Thursday, June 11, 2015

Th GOP's Top Secret Plan To "Fix" ObamaCare...

"We'll let you know depending on the outcome of the decision."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

As the SCOTUS considers the challenge to ObamaCare (ACA) subsidies the GOP finds itself in quite a dilemma. The GOP's not so secret hopes that the Justices do not rule in favor of the conservatives (TP'ers) desires to overturn parts of ObamaCare do to the political likelihood of losing support and votes from republicans who were getting subsidies is well known. So, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is sounding an awful lot like former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who said, and I paraphrase, in order to know what's in the bill we have to pass the bill. I don't know about anyone else but I smell hypocrisy and the stench is not desirable. But hey, there is the modern GOP and whether it knows it or not the American people are on to their BS and hypocrisy and in coming election cycles the GOP will pay the price for it's disingenuous proclamations and hypocrisy.

Bloomberg Politics - Congressional Republican leaders say they have a fallback plan ready to go if the Supreme Court cripples a core component of ObamaCare this month.

But the details of the plan are being kept secret.

"We'll have a plan that makes sense for the American people," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday in a radio interview with The Joe Elliott Show.

But what's in the plan?

"We'll let you know depending on the outcome of the decision," the Kentucky Republican said, referring to the case King v. Burwell, which is expected to be decided this month.

Bloomberg tried to get answers Tuesday from the senior Republicans who work on health policy. Their fallback plan might interest millions of Americans who stand to lose their insurance subsidies, as well as the insurance industry, which would likely lose many customers and be compelled raise premiums. Details to come, the planners say.

"Yeah, we are" ready to act, Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, the chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said in an interview. But what will the action be? "We'll let you know if we have to do it," he said.


Republicans have struggled since passage of the 2010 health care law to unify behind alternatives, even as they continue to call for "repeal and replace." It's not yet clear Republican leaders have the support to pass a bill to mitigate the chaos that experts say will occur if the Supreme Court voids the federal exchange subsidies. Conservatives familiar with the matter say privately that Republican leaders want to convey to the Supreme Court, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, that they'll be ready to act if the ruling goes their way.

A bill offered by Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson has garnered 32 Senate Republican supporters. It would extend the subsidies through August 2017 and repeal the law's individual and employer mandates. But even a temporary extension of Obamacare subsidies faces conservative skepticism, particularly in the House. And repeal of the mandates wouldn't fly with the White House, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said Wednesday at a House hearing. Other Republican health care proposals have less support.


Republicans have rejected his idea to simply tweak the law to clarify that Obamacare premium subsidies are available in all 50 states. At issue in the case is whether the language in the statute forbids Americans in two-thirds of states who are enrolled through the federal exchange from accessing the subsidies, which were designed to make coverage affordable for lower-income people.

Democrats said they don't know of a Republican plan.

"We have no idea what they’re talking about. It might be a secret, or it might not exist," said Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat. "All I know is that smart Republicans know that the ruling they’re publicly rooting for would be a disaster for them."

There is a slight feeling the GOP just might self destruct; given enough time.

Full article BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. Good point. These efforts, if they exist, must be made public.

    I also find it unfortunate that "Republican leaders want to convey to the Supreme Court, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, that they'll be ready to act if the ruling goes their way."

    If Roberts is swayed one way or another by an argument about what will happen AFTER a ruling, does this mean that Roberts is ignoring the Constitutionality and actual relevant legal specifics in terms of other matters?

  2. Why do the republicans have to make their plan public when the then majority leader said we have to pass obamacare to see whats in it, seems like a double standard.The republicans have painted themselves into a corner and should just come out and announce their plan.

    Since this affects all Americans, should we have a vote. There is a some good things with obamacare and there are some things that need to be changed. I don't think the republicans have the gall to eliminate obamacare because taking away free stuff has consequences.

    The Supreme Court gave up determining a case based on constitutionality in favor of politics decades ago. It is all about the political game.

