McConnell says Senate Republicans might revisit Obamacare repeal

[webfact]

McConnell says Senate Republicans might revisit Obamacare repeal

By David Morgan

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) speaks during an interview with Reuters in Washington, U.S., October 17, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans could try again to repeal Obamacare if they win enough seats in U.S. elections next month, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said on Wednesday, calling a failed 2017 push to repeal the healthcare law a "disappointment."

 

In a forecast of 2019 policy goals tempered by uncertainty about who would win the congressional elections, McConnell blamed social programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, for the fast-rising national debt.

 

On Nov. 6, Americans will vote for candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives.

 

McConnell's Republicans now hold majority control of both chambers. Democrats will try to wrest control in races for all 435 House seats and one-third of the 100 Senate seats.

 

Despite their dominance of Congress and the White House, Republicans failed last year to overturn former President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, known as Obamacare. McConnell called it "the one disappointment of this Congress from a Republican point of view."

 

He said, "If we had the votes to completely start over, we'd do it. But that depends on what happens in a couple weeks ... We're not satisfied with the way Obamacare is working."

 

McConnell's comments drew a sharp reaction from Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and other Democrats, who have sought to portray the Republican healthcare effort as an attack on the middle class.

 

"If Republicans retain the Senate they will do everything they can to take away families' health care and raise their costs," Schumer said in a statement. "Americans should take Senator McConnell at his word."

 

President Donald Trump favors ending Obamacare, which Republicans criticized as a costly and unneeded intrusion on Americans' healthcare. About 20 million Americans have received health insurance coverage through the program, a landmark legislative achievement for Obama and Democrats.

 

SOCIAL PROGRAMS

On social programs, McConnell said in an interview with Reuters, "Entitlements are the long-term drivers of the debt."

 

Social programs that help the poor, the aged, the unemployed, veterans and the disabled are often referred to as "entitlements" in Washington. These also include Medicaid.

 

"We all know that there will be no solution to that, short of some kind of bipartisan grand bargain that makes the very, very popular entitlement programs be in a position to be sustained. That hasn't happened since the '80s," McConnell said.

 

"But at some point we will have to sit down on a bipartisan basis and address the long-term drivers of the debt."

 

Trump's top budget official, Mick Mulvaney, said in an interview with Fox News Channel that what had the big impact in pushing up the deficit this year was discretionary spending, including hurricane relief.

 

"Social Security and Medicare are a challenge to the deficit several years out. Right now, they're actually not what's driving the deficit this year," Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said.

 

The Treasury Department this week reported a 2018 budget deficit of $779 billion, the highest since 2012.

 

The report cited higher military spending as a reason for the increase and showed government revenues were flat after deep tax cuts pushed through late last year by Republicans, despite a growing economy and rising spending levels.

 

McConnell said Republicans would take a hard look at funding for discretionary domestic programs next year, saying he reluctantly agreed to increased discretionary spending this year to get Democrats to accept more military spending.

 

"We had to negotiate with the Democrats and spend more on the domestic side than I would have preferred," McConnell said.

 

"We'll have to sit down again and decide what we're going to do with our annual discretionary spending after the first of the year and see what kind of agreements we can reach."

 

Trump on Wednesday asked his cabinet for proposals to cut their budgets by five percent.

 

(Reporting by David Morgan. Additional reporting by David Shepardson, Richard Cowan, Amanda Becker, Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Alistair Bell)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-10-18

[bristolboy]

First McConnell talks about cutting back on Social Security and other entitlements. Now it's Obamacare. Polls show Obamacare and its rule that precludes rejecting people with pre-existing conditions or charging them higher rates to be very popular. So popular that Republicans proposed a fake bill that said people with pre-existing conditions have the right to buy insurance. What they didn't say was that insurers would have the right to exclude coverage related to those pre-existing conditions. This is one issue the Republicans are running scared on. 

Maybe McConnell is secretly working for the DNC?

[mtls2005]

Given how important "Health Care" is polling it is very hard to figure out why McConnell is bringing this up now. Much better to prevaricate about protecting pre-existing conditions, and imply the Dems will take away Medicare, then wait until after the election to gut the ACA, for which premiums are expected to decrease.

[Longcut]

As a Libertarian, I am in favor of everyone having access to medical care. Notice I said, "access". 

BUT, YOU DON’T HAVE A RIGHT TO OTHER PEOPLE’S LABOR.

I constantly see the left demand “free” stuff be provided to everyone at the expense of everyone else. Underlying their demands is a serious moral contention worth discussing. In essence, they would coerce a producer into service and compel other people to pay the costs.

This position, however, ignores the premise of their argument: coercing or confiscating labor is, by definition, slavery. Even if you think it’s for the “greater good” you are still imposing a form of slavery. Slave owners of the 19^th century easily could have argued (and did) that the production of goods with slavery contributed to a “greater good” – that is, lower prices for consumers via low-cost supply increases.

Not many people, even leftists, would assert that confiscating 100% of one’s labor is a morally justifiable means. Why then do some find it morally justifiable to confiscate 50% or more of one’s labor via taxation or “universal” government programs? The principal remains the same, but feel-good nomenclature inexplicably justifies it.

