The repeal question: House Republicans owe Americans a few answers
Share with others:
The new Republican majority in the U.S. House could hold a vote next week to repeal the health care reform law the last Congress approved. Or, it can regroup after the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others in Arizona, and invite their Democratic colleagues to work in bipartisan fashion on fixing and improving what is already on the books.
Although the repeal gesture is futile, the drive to roll back the measure will serve two purposes. First, it will make clear that the House GOP's rhetorical commitment to compromise is suspect. It also will remind voters of the vital features of the health care law.
Speaker John Boehner and other GOP leaders know that the bill, once approved by the House, will not get to the floor of the Senate, where Democrats retain a majority. Even if senators were somehow to approve repeal, President Barack Obama would veto it and neither chamber would override that veto. That, of course, is the point of the GOP exercise: to keep an empty campaign promise and to try to embarrass the other party.
Republicans complain that the law's requirement that most Americans buy health insurance violates the Constitution. That question is not settled simply by arguing to the contrary: The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The U.S. Supreme Court almost surely will rule on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, since such interpretation is the responsibility of courts.
As opponents cite their long list of objections to the law, they can try to prove -- not merely assert -- that it threatens jobs. They can explain how they will pay the cost of repealing the law, since the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the law will save $143 billion over a decade.
Meanwhile, the law's advocates can cite its useful features that already have taken effect. These include coverage of pre-existing conditions, an end to annual and lifetime limits on coverage, and the ability of young people to remain on their parents' health insurance policies through age 25. Opponents can tell why getting rid of these things would be a good idea.
First Published January 12, 2011 12:00 am
