Defund Obamacare? Not so fast, warns GOP elders.

[^_^ 5,021]

Two Republicans who have provided some intellectual leadership for the GOP have signaled in recent days that “defunding” the Affordable Care Act may sound good on the surface, but won't really work in practice.

On Friday, the American Spectator published an interview with Rep. Paul Ryan, in which the GOP ranking member on the House budget committee said of President Obama:

I get this question every single day, ‘If you take back Congress, you have the power of the purse, just defund the thing.' Well, yeah, technically speaking, we can put riders in appropriations bills that say, ‘No such funds can go to HHS to do x, y, or z in implementing ObamaCare.' He's gotta sign those things. And he doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would sign those things.

Then last night on Fox Business, Sen. Judd Gregg, who's retiring from the Senate, told Neil Cavuto, “I don't think starving or repealing is probably the best approach here.” (h/t The Hill)

Gregg said that he believes Republicans instead need to “go in and restructure” the Affordable Care Act. Yet the kind of structural changes Gregg goes on to suggest – like rerouting Medicare savings, for instance – also seem unlikely while Obama is in the White House.

Still, that Ryan and Gregg are offering some counterpoint to GOP pure calls for “repeal and replace” means that under the campaign rhetoric of 2010 lies some doubt about the viability of at least one line from the party's Pledge to America:

Repeal the Costly Health Care Takeover of 2010

Because the new health care law kills jobs, raises taxes, and increases the cost of health care, we will immediately take action to repeal this law.

Take action, maybe. But actually repeal the Affordable Care Act, not anytime soon.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/10/19/defund-%E2%80%9Cobamacare%E2%80%9D-not-as-easy-as-it-sounds/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You are seeing a little bit of inside baseball. Even if the Republicans control the House, and even if they gain a majority in the Senate, it still takes 60 votes to move legislation in the Senate, other than one shot at a Reconciliation Bill, and two-thirds in both chambers to override Presidential vetoes. The best the Republican's can do, is to effectively gum up the works until a working compromise government can be established.

Edited October 20, 2010 by ##########

[Obama 2012 1,714]

They really shouldn't be able to call it the "Affordable Care Act." There's hardly anything "affordable" about it.

[Heracles 417]

They really shouldn't be able to call it the "Affordable Care Act." There's hardly anything "affordable" about it.

It's more genuine than the "fair tax" label.

You are right though, nothing the American private sector gets it's hands onto is affordable; not unless they cut corners and pollute and area.

The most affordable system, in addition to the one that offers the highest ROI is a NHS. This has been proven time and time again with actual research, rather than shot from the hip opinions that so many tea-party types rely on.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's more genuine than the "fair tax" label.

You are right though, nothing the American private sector gets it's hands onto is affordable; not unless they cut corners and pollute and area.

The most affordable system, in addition to the one that offers the highest ROI is a NHS. This has been proven time and time again with actual research, rather than shot from the hip opinions that so many tea-party types rely on.

The NHS is affordable because they don't use the same up-to-date technology US care providers use, they don't have to worry about frivolous malpractice lawsuits, and they deny a ####### ton of people health care, and have no problem telling you, "if you don't quite drinking or if you don't quit smoking, we're going to just let you die and you can't get health care."

As far as the "Fair Tax" goes. There's plenty fair with everyone paying their fair share on whatever they consume.

[Heracles 417]

The NHS is affordable because they don't use the same up-to-date technology US care providers use, they don't have to worry about frivolous malpractice lawsuits, and they deny a ####### ton of people health care, and have no problem telling you, "if you don't quite drinking or if you don't quit smoking, we're going to just let you die and you can't get health care."

As far as the "Fair Tax" goes. There's plenty fair with everyone paying their fair share on whatever they consume.

Technology being to blame is a bogus argument. Who do you think has a bigger buying power, the Canadian, German, Australian, UK government or the private US health care providers? Not to mention, considering a hell of a lot of such technology and research comes form Europe, I would not be using the argument.

You are correct about the frivolous malpractice lawsuits, however that has more to do with their legal system and applies to all such suits.

The reason they operate it so cheaply is because they use a not-for-profit model. The government purchases everything in bulk and is not there to profit from any service. There is also no middleman insurance company or billing department, so billions are saved there alone. Since they operate the hospitals, they are keen to cut cost, as they have no incentive to bill insurance companies $200 for acetaminophen tablets [Tylenol] or $80 for an oral hygiene tool [toothbrush]. This level of saving propagates all the way to your local doctor and your pharmacy.