They have taken a dangerous position, to say the least, and one that opens the door to any number of state-enforced possibilities.

Any “universal” goods policy sounds like a noble cause and, at face value, certainly appeals to the populists. Rarely is it asked how this will be achieved; let alone who will achieve it.

 They say, “what about public school teachers? Police and military? Are we compelling their labor? The same can be true for doctors!”

This is a bait-and-switch argument. For one, we do compel the labor of teachers, whether it be joining unions or accepting state-issued employment contracts. The police and military, which are generally accepted as “traditional forms of government”, serve with the intent of providing a greater good – local or national security. Whether they do that now or not is entirely another debate, but that’s their intention of joining those ranks.

On the other hand, no one becomes a doctor so they can provide “free” healthcare to people. Who would incur debt and time just to give away their accomplishment for “free” or a less-than-desired price? Charitable doctors do exist, but they are not the primary form of medical care. Police follow their path to serve the community, whereas doctors also intend to profit.

In other words, the principal of compelling labor to provide for the general good cannot be extended to every profession, specialist, and producer. 

[mtls2005]

12 minutes ago, Longcut said:

As a Libertarian, I am in favor of everyone having access to medical care. Notice I said, "access". 

 

So under this premise please help me understand firefighting, police, public schools, free roads, libraries, weather forecasting, hurricane advisories, air traffic control, military - phew I'm tired.

 

We can have "access"? Do we have to buy some sort of pass?

 

15 minutes ago, Longcut said:

generally accepted as “traditional forms of government”, serve with the intent of providing a greater good

 

So some forms are "acceptable"? That's a slippery slope you're on there.

 

17 minutes ago, Longcut said:

no one becomes a doctor so they can provide “free” healthcare to people.

Most people become doctors to help people.

 

Maybe lay off the Ayn Rand for a while?

 

 

Universal healthcare is generally, i.e. most civilized countries, recognized as a HUGE benefit for everyone. Most countries seem to manage it fine. No clue why we can't - I mean forgetting for a moment the lobbying power of the healthcare/insurance/pharma industries.

[Longcut]

1 hour ago, mtls2005 said:

 

So under this premise please help me understand firefighting, police, public schools, free roads, libraries, weather forecasting, hurricane advisories, air traffic control, military - phew I'm tired.

 

We can have "access"? Do we have to buy some sort of pass?

 

 

So some forms are "acceptable"? That's a slippery slope you're on there.

 

Most people become doctors to help people.

 

Maybe lay off the Ayn Rand for a while?

 

 

Universal healthcare is generally, i.e. most civilized countries, recognized as a HUGE benefit for everyone. Most countries seem to manage it fine. No clue why we can't - I mean forgetting for a moment the lobbying power of the healthcare/insurance/pharma industries.

Police, firefighters, and such are public servants. Doctors are not. If a doctor cannot be forced to accept Medicare or Tricare patients in the case of the military. Then how can they justify forcing them to accept ACA patients at a rate dictated by the government?

 Is this not the same as stealing ones labor? After all, the government has no right to tell someone how much they should charge to build someone a house. 

 

[ehs818]

McConnell is one lying P.O.S. If they had the votes they'd do it over? Dude, no one has ever stopped RepubliKKKans from offering a better program-or for participating in the creation of ACA, the proper name for ObamaCare. Idiot! Do what the American citizens want. Create a program that covers all and is fair. Extend Medicare for all by lowering the age of eligibility from the current age of 65, down by 5 years. Continue that direction every 2 years, adding more and more to its roles. Immediately cover all children thru age 18. Extend that coverage age by raising it up by 5 years every two years. Do that every 2 years, and within a decade all will be covered. Pay for it by rescinding the Trump Tax Scam. Pay back Social Security and put all members of Congress on the same plan as the citizens. Congress should make no law that they are exempt from.

[Emdog]

Hey Mitch! Go talk to your boss Trump and get that plan he said would cover everyone with better and cheaper health care. He promised he'd do it, starting day 1.

Facts (remember those things?) are that universal care is far cheaper than current US system on per capita base. US pays far more than anyone else and with worse outcomes. Just savings in administration costs would be significant.

[rudi49jr]

6 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

 

So under this premise please help me understand firefighting, police, public schools, free roads, libraries, weather forecasting, hurricane advisories, air traffic control, military - phew I'm tired.

 

We can have "access"? Do we have to buy some sort of pass?

 

 

So some forms are "acceptable"? That's a slippery slope you're on there.

 

Most people become doctors to help people.

 

Maybe lay off the Ayn Rand for a while?

 

 

Universal healthcare is generally, i.e. most civilized countries, recognized as a HUGE benefit for everyone. Most countries seem to manage it fine. No clue why we can't - I mean forgetting for a moment the lobbying power of the healthcare/insurance/pharma industries.

