Repealing Health Law - Campaign Promises and Reality

Over the weekend, Wall Street Journal reporter Louise Radnofsky wrote a piece titled "Repeal Health Law? It Won't Be Easy". The piece focuses primarily on the obstacles associated with repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, aka Obama Care). Repeal of PPACA has become a common campaign promise by the majority of GOP contenders, however, not all have provided exact measures they would take to do so. Additionally, for candidates such as Mitt Romney who have a specific plan in place, it is important to recognize there are many "what if" scenarios surrounding their plan, such that if certain contingencies - such as a Republican majority in the Senate - do not fall into place, there is little chance of Gov. Romney's plan of succeeding.

The steps lawmakers in Washington are taking to make PPACA irrelevant are divided based on the constitutional powers grated to either the House or Senate. As Radnofsky points out:

---In the House, some Republicans have been studying ways to choke off funds for the law while working toward repeal, while in the Senate Republicans are pushing bills to knock out specific pieces of the law.---

When we consider the two-part plan as proposed by Gov. Romney, the inherent flaws are more than evident.

---Mr. Romney has proposed signing an executive order on "day one" offering waivers to any governor who wants his or her state to opt out of the law. His rivals note that by law, such waivers can't take effect before 2017. The move would also leave untouched the focus of conservative opposition: the requirement that individuals carry insurance or pay a fee.

Mr. Romney said he would follow this on "day two" with legislation to repeal the law, using a Senate tactic called budget reconciliation. That would require only 51 votes to succeed, a total the GOP might reach after next year's election.

But under the rules, such a bill would tackle only parts of the legislation that relate directly to the budget. Anything else would require 60 votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster, and few see Republicans notching that number.---

While Gov. Romney's plan seems inclusive, it is evident that there exists no single "silver bullet" from the executive branch that can completely nullify PPACA.  Rather, we must rely on the Congress and the Supreme Court to defend the Constitution.  For those who ever questioned why we have 3 separate branches of government, I believe this is a great illustration.  The founders knew when they wrote the Constitution that without division of power (checks and balances), our great country would surely turn into the very same government they fought off in the American Revolution. 

In a more granular political view, Radnofsky goes into an explanation as to the specific budget challenges inherent in the reconciliation process.  If you would like to read more about this, I would suggest reading the article.  My focus is more on the disconnect between how PPACA may actually be repealed and the promises being made by the GOP candidates, rather than the challenges themselves.  The article can be found here.

Musings from a recent email - First post on Questioning with Boldness

I frequently exchange emails with a close friend of mine to discuss current events published in the news and mainstream media. We usually stick to economics, finance, taxes and how they relate to the current GOP Presidential candidates. The excerpt below is from one such exchange discussing Ron Paul's recently unveiled economic plan. Overall, I think Paul's plan has some positives, but I also think it is missing some key points as well. I will discuss the finer points of his plan in a later post. For now I would like to share with you part of my email, discussing the larger issue underlying much of the problems America faces.

--I think all the candidates (with the exception of Rick Santorum) are short sighting their view on the economic situation. Sure, the country is wreck, and there are a lot of things we need to change (tax policy, etc...) to get things back on track. But in the grand scheme of things, they are really only patches for a much larger problem. I agree with Santorum that the root of our problems in this country is ourselves, and the America family. We need to first focus on fixing our homes and our families before we can start fixing the country. Value systems have largely eroded in the last 75-100 years, and I don't think the majority of people in this country truly understand what it means to be an American. Our founders had principled beliefs in a higher power, and that their existence on this Earth was all part of a much larger scheme (God's plan). And yes, while we do have the physical distinction between powers of church and state, I do not believe that means there is a separation between the values that come out of faith, and the state. We really need to press pause for a while and do some self reflection. Ask the hard questions. Is this the America that our founders had intended for us, or have we perverted their message? What do we need to do to restore America, so that the same promises laid out generations before us will have an opportunity to appear once again for those that will succeed us in time. It all goes back to the American family, and fixing our home. Only then can we make truly principled decisions. As Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence - "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor". How can a system of government, built on a belief in divine providence, survive without those same values and principles? "A house divided against itself cannot stand" ~ Abraham Lincoln.--