The odds of them getting anything done and passed by January is pretty low, but it’s possible. But it’s certainly Reason #1,889,045 to make sure we get a Tea Party Congress in place January 2013

Health care reform: GOP preps plan for ruling on law

House Republican leaders are quietly hatching a plan of attack as they await a historic Supreme Court ruling on President Barack Obama’s health care law.

If the law is upheld, Republicans will take to the floor to tear out its most controversial pieces, such as the individual mandate and requirements that employers provide insurance or face fines.

If the law is partially or fully overturned they’ll draw up bills to keep the popular, consumer-friendly portions in place — like allowing adult children to remain on parents’ health care plans until age 26, and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Ripping these provisions from law is too politically risky, Republicans say.

The post-Supreme Court plan — a ruling should come in June — has long been whispered about inside House leadership circles and among the House’s elected physicians but is now being discussed with a larger groups of lawmakers, showing that Republicans are aggressively preparing for a big-time health care debate in the heat of an election-year summer.

This section is for comments from's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
8 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. WalkStar says:

    Holy cow! When will the GOP learn? Boehner has to go!

  2. paul14 says:

    They can do whatever they want. We can do the right thing after they are fired!

  3. LucyLadley says:

    Is healthcare insurance really as complicated as the politicians make it? It makes the tax code look simple. What is the most streamlined way to resolve this dispute? Just asking for your wisdom TAMS, you TAMS always help me sort things out!

    • naga5 says:

      it is worse.
      back during the deathcare debate, rushbo had an insurance woman call in. bottom line was that mandatory cash reserves and mandatory benefit outlays doomed the industry. there is no way to invest profits/cash on hand if the government tells them what they can’t spend and have to cover. my wife experienced the same issues in her company. they were state regulated and were profitable. now they are state and federally regulated and are trying to find ways to make money while following two sets of rules.
      solution would be free markets and a conservative reading of the commerce clause.

  4. persecutor says:

    Boehner and McConnell are as big a part of the problem as Obama is. They love their perqs, and pay us lip service.
    Pity I can’t vote against them, but we’ll need their constituents to get as fed up as the rest of us are.

  5. naga5 says:

    and, in addition, to be in the minority yet again;
    i want allen west to stay in the house to be its speaker.
    i get that he is very qualified for many cabinet positions, but the house is being led by “i was born in a bar”.
    we would be better served with west as leader of that branch of government to right the ship. he can be nominated for a cabinet position in palin’s inaugural term.

  6. makeshifty says:

    On the one hand I can see why Republicans are supporting the idea that pre-existing conditions will be covered. It’s because of complaints that people are being “kicked off” of insurance plans (the insurer will not renew the policy) once they become “too expensive,” or out of a sense of being merciful to those who are born with a genetic predisposition towards cancer, or some other terminal disease, or are born with a birth defect. In the former case, people claim that once this happens, they can’t get coverage, because of their now pre-existing condition. The thing is, as I remember Glenn Beck aptly pointing out, insurance can’t work this way. Insurance by definition is designed to cover risks, not conditions. Along with that, if the risks are high, along with the costs if the risks are realized, the price for that insurance is also high. That’s just how it works, no matter if we’re talking about auto or home insurance. What the Republicans are talking about is a socialized health payment system, which they continue to call “insurance.” It’s not insurance. Like the Democrats, Republicans are avoiding the real problem: the cost of health care, focusing on the costs of this health payment system. This payment system, which they wish to maintain, is part of the problem.

    As I think libertarians have aptly pointed out, the fact that so many people are part such a system contributes to the high cost of health care, because it masks the real costs of care to the people who are part of it. They can use the system, and either pay nothing, or put out a small co-pay. This encourages people to use it for every little thing, which drives up the cost for everyone else, because they don’t experience the full cost of using it. It’s the same problem as with government spending. People are not as responsible with money, and are not as conscious of costs, if someone else is paying. Not to say that some health insurance is likely necessary, even absent these contributing factors. One of the few real health insurance policies around, as far as I’m concerned, is catastrophic coverage. If we just said, “We’re ending this health payment system. If you need insurance, buy catastrophic coverage,” that would be a major step in the right direction.

    A second thing that needs to be done is to end the political monopoly hospitals have on the health care system. There needs to be more competition in health care services. The main thing that’s needed is transparency. *Hospitals must disclose their prices for their services!* Right now that’s kept under wraps, and is enabled by most people having insurance, or being part of some health payment system. Not to say that insurance is what causes this, but the hospitals long ago just started dealing with these entities on prices. From what I’ve read, a lot of times even doctors working *in* the hospitals don’t know how much procedures cost. This has got to change! This can only happen, though, on the state level. Some change needs to be made at the federal level, for sure, but don’t forget the states’ role in this problem. For many years states have been enabling this monopoly, which is another factor driving up health care costs. The big hospitals claim they need this monopoly so they can offer low-cost or pro bono care to the poor. My understanding is this help they claim they’re giving is largely illusory. They just don’t want competition.

    The Tea Party has, as far as I can tell, been focusing on electing people to national office. To solve this problem they need to focus on state offices as well, electing legislators and governors.

You must be logged in to post a comment.