GOP House Right To Vote To Repeal

GOP House Right To Vote To Repeal
By Debra J. Saunders
1/20/2011

In a January 2008 Democratic presidential debate, then-Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both promised to deliver universal health care plans. But Obama hit Clinton for supporting a requirement that individuals buy their own health care.

"She believes that we have to force people who don't have health insurance to buy it. Otherwise, there will be a lot of people who don't get it," Obama charged. "I don't see those folks."

After winning office, however, Obama came around to Clinton's point of view. No surprise. As the fiscal watchdog group the Concord Coalition noted in a policy brief, the individual mandate, by guaranteeing a healthier insurance pool is what allows the new system to avoid this "death spiral" of increasing insurance costs.

So it is ironic -- deserving? -- that the very mandate against which candidate Obama campaigned could prove to be his plan's weakest link.

Now, I am not rooting for conservatives to win in federal court on the grounds that it is unconstitutional to require Americans to buy something. How is it constitutional for Washington to make me pay for someone else's health care but unconstitutional to make them pay for their own care? Nor do I relish the prospect of federal judges overturning a law enacted by elected officials.

That's why House Republicans were right to vote to repeal Obamacare on Wednesday. This is how politics should work.

Consider how the previous Congress jammed through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with too little scrutiny and barely any debate over costly provisions.

The Democrats' health care plan also included a new Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act -- which set up a federal voluntary long-term care insurance fund. As the Concord Coalition noted, by promising to pay in-home care benefits for which countless seniors could qualify, the program invites "induced demand." What's more, Medicare and Medicaid chief actuary Richard S. Foster warned that adverse selection -- those who sign up are the most likely to present claims -- is likely to make the program "unsustainable."

Obamacare's requirement that health plans include adult children -- up to age 26 -- as ordinary dependents of insured workers has added to the price of employer-paid plans. That provision helped prompt SEIU 1199, the large and powerful local health care workers union on the East Coast, to drop dependents' health care coverage from its plan.

Ditto the requirement that plans not charge co-payments for services deemed to be preventive. The bill was classic Washington: politicians lavishing unfunded benefits -- while demanding that others exert restraint.

When he ran for office, Obama said that his health care plan "will cut the cost of a typical family's ... premium by $2,500." But how are employers supposed to curb rising health costs when Washington is stripping away the leverage to contain them?

In 2008, Obama didn't see folks declining to buy health care.

I'll tell you what I don't see -- $2,500 in savings per family. Not ever.
___________________________________________________________
McConnell: The House Kept Its Repeal Pledge, Now It's Our Turn

The Senate Republican Leader reacts to last evening's vote in the House, underscoring the point that the lower chamber's action merely represents the first step down the long path toward full repeal:

"The Democratic leadership in the Senate doesn't want to vote on this bill, but I assure you -- we will."

How might McConnell deliver on that promise? Heritage's Brian Darling suggests invoking "rule 22," a tactic Democrats could thwart, but not without making fools of themselves in the process (via Allahpundit):

The House will pass H.R. 2 this week. Once that bill is passed, it will be sent to the Senate for consideration. Once the Senate receives the bill, any Senator can use Rule 14 to object to the second reading of the bill. This procedural objection will “hold at the desk” the House-passed bill and allow the Senate to act on the full repeal measure.

If the bill is referred to committee, it will never get to the Senate floor.

If any Senator can gather 16 signatures on a cloture petition, then they could file that petition with the clerk of the Senate. This would commence a proceeding that would end with a vote requiring 60 votes to shut off debate on a motion to proceed to a full repeal of Obamacare within two days of the filing of the petition. It is expected that Senate liberals would use Rule 22 to filibuster a full repeal of Obamacare. This would put many Senate Democrats in the interesting situation of voicing support for so-called “filibuster reform” while at the same time using the filibuster rule to block an up or down vote on Obamacare.

Senate Democrats may face the following dilemma: Entertain their short-sighted filibuster reform fetish, or shelter their massive, unaffordable government intrusion into healthcare from Republican interference? I have a sneaking suspicion which priority would win out.

Parting Thought: Even if the GOP wins back the Senate in 2012 (which is looking more promising by the day) and even manages to recapture the White House, Democrats could still just filibuster Obamacare repeal into oblivion, right?

Maybe not.