Skip to main content

sen. roy blunt
Sen. Roy Blunt, a very confused man. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
How confused are the Republicans in their plan, or lack thereof, to do something about health care reform? Very. Check this out: Romney buddy Sen. Roy "Employers Can Take Away Employees' Birth Control" Blunt says that there is stuff in the Affordable Care Act that he really likes.
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., gave a strong defense [Wednesday] of a portion of the Affordable Care Act that allows children up to 26 years old to remain on their parents’ health insurance plans, breaking a bit from the GOP’s hard-line opposition to Obamacare. [...]

“It’s one of the things that I think should continue to be the case,” Blunt said of the “dependent coverage” provision, explaining that “it’s a way to get a significant number of the uninsured into an insurance group without much cost,” because young people are generally healthy.

Blunt noted that he even introduced a bill when he was in the House that would do exactly what the provision of the Affordable Care Act does now, saying, “I was for it then, and I’d be for it now.” “You’re breaking some news,” host McGraw Milhaven quipped.

Even Blunt understands that this is really smart, effective policy, and that people really, really like it. People other than Republican debate audiences, that is. And there is the kernel in the nut of the Republicans' problem. Blunt has been there with all the other Republicans calling for a full repeal of Obamacare because the extreme Republican base demands it. Smart, popular policy? Doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is appeasing the base.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:37 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (25+ / 0-)

    "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." —Warren Buffett

    by Joan McCarter on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:37:58 PM PDT

  •  Maybe they can just change the name (6+ / 0-)

    of ACA from "Obamacare" to "TeaPartyCare"; then all will be right with the world.  It will no longer have that scary black man's name on it.

    ;-)

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:58:42 PM PDT

    •  I don't know about a name change. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sunbro

      Romneycare isn't that popular either.

      Maybe you're right though... TeaPartyCare or, perhaps America,FuckYeahCare would do the trick

      "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war." -9.75, -8.41

      by RonV on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:13:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It really is amazing how much (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sunbro, MKSinSA, Catte Nappe, myboo

      "closeted" prejudice has come out since Obama has been in office. I've heard so many things about him that would never be said of other presidents. One person, on the note of white privilege even said, how do I have white privilege where there is a black man in the white house. BTW, did you know the "white house" only became the "white house" in the early 1900s when TR was president, the day after he had dinner with Booker T Washington.  

      "It's kind of fun to do the impossible!"

      by ljcrazyhistorian on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:17:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ReaganCare. n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slowbutsure, annieli, Matt Z

      "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

      by Bush Bites on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:03:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Passion of St. Ronnie, Inc. /nt (0+ / 0-)

        slutty voter for a "dangerous president"; Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Sciant terra viam monstrare." 政治委员, 政委!

        by annieli on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:40:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Republicans would rather have $$ and see ppl die (0+ / 0-)

    "It's kind of fun to do the impossible!"

    by ljcrazyhistorian on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:14:20 PM PDT

  •  Repubs know it is a good plan but the Democrats (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, retLT

    got it passed and will be much harder to get democrats out of office if it goes in to effect. They are afraid of losing their jobs.

    Of course they would all become "history consultents" for big lobbying firms and make lots more money.

    Ummm maybe that is not such a good idea, I love history and do not want repubs rewriting it their slanted way.

    Has anyone noticed how that Ginrich guy that failed to challange Rmoney seems clueless about 'real history".

    Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things. Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804) Just A Real Nice Guy, thinking out loud.

    by arealniceguy on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:34:30 PM PDT

  •  Repeal & replace with nothing nt (0+ / 0-)

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Fri May 25, 2012 at 05:13:44 PM PDT

  •  SCOTUS will do the dirty work for them. (5+ / 0-)

    That's what they were hired to do.

    "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

    by Bush Bites on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:01:44 PM PDT

  •  I was talking with a friend yesterday (7+ / 0-)

    nice lady, but poorly informed.

    She has a son who is an ob/gyn, delivers 4-5 babies per day at a hospital in the Los Angeles area.

    She informed me that he plans to retire-- BECAUSE HE IS GOING TO BE FORCED TO PERFORM ABORTIONS !

    She believed this.

    I got a little heated in telling her that is absolutely untrue, but she said well, why would he believe that?

    Can I just say, I have no idea why anyone would believe that, let alone a medical doctor.

    But, assuming he does, we have a hell of a lot of work to do.

