Repealing Obamacare

Republicans—leadership, rank and file—and Conservatives want to repeal Obamacare, and they’re right to do so. Obamacare has been an unvarnished disaster for our nation.

To this end, Republicans need to pass repeal legislation and put it on President Barack Obama’s desk, where he surely will veto it. That veto will work to Republicans’ benefit as it helps shape the 2016 elections, but things must not stop there.

The leadership also is playing small ball, working a piecemeal approach. This includes

  • a bill that would define a full-time worker under the health law as working 40 hours per week
  • repeal [of] the…2.3% tax on medical devices such as X-ray equipment and artificial joints
  • a bill that would allow Americans to opt out of the law’s individual requirement to buy insurance

Other pieces that need to be addressed, say I, include

  • repeal of the employer mandate to provide insurance
  • repeal of the contraceptive mandate

All of this will require the Republicans on the right side of the party—the Cruzes, Gohmerts, and so on—to exercise far more patience than has been their wont. Repeal’s veto won’t be overridden, we need a Republican President to sign a re-passed repeal. Most of the piecemeal approaches also will be vetoed, and most of those will be sustained by the Democrat minority in each House. But all of these votes, initial passage and veto override alike, should be by roll call. With all the Democrats—every single one of them—explicitly on the record as favoring the Obamacare disaster, those votes will very favorably shape the ’16 elections.

But that’s not enough. Even when successful, the result will be a return to the status quo ante-Obamacare. The then-existing health insurance and health provision industries badly need restructuring. Republicans need to have in place a plan to achieve that and a timetable for the plan’s execution.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R, WI) has been cited as saying

that Obamacare would be replaced with something that gives Americans more choices and lowers costs, improves their access to care and is “truly patient centered….”

But he says he does not have a “timeline.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R, OH) has said

Our challenge, our opportunity is to pass common-sense solutions…that repeal Obamacare and replace it with patient-centered reforms that will help our constituents have better access to high-quality health care in America….

That’s not enough: it’s time to get specific. It’s time to lay out exactly what legislation will be proposed to restructure those two industries.

There’s this critical caveat, too. Accepting arguendo Obamacare as a general solution for the restructuring, it was doomed to fail because it tried to do too much all at once. The restructuring of those two industries, even in accordance with Conservative imperatives, will see a similar doom if it attempts the restructuring all at once. These industries need to be restructured piecemeal. Pass legislation to correct (some of) the worst ills in one session, and use the year to observe how those corrections worked and where they failed. In the next year of the session, correct the corrections where necessary and pass legislation correcting the next worst ills. And so on, year by year. The industries can be favorably and successfully restructured over the course of 4-6 years (much faster than the 80 years it took to get to the point of Obamacare, but not overnight, and especially not in one fell swoop).

But that takes patience. All or nothing right damn now will only achieve nothing. With Obamacare left in place.

Student Free Speech

Sohrab Ahmari had an op-ed in a recent Wall Street Journal describing the travails of a Brandeis University (of their cowardice and Ayaan Hirsi Ali infamy) student because he committed the horrible crime of speaking his piece regarding Israel and a fellow…student’s…attitude to that country.

RTWT; it’s an excellent piece in its own right.

My takeaway, and Ahmari’s, is that, in order for a student to protect his own free speech rights—much less to recover any school to its duty of fostering open inquiry and debate, no matter where that debate might lead or how uncomfortable the outcome might be for students, faculty, or administration—it’s necessary to engage a lawyer and pursue the matter in open court (or in the Brandeis student’s case, convince the school that that’s where the rest of the free speech discussion will occur).

That’s expensive, and not all students will be able to afford that. A few things about this, though.

One is that the cost of generating publicity can range from cheap to free. Continue speaking out, writing letters to editors—to newspapers outside the school, also—talking to reporters and to any radio and TV station talk show who’ll listen: keep the injustice in the eye of the school’s public. The school—Brandeis, for instance—may well threaten to expel such a misbehaving student? OK. Is such a school worth the student’s time and money—especially a high-priced private school like Brandeis? Is the student really going to get a decent education at such an arbitrarily restrictive school?

Another is to demonstrate the absurdity of the “free” speech and hurt feelings rules. Conservative students should invoke the same rules, loudly, vociferously, and determinedly every time they come under fire for the things they say.

