Washington Matters
Why the War Goes On
Over Health Care Reform
Republicans can’t overturn the new law. But they can still reap gains in November.
By Richard Sammon, Senior Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter
March 24, 2010
- Comments
- Email This Article
- Print This Article
- Order a Reprint
Advertisement
Republican leaders are pledging to repeal the new health care law. There’s nearly zero chance they can do it. But repeal is what they’re promising. Is it foolhardy?
No, it’s not. Republican lawmakers, who voted in unison against the legislation, have a lot to gain from the effort, which shows the party base that members of Congress are still working hard for them. Doing otherwise would amount to capitulation. In the process, they may win over some independents and conservative Democrats, which would be an obvious plus.
Repeal will be tough, if not impossible. To do it legislatively, Republicans would need an unthinkable landslide victory in the midterm elections. They’d need to ride a political earthquake. More than just gaining control of the House and Senate, Republicans would need a full, two-thirds veto-proof majority in each chamber, as President Obama would surely veto attempts to gut or rewrite his signature health care reform. A veto-proof GOP majority is not in the math by any realistic accounting. They’d have to wait until 2012 and hope to control the White House as well as Congress.
Chances are only slightly better on the legal challenge to the law. More than a dozen state attorneys general have filed or will file challenges to the bill’s “individual mandate” requirement that citizens and legal residents obtain health insurance. The arguments will say that federally mandated individual insurance infringes on a state’s authority and amounts to an unprecedented expansion of federal power.
It is unclear how courts will rule, or even when and if the Supreme Court will intervene. However, several constitutional law scholars note that Congress has a long established authority to regulate the national economy and raise revenue. Defenders of the individual mandate will argue that the mandate is essentially a tax and therefore constitutional.
Also at the state level, there’s a flurry of related activity. Three dozen states have legislation pending that challenges the constitutionality of the federal law. Two states, Virginia and Idaho, have enacted legislation stating that citizens of the state are not required to purchase health care insurance. It’s also possible that as many as two dozen states could have ballot questions aimed at preventing the individual mandate from applying.
All of these state level challenges will be resolved one way or another, probably by the courts. In the meantime, federal law supersedes state law, so the state challenges are just symbolic gestures and venting -- and will be until appellate courts resolve the matter. That will take time.
And repeal efforts will be ripe for highly charged debate, given that several parts of the legislation have broad support, including helping seniors buy prescription drugs, covering children in family health care policies until age 26, barring insurers from denying coverage because of preexisting medical conditions and ending lifetime caps on insurance coverage.
The GOP can still gain from the effort. It will spur fund-raising by defining a clear difference between the parties on the role of government. It sends a signal that a hard brake may be required on Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who faces a tough reelection fight. It sets a marker for other major bills are considered, whether they be climate change, immigration reform, sweeping financial market regulation or even a possible Supreme Court nomination.
“The message of [health care] repeal is but one part of a larger message. It should be in the context of far more,” says Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster. “There’s a litany of wrong Democratic decisions and inclinations to be spoken of. Big and bigger government is the biggest. One after another industry bailout is another. The wasteful spending of the stimulus. Tax hikes to raise government revenue in a weak economy. The lack of any serious deficit focus, and the attempt to take over even more parts of the private economy. It’s not just about health care anymore.”
It won’t be a one-sided argument. The president, several Cabinet secretaries and Democratic leaders will put a daily spotlight on popular and practical reforms and benefits in the the new law to reverse criticism that the measure is too large, costly and complex or that it was rammed through with procedural tricks.
Democrats want the noisy town hall meetings of 2010 to turn in their favor this year -- against efforts to repeal what many may come to like.
Both parties have their post-health-care-reform work cut out for them. The debate is far from over.