    I must be dreaming...

    by murphy on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:05:07 PM PDT

  •  Obamacare = Massive Tax Cut.... (6+ / 0-)

    ...for small businesspeople.

    If a small businessperson (say, myself) gets a tax credit instead of a tax deduction for their health insurance, it will reduce taxes on said small businesspeople.

    Repeat:  Obamacare will reduce taxes on small businesspeople.

    Of course, some Republicans believe that small businesspeople should be taxed more, since they "don't pay any taxes", and that capital gains taxes should be eliminated (thus eliminating tax on private equity carried interest).

    9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

    by varro on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:08:10 PM PDT

  •  As for Sen Blunt, there's very little there there. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slowbutsure

    Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

    by TRPChicago on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:18:36 PM PDT

  •  It's a moot discussion, actually (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero

    After the SCOTUS makes their decision in July, then, and only then, can we make a good discussion on what should happen with regard to Obamacare and whether or not it should be taken forward and to what level.

    Until then, it's just mostly posturing.  

    A wise person makes their own decisions. An ignorant person follows public opinion.

    by independantman on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:30:16 PM PDT

  •  Appeasing the base, and opposing the Obama. (5+ / 0-)
  •  Justice Roberts is confused too. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SottoVoce, cocinero, Matt Z

    Remember Wendell Potter? He explains Why Health Insurers Are Counting on the Supreme Court to Uphold ObamaCare
    Long-time republican party sponsors (private insurers) will be hi-fiving behind closed doors if the Supremes uphold ACA. Republicans are acting confused because their sponsors are on one side and their voters are on the other.

    •  Certain elements, for sure (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mike Taylor

      AARP is hoping Obamacare will be upheld.  They stand to gain billions in health care insurance because of it.  

      There are others as well and not just democratic-leaning entities.  It all depends on what's good for you and what's not good for the nation.

      A wise person makes their own decisions. An ignorant person follows public opinion.

      by independantman on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:47:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have predicted that private insurers will (0+ / 0-)

        use the proceeds from those 100s of billions in new government subsidies and mandated premiums to lobby the government against any future real/meaningful (non-loophole) regulation. Since we know that private insurers got what they wanted with the formation of the law (i.e. no public option, no re-importation of drugs, individual mandate etc.), it’s no stretch of the imagination to know they will get their way even more when they have 100s of billions of new dollars with which to lobby the government (against any future real/meaningful regulation).
        ACA finances/subsidizes the political opposition to any real/meaningful (non-loophole) healthcare regulation in the future.
        And when ACA fails miserably, because of the reasons I’ve just explained, it will reinforce the republican mantra of ‘government involvement in healthcare is what’s driving up the cost of healthcare’, undermining the hard-fought core Democratic Party philosophy of using the government to regulate private sector greed. People have no idea how bad this is.

  •  There is no confusion... (0+ / 0-)

    they are doing what their big pharma masters tell them what to do

  •  there is the kernel in the nut of the Republicans (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999

    slutty voter for a "dangerous president"; Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Sciant terra viam monstrare." 政治委员, 政委!

    by annieli on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:44:15 PM PDT

  •  The more I think about it (0+ / 0-)

    Newt was on the right track with his moon base, though not for the reasons he thought of.

    We should've gone ahead with it, and offered Republicans the chance to establish a rugged, individualistic society based on Galtian principles and Tea Party orthodoxy.

    It would've probably lasted a few weeks at most, but would have been a scientific way to test the Teapublican hypothesis.

  •  story over at TPM on this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, MTmofo, Matt Z

    too.

    Rep. Allen West (R-FL), a tea party darling, told ThinkProgress that he supports preserving three popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act — the same three that his party’s leaders are reportedly considering.

    “You’ve got to replace it with something,” West said. “If people want to keep their kid on insurance at 26, fine. We’ve got to make sure no American gets turned back for pre-existing conditions, that’s fine. Keep the doughnut hole closed, that’s fine. But what I just talked to you about — maybe 20, 25 pages of legislation.”


    may we not be strangers in the lush province of joy - Charles Wright

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:53:14 PM PDT

  •  The ball is in the SCOTUS' court right now. (0+ / 0-)

    I think their job on this issue is turning out to be more difficult than they thought.

