McConnell’s plan to replace Obamacare? ‘We’ll let you know’

So what’s the GOP plan if the Supreme Court dares to use a four-word drafting error to  gut Obamacare, stripping health insurance subsidies from millions of Americans and disrupting the health-insurance market for many millions more?

With the ruling expected in the next couple of weeks, what’s the plan?

“We’ll let you know,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said today.

Really? You’ll let us know?

Unbelievable as that is, it becomes more amazing still when you consider that it’s been five years since Republicans first trotted out their promise to “repeal and replace” Obamacare, with McConnell himself making the announcement. He and his fellow Republicans have been repeating that slogan like a mantra ever since.

“We can do better,” McConnell assured us back in that March 2010 unveiling. “We can expand access to people with pre-existing conditions, we can keep people from being kicked off their plan, we can lower costs and premiums, we can do all of these things without undermining the things that we do best and without raising taxes that kill jobs in a bad economy. The American people know that. That’s why they’ve been clamoring for a different approach.”

“Repeal and replace,” McConnell continued. “That’s what Americans really want.”

But five years have passed, and we still have no idea how the Republicans would accomplish all of those remarkable things.  Five years and some four dozen repeal votes later, we have yet to see any movement on a replacement plan, not even so much as a committee markup.

Five years, and it’s still “we’ll let you know”?

For all this time, they’ve been playing a shell game, promising the American people that they had a magic pea under one of those shells that they were constantly shuffling around on the table in front of us. There is no magic pea; there is no GOP plan to replace Obamacare. There never was and never will be.

They don’t have the guts to propose a Republican plan. They don’t have the party unity that would be needed to pass such a plan. They don’t have the policy proposals that would constitute a plan. They don’t have the compassion that would drive them to create a plan.

They got nothin’.

 

 

Reader Comments 0

1685 comments
josef
josef

Papa Daddy's home...sheetz, and looks like some fun ones!

td1234
td1234

Here's an interesting take on income inequality that bucks conventional wisdom.


While President Barack Obama claims that low-income Americans work just as hard as their wealthy counterparts, that simply isn't true, says Stephen Moore, a distinguished visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

"Yes, many people in poor households heroically work very hard at low wages to take care of their families, no doubt about that," he and Heritage Foundation research associate Joel Griffith write in The Washington Times

"Yet the average poor family doesn’t work nearly as much as the rich families do. And that’s a key reason why these households are poor."

Census Bureau data show that for every hour worked by those in a low-income household, those in a wealthy household toil five hours. 

"The idea that the rich are idle bondholders who play golf or go to the spa every day while the poor toil isn’t accurate," Moore and Griffith explain. 

"The finding that six out of 10 poor households have no one working at all is disturbing. Since they have no income from work, is it a surprise they are poor?"

Meanwhile, Americans are concerned about the growing inequality of income, but they don't see the government as a solution for the most part, according to a new study by four esteemed professors for the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. 

"The survey shows that while respondents who view information about inequality are more likely to believe that inequality is a serious problem, they show no more appetite for many government interventions to reduce inequality — with the notable exceptions of increasing the estate tax and the minimum wage," the professors write.

They are Ilyana Kuziemko of Princeton University, Michael Norton of Harvard, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley and Stefanie Stantcheva of Harvard.

"Our working hypothesis is that those surveyed alighted on the estate tax because it applies to many fewer Americans than respondents had assumed," the authors say. 

"And respondents favored increasing the minimum wage because doing so does not necessitate heavy government involvement"

Bottom line: "The survey reveals a deep mistrust of the federal government’s ability to administer programs effectively and efficiently even after confronted with the importance of these programs in alleviating poverty among those Americans at the bottom of the ladder," the professors concluded.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/income-Obama-work-pay/2015/06/08/id/649410/#ixzz3cbLD1TW0 
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

Tuna Meowt
Tuna Meowt

@td1234 "While President Barack Obama claims that low-income Americans work just as hard as their wealthy counterparts, that simply isn't true, says Stephen Moore, a distinguished visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation." (emphasis mine)


And you'd expect such a person to say something different?


I'd venture to say that such a position on his part is probably *why* he's a "distinguished visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation."


Tuna Meowt
Tuna Meowt

@LeninTime @td1234 "This is a shoddy argument."


Indeed.  Why, it hardly takes me an hour a week to clip and redeem stock coupons.


fedup52
fedup52

@td1234 td you really need help to understand the reality of life.

td1234
td1234

@fedup52 What reality is that? I know exactly what it is like to be poor and I know exactly what it is like to not be poor. 

Wena Mow Masipa How
Wena Mow Masipa How

@td1234 Thanks for that. I took the opportunity to rate the President on his job performance.  I gotta say - that Newsmax site definitely left me feeling a little dirty, but luckily I'm headed to the pool right now.  Because it is summer they have loaded it with chlorine which I'm happy to report will help with the crud removal.