Spot on, couldn't have said it better myself

[Tug]

Gotta finance Donald’s tax break those rich guys are really suffering don’t worry if you or your wife gets sick they can milk your estate till dry then let you die and leave the rest of your family homeless it’s the republican way tax the hell out of you and get nothing in return

[oldrunner]

Hey Mitch McConnell; Social Security isn't a burden on the Government, it is a payback of money ILLEGALLY STOLEN from we who worked and paid into the fund every month. Now that we are old enough to get a measly check, not close to what we would have had if we had put it into a savings account, we are considered a "tax burden". Screw you and all the Washington crooks. Some clever lawyer should get us to sign up for a mass liable suit to take the lost interest from current and retired Senators and Congress  persons. How do you come to Wash, D.C. on a $78,000 salary and in two years amass $12.000,000. Maybe selling votes?

[Langsuan Man]

These Republicans really think that they are bullet proof, just wait till November, seriously, who haven't the Republicans pissed off ?

 

They are polling in negative numbers among minorities and woman yet they keep sprouting stupid sh...

 

And they are getting lot's of local bad press due to their gerrymandering and voter ID laws.  Grass roots organizations have sprung up all over the US as a result of these anti voting initiatives to insure that people can vote

 

The Republicans just don't understand that when you try and deny one person's right to vote you anger not just that person but lot's of other citizens who will go to extremes to insure that everyone can vote  

 

 

[Ulic]

10 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

 

So under this premise please help me understand firefighting, police, public schools, free roads, libraries, weather forecasting, hurricane advisories, air traffic control, military - phew I'm tired.

 

We can have "access"? Do we have to buy some sort of pass?

 

 

So some forms are "acceptable"? That's a slippery slope you're on there.

 

Most people become doctors to help people.

 

Maybe lay off the Ayn Rand for a while?

 

 

Universal healthcare is generally, i.e. most civilized countries, recognized as a HUGE benefit for everyone. Most countries seem to manage it fine. No clue why we can't - I mean forgetting for a moment the lobbying power of the healthcare/insurance/pharma industries.

 

The problem is while the "civilized" western countries subsidize their economies through healthcare the USA subsidizes theirs through military spending (the military industrial complex). No lobby is better organized and connected to politicians. 

[pegman]

5 hours ago, Ulic said:

The problem is while the "civilized" western countries subsidize their economies through healthcare the USA subsidizes theirs through military spending (the military industrial complex). No lobby is better organized and connected to politicians. 

True, it gets some competition from both the Israel and gun lobbies but is a clear number one.

[sirineou]

17 hours ago, Longcut said:

As a Libertarian, I am in favor of everyone having access to medical care. Notice I said, "access". 

Yes I noticed you said "access" and not AFFORDABLE ACCESS

[mtls2005]

8 hours ago, Ulic said:

No lobby is better organized and connected to politicians. 

 

Meh...

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/257364/top-lobbying-industries-in-the-us/

[Chomper Higgot]

22 hours ago, Longcut said:

As a Libertarian, I am in favor of everyone having access to medical care. Notice I said, "access". 

BUT, YOU DON’T HAVE A RIGHT TO OTHER PEOPLE’S LABOR.

I constantly see the left demand “free” stuff be provided to everyone at the expense of everyone else. Underlying their demands is a serious moral contention worth discussing. In essence, they would coerce a producer into service and compel other people to pay the costs.

This position, however, ignores the premise of their argument: coercing or confiscating labor is, by definition, slavery. Even if you think it’s for the “greater good” you are still imposing a form of slavery. Slave owners of the 19^th century easily could have argued (and did) that the production of goods with slavery contributed to a “greater good” – that is, lower prices for consumers via low-cost supply increases.

Not many people, even leftists, would assert that confiscating 100% of one’s labor is a morally justifiable means. Why then do some find it morally justifiable to confiscate 50% or more of one’s labor via taxation or “universal” government programs? The principal remains the same, but feel-good nomenclature inexplicably justifies it.

They have taken a dangerous position, to say the least, and one that opens the door to any number of state-enforced possibilities.

Any “universal” goods policy sounds like a noble cause and, at face value, certainly appeals to the populists. Rarely is it asked how this will be achieved; let alone who will achieve it.

 They say, “what about public school teachers? Police and military? Are we compelling their labor? The same can be true for doctors!”

This is a bait-and-switch argument. For one, we do compel the labor of teachers, whether it be joining unions or accepting state-issued employment contracts. The police and military, which are generally accepted as “traditional forms of government”, serve with the intent of providing a greater good – local or national security. Whether they do that now or not is entirely another debate, but that’s their intention of joining those ranks.

On the other hand, no one becomes a doctor so they can provide “free” healthcare to people. Who would incur debt and time just to give away their accomplishment for “free” or a less-than-desired price? Charitable doctors do exist, but they are not the primary form of medical care. Police follow their path to serve the community, whereas doctors also intend to profit.

In other words, the principal of compelling labor to provide for the general good cannot be extended to every profession, specialist, and producer. 

 

“BUT, YOU DON’T HAVE A RIGHT TO OTHER PEOPLE’S LABOR.”

 

Meaningless hogwash, in no way improved by capitalization.

[mtls2005]

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“BUT, YOU DON’T HAVE A RIGHT TO OTHER PEOPLE’S LABOR.”

 

Meaningless hogwash, in no way improved by capitalization.

 

It's a mantra, hence the CAPs, I guess. Libertarians.