From The Daily: Obamacare.

Three items from this morning’s Peach Pundit Daily (subscribe here).

Graves Obamacare Delay Plan Gaining Traction? Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.) penned a bill that would delay the controversial health-care law for a year while funding government for a year. He has nearly 60 sponsors. GOP leadership has privately discussed allowing a vote on Graves’s bill as an amendment to a leadership-sponsored plan. “The proposal that we have put forward has unified our conference like we haven’t seen in many many months.” Graves said in an interview with POLITICO Monday. “It’s given everyone something to coalesce around that meets the objectives that we all want to do: that is keep the government open and protect our constituents from the health care law that has been passed and that’s why our proposal has generated so much support while momentum continues to grow.”

Related: Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Jack Kingston was on WTOC and among other things said linking Obamacare fight to the debt ceiling negotiations could cause problems.

WSJ No Fan Of CR With Delay: A proposal from Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ranger) to delay Obamacare funding and keep everything else running for a year drew some criticism from the Wall Street Journal, among which were these points -“The evidence going back to the Newt Gingrich Congress is that no party can govern from the House, and the Republican Party can’t abide the outcry when flights are delayed, national parks close and direct deposits for military spouses stop. Sooner or later the GOP breaks.” Umm, yeah. Also – “The best option now is for the GOP to unite behind a budget strategy that can hold 218 votes, keeping the sequester pressure of discretionary spending cuts on Democrats to come to the table on entitlements. The sequester is a rare policy victory the GOP has extracted from Mr. Obama, and it is squeezing liberal constituencies that depend on federal cash.” Umm, yeah!

Has Graves come up with a good idea or not? Discuss.


  1. achap39 says:

    Please. All Graves is doing is the same song-and-dance that we’ve been hearing about for the past two years now.

    Funny how, in that same article, you chose to leave out the paragraph that states, “And in reality, senior House Republicans aren’t willing to shut down the government or default on the national debt in order to defund or delay the health care law. When the Senate strips out the defund provision and declines to delay the law as part of the debt ceiling talks, House Republicans will find themselves in the same situation.”

    Please, Rep. Graves and the rest of your TeaGOP following. I beg you, shut down the government. That’s the best way of assuring that none of your ilk get re-elected.

  2. Congratulations to Congressman Tom Graves for coming up with a viable alternative to the House GOP leadership’s sham CR proposal last week. I hope all of the Georgia delegation will get behind this plan like Congressmen Price and Westmoreland have. I predict this plan is going to gain a full head of steam this week.

    We have a Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives because of one reason and one reason only, the American people’s opposition to Obamacare. I don’t doubt the critics at all when they say this will be a tough fight and that some will lay the blame at our feet if the government shuts down. But by God if we don’t fight back now then when will we?

    In all battles, there are times when you have to retreat and live to fight another day (hoping the Supreme Court overturns or a President Romney can force a repeal) and there are times when you can be relatively proud of forcing a stalemate (a la sequestration), but there comes a time when you run out of options and your back is up against the wall (the base that got you elected to fight this battle in the first place is losing confidence) and you have to crawl out of the trenches and make an advance on the enemy.

    For the House GOP, that time to move forward has approached and they should have the guts to live with the consequences come what may. Otherwise, just leave your weapon on the battlefield, go home, and let a Patriot whose willing to fight take your place.

    • Here’s the ultimate problem with your narrative. The House Republicans got elected in 2010 thanks to their cynical opposition to Obamacare/Romneycare which was actually their own idea. If you take the long view, healthcare delivery in this country will either be single payer, Obamacare, or some sort of update to Obamacare that resembles it a hell of a lot more than it resembles the way the system currently works.

      Stunts like this are just trying to cynically prolong short term power by trying to stand up to something that they know will happen and they’ll eventually embrace. If you think this is a good idea, by all means go right ahead. It’s bad policy and I think bad politics ultimately. Of course, the kind of crazy insane people that constitute a Republican primary in every precinct in America may think it’s a good idea, but that will just hasten the return of a Democratic majority. So either bend to reality, and show us what a reality based functioning Republican majority has to offer, or do crap like this, show yourself the door and get out of the way for people actually interested in governing.

