Reviving Obamacare Repeal

A final attempt this year at Obamacare legislation is coming up for a vote in Congress next week. Will it advance the principle of eventually overturning the [Un]Affordable Care Act or will it leave too much in place? I’ll come back to that, but first some context.

Despite assurances to the contrary from progressives/Democrats, Obamacare fails on nearly every promise. It is not affordable and insurance companies are pulling out regularly. In some areas, there is only one company taking part, meaning consumers really have no choice.

Those who can’t bear to think of it going away are blind to its disastrous nature:

And when the word “entitlement” gets attached to anything, people feel they are, well . . . entitled. People worry, so they cling to false promises and ignore the reality.

Republicans have used Obamacare repeal and replace as a rallying cry ever since 2010. Many are sincere; others just wanted to stir the base to get reelected. When Republicans finally took both houses of Congress and the presidency, they had their chance to show their true colors. For some, the true color was yellow. The move to remove stalled.

Repeal would be easy, we were told. No problem. When it didn’t turn out that way, voters were given a substitute promise.

That hasn’t happened either, by the way.

Now we have a proposed bill that doesn’t repeal most Obamacare regulations, pre-existing conditions are still covered (too popular to touch), and it keeps spending money at a rapid rate.

So it should be rejected?

Here’s where principle comes in. If a new law moves the ball down the field, so to speak, and gets us closer to where we should be, isn’t that worth supporting? Take abortion, for instance. I believe all abortions are wrong, morally wrong. Some would say that any bill that allows any abortions at all to remain legal should be rejected. However, I would look at such a bill and say instead that many thousands of innocent lives can be saved with it and it should be passed.

It would get us closer to where we need to be.

This current Obamacare modification bill does the following:

  • It repeals the individual mandate.
  • It repeals the employer mandate.
  • Its block grant approach puts state governments in charge of the funds, allowing states to develop their own system, thereby reducing control by the federal government.
  • It defunds Planned Parenthood.

For all those reasons, especially the last one, Democrats will not support it.

For me, as I look at those benefits of the proposed bill, I believe it will advance the cause of eventually overturning this monstrous system. I therefore hope it will pass.

It’s one last opportunity this year to make a dent in something that never should have become the law of the land in the first place. Republican senators should find their courage, set aside petty concerns about whether their state will get enough funding, and vote to take this significant step in the right direction.

A Bitter Deal

All the drama in the Trump administration and in a dysfunctional Republican Congress has overshadowed the effort by Democrats to re-energize their base and try to figure out what regular Americans are really like. Perhaps the best development in the six months of the Trump presidency has been the irrelevance of the minority party.

As if to emphasize their irrelevance, they’ve concentrated on coming up with a new slogan, one that’s supposed to provide confidence for voters that they know what they’re doing. And what did they come up with?

What is it with Democrats and “deals”? Apparently, they think the public will look back fondly on FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal and fall in love with this rehashed slogan.

Somehow, I doubt it. Those of us with some historical context might see a different connection:

If you think that worked out just fine for Russia, you probably are thrilled by the slogan. Individuals with active brain cells, however, might not see it that way:

All of this sloganeering, of course, has as its primary goal to return Congress to Democrat control in 2018. The party is hoping to attract candidates who can win, although I can understand why some might be reluctant to board this ship.

Actually, the only thing Democrats have going for them in the next election cycle is the incompetence of Republican leadership, both in Congress and in the White House. If that can be turned around, Democrats will remain the minority party. But that’s a big “if.”

The Interminable Obamacare Drama

A lot of voters had high hopes that Obamacare might be on the verge of extinction. Have you ever heard of hope deferred?

Democrats, of course, despite all the evidence to the contrary, think they have given the country a wonderful healthcare plan. Maybe it just needs a little tweaking, they say, but it’s fundamentally sound.

Try telling that to those who have seen their premiums skyrocket and deductibles so high they will never get any benefit. If only Republicans would work with them, Democrats claim, we could get the job done right. Right.

Let’s be honest. For many Democrats, Obamacare was to be the first step toward complete government control of healthcare.

Republicans campaigned on ridding us of this sick attempt at healthcare. They apparently didn’t think any further than the promise of getting rid of it. The most amazing thing, to me, is that they weren’t prepared for how to do so. This is political incompetence of the highest level.

Promises, promises. Cartoonists have not shied away from exposing this hypocrisy.

So what have we seen this week thus far? The Senate, only with the aid of VP Pence’s tie-breaking vote, was allowed to go forward to discuss the issue. Then two votes were held. The first was on the Obamacare-Lite bill that was at least somewhat strengthened by Ted Cruz’s amendment allowing more choice for the consumers. Defeated.

