Why are Republicans having so much trouble repealing and replacing Obamacare? There are many reasons: subsidies, tax credits, tax cuts, Medicaid, essential health benefits and many others. But there is one fundamental obstacle, and it is very simple: Once the government starts giving away, it can’t take back.

Go back to October 2013, when Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz was leading an effort to defund Obamacare. It was an impossible goal; the GOP was in the minority in the Senate and a Democrat was in the White House. Under those circumstances, defunding President Obama’s signature achievement simply wasn’t going to happen.

But there was one sense in which Cruz was right — and the words he spoke four years ago are resonating today in the GOP’s struggle to repeal, or, more accurately, rewrite Obamacare.

Cruz based the defund effort on his contention that once Obamacare was fully in place and subsidies began to flow — January 1, 2014 — there would be no stopping it.

“The Obama strategy, I believe, is that on January 1, subsidies kick in,” Cruz said. “And his strategy is very simple: He knows that in modern times no major entitlement has ever gone into effect and been unwound. Never been done. His strategy is to get as many Americans as possible hooked on the subsidies.”

“I think if we’re going to stop Obamacare, we have to do it now,” Cruz continued. “If we get to January 1, this thing is here forever.”

Of course Republicans did not defund Obamacare and the subsidies began. And now, exactly as Cruz predicted, the entitlement program is proving extremely difficult to repeal. That is because, as Obama and the Democrats who passed it knew, Republicans trying to repeal Obamacare would be taking back something the government had already given to millions of Americans. Once the giving started, there’s no taking back.

And that’s where Republicans are now. They’ve come up with a different way to provide subsidies, but regardless of name, they are trying to reduce those subsidies and make them available to fewer people. They are trying to cut back on the subsidized benefits insurance companies are required to provide to customers. They are trying to reduce the predicted number of people on Medicaid. They are trying to take back, not give. And it is proving very, very hard.

What the 2013 fight showed, and what the current fight is showing again, is that the Republicans’ actual last chance to get rid of Obamacare was the 2012 election. That was before the health care law went into effect, before it touched millions of American lives, and when it could still be repealed without great disruption.

But when Barack Obama won re-election and could safeguard (and prop up) Obamacare through its early years, the Republican chance to repeal was gone.

Now Republicans are fighting among themselves over a bill that would make substantial changes in Obamacare but leave the structure of the law intact. And several GOP lawmakers — enough to scuttle any final agreement — are still afraid of cuts in subsidies, in coverage, and in the Medicaid expansion.

Maybe Republicans will succeed. But whatever they do, it won’t resemble the root-and-branch repeal they attempted when Obama was president — when they knew he would veto any repeal effort that got to his desk. The Republican effort that passes Congress today will be a much-scaled-back measure that could more accurately be called an Obamacare fix.

It all shows that Cruz was right back in 2013. Once Obamacare’s subsidies and benefits began to flow, he reminded us, “this thing is here forever.”

Byron York is a nationally syndicated columnist.

(55) comments

Diane Turski

Healthcare should not be considered an "entitlement"! It should be considered a human right! Universal healthcare would cut costs for everyone including businesses and provide healthcare for everyone without bankrupting hard working people!

Carlos Ponce

Look for an example of "Universal Health Care" in Great Britain where a DEATH PANEL has determined that a baby should DIE despite millions being raised to help that baby and a treatment available in the United States. Do you consider THE RIGHT TO LIFE a human right? It's in the Constitution.

Scooter Allen

In the court judgements, a specialist nurse testified he could not moved, had not responded to no-one for months and needed four different drugs just to control his seizures. The baby is brain dead.This has nothing to do with "DEATH PANELS". Here is a link to his condition, read it for yourself. http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/latest-press-releases/gosh-response-charlie-gard-high-court-ruling-today

Carlos Ponce

The DEATH PANEL is the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which denied them a final effort to save their dying son. Here is their link:
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-5744700-7301406

Carlos Ponce

Scooter, why is the DEATH PANEL so adamant that the baby be allowed to die? Millions have been raised for treatment. They and the British Health system would lose no money. ZERO, ZIP, NADA! Sending him to the United States would give the parents PEACE OF MIND that everything possible was attempted. Now will be this nagging thought in their minds that something could have been done. IT'S THEIR CHILD!!!!!!!!!!!
"Katie Gollop QC, who led Great Ormond Street's legal team (GOSH), suggested that further treatment would leave Charlie in a 'condition of existence'. She added: 'It is inhuman to permit that condition to continue.'"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/
And you're posting the parents should have NO SAY in the treatment of their child - just let him die. Now THAT'S INHUMAN!

