Murkowski: GOP should focus on Economy and Jobs, not Health Care Repeal

[Sbane]

Dude Yank, the Democrats got slammed for focusing on health care when they should have focused on the economy. The same thing will happen to the Republicans. Fair is fair (although whether it's fair to either Republicans or Democrats is a matter of debate, the public's perception is what is important here).

Where did you get the idea that Republicans are focused on healthcare? The Democrats spent almost a year on it. The GOP has spent 2 weeks.

Kind of funny how people are writing the fate of the 112th congress 700 days before it ends.

Oh sure, this might just be a little distraction for their masses. If that is the case, then they will be fine. If they do spend a year fighting Obama over this, perhaps shutting down the government, they will pay.

And the fact that they don't have a replacement bill does show they aren't too serious about it, so you may be right.

[anvi]

The Pubbies must be more careful than they are being so far on health care and what they invest their time in.  Congressional Republicans might end up spending lots of time on health care in the next two years.  The most recent repeal attempt is a vain-glorious dud and will quickly be forgotten.  But now, the House Republicans are intimating that they will attach amendments to most bills that move attempting to defund lots of the law's provisions.  It will be interesting to see what happens when they attach these amendments to various bills, because if they propose to get them through on every piece of legislation, very little will happen legislatively in the next two years, and they could attempt to stage a Mexican standoff over a budget bill this way, which in the end would do them about as much good as it did Gingrich and the gang in '95.

The Republicans telegraphed their strategy in the repeal bill; they want to tie health care reform to the economy by claiming that the current law is a job-killer, and they want to keep the issue alive for 2012.  But, if they adopt only the two-tiered strategy above, they will fail.  According to a recent Forbes report, large numbers of small businesses in many states have jumped onto the tax credits available for getting their employees covered.  In addition, the insurance companies, some big campaign contributors, don't want swaths of new customers to be barred from their doors.  And a number of the bill's provisions, as they are gradually enacted, will gain popularity.  The difference between the time the Dems spent on health care in '09 and the time the Pubbies will spend on it in '11 and '12 could very well be that the Dems passed a law whose popularity will increase over time, and the GOP's attempts to repeal and scale it back will hit the floor loudly.  Republican voters might not like the health care bill, but they won't like failed approaches to get rid of it either.

The GOP should not try to repeal healthcare outright or kill it with a thousand cuts over the next two years, because neither strategy will work.  Those who want full repeal and nothing else would best wait for the courts to decide the matter.  Those who want something else ought to propose a whole new bill that systematically lays out their solution to health care reform.  In the meantime, they should concentrate most of their efforts, if they want a legitimate shot in 2012, on their real goals, tax reform, budget deficit reduction and jobs growth.

If the GOP keeps walking down dead-end roads on the health care law at the expense of the stuff the country is most concerned about now, they'll paint themselves into a shrinking corner--hell, in 2012, Obama might even get AHIP's endorsement in this case.    

[opebo]

Murkowski's a genius.  The GOP has nowhere to go but down electorally if they pursue this kind of nonsense.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Dude Yank, the Democrats got slammed for focusing on health care when they should have focused on the economy. The same thing will happen to the Republicans. Fair is fair (although whether it's fair to either Republicans or Democrats is a matter of debate, the public's perception is what is important here).

Yes you are right, it is for the public to decide.

The difference is the GOP's easy response is that repealing and replacing health care is essential to economic recovery and they also have more then enough to back that up with in the court of public opinion. And its rhetorically and ideologically consistent for Republicans to argue that Gov't taxes, regulations and programs get in the way of the economy. Thus in order to ensure job creation the EPA must be reigned in, the Health care bill repealed and replaced, etc etc. And there will be stories to trumpet even if anecdotal of people whose insurance got canned or had their job axed because of health care mandates, fees, taxes etc.

Dude Yank, the Democrats got slammed for focusing on health care when they should have focused on the economy. The same thing will happen to the Republicans. Fair is fair (although whether it's fair to either Republicans or Democrats is a matter of debate, the public's perception is what is important here).

Where did you get the idea that Republicans are focused on healthcare? The Democrats spent almost a year on it. The GOP has spent 2 weeks.

Kind of funny how people are writing the fate of the 112th congress 700 days before it ends.

