Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:14 PM ET, 01/13/2011

House GOP to move forward with repeal next week

By Greg Sargent

With the political world uncertain how quickly it should get back to its regular schedule in the wake of the Arizona shooting, Republicans have decided to move forward next week with efforts to repeal the health bill.

Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for Eric Cantor, emails over this:

"As the White House noted, it is important for Congress to get back to work, and to that end we will resume thoughtful consideration of the health care bill next week. Americans have legitimate concerns about the cost of the new health care law and its effect on the ability to grow jobs in our country. It is our expectation that the debate will continue to focus on those substantive policy differences surrounding the new law."

The promise of a focus on "substantive policy differences" is a reminder of both how contentious the battle over repeal is expected to be, and of the mindfulness of officials in both parties of the need to tread very carefully on the new political landscape created by the shooting.

By Greg Sargent  | January 13, 2011; 1:14 PM ET
Categories:  Health reform, House Dems, House GOPers  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A truce between right and left
Next: Dems settle on branding for GOP repeal effort: "The Patient's Rights Repeal Act"

Comments

What about care and treatment for the mentally ill?

Posted by: wbgonne | January 13, 2011 1:24 PM | Report abuse

No one cares wb, the only debate is whether someone, somehow made him do it.

Same with Cho, Nidal Hasan, the stranger people get, the more likely we are to not deal with them. We have a horrible case this week of a young woman who has been on the streets being passed, oh forget it, too awful a story. They are more often victims than murderers, suffice it to say.

But taking care of them is very difficult and the history is inauspicious. It is expensive, unprofitable and legally complicated. It requires "socialized medicine" or it can't happen.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 13, 2011 1:32 PM | Report abuse

In this country we prefer to wait for our mentally ill to commit horrific crimes before we offer them state subsidized mental health care.

Posted by: raincntry | January 13, 2011 1:37 PM | Report abuse

You're probably right, Shrink but in light of what just happened we should consider the impact of repealing ACA on mental health services. Do you know what ACA will do for mental health care?

Posted by: wbgonne | January 13, 2011 1:37 PM | Report abuse

"Do you know what ACA will do for mental health care?"

Oh yes, it has more actual "reform" in it for mental health care than any other.

Don't worry, the ACA won't be repealed, the |hi:lower| House of Congress does not have that authority, let alone the mandate (hint: the industry does not want it repealed). The individual mandate may not survive, but that is fine with me, I despise the individual mandate from my socialist perspective.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 13, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

@shrink2 "No one cares wb, the only debate is whether someone, somehow made him do it.

Same with Cho, Nidal Hasan, the stranger people get, the more likely we are to not deal with them. We have a horrible case this week of a young woman who has been on the streets being passed, oh forget it, too awful a story. They are more often victims than murderers, suffice it to say.

But taking care of them is very difficult and the history is inauspicious. It is expensive, unprofitable and legally complicated. It requires "socialized medicine" or it can't happen. "

Legitimate question Shrink2: What's your professional/personal opinion of the proposals to make it easier for involuntary incarceration?

Posted by: jnc4p | January 13, 2011 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"@shrink2 "No one cares wb, the only debate is whether someone, somehow made him do it.

Same with Cho, Nidal Hasan, the stranger people get, the more likely we are to not deal with them. We have a horrible case this week of a young woman who has been on the streets being passed, oh forget it, too awful a story. They are more often victims than murderers, suffice it to say.

But taking care of them is very difficult and the history is inauspicious. It is expensive, unprofitable and legally complicated. It requires "socialized medicine" or it can't happen. "

Legitimate question Shrink2: What's your professional/personal opinion of the proposals to make it easier for involuntary incarceration?"

Opps. Should have read "involuntary commitment" (Freudian slip?)

Posted by: jnc4p | January 13, 2011 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"the ACA won't be repealed"

Agreed. But I'd like it if the GOPers calling for its repeal were asked what impact that would have on mental health care, especially with half the states bankrupt. Just for fun.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 13, 2011 1:51 PM | Report abuse

See if they can encourage some more violence... all over the

passionate desire to make sure those most in need of medical care

can't get it.

Posted by: WmLaney | January 13, 2011 1:58 PM | Report abuse

jnc4p

Involuntary treatment you mean. The whole point is to get them into custody and treated before they are harmful, so incarceration does not need to happen. This is a big problem for the fourth amendment. You see, the state has to decide they have lost their fourth amendment rights (locking a person up, and sticking them with needles full of mind bending drugs) because some expert testifies that they will be dangerous (to themselves or others) unless the state does that.

This is about the fine art of drawing the line, too far in one direction, the freedom to be dangerously crazy, everyone suffers; too far in the other, individual liberty for those who are *different* but in no way dangerous gets lost if all it takes is someone who says they are afraid that person might become dangerous someday. People used to stick relatives in mental hospitals for all kinds of reasons that were not right (inheritance, covering domestic violence, you name it). So the right amount of due process, the correct balance of coercion and self directed care is the problem.

Back to your question, yes, I think now our balance point is way too far off to the side of let crazy people be crazy unless a deadly situation is perfectly obvious.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 13, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse


Veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto, veto.

Posted by: lindalovejones | January 13, 2011 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"substantive policy differences"

Like what? One side hysterically rails against socialism, government takeovers, deficit increases and death panels while the other side calmly points out again and again and again that these things DON'T EXIST?

I'm a little at a loss as to what Republicans can actually talk about, substantively--as opposed to baseless hysterics--when it comes to opposing this bill. The individual mandate? Which most of them are on record as supporting until 2009 or so? And which is crucial to making the parts of the bill which they claim to support actually work?