    • Dave Bearse says:

      The current Republican House majority has nothing to do with Obamacare. It’s a result, in my opinion in approximately equal measures, of gerrymandering and the fact the Democratic areas are generally more heavily Democratic than Republican areas are Republican.

      • There’s no question that when you look at the vote for 2012, had it been carried out on the 2010 districts, the Democrats would have retaken the house. So yes, in that sense, this is a gerrymandered majority, but it grew from (and is possible because of) the 2010 Obamacare backlash majority.

    • DavidTC says:

      We have a Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives because of one reason and one reason only, the American people’s opposition to Obamacare.


      We have a Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives because of one reason and one reason only, the fact that Republicans took over state governments in 2010, so redistricted themselves a majority for 2012.

      This…is not actually debatable. The actual voting totals for the House in 2012 are, in fact, public records. It is trivially easy to see that more people voted for Democrats than Republicans. This is not rocket science.

  3. saltycracker says:

    Maybe we want the time delays to lobby for the beneficiary stars – hospitals, big pharmaceutical, providers, exclusions and exemptions – to align within a government single payer world. Quid pro quo for well positioned politicians – republicans and democrats.

    No one is pushing for a personal mandate with all having skin in the game with a wide competitive world of private providers’.

  4. xdog says:

    “The best option now is for the GOP to unite behind a budget strategy that can hold 218 votes. . .”
    What strategy would that be? If one exists no one’s mentioned it.

    My strategy would be to blow off the Hastert rule and bring the debt-limit measure to a vote. Then it passes and it’s out of the way for gopers. The alternative is to continue to let the tp rump run the show.

  5. Dave Bearse says:

    Check out this opinion on healthcare priorities. I agree with it, and even if you don’t, it’s an important conversation to be having:

    An excerpt:
    I am a fan and a friend of Dan Callahan, a medical ethicist who believes that beyond age 85 we should not make available expensive, high-technology medicine. At age 85, Callahan suggests we have had our “fair innings” (Norm Daniels’ term) and that money would be better spent on the health needs of younger Americans who have not had their fair innings. I believe people over 85 should get ordinary medicine, kept pain free, but not the expensive high-technology medical miracles.

    No other society would take a 90-year-old with a terminal disease out of a nursing home and put them into an intensive care unit. My wife and I were once at the bedside of a 93-year-old man with three fatal diseases (metastatic cancer of the prostate, end-stage kidney failure, and he had just been brought into the intensive care unit with a serious stroke). Massive resources were being poured into this gentleman, while blocks away people were going without primary care and kids were going without vaccinations. The nurse in the room asked the cosmic question: “When God calls, how much do we argue?”

    • Three Jack says:

      “When God calls, how much do we argue?” Depends on how much care is reimbursable. As long as we have MediXXXX, we will be obligated to care for everybody no matter the situation. Eventually if it is ever implemented, ObamaRobertsCare will setup the same situation for all ages. Thus one of the reasons cost can be expected to increase dramatically as is already happening even before full implementation.

      Whether it be healthcare or education, let government get involved financially and cost inevitably rises while common sense decreases.

    • benevolus says:

      I think that’s more of a cultural issue. I mean, we don’t have to pursue that care. Patients and/or thier families just can’t stop until it’s over. We teach that- we celebrate that- in our culture.

      • saltycracker says:

        Not exactly – our culture is to let them go in peace and a family in crisis gets confused. Most cases my medical friends talk of is the failure of the patient to have a living will and the family overrules the advice of medical experts resulting in expensive and sometimes cruel and disrespectful procedures.

    • saltycracker says:

      Agree, the extremes need boundaries. Extraordinary expensive procedures are tricky ethic issues and defining expensive high-tech will take a few court battles.
      And what about those leading destructive lifestyles ? Tough definitions, but for example, should we purchase a $10k + electric hoverround for every grossly obese person smoking a few packs a day ?

