|
Tag Archives: Republican
Elections and the New Health Care Law
Yesterday was obviously a huge day in politics that will have a big impact on health care and other progressive issues. While it was certainly a dissappointing day, our collective job is to keep fighting to make sure the new law is fully implemented and fulfills its promise. I know people have lots of questions about the election and health care. For starters, below is a Huffington Post blog entry from HCAN‘s Ethan Rome on the federal elections.
In Soldarity,
Melinda Gibson
Here’s a crucial fact that should not be obscured by the ballyhoo surrounding the shift in control of the House: Most of the Republicans who won last night got a lower percentage at the ballot box than the percentage of Americans who support the new health care law‘s requirement that insurance companies cover people regardless of pre-existing medical conditions.
That’s why yesterday was hardly a repudiation of the health care law.
Furthermore, this election was clearly dominated by voter worries about the economy and jobs. Only 19 percent of voters named health care as their top concern, a distant second to the 61 percent most focused on the economy, according to CNN. There were winners and losers among both supporters and opponents of health reform. For example, more than half of the 34 Democrats who voted against the health care legislation still lost their races.
After a wildly toxic political debate over the issue, people are split over the larger question of “reform” and key components of the law enjoy overwhelming public support. Specifically, over the last several months, even as the public has been divided on reform, two-thirds of Americans have supported the outlawing of pre-existing condition exclusions (Anzalone Liszt Research poll conducted for the Herndon Alliance of 1,000 2010 likely voters, conducted April 19-25, 2010. Margin of error +/-3%). For example, while a recent New York Times/CBS poll showed the public split over on the new law, only one-quarter of repeal supporters stuck with their position when told repeal would mean that insurance companies would no longer be required to cover people with medical conditions or prior illnesses.
This is the reality even after a contentious political season marked by an unprecedented deluge of attack ads that spread one lie after another about health reform. In fact, opponents of the new law spent $108 million since March to advertise against it – six times more than supporters.
That’s something members of the new Republican majority will have to navigate as they square real-world legislative proposals on health care (if they have any) with their campaign rhetoric about repeal. They may try on Day One to repeal the health care law’s individual mandate, but they can’t do that without also throwing out the many new consumer protections, including the prohibition on insurers denying people care simply because they’re sick or ending lifetime limits on coverage. Both of those provisions are more popular with the American public than the Republicans are.
The Republicans also talk about de-funding the law, interfering with its implementation and holding endless oversight hearings to gratuitously harass Obama administration officials. That’s not progress, that’s pointless, cynical politics.
We all know that the law is not going to be repealed, so the debateisn’t going to be about what gets done–it will be about defining whose side members of Congress are on. For Republican repeal-mongers, that will be clear. They’re for the insurance companies and against consumers.
The Republicans want to protect the excessive profits of the insurance companies and the bloated salaries of company CEOs, no matter how badly that hurts America’s consumers. That’s what repeal means. It means rolling back the clock and letting the insurance companies deny people coverage due to pre-existing conditions and drop people’s coverage when they get sick. It means that small businesses will continue paying higher rates for health insurance than big corporations. It means repealing measures to cut down waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare. It means opposing much-needed relief in prescription drug costs for seniors. That’s the Republican repeal agenda – the insurance companies get the profits and we get the shaft.
The American people don’t want to give our health care back to the insurance companies. Repeal would cause real harm to real people. That may not matter to the Republican majority, but it matters a great deal to the people they now represent.
Share this:
What happened yesterday
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Share this:
Election of Our Lifetimes
Tomorrow, the American people will vote in the election of our lifetimes.
This long campaign has tested our resolve. Tomorrow, we will show the pundits, the Republicans, and the world how Democrats rise to the challenge.
In the next 24 hours, I am asking you to do two things: Cast your vote in this historic election and help us protect the votes of every single American.
We have already sent every last dollar to our campaigns. Now we must have the resources in place to put legal teams on the ground so we may act quickly to challenge any election irregularities and protect every last voter.
Contribute $5, $10 or more in the next 24 hours to ensure that every vote is counted fairly.
I know that you have been asked to do a lot in this campaign. I cannot thank you enough for everything that you have already done.
With so many races that are too-close-to-call, we cannot allow any act of voter suppression to keep another Democrat from winning, not with so much at stake for the American people.
Please rush a generous contribution to protect every last voter in this election.