Scooter Allen

"And you're posting the parents should have NO SAY in the treatment of their child - just let him die. Now THAT'S INHUMAN!"

You said that not me...those are YOUR words. I'm sure if there was something that could be done here in the states that baby would be here. And how you spun an article about what Ted Cruz said to Death Panels is beyond me. The only death panels here is the states is the Insurance Company's denying claims and treatments.

Carlos Ponce

"I'm sure if there was something that could be done here in the states that baby would be here." There is a treatment available here. Spun? No, an earlier poster wanted Universal Health care. DEATH PANELS result from that path.

Carlos Ponce

Again, Jim misses the target completely.

Paula Flinn

Carlos, there is no cure for what the baby has. He cannot see or hear or form thoughts. He is brain dead. There is no point in bringing him to the USA. The grieving parents just wanted a glimmer of hope that he could be saved. It is a progressive disease. He will, sooner, rather than later, die. It is very sad.

I have noticed that you bring up the most extreme cases when you are faced with something that should just be common sense. The Republicans could "fix" Obama care if they wanted to. All of this angst over health care could be avoided, but no, since Trump hates Obama, he cannot stand for his health care to prevail. Why not write about how the Republicans in Congress sabotaged Obama care, allowing the greedy insurance companies to go way up on their premiums?

Carlos Ponce

Brain dead... Oh ye of little faith! If you ever look at religious programs you will hear of hundreds declared BRAIN DEAD then lived after. No offense against the medical profession but sometimes some doctors get it wrong. What's wrong with letting these parents hang on to a shred of hope. And even if the baby dies think about what the medical profession can learn by trying.
"'Miracle recovery' of teen declared brain dead by four doctors"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9223408/Miracle-recovery-of-teen-declared-brain-dead-by-four-doctors.html
"List of Brain Dead Patients Who've Recovered"
http://kgov.com/brain-dead-patients-who-have-recovered
"NY woman declared ‘brain dead’ woke up moments before organs harvested"
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ny-woman-declared-brain-dead-woke-up-moments-before-organs-harvested
"The Republicans could "fix" Obama care if they wanted to."
THAT'S WHAT THEY DID. What the Senate bill modified ACA/Obamacare but Democrats still said NYET! They could take the text of Obamacare and put it out as newa nd the Democrats would still HATE it.

Jim Forsythe

Does the ones that may be making the call for you, know what you want. If not, talk to them and make sure they know what you want.
83% of Americans do not have an advanced care directive or living will. Many of those who do have not discussed these with their families. Hence, when many of us become incapacitated and confront questions of whether to pursue heroic, but futile care, our families may agree to such treatment, rather than letting us die with dignity.
If you want all possible actions taken for you, let them know. It hard when you do not know, and are just guessing what someone want's.
I have had to make this call 2 times,and one was without a directive.
Also talk about organ donation, and what you want

Charlie, is not brain dead. To post about  brain dead and people coming back, is not the same thing as what Charlie has . As his   .
mitochondrial are depleted, he will continue to lose ground.
"Charlie Gard was born August 4, 2016 with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome.,
The baby is said to be one of only 16 people to be diagnosed with it in the world.
Mitochondria are responsible for creating more than 90% of the energy needed by the body to sustain life and support organ function
The heart, brain, muscles and lungs rely on this the most.But the disease affects each individual differently.
Symptoms include seizures, strokes, severe developmental delays, inability to walk, talk, see, and digest food.
In Charlie’s case, he is unable to get energy to his muscles, kidney and brain."

 Cell death will continue!
"It is unclear why TK2 gene mutations typically affect only muscle tissue, but the high energy demands of muscle cells may make them the most susceptible to cell death when mtDNA is lost and less energy is produced in cells. The brain and the liver also have high energy demands, which may explain why these organs are affected in severe cases of TK2-MDS"

Should we be fighting other countries court battle's?
"Gard’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, lost their final legal battle last week when the European Court of Human Rights upheld the Supreme Court’s decision to deny Gard the chance to travel to the United States."

