GOP Builds its Strategy to Fight "Obamacare"

As Republicans prepare to exert more control in Congress and mount a challenge to President Obama, they are building a strategy to attempt to follow through on their promise to dismantle the health care law signed by the president in March - which they deem "Obamacare." Members of the GOP are stepping up their support for lawsuits challenging the Democrats' health care reform package, planning ways to pick apart at unpopular provisions in the bill, and preparing for a series of congressional hearings to put new scrutiny on the legislation.

One of the boldest challenges to the law underway is a lawsuit by 20 states seeking to void the health care overhaul. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a potential 2012 GOP presidential contender, filed a motion on Thursday, asking a federal judge to allow him to file a friend of the court brief in the legal battle. Rhode Island Gov. Donald Carcieri joined Pawlenty in filing the brief.

When asked on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday whether repealing the health care overhaul would be a major part of his platform in a potential presidential run, Pawlenty answered in the affirmatively. He's already taken steps to thwart the bill's implementation in Minnesota.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell this week also declared his intention to file a friend of the court brief in the "Obamacare" challenge and urged his Republican colleagues to join him. The case is expected to ultimately go before the Supreme Court.

McConnell said on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday that the Republicans "owe it to the American people" to try to repeal health care reform.

While they fight the package in court, Republicans will also try to dismantle the bill in the halls of Congress. In the Senate, where Democrats will maintain their majority next year, Republicans are hoping to persuade certain moderate Democrats to join them in repealing certain provisions of the bill, Politico reports. Those Democrats include incoming West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Jim Webb of Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana.

Some elements of the legislation appear to be low-hanging fruit, such as a provision that requires businesses to fill out more tax forms. Democrats and Republicans are largely in agreement that the requirement was a mistake, but the parties have differences over how to make up for the cash that would be lost if the provision were repealed. Nevertheless, seven Democratic senators sided with Republicans, who wanted to simply scale back other elements of the bill in response to the lost revenue.

There are also reportedly some Democrats opposed to the bill that sets up the Independent Payment Advisory Board, an entity proposed for the sole purpose of scaling back costly Medicare expenses. The IPAB, set to take action in 2018, has already come under the crosshairs of Republicans.

Moving votes to scale back the law may be easier in the House, where Republicans will have control, but those votes could end up being largely symbolic.

In conjunction with those efforts, Republicans in the House and Senate are planning on holding several congressional hearings to scrutinize health care reform, according to the Associated Press. They are anticipated to request certain officials responsible for health care reform in to testify before Congress, such as Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, or Medicare administrator Don Berwick.

"Oversight will play a crucial role in Republican efforts," McConnell said. "We may not be able to bring about straight repeal in the next two years ... but we can compel administration officials to attempt to defend this indefensible health spending bill."

---

Stephanie Condon is a political reporter for CBSNews.com. You can read more of her posts here. Follow Hotsheet on Facebook and Twitter.

[RPVG]

If the Repubs try to scale back ObamaCare but the Dems block them, will that make the Dems the "party of NO?"

[us750]

Part of the Republican's new "Pledge to America" includes repealing/stopping national healthcare reform. The Tea Partiers also wish to repeal recently passed healthcare reform.

Healthcare reform was designed to bring MORE AFFORDABLE healthcare to more Americans and control waste.

40-50 MILLION Americans now don't have heath care/dental care.

When the WELL OFF use their medical insurance to get mood altering/mood stabilizing drugs (lovingly called "my meds".) it's called being responsible and "taking care of your mental health".

When poor people with no health insurance buy illegal non-prescription drugs because they have no health insurance to treat depression/mental illness it's called "breaking the law" and they go to dangerous/underfunded jails or prisons where they can be assaulted/killed and get a permanent police record which bars them from future employment.

Do some of us believe that being poor is not depressing and stressful?

2/3rds !!! of the U.S. trade deficit, which is now nearly 1 TRILLION dollars per year, is caused by the importation of foreign oil, which is used to make gasoline for 190,000,000 American drivers. Not from reckless government/entitlement spending as many now claim.

The total GDP of the United States is 14 TRILLION dollars per year, which is 14,000 BILLION dollars.

