Skip to comments."Repeal and Replace" has it backwards - "Replace (Congress) and Repeal" should be our battle cry!
Posted on 04/03/2010 10:35:45 AM PDT by xjcsa
All the discussion on "repeal and replace" has centered on whether repealing the bill is feasible and what the replacement would look like.
Contrary to what some squishy, spineless "Republicans" are saying, a full repeal is absolutely possible, but first we must REPLACE the "progressive" Congresscritters who voted for it in the first place.
We should instead be shouting "Replace and Repeal!" - but what needs "replacement" are every Democrat (and some Republicans) in Congress.
1. REPLACE "progressive" politicians. 2. REPEAL the atrocity.
I like your timeline... :)
1. REPLACE “progressive” politicians.
2. REPEAL the atrocity.
3. REPLACE with patient-centered health reform.
For example, Paul Ryan’s bill not only would ensure a vibrant and competitive private medical care and private health insurance system, but would replace Medicare’s defined benefit with a defined contribution (i.e., a voucher to buy private coverage) and likewise would buy Medicaid beneficiaries into the private market rather than stick them with lousy public coverage that fewer and fewer providers are willing to accept.
I think it’s a mistake to simply repeal the bill, since part of the reason Obama succeeded in talking Dems to jump over the cliff was using the false argument that voting against HCR was a vote for the status quo. The status quo IS flawed. It needs fixing: it’s just that in this case, the cure was worse than the disease in many ways.
Repeal the bill AND.... the occupant of the White-House
Sorry. I just had to make that adjustment. I suspect less than 30 Republicans should be allowed to continue holding their seats.
We still need a plan to deal with the veto.