Carlos Ponce

We should always fight for the lives of the innocent no matter where they reside. Here the parents' wishes have been pushed aside in favor of no action to be taken.
So sad![sad]
Adolph Hitler ordered the death of Jews, Homosexuals,Gypsies, others within his and neighboring countries. Bashar al-Assad ordered the death of fellow Syrians which included children. What you are implying is that we should not be concerned with what another nation does to its own. I cannot go along with that.

Jim Forsythe

How are you going to change what laws they have? Do you want others, to change our
laws.

Carlos Ponce

Prayer, Mr. Forsythe, Prayer. And a little public pressure doesn't hurt. If the European Elitist knew that the world doesn't perceive things as they do, things would change.

Jim Forsythe

If the American's  ______  knew that the world doesn't perceive things as they do, things would change.
If we think other places want the  USA to set laws for them , what does that make us?
Part of being free , is the freedom to make your own laws without trying to impose your will on others.
I do not want other countries setting  laws for us . Do you think they  want us imposing our will on them.
We, as a whole can not agree on what is best for us. We have no business trying to tell others what to do.
We have offered help, and if they want it ,they will say so.


If the American's  ______  knew that the world doesn't perceive things as they do, things would change.
If we think other places want the  USA to set laws for them , what does that make us?
Part of being free , is the freedom to make your own laws without trying to impose your will on others.
I do not want other countries setting  laws for us . Do you think they  want us imposing our will on them.
We, as a whole can not agree on what is best for us. We have no business trying to tell others what to do.
We have offered help, and if they want it ,they will say so.

Carlos Ponce

Then please tell the other Liberals to stop trying to impose European laws and ideals on us. And tell Ruth Vader Ginsburg not to use non-American law and precedents in making her decisions for this country.

Jim Forsythe

Maybe I'm wrong ,but Ruth Vader Ginsburg is a citizen of the USA employed to rule on laws. Ginsburg has expressed the view that looking to international law is well-ingrained in tradition in American law, counting John Henry Wigmore and President John Adams as internationalists
If we tried to impose laws on Britain in the Charlie Gard case, it would say what about the USA. That if we do not like the way your country is do it, and we know better.
Who writes the laws in America. The ones that have the power right now, are the ones not doing what you want. Your Congressmen and House member are the ones you need to talk to, if you want change.
As I do not know many true Liberals, I will leave it up to you, to talk to them.


Carlos Ponce

Neither John Henry Wigmore nor President John Adams were members of the US Supreme Court.

Jim Forsythe

If your point is ,they can only use what another member writes , than what they were taught in Law school must be excluded,  along with anything that was not prepared by another member . A lot of talented people have never been on the US Supreme Court.
How can the two, John Adams and John Henry Wigmore   not be a good source for research, for a member of the US Supreme Court

A  lawyer,John Adams (October 30 1735 – July 4, 1826) was an American lawyer
John Henry Wigmore (March 4, 1863 – April 20, 1943) was an American jurist and expert in the law of evidence. After teaching law at Keio University in Tokyo (1889–1892), he was the dean of Northwestern Law School (1901 to 1929).

Carlos Ponce

Some European judicial systems (France) are based on you're guilty and have to prove your innocence unlike here where you're innocent until proven guilty. Want to be tried under French precedents?
This is the 21st century. The US has enough judicial background BASED ON OUR OWN CONSTITUTION. And Euro trash courts would declare some prominent Americans WAR CRIMINALS: George Herbert Walker Bush, William J. Clinton, George W. Bush. Why do you think the United States has REFUSED to join the International Criminal Court?

Jim Forsythe

One country's WAR CRIMINAL, is another country's war Hero
Are  you calling John Henry Wigmore, Euro trash?
One of the reasons we have 9 Supreme Court justice's, is so we will not have  just one point of view.
If one's idea of a fair court, is one that will vote 9-0 for your view, then we will have a real problem of  balance .
Just as most Congressmen and House Members  have forgot why they are elected, that they have a job to do,and not just for the party they belong to.
How many times when Congressmen and House Members  make a speech, do they just  say how bad the other side is, and not what they plan on doing to help the USA.
"you're innocent until proven guilty" are we?
  Just this week, two men were killed by a driver, and most posters (GDN) already have found someone guilty.
Is justice different for someone that has a lot of money?

