White House Piles On, Demands GOP Say Whether They Back Full Repeal

[babylonsister]

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/uncategorized/white-house-piles-on-demands-gop-say-whether-they-back-full-repeal/

White House Piles On, Demands GOP Say Whether They Back Full Repeal


The White House is now joining calls from Dems and Tea Partiers that GOP pols say whether they back a full repeal of the health care reform bill, upping the stakes in a rhetorical battle with major ramifications for 2010.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer wrote on the White House blog this morning:

{B}efore it even becomes law, opponents of health care reform – including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich – are already talking about repealing it. Certainly there is a fundamental disagreement here, since many opponents of reform – again including Gingrich – appear to think that insurance companies can do no wrong.

First, it does seem like another example of opposition at any cost to want to repeal a law before its even enacted. …

Pfeiffer then proceeds to describe the specific new regulations on insurance companies proposed in the bill, making the case that repealing the bill would be a gift to them.

These comments come as Republicans try to make clear to their base that full repeal is unlikely. Former Pennsylvania Rep. Pat Toomey, the conservative primary challenger to Sen. Arlen Specter before he switched parties, told POLITICO that it was a longshot. “We have to repeal very substantial parts of it and that’s not going to be easy,” he said. “I’m not sitting here predicting that a president who signs this into law in 2010 is likely to sign a repeal in 2011.”

By making clear that it would be “very substantial parts” (but not everything) and saying it wouldn’t be easy, Toomey is trying to distance Republicans from the charge that they want to take away popular benefits and move the discussion to safer political ground.

Will that be enough for the Tea Partiers?

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Will GOP running on an issue to repeal health care be enough for the left?

Or is this just another masterful GOP use of reverse psychology?

We all know they love the bill, but just don't want liberals and progressives to know the right loves the bill.

[babylonsister]

2. They love the bill?

That's news to me, or was that sarcasm? Hard to tell anymore. :crazy:

[Ozymanithrax]

4. It was sarcassm. I forgot the smilie...

[southernyankeebelle]

3. The republicans are scared to death of any reform to healthcare. Why, because

the know that will put them in the wilderness for a very long time. Its to bad the democratics are so afraid of them. They should of had more of a spine and gone for a single payer plan. These damn rednecks hear the republican battle cry and think the republicans really care for them are such idiots.

[safeinOhio]

5. Might as well run on repeal of HCR and Medicare.

Gots to be pure for da teabaggies.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. They also know that once Americans get used to it, it can not be repealed.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are still with us, as is welfare programs.

Of course, if they do win big next Novemeber, that will be an window to repeal the bill in 2011.

[levander]

12. Wrong, there was a bipartisan health care bill that provided universal coverage...

And, it got a good fiscal score from the CBO without a hundred revisions and political tricks like 6 years of services on 10 years of revenue, claiming that they'll cut Medicare more than is possible, etc.. The bill was called the Healthy Americans Act and was very simple. By voting for it, you wouldn't have been contradicting any previous statements you had made about reforming the tax code and making it simpler.

Read about the Healthy Americans Act here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-healthy-americans-act_b_301962.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-wyden---bennett-healt_b_293117.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/a-plan-for-universal-cove_b_309513.html

[Cha]

6. It's so easy to be republicon..all you have to

be is swarmy and willing to sell out your soul and your country to the highest bidder..and be willing to cozy up with the biggest dumbasses on the Planet, the teabaggers.

Course, that's not stopping jane hamsher from "Marching With The Teabaggers".

[Better Today]

7. And this is exactly why the dates for everything going into effect needs

to start virtually immediately. Those various windows for the programs to be started leave too much room for something like this. I doubt this push to get Repubs to come clean will matter, like apparently all pols they will say whatever the want, then later do the exact opposite with no remorse or consideration, and those that have an iota of political skill will even make most believe that he is doing exactly what he said he was going to do, or as in the case of Obama and public option, he'll claim he previous commitment wasn't anything he actually said anyway.

[Ozymanithrax]

9. I think they should be started sooner, but some programs are...

very extensive and require time to start up. This may also be a trap to make the Republicans run against the Health Care bill. Of course, that would be extremly cynicl and political of Democrats to set up the Republicans by forcing them to run against something Americans want.

[Better Today]

10. I agree that it isn't completely doable on all parts, another reason

why Medicare expansion would be so much easier. Set the increased tax %, extend the limit from $7000 of income per year to the first $100,000 per year starting Jan 2010, delay instigation of services till Jan 2011, and off we go.

[levander]

13. If the plans go intof effect earlier, there goes the good fiscal rating by the CBO.

A major trick this bill pulls on the public to get that good fiscal rating by the CBO is that services are only provide for 6 years, but revenues are taken for 10 years. You don't do that, the real cost of this plan shows up in the CBO rating, and Obama can't run around with his propaganda that this bill is fiscally responsible.