  6. seenbetrdayz says:

    I still think it’s a mistake to shut down Obamacare before it goes into full effect. Do that, and democrats will run ads from now until the end of time about what might have been; that the GOP just ruined a great thing for America.

    Best to let everyone see the ‘good’ that will come from Obamacare. Insurance industries posting even greater record-breaking profits (well, those whose lobbyists and lawyers wrote the Obamacare law, anyways), family doctors leaving the profession early (and discouraging new ones from entering the field), increased premiums and taxes, less competition in the insurance industry, and loss of work hours or possibly entire jobs.

    Trying to defund Obamacare now would be like offering to dispose of a ticking time bomb being held in the hands of the democrats. That’s awfully nice of the GOP, but strategically it would make more sense to wait about a year and then pick up the pieces.

    • Harry says:

      Effectively that’s what is going to happen. The GOP will put up their objections, but the media will skew them and the dreadful Obama law will take effect, but after large scale underemployment and increases in premiums and loss of competitiveness etc. there will be a strong reaction in 2014 and 2016, and healthcare will then have to be corrected. This house of cards will not stand.

    • I have a solution for the family doctor problem that makes sense whether we do Obamacare or not. Set up a new med school in Georgia that trains primary care physicians. Make them sign a contract to go to this med school – you must be a primary care physician if you go here or else you owe us the costs of your education plus 25% of your income in whatever other job you end up doing if you bolt for a higher paying doctor position.

      In exchange for agreeing to be a primary care doctor, we’ll streamline the process, shorter school, less crappy residency. You won’t have student loan debt, but you will start getting your doctor salary (of say $125k/year) when you graduate from school and during your residency.

      In exchange for this, you’ll have a smaller but guaranteed salary that will still put you in the top 5% of wage earners in the country. That would solve our primary care problem, Obamacare or not.

  7. KingRichard says:

    The only way I would agree with seenbetrdayz if there were no groups spared from Obamacare. That means everyone in the same boat, every person including Obama and the rest of these Master Mind Geniuses in DC. If it is so great why did they waive themselves from it???? Utter nonsense!
    Right now so many are excempt from Obamacare or want to excempted from Obamacare.
    Retail Franchise groups want waivers. Who doesn’t want waivers from this awful bill?
    Even Warren Buffett is saying let’s scrap this terrible legislative nightmare and start over…
    The only person who genuinely likes Obamacare is Obama!

    • Harry says:

      Stagflation will be the great equalizer – there will be no escaping it no matter who thinks they have a ticket. The productive class is being pulled down and the effect will hit everyone.

    • The way Congress is treated by Obamacare is a poorly thought out response to the Republicans bs “call our bluff” move asking to be put into the exchange. Congress is essentially a large company that employes thousands of people, they should run their own healthcare system the same way UPS or Coke does under the law, but you Republicans wanted it this way.

    • KingRichard says:

      No one wants Government Controlled HealthCare, not Democratic Senators, Democratic Representatives, the IRS, Federal Government Employee Unions, AFLCIO, not even Obama wants it. They all want it rammed down our throats and forcing us to buy something we may not want. This is not Liberty, this is not Freedom.

      • taylor says:

        Who do you think provides health insurance to democratic senators, representatives, IRS employees, other federal government employees? Been government controlled for years.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      < than $100 is what those 6 million or so people will pay. However, the rest of the cost for their plans is going to be put on the tabs of others, either through tax increases to fund subsidies or increased premiums. With more and more people losing hours of work in companies which are trying to avoid reaching the part-time threshold to provide coverage, I expect the number of people who qualify for the low cost (to them) premiums to grow. And with that growth will come an increased need for subsidies, leading to a vicious cycle that rapidly deteriorates both healthcare quality and the economy.

      • DavidTC says:

        With more and more people losing hours of work in companies which are trying to avoid reaching the part-time threshold to provide coverage, I expect the number of people who qualify for the low cost (to them) premiums to grow. And with that growth will come an increased need for subsidies, leading to a vicious cycle that rapidly deteriorates both healthcare quality and the economy.

