from being harmed by the law, and we're glad to see the President signed it into law." Cantor was involved in negotiations on the legislation, which were overseen by Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Reid.

While Cooper described the change merely as one of several designed to prevent harm, the episode marks the first time Republicans have agreed to make it easier for anyone to obtain coverage under the law.

According to a list maintained by the office of the House Republican whip, Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, five of the eight previous changes signed by Obama reduced funding; one repealed a minor voucher provision; one jettisoned a section dealing with home care for the elderly; and the other eliminated a tax reporting requirement.

In this case, though, large business organizations that support repeal pressed Republicans to make the change.

"Repealing the annual limitation on deductible would free up an important "lever" that employers need as they struggle to design affordable plans that meet the requirements" of the law, R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote senior lawmakers. He expressed satisfaction with HHS' waiver, yet added, "a more permanent and predictable solution is critical."

Democrats said the now-defunct limitation was inserted into the original law in an unsuccessful attempt to win the vote of former Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. She supported the bill in the Senate Finance Committee but opposed it on the Senate floor.

The GOP does not and has not ever wanted this debacle to go away. They want to control it (and control us to a greater degree) while claiming credit for "fixing" it.

Yep, slimy bastards!

Some of us predicted this.

The GOP has never wanted to 'fix' obamacare. They love power as much as the next guy, and expect to be in charge again this next election.
Politicians do NOT give up power, they just acquire more.

$$$$$$ and votes.

Hopefully this convinces a few more that there is only one party, the party of Government, and that the two "sides" simply play the people for fools, taking the riches and power for themselves and their true party.

You nailed it! No real conservatives that love this country left (ok, that could get elected) .

I believe Obamacare was designed to be unfixable.
Only a Government takeover will work.
The intent all along.

Exactly, and of course, that will eventually be the "bipartisan" plan.

This.

It's why I posted it.

The existing GOP is nothing better than Dem-Lite.. Vote ALL of 'em out this Nov. that are up for re-election..

OUT OUT OUT!!!

Because too many families are being hurt big time.

By November, anyone wanting to get elected had better have signed on board with whatever comes out of the several alterative healthcare programs that will replace ObamaGlitch.

The idea that Republicans want any part of a plan that failed to come close to any of its goals is ridiculous.

Even those who have signed up are looking at much higher costs with fewer doctors and hospitals.

As always happens when voters get hurt; they show up and vote.

But they didn't 'fix' anything, they are just taking partial ownership of a law that is doomed to fail.

The change is to take away a cap on deductibles, which means that individuals (voters) that are being hurt see no relief from the burden that is Obamacare, in fact they will likely see an increase in their deductibles. This helps small business owners by giving them more/cheaper options to provide to their employees, however the families are not being helped by this change.

So again I will ask why don't they just let the inevitable happen and stop trying to save the law.

It was a bi-partisan plan to begin with, or it never would have passed congress.

I don't think that is entirely correct.

Because they're politicians...and once they see the power that the ACA is gonna give them, they're gonna like it (the power) a bunch. They're likely already seeing it.

They all like and want bigger gov't.
The rebubs want their share of the power.

Can you name one Republican who voted for Obamacare? To be bi-partisan there would have to be at least one?