Republicans demand repeal of GOP health care plan

Tom Jackson
Sep 24, 2013
If you follow the latest dismal news from Washington, you know that Republicans in Congress are threatening to shut down government funding unless lawmakers go along with eliminating Obama Care. The deadline for passing a budget is Monday, Sept. 30.
Republicans so far say they are willing to shut down the government if Democrats don’t agree to defund Obama Care.
The odd thing about the standoff is that Republicans want to punish Democrats for pushing through what was essentially a Republican health care plan.
During Democrat Bill Clinton’s first term, the president and his Democratic allies in Congress tried to pass a program to provide health coverage to all Americans. The Clinton plan essentially was to require all employers to furnish health coverage, with an individual mandate to cover everyone else, and subsidies to help people who couldn’t afford the coverage.
Everyone would have been required to buy insurance from new regional health alliances. A key element of the plan was “managed competition,” i.e., there would be a standard benefits package, with insurers competing on quality and cost.
Republicans countered with their own plan, drawn up by the conservative Heritage Foundation. It would essentially have preserved the current system, but imposed an individual mandate for everyone to buy health insurance and provided subsidies to the poor. 
The Romneycare plan that then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts was very similar to the Heritage Foundation plan, and so was Obama Care, the plan that Democrats pushed through during Obama’s first term. The Obama plan, whatever you think of it, was much less radical than what many Democrats would have preferred.
Republicans, then, are trying to repeal a plan that’s very similar to what their 2012 presidential nominee back when he was a governor, and very similar to what Republicans backed during the Clinton administration.
One final bit of irony: The current leadership of the Heritage Foundation is pushing for the Obama Care repeal effort. This is a particular sore spot with conservatives who don't like Obama Care but who think shutting down the government will only hurt Republicans.
See, for example, this Wall Street Journal editorial, which complains, "These columns opposed ObamaCare before it was known by that name, and we may have even been the first to call it by that name. We also don't need any lectures about principle from the Heritage Foundation that promoted RomneyCare and the individual mandate that is part of ObamaCare. Or from cable TV pundits who sold Republicans on Mitt Romney despite RomneyCare." See also this column by James Taranto, who also thinks the defunding effort is a bad idea politically.







No Dagwood, sometimes the spinach doesn't work and you lose! You lose!!!!!!!!!!

Darwin's choice

Now, poser, try to stay on track. There's no "race" baiting for you here..


You're a jackazz to even mention the word.

Darwin's choice

azzhat! You'll never learn!


You've got nothing to teach.

You've got nothing but Republican Kool-Aid.

Darwin's choice

Here's Clinton telling Obama his plan won't work..


It will work, that's what the lying Republicans are afraid of.


Others thought the same thing!


Ahhh, some Republican Kool-Aid , drink it heartily.



there must be something wrong with you if you believe Obama is Hitler.


You disappoint me , 2cents , I thought you were smarter than that.

Licorice Schtick


Licorice Schtick



By my math, there was less than 5% that was what Heritage and the bill I referenced earlier that might be basically the same. Leaving 95% + that is different, or crap that was hung onto a bill that would not stand on its own. If there is 95% of a bill that I don't agree with I am not surprised that the bill had no votes from repubes. The more that comes out about what is actually in the bill... the more folks, like many of the unions, want either expemptions like congress and their minions got, and the unions which want subsidies to pay for their end of it. The unions are rebaslling and are NOT happy at all. The longshoreman have revolted and I expect more will follow.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

This act by the Republicans would carry more credibility if there was a replacement waiting to take its place after defunding/revocation. Wanting to just stop it is as asinine as Pelosi wanting to pass it to see what'll happen. But, we have a law that even many leaders haven't a clue how it will play out (and are exempt from if I remember correctly?) that isn't turning out to be how it was sold, parliamentary tricks aside. I'm just as afraid of Republicans getting full power over legislature and the presidency as I am Democrats because this exact kind of stuff is shoved through as party pet projects wait in the wings.

For as many on the left who think the antics of the Republicans will swell the electorate with Democrats, I am not so certain that is the case. I have no comment for the Republicans as they already have arguing going on in their party. Independents are just as powerful and compelling a choice and we may very well see flight from both major parties as Americans are quickly getting fed up with the awkward and draining Thanksgiving dinner table bickering between Mommy Left and Daddy Right.

I also don't buy the "but it was based on...". Yeah. Crack is based on cocaine so clearly it isn't any worse of a drug. Opiates are based on the same plant that beneficial drugs like morphine are made from so clearly there is no harm in them. Nor has there been any societal, economic, nor technological changes since 20ish years ago. Or, perhaps to many as a severe blow, many movies are "based on" real events or other source material yet end up a steaming pile of...rotten tomatoes.

I agree with aspects of the ACA, but overall there is more confusion, cost, and ambiguity in this hastily-passed law than there is good. Especially because something so massive was passed so quickly along strictly partisan lines that featured all kinds of eyebrow raising asides like the "Cornhusker Kickback" and that trip Dennis Kucinich took on Air Force One that convinced him to go along with the plan.