The last is go ahead and do the lawyer and lawsuit bit. There are organizations like FIRE that often are in a position to help, and there are occasional lawyers will to take on such cases at a discount or even pro bono. Even if forced to pay full freight, though, where possible, bring the suit, and bring it hard.

The Brandeis student’s case didn’t come to fruition because the student whose feewings had got hurted dropped his university beef when he realized he’d have to defend his feelings in open court. That helped the victim student, but it helped only him.

In general, I don’t think it’s useful to settle with such schools. If those administrators had any integrity, the (threat of) lawsuits to protect free speech wouldn’t be necessary in the first place, and so such administrators cannot be trusted to honor any settlements that their mouths might speak or their pens sign. Bring the suits. Don’t give quarter; those administrators aren’t offering any. Burn such dishonesty to the ground, and scatter the ashes.

Immigration and Elections

Elections have consequences, a man said. Among those consequences is the shape of subsequent elections, I say.

Republicans in the new Congress are preparing their own immigration legislation, with the first batch centered on better border security and easing immigration requirements in technology, agriculture, and some other areas of interest to employers.

A question in too many minds, though, is whether President Barack Obama would veto such legislation, either because the bills might restrict his “executive actions” involving refusing to enforce existing immigration law or because, Republican.

The question is in too many minds because it might impact whether Republicans pass the legislation at all.

If the bills are good in their own right, pass them. Let Obama veto them. Shape the 2016 elections with those vetoes. Bring on the consequences of the 2014 mid-terms.

The Flexibility of No More Elections

Some high points of President Barack Obama’s activities since the 2014 midterm elections—the last elections he’ll ever have to face, even vicariously through his party.

He’s chosen to give favor to Cuba’s Castro brothers, while receiving nothing of value to the US in return.

He’s chosen to extend favor to Iran and their nuclear weapons program while assuring all who can hear him that he’ll veto any Congressional move to extend sanctions.

He’s chosen to suspend enforcement of immigration law while assuring all who can hear him that he’ll veto any Congressional move to force enforcement.

He’s chosen to continue blocking Keystone XL while assuring all who….

He has 2,375 proposed rules now awaiting final publication without checking even their underlying principle with Congress first, in a complete, cynical bypassing of Congress.

In his latest move, he’s chosen to release from Guantanamo yet five more terrorists without any assurance that they’ll not rejoin the terrorists. Here, though, rather than threatening to block Congressional action, he’s assuring all who can hear him that he’s just going to go right on blithely turning loose the terrorists we’ve got locked up in Guantanamo.

Obama’s flexibility now that the elections are over—the outright insubordination and, worse, lawlessness—stems from our enforcement ability. We can’t fire him at the next election; he’s out the door, anyway. He can’t be impeached; there are too many Democrats who actually believe these…misbehaviors…are legitimate.

What we can do, though, and what we should do, is fire the Democratic Party at the next election for its complicity in Obama’s misbehavior. And keep them out until they show us they’ve mended their ways.

What we can do, and what we should do also, is keep a close eye on the Republican Party via primaries and the main elections, firing Republicans where necessary, in recognition of the dangers—demonstrated by that Democratic Party—of one-party rule.

In the meantime, these are going to be a very dangerous two years for the Republic.

Voter Suppression

Critics of voter ID laws always cry, “Voter suppression!” and they especially cry, “Black voter suppression!”

Here are some actual facts from North Carolina’s 2014 mid-term elections—an especially stern test since voter turnout typically is lower than in Presidential elections:

  • the percentage of age-eligible, non-Hispanic black residents who turned out to vote in North Carolina rose to 41.1% in November 2014 from 38.5% in November 2010
  • [t]he percentage of black registrants voting increased to 42.2% from 40.3% in the same period
  • the black share of votes cast increased to 21.4% from 20.1%
  • [t]he absolute number of black voters increased 16%, to 628,004 from 539,646

And in another state, according to Census Bureau surveys

  • turnout among blacks of voting age in Tennessee in 2012 remained stable within the margin of error
  • [turnout] was around 4% higher than white turnout
  • [t]urnout among Hispanic voters rose.

With suppression like this, who needs get out the vote programs?