Skip to comments.FLASHBACK- The last time health care was repealed
Posted on 06/28/2012 8:03:03 PM PDT by NoLibZone
he drive to repeal and replace the newly enacted health care-reform law has already bumped into a bit of Beltway conventional wisdom:
Entitlements are never repealed.
Even if Republicans somehow summoned the political will to try, they would first need to win the presidency and a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate.
That would be a tall order, to be sure. And no one should underestimate the difficulty of reversing what Washington has wroughtin a welfare state, the ratchet effect usually works only one way. But those who say it has never been done before are forgetting about the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988.
Unlike President Obamas recent health care handiwork, the 1988 law was a genuinely bipartisan achievement passed by lopsided margins.
It was signed into law by a Republican president, Ronald Reagan.
It offered all kinds of new benefits, including expanded coverage of hospital stays, at-home care, and prescription drugs (the act was in some respects of a forerunner of Medicare Part D).
The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act was nevertheless repealed a year later. No change in partisan control of Washington was necessarythe repeal was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by another Republican president, George H.W. Bush. The repeal turned out to be most popular with the elderly voters who had demanded the new benefits in the first place.
Why? In addition to creating new benefits, the reform also imposed staggering new costs. Those costs fell most heavily on the senior citizens who were supposed to be the programs biggest constituency. But, congressional Democrats were astonished to learn, many of these seniors were happy with their existing coverage and resented having to pay a new tax to fund this expansion of governmentcosts which kicked in before many of the benefits.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/30/the-last-time-health-care-was-repealed/#ixzz1z9CGlzgw
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
If this monstrosity is really a tax, then why is a filibuster-proof majority needed? Furthermore, it was originally passed as a spending bill to avoid a filibuster. So I’m not sure why commentators keep repeating that a filibuster proof majority is needed to repeal.
But our entitlements, even without Obamacare, are unsustainable. They will eventually all go at the same time.
Highlights of how Obamacare screws seniors:
Medicare cuts to inpatient psych hospitals (7/1/10)
Medicare Advantage cuts begin
Medicare cuts to home health begin
Wealthier seniors ($85K/$170K) begin paying higher Part D premiums (not indexed for inflation in Parts B/D)
Medicare reimbursement cuts when seniors use diagnostic imaging like MRIs, CT scans, etc.
Medicare cuts begin to ambulance services, ASCs, diagnostic labs, and durable medical equipment
Impose new annual tax on brand name pharmaceutical companies which will raise drug prices
Americans begin paying premiums for federal long-term care insurance (CLASS Act)
Prohibition on Medicare payments to new physician-owned hospitals
Seniors prohibited from purchasing power wheelchairs unless they first rent for 13 months
New Medicare cuts to long-term care hospitals begin (7/1/11)
Additional Medicare cuts to hospitals and cuts to nursing homes and inpatient rehab facilities begin (FY12)
New tax on all private health insurance policies to pay for comp. eff. research (plan years beginning FY12)
Repeal should not require a filibuster-proof majority if they do it the way it was passed: reconciliation. Any one tax bill per year, by Senate rule, can be done that way — and it would only require 51 votes. That would be the tact.
Full health care analysis here:
Is this crazy
The GOP was warning that it was in reality a TAX and Obama and the DEMs arguing that it wasnt
So Roberts says the GOP was right and Obama was wrong so it is constitutional
My brain hurts
How to Demolish obamacare ... First off - Romney, if he is elected - and telling the truth - says he will in his first hour as President - ‘Waive the obamacare requirement for all 50 states - as obama has done already for Nevada). Whatever the Senate/House origins of the obamacare bill it is now officially declared a TAX... Argue for years whether it originated in the House or the Senate... but this argument is not needed... If this obamacare monstrosity is a tax bill says SCOTUS - then Revoking this Tax bill should not take a Congressional Super Majority next term under a Republican President ... rather a simple majority of the U.S. House of Representatives could revoke the taxing authority of the obamacare law... and the Senate could concur with just sixty (60) votes at maximum (or perhaps only 51 votes depending upon how it is handled - maybe in the same way as the original bill - ‘reconciliation’ comes to mind). Then President Romney could sign the House and Senate passed Bill into law revoking the taxing authority of obamacare. The insurance mandate of obamacare would then be dead - having no taxing teeth and it will come to a halt in its cancerous spread. Then the rest of the neutered - dormant obamacare law could be dismantled piece by piece over the next one - two years.
No filibuster proof majority necessary, only 51 votes are needed to repeal Obamacare.
Glad to help, thanks for posting it.
As I said on the other thread, there is hope. Now the politicians have to play it right and MAKE IT CLEAR that the huge increases in premiums and reductions in benefits, and loss of providers, is simply due to the redistribution in this bill.
If they do that, they may be able to kill it. If not...then we’re stuck with it.
In April 1975, a new congress freshly swollen with a super majority of Democrats elected in the post-Watergate hissy fit, gave the North Vietnamese army the courage they needed to tear up the armistice signed to end the Vietnam War just two years earlier.
The U.S. had a treaty obligation with South Vietnam to provide naval support in shelling the the invasion route to the south in the event of the North violated the armistice. President Ford pleaded with congress to allow him to provide that naval support at little or no risk to American lives to slow the invasion.
Congress would have none of it and responded by cutting off all military funding for that purpose. With no support and no chance to organize their defense, the south fell within days to the lightning attack. People who had risked their lives to save American soldiers and pilots grappled for places in line to get on the last helicopters to evacuate the American Embassy in Saigon.
If congress could cut off funding in 1975 to betray an ally, why can't they do it in 2012 to block implementation of a dictatoral law?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.