Carlos Ponce

John Henry Wigmore was never a judge, just an academician. While he taught International Law he never advocated its use in American court cases. The course was meant to prepare lawyers for potential cases involving clients from other countries. He also showed how American law was derived from British law.

Jim Forsythe

"John Henry Wigmore was never a judge"
Should Judges be the only one that are the inspiration for Supreme Court Judges? What about the ones that teach them in Law school or the ones that are doing research and writing for Chief Justice's? How about someone who has written what  Legal scholars consider one of the greatest books on law ever written.

"John Henry Wigmore ranks as one of the most important legal scholars in U.S. history. A law professor and later dean of Northwestern University Law School from 1901 to 1929, Wigmore was a prolific writer in many areas of the law. He is renowned for his ten-volume Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law—usually referred to as Wigmore on Evidence—originally released in four volumes (1904–1905) but expanded to ten volumes by the third edition (1940). Legal scholars consider this treatise one of the greatest books on law ever written .
He supplemented his income by doing research and writing for Chief Justice Charles Doe of the New Hampshire Supreme Court"

.

Carlos Ponce

"Should Judges be the only one that are the inspiration for Supreme Court Judges?"
Supreme Court judges should base their decisions on the Constitution and judicial precedent not on a professor's writings.

Jim Forsythe

Is this what you are saying. Supreme Court Judges should not  have  Law School professor give them what is need to start their lives as Lawyers,, Judges, Chief Justice, Supreme Court Judges and such.
Part of the what of Law  school covers is Constitution and judicial precedent .Teachers , professor and such should give  inspiration to their students, that may last a life time. if not,  they may be in the wrong job.
My guess is that Lawyers read a lot of book and writings, before, during  and after Law school.
All of this, plus life experiences, form how they make decisions.

Carlos Ponce

Again, Jim misses the target completely

Jim Forsythe

What is Carlos's target?
Is it, Ruth Vader Ginsburg should not be on the Supreme Court .
Is it , The USA should tell other nations, what laws they should have?
Is it, comparing  a nation to Hitler and  Bashar al-Assad
Is it, John Henry Wigmore nor President John Adams were not  inspiration's
to many in the law field.
Is it , saying Charlie Gard is brain dead , when he has mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome.


Carlos Ponce

My target is to enlighten the mind numbed robots who call themselves Progressives, Liberals, Democrats, etc..

Jim Forsythe

"mind numbed robots"
"Carlos and a few others often apply nicknames and labels. It let's them feel a sense of control."
Calling groups of people names , is a attempt to lower them, to one's  idea of how they should  take care of their business., which  only lowers one self.
Why would someone lower their selves to this? Is it a attempt to deflect , or something else.

"Progressives, Liberals, Democrats, etc.". The etc. is ?
Are you talking about everyone, but the far right? Or just you!

Carlos Ponce

Just the mind numbed robots, Jim.[beam]

Jim Forsythe

And they are whom?

Carlos Ponce

Look "them" up in your Funk and Wagnalls.

Jim Forsythe

This is what I found, if you were thinking of something else ,say so. Is this you,
on your twitter account?

Mind-Numbed Robot
@mnrobot
Conservative/libertarian robot, #CruzCrew #vrwc #tcot #tlot #TGDN
Southeast Texas

Carlos Ponce

I don't have a twitter account but I asked you to look it up in Funk and Wagnalls. So much for following directions.[rolleyes]

Jim Forsythe

I ask you who they were and you said look it up . Either you have not idea who they are, or you do not want to post it.
When you call a group a name , you own it.
Who do you consider "mind numbed robots", and why?
My guess is you did not come up with "mind numbed robots", so are you one, for following someone else's idea?

Carlos Ponce

Trying to be clever by leaving out the most important part of my post. I specified WHERE to look it up and you looked elsewhere.

