Ted Cruz: Repeal Every Word of It

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | April 1, 2014 | Rush Limbaugh

[Kaslin]

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Just a couple of more sound bites. Ted Cruz has weighed in on all of this. He's the one guy who's had this nailed from the get-go. And then we will move on to other propaganda, because there is no news anymore. There no news in the media. It's just propaganda. It's the Democrat Party and the Regime talking points disguised as the news.

Ted Cruz, ladies and gentlemen, has just been firing both barrels on this, since he's been talking about it at all. And this morning on Fox & Friends he was asked by Steve Doocy, "Okay, Senator Cruz. The White House is claiming victory out there. They hit their seven million number. What do you think?"

CRUZ: The bulk of the people who are signing up had health insurance to begin with -- and, you know what? They probably had their insurance canceled because of Obamacare 'cause we know that over six million people had their health insurance canceled because of Obamacare. It is abundantly clear this thing isn't working. It has caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, to be forced into part-time work, to lose their health insurance, or to see their premiums skyrocket. It is the essence of pragmatism to recognize this thing isn't working. Let's start over. Let's repeal every word of it.

RUSH: Every word of it! I love this guy. He is not backing down. He's exactly right with just some historical context here. Okay, they've got seven million, but how many of them...? One thing he didn't mention: How many of them are signing up out of fear? How many of 'em think, "My God, if I don't sign up I gotta pay a penalty or I might go to jail"?

Remember Pelosi said that it was totally understandable to send somebody to jail for not signing up back in the day. It's the law. You have to have it. If this thing were universally popular, everybody would have it. It's the law. If we had a law-abiding society, everybody would have health insurance right now. This was the deadline! Except the individual mandate has been delayed, see?

Here's the thing: What does this deadline mean anyway? It's meaningless because the mandate's gone. They've delayed the mandate. The individual mandate requiring you to have it, they've delayed that 'til after the election. But they promised -- Sebelius and the others promised -- seven million. So they have to make it look like the country loves this boondoggle.

So even though the individual mandate's been delayed and you don't have to sign up... You can claim a "hardship" for any reason, including the website itself. You can claim that that is a hardship, as an excuse for not signing up. So you don't have to be signed up today when you get right down to it. Just a few people do. It's not even signed up. They've gotta start paying the penalty for not having it if they don't.

Those are people that file quarterly estimated taxes. However, Cruz is exactly right here. The mandate is gone. Look at how many people have lost hours, been converted to part time so their companies could comply. How many people have lost their jobs because of Obamacare? How many people are signing up because they're doing it out of abject fear of the authorities tracking them down if they don't?

How many of those signing up did not have health insurance? How many signing up did have it but it was canceled? So the Regime making a big deal out of this is all smoke and mirrors. It's another giant scam, especially when you throw in that the individual mandate that makes this a hard-and-fast date, is gone.

The real way to look at this, I think, is if this law is now miraculously popular, if for some reason after this four months of intense advertising and all the other things... Who was that actress that went on with Biden and started crying about this? What was her name? Rosario Dawson? Don't bother looking it up. It doesn't matter. Some actress went on TV with Biden and started crying over spilt milk.

"Oh, Obamacare is so important!" (interruption) Rachael Ray! Rachael Ray, that's who it was. Rosario Dawson, Rachael Ray. I don't know who Rachael Ray is. All I'm telling you is, I read the story and I remember the name. But if this thing were so popular, wouldn't more than seven million people have signed up? If Obamacare was so wonderful, if it were so the answer?

If Obamacare was actually the solution to all of the health care problems that everybody has, wouldn't more than seven million people have signed up by now? Yeah. When you add in the reality, the fact that people that can't afford it are gonna get subsidies -- they're gonna get help in paying for it -- don't you think there would have been a mad dash?

Don't you think there would be lines of excited people signing up? Yet they're out there characterizing seven million as some big, great, over-the-top number. It's embarrassingly low, and they probably haven't even hit that. So Cruz is right here. "It is the essence of pragmatism to recognize this thing isn't working," and to step back from it.

Well, at that, Steve Doocy said, "You're kind of in a minority out there when it comes to this, Senator Cruz. I know the Democrats are saying mend it, don't necessarily defend it. But you look at the polling, Senator, and a lot of Americans like parts of it. They'd like to see parts of it continue. So to blow the whole thing up, I don't know if people are behind that."

CRUZ: The support for Obamacare is in the thirties. This is the most profoundly unpopular law we have seen in modern times, and the reason is it's personal. A lot of folks are not necessarily optimistic that it can be repealed because the president tells 'em every day, Harry Reid tells 'em every day, and a lot of news media tell 'em every day, "It can't be repealed."

DOOCY: Mmm-hmm.

CRUZ: But I'll tell you, you can't force this on the American people. I think it's going to be repealed 'cause I think the American people are demanding that.

RUSH: Now, you hear him say support for Obamacare's in the thirties.

He may not have heard about the ABC News/Washington Post poll, which, again, shows support for Obamacare for the first time in a plurality, 49-48%. Now, he's probably talking about the AP poll four days ago. Just to remind you, four days ago the Associated Press and their polling partner, GfK (not to be confused with Zach Galifianakis), found 26% support for Obamacare.

So he found a poll with 30%.

