Obamacare: Republicans Can’t Win For Losing

sharylattkisson.com ^ | June 24, 2015 | Sharyl Attkisson

[upchuck]

If the plaintiffs win the current Affordable Care Act (ACA) case before the U.S. Supreme Court, King v. Burwell, millions of Americans who bought health insurance through the federal marketplace or “exchange” will lose the federal tax dollars they’re getting to help buy their policies.

That’s because the Court would have ruled the ACA only allowed subsidies to be given to those buying policies on state-established exchanges; not the federal website.

It would theoretically be a victory for Republicans who oppose Obamacare: Americans would likely find the health care law less palatable if tax money isn’t helping pay for their mandatory policies. They would suddenly be exposed to the reality faced by those who aren’t getting subsidies: insurance may cost more, come with higher deductibles, and provide less coverage.

But some Congressional Republicans are more worried about winning the Supreme Court case than losing it.

“There are Republicans right now scared to death that we’re going to win,” says one Republican leader who did not want to be quoted by name. “They’re in meetings right now planning ways to revive the subsidies if the [Supreme] Court strikes them down.”

The irony is that Republicans would, in effect, be providing a crucial fix to a law they’ve opposed since its inception. In other words, when Obamacare would be at greatest risk of crumbling, Republicans would be ensuring its survival.

[Dick Bachert]

And on a related topic...

If they EVER WANT TO WIN ANOTHER NATIONAL ELECTION, these GOP dorks had BETTER get out in front of this Democrat rigging of the electorate. If they’re afraid they’ll piss off the illegals and the others being used by the Dems for that purpose because it would trigger massive civil disorder, BRING IT ON IF the outcome is that ONLY LEGAL CITIZENS will now vote. Hell, we have enough of our own homegrown issue and candidate illiterates already and these fraudulently enfranchised “voters” aren’t going to vote for REAL Pubbies or conservatives – EVER. They’re going to vote for the clowns dispensing all the “FREE CHIT”!

“Democracies cannot exist as a permanent form of government; they
will only exist until the people find that they can vote money
for themselves from the treasury and until the politicians find
that they can distribute that money in order to buy votes and
perpetuate themselves in power. Hence, democracies always
collapse over weak fiscal policy to be followed by a dictatorship.”
Alexander Tyler, Scottish Historian

One more election like the last one and we’ll be there!!

[fortheDeclaration]

Obamacare is going to collapse under it's own weight.

Millennials are not signing up for it to support it, they know it is a scam.

[Lumper20]

True, but most earning six figures, like a BSEE with experience, have damn good medical coverage at work. Most folks I know who are not retired earn at least that. No sane person wants this rotten coverage. Pelosi, Obama and pals gutted the finest health system in the world for their socialized medicine.

[Lumper20]

It takes 2/3’s in the Senate. We do not have that yet.

[EVO X]

It was in 2010 that the republicans promised to repeal obamacare if they were given the majority.

They don't have the votes to override a veto. Republican leadership wants to patch subsidies for a couple of years if SCOTUS overturns them. POTUS will veto a patch. He wants it made permanent according to press accounts. I'd never vote for anybody that made it permanent..

[Robert357]

The talking points need to be the Dem's even when this was in the Supreme Court said the law was working as intended, when it wasn't. They and the President have lied about the ACA from the beginning. You can keep your plan if you like it.....It will provide a $2,500 per household reduction in cost per typical family.....It is working as planned.....There is no reason to create any legislation because what was written had no flaws.....The President has no contingency plan, because he doesn't care about people and wants to hold them hostage.

At some point the Republicans need to point out the Dem's historically sell illusions that bit people in the butt, like the plans that were canceled, and the websites that didn't work. The ACA was an illusion as to total cost, workability, and benefits to the public. As J Gruber pointed out it was based on the Democrats belief that the public was too stupid to realize what was being shoved down their collective throats.

Republicans should ask Democrats to publicly admit that they made mistakes as a condition for discussion solutions.

[smoothsailing]

I agree with you. Just pointing out who’s eligible. The whole thing is vile scheme.

[EVO X]

True, but most earning six figures, like a BSEE with experience, have damn good medical coverage at work.

People with employer coverage need to read the fine print. If you get into an out of network situation, you might be in for a rude awakening...

[Lumper20]

Thanks. It is very sad that we are paying not only for the uninsured Americans we had but we are also paying for all the illegals, the Muslims Obama dumped on us from Syria, plus every foreign student. This is a scam that needs to be trashed now.

[VerySadAmerican]

The didn’t even TRY to repeal it. They lied, plain and simple. And they’ve slandered those who put them in power and mistreat those the Tea Party elected.

[VerySadAmerican]

We? We don’t have but two or three tops.

[EVO X]

The didn’t even TRY to repeal it. They lied, plain and simple. And they’ve slandered those who put them in power and mistreat those the Tea Party elected.

The house has voted something like 54 times to repeal. It doesn't appear the senate has done much since republicans took over in 2014. Voting to repeal is just a symbolic gesture unless they can round up enough democrats to make it veto proof. The same goes with trying to use the power of the purse. If they pass a budget defunding parts of it, it will be vetoed.

Republican leadership doesn't have the talent to go around the press or the democratic party like Reagan did. These guys are more worried about what cocktail parties they are invited to..

[Yosemitest]

These"ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" are the BIGGEST BUNCH OF BACKSTABBERS I'VE EVER SEEN.

They've got to be defeated, even if I have to replace them with DemocRATS.

I WILL VOTE AGAINST ... AND TO DESTROY ANY "Establishment Republican" !
Compromisers ALWAYS LOSE !

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.

Someone once said [We're] 'Not victims of "the Establishment." '
I disagree.
I ask you again:

Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?

It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

These "Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2016 OR NOT?

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.
Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.



The "Establishment Republicans" can GO TO HELL !

[VerySadAmerican]

They folded like the cowards they are and blamed Cruz for shutting down the government. They should have left it shut down until the checks stopped. Then the democrats would have heard some screaming from their base.

[EVO X]

We know they don’t have any fire in the belly to fight it. Boehner said it was the law of the land within hours of the 2012 election results.