- Comments
- RSS
Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy


Reader Comments (4)
Posted by: Lock Piatt at 03/24/2010 01:49:31 PM
Read the Constitution and show the citizens where the Federal Government derives it's powers? Maybe from the people and the States. The concept of "SETTLED LAW CASES" taking PRECEDENT over the Constitution is just that simply a concept that is contradicted by the Constitution itself. The only method of change is by amendment which has happened many times over the hundreds of years. The Supreme Court can only declare a law Unconstitutional or Constitutional and can not alter the meaning of the words to modernize the statements. The meaning of is still is not maybe.
Posted by: Jim Zephyr at 03/24/2010 10:01:31 PM
Don't forget that the Republicans don't have to repeal the law at once. Once they take control of Congress, the strategy they can use is to defund the vast network of agencies that are needed to administer the program. This would have the practical effect of delaying indefinitely the implementation and enforcement of the program. And since the Democrats have declared war on process, I don't see anyone really blaming the Republicans for fighting fire with fire. In the meantime, Republicans could prepare a healthcare plan of that resonates with all reasonable Americans, containing many of the most popular proposals along with free market solutions that will really bend the cost curve downward. Once Obama is out of office, a new Republican president could sign that bill into law... and O-care will just be a footnote in history.
Posted by: PreExistingConditions at 03/30/2010 11:29:49 PM
Why are the many of the State Attorney Generals' WASTING taxpayer money to attempt to repeal this law? They have taxpayer funded health insurance, all government employees should pay for their own insurance...ordinary citizens have to pay for their own insurance. So far, their are some good things in the new law that will help me somewhat. We need Medicare / Medigap insurance for all. It will help people, small and large businesses, It would create jobs if employers did not have to pay for their employee's insurance. It's called the KISS principle (keep it simple stupid)
Posted by: Ginny at 06/13/2010 09:47:14 AM
Expect absolute chaos in the health care sector over the next decade as the real, on the ground effects of the law become apparent. Already, the doctors who take care of the sickest Medicare patients -- cardiologists and oncologists -- have seen cuts in reimbursements from 10 to 35%. This will drive them out of business, but that is the idea -- reduce costs by eliminating access, or make it so hard to see a specialist that people die before they get appropriate care. People do not understand that doctors sign personal loan guarantees to create access by renting offices, hiring staff, buying equipment. Who will provide the capital under the new system? None of the movers on this understand the word capital, or risk taking. Doctors will not take the risk to establish practices if their reimbursements continue to be cut, or as has been he case for the past year, get no reimbursements at all while Congress chews over fixing the SGR, the formula that decides how doctors will be paid by Medicare. There are states in this country already where Medicare patients cannot find a primary care doctor, for all of the above reasons. Getting help if you are really sick will become a nightmare. This is already true in the UK and Canada. Their systems work for the young and healthy. God help you if you are old and sick. Obama's nominee for head of Medicare is a great supporter of the British system Dr. Berwick wants the US system to be modeled after the National Health Service. One-half million people are now waiting for hospital admission in the UK. It takes longer than 18 weeks to get an appointment with a specialist. Britian's own Health Care Commission reported in early in 2009 that 1,200 people died in hospitals because of "appalling standards of care," "patients left for hours in soild bed clothes," untended injured people "covered in blood and left with no pain meds," and so on.You will get your health care from nurse practioners and physician assistants. They are good with the common stuff, but are not trained for serious illness. Dr. Berwick also believes in population based medicine, This means that what your doctor says you need will no longer be important.There will be caps on national health care spending. In Brtian, it is $44,305 per life. Dr. Berwick loves this. My husband alone and his employer have contributed $200,000 in Medicare taxes. Where is the money? Medicare is a Ponzi scheme just like Social Security. Where is our money? The very poeple who have squandered our money are now going to control your health. Dr. Berwick believes in government-controlled rationing and allocation of capital, excuse me, your tax money. Doctors wwill be required to follow computer generated recipes for diagnosing and treating patients. If a doctor does not follow the recipe, he will be fined or jailed. No one read that health care bill. Find out if your Congressional rep read the bill. If he/she did not, fire them. That bill was all about statist power, not human beings.