Then there was the resurrection of the bill that every Republican senator voted for a couple of years ago, the one that came much closer to outright repeal (though not fully). If passed, the Senate then could have proceeded with a new plan for replacement.

Defeated again. The saddest spectacle was the “no” vote of a number of Republicans who had voted for the same bill previously and who had promised their constituents they would do so again.

If many Republican voters are angered by this display of hypocrisy, it would be understandable. What is to be done?

Yes, it’s a problem with hypocritical politicians, but it’s also a problem with gullible voters who keep believing their promises. Don’t take their words at face value; examine their records. Be an intelligent voter.

Where will the Senate go from here? Will it pass anything, just to say it did something? Will it then go to conference with the House version (also not very good)? If you have two bad bills going to conference, you end up with an even worse one afterward.

This drama will not be played out soon.

Repeal Obamacare? Really?

I’m doing my best to give the benefit of the doubt to Republicans. I really am. But what is one supposed to think when one is promised something year after year, then that promise appears to evaporate?

The word “repeal” seems to have lost its meaning over time. Or at the very least, it has been redefined:

Most analyses of the proposed bills offered by the House and the Senate conclude that they fall far short of repeal, and that, in fact, they keep the essence of Obamacare while tinkering with only some aspects of it. Citizens/voters have an adequate reason to be confused.

Mitch McConnell confidently stated that the Senate would be voting on its bill prior to the July 4 break. Yesterday, that confidence melted away to nothing. Too many Republican senators (though not enough, to be sure) have come out in opposition to the bill as it currently reads. They want changes to move it more in the direction of something that at least looks like repeal.

Republicans can only get this through with a minimum of two defections, but now there are six. And they know they can’t get any help at all on the other side of the political divide:

Democrats continue to live with the fantasy that Obamacare works, no matter how wrecked it is. This is a golden opportunity for Republicans to stake out a principled position for a free-market solution, yet what do they do instead?

I’m all for taking steps toward the ultimate goal, but is that what this is? Or are we simply driving the same old heap going over the same old cliff?

It’s time for principle to manifest itself, if indeed any of that still exists in the GOP. I’m grateful for those few senators who are attempting to remove the lipstick from this pig and who are desiring real change. May they hold fast and move this closer to actual repeal.

A Compromised Principle, Unfortunately

The guideline I try to follow when considering whether I support a policy action is whether it actually advances the position I ultimately want to see enacted. I have stated that stance in these words before and will do so again:

A compromised principle leads to unrighteousness, but a principled compromise is a step closer to the principle’s ideal.

For instance, on abortion, I don’t take an all-or-nothing approach. If a proposed bill decreases the number of abortions, I support it because lives will be saved. I then hope for further steps that will get policy even closer to my ideal.

Obamacare repeal is now on the front burner in Congress. I’m trying to figure out whether what the Republican Congress is proposing is truly an advancement in repeal—a principled compromise—or if it is instead a compromised principle.

I’m willing to be patient if I know that the proposed bill is only a first step toward an effective repeal and replacement. I also know that some compromise is probably necessary due to lack of unity among Republicans on what should be done. I don’t really envy Mitch McConnell’s job:

The problem, as this political cartoon illustrates, is that some of the ducks are more like chickens—they are afraid of losing their prestigious Senate seat by supporting something that will anger too many voters.

The House bill already was rather weak; the Senate bill, which was released yesterday, is, by most accounts, even weaker, as most commentators predicted it would be.

Already four senators—Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Ron Johnson—have declared they cannot support it in its current state. They say it does nothing to reduce premiums and it leaves most of the infrastructure of Obamacare in place. Even the principal architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, gleefully declared that this proposed bill keeps Obamacare basically intact.

Obamacare’s regulatory scheme remains untouched; insurance companies will continue to receive subsidies (from taxpayers, keep in mind); it says it will reform Medicaid (but not for a number of years, so who really believes that will happen?); Planned Parenthood is defunded (for one whole year; after that, it reverts back to current funding); the individual mandate and taxes do go away, but all the regulations continue as before.

Those four senators who said they cannot support the bill are now going to try to strengthen it. If they don’t succeed, and they stay firm in their opposition, it will go down to defeat, and rightly so.

Why rightly so? It’s not enough of a principled compromise; it leans heavily toward a compromised principle.

How often were we told by Republicans that once they got control of Congress and the White House that they would destroy the Obamacare monster once and for all? Well, here’s the reality:

This is so sad, it’s hard to know what else to say.

What Does the Georgia Election Mean?

Update: Formerly vitally important election with national implications that can’t be overstated now scheduled to be irrelevant by 10 am.

That was a humorous tweet from conservative commentator Mary Katherine Ham last night as Karen Handel, the Republican, rather easily beat Jon Ossoff, the Democrat, in the highly charged, most expensive House race in American history.

