“Resolution To Disapprove”: By Voting Against Themselves, Republican’s Hope To Fool The Tea Party
On Tuesday, the Senate held a vote on a “resolution to disapprove” of raising the debt limit. The resolution failed 45-54. The 45 disapprovers were all Republicans. Twenty-seven of the Republicans voting to disapprove of raising the debt limit also voted, just a few weeks ago, to raise the debt limit. Do those 27 Republican senators disapprove of their own votes because raising the debt limit turned out to be a terrible mistake with disastrous consequences? No. They voted to disapprove of their own actions because a group of loud and angry people disapprove of their actions.
The face-saving “resolution to disapprove” measure seems to derive from a a 2011 McConnell idea that would have preserved the debt limit as a grandstanding ploy without actually risking default. In McConnell’s plan, the president would be allowed to increase the debt limit a little bit at a time, and Congress would then vote on whether to disapprove of the raises. It’s actually pretty brilliant politics, as it would have done two things:
- Forced President Obama to raise the debt limit, which is always politically unpopular, three times in one (election) year.
- Allowed every single Republican in Congress to vote against raising the debt limit without worrying that the U.S. would actually default.
Naturally, McConnell’s plan was declared rank RINOism and it went nowhere. This was in part because some conservatives believed that the plan removed the possibility of extracting massive concessions in exchange for raising the limit, but also because there simply are a lot of conservatives who oppose raising the limit at all, ever. The result of not listening to McConnell: Republicans had to vote to raise the debt limit anyway, conservatives now feel betrayed, right-wing Senate primary challenges are more likely, and non-far-right voters have more reason to be scared of allowing Republicans to govern.
Thus the meaningless symbolic vote of disapproval, in both chambers. The sorts of conservatives McConnell is hoping this stunt satisfies may be deluded enough to believe that breaching the debt ceiling wouldn’t be so bad, but they are not dumb enough to be impressed with this gesture. Most important, the people and organizations they get their information and take their cues from will not suddenly start praising these 27 senators, McConnell included, as True Conservatives.
At this point, it’s very easy to get on the wrong side of the activist conservative movement, and once you’re labeled a RINO, there’s almost nothing you can do to clear your name. John Boehner had to let the extremists take the whole country on Mr. Ted’s Wild Ride for a few weeks just to keep his job, and most Tea Party types still hate him. Sen. John Cornyn is in trouble for taking his signature off a petition.
And look at the sad tale of Marco Rubio, who, not long ago, was supposed to be a major contender for the “true conservative” vote in the 2016 Republican primaries. Then Rubio, like an idiot, actually listened to people more concerned with the long-term survival of the GOP than short-term symbolic victories and attached himself to the comprehensive immigration reform project. Activist conservatives hate immigration reform nearly as much as they hate Obamacare. Now, Rubio has abandoned his bill. He’s praised Cruz to the heavens and joined the vote against the deal to reopen the government, but the damage is done. Rubio has been tainted as a cooperator. In March, Rubio came in a close second to Rand Paul in the CPAC straw poll. In October, he received 5 percent — 35 votes out of 762 — in the Values Voters straw poll.
Symbolic gestures, like McConnell’s, and outright flip-flops, like Rubio’s, aren’t going to quiet or stop the conservative revolt. They might at least provide some sort of model for getting through this next year without it doing too much more damage. The government will have to fund itself. The debt ceiling will need to be raised again distressingly soon. The “resolution to disapprove” could be the way Congress passes everything from now on. Pass some sort of minor budget deal, then vote on the resolution disapproving of it. Pass the farm bill, hold the vote disapproving of it. Maybe try immigration reform again with a disapproval vote attached?
None of this will fool Erick Erickson and Heritage Action and the Senate Conservatives Fund and Freedomworks, but it might just allow terrified Republicans to convince themselves that it’s OK to take votes leadership wants them to take. You get to have a backsies!
By: Alex Pareene, Salon, October 30, 2013
“Deja vu On Obamacare”: In The Crossfire Tonight, Americans Begin Signing Up For FDR’s New “Social Security” Program
Voiceover: It’s December 1, 1936 — in the Crossfire tonight — Americans begin signing up for FDR’s new “Social Security” program — but can the post office handle the volume? And is it essential protection for seniors — or the slippery slope to socialism? In the Crossfire — Frances Perkins, secretary of labor, who supports the program — and congressman Daniel Reed, Republican of New York, who opposes it.
Good evening, I’m Upton Sinclair, on the left.
And I’m Freddy Hayek, on the right.
