Can you hear us now?

Democrats should agree to Obamacare repeal, start over

  • Follow Editorials

Americans tried to tell Democrats in 2009 town halls that they didn't want this health-care bill.

They tried to tell them in polls thereafter.

They tried to tell them at the ballot box in November, by putting Republicans back in charge of the House of Representatives.

Soon, the American people may be telling instead of asking -- through the courts, where 26 states just won the law's overturning, and, later, in the 2012 elections.

When will they start listening?

The GOP's effort to rescind the law in Congress stalled last week in the Senate on a party-line 47-51 vote, after the House had earlier voted for repeal.

The repeal would have gone through if Republicans had won just a few more Senate seats last November -- or if only a handful of Democratic senators had mustered the courage to break out of lockstep with their party leadership.

There are a number of moderate Democratic senators, especially those up for re-election in 2012, who may rue their dogmatic decision to buck the people -- and quite possibly the Constitution -- instead of their party, which has clearly overreached and exceeded its mandate and likely its authority.

President Obama certainly would have vetoed the repeal in any event -- but he should have been made to. He, too, should reconsider being wedded to the current health-care bill. He has repeatedly claimed, before and after its adoption, that he would listen to alternative ideas. All evidence to the contrary.

The president, if he truly were listening, would allow us to start over and craft a vastly shorter, simpler, bipartisan bill. He clearly doesn't want that, despite his multiple protestations to the contrary.

Senate Majority Leader Harry "The War Is Lost" Reid's shipment of disingenuousness arrived just in time for the repeal vote -- with his claims that a repeal would leave sick children kicked to the curb by evil insurance companies. He knows that's a bald-faced lie: Republicans have made it clear they'd support separate legislation to protect people with pre-existing conditions.

Oh, but the Democrats are listening to alternatives, right?

They'd better start listening. Their intransigence may very well lead to a historic and repudiating defeat in the U.S. Supreme Court, and yet more electorally devastating losses at the ballot box.

Republicans arrived embarrassingly late to the health-care reform party, and they should forever repent the miscalculation. But given an opening, Democrats have sounded the charge and led us over a legislative cliff.

They, too, may live to regret it.

Comments (54) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
joehill
0
Points
joehill 02/07/11 - 01:08 am
0
0
telling, asking, listening...

telling, asking, listening... get your verbs straight you ACES. Your ignorance is showing. Again.

sjgraci
2
Points
sjgraci 02/07/11 - 01:49 am
0
0
To the chronicle and faux

To the chronicle and faux news, the only Americans that count are tea partiers.

Sideshow Bob
0
Points
Sideshow Bob 02/07/11 - 05:32 am
0
0
I see johill and sjgraci have

I see johill and sjgraci have NOTHING of substance to add. Why not attack the SUBSTANCE of the editorial? Could it be that it is because it is all true? These are the typical responses of liberals. If you can't debate facts, then make sophomoric attacks.

carcraft
25787
Points
carcraft 02/07/11 - 06:41 am
0
0
Oh well, we now know a few

Oh well, we now know a few things. Democrates in the Senate that got elected because they said they were against the health care bill are liers. The Obama admisnistration is just as lawless as the Republicans, refusing to respond to subpoena's and refusing to allow off shore drilling dispite a Judges order. And last but not least continueing with implimentation of health care reform despite it having been ruled unconstitutional!

rmwhitley
5547
Points
rmwhitley 02/07/11 - 06:59 am
0
0
When you can't fault the
Unpublished

When you can't fault the message, condemn the messenger.

Riverman1
83725
Points
Riverman1 02/07/11 - 07:53 am
0
0
JoeHill, you say you see

JoeHill, you say you see something wrong with the use of the words "telling, asking, listening." Please inform us exactly what's wrong? Could it be you are mistaken? By the way, your sentence was grammatically incorrect.

Riverman1
83725
Points
Riverman1 02/07/11 - 07:55 am
0
0
There are lots of Senate

There are lots of Senate Democratic seats up for grabs in 2012. Republicans should take control of the Senate. Obama is going to be tough to beat, but once we flesh out a candidate, who knows.

