Hmmmm?
Trying to have it both ways, eh?
That’s NOT a way to support repealing a law that has actually gotten MORE popular the more Republican had threatened to get rid of it….
(And supporting a lawsuit to cancel the law ain’t smart either)
On one hand, Republicans are still campaigning against the law, arguing a strong election result will allow them one more shot at repealing the Affordable Care Act with GOP majorities in both chambers. And many high-profile Senate GOP candidates support a lawsuit that would scuttle Obamacare if successful in the nation’s courts, a case that will be heard by a federal judge in September.
Yet at the same time, Republicans are still touting the law’s most popular provisions, arguing that after it is struck down, they will be able to preserve protections for pre-existing conditions by passing a new bill. GOP challengers in four of the most competitive Senate races support the lawsuit.
“Sure, anything that’s going to actually get rid of it, yes,” said Indiana GOP Senate nominee Mike Braun of the GOP lawsuit to gut the law in an interview in Mishawaka. “And then be ready to come back and talk about what you’re ready to do about pre-existing conditions and no limits on coverage. That’s where you don’t hear much conservative talk.”
The problem? Congress has shown no ability to pass new health care legislation under Republican rule or work across party lines, raising severe doubts that the GOP would be able to fulfill its promises to kill the law and yet maintain its popular provisions….
Note…
It is high unlikely that any lawsuit to throw out the Affordable Healthcare Law will have success ….
None have so far …
(1) Republicans have no plausible answer of how you cover pre-existing or catastrophic conditions at an affordable premium without an extremely broad pool of health plan subscribers (such as the one ensured by an individual mandate). So all they can talk about is Repeal; when it comes to Replace, they become tongue-tied.
(2) I’m answering James’ post about the CBS poll here, because he used a March thread that no longer takes reader comments or replies.
I don’t know what the CBS polls projects for the Republican House caucus in the 116th Congress, but 222 for the Democrats is a very, very slim majority when compared with the other 213 seats. It would take only five Republican gains or regains to flip the majority into a minority of 217-218.
Recent history has shown (I seem to recall) that such slim majorities have sometimes been enough to enact a program, or to thwart a hostile Administration, and have sometimes been wholly inadequate in the face of hamstringing opposition by the minority party. Depending on circumstance, a very narrow majority can sometimes force a near-unanimous party discipline and sometimes greatly magnify the power of individual dissenting members.
On the other hand, whoever has a majority gets to elect the Speaker and organize the House.
Recent small majorities, according to my 2018 World Almanac, include:’
1952 – 221 R
1998 – 223 R
2000 – 221 R
Yeah but do they “strongly” support repeal or “somewhat”support repeal.
Can’t forget the “grays!”
I think that they “strongly support” Repeal and “somewhat support” (very somewhat) Replace.
Apparently some GOPer’s aren’t mentioning repeal at all…..
The one in Red State have to be careful also
Parts of the law ARE BERY POPULAR even there…
The law doesn’t seem to be seriously in trouble anywhere right mow