Sinclair: After 18 months of planning, President Roosevelt’s breakthrough Social Security program to ease poverty among senior citizens recently began its rollout, with application forms sent to post offices across the country — and with employers forced to register as well. Freddy, I think it’s a milestone for a civilized nation. After all, two dozen countries already have systems of social insurance on the books. And the whole idea was invented by a conservative, Otto von Bismarck, back in the ’80s as a shrewd way to assure social peace. Can’t you concede that morality, not to mention the survival instincts of the ruling class, requires a decent society to offer something like Bismarckcare to protect against destitution in old age?
Hayek: Spoken like a communist out to weigh the economy down, Up. Don’t you lefties see that your taxing and spending will put us on the road to serfdom?
Sinclair: Catchy phrase, Fred — might want to hold onto that for a book at some point. Let’s bring in our guests. Congressman Reed, here’s what you said about Social Security during the House debate over the legislation: “The lash of the dictator will be felt, and 25 million free American citizens will for the first time submit themselves to a fingerprint test.” One of your Senate colleagues said the new program would “end the progress of a great country and bring its people to the level of the average European.”
Not that there’s anything wrong with the average European. But isn’t this rhetoric a bit over the top?
Reed: Not at all, Upton. This is simply the reality. As another Republican in our caucus says, “Never in the history of the world has a measure been . . . so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers, and to prevent any possibility of the employers providing work for the people.”
Hayek: Secretary Perkins, you don’t look convinced.
Perkins: It’s always the same sob story from the party of wealth. The sky is falling, the lights of freedom are being extinguished, blah blah blah blah blah.
Reed: Plus, the darn thing doesn’t cover enough people.
Perkins and Upton: What?
Reed: It’s only slated to reach a couple hundred thousand Americans in 1940. And with very modest benefits.
Perkins: So your beef with a program you want to kill is that it doesn’t do enough for enough people in need?
Reed: Well, that, plus it’s very complicated and hard to sign up for. Have you seen the lines at the post office? People have no idea what to do. The wait can take hours.
Sinclair: You can’t blast a program for existing and also for being inadequate.
Perkins: Sure you can, Upton, if you’re a Republican. But my real problem with the GOP is different. More than 50 percent of our seniors live in poverty. You see them in the street every day. Charities are overwhelmed. These poor souls have nowhere to turn. They can’t afford food or medicine. And Republicans say there’s nothing the government of a great nation can do.
Hayek: Congressman, what say you?
Reed: Isn’t this socialism, Frances?
Perkins: Absolutely not.
Reed: Come, Secretary Perkins. Isn’t this a teeny-weeny bit of socialism?
Perkins: It’s a load of common sense and decency, is what it is.
Reed: It will discourage people from saving for their own retirement. And it creates incentives for employers to drop any pension coverage they offer now. They’ll assume everyone can just be dumped into the government system.
Perkins: No, congressman, it’ll save companies money by letting them tailor any pensions they offer to work atop the national minimum that Social Security provides. Some basic level of government-funded retirement security is good for business.
Reed: Then why does every thinking businessman in America oppose it?
Perkins: Don’t throw oxymorons at me, Dan. Mark my words: Social Security will end up bigger than anyone today can imagine, even as America grows much, much richer — proving that social insurance and capitalism are mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive.
Hayek: Such poetry, Frances — such misguided but lovely-sounding poetry!
Upton: After the break — some Democrats are urging FDR to go big on basic health coverage for every American, too — but the president says we can come back and address that question in a few years. Who’s right? Answers just ahead — when Crossfire returns . . .
By: Matt Miller, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, October 30, 2013
“Obamacare Death Spirals”: The Latest Prediction Of Doom Hits The Conservative Blogosphere
A new meme has arrived on the scene from the voices and pens of the anti-Obamacare devotees who remain more committed to frightening than informing when it comes to healthcare reform.
It’s the Obamacare “death spiral”— and it’s coming to a conservative blog near you.
Through a series of articles already going viral—thanks to a piece published on National Review Online and one by my Forbes colleague, Dr. Scott Gottlieb –we learn that the threat of impending doom ‘du jour’ comes via an allegation that, due to the poor launch of the healthcare.gov website, younger and healthier participants will now be more likely to stay away than sign up.
This, the falsely fearful argue, will result in an insurance pool jammed with older and sicker people without the required participation of younger and healthier Americans needed to balance the pools.
The result of such an event?
As insurance companies are forced to pay out more claims —due to their older and sicker participant base—without sufficient premium income from younger and healthier people less likely to call upon the insurer to pay for medical care, the insurance company is forced to raise their premium costs so they don’t loose money. As this problem builds upon itself year after year, it becomes, as it is termed in the insurance industry, a ‘death spiral’ as, sooner or later, the insurers are forced out of business when the premium costs get too high to be affordable by much of anyone.