The recently passed Healthcare Reform bill is projected to cost 200 billion dollars per year......thats only 1/5th of one of those 14,000 billions the U.S. takes in each year.

(The Healthcare Reform Bill is actually called "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" and the other bill is called "The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act").

[RobAla]

Income tax growth since 1913:
1913: Highest bracket was 7% filing jointly
2010: Highest bracket is 35% filing jointly
1993 ? 2000: Highest bracket was 39.6% filing jointly

So, do we want to go back to the tax rates prior to President Bush, where some people had to pay about 40% of their income in federal income taxes (this does not include state income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and fees such as car tags, utility taxes, gasoline tax, driver license fees, ?etc)? Look at where taxes began, and where they have gone. Does anyone think Americans in 1913 would have allowed the income tax if they thought people would be paying as much as 40% of their income in federal income tax? I doubt it. Since the 1930?s, the federal government has grown massively, and it has sucked massive amounts of wealth from American taxpayers. Yet, it was never satisfied. To date, the federal government has grown to the point of spending $13.3 trillion more than it has been able to confiscate from the American public. Now, responsible Americans are talking about reducing the size of the federal government ? and some people are against it ? apparently they want this ravenous trend to continue. Law makers say the have no idea how to go about reducing the size of the federal government. How can we manage without a massive federal government? Well, we did for a long time. I see no reason to return the highest tax bracket to 39.6%, as 35% should be more than enough for any couple to pay. Extend President Bush?s tax cuts permanently for all.

The latest CBO figures estimate that the health care bill will cost American taxpayers more than $1 trillion over 10 years. Repealing this law would be a first step in bringing the spending of the federal government under control. We wouldn?t even miss it, because it is just now being implemented. States would not have to be burdened by the health care bill requirement of taking on far greater expenses in providing Medicaid. The majority of Americans will see the cost of health care rise under this bill, and I doubt many would miss this expenditure. Repeal of the bill would be a good start.

[Len-Houston]

It's interesting how the news media are spinning stories on health care reform to benefit the Republicans. Today, Gallup.com has a big headline that says "42% say law goes too far; 29%, not far enough", giving the false impression that those who approve of the law are a small minority compared to those who oppose it. What the Gallup headline leaves out is that another 20% thinks the law doesn't go far enough, making the total of people who don't want to see the law repealed a near majority of 49%. So Republicans like Mitch McConnell can go on lying about how the "American People" want the law repealed and convince those who don't go beyond scanning the headlines.

[RobAla]

The working poor, who had no health care insurance, will be covered in the future. This is good, but consider the following:

The middle class will see:
1) Their state and federal taxes go up ? including Medicare taxes
2) Their private insurance premiums go up

Seniors will see:
1) $500 billion less in Medicare
2) Fewer doctors willing to accept Medicare patients

States will see:
1) Federal government expansion of Medicaid ? adding financial burden on the states
2) This action forces the states to greatly raise taxes on citizens of each state

Businesses will see:
1) Federal mandates which force them to provide insurance ? adding financial burdens
2) This action will cause many to have to lay off more workers

The majority of Americans:
1) Asked for reform on a few specific areas ? but will see health care turned upside down
2) Have been ignored, after stating in polls that they do not want this bill

The federal government will see:
1) Itself much more empowered over individuals and businesses
2) Additional deficit spending after the CBO scores the impact of the reconciliation bill, and those figures show that this bill will cost American taxpayers more than $1 trillion over 10 years.

[jaykay3141]

Rob, please stop drinking that Alabama river water, it's obviously polluted.

American businesses are ALREADY paying a high price for the current "insurance" system. For ex. I've seen estimates that a car built in the US costs about $1500 more than a similar car from a country with "socialist" national health coverage because of higher administrative costs, more untreated illnesses, etc. How is that making us more competitive? There are projections that as many as 150,000 people a year who want to start their own businesses DON'T because they'd have to give up their current insurance. Again, how is discouraging entrepreneurship making ups more competitive? And I've known several people who were unhappy in their current positions but couldn't leave because of insurance concerns. Once more, how is that improving our competitiveness?