If it was such a good law, there should have been NO NEED to connive, wheedle, and hastily pass something many knew (nor currently know) much about. Or, it could have been implemented in segments so that the good portions could be preserved while discarding the bad before they become tragic circumstances for individuals or massive budgetary cement shoes.

Also, while details weren't given, it was announced last Sandusky City Commission meeting that the city is going to be paying 25% more in health care premiums to its workers for what I imagine is the same plan. Is there a relation? I don't know. Probably? What would it have been otherwise if the ACA wasn't passed? I don't know. But it may be worth considering.


I don't think that many people read your large comments or anyone else's large comments.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

This could very well be true. A wall of text can be just that at times. I struggle with it because I want to make sure I am putting complete ideas out there instead of just going "this is good/bad" and leaving it at that. I haven't found that kind of happy medium yet. But, if you read my large comment, then thank you.


I tend to skip over the one liners that are simply name calling or rehashing whichever party line in one line "sound bites" they heard somewhere else. Those who take the time and consideration to state their thoughts and flesh out their positions usually have something worthwhile reading and responding to.


True. I stopped for this reason. All media outlets have found that the public has a short attention span and will not work to understand issues in depth.

The Big Dog's back

Correct eriemom.


"This act by the Republicans would carry more credibility if there was a replacement waiting to take its place after defunding/revocation."

Here is one that you haven't heard of, since the media, and most folks who follow the story on repealing of the ACA have only focused on what is happening on the ACA, not any competing bill, since the ACA passed, and face it new bills by the GOP that would replace the ACA would be pushed aside as sour grapes since the ACA passed and the SC deemed it OK as a "tax".

Both stories are of the same proposal, it isn't a bill yet as it hasn't been brought to congress yet.

"Wanting to just stop it is as asinine as Pelosi wanting to pass it to see what'll happen."

Don't really agree with this. I had no problem with my oldhealth care insurance, as my wife is a pharmacist for a large nursing home and rehab corporation, and our insurance is pretty good. Our insurance covered most of what we needed and we got a policy on the side to cover catastrophic care with a high deductible for cheap. That policy will not be available anymore since it doesn't fit what the ACA wants. Since it doesn't qualify the insurance company won't get enough who want it to keep offering it, or so the insurance company tells us.

Since I was happy with what we had, why would I want to replace it with something else? I expect many others feel the same, we are happy with our plan and our present doctors. That was one reason obama promised that we could keep what we have if we were happy with it, now we know the truth of that statement is rather lacking. Sorry but when something is not broken I don't tend to wish to "fix" it. It worked for me and many others. Maybe that is why there are few replacements around. If you wish to take a few parts of the ACA and put them in a separate bill, you might just get something that many would back.

It doesn't need a 2200 page bill to fix what was wrong with health care to begin with, A couple bills including a few things would be enough.



"The resolution condemned the health care law as "highly disruptive" to union benefits."

Terry O’Sullivan of the Laborers International Union of North America "needs to be changed and fixed now."

"Union leaders are concerned that without additional subsidies..."

Leaving the White House after the Friday meeting Trumka appeared disappointed when he said to the press core "We're continuing to work on problem solving."

So basement dwellers, without SUBSIDIES from the rest of us taxpayers, Obamacare will be "highly disruptive" to your health insurance? This just brings a HUGE smile to my face. You tools voted that moron into office, along with that vote you shall suffer the consequences.

Get used to being disappointed Trumka. It is about time you got a taste of your own medicine.

How's that 5% dues deduction working for you now?

Darwin's choice

^^ like ^^ !


What I find hilarious is Bayshore brought this up on the previous page. 4shizzle and deertracker automatically claimed it as propaganda from the Republicans or Fox News. So I quoted a union labor group, and all of a sudden they are silent.

I fail to see how someone can chug so much kool-aid that they cannot comprehend the truth. Obamacare is bad for all parties concerned. Many saw this when it was rammed through Congress. Even more after the details came out on implementation.

Make sure you pull the blinders on good and tight 4shizzle and deertracker. Only see and believe what your messiah tells you to. And never ever form an opinion or research a subject on your own. The Left loves minions. Keep up the good work.




The vast majority of Americans are financially illiterate.

According to a recent poll, 73% of Americans had no idea what Quantitative Easing was.

And now, many of these same people will be expected to navigate the new health care laws and plans on the insurance exchanges?

Good luck with that debacle!

The New World Czar

Why not retitle the article "Conservatives demand repeal of Clinton/moderate-GOP health care plan"?

The WSJ opinion is what favors the corporate-set (both political parties) and not that of the individual taxpayer.

McCain/Graham/McConnell, Rachel Maddow, and Piers Morgan are all up in arms over Ted Cruz and company right now...and this may be the roto-rooting needed over said RINOs.

"Ooooh, this is great!"- Kent "Flounder" Dorfman


Good points!

Why is health ins. in the U.S. largely provided through employers? Because of FDR's wage and price controls.

Damn those unintended consequences!

H*ll, at least having individuals buy their own ins. is a step in the right direction, but that's about the ONLY positive that I can see in Obama☭are.

Employers might as well be required to provide, grocery, auto, life and property ins.

"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son."


FDR was a wise man , you're not.