Clearly, the authors suffer from a lack of understanding of human behavior—particularly when it comes to young people who are not given to dealing with these sort of issues until the deadline approaches…meaning we really don’t yet know anything about the potential success or failure of the insurance pools available on the health care exchanges.
If you doubt this, you might want to review what took place with the forerunner of Obamacare—Romneycare.
According to Jonathan Gruber, one of the key architects of the Massachusetts health care exchange—a program that the overwhelming majority of Massachusetts residents favor and support—and one of nation’s leading experts on all things Obamacare, “Massachusetts launched its health insurance program at the beginning of 2007 but enrollment didn’t fully flesh out for a year. In fact, it was less than 6% of the year’s total by the end of the second month. (emphasis added)”
In other words, people of all ages tend to wait until the deadline is upon them before coming to grips with an obligation like purchasing health insurance. But if you have kids, you know that younger people are even more likely to delay matters such as this.
Yet, here we have the opponents of the Affordable Care Act, ready to declare the entire program DOA based on a prediction of ultimate demise via the ‘death spiral’—and all because the slow start of the federally operated state healthcare exchanges are precluding younger and healthier prospective participants from signing up during the initial weeks of availability.
Even stranger, Dr. Gottlieb argues that, as a result of the failures of the federal website launch and the negative cascading effect he suggests will likely follow, more people will be driven out of the exchanges due to higher premiums in future years. In its place, Gottlieb proposes, these people will turn to “off-exchange” policies, purchased by going directly to an insurance company, broker, etc. for policies that are not offered on the exchange.
Gottlieb writes—
“Over time, conforming and non-conforming insurance policies sold entirely outside the exchanges could look increasingly attractive to consumers; even accounting for the subsidies many people would get for staying inside the exchanges.”
Why would they do this? Because, Dr. Gottlieb suggests, the off-exchange policies will be cheaper.
Setting aside that I have no idea what Gottlieb is referring to when he speaks of “non-conforming” insurance policies as every individual insurance policy, whether available on the exchange or not, must, for all practical purposes, meet the basic benefits requirements set forth in the Affordable Care Act, I can’t quite fathom why buying less expensive insurance off the exchanges would be a bad thing.
There is a tendency among those dedicated to burying healthcare reform to miss the point when it comes to the objectives of Obamacare. They spend so much time working out how to creatively attack the law that they simply cannot recall why we needed healthcare reform in the first place.
At its core, the law is designed to do three things—get insurance company abuses under control, make healthcare coverage more readily available to virtually all Americans and institute a series of experiments designed to bend the cost curve in healthcare delivery.
This being the case, why would anyone care whether you buy your insurance coverage off-exchange or on-exchange, so long as you obtain healthcare coverage? What’s more, the individual mandate does not require that you shop on the exchanges—it only requires you to purchase a qualifying policy.
The healthcare exchanges are designed to create competition among insurance companies. Should it not work, and Dr. Gottlieb is correct that the events occurring on the exchange will produce lower costs of an off-exchange policy—even for those who qualify for subsidies which are only available on the exchange—then we will have learned that the exchanges did not create the intended competition.
But, if Gottlieb is right and people can buy a cheaper policy that meets the requirements of the ACA off-exchange, then the objective of the law will be accomplished.
The bottom line here is that, by any reasonable and rational metric, it is far too early to know whether or not the insurance programs offered on the healthcare exchanges will manage to maintain the balance required of sick versus healthy and old versus young. In the final analysis, the doomsayers may turn out to be right. Maybe it just won’t work.
Or, maybe it will.
This is something we will simply not know for quite a few years.
Therefore, where exactly is the benefit of predicting a dire result at this stage of the game based on no available evidence whatsoever? Can there be any possible use of this information aside from giving political opponents some newly minted ammunition? Will the knowledge that insurance policies offered on the exchanges could experience a death spiral—a possibility that has existed for health insurers since the dawn of the industry—do anything to improve the odds of success?
If there is anything we can be sure of, it is that there will be a great many surprises along the way as we make these major adjustments to our healthcare system—some that will be good and some that will not.
As for the suggestion that we are in some immediate crisis because the healthcare.gov website has not yet worked as required, Jonathan Gruber, again, provides a reasonable and rational explanation of what is really happening and what it means.
USA Today reports that Gruber describes the current situation as “DEFCON 1″—a political problem, but probably not a problem yet for the marketplace.
If healthcare.gov is not running by Thanksgiving, it would be “DEFCON 2″, a real problem because people want to get insurance by January, but it’s not a crisis.
The crisis, according to Gruber, arrives if people cannot get insurance until March of 2014.
Gruber added that, in Massachusetts, officials were not focused on how well enrollment went on a day-to-day basis. They looked at the long-term potential, and expected that people would sign up in time to avoid the penalty.