[Better Today]

14. Then, imo, they needed to tax the rich faster and at a higher rate so

the facts you mention, are resolved and the programs starts sooner

[levander]

19. I'd rather they just eliminate the employer health insurance tax exclusion...

That tax break benefits the well-to-do with jobs are large companies. If they eliminated it, they could create a tax break for individuals, based on income. That way, we can more efficiently target help to those who need it.

That's what the Healthy Americans Act did. It was a bill with bipartisan support that provided universal coverage. And, really universal coverage. The CBO estimate was that 99% of the country would be insured. Not this 94% with the Reid bill that represents only half of the currently uninsured getting insurance.

You can read about the Healthy Americans Act here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-healthy-americans-act_b_301962.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-wyden---bennett-healt_b_293117.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/a-plan-for-universal-cove_b_309513.html

The Healthy Americans Act made so much money available to lower income people, that Medicaid and S-CHIP are completely eliminated. They are just given subsidies so they can go buy private insurance. Money they don't have to pay back if they ever lift themself out of poverty later, like they do with Medicaid. And, the CBO gave the Healthy Americans Act a fiscal scoring saying it saved money on the deficit in initial efforts to score it. Not after a 100 revisions where they've added a bunch of tricks to get a good score.

[PolNewf]

17. Explain the CBO score for the 2nd decade then n/t

[levander]

18. Health care costs go up so much...

that more people are paying penalties for not having health care and more taxes are being paid on the insurance by the people who do have it. That's how they pay for the 2nd decade.

And, if you'd read the CBO letter to Reid about the fiscal estimate for his bill, you'd know that the CBO itself doesn't have much confidence in their estimate of the 2nd decade. From page 15 of the letter:

A detailed year-by-year projection for years beyond 2019, like those that CBO prepares for the 10-year budget window, would not be meaningful because the uncertainties involved are simply too great.

If you don't believe me about the deficit savings being dependent upon the plan taking in 6 years of revnues and 10 years of service, read page 9 of that letter. You can see that between 2010 and 2014, before services under the bill start, the CBO's estimate is the bill will save $136B on the deficit. But, between 2010 and 2019, they plan to save $130B on the deficit. So, 2015-2019, they plan on adding $6B to the deficit.

The latest CBO letter to Reid on the fiscal estimates for his bill are here: http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10868&type=1">Click

What you're listening to is just political rhetoric. Those guys in Washington are politicians. Don't believe what they say. You have to go and verify it.

And, as you'll notice, half of the savings on this bill (and that's the savings before they start spending money, not after) is because of those Medicare cuts. Slashing Medicare by half a trillion dollars. The Center for Medicare Services did a study that basically said the amount of cuts proposed by the bill just are not possible:

While such payment update reductions would provide a strong incentive for providers to maximize efficiency, it is doubtful that many could improve their own productivity to the degree achieved by the economy at large. Over time, a sustained reduction in payment updates, based on productivity expectations that are difficult to attain, would cause Medicare payment rates to grow more slowly than, and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers’ costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries. Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries). Simulations by the Office of the Actuary suggest that roughly 20 percent of Part A providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection period as a result of the productivity adjustments.8 Although this policy could be monitored over time to avoid such an outcome, changes would likely result in smaller actual savings than shown here for these provisions.

That quote starts on page 8 of the report. It's available here: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/S_PPACA_2009-12-10.pdf">Click

The Lewin Group is a non-partisan research firm that did do a more thorough study of the costs of the 2nd decade of the bill. Their conclusion was that the 2nd decade, including the impossible spending cuts to Medicare, all the penalties people pay for not having insurance, and the taxes people pay on the insurance when they do have it, would add $13.9 B to the deficit. The Lewin Group report is available here: http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/Lewin_Senate_and_House_Bill_Compared.pdf">Click

[burning rain]

11. Republicans need to hope the 'baggers will accept more limited pledges...

like repealing the least popular aspects of the bill, such as the individual mandate and Cadillac tax. If teabaggers let their hatred of all things health care reformish get the better of them and demand nothing less than full repeal, they could put Republicans in an impossible position going into 2010.

[TheKentuckian]

15. Republicans are crazy hypocrites. They'll bash forever but leave mandated profitcare

in place.

Don't be silly. They hate the subsidies and CHC's but the rest of the mess is pretty much right down their alley. Once the anti-trust exemption was out and there is no public option they knew there would be no real threat to corporate profits. The rest is theater and if a Democrat or two fell off then all the sudden Snowe and/or Collins would find a way to see the light. Hell, if need be they'd come up with a dozen by trading off some torte reform.

[Clio the Leo]

16. The Teabaggers are giving the GOP their hard-earned money...

... they deserve an answer. ;)

[davidpdx]

20. I sounds to me like they are talking about repealing enough parts of it

to make the rest irrelevant. But that's just my take. It is also apparent they are going to go to court in every state they can to try to bring down the HCR bill. Their strategy is so crystal clear.

[Hekate]

21. Well now, that's interesting. nt