Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) attacked the health care bill in March as a massive government overreach, weighted down with new taxes but short on real reforms.
But repeal it, the way House Republicans would? No way, says Shuler, one of his party’s most conservative members.
“There are some very good things in this bill that have already become law,” Shuler said this week, citing the ban on pre-existing conditions for children and steps to close the Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole for seniors. “It is not just wrong but immoral to take those things away.”
Shuler was one of 13 Democrats who opposed their party’s top legislative achievement in 2010 and won reelection. Now they have that rare chance for a do over — another opportunity to stop health reform — but most of them say they won’t do it.
The reluctance to take the ultimate step and support a full repeal encapsulates the knotty politics of a health care law that passed along strictly partisan lines. The group is being pulled in one direction by Democrats who want a united front to blunt momentum for the repeal effort and in the other by Republicans ready to accuse them of being hypocritical and dog them on the campaign trail if they back the new law now.
One top Republican, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, predicted a “significant number” of Democrats would back repeal. But so far, at least, few in the group appear willing to side with opponents of the law — even though they are among them.
Only two Democrats have committed to voting for repeal, Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma and Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas. Four — Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, John Barrow of Georgia, Ben Chandler of Kentucky and Tim Holden of Pennsylvania — remain uncommitted. McIntyre, however, has said in the past that he favors repeal.
“I voted against it three times, so I don’t know why I would vote not to repeal it,” Ross told POLITICO. “It’s consistent with what I’ve done. It seems pretty simple to me.”
But to the seven Democrats leaning against repeal, the math is more complex. This group includes Shuler, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, Daniel Lipinski of Illinois, Collin Peterson of Minnesota, Larry Kissell of North Carolina and Jim Matheson of Utah.The Rethugs 'slash and burn' policy will not appeal to many Dem's, regardless of their ideology. If the R's want to change something, they need to replace what they are shitcanning, its a no friggin brainer. Since the Rethugs are short on brains, it stands to reason that simply killing a bill of this magnitude will not sit well with intelligent folks.
Plus, denying the harm repealing the HCR bill would cause, not only to people, but to the deficit shows how full of shit and hypocrisy the Rethugs are. Boehner's comment that the CBO's numbers were 'their opinion' is so fucking lame it defies logic. From the NTY link:
The budget office did not comment on Mr. Boehner’s remarks. Douglas W. Elmendorf, its director, has frequently said his office applies the longstanding budget rules. He says it uses its own professional expertise, as well as consulting with outside experts, to derive its projections, which represent the “middle of the distribution of likely outcomes.”
Mr. Elmendorf has warned that Congress may find it difficult to follow through with parts of the health care law, particularly the cuts to Medicare. The law’s cost would rise if the cuts were not enacted.
In the report on Thursday, Mr. Elmendorf, a former Clinton administration official appointed in 2008 when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, said that a preliminary analysis showed that repealing the law would increase federal budget deficits by a total of $145 billion from 2012 to 2019 and by $230 billion between 2012 and 2021.
Moreover, he said, if the law is repealed, 32 million fewer people will have health insurance in 2019, compared with estimates of coverage under the existing law. As a result, he said, the number of uninsured would be 54 million, rather than 23 million, in 2019.The Rethugs could give two shits how many people would remain uninsured. They do not even attempt to address that issue. The R's vision going forward appears to be this: If we don't like certain facts, we deny their existence or call them someone else's opinion.
Standard operating procedure for those asshole's wouldn't you say? Karl Rove should be proud.