Tweet
Out goes the baby with the bathwater. If this achieves nothing in the long run but repeal of the insurance mandate, I can live with that.
I never thought I would see the day when so many Americans seem unconcerned that the Constitution may have been violated by the mandate.
The mandate's constitutionality is clearly questionable, and letting it stand as law could spell danger for the future strength of the Constitution in danger.
Supporters of the mandate seem to have tacitly agreed that in this instance the Constitution is less important than meeting a social need. What they fail to see is that disregard for the Constitution even once jeopardizes the strength of its protections. Who knows what the next "exception" will be? But we know that one exception makes the next easier.
If we want to protect the social contract on which the nation is founded, we must find a constitutional way to deal with health care reform.
House Approves Health Law Repeal
By JANET ADAMY And NAFTALI BENDAVID
WASHINGTON—The Republican-led House voted Wednesday to repeal the health-care overhaul that is a signature achievement of President Barack Obama, in a largely symbolic move that made good on a GOP election promise but left uncertain what the party would offer as an alternative.
The vote was 245-189 in favor of repeal, with three Democrats joining the entire Republican caucus in the majority. That compared with 34 House Democrats who voted in March 2010 against enacting the law.
Despite Wednesday's vote, the law is all but certain to remain in place for now. The Democratic-controlled Senate doesn't plan to take up the repeal measure, and even if it were to clear that chamber, Mr. Obama would veto it.
The three Democrats who voted for repeal were Reps. Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina and Mike Ross of Arkansas. The other 10 House Democrats who originally opposed the health-care bill and were re-elected last November voted against repealing it.
With the repeal vote behind them, House Republicans now must deliver on a second promise of last fall's campaign: proposing legislative alternatives to the Democrats' law. They will vote Thursday to pass a resolution instructing House committees to draft proposals they say will be more incremental than the Democrats' health overhaul.
Republicans' replacement plans remain vague and could easily fade as the party shifts toward proposals to create jobs. Any fresh health legislation is expected to stall in the Senate.
Pressed Wednesday for details of his party's health-care plans, House Speaker John Boehner described them as "common-sense reforms that bring down the cost of health insurance for the American people and expand access" to insurance.
Speaking on the House floor, Republicans called for enacting stronger curbs on medical-malpractice lawsuits and letting insurers sell policies across state lines. Yet they also suggested they favored keeping elements of the Democrats' law, including a provision allowing children to stay on their parents' health-insurance policies until age 26 and a ban on insurers denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
Democrats said the Republicans' ideas were marginal and would do little to solve the health system's problems. "It's easy to say you're against something. It is much harder to come up with solutions," said Rep. Susan Davis (D., Calif.). "It's irresponsible to repeal without a plan to fix the issues in our health-care system."
Republicans are moving decisively against the law because they sense strong public support among their backers and activists to do so. They believe they succeeded in the 2010 midterm election in portraying the overhaul as a metaphor for an overreliance on big-government solutions, and now have a mandate to act.
Among Republicans, 77% favor repealing and eliminating the law, according to a Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll released Wednesday.
Among the public overall, the new poll found 46% of respondents opposed repealing and eliminating the law, while 45% favored that outcome. At the same time, health care ranked third on a list of most important economic issues, well behind unemployment and just behind the federal budget deficit.
Some Democrats questioned why Republicans were trying to undo the bill if they support its goals.
"They want to repeal the bill but they still want to give it a big hug and embrace," said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.).
"There are some things in the new law that are worth keeping, but until you sweep away the bad things, you cannot begin to work on the good things," said Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas).
The resolution to be passed by Republicans Thursday calls for House committees to draft legislation that would, among other things, give states greater flexibility to administer Medicaid programs and prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions, which Democrats contend their law already does.
The Energy and Commerce Committee, in a memo outlining its priorities, said this week it would work to recapture the law's cuts to Medicare spending and funnel them back into the insurance program for the elderly. The law, designed to expand insurance to 32 million Americans, shaves more than $400 billion in Medicare payments over a decade.
Changes to the health law are likely to come through stand-alone bills aimed at removing or reworking the least popular parts of the law.
Both Democrats and Republicans have proposed legislation to remove the law's requirement that businesses file a 1099 tax form when they pay a vendor more than $600 in a year, and the White House backs the change.
Some Senate Democrats who voted for the law said they were looking into an alternative to its requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a fee—a plank of the overhaul that one federal judge has ruled violates the U.S. Constitution.
Republicans also plan to choke off funding to implement the law, since their control of the House gives them new leverage to control annual appropriations spending. They could block the Obama administration from hiring extra workers at the agencies that are implementing the law.
But most of the law's funding—such as money to expand Medicaid and give tax credits to help lower earners buy insurance—is largely untouchable and would require Congress and the president to enact a new law to withhold it.
"This is the law," Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, said Wednesday. "We intend to implement it and make it work for people across America."
In two days of floor debate that culminated in Wednesday's vote, Republicans framed the health-care overhaul as a law that will destroy jobs by raising taxes and requiring firms to offer more comprehensive coverage.
Democrats said there was no evidence the law has cost jobs and contended it would raise employment in the health-care industry. They pointed to a Congressional Budget Office estimate, disputed by Republicans, that repealing the law would add $230 billion to the federal budget deficit over a decade.
Some lawmakers appeared to be trying to maintain a courteous tone, given the calls for civility that followed the recent shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D., Ariz.).
Rep. Richard Hanna (R., N.Y.) and other Republicans called Mr. Obama's health-care law "well-intentioned." Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D., Texas) told Republicans, "I'm not questioning your intent or sincerity."