Hence:

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Technology being to blame is a bogus argument. Who do you think has a bigger buying power, the Canadian, German, Australian, UK government or the private US health care providers? Not to mention, considering a hell of a lot of such technology and research comes form Europe, I would not be using the argument.

You are correct about the frivolous malpractice lawsuits, however that has more to do with their legal system and applies to all such suits.

The reason they operate it so cheaply is because they use a not-for-profit model. The government purchases everything in bulk and is not there to profit from any service. There is also no middleman insurance company or billing department, so billions are saved there alone. Since they operate the hospitals, they are keen to cut cost, as they have no incentive to bill insurance companies $200 for acetaminophen tablets [Tylenol] or $80 for an oral hygiene tool [toothbrush]. This level of saving propagates all the way to your local doctor and your pharmacy.

You think the middleman is the problem? Hardly....

The problem is our infatuation with legal ordeals/technology... Unlike most countries, we have to use the latest and greatest because of legal ####### and no one wants to get sued when something that is .5% better is on the market.... It's stupid really. We send perfectly good/excellent condition like new heart monitors to China and India all the time because of this... That is huge $$$.

Also your higher costs come from BS like medicaid and medicare.... A doctor cannot operate when something legitimately costs them $100 and medicare only pays them $60.... Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Private insurers aren't the problem and it's damn ignorant to think so. They are on the very bottom of the list of the "problems" out there with health are..... Pharmaceuticals should be at the top though.

[Heracles 417]

You think the middleman is the problem? Hardly....

The problem is our infatuation with legal ordeals/technology... Unlike most countries, we have to use the latest and greatest because of legal ####### and no one wants to get sued when something that is .5% better is on the market.... It's stupid really. We send perfectly good/excellent condition like new heart monitors to China and India all the time because of this... That is huge $$$.

Also your higher costs come from BS like medicaid and medicare.... A doctor cannot operate when something legitimately costs them $100 and medicare only pays them $60.... Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Private insurers aren't the problem and it's damn ignorant to think so. They are on the very bottom of the list of the "problems" out there with health are..... Pharmaceuticals should be at the top though.

Let me get this straight, people who actually operate or use a system that is both higher quality than American health care and at lower costs, don't know how to keep the cost down but you do.

Actually Paul, as noted many many times before, the problem, is that the entire system is for-profit here. The only person who should be earning money is the doctor and the health providers. Anyone who has no effect on the patients health, should not earn squat. How pathetic that anyone can profit from American's health care.

Chart after chart, study after study, illustrates that Americans are paying double everyone else yet receiving crappier quality. And that is before Obama's reform even kicked into place.

It's common sense, the private sector cannot do everything the best. It's the same way Tiger Woods might be great a golf but he'll be ###### at soccer. Many here are unable to grasp this simple concept and prefer to stick to their personal opinion that the private sector does everything better and the US has the best health care - end of story. It's why when presented with data after data illustrating otherwise, they ignore it and try to find [grasp for straws] another scapegoat.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Let me get this straight, people who actually operate or use a system that is both higher quality than American health care and at lower costs, don't know how to keep the cost down but you do.

Actually Paul, as noted many many times before, the problem, is that the entire system is for-profit here. The only person who should be earning money is the doctor and the health providers. Anyone who has no effect on the patients health, should not earn squat. How pathetic that anyone can profit from American's health care.

Chart after chart, study after study, illustrates that Americans are paying double everyone else yet receiving crappier quality. And that is before Obama's reform even kicked into place.

It's common sense, the private sector cannot do everything the best. It's the same way Tiger Woods might be great a golf but he'll be ###### at soccer. Many here are unable to grasp this simple concept and prefer to stick to their personal opinion that the private sector does everything better and the US has the best health care - end of story. It's why when presented with data after data illustrating otherwise, they ignore it and try to find [grasp for straws] another scapegoat.

I would trust the private sector 100x more than the Public. There's not one thing that this government does right. Not one. I wouldn't trust them to mow my lawn... Why the hell would I trust them with healthcare.

There is nothing wrong with a 'for profit' health care system. It's a service. A service that people work their butts off for through college and deserve to make good money doing. Deserve to charge whatever they want to charge if people are willing to pay it.