Your comment about the working poor reminds me of a scene in M*A*S*H where arch-conservative Maj. Burns looks at a long line of refugees walking down a dirt road and sneers "Why aren't they out looking for jobs or trying to better themselves?" How is it economically justifiable, let alone morally defensible, to have 15% of the population often unable to get even halfway decent medical care because they can't afford it? And how is it justifiable that they then waste all sorts of money by using an ER for basic care, or put off treatment until they become seriously ill? (Three members of my family have been health care providers and have given me first-hand accounts. Those situations are neither apocryphal nor rare.)

Finally, you repeat the same Fox lie that because X% of the people polled don't like the health bill, they all want to stay with the current atrocity of corporate care. Please read what Len posted or read today's LA Times. When you look underneath the misleading headlines, disapproval is pretty much split down the middle between "too much" and "not far enough". IMO what that says is that the bill, mangled as it is, probably is a lot less extreme than either side claims.

[oldbasicgal]

by pahgre November 13, 2010 5:23 PM EST
"Hey Slappy, me, I watch Foxnews"
========================


Hmmmmmm.......it's more than obvious from your one-sided posts and attacks!

Plague, I labeled you right the first time I tried...you are an idiot. You didn't read the whole sentence. Any one that depends on only one news sourse is getting a one-sided view. I, on the other hand, watch several stations and get the whole picture, and find the truth somewhere in the middle of the rightist and leftist lies. YOU, however think CBS tells the truth, the whole truth....

[velma179]

Just a note to those here that support moderate-to-liberal ideas and the political leaders that espouse them, we'll call them Democrats (instead of "spine challenged" and "ball droppers", just for today...hey :0)

___________

Write your Reps, or hell... any Reps that qualify and tell them to seize this narrative! Going backwards to a debate on HCR when what the country needs is jobs and economic certainty (remember over 80% of us are employed, but many face rising debt and "underwater" home values, etc.... not to mention still rising health care costs!) -- must be used for one thing and one thing only. NOW is the time to explain what HCR -- The Patients Protection and Affordability Care Act -- is, CLEARLY and with honor. Now is the time to say "our only regret is we didn't take it far enough..."

I say go "all in" --- call the Republican bluff, they do not have the cards.

Two aces in the middle of the table -- the player with the truth has the other two. Seize the narrative, send a Democrat an hour out to speak up if necessary. Drown out the lies and who wins? The Democrats? Not really... the winners are the American people.
Letting uninformed, subject to total manipulation, angry people take the lead at the ballot box has not made this a better country. Period. (I'll save my wrath against those who showed up in 2008 and stayed home in 2010 for another time!)

--- Okay, I said my piece. I am buried in a project ...which employs about 4800-5000 people (on any given day) -- I have to be responsible. But like my departing Govanator... I'll be back! ---

God bless America.

[oldbasicgal]

If "going backward" to better the HCR Act is so deplorable to you since "what the country needs is jobs and economic certainty , why didn't you "write your president" to convince him to spend his time in office on "what the country needs" instead of spending every available moment of his time on the HCA or on campaigning for fellow Democrats before the midterms? AND THEN, he doesn't have a chance to pee before he is gone to Asia on a trip to further trade. We don't need foreign trade to increase, we need manufacturing in the U.S. to increase in order to increase jobs!

[david4673]

oldbasicgal...

The comment above yours is spot on.

Yours sounds like sour grapes. Above, you identified yourself as a "centrist" of sorts. This comment shows you are not.

Saying the president spent "every available moment of his time on the [HCR] or campaigning" is nothing but conservative media enhanced hyperbole. Not objective thought, not at all.

Plus, you aren't a very knowledgeable person it seems. Foreign trade DOES create jobs. Where do you think the jets made by Boeing that India ordered will be manufactured?