Runner46
0
Points
Runner46 02/07/11 - 08:34 am
0
0
It appears that only the

It appears that only the Supreme Court will be able to save us from the additional "tax" burden of mandatory health care, aka Obamacare. It's not helping the SC poorer citizens very much either, as their Medicare benefits are being cut.

ReformedRepub
0
Points
ReformedRepub 02/07/11 - 08:52 am
0
0
The "message" doesn't say

The "message" doesn't say anything new, nor does it, like the Republican party, offer any alternatives. In the end, after the Supreme Court rules this bill Constitutional, all will receive health care, and if Congress grows a pair, it will be affordable. The idea of "I have mine, the hell with you", is not American. That is why we have anti-monopoly laws and the such. It's time to investigate the medical profession and the insurance companies for colluding to fix prices. Republicans have not offered one damn idea that would a: provide health care for the uninsured, b: bring down prices. If they can do that, they might stand a chance. Until then, I'll get my health care and let you "upstanding Americans" pay for it. Don't like that? Tough, fix the problem in a realistic way or get out of the way.

justthefacts
21757
Points
justthefacts 02/07/11 - 09:10 am
0
0
Let's see, tort reform would

Let's see, tort reform would bring down healthcare costs, but the lawyers would cut off financial support for President Obama. Allowing folks to purchase Insurance coverage across state lines would reduce heathcare costs but Insurance companies might not like it. Allowing folks to have flexibility in their coverage would reduce healthcare cost, but again, the President doesn't want to po the insurance industry. Not giving an exemption from PPACA to all his best buddies would lower rates........

seenitB4
86957
Points
seenitB4 02/07/11 - 09:30 am
0
0
The Latin vote put Boxer &

The Latin vote put Boxer & Reid back in office........that is coming to a voting booth near you ..........just wait & see.

1941
4
Points
1941 02/07/11 - 10:04 am
0
0
The rest of america is not

The rest of america is not listening!!!!! There will be healthcare for the one;s that need it!!!

dichotomy
32853
Points
dichotomy 02/07/11 - 10:09 am
0
0
"Until then, I'll get my

"Until then, I'll get my health care and let you "upstanding Americans" pay for it. Don't like that?"

And there you have it folks. The attitude that is the downfall of this country. Translated, that is "screw you working people, you have to pay my bills too and I don't care if it hurts you". Pride in the fact that they are in the 20% of this country that just can't cut it in a competitive society. Well, some of them probably could. But why should they? They have us to pay their bills. Pride in leeching. I see why you are "reformed".

effete elitist liberal
3112
Points
effete elitist liberal 02/07/11 - 10:17 am
0
0
"Republicans have made it

"Republicans have made it clear they'd support separate legislation to protect people with pre-existing conditions." True, but typically Mike Ryan and ACES forget to mention this is just the start of the story. Remember, forcing insurers to accept people with serious preexisting conditions will cost those companies billions of dollars as time goes on. How do Republicans propose insurance companies pay for these new costs? Next, of course, ACES and the Republicans will assure us that they also support ending the prescription drug "doughnut hole." They support allowing non-working 20 somethings to stay on their parents' insurance longer. They support barring insurers from dropping coverage when folks get really sick. All these measures will cost insurers billions. Is this a Republican sponsored unfunded mandate? Where are the Republican plans for helping insurance companies meet these huge new costs? At least the Democrats had the guts to propose a revenue source for insurers--the insurance mandate. If this is not the answer, then, Republicans, what is?? With no new provisions for increasing insurance company income, then the only answer will be for insurers to increase premiums on all of us. So, conservatives out there, what is the answer to the question, the big question, ACES did not have the honesty or the guts to even ask?

Rhetor
1007
Points
Rhetor 02/07/11 - 10:21 am
0
0
1. I can't recall that the

1. I can't recall that the AC, or any other conservative outlet, has ever actually published a straightforward account of what is and is not in the health care bill. That's because it is actually a very moderate proposal,
similar to proposals once advocated by Republican conservatives. 2. It is not a giveaway; in fact, as the President pointed out last night, it is an attempt to stop many giveaways. Right now, uninsured people get treated in the ER and someone (i.e., the rest of us) pay for it. Why can't people who can afford it be required to pay for their own care? You say you're defending the right of the people not to buy insurance; all you are actually defending is their right to be moochers. 3. The Republicans are still late on health care reform. All they have been giving us the last two years is talking points, not a real proposal. They make fun of the new law by telling how complicated it is (which is true), but they have given only talking points for their own proposals. This is silly. 4. The Dems tried for months to get the Republicans to negotiate in Congress, but they never did so in good faith and never did present (never have, never will) a counterproposal of their own. Sorry, ACES, you've missed the boat here. It's sailed off and left you. It is not socialized medicine--not even close--and it is not a government takeover. It is just a reasonably good plan, and the best one that current politics enabled us to adopt.

