The 3 Mostly Likely Obamacare Cuts In A Debt Deal

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

On Wednesday afternoon, the White House shot down Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) call for chopping Obamacare in upcoming debt reduction negotiations. Indeed, neither party expects the major pieces of the law to suffer in any deal. But various smaller items will be part of the discussions as the two parties look for savings in the federal budget.

Democrats aren’t ruling out the prospect of cuts to parts of the law, as long as they don’t weaken its overarching goals — and Republicans will push hard for them. Even minor cuts to the law’s spending would earn GOP lawmakers political points among their conservative constituents, something that’ll be valuable if they have to swallow tax increases.

Here are three most likely pieces of the Affordable Care Act that Republicans believe they have the best chance of securing cuts to, GOP sources say.

The Prevention And Public Health Fund

The prevention fund was designed to help local communities combat disease and promote wellness. Republicans deride it as a “slush fund.” Initially set at $15 billion, GOP leaders convinced the president and Democratic leaders to chop it by $6.25 billion in the payroll tax cut deal early this year. Having sensed that Democrats are willing to reduce its size, they’ll hope to continue chipping away at it.

-snip-

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/the-three-most-likely-obamacare-cuts.php?ref=fpa

[Panasonic]

1. Obamacare is off the table.

The precious, over bloated Defense budget is definitely on the table. It's bloated, and it can easily be cut by 90% and still run Department of Defense efficiently.

[BlueStreak]

7. That depends on which 90% you cut

Last edited Fri Nov 23, 2012, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

And I guarantee you they would never cut the parts that need cutting: a) weapons systems that are not wanted and never used, b) systems that are only used for offensive purposes, mostly in support of multinational corporations that pay not a cent for this support, c) bases all over the damned planet, and so on.

90% may be a bit of hyperbole. But certainly, it should be possible to reduce our spending by 50% and actually INCREASE the safety of the average American. After all, much of the hatred (and therefore threat) toward America is caused by how we PROJECT our power. Stop doing that and Americans are immediately much safer.

And if we aren't going to cut it significantly, how about we at least call it what it is, the Department of OFFENSE. When was the last time our military DEFENDED anything? How much defending did they do on 911? I am trying to think of a single case since WWII where our forces were used defensively. Arguably the Cuban missile crisis could be such an example. We didn't have to engage troops, but it was the credible threat that served as a deterrent in an action that definitely defended America. Other than that one example, I am coming up blank.

[Ash_F]

19. Good post.

Repubs would only go after VA benefits.

[reggaehead]

29. I disagree

F35 funding will go on hold for at least 10 years. F22's still arent as good as previous generation. Their redundent engine policy will be axed. If we can curb domestic drones we can make significant cuts. Oh, as long as their are no new fronts.

[goclark]

2. k

for answers-

[aaaaaa5a]

3. We won the election. I hope we remember that. nt

[PrMaine]

6. Yes, ... but

Republican still control the House, even though Democrats in the House had more votes. All federal legislation that is passed into law must be passed by the House. That's the way it is and that's the way it will be for the next two years and probably for at least the next eight years.

Republicans hold the House because so many Democrats stayed home in 2010, seemingly in order to teach Obama a lesson. House redistricting was done under Republican control and we have to live with those House districts in place until 2020. In all likelihood, Republicans will control the House and maintain this stranglehold on legislation for the next eight years. While they do, Democrats will have to make compromises with Republicans whenever they want to pass legislation.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

9. "because so many Democrats stayed home in 2010, seemingly in order to teach Obama a lesson"

Last edited Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Tell us about it, oh wise one.

If you are going to lecture us and criticize fellow Democrats, can't you make your words more interesting?

Your approach from 2010 is not only factually untrue, it is worn out and boring.

Others come up with more interesting criticism and phrases. When showing his contempt for liberal Democrats, even Rahm Emanual came up with the memorable phrase "fucking retarded." When you are showing your contempt for "so many Democrats" from the year 2010, why can't you come up with something equally or more interesting?

[byeya]

10. Because so many Democrats saw the campaign promises vanish and got insulted

to boot.
Even a dog learns from experience.

"Fuck the UAW" - no Rahm, fuck you

[heaven05]

11. excellent!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

13. Rahm thinks that all the UAW members are liberals?

Or does he reserve his "fucking retarded" phrase for just special occasions when referring to liberals?

[aaaaaa5a]

14. Agreed. I hope we learned our lesson in 2010. nt

[AndyTiedye]

18. "Citizens United" Had a Lot to Do With It

We were outspent by over 4 to 1 in some races.

[PrMaine]

24. Outspent but not out-voted

There were more votes for Democrats in the House than there were for Republicans. Nonetheless, more Republicans were elected to the House than were Democrats.

The reason for this un-democratic outcome was the gerrymandering of Congressional districts by Republican legislatures around the country. This was enabled by the low turnout for Democrats in the 2010 election.

[AndyTiedye]

25. Citizens United Screwed Us in 2010 Too

along with a huge amount of promotion of the teabaggers by the Mighty Slime Machine. They are not invincible, but everything has to go our way for us to win.

Evenmore so now, with all the gerrymandering. 2014 will be even more difficult for us than any recent election.

Gerrymandering works so well for them that we can expect efforts to apply it to the presidential race in swing states in 2016 (e.g. allocating eleectoral votes in swing states by congressional districts).