[oldbasicgal]

I wouldn't mind my taxes going up for a couple of years in order to help the deficit, but ONLY if
1)DRASTIC measures are taken to reduce Washington spending, including but not limited to domestic and military support of foreign countries, pork barrel projects, and reduction of Federal employees in non-productive programs and positions.
2)the illegal Mexicans are rounded up and taken to Mexico and the border secured. Take 30% of whatever cash is on them for expenses incurred and put it against the deficit;
3)Medicaid and Medicare fraud is invested SERIOUSLY and violaters prosecuted promptly,
4)insurance reform is done properly and in language everyone can understand,
5)and every foreign trade agreement since the Reagan years is examined to insure the best interest of the American worker is taken into consideration.

I, personally, probably would not quality to help with any but #1 and #4, but I bet I could do a better job of reforming them honestly and fairly for the American people than anyone in Washington.

[david4673]

But the illegal Brazilians or Saudis or Swedes can stay?

What a bigoted comment.

(Though you make some valid points about where to cut spending)

[CarloCaraluzzo]

"Send us your poor, your wretched..." has gone the way of the Constitution and the dinosaurs. And now we not only want to kick hard working people out of the country we want to ROB them too? SIEG HEIL!!!!!

[infantryman1968]

by variablespanner November 13, 2010 8:19 AM EST
Another person that fails to recognize even recent history -- Clinton did rather well with a largely REPUBLICAN CONGRESS. And may I add the REPUBLICANS SHOWED VERY POORLY.

LOL!

Only because he shifted to the right.

[oldbasicgal]

by slappy_mcghee November 12, 2010 11:46 PM EST
I ran across a grizzly last time I was there. Actually, it ran across my path about 20 feet ahead of me! I was glad it kept going...

Believe it or not, I don't use Foxnews.com - I watch the shows on the TV, primarily. Funny thing is that I don't watch CBSnews - I just go here to the website!

Hey Slappy, me, I watch Foxnews, Headline News and local news channels. I find I have to watch a variety of channels and then place my belief somewhere in the middle of the all. I'm not interested in all the political rhetoric and bull going on, just in facts. I don't pay a lot of attention to polls nor to predictions...

[oldbasicgal]

Plague...I was right the first time, you are an idiot. You didn't read the rest of the sentence, dummy. I don't attack people like you do. I have read your posts, and they show what kind of person you are. I'm neither D or R, but I do find some good in both of them. You, on the other hand....I would slap you like a bug.

[RobAla]

Income tax growth since 1913:
1913: Highest bracket was 7% filing jointly
2010: Highest bracket is 35% filing jointly
1993 ? 2000: Highest bracket was 39.6% filing jointly

So, do we want to go back to the tax rates prior to President Bush, where some people had to pay about 40% of their income in federal income taxes (this does not include state income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and fees such as car tags, utility taxes, gasoline tax, driver license fees, ?etc)? Look at where taxes began, and where they have gone. Does anyone think Americans in 1913 would have allowed the income tax if they thought people would be paying as much as 40% of their income in federal income tax? I doubt it. Since the 1930?s, the federal government has grown massively, and it has sucked massive amounts of wealth from American taxpayers. Yet, it was never satisfied. To date, the federal government has grown to the point of spending $13.3 trillion more than it has been able to confiscate from the American public. Now, responsible Americans are talking about reducing the size of the federal government ? and some people are against it ? apparently they want this ravenous trend to continue. Law makers say the have no idea how to go about reducing the size of the federal government. How can we manage without a massive federal government? Well, we did for a long time. I see no reason to return the highest tax bracket to 39.6%, as 35% should be more than enough for any couple to pay. Extend President Bush?s tax cuts permanently for all.

The latest CBO figures estimate that the health care bill will cost American taxpayers more than $1 trillion over 10 years. Repealing this law would be a first step in bringing the spending of the federal government under control. We wouldn?t even miss it, because it is just now being implemented. States would not have to be burdened by the health care bill requirement of taking on far greater expenses in providing Medicare. The majority of Americans will see the cost of health care rise under this bill, and I doubt many would miss this expenditure. Repeal of the bill would be a good start.

[retm-w]

The CBO also said insurance premiums will rise, something the dems seem to not want to talk about.

[abbe91]

Average CEO to minimum wage ...
1978: 78
2005: over 800

[bonddouble07]

Republicans are the biggest joke. Seriously.

[Brian5013MS]

Obama, Pelosi, Carter. <<< Those 3 take the cake!