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

@Tuna Meowt


The messenger does not matter. All one has to do is look at the empirical data from the census. The top 20% has about 5 1/2 times as many full time, year round workers as the bottom 20% of households. 

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

@fedup52


What reality, exactly, is there to understand? The reality that the top 20% of households earn more because they work more? A lot more in fact.  

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

@LeninTime


Not a shoddy argument at all. The people in the top quintile work more. They work a lot more than people in the bottom 20%. It is what it is. 

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

@Wena Mow Masipa How


You can whine all you want about newsmax. But what you can't dispute is the empirical data which shows the top 20% of households have about 5 1/2 times as many full time, year round workers as the bottom 20%. The data is what it is no matter who the messenger is. 

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@td1234 @fedup52 I have a news flash for you


not everyone who is rich worked hard to get rich


The Waltons are worth billions and they simply inherited that money. No work was required. 

LeninTime
LeninTime

@td1234 

From your link: 

The average household in the top 20 percent of income have an average of almost exactly two full-time workers. The average poor family (bottom 20 percent) has just 0.4 workers (see chart). This means on average, roughly for every hour worked by those in a poor household, those in a rich household work five hours. The idea that the rich are idle bondholders who play golf or go to the spa every day while the poor toil isn’t accurate.

**
You have got to be effing kidding me. 

First of all, the top 20 percent of the income scale are not 'the rich' and not necessarily the rentiers who are 'idle bondholders'. Nor are the idle rich as such necessarily the problem. 

This is a shoddy argument.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

I have to admit i'm a bit surprised the Hastert story isnt getting much coverage. 


Especially if some of the boys turn out to be underaged at the time. 



Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@Wena Mow Masipa How @HeadleyLamar I'm betting you are right


And those details will emerge. 


According to the indictment, Hastert aroused suspicion by making a series of $50,000 cash withdrawals from his bank, which was required to report any cash transaction over $10,000 to the Treasury Department. After the bank questioned Hastert about those withdrawals, he began taking out unusual amounts of cash that were just shy of the $10,000 reporting threshold—a red flag to bankers, who reported him to the feds.


Its amazing how naive he was about all this. I knew about the 10,000 dollar rule.


This guy was third in line to the Presidency



Tuna Meowt
Tuna Meowt

@IReportYouWhine#1 @Wena Mow Masipa How "That's not hate, moonbat, it's concern."


Probably the same sort of concern my cats have over me and my wife coming home each night.  After all, if we didn't, their litterbox wouldn't get cleaned out.


TBS
TBS

sky

You going to the show? 

I know a few folks from Rome who are going.  They are currently at the Spring Street Ballet watching the shoe models and I'm sure starting their libation intake. 



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiUk19ktp6s


td1234
td1234

josef, 


Yesterday on a previous blog you stated teachers in Georgia  could not retire until 59 1/2. It is my understanding that if you are a teacher or state employee in GA then you can retire anytime after you serve for 30 years. 

td1234
td1234

  1. Eligibility for Retirement. You are eligible to retire 'penalty free' under the following conditions: Completion of 30 years of creditable service - regardless of your age; or. Completion of 10 years of creditable service, and be age 60 or older.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@td1234 A bit of splitting hairs.


Anone teaching 30 years is gonna be close to 59.5 or pretty close to it. 

td1234
td1234

I could not find the 59 1/2 that you and fed52 were discussing? 

td1234
td1234

@HeadleyLamar @td1234 If you come out of college at 22 the 30 years makes you 52 and eligable to retire. 52 is a long way from 59 1/2. 

josef
josef

@td1234 @josef 

Possibly...I didn't pay that much attention since I hit 20 years and 59 1/2 at the same time...  LOL 

td1234
td1234

@josef @td1234 Cool, I thought it might have had something to do with APS since they are one of the counties that does something crazy with SS and add it to retirement. 

josef
josef

@td1234 @josef 

I also have an SS account.  It'll kick in at 62.  The TRS amount won't be affected by that, but the SS will take into account the TRS.  Also, the TRS is not affected by whatever else I may make, SS will be...the TRS is not very much, but I do keep my state health insurance which is decidedly a perk...

OriginalProf
OriginalProf

@td1234 

I'm a retired TRS member. All public school employees must belong to TRS, and the majority of University system employees do too.

TRS members can retire after 30 years of service, or after 25 years but take a cut in benefits, or 10 years if at least 60 years old. (This would be the highly-paid superintendents and executives who come in when they're in their 50s-60s and then leave after 10 years or so.) Can't get a pension earlier, which can be a problem.

USG faculty usually are required to have Ph.D.s, so this means they're usually around 65 when they retire. Public school teachers are younger because they only need the BA/BS.