Health care reform: GOP preps plan for ruling on ObamaCare law

Health care reform: GOP preps plan for ruling on law
Politico -- By JAKE SHERMAN and JENNIFER HABERKORN | 5/16/12 7:28 PM EDT


While everyone is waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on ObamaCare, many GOP leaders are discussing alternatives.

They are preparing legislation for all possible scenarios.

The approach seems to be smaller and separate bills that would "start over" or address partial "elimination" either by failures and problems already showing themselves while solidifying or enhancing popular and workable parts.

House Republican leaders are quietly hatching a plan of attack as they await a historic Supreme Court ruling on President Barack Obama’s health care law.

If the law is upheld, Republicans will take to the floor to tear out its most controversial pieces, such as the individual mandate and requirements that employers provide insurance or face fines.

If the law is partially or fully overturned they’ll draw up bills to keep the popular, consumer-friendly portions in place — like allowing adult children to remain on parents’ health care plans until age 26, and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Ripping these provisions from law is too politically risky, Republicans say.

The post-Supreme Court plan — a ruling should come in June — has long been whispered about inside House leadership circles and among the House’s elected physicians but is now being discussed with a larger groups of lawmakers, showing that Republicans are aggressively preparing for a big-time health care debate in the heat of an election-year summer.

ObamaCare, or a new "____Care" will definitely be a major campaign issue coming up very soon !

On Tuesday, the major options were discussed during a small closed meeting of House Republican leaders, according to several sources present.

Then on Wednesday, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) gave the entire House Republican Conference a preview of where the party is heading. His message: “When the court rules, we’ll be ready.”

But Boehner warned that they’ll relegislate the issue in smaller, bite sizes, rather than putting together an unwieldy new health care bill.

“If all or part of the law is struck down, we are not going to repeat the Democrats’ mistakes,” Boehner said, according to several sources present. “We have better ideas on health care — lots of them. We have solutions, of course, for patients with pre-existing conditions and other challenges.”

We haven't been hearing much from the Democrats except:


(March 28th article)

WASHINGTON -- White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Wednesday that the administration does not have a backup plan in the event that the Supreme Court strikes down the central piece of President Barack Obama's signature health care law -- the individual mandate -- or rejects the law in its entirety.

"There's no contingency plan in place," Earnest told reporters at the daily White House briefing. "We remain fully confident in the belief that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional."

Earnest dismissed rounds of questions about how the White House could have no Plan B if the individual mandate, which penalizes people for not purchasing insurance, is deemed unconstitutional -- something that observers of this week's Supreme Court hearings on the matter have speculated is looking more likely. Earnest said anyone's judgments at this point are premature.

Individual Mandate Rejection Would Leave White House 'No Contingency Plan,' Spokesman Says

(from April 12th article)

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Thursday that it would “probably” be a good idea for the department to have a backup plan in case the Supreme Court strikes down the health reform law, but the department isn’t working on one.

Asked by a reporter after a speech to the National Action Network whether it would be “prudent” to have a contingency plan in place before the Supreme Court rules, Sebelius responded, “probably so.”

But, she continued, “that isn’t where conversations are headed right now, and I’m confident that it is constitutional.”

She added, “We will eventually, I’m sure, have a plan, but that really isn’t where time and energy is focused right now.”

Kathleen Sebelius: We don't have a health care backup plan

What (if any) "Input" will Romney have ?

This is why Republicans have become no different or better than Democrats. It's all the same. Gone is the talk about repealing this nightmare of a law. Now it's piece meal'ing it even FURTHER than it was to begin with. Heck, they already tore out the few beneficial parts that existed when the process started.

So we get Obamacare-Lite from Democrat-Lite. Boehner needs to go as speaker as badly or more so than Democrats in the House. If Conservatives are "in control" of the house, at least make them real conservatives. I swear Boehner is about as Conservative as Hillary Clinton. He just shovels a different flavor of BS to the public.
\
I'll never argue our Health Care system needed reform and absolutely still does. It went from operating at cost + a modest profit to running as obscene a profit level "as the market will bear". How was that attitude ever tolerated in Health Care of all things?? However, thousands of pages of legislation hides FAR FAR more than just Health care related things and the whole piece of stinking garbage needs to go, IMO. Reform needs to just start over and with a true cooperation. If not? We need to VOTE OUT or see what can be done to recall the ones refusing to work with the others....Either party....until they DO cooperate.

reply to post by xuenchen


I would accept removing some of the controversial parts of the bill and leaving those parts of the bill that are beneficial to the public. Repealing the entire healthcare plan will only set us back decades in developing a healthcare plan that addressed the basic human rights of all Americans.

We're the only industrial nation that ignores the basic right to healthcare for their citizens. The U.S. congress hasn't been able to create an acceptable healthcare plan for decades. It's the number one concern of most Americans and those living on fixed incomes. Our government can take the liberties to draft our son's and daughter's to wars and sacrifice their lives, yet turn their backs on preserving and caring for the health of people who make this country strong and influence it's economy. We have witnessed time and time again how they have turned their backs on soldiers returning from wars and conflicts overseas.

It would be foolish to throw out parts of the bill that have shown to be beneficial. Other bill provisions don't take affect until 2014. I think it would be foolish not to wait and see how this bill will affect the country as a whole.

People who are up in arms about this bill will ignore the fact we are spending trillions of dollars on military occupations and wars. Our country would rather be in the business of nation building and supporting military occupations, support the security of other countries and the oil industry instead of focusing its spending on the health and well being of its own citizens. Maybe if we would shift our spending priorities to areas that will actually benefit our citizens rather than create heartache and causing economic hardship, we could remove those provisions of the bill that so many people and small businesses are up in arms about.

When people are being laid-off, or have to retire and their first concern is, "what am I going to do without health insurance", it's utterly shameful that people have to be concerned about their health in a country that boasts to be an example of human rights for the rest of the world.

Originally posted by WeRpeons
Repealing the entire healthcare plan will only set us back decades in developing a healthcare plan that addressed the basic human rights of all Americans.

So you would rather go back centuries to avoid going back decades?

I hope they reject the entire bill. The idea that another's labor belongs to someone else without his/her consent is the litmus test for what defines outdated economics.