And on financing, how can you have a substantive policy difference when one side says "the independent, nonpartisan CBO says this bill will decrease the deficit by $200 billion, do you have a counter proposal?" versus "No, we don't have a counter-proposal. But our Medicare drug bill added only $500 billion to the deficit, LESS than the $650 billion CBO predicted, so clearly the lesson is CBO can't be trusted to be accurate on the deficit."

Posted by: theorajones1 | January 13, 2011 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Is there any evidence that mental health treatment was unavailable to this whack job, or any evidence that if it were available he would have accepted it?

For the past few days many have been misleadingly arguing that violent rhetoric could have pushed this guy over the edge. Now it appears they're going to mislead again and argue that free mental health treatment might have prevented his actions.

Yesterday Obama urged us to not use this tragedy for political gain. And yet the minute we begin to discuss health care repeal the left couches it in terms of its potential impact on that tragedy.

Posted by: sbj3 | January 13, 2011 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Theorajones1: it seems to me that you are at "...little at a loss as to what Republicans can actually talk about..." because of abyssal ignorance about who your opposition is. Shame on you.

Instead of castigating others with whom you disagree, why not seek to understand what these people think?

Or would that require an open mind?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | January 13, 2011 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Is there any evidence that mental health treatment was unavailable to this whack job,

I think I know as much as anyone in this case, from published sources anyway, and this is an open question. There is no doubt many were aware he was dangerously mentally ill...

or any evidence that if it were available he would have accepted it?

This is also unanswerable, this depends on so many details, how it is presented, how the parents are involved in the decision, how early (the earlier the better, no way he was going to change his mind and head to the clinic the morning of), no way to know.

But obviously early access to comprehensive mental health services is a good thing, just like health care in general; late access for diabetes, hypertension, etc. often involves stroke or heart attack as the presenting problem.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 13, 2011 2:31 PM | Report abuse

@shrink: "obviously early access to comprehensive mental health services is a good thing."

Agreed, but not my point.

At the first mention of health care repeal posters from the left begin their discussion by addressing mental health services in the context of this tragedy. I believe that this is precisely what Obama suggested we should NOT do - use the tragedy for political gain.

Posted by: sbj3 | January 13, 2011 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

Ask Eric Cantor where is their replacement Health Care Reform bill.

Recall that Congressman Paul Ryan said on TV, that Republicans should have done Health Care Reform, when they controlled both houses, and the White House.

See if you can get Cantor and/or Paul Ryan to tell you why they still have not offered a bill to replace the one that they are now going to vote to repeal.

Remind Paul Ryan about his own admission of past failure to pursue Health Care reform, when they had the chance.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 13, 2011 2:35 PM | Report abuse

After sitting on the sidelines during this entire economic crisis, the Republicans need to prove to voters they can do something productive. Bills that have no chance to be signed by the President is not productive, it's just blowing political gas.

Bad start.

Posted by: Beeliever | January 13, 2011 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"At the first mention of health care repeal posters from the left begin their discussion by addressing mental health services in the context of this tragedy. I believe that this is precisely what Obama suggested we should NOT do - use the tragedy for political gain."

That's called responding to reality. A tragic event occurred. Should we ignore it when we make policy decisions? Or to counter your question: After 4 days of incessant chatter from the Right that the assassin was politically incoherent and gravely psychotic are we not supposed to discuss mental health care?

Posted by: wbgonne | January 13, 2011 2:44 PM | Report abuse

jnc and sbj, I took some considerable heat from the liberal message minders when I was making apolitical (or at least non-partisan) points about the AZ shooter. l agree there should be no political agenda associated with this person who fired multiple shots into a nine year old.

There is much to be learned, but you are right. Just like the contempt I have for all the people who blamed Obama and liberals etc., for Nidal Hasan, it is disrespectful at the least to try to score political points over the bodies of the innocents, even as people are still fighting to survive.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 13, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

sbj3 writes
"At the first mention of health care repeal posters from the left begin their discussion by addressing mental health services in the context of this tragedy. I believe that this is precisely what Obama suggested we should NOT do - use the tragedy for political gain."

So, thanks to this tragedy, any discussion of mental health policy is taboo as using the tragedy for political gain? I suspect the right will soon learn to tie every Dem proposal to Loughner or Giffords and - voila! - the Dems are mooted!

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 13, 2011 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Here is my recollection of American history: When something horrible happens, Congress does something to address it. Congress does NOT do something that may make the problem worse, and most certainly not without being queried about doing that. Is it different this time?

Posted by: wbgonne | January 13, 2011 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Gotta run.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 13, 2011 3:02 PM | Report abuse

@wb: "Are we not supposed to discuss mental health care."

Didn't say that. I think we should not make a political case to not repeal ACA in the context of the recent tragedy.

To paraphrase Obama:

"If... their deaths help [prevent repeal of ACA]... let's remember that [lack of ACA did not cause]... this tragedy, but rather [enhanced access to mental health services]... can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud."

Posted by: sbj3 | January 13, 2011 3:04 PM | Report abuse

@bsimon: "So, thanks to this tragedy, any discussion of mental health policy is taboo."

No.

I think we should not make a political case to not repeal ACA in the context of the recent tragedy.

Posted by: sbj3 | January 13, 2011 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Instead of castigating others with whom you disagree, why not seek to understand what these people think?

===========================================
That's what everyone is waiting for. Boehner et al have said what they "think" by titling the repeal bill the way they did and the justification is what, exactly?
The ACA is effectively the Republican plan that morphed into the current ACA.
Boehner claims that the CBO is wrong but why? (and as to the Medicare Part "D" let's not forget that the GwB admin. lied to Congress about the expected cost)
The House leadership has no plan to deal with health care costs in the US which are already higher by 40% than any other country in the OECD.
Boehner's plan appears to be the status quo ante.

Posted by: tjmc2 | January 14, 2011 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company