Are you kidding? You must not have received the memo. The 112th congress has to be destroyed to save Obama.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Dude Yank, the Democrats got slammed for focusing on health care when they should have focused on the economy. The same thing will happen to the Republicans. Fair is fair (although whether it's fair to either Republicans or Democrats is a matter of debate, the public's perception is what is important here).

Yes you are right, it is for the public to decide.

The difference is the GOP's easy response is that repealing and replacing health care is essential to economic recovery and they also have more then enough to back that up with in the court of public opinion.

But they're not actually offering anything substantial to replace it with. That's actually the kicker here, is that, again, if Republicans were willing to spend a little more time offering up a reasonable proposal, they could actually get something through. There's enough waffly Democrats in the Senate that you could get at least a simple majority with a more center-right proposal, or at least pass amendments to the HCR law from last year in some fashion.

If Republicans actually looked like they had something to offer, it would hurt the Democrats if they refused to hear it out and give it the reasonable time of day. The problem is, "Repeal and Replace" is  just "Repeal and we'll Replace it later, maybe, if we feel like getting around to it."

Repealing 'Obamacare' was supposed to be a victory lap. A symbolic move, for sure, but one that was supposed to actually carry favor with public opinion and be a win for them. But all it did was cause criticism from some Senate Republicans, look like a pointless move, give the Democrats another opportunity to go all-out in defense of the law, drift public opinion more in the law's favor, cause controversy over their deliberately fabricating and misquoting CBO statements, and not get any serious Democratic defections whatsoever.

As Meeker said once in another thread a couple months back, I think "It's going to be a fun two years." Republicans, right off the bat, show no interest in actually governing or doing anything substantial. Wasn't the next thing on their agenda abortion-related, or something stupid like that? These people are jokes, and so is pretending like the 'adults' are back in charge.

[krazen1211]

Are you kidding? You must not have received the memo. The 112th congress has to be destroyed to save Obama.

I guess not, although the last few posts make me laugh a bit. I'm sure Boehner is out there looking for liberals to give him advice on how to run his Congress. Textbook pot, kettle, black I suppose.

Of course, these are the same liberals who ran their own Congress out of power. Shrug.

Then again, Obama is supposedly going to 'focus' on jobs in his state of the union address. Of course, he said the same thing last year and then focused on other things.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Of course, these are the same liberals who ran their own Congress out of power. Shrug.

If I had to choose between:

A congress that followed Bayh's pitiful center-right "do nothing too controversial" playbook that assured us complete re-election, and

A congress that tackles major issues, passes bill after bill of national importance to become one of the most legislatively productive congresses in decades and takes alot of political heat for doing so, and is assured a landslide defeat of 60+ seats in the next election in one House of congress,

I'd choose the latter every single time.

We're sorry we don't like it when our congresses are entirely self-serving.

[krazen1211]

We're sorry we don't like it when our congresses are entirely self-serving.

Incidentally, that's exactly what they tried to create when they rammed through the healthcare law.

Remember the 'this bill is going to be so popular in November 2010 that it's going to coast us to re-election'? Yeah I do.

[Brittain33]

We're sorry we don't like it when our congresses are entirely self-serving.

Incidentally, that's exactly what they tried to create when they rammed through the healthcare law.

Remember the 'this bill is going to be so popular in November 2010 that it's going to coast us to re-election'? Yeah I do.

No, but I remember "we have to finish what we started, if we fail we'll be worse off" which is in the same ballpark but different.

[ag]

Both of which will be in the Republican replacement bill.

You, of course, realize, that such provisions, unless they are accompanied either by requirement for everyone to purchase insurance, or by huge subsidies for everyone to purchase insurance paid out of the tax system, would come dangerously close to a congressionally-mandated closure of medical insurance markets?

In fact, if such a "replacement" bill would become law, it would make it extremely likely that the industry would be nationalized within 10 years - by humongous popular demand of the overwhelming majority of Americans under 65 that would be lacking insurance.

[krazen1211]

We're sorry we don't like it when our congresses are entirely self-serving.

Incidentally, that's exactly what they tried to create when they rammed through the healthcare law.

Remember the 'this bill is going to be so popular in November 2010 that it's going to coast us to re-election'? Yeah I do.

No, but I remember "we have to finish what we started, if we fail we'll be worse off" which is in the same ballpark but different.

Fair enough. Either way, the choice was made. I'm sure the Republicans will make theirs with or without liberal input.