    1. Your obsession with "free stuff" is interesting skudrunner. Could it be you are worried about losing your "free stuff"?

    2. Skud*... it's a bad thing for a representative or legislator to do, period. That someone else did it doesn't make it ok. Yet that seems to be tour argument.

      Les: I agree with Skud* that the government handing out free stuff is a problem. Especially to able bodied people of means, the wealthy, and corporations.

    3. You made my point in a different way dmarks.

      I have little tolerance for skudrunner
      and his trite sarcasm. He is a GD hypocrite in my view and never has intentions of engaging in serious discussion.

    4. Dmarks and Skud... how is the ACA handing out free stuff? In my case it simply made it possible for me to buy insurance by eliminating the pre-existing condition as a way to deny coverage.

      Do I get a subsidy? Yes, paid for by my taxes, and then I pay the rest each month.

      In the rush to denigrate the law, folks taking to the free stuff meme serve not to solve the problem, but rather to make fun of, or marginalize the millions of people who have benefited from the law.

      Here in Nevada our uninsured have dropped from over 600k to about 200K. One consequence of this that we are seeing is one of the largest drops in abortions in the country. Why? Greater access to birth control, thus preventing unwanted pregnancies. I think that's a good thing.

      As for McConnell and the GOP, they are in a fix. For them to legislate any type of solution if the SCOTUS rules against the ACA, they will have to fashion another large federal program, or at the very least, impose a couple of federal laws on businesses across America.

      How will they sell that to the rank and file folks, much less the house?

    5. Dave: Ask Skud* about the ACA and "free stuff". I was just referring to "free stuff" in general (well, and with non-ACA examples)

  3. Are serious discussions defined as anything liberal is good and anything conservative is bad so just attack anything posted that is conservative.
    I do object to all the free stuff the government gives to people to secure their vote. Help those who can't help themselves is a good use of charity but to provide for someone because the choose not to provide for themselves is an improper use of my taxes.
    Guess we are just a different generation from support the government to be supported by the government.

  4. Thank you for your question skudrunner. The answer is no... any person who believes only honest liberal positions or only honest conservative views warrant discussion is IMO a fool.

    Comments about "free stuff" without a proper frame of reference is suspect as to the commenters motives. In other words it gives the appearance of wanting to divert discussion to just another dead end. With your last comment one can actually discuss the issue.

    I am a civil libertarian and a fiscal conservative. Your comment that government should assist those in need is correct. For the government to provide assistance to those with a history of not working or accepting what work is available to them, whatever that may be, is a waste of EVERY taxpayers tax money. There are ways to correct this that makes sense if ever you wish to kick it around.

    A lot of tax dollars have been wasted on the seemingly never ending nation building BS the USA and the neocons and MIC support. As a fiscal conservative that is leery of foreign entanglements it is clear to me this is a waste of EVERYONE's tax dollars as well. But that is s different subject.

    In my view those who fail by choice to recognize the negative societal effects of misguided domestic and foreign policy are part of the problem. We should be considering ALL options openly and honestly regardless which political ideology that originates it. Both conservatives and liberals have good (as well as bad) ideas. But the sides do need to listen to each other with to goal of achieving understanding and compromise.

    As Tom Peters might say... create a win win situation. Not the winner take all mentality that exists in politics today. A view the Tea Party conservatives and religious fundamentalists personify IMO.

  5. Our friend, skudrunner, needs to educate himself on which states the "free stuff" goes to.


    1. Some conservatives (and I'm not saying skudrunner is one) simply choose to overlook or ignore inconvenient facts that don't fit their narrative.

      On the other side of the coin SOME liberals (and I am not saying your are one Shaw) overlook or ignore facts that don't fit their narrative.

      It to some degree a bipartisan malady. The GOP and conservative appear to embrace a larger number of thus stripe.

    2. In my experience, the sides are the same, RN. I think it is a personality thing, not an ideology thing.

    3. The state thing proves nothing, Shaw. It doesn't look at a county, or even individual level. The state level is extremely coarse. Besides, Skud* wasn't making any arguments about states.

