Skip to comments.Ron Johnson on Obamacare: "We've got to start talking about transitioning."
Posted on 12/09/2013 10:30:31 AM PST by cornelis
In a visit to NRs New York office, Senator Ron Johnson said the fight against Obamacare is entering a new phase: Weve got to start talking about transitioning. Johnson won his Senate seat in 2010 based in large part on his fierce opposition to Obamacare, which he still adamantly opposes as an assault on Americans liberty and criticizes in the harshest terms (look no further than his recent weekly radio address). But simple repeal is no longer enough, he believes. He says that Republicans have to acknowledge that the law now exists. How do you repeal? he asks. Yeah, you can get rid of the law, but what do you do with whats already there? He continues, Am I opposed to state-based exchanges? No. He thinks it may be that they can be usable. Im all for repeal, he stipulates, but its there. What do you do with whats there? . . . .Weve got to start talking about the reality of the situation. He says that his approach, acknowledging the reality of the new structures put in place by Obamacare and offering a positive alternative, might be summarized as repeal, dismantle, and transition to something better.
He needs to transition himself.
Wow! That must’ve been a big payoff.
Transition to the free marketplace.
Is that so hard for this “senator” to understand?
The GOP plan is to transition to Romneycare.
The business interests wanted the new health care system to relieve their financial burdens and the GOPe does not want to dismantle any part of it that looks good in focus group polling.
National Review is full of Mandela worshippers, personally I could not care less about them now. They are not in any way a conservative website.
Here’s a novel idea, Senator. Repeal the entire steenking fascist/socialist mess and let freedom reign!!
Congress wouldn't handle immigration because they WOULD NOT ENFORCE THE LAW......it became "TOO BIG TO DEAL WITH"...because they wouldn't enforce the law....NOW when we have an outlaw running roughshod over the American citizen this clown doctor wants to "help" enforce something the American people never wanted.
Agreed. I gave up on National Review when every article was a Romney love fest.
At this point its basically a worthless site full of folks who have never had a single conservative accomplishment in their careers.
"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes"
"all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Third World status in 3...2...1...
His point, I believe, is that it cannot be gotten rid of by outright repeal. At least not yet.
We are going to have to destroy the leviathan another way.
I suppose the analogy might be to a cancer.
Sometimes, one can cut the cancer immediately...in the early stages, before it has spread. If not stopped immediately, then the attack has to be done in different ways...by focusing on one particular part or aspect—to limit growth, choke off, or irradiate one particular aspect.
I don’t think Johnson wants the Obamacare cancer to grow, but he recognizes it is now within the system, and more creative ways of removing it have to be found.
Of course, once the body is HEALTHY enough (that is, once CONSERVATIVES are in control of the body politic if you’ll excuse the pun), then we OUGHT to be able to take a knife to the cancer...and remove it completely. Oh, they’ll be howls of “the pain, the pain”, by the media and the Democrat base.
But it’ll be for the good of the country. :)
From the comments so far, it’s apparent that most didn’t read what Johnson said, that his approach is to repeal, dismantle, and transition to something better.
Personally, I’m pleased to see someone take a realistic view of the mess, rather than just pitching a hissy fit. Yelling “No!” is not working.
did you see their Mandela-editorial?
It was nauseating
He is transitioning is original opposition to Obamacare.
We are going to transition you out of office Ron. Loser.
Here’s my contribution to your conversation, Ron.
Agreed, but the reality is that as long as 0ne is in office and as long as GOP does not have a super majority of 67 in the Senate along with continued control of the House, the law cannot be repealed or changed until January 2017. By then the program will be so well entrenched it will be hard to retract and God only knows what the political landscape will be in the 2016 presidential elections.
By feeding the cancer with a promise of curing it later.
When your choice is Romney or Obama, you can either hold your nose and vote for the liberal Republican, the socialist POTUS, or stay at home.
The “stay at homer” purists gave us this second term.
It amazes me how conservatives hold politicians in disdain, recognizing the fundamental corruption of the system, yet demand ideological purity. It’s an ozymoronic approach that is leading us to ruin.
I hated Romney as a candidate, but I wish fervently that he were POTUS today.
It’s working just fine for me.
Nope. Not even close. The GOP does not own my vote, they are not entitled to my vote.
If the candidate cannot attract more voters than the other guy, the blame is on the candidate not the voters.
In other words, what do you do with all of the takers getting Medicaid or subsidized plans when you pull the plug and they freak?