Finally, Gruber noted, “I’m pretty confident they’ll have it up and going by Thanksgiving.”
So, how about we leave the death spiral stuff in the back room until the moment comes to actually haul it out and parade it around?
After all, at the rate Obamacare opponents are tossing out and using up their theories of pending disaster, they will soon run through their play book and have nothing left in their quiver.
Wouldn’t that be a shame?
By: Rick Ungar, Op-Ed Contributor, Forbes, October 28, 2013
“Health Care Sabotage 101”: The GOP, Not A Botched Website, Is The Real Obstacle To Implementing Obamacare
It’s the latest chapter of Barack vs. the Health Care Killers, The Continuing Saga of Posturing, Bad Faith, Spite and Ineptitude.
Republicans, who have used every trick in their playbook to gum up the works of the Affordable Care Act, are now holding hearings to investigate how the works got so gummed up.
They could save themselves the trouble by looking in the mirror, just as O.J. Simpson could have done to find his wife’s killer. But that would rob them of the chance to grandstand.
In fairness, they do have one point. The Obama administration botched the debut of its insurance marketplace website so badly that it fairly begged for an investigation. And since Republicans had little or nothing to do with the website, the blame for its failures falls squarely on the president and his deputies.
The screw-up was a gift. GOP lawmakers were calling the law a failure before most of it went into effect, but lacking any evidence they had to rely on mere accusation. Now, finally, they can say that their worst predictions had some validity.
Nevertheless, Republican “outrage” over the glitches is hard to take seriously. If they’re really looking to find what went wrong — and there was plenty — one suspects it’s only so they can clone the virus. Then anyplace where the law is working, such as Kentucky, Washington and Oregon, they can infect the system, watch it crash, shake their heads and snicker.
Come on, folks. Republicans want to “fix” what’s broken here as much as they want to “protect” women by targeting their reproductive rights and “defend” the vote by obstructing it. But because Healthcare.gov went live on the same day that the party crazies shut down the government over the law’s funding, they were too deep in their own morass to capitalize on it. Worse, they had to fold on the shutdown without getting anything in exchange. No wonder they’re pouncing on the chance to grill the people whose job it was to enable what they’ve called the worst law in the history of man.
Yes, the administration deserves to be on the hot seat. There was more than enough time to make sure the website worked properly and there is no excuse for its failure to do so.
Mr. Obama had to know that the first weeks would set the tone for public perception. If he had wanted to raise doubts about the program or shoo people away, he couldn’t have done a better job of it.
Once again, we have to wonder what goes on in his mind. This legislation is only the most important accomplishment of his presidency. He put everything on the line for it. Millions of people are counting on it for coverage they cannot otherwise afford. If he can’t get the introduction right, well, let’s just say it’s a good thing he won’t be running again.
But then there’s that pesky caveat called perspective. A botched website, which can and will be repaired, is nowhere near the biggest obstacle to the success of health care reform. That distinction goes to the program’s sworn enemies, who have been conducting a misinformation campaign of false claims and scare tactics since the law was passed. To hear them tell it, “Obamacare” will turn people into devil worshipping socialist homosexual vegetarians who want the terrorists to win. So of course they will do everything they can to stop it.
Exhibit One: The quickest and easiest way for states to enact the law’s reforms is to expand Medicaid, which would trigger a huge infux of federal dollars for the first several years. Yet Republican governors in 26 states have refused to do so. The primary excuse is that they won’t be able to afford it once the federal money stops. The subtext is that they’d rather sabotage the president than help their own citizens get the treatment they need. Thanks to them, according to a New York Times analysis, the new law will leave out two-thirds of the nation’s black citizens and single mothers, and half of the low-wage workers who currently lack insurance.
In addition, GOP governors (including our own Tom Corbett and, regrettably, a few Democrats) have refused to create insurance exchanges that would facilitate reaching the uninsured. Instead, those people will have to go to the federal exchange.
They’re also refusing to assist applicants and blocking the use of so-called “navigators,” whose job is to help people understand the law and sign up for its benefits. When a constituent calls with questions, they are making sure they’ll get no answers.
Then there was the government shutdown, during which Republicans offered more than 40 measures to cripple the law. They failed in every sense, but it still cost the country $24 billion.
It doesn’t take a genius to see where the real obstruction lies. For all its screw-ups, the Obama administration is trying to make health care reform work. And for all their public posturing, Republicans are trying to ruin it. But the law was duly passed, it’s here, and it’s not going away. They should save the fake righteousness for a cause that isn’t already lost.
By: Sally Kalson, Pittsburg- Post Gazette, October 26, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 