    4. I agree with Shaw. Red states receive more federal dollars than they pay in. It is proof there are more individual people in Red states who receive "free gifts". This absolutely relates to the argument Skid was making.

  6. There is no "free stuff" as David Miller points out. As for giving people what they what (incorrectly referred to as "free stuff") this is what legislators are supposed to do. They are our employees. Why tell them they are doing a good job (doing what we want them to) by reelecting them. They are not "buying" our votes.

    As for the Repub plan to "fix" the ACA, it's what Ron Johnson proposed... Getting rid of the mandate.

    Regarding Nancy Pelosi saying "we have to pass obamacare to see whats in it". She never said this! dmarks proved this before by linking to video on YouTube. Both RN and dmarks have acknowledged she did not say this.

  7. Doesn't matter what states get the most "free stuff" because most people feel the civil war is over and we are one nation who drinks from the same trough.

    If you are able to work but not willing because the government will provide, that is free stuff. If you cannot work and the government provides, that's compassion.

  8. Skud, what category does someone who wants to work, but can't find work fall in? Everything I've seen from people in general is that they would love to work, but are unable to find suitable employment.

    Maybe I am just missing something, but I just don't see tons of people who just expect the gov, to give them money without working... except maybe senior citizens with their social security and medicare.

  9. The "free stuff" argument just comes from a place of confusion and fear. It's not a rational argument.

    The healthcare sector has serious problems, it is vital to national security, stability, and the general welfare of the people, and so Obama and the Democrats attempted remediation of some of the most serious of those problems. The law could use a few fixes, now that it's in place, but the GOP is just standing in the way and sticking their middle finger up at anyone who utilizes the law, and the dummy conservatives simply do not understand the issue, it is complex after all, so they react the way they always do to the new and strange, with irrational nastiness. Eventually, and soon, the GOP will be relegated to a national minority again and then we can get the fixes done and move on with our lives while the left behind like skudrunner steam over there ignored political status.


  10. Here are my thoughts on “top secret plans.”

    During the 1968 presidential election, candidate Richard Nixon ran on this platform: “I have a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam.” The rest is history. There never was a secret plan. More than half the war continued into the Nixon years; and nearly two-thirds of American war casualties occurred in the Nixon years. The secret plan was a dastardly election lie.

    Worst still, candidate Nixon informed the North Vietnamese delegation in secret that they should stonewall peace negotiations with the Johnson administration because they (meaning North Vietnam) would get a better deal from a Nixon administration. Apparently, the FBI presented evidence of this ruse to Linden Johnson who chose NOT TO GO PUBLIC nor PROSECUTE the sucker for treason.

    In hindsight, Nixon should have been prosecuted. Had Johnson gone public, Nixon would have been sent to prison; there never would have been a Watergate scandal; and this shocking act of treason would have sent a clear signal to all aspiring demagogues and future tyrants: NEVER FUCK WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

    From Joseph McCarthy to Richard Nixon to today’s Tea Party, this kind of political deceit has become standard operating procedure of the GOP.

  11. Links:

    How Nixon sabotaged peace talks and committed treason (BBC).

    Nixon prolonged Vietnam war for political gain (Smithsonian Magazine).

    Richard Nixon sabotaged Vietnam peace talks to get elected (TruthOut).

    Yup, the White House tapes revealed an act of treason that remained hidden for over 40 years. Nope, never believe bullshit about a “secret plan” … especially from a Republican.

    1. I won't believe bullsh*t about a secret plan from any politician, be they republican or democrat.

      I also won't believe bullsh*t about hope and change either.

    2. How does Barack H. Obama rank on keeping things secret, compared to other Presidents, Les?

    3. Well, the post was on secret plans in congress.

      Since I have not done research on comparative presidential secret keeping I can't say. But we do know he has fallen a bit short on his transparency promises.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.