        Fee free to _completely ignore_ the fact that right now the government is subsiding all the companies that provide heath insurance by _not taxing it_.

        And free feel to ignore the fact that less people employed full time==more people employed part time, which means less people on Medicaid.

        So, before we had one person, with heath insurance provided by the company, which was subsided by the government failing to tax the benefits (So subsided, roughly, by a third.), and another person on Medicaid with the government subsidizing basically _all_ their health insurance. Now we have two people working part time, neither on Medicaid, with both of whom get subsidized insurance in the exchanges.

        Pretending like it’s some magical wand being waved that suddenly puts the entire burden of health insurance on the government, and beforehand the government was paying nothing, is understandable for conservatives to do, but it’s completely wrong.

  8. northside101 says:

    Cynical opposition to Obamacare? Well, it helped net the GOP 64 House seats—and ended the careers of several southern Democrats, like John Spratt in South Carolina and Travis Childers/Gene Taylor in Mississippi. Obama and his liberal crew basically threw the few remaining somewhat conservative Democrats over the cliff to get health care passed.

    Chris, I didn’t know there were crazy Republican primary voters in every precinct. I assume there are no crazy Democratic precinct voters in the state’s 2,800+ precincts.

    • Sure there are crazy Democratic primary voters as well. The good thing is that in 90% of the districts in the state a reasonable, economic focused Democrat will generally emerge from a Democratic primary. May not win the general, but almost everywhere that the general election is close, a reasonable moderate Democrat wins the primary.

      For Republicans, the potential of a crazy person winning the primary exists pretty much in 100% of their districts – whether the area overall is moderate or conservative. It doesn’t always happen, but the potential is there.

      And yes – the opposition is cynical, seeing as just a few years earlier they were proposing similar plans and the think tanks that they take their cues from were basically coming up with the idea for Obamacare.

  9. saltycracker says:

    Let’s see, the Democrats want every citizen to prove they are insured or exempt, but do not want everyone to have to prove they are a citizen. If you are not a citizen you are entitled to free insurance paid for by citizens. And those without ID should be able to vote but cannot get a fishing license. Got it.

    • benevolus says:

      “Let’s see, the Democrats want every citizen to prove they are insured or exempt, but do not want everyone to have to prove they are a citizen. “
      What is the problem? It’s true we do not want people to have to “show their papers” for any or no reason. But if they are going to get insurance they need to sign up. Conservatives should like that. Apparently you (conservatives?) prefer unreasonable search and seizure.

      Not sure about the free insurance for non-citizens. Where does that come from?

      You have to show a photo ID every time you go fishing?

      • saltycracker says:

        Uh oh, you snuck out of your cave again. No problem with showing my passport or such to prove who I am when registering for any benefit or privileges nor is showing a fishing license if asked. None of that involves unreasonable (absent probable cause) search and seizure which I agree is overboard.
        Insurance in this case = medical coverage which illegals get.

        • benevolus says:

          By the way, I looked it up, you don’t need a photo ID to get a fishing license. You didn’t say “photo ID” but surely that’s what you meant because otherwise your comment doesn’t make any sense.
          So let’s recap:
          You agree with Dems about not having to show ID on demand for no reason.
          You agree with Dems about having to show ID to get services.
          You apparently disagree with Dems (and most everyone else) that everyone should get emergency care whether they can pay or not.
          You agree with Dems that you shouldn’t have to have a photo ID to get a fishing license.

          • Harry says:

            I have to show a photo ID to get in an IRS district office and before I talk to an IRS representative, to get my drivers license renewed, and sometimes to simply use a credit card or cash a check.

            • benevolus says:

              Perhaps you look suspicious because I haven’t had to show a photo ID to speak with an IRS person.
              Besides, what has any of that got to do with the basic right of voting?

              Never mind. You win. Not worth discussing yet again. I concede. Cashing a check is JUST LIKE voting.

              • Harry says:

                If you went to the IRS and didn’t show an ID to talk about your taxpayer account, how did they know it’s you?

Comments are closed.