Onward to a great Democratic victory tomorrow!
Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
Share this:
Election: An Extreme Makeover
During the current campaign season, many Republican candidates have pushed to revive failed and unpopular policies from the GOP past, such as eliminating the Department of Education or privatizing Social Security. “We need to get back to transferring many of the powers of the federal government to the states,” said Alaska’s Republican Senate nominee Joe Miller, calling for the abolition of Social Security as we know it. “I’d start by eliminating the U.S. Department of Education at a cost of $50 billion and then move on to Housing and Urban Development,” said Utah Republican Senate nominee Mike Lee. Lee’s call was echoed by Nevada’s Republi can Senate nominee Sharron Angle, who said, “I would like to go through to the elimination. I think we start by defunding it, and the reason that we should eliminate it is because its not the federal government’s job to provide education for our children.” And these newcomers to the national political stage may find many sympathetic ears in the incumbent Congress, as the GOP’s shift to the right and embrace of the Tea Party has caused it to espouse an extreme anti-government zeal. These ideas — and others becoming part of the mainstream right wing, like ending the 14th amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship — highlight the extreme policy positions that have come to define the modern-day conservative movement and the candidates that it has adopted.
PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY : In 2005, President George W. Bush attempted to privatize Social Security, but the effort fell flat in the face of wide public opposition. Bush now says his greatest failure was not privatizing Social Security, and many Republicans are attempting to succeed where Bush did not. According to a Center for American Progress Action Fund review, 104 Republicans in Congress have, at one point or another, supported privatizing Social Security. In all, 47 percent of House Republicans and 49 percent of Senate Republicans are on record in support of the idea. Many Republican candidates for the Senate — including Pat Toomey (PA), Ken Buck (CO), John Boozman (AR), and Rob Portman (OH) — have also proposed some form of privatization. This push comes despite the 2008 turmoil in the stock market, which would have cost an October 2008 retiree almost $30,000 in lost savings. In the end, creating private Social Security accounts would impose new risks on seniors , create new administrative costs and benefit reductions, and wouldn’t even set the Social Security system on a path to solvency. In fact, such a move would force the federal government into trillions of dollars of new borrowing, as money that should have gone into the general Social Security system gets diverted into the creation of personal accounts. This is an unnecessary risk, as more than 13 million seniors (and 20 million people in all ) are kept out of poverty only because of Social Security.
ABOLISHING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION : As recently as 1996, the Republican Party platform declared, “The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education.” However, multiple bills attempting to do so were stymied in Congress. As ThinkProgress’ Scott Keyes pointed out, “The last time the Republicans made a concerted effort to eliminate the Department of Education in 1995, they ran into a strong public backlash. Polling conducted by Hart Research Associates found that 80 percent of respondents in June 1995 wanted the Department of Education to be maintained, while just 17% wanted it eliminated.” And evidently not much has changed, as a new New York Times/CBS poll found that education funding is the last area in which respondents would like to see spending cuts. But that hasn’t stopped plenty of GOP candidates — 36 in all — from advocating for the Department’s abolition. And those candidates would find plenty of like-minded colleagues in Congress, as 75 incumbents have also supported the idea in the past. The Department of Education is currently responsible for the federal student loan program, Pell Grants, and education reform programs like the Teacher Incentive Fund and Race to the Top.
ENDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP : In April, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), after previously working with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on crafting an immigration reform package, proposed that the 14th amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship should be overturned. “I’m looking at the laws that exist and see if it makes sense today,” Graham said. “Birthright citizenship doesn’t make so much sense when you understand the world as it is.” While Graham’s declaration was challenged by conservatives outside of Congress — Mark McKinnon, a former Republican adviser to President Bush, said, " ;The 14th Amendment is a great legacy of the Republican party. It is a shame and an embarrassment that the GOP now wants to amend it for starkly political reasons” — Graham’s idea received a very different reception on Capitol Hill, with Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) all saying Congress should at least hold hearings on the issue. In all, 130 Republicans in Congress want to consider ending the 14th amendment’s citizenship guarantee, which amounts to nearly 60 percent of the Republicans in Congress. As Keyes put it, “Ending birthright citizenship is no idle belief in the GOP caucus. Rather, Republicans have been pushing this idea for n early two decades, introducing 28 separate bills to eliminate birthright citizenship since 1995.”
Be a Seed for Change 
You must be logged in to post a comment.