How did they get rid of the Jim Crow laws? Was there a transition phase? Or did people decide the laws were unjust? How did they decide? It took television to show people being firehosed and dogs sic’d on them. People need to see, read, hear, and experience what it will be like with no medical care, no doctors, etc. Those conservatives who challenge the RINOs need to always - always - discuss that and bring that into the conversation. Thsi guy Johnson sounds like another Scarborough.
The only “purists” are the lying, manipulative bottom feeding “moderates” who will happily toss a race to the democrats and sit back to say “See we told you so”.
Nuthin but boot licking kapo scum.
Sounds like he transitioned himself to the category of Quisling.
The GOP must make NO into an action.
The GOPe claims we grassroots conservatives are the “talkers” and they take “action” but moderate policy has never been the real action that needs to be taken.
The real action that needs to be taken.
TOTAL REPEAL OF OBAMACARE.
Strange birds on FR, too.
The point is that the discussion should be that government has no business in the health care business. Every conservative should start off with that simple statement. When questioned what is the solution, the answer is to inform people that they are responsible for thier health care, get government out of it, inform people that they are responsible for thier health care, cut the regulations, inform people that they are responsible for thier health care. The point is to continually inform people that they are responsible for thier health care.
Have you noticed that Weekly Standard is now a pay site, and NR isn’t. Also, NR just lost their start reporter..Robert Coasta..who has amazing contacts in the GOP on the hill, and has had some very big scoops. He’s going to the WaPo..taking Beezos bucks...
What am I missing, here? NRO fuzzes up what I think he is saying...
3. Transition (into a Republican question mark.)
Johnson sounds pragmatic to me. As for the state exchanges, states are already in charge of opting in or opting out on the exchange concept, right?
And that "something better" is...?
If Romney and his Obama love fest, non-campaigning, lying self had somehow amazingly convinced people he was trustworthy enough for office, we’d already have amnesty along with fully functioning obamacare websites which would have already been renamed Romneycare.
It amazes me how many people who call themselves conservative don’t recognize a Fabian socialist with an ancestry of radical socialism just because the clown has an (R) next to their name.
Yes, I don’t get the impulse to twist on Johnson either, but for the sorry focus of the NRO’s delivery of any clarity to the point he is making.
Republicans have yet to offer anything but a question mark for their alternative plan and Johnson is more than ready to get cracking on that.
Payoff? Or threats? I have wondered if the GOP is not making noise about the illegality of Obama’s decrees because the purpose of the NSA’s early work during his administration was to collect enough dirt on the GOP to immobilize them while he sets up his reign. It might mean he has dirt on almost every GOP or it might mean he got enough dirt on enough GOP that he threatens the party as well as the individual. The “dirt” doesn’t have to be true. If the NSA has the access it does, it’s almost impossible to refute planted evidence. But sadly, I think it’s dirt on an individual basis - as if most congresscritters are unethical.
Not to mention that the insurance companies salivating over 30 million new customers. They will fight against its repeal as hard as any democrat activist.
The problem is, Johnson thinks its “permanent” law. It’s a problem.
That might be what he's talking about. Those websites could be used to sell non-mandatory catastrophic-only policies and it could be used for insurers to advertise non-mandatory policies they design accoring to what consumers want. If the feds are going to offer subsidies for these NON-MANDATORY policies, that eligibility could be determined at these websites.
If Obama only had a brain, this could be a way out.
And you think Ron Johnson’s repeal/dismantle/transition is going to work? Is it going to get enough Senate Democrats on board to override Obama’s veto?
Obamacare is built like a house of cards. Every special benefit that was added was counterbalanced against some kind of fee, tax or rate hike. There’s not much you can keep in without have to keep in the other part that balances it, and then the part that balances that part, and so on. Not that that balancing is actually working in practice. But this idea of “keeping parts” of Obamacare doesn’t even work on paper, unless it was something so narrow that it could be in a one-sentence bill (like the rule about having to cover 26-year-olds on parents’ plans). The exchanges are such a complex part of Obamacare, if you keep those, you’re pretty much keeping the whole bill.
FWIW, if Romney were in the WH, he would tweak it a little but there would be mandatory health insurance. That is his legacy for MA, after all.
Great, a “conservative” plan that’s every bit as complicated and unwieldy as the original Obamacare.
The mandate or some form of it is a far more conservative policy than a subsidy, which is pure nanny state welfare socialism. I would support charging people a health care tax which goes solely to reimburse hospitals and doctors for unpaid medical bills. And if you have health insurance or any health care costs you can deduct them 100% off the tax, so you won’t pay the tax if you’re already paying your own medical bills. This simply provides the funding for the unfunded mandate EMTALA created in 1986.