Handel won by about 6%, despite polls throughout the campaign showing Ossoff ahead in the special Georgia election.

This district had been held by Republican Tom Price, who left his seat to become secretary of HHS. Price won the seat last November by 23 points. Bruised Democrats are therefore claiming some kind of moral victory here.

Yet keep in mind that Trump won this district by a mere 1% while Price was running away with his election. That’s why Democrats were so keen on putting Ossoff in the House, thinking it would be a massive repudiation of Trump. It might have been, had it occurred, but there is a distinction that must be drawn between Trump and Republicans overall.

Personally, I don’t think Trump had anything to do with this victory, and if Handel had lost, I doubt that it would have been because of Trump.

What finally seemed to tip the election in her direction was the blatant attempt by Democrats to promote someone who didn’t even live in the district (yes, you read that right) and whose massive funding came from out of state—liberals nationwide contributed in the hope that they could embarrass Republicans, and Trump specifically.

Ossoff did his best to impersonate a moderate, but he is a rank-and-file progressive. Perhaps the impersonation didn’t resonate as well as he had hoped. Well, at least he can now continue to keep his residence outside the district with his live-in girlfriend. A bullet was dodged here.

Democrats are chagrined, of course. Republicans, though, would do well not to be too exuberant. The fact that this district was a possibility for a Democrat pickup, even with as poor a candidate as Ossoff, is a cautionary tale for congressional elections in 2018.

Republicans in Congress and the presumed Republican in the White House had better fulfill a few more promises if they hope to retain the majority.

Who’s Responsible?

A man goes to a baseball field and shoots up the place where congressmen and their staffers are practicing for a charity baseball game. First, he asks one of the congressmen who is leaving whether the ones practicing are Democrats or Republicans. Glad to hear they are Republicans, whom he has castigated on social media and seeks to wipe off the face of America, he opens fire, spraying the field and wounding four; one congressman remains in critical condition.

The man who perpetrated the crime finally is taken down by police and dies shortly after at the hospital. Then the blame game begins.

Who is responsible for what this man did? Since he was a socialist and a follower of Bernie Sanders, is Sanders to blame? After all, Sanders has said some pretty harsh things about Republicans. Since the man hated Trump so much, perhaps Trump is the one who should be responsible because he “triggered” the man with his policies?

What’s the Biblical position?

Personal responsibility is an overwhelming theme in Scripture. We are responsible for the choices we make in life. No one forces us to make those choices. There can be influences upon us, things that push us in a certain direction, but when it comes down to choosing, that’s all on us.

There were influences on the man who decided to target Republicans. Some of those influences were way over the top in bitterness and hatred. There are people who are saying Republicans want everyone to die because they want to take away their healthcare. That’s one of the middle-of-the-road accusations. I won’t repeat the worst ones.

Yet those were influences only; he had to decide whether to follow through on them with a terrible deed. He died in his own sins; he’s responsible for what he did, regardless of what others said that might have egged him on.

However, there remains some culpability whenever anyone descends into hateful diatribes. God holds them accountable for that.

There is a difference, though, between vicious, hateful speech and truth-telling. As Christians, we are to speak the truth in love and we are called, as far as it depends on us, to be at peace with all men.

What’s the difference between truth-telling and hateful speech? Are we never, in our truth-telling, allowed to point out the real nature of certain philosophies and/or individuals who promote those philosophies?

Did I sin in numerous blogs when I disagreed with virtually everything Barack Obama stands for and how he conducted himself? Am I sinning now when I take Donald Trump to task for his character?

Have you ever looked carefully at Matthew 23? It’s a fascinating chapter wherein Jesus takes on the Pharisees in no uncertain terms. As you peruse that chapter, you find Him saying the following about them:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

Was Jesus over the top when He referred to them as hypocrites? Notice that He even said they were not entering into heaven. Was that an unjust judgment?

Further down in the chapter, He calls them “a child of hell,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” and “a brood of vipers.”

My particular favorite is his characterization of them as “whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.” They appear to be righteous but are really “full of hypocrisy and wickedness.”

I gather from Jesus’s own example that we don’t have to pull our punches when pointing out sin. But here’s the catch: we can’t be hypocrites when we do so and we have to honestly seek to redeem those who are erring (check out chapter 7 of Matthew on proper judging). If we ever take satisfaction in merely telling people off and get a smug attitude about being right, then we’ve violated the spirit in which we are allowed to point out sin.

We all need to be willing to be truth-tellers, yet, at the same time, we must continually guard our hearts so that we carry it out in the proper spirit.

Each person is responsible for his/her own actions, whether in carrying out an evil deed or in using extreme language that might influence a person toward that deed.