[former9thward]

33. The turnout was not "low for Democrats" in 2010.

The 2010 midterms had a turn out of a little over 90 million. That was the highest midterm in history. Only 80 million voted in the previous midterm in 2006.

[John2]

20. This does

not bother me because we can change this through the courts and Legislation. To be specific, change the law. Gerrymandering can be changed in the courts if we determine it is unconstitutional through judicial review on the State Level. The Democrats can also do the same in Blue States such as Ohio, New York, California and even Florida or Virginia if they take over the Courts,Legislation and Governorships. What goes around can come around. All they have to do is mobilize their voters, just like the Tea party did. There is more than one way to skin a cat if you plan it right.

[GeorgeGist]

21. Hook. Line. Sinker.

You got it.

[Doctor_J]

31. MUAHAHAHA

Republicans hold the House because so many Democrats stayed home in 2010, seemingly in order to teach Obama a lesson.

Or maybe because the president showed more interest in appeasing Republicans than those who worked for him. If he once again ignores us and spends all of his attention on mollifying the right wingers trying to get them to vote for him, he can live with that in 2014.

[BlueStreak]

8. If there are any such adjustments to ACA, they had better damned well be matched by

other measures to strengthen our health care system. Such as fixing the hole the SCOTUS shot in Medicaid, and addressing the grossly inflated cost of pharmas.

[Doctor_J]

32. no "adjustments" should be part of the plan, period

as seen in term 1, the president doesn't get much back when he gives things away. There should be no compromise on Obamacare, period.

[MjolnirTime]

4. There will be no Obamacare cuts. But don't let that stop your poo flinging.

[djean111]

5. Yes, of course Republicans want to slash funds for local communities.

Calling that a slush fund makes it easier to do. They are quite happy with death panels based on ability to pay, plus a healthy populace doesn't generate the kind of income they are after for private enterprise, also known as campaign contributors.
They do not want to consider that a healthy population is better for the country.
And in my opinion it is more likely to be abused as if it were an actual slush fund by local GOP people; but then I live in Florida.

Another cut, the Center For Medicare And Medicaid Innovation - of course they don't want cost savings or more efficiencies.
They want the cost of delivering (and granting access to, really) health care to be as expensive as possible. This is more profit for insurance companies, pharma, and some hospitals, and makes doing away with medicare easier to do.
Right now, the answer for some types of diabetes is exercise and diet, but the industry is pushing drugs to "manage" diabetes, they are not going to kill that golden goose.

In their little greedy bubble of a world, of course, when costs have risen so much that actually delivering health care to the people who can afford it does not make enough profit due to the shrinking number of people who can afford it - then they will look into efficiencies and decrased services - without lowering what they charge.

[SHRED]

12. A perfect response to this:

"If I recall, Republicans had ample opportunities at the time to help construct Obamacare. They chose to walk away from the table and to vilify the legislation instead. If Republicans are now given the opportunity to chop away at Obamacare, then essentially they will have paid no cost for their years of theatrics and obstruction of the legislation." ~~kaneblues

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/the-three-most-likely-obamacare-cuts.php#comment-717502146

[loyalkydem]

15. You can post

all the Obamacare cut articles you want. In the end, it will be left alone. No more compromise with the Republicans

[ROBROX]

16. CUT D.O.D

Bring our service members back and let them spend their money in the USA. It is time for the empire to bring its service members back home to decrease the expense of DOD. Spend the extra money on EPA, DOE, NASA, HUD, etc.

[McCamy Taylor]

17. WTF! Public Health spending saves money by preventing disease.

[djean111]

22. Disease is Very Big Money in the United States. (n/t)

[GreydeeThos]

23. I hope they cut payments to all income earners above $1 million a year

I would like to see strict means testing where the rich have to pay out of pocket for their own health care.

They could also reduce payments to all Red States that receive more Federal money than they pay into the system.

Right wing radio talk show hosts should get nothing.

[ancianita]

26. Obamacare is indeed off the table -- no cut deals!

[ELI BOY 1950]

27. What's on the table???

Raising taxes on the top 2%...Bush tax cuts expire and they pay there fair share...no backing down
from this...that bullshit that they are the job creators is nonsense...Grover Norquist is holding America hostage...and he is not an elected official....

Lets stand our ground and have some balls...

[FormerDittoHead]

28. Great illustration of how Repugs think - THE ACA REDUCES SPENDING

For Republicans, it's never "what's the right thing to do for America", "what do we need to do", or "what would be the greatest benefit for the people". It's *always* "how can we get what we want" and "how can we hurt the other side".

The MAIN POINT of the ACA was to lower the cost of health care (esp insurance). The CBO has CONSISTENTLY reported that that the ACA was going to REDUCE government spending by over ten billion a year:

http://schwartz.house.gov/press-release/cbo-affordable-care-act-will-reduce-deficit-109-billion

“Today, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reaffirmed the critical importance of the Affordable Care Act as a means of containing the growth in health care spending in this country, as well as reducing our federal deficit. CBO now estimates that the law will save $109 billion over the next decade, while increasing access to health care for millions of Americans."

Republicans are vipers who can't let go of something if they can get their teeth into it.

[Doctor_J]

30. already backpedalling

that's our Dems!