Hey, Alison Grimes, why not mention THIS? Ah … because it would require a sentence or two of substantive explanation.
Given the exceedingly favorable atmosphere for Republicans this fall, McConnell’s direction on Obamacare has been closely watched as he both battles for reelection against Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes and as the GOP prepares for Senate control for the first time since 2006.
McConnell’s office said there are multiple avenues that a GOP Senate would have to attack Obamacare — particularly through budget reconciliation, a parliamentary maneuver that would require only 51 votes but would not be equivalent to the standalone repeal votes that have frequented the House.
Reconciliation was omitted during the Tuesday Fox News hit, but has not been dropped from McConnell’s game plan, particularly given that individual mandate was ruled by the Supreme Court to be a tax and could be reversed by a majority vote.
— McConnell reassures GOP on Obamacare opposition, Burgess Everett, Politico, today
Awesome! Out of the mouths of babes. (One babe, anyway, albeit not a very cute one.)
Might Bill or Hillary Clinton be willing to cut an ad or web video pointing out what this means? As in: Hey, all you Kentuckians who now have healthcare insurance through Kynect or the Medicaid expansion won’t, come 2016, if McConnell succeeds in his plan?
And, all you folks in, say, Iowa, Colorado, Arkansas and Alaska: How do you think that that shutting-down-the-government thing will work out for ya next year?
Grimes has absolutely nothing to lose by making these points herself this weekend. And the DSCC doesn’t, either; it’s committed money for the last few days of the campaign—something it probably now regrets. But Kentucky apparently doesn’t have early voting, so it’s still theoretically possible for these last few days to make a difference in the election’s outcome.
The silver lining in a Grimes loss will be the end of the idea, finally, that if you’re a Democrat running in a red state, you shouldn’t run as, y’know, a Democrat. But of course a surprise win for Grimes as a result of a very late campaign posture as a Democrat would not undermine that lesson.
It could be on the air by tomorrow.
“The silver lining in a Grimes loss will be the end of the idea, finally, that if you’re a Democrat running in a red state, you shouldn’t run as, y’know, a Democrat.”
I don’t know about this. I think these Dem’s think like Repubs all the way. It’s not the strategy that fails, it’s the one applying it that failed the strategy.
Individual mandate’s impact overblown
Yeah I get risk pools but is there really evidence that outside the pool of Glibertarian Fanboys that there is more than a theoretical interest in going uninsured as opposed to accepting various levels of subsidy?
Because you start slicing the demographics kind of slim here. For example there are a LOT of 20 something Glibs who are in fact covered under their employer paid health plan. I mean sure there are some coders out there working as 1099 contractors who consider themselves two kinds of Randites (Paul and Ayn) and two kinds of Paulites (Ron and Rand) and who Go Galt in their personal lives. But now that ACA and its Exchanges and Subsidies are actually up and running how many people when actually faced with the cost/benefit ratio of getting covered (and for a lot of Invincibles that just means signing up for Medicaid in Expanding States, because they are working part time in shit jobs anyway) are really going to go bare?
Not to go too far afield hear but a lot of those on the Right opposed to Individual Mandates are akin to those on the Left devoted to Heightening the Contradictions. That is they themselves actually have their asses covered with insurance or are not particularly exposed to the Contradictions but don’t mind the working class people on each of their side getting screwed. Because Freedom. Or Revolution. Depending.
So yeah McConnell can attack the Individual Mandate. And maybe if they had been able to gut ACA before a lot of people exposed to the Individual Mandate actually figured out thery could get insured at little or minimal cost it might have crippled the overall system. Because I suspect a whole lot of say those 500,000 people covered under Kynect imagined the worst when they were on the outside. But now they are inside. Leaving exactly what constituency AGAINST the Individual Mandate?
Bruce:
It is popular to attack the mandate as people do not like doing what they are told. It gives then the air of being truly free almost like riding a motorcycle without a helmet, having a $10,000 medical policy (Michigan), and claiming the head injuries are not as fatal as bodily injuries. My answer to them and those who wish to streak naked through our lives placing a burden on us for their care is to sign a DNR and non-care contract. So when you are exposed to kryptonite and your super human attributes fail to give you invincibility, you die quietly in the corner of some alley.
I agree people like being able to get care when they need it and not have to decide if they can get by without it. McConnell and the rest of the naysayers ought to streak naked without coverage and pharma for six months or so to get the experience.