House Votes to Repeal Health-Care Law - WSJ.com
By JANET ADAMY And NAFTALI BENDAVID
WASHINGTON—The Republican-led House voted Wednesday to repeal the health-care overhaul that is a signature achievement of President Barack Obama, in a largely symbolic move that made good on a GOP election promise but left uncertain what the party would offer as an alternative.
The vote was 245-189 in favor of repeal, with three Democrats joining the entire Republican caucus in the majority. That compared with 34 House Democrats who voted in March 2010 against enacting the law.
Despite Wednesday's vote, the law is all but certain to remain in place for now. The Democratic-controlled Senate doesn't plan to take up the repeal measure, and even if it were to clear that chamber, Mr. Obama would veto it.
The three Democrats who voted for repeal were Reps. Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina and Mike Ross of Arkansas. The other 10 House Democrats who originally opposed the health-care bill and were re-elected last November voted against repealing it.
With the repeal vote behind them, House Republicans now must deliver on a second promise of last fall's campaign: proposing legislative alternatives to the Democrats' law. They will vote Thursday to pass a resolution instructing House committees to draft proposals they say will be more incremental than the Democrats' health overhaul.
Republicans' replacement plans remain vague and could easily fade as the party shifts toward proposals to create jobs. Any fresh health legislation is expected to stall in the Senate.
Pressed Wednesday for details of his party's health-care plans, House Speaker John Boehner described them as "common-sense reforms that bring down the cost of health insurance for the American people and expand access" to insurance.
Speaking on the House floor, Republicans called for enacting stronger curbs on medical-malpractice lawsuits and letting insurers sell policies across state lines. Yet they also suggested they favored keeping elements of the Democrats' law, including a provision allowing children to stay on their parents' health-insurance policies until age 26 and a ban on insurers denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
Democrats said the Republicans' ideas were marginal and would do little to solve the health system's problems. "It's easy to say you're against something. It is much harder to come up with solutions," said Rep. Susan Davis (D., Calif.). "It's irresponsible to repeal without a plan to fix the issues in our health-care system."
Republicans are moving decisively against the law because they sense strong public support among their backers and activists to do so. They believe they succeeded in the 2010 midterm election in portraying the overhaul as a metaphor for an overreliance on big-government solutions, and now have a mandate to act.
Among Republicans, 77% favor repealing and eliminating the law, according to a Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll released Wednesday.
Among the public overall, the new poll found 46% of respondents opposed repealing and eliminating the law, while 45% favored that outcome. At the same time, health care ranked third on a list of most important economic issues, well behind unemployment and just behind the federal budget deficit.
Some Democrats questioned why Republicans were trying to undo the bill if they support its goals.
"They want to repeal the bill but they still want to give it a big hug and embrace," said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.).
"There are some things in the new law that are worth keeping, but until you sweep away the bad things, you cannot begin to work on the good things," said Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas).
The resolution to be passed by Republicans Thursday calls for House committees to draft legislation that would, among other things, give states greater flexibility to administer Medicaid programs and prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions, which Democrats contend their law already does.
The Energy and Commerce Committee, in a memo outlining its priorities, said this week it would work to recapture the law's cuts to Medicare spending and funnel them back into the insurance program for the elderly. The law, designed to expand insurance to 32 million Americans, shaves more than $400 billion in Medicare payments over a decade.
Changes to the health law are likely to come through stand-alone bills aimed at removing or reworking the least popular parts of the law.
Both Democrats and Republicans have proposed legislation to remove the law's requirement that businesses file a 1099 tax form when they pay a vendor more than $600 in a year, and the White House backs the change.
Some Senate Democrats who voted for the law said they were looking into an alternative to its requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a fee—a plank of the overhaul that one federal judge has ruled violates the U.S. Constitution.
Republicans also plan to choke off funding to implement the law, since their control of the House gives them new leverage to control annual appropriations spending. They could block the Obama administration from hiring extra workers at the agencies that are implementing the law.
But most of the law's funding—such as money to expand Medicaid and give tax credits to help lower earners buy insurance—is largely untouchable and would require Congress and the president to enact a new law to withhold it.
"This is the law," Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, said Wednesday. "We intend to implement it and make it work for people across America."
In two days of floor debate that culminated in Wednesday's vote, Republicans framed the health-care overhaul as a law that will destroy jobs by raising taxes and requiring firms to offer more comprehensive coverage.
Democrats said there was no evidence the law has cost jobs and contended it would raise employment in the health-care industry. They pointed to a Congressional Budget Office estimate, disputed by Republicans, that repealing the law would add $230 billion to the federal budget deficit over a decade.
Some lawmakers appeared to be trying to maintain a courteous tone, given the calls for civility that followed the recent shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D., Ariz.).
Rep. Richard Hanna (R., N.Y.) and other Republicans called Mr. Obama's health-care law "well-intentioned." Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D., Texas) told Republicans, "I'm not questioning your intent or sincerity."
House Votes to Repeal Health-Care Law - WSJ.com
I never thought I would see the day when so many Americans seem unconcerned that the Constitution may have been violated by the mandate.
The mandate's constitutionality is clearly questionable, and letting it stand as law could spell danger for the future strength of the Constitution in danger.
Supporters of the mandate seem to have tacitly agreed that in this instance the Constitution is less important than meeting a social need. What they fail to see is that disregard for the Constitution even once jeopardizes the strength of its protections. Who knows what the next "exception" will be? But we know that one exception makes the next easier.
If we want to protect the social contract on which the nation is founded, we must find a constitutional way to deal with health care reform.
Comment