Either that or repeal EMTALA. But giving an order for the private sector to spend money on something and providing no government reimbursement for them to do so is far worse than adding a tax that covers that mandate.
If the insurance companies through the politicians they own had worked to destroy Obamacare instead of working to set up something they thought they could profit from, Obamacare would be gone. Why should I pay any kind of tax that goes to hospitals, insurance providers etc? If the insurance companies fold, new ones will emerge that will have learned the lessons and not try to profit from government schemes.
One sure way for hospitals and other care to not lose money on those who don't pay would be EVerify....any non-citizen pays upfront. Another would be clinics where patients went on a pay-as-you-go basis, with frugal solutions and emphasizing natural healing.
It all depends on what he wants to replace it with.
The health care market was hardly a bastion of freedom and free markets before DeathCare was imposed.
If the goals are to increase the number of folks who can afford health insurance, then the model for health insurance and for payment of health care needs to move toward a consumer-driven model - one where the consumer cares about costs, and has clear choices between health care options as often as possible.
There are a few things that could be done universally to improve the situation. Most folks should know these by heart: tort reform and all the reforms that would go with it; interstate competition between insurance plans and providers; enforcing a bare minimum of minimum benefits.
But other important areas ripe for improvement include: shifting the tax advantages of health insurance to the insured rather than the employer, thus empowering consumers to make their own insurance choices; encouraging REAL INSURANCE, not pre-paid health care, in other words, primarily catastrophic, or what we used to call “major medical,” insurance;” discouraging “first dollar” coverage and discouraging coverage for routine care, which is essentially like paying your auto insurer to pay for your oil changes; highly advantaged Health Savings Accounts to encourage folks to take responsibility for the routine and non-catastrophic health stuff. These things would be done to move as much of health care to direct, cash (or check or credit card) payment for services, cutting the insurance company out of the loop.
Other possible reforms include encouraging health care providers to provide package pricing for non-emergency procedures and surgeries paid in cash; insurance companies using “reference pricing.”
By making folks more directly responsible for the cost of their health care, market forces can be brought to bear, lowering prices, improving quality, and improving access to health care for everyone.
So, yes, if Sen. Johnson is talking about these sorts of reforms that bring the health care market closer to a true, free market, these things would be very good. AND, packaged together, could be presented as the alternative to DeathCare by Obama. It’s easier to beat something with something else than to beat something with nothing.
The main difference in a Romney vs Obama Presidency is that it would be called Romneycare and the token opposition that the GOP leadership shows wouldn’t exist at all. Furthermore, we would have all the “conservative” party shills that blindly support anything with an R behind it, rallying to defend it.
Romney has no back bone, and no principles either. Lets don’t pretend the architect of socialized healthcare, amnesty supporter, father of gay marriage, and supporter of abortion rights is that much different. They stand for the same things. For some reason, a lot of folks are ok when it has an R behind it.
Unprincipled GOP voters who buy the “lesser than two evils” and “moderate” BS gave us Romney...and in turn gave us a second term for Obama.
So many around here lately are basically "I will piss on it before I understand it, and that will show everybody on FR how important my way of thinking is."
Kudos to you today for clarifying what Johnson said.
So now going ahead and getting on board with Obamacare is pragmatic?
Thank YOU. I appreciate that.
One of the destructive elements of having a clown like Obamugabe in the Oval Office is one that strangely effects conservatives...we are being torn apart because we cannot agree on how to defeat the ideology he spews.
Worse than that, we tend to turn on each other...accusing each other of not being “pure” enough.
Don’t get me wrong...there are Chaffees and Crists and Lindseys who NEEDo be challenged and defeated...but so often we taint everyone who isn’t chomping at the bit for a dog fight as a wuss.
I don’t agree with that...
The Obama fascists were patient and waited to get their disdainful agenda in place...we must be, too. Or we risk allowing them to continue their destruction of America.
I must be in an alternative universe. Where did Johnson say he advocates getting on board with Obama care in this report? Show me and I will praise your insight and announce my fail.
Look, Johnson said he intends to repeal Obamacare, right? You object?
Next, he said he wants to see it dismantled, right? You object to that?
Then he wants to transition out of it? You object to that also?
The thing is law and implementation is under way, with deadlines looming for worse to come.
What do we transition to is a reasonable question, and Johnson wants a transition to something better than this cork sandwich we have now.
He now lacks some cred.