And yet Bruce, the polls show the repubs are to take control. I just don’t get it.
Question Alison should be asking (that connects with the majority of voters instead of mostly the unlucky and lazy uninsured: Why does Mitch McConnell want to eliminate your right to get insurance if you lose your job? If he claims that’s not what he wants he is not telling you the truth. (It’s the one question Democrats should have been asking of their opponents everywhere. Focusing on all the poor people now insured is missing the connection to the majority.)
The mandate? Do you want to pay for the person who shows up at the hospital without insurance? Is that fair to you?
It takes work to simplify enough to communicate quickly and truthfully. Too many Democrats will not do the work they need to do. The result: mush, and Republicans get a free pass for advocating things Americans don’t want..
Run, you know what they call motorcycle riders without helmets: organ donors.
The questions here remind me of the 2 laws of american politics:
1> Republicans cannot be seen as explicitly pro-racism. ( see also Atwater, Lee 1981 interview re: “southern strategy” )
2> Democrats cannot be seen as explicitly helping poor people. ( see also Clinton, Bill re: “welfare reform” )
Daniel the email I received this morning from the DCCC may prove illuminating. They justify bothering me endlessly for money (presumably to allow them to bother more people with their ads and fundraising efforts) with the following recap of the last 6 years:
“Expanded Health Care for Millions” (An idea from the Heritage Foundation, passed 4 years ago)
“Pulled the Country out of the Great Recession” (really?)
“Repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (Correcting a pitifully bad idea from the last Democratic administration)
Beyond that their case appears to be “We’re not republicans” Ok then. (No exaggeration that’s a verbatim quote from their email this morning).
Protecting workers rights to organize? Holding banks accountable for illegal and fraudulent practices? Curbing abuse of air and water by energy industry fracking or other practices? Protecting students from debt peonage to private diploma mills? Ending disastrous wars of empire in the middle east? Curbing excesses of the police state wrt illegal surveillance? Expanding access to jobs with investment in badly needed infrastructure? Protecting consumers from abusive practices by ISPs? Maintaining citizen’s access to the ballot? Etc?
Sorry, it’s a big bag o’ nothin.
As I pointed out in an open letter on another thread, if they could have managed to even make the GOP uncomfortable on any of these or many other issues I not only would have been willing to write more checks but they probably wouldn’t be so necessary. So it would have been win-win. More money from me, and you don’t have to spend so much beating people over the head with this pitifully useless argument.
And if anybody in the “Ready For Hillary” camp thinks she has an easy coronation coming over whatever bug-eyed lunatic the GOP nominates, I’d like to offer up one of my many lovely bridges for sale.
If the next 2 years don’t amount to an amazing turnaround regarding actual policy, 2016 will be no better. I’m not optimistic.
This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen a piitlocal party do. I’m not really surprised that they are doubling down on the culture war issues, because if the economy continues to improve, that’s all they’ll have to run on, but the Blunt Amendment is a serious departure from the party’s intended message.It’s one thing to want to ban birth control; it’s another to push for a company’s right to determine what health care you can and can’t have access to for any moral reasons whatsoever.The only moral imperative most companies recognize is padding the bottom line. That being the case, I would argue that more companies are likely to use the Blunt Amendment to slash coverage for pre-natal care, childbirth, and maternity leave than they are to eliminate it for birth control. Abortion will always be cheaper than paying for all of that. There are still a lot of older women out there who remember the days when you could be fired from a job for getting pregnant or having a baby. At one point, stewardesses could be fired for even getting married. All a company will need to do under the Blunt Amendment to order a woman to have an abortion is make a moral case that a woman has had too many children already (and for certain races, one is probably too many), or that she will not be able to juggle motherhood and her job.I can see how some conservatives would be cheering this, but it isn’t just inconsistent with the pro-life arguments that are supposedly justifying it, but it is actually fundamentally opposed to them. The Blunt Amendment might be more accurately called the Have an abortion or be fired law.I suppose the GOP is thinking that the culture war stuff is good for getting the pro-lifers out to the ballot box, but this the worst example of poor message disclipline I’ve ever seen. Even fairly committed Republicans won’t be able to avoid hearing about the bill’s other consequences before long. The GOP has basically found a way to highlight the difference between being pro-life and anti-choice, something liberals have never entirely succeeded at, and they’ve produced a bill that eradicates a woman’s right to choose without protecting the unborn at all. It’s a failure on every level.