Rhetor
1007
Points
Rhetor 02/07/11 - 10:24 am
0
0
Are you talking about the

Are you talking about the same town halls with the same people who that think Obama was born in Kenya? Oops! I forgot! The ACES last week expressed sympathy for that bozo stuff.

chascush
0
Points
chascush 02/07/11 - 10:42 am
0
0
Reformed, ‘Until then, I'll

Reformed, ‘Until then, I'll get my health care and let you "upstanding Americans" pay for it.’
If Obamacare are so great WHY ARE MANY OF HUSSEIN’S UNION BUDDIES GETTING exemptions from certain provisions. The United Federation of Teachers — one of President Obama’s key political backers — is the biggest beneficiary of a White House sweetheart deal that will exempt certain outfits from complying with new health-care rules.

justthefacts
21757
Points
justthefacts 02/07/11 - 10:30 am
0
0
EEL, the proposal is set up

EEL, the proposal is set up high risk exchanges for preexisting conditions.

justthefacts
21757
Points
justthefacts 02/07/11 - 10:37 am
0
0
chascush, I read the other

chascush, I read the other day that over 700 entices had been granted waivers.

chascush
0
Points
chascush 02/07/11 - 10:40 am
0
0
Reformed, 'The "message"

Reformed, 'The "message" doesn't say anything new, nor does it, like the Republican party, offer any alternatives.'
Here are a few things the repubs have suggested. The unions wanted Obamacare but want the taxpayers to pay for theirs.
Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

justthefacts
21757
Points
justthefacts 02/07/11 - 10:44 am
0
0
Rhetor,1) if memory serves,

Rhetor,1) if memory serves, the AC ran a whole series on PPACA. 2)We shouldn't pay for it until all legal actions have been taken by the healthcare institute. 3) They have presented proposals, you just don't accept them. 4) The Democrats did not include Republicans. 5) Good plan? That's just your opinion.

chascush
0
Points
chascush 02/07/11 - 10:47 am
0
0
justthefacts, ‘chascush, I

justthefacts, ‘chascush, I read the other day that over 700 entices had been granted waivers.’
This is just a start, the next move is the unions want Hussein to bail out their underfunded pension plans. SEIU, Hussein’s favorite union, pension plan is only 65% funded.

Rather
56
Points
Rather 02/07/11 - 10:47 am
0
0
Runner46 - It’s "Medicaid",

Runner46 - It’s "Medicaid", not "Medicare". And, yes, Obamacare will surely go to the Supreme Court. However, notice that Obama has recently added (replaced) two of the Supremes with his own Liberals. I predict they will ignore (reinterpret) the Constitution and declare Obamacare to be legal. But, here is where it can become interesting. What is going to happen when the majority of the states themselves have decided that it is "unconstitutional"? Might it be possible the States will declare, “That’s enough” to the President and tell the Supreme Court, "hang it on your beak", and “to hell with you”. If we all stick together, you might see Egypt happening here at home but with firearms instead of rocks in the street. Isn't that the real reason for the 2nd Amendment, so we can protect ourselves when the Constitution is violated? In the end, We the People, have the ultimate right to interpret the Constitution, or set up a new Government. Another Civil War is possible. Let us pray this all can be resolved peacefully within the Constitution as originally written and as intended by our founding fathers.