    The majority on the Court seems to believe it is their primary mission to make things electorally favorable for Republicans and the big $$ that bought them.  At first, all you ever heard out of the mouth of a Republican in Congress, or running for office was "Repeal Obamacare."  If that were the position of most people and businesses, SCOTUS could just hand them a victory, no problem.  

    It turns out, however, to be complicated.  If they just repeal the mandate, but keep the other requirements in place, they wreak havoc with the big insurance companies.  It'll be too expensive for them to offer everything required and stay profitable without the mandate, so they'll slowly move into other kinds of business models.  If they repeal the whole law, there's a good chance there will be a huge hue and cry from the public, perhaps the kind of uprising that nothing has yet motivated people enough to rise up for, and the blame will be placed squarely on the Republicans, who have no plan to replace it.  If they declare the law constitutional, the GOP "base" will be outraged.  They expected their pandering politicians to see to it that brown and black and unfortunate people die in sufficient numbers to quell their nearly insatiable resentment and rage.

    While Alito and Thomas and Scalia don't give a crap about public opinion, or anything else, they will simply dig in.  Roberts, though, has a legacy to uphold, which is already mightily tarnished by Citizens United and other recent decisions.  He's in a pickle, I believe, over this one.

    Couldn't happen to a (pretend) nicer guy.

    Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain

    by SottoVoce on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:58:22 PM PDT

  •  We should be able to get them (0+ / 0-)

    between a rock and a hard place on this. But we won't.

    Make them vote on repealing the popular provisions etc.

    Remember to kick it over.

    by sprogga on Mon May 28, 2012 at 05:01:54 PM PDT

  •  I have a hard core Republican friend (4+ / 0-)

    who just lost her health insurance.

    Now she thinks Obama's health care reform is a GREAT idea, and called me asking how she could use it to get health insurance. She wants guaranteed, portable, affordable heath care with no exemptions for pre-existing conditions, and she wants it now. She checked out Cobra, but her premium went up four fold from $7,500 to $30,000 a year for she and her husband. He is unemployed, which is how they lost their coverage, and she works two days a week for a doctor, who doesn't offer health insurance to his employees.

    Oh how the mighty have fallen, but she is still a Republican.
     

  •  no way can they keep the good parts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    the oklahoma kid

    The insurance companies would lose a ton of money if they are forced  to cover   preexisting conditions with no mandatory participation. That's why I think the supreme court will not strike it down but may tell congress to fix it somehow.

    •  I was going to post exactly the same thing (0+ / 0-)

      I dont know how you keep the part of the law allowing people with preexisting conditions to get health coverage, but not having some kind of mechanism that requires everyone to have health insurance.

      I think the GOP answer would be high risk insurance pools, but those really arent a long term solution.

  •  Medicare for all... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero, Matt Z

    n/t

    Santorum's OK. On a Saturday night. But on a Tuesday? Yecch.

    by Van Buren on Mon May 28, 2012 at 05:47:30 PM PDT

  •  Don't Insurance Companies Like it Too? (0+ / 0-)

    Most people between the ages of 18 and 26 never need any medical attention and few of them would choose to pay for their own policies if their employer doesn't offer it. Worried parents are happy to pay a little extra to keep their kids covered. This change is likely quite profitable for the insurance companies.

  •  Two rules for Republicans (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero, Icicle68, Matt Z

    Rule 1: Oppose without moderation any idea or policy advanced by Obama.

    Rule 2: In the event the idea or policy makes sense, is popular with voters, or is a recycled Republican proposal, see Rule 1.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Mon May 28, 2012 at 05:58:03 PM PDT

  •  No confusion from my rep. (0+ / 0-)

    Steve King has "A Four Point Plan to get America Working Again." His first point is "Repeal Obamacare." At a town hall last week, he said he wants to "tear it out by the roots." He said, if you cut down a tree and leave a stump, it will sprout back up. As far as King is concerned, there are no "good parts."

    His proposal:

    Replace government-run health care with free market solutions to create competition and restore doctor-patient relationships: Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines, thus forcing insurance companies from around the country to compete for consumers' business by lowering premiums and improving coverage.
    (Emphasis in the original document.)

    Like the insurance companies wouldn't sell from the states with the most lax regulations and enforcement.

    King also wants to "Enact meaningful medical lawsuit reform" by capping noneconomic payouts are $250,000. There's evidence that this would do little or nothing to lower health care costs. (Now, lowering medical error rates would have an impact.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site