END TRANSCRIPT

[Cen-Tejas]

Sir, with all due respect to your thoughtful post, I disagree. History is not on your side. Google “United States Repealed Legislation” and you will find 39 pages, single spaced, of repealed Federal Legislation. Some of it major, some of it not. But, the concept of “REPEAL” is deeply embedded in American Politics and Ted Cruz, a student of the Constitution and American Politics knows this.

What you are saying was once said too about Prohibition but in somewhere around a dozen years opposition gradually built and it was Repealed.

So, when you say “never happen”, my suggestion is that you consider a caveat to that assertion. That caveat being that with “this” congress there is “no way”. Then you will say “well, ok Obama will veto” if the Pubs take control of Congress. And even that argument ignores that only a handful of Dems in the Senate and even fewer in the house will be needed to over-ride his veto IF THE PUBS ARE EVEN MODERATELY SUCCESSFUL IN NOVEMBER!

If the pubs hit a home run in NOvember, then APPEAL becomes almost a certainty. (note I used the word “almost”)

[mylife]

He needs the American people and the Rep party to back him or he is pissing in the wind.

I love the guy but he can not do it alone.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

‘zackly.
Rip it out !

[Sgt_Schultze]

Simply require all people who are receiving a payment from the federal government to enroll in Medicaid or obamacare. That would include all those on assistance and all federal government employees and retires - including congress, the president’s family and the supremes.

[omni-scientist]

I see it differently. Social Security has been entrenched for over seventy years. Medicare has been around since the 60’s. Food stamps since the 70’s. We know that the welfare state is unsustainable, and Obamacare only adds to the bill coming due. So when it comes time to roll back the welfare state (assuming we don’t collapse under it’s weight), what will go first? Obviously, the least popular.

[Jane Long]

John Boehner...is that you?

I’m with Ted. REPEAL. EVERY. WORD. OF. IT.

[Jane Long]

BTTT!

[SoConPubbie]

Ted Cruz Ping!

If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.

Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!

[Finny]

Thanks for the ping. Great thread!

[NFHale]

“...We did this once before with abolition....”

Damn straight! Prohibition was repealed, too. How long did that last? 1920 to 1933. Took 14 years, but they got it removed.

Anything is possible if you push hard enough - and KEEP pushing.

Perfect example: the left has been pushing this crap for decades, and they got it - BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T GIVE UP.

So we can’t either. It’s NOT an option. It has to go.

Dear Leader - “Il Douchey” - was throwing a temper tantrum saying the “debate on Healthcare is OVER!”

We’ll show him in November that the debate is most certainly not over...

[Colonel_Flagg]

And you are NOT going to take away the insurance people now have, even just temporarily, while you are working on a better way.

Then sunset it. But it has to go. And I think you're the only person on FR who still calls this monstrosity "ACA". It isn't "A", it takes away "C" and the last "A" has to be stopped.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Abolution was banning someone from doing something. It is politically “easy” to undo that.

Name one major giveaway to people that has ever been eliminated.

We can all agree it “has” to go. It will not happen, not fully.

We can play at the margins. Many states were politically able to NOT APPROVE the EXPANSION of medicaid. None have ever been able to eliminate medicaid, or medicare.

We should be able to get rid of the federal oversight, the rules, the mandates. We will not politically be able to take health insurance away from people who now have it under ACA.

That at least is my argument. You of course can argue that we would be able to do so. This isn’t an argument over what we should do, I’m arguing what we should hold people accountable for doing. I don’t hold people accountable for not accomplishing impossible tasks.

[CharlesWayneCT]

“Obamacare” is unpopular.

However, parts of the bill are extremely popular. Like making insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions (specifically, guaranteed issue and community rating). Interestingly, Freedomworks deals with this in arguing for full repeal, but by suggesting a replacement provision that would essentially solve the same problem. I think we can pull THAT off, replacing parts of Obamacare; that is different than repeal: “The conservative solution is state-based pre-existing condition pools, also known as high-risk pools.”, they argue.

Note that this would provide state (public) subsidies for health insurance for people who would otherwise have trouble buying it, i.e. people with pre-existing conditions.

Once you suggest that, you’ll fall prey to the argument that if a middle-class person is getting a subsidy from the government, the poor people should as well, which means you’ll have to keep some insurance subsidy program. Doesn’t have to be the Obamacare exchanges, but remember that insurance exchanges themselves are a conservative idea, we simply didn’t think government should dictate what insurance covers and that everybody had to buy it.

[MrB]

And just when did you lose that Stasi feeling, whoah that Stasi feeling?

[CharlesWayneCT]

BTW, I do think that practically speaking, we have to repeal the entire bill. My argument is that we cannot get RID of every aspect of the bill; we will need a replacement, and that replacement is going to have to provide a similar level of benefit to those who benefited from ACA, or else we will not be able to politically PASS the repeal/replace.

Practically speaking, we are much more likely to get an AMENDMENT to the bill, where the entire bill contents is replaced by a new bill that provides things we as conservatives would not like it to do, in order to get enough votes to pass the house and senate, even under republican leadership.

[DoodleDawg]

Yes, we need a viable alternative. With that and strong leadership, repeal could happen in as little as one, and at most four years.

Unfortunately right now we have neither.