chascush
0
Points
chascush 02/07/11 - 10:51 am
0
0
Rhetor, ‘Are you talking

Rhetor, ‘Are you talking about the same town halls with the same people who that think Obama was born in Kenya?’
No they are talking about Tea Party members that are concern about our country.
Hopefully the majority of our citizens are not stupid enough to vote the community organizer back in office.
The real problem is we have a big % that will vote for the community organizer in the hopes of getting ‘some of the Obama stash’.
As I have said before Hussein is a very troubled person, you have to feel a little sorry for him. His mother was a person of very loose morals; his father deserted him when he was small. His mother took him to Indonesia where he was trained FOR 5+ YEARS AS MUSLIM then dumped on his grandparents. His grandfather should have sorted professional help him but instead introduced him to the radical racist communist Frank Marshall Davis as a mentor. He then sat in Rev. Wright’s church for 20 yrs listening to him preach racism & hate for the USA, white people and Jews.
It is small wonder Hussein has mental problems but what concerns me more is the intelligence of the people that votes for him. Our country can survive 4 years of Hussein but can it survive having a large % of citizens that would vote for a mentally disturbed community organizer? It is a little scary when you look at history a large number of Germans voted for a mentally disturbed person named Hitler. Hitler also had a very troubled childhood.

kmb413
533
Points
kmb413 02/07/11 - 10:54 am
0
0
Reformed- do you make

Reformed- do you make comments like ‘Until then, I'll get my health care and let you "upstanding Americans" pay for it.’ just to make us upstanding Americans angry, or are you really just that lazy and have so little self worth to take care of yourself?

seenitB4
86957
Points
seenitB4 02/07/11 - 10:56 am
0
0
I can see trouble in the

I can see trouble in the streets here....riots big time. This will happen when more freebies are taken away & some will have to find a JOB...I hope we don't start another civil war.......but anything is possible.
At least a "Country Boy Can Survive"....lol ..I'm married to a GOB.

dani
12
Points
dani 02/07/11 - 11:24 am
0
0
Pre-existing conditions -

Pre-existing conditions - sounds good until you realize that there is no cap on what insurance companies can charge, So, sure, if can afford it, its all yours. Of course a company will charge higher premiums to pay the higher medical costs. The Dems had to know this ahead of time, but they just can't make themselves deal with the truth. THEY WANT those Hispanic votes...a necessity if they are to stay in power...Got it.

Don't worry about the current Medicaid crowd, they have those in their pockets already.

bettyboop
7
Points
bettyboop 02/07/11 - 11:23 am
0
0
"Until then, I'll get my

"Until then, I'll get my health care and let you "upstanding Americans" pay for it."

There it is...the liberals spew their thruth.

effete elitist liberal
3112
Points
effete elitist liberal 02/07/11 - 11:23 am
0
0
justthefacts: nice try, I

justthefacts: nice try, I will say that. Unfortunately, your "answer"
to my question isn't really an answer. You say the problem for insurers goes away because of "high risk exchanges for preexisting conditions." That is true, at least in the short run, but the mechanism of high risk pools simply shifts the burden of paying the explosive costs of treating preexisting conditions from the insurance companies to us the tax payers! Until 2014 individuals with preexisting conditions may have to pay a small premium to purchase a high risk policy, but the difference comes nowhere near covering increased costs of care. The individual states (or the federal government) will pay the difference. That means more government expense. And of course your answer does not address all the other additional costs to insurers I listed--extended coverage for older children, closing the doughnut hole, banning insurers from dropping really sick policy holders, and one I forgot, ending lifetime coverage ceilings. None of these added expenses to insurers are covered by any "high risk pools." So again, in the absence of the insurance mandate, how are insurers supposed to cover these new liabilities? With the exception of your response, there has been pretty much complete silence to the challenge offered in my 9:17 post. The fact remains: Republicans glibly assert they are "listening to Americans" telling them which parts of the health reform bill they like, but only the Democrats have offered a way to pay for them.

effete elitist liberal
3112
Points
effete elitist liberal 02/07/11 - 11:29 am
0
0
dani: the answer to your post

dani: the answer to your post is in my last post. The insurance rates for preexisting conditions offered through the new high risk pools, while somewhat higher than "normal" insurance, come nowhere close to what the insurers charge for this coverage. The states (or the federal government) pay the difference. This is a huge burden on states already challenged by the poor economy.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Former commissioner's case remains under review

While former Augusta commissioner Donnie Smith's statements to Georgia State Patrol investigators likely can't be used against him, the state Office of the Inspector General continues to conduct ...
Search Augusta jobs