Quality of care worse here? Are you smoking crack? I can go to the doctor here, get an MRI the next day if needed and be done quicker than you can snap your fingers. In Canada in the UK, I can wait 3 months to see my priamry care doctor, then wait another month and half or longer to get an MRI, and then hopefully I'm not worse off by then... Sure, it may cost less, but I also might die in the process....

[Heracles 417]

I would trust the private sector 100x more than the Public. There's not one thing that this government does right. Not one. I wouldn't trust them to mow my lawn... Why the hell would I trust them with healthcare.

There is nothing wrong with a 'for profit' health care system. It's a service. A service that people work their butts off for through college and deserve to make good money doing. Deserve to charge whatever they want to charge if people are willing to pay it.

Quality of care worse here? Are you smoking crack? I can go to the doctor here, get an MRI the next day if needed and be done quicker than you can snap your fingers. In Canada in the UK, I can wait 3 months to see my priamry care doctor, then wait another month and half or longer to get an MRI, and then hopefully I'm not worse off by then... Sure, it may cost less, but I also might die in the process....

That is your opinion and ideological belief, it's not guided by data and facts. My experience here in the US has been contrary to that actually. I can list page after page of private sector failure, where government intervention and regulation would have assisted We the People.

Your changing your strategy here, no one has a problem with doctors and the actual providers earning a decent salary, as they still do under NHS. What we have a problem with is people profiteering who offer no service to patients, yet earn billions.

Actually the timeliness of access is only worse off in Canada and Australia, followed by the US. It also says something that almost everyone from abroad that has used both types of systems, does not sit there and praise the US system. It's Palin types how have never traveled outside their county let alone country, who sit there and claim their system is the best. You're shooting from the hip again, I can actually see my primary doctor faster than I can see any doctor here in the US, with zero co-pay. What's the co-pay on the MRI here? I believe it's $150 for my insurance and I am on the highest plan / policy. Zero in AUS.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That is your opinion and ideological belief, it's not guided by data and facts. My experience here in the US has been contrary to that actually. I can list page after page of private sector failure, where government intervention and regulation would have assisted We the People.

Your changing your strategy here, no one has a problem with doctors and the actual providers earning a decent salary, as they still do under NHS. What we have a problem with is people profiteering who offer no service to patients, yet earn billions.

Actually the timeliness of access is only worse off in Canada and Australia, followed by the US. It also says something that almost everyone from abroad that has used both types of systems, does not sit there and praise the US system. It's Palin types how have never traveled outside their county let alone country, who sit there and claim their system is the best. You're shooting from the hip again, I can actually see my primary doctor faster than I can see any doctor here in the US, with zero co-pay. What's the co-pay on the MRI here? I believe it's $150 for my insurance and I am on the highest plan / policy. Zero in AUS.

Then you live in a ####### area.

Both major metro areas I have live in, have great health care. Dallas/Fort Worth and Minneapolis/St. Paul... I can see a doctor when I need to, get tests when I need to, have results quickly... no wait really at all. So I don't know where you live... $150 co-pay? Again your insurance sucks... Most co-pays here are ilke $10-$20.......

[Heracles 417]

Then you live in a ####### area.

Both major metro areas I have live in, have great health care. Dallas/Fort Worth and Minneapolis/St. Paul... I can see a doctor when I need to, get tests when I need to, have results quickly... no wait really at all. So I don't know where you live... $150 co-pay? Again your insurance sucks... Most co-pays here are ilke $10-$20.......

You pay $10 for an MRI? How much do you pay in premiums? I'm with Anthem.

Nevertheless, you are diverting attention. The health care system is by far the most expensive, double per capita [2.5 times when compared to the UK] and does not deliver the fastest or highest of quality service. The US spends more money on your current system than the UK spends on their entire NHS, which is available to all.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[mawilson 2,133]

The NHS is affordable because they don't use the same up-to-date technology US care providers use, they don't have to worry about frivolous malpractice lawsuits, and they deny a ####### ton of people health care, and have no problem telling you, "if you don't quite drinking or if you don't quit smoking, we're going to just let you die and you can't get health care."

No they don't

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No they don't

Be careful not to shatter the very illusions that the profiteers of this broken healthcare system have spend billions on planting around this country.