Jim Forsythe

As you have not posted the meaning of "mind numbed robots" in your own words and the groups it applies to, I take it you do not want to have it posted, in your words.

The only Funk & Wagnalls I was able to  bring up was Funk & Wagnalls Urban issue, and it did not have "mind numbed robots"
The last time Funk & Wagnalls  came up for me was,  "Rowan & Martin's, Laugh-in "Look That Up In Your Funk & Wagnalls "

Carlos Ponce

Have I posted my definition of "mind numbed robots????????
Yes, I have. See my post Jul 10, 2017 9:29am

Jim Forsythe

"My target is to enlighten the mind numbed robots who call themselves Progressives , Liberals, Democrats, etc.".
Your ansewer was incomplete. Who is the the  etc..  is it , conservative Democrats', Independents,  Republican's that lean to the center ,
Just who is in your group that you called out.

Carlos Ponce

My answer is complete.

Carlos Ponce

"Health care is not a human right"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126951/
This is from a government website

Dan Freeman

Come on Carlos. That is an 18 year editorial comment in the BMJ. It is not a government website of belief. It also includes foolishness like " the philosophical basis of all human rights has always been shaky. " The writer opposes all rights. That is rich.

Carlos Ponce

Bottom line, a US Government website says "Health Care is not a human right".

George Croix

I'm confused...again....
If universal healthcare cuts costs for EVERYONE, then where does the money come from to pay for it...??? Or, if one prefers, who pays for the subsidies, when everyone gets subsidized...???

Scooter Allen

You are already paying for it. Wouldn't you like to get a little return on your tax investment? I sure as hell would. I want cheaper healthcare. If you leave it up the the insurance company's, you are going to be broke as a joke and spending all your money in retirement on increased premiums and denied procedures, instead of the travel or plans you had when you retired.

George Croix

That's great. I agree. Who DOESN'T want cheaper cost for the same or better, no matter the subject.
But, we're not talking the price of hamburgers, or shirts, or whatever...
We're talking people who think in terms of 'rights' paid for with GOVERNMENT MONEY and said 'rights' should be 'universal'...for everyone.
Meaning EVERYBODY get's it 'free'...which is another way of saying you and I get our care for 'free' because somebody else pays for it. Simply put, if we ALL get that RIGHT and rights are 'free', then who the heck pays the bills???
It's not a matter of wanting to pay less...who doesn't...it's a matter of a totally unrealistic expectation(s) that anybody has a 'right' to get what they want and worry about the finances later.
'Nothing is free', certainly not for 'everyone'...a lesson unlearned by a significant portion of the population, so it appears......repeatedly....the ones footing the bills, anyway....
I await an answer to my original question.
WHO will pay for my and EVERYBODY else's newfound 'right' to healthcare?
Once we're all equally broke..what then.....???

George Croix

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=you+tube+cricket+sounds#id=3&vid=07f2f3bd5978d0081832914231f9760b&action=click

Handy link...considering....

Don Schlessinger

I wonder if when universal healthcare is finally the law, will ALL government employees (except military) be in the system too?

George Croix

Allowed an increase in premiums????

Well...what can ya say about that....[smile]

Greedy companies should be satisfied being lied to loudly and often about their potential for customers and profit, and just suck up billions in losses after the die is cast....
Of course, one didn't have to be too smart to see that a system based on young healthy people voluntarily footing much of the bills for older sicker people was an exercise in 'creative' salesmanship, so they DO bear some responsibility for believing the lying...repeatedly.....and still......architects of the ACA in the first place.....
And NONE of this divisive nonsense has squat to do with actual negative impacts on overextended health CARE.
But, why waste time on reality when we can 'resist' it.... [beam]

Keith Gray

Welcome back to the forums you soulless jackal...[innocent]

George Croix

[innocent]

George Croix

Ruth Vader Ginsberg?

Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

I'm pretty sure she has enough baggage without being added to the Star Wars family tree... [wink]

Carlos Ponce

Vader is more appropriate.[beam]

Steve Fouga

Carlos and a few others often apply nicknames and labels. It let's them feel a sense of control.

George Croix

I firmly believe that if 'The Government' offered free horse rhymes with spit sandwiches paid for by 'the rich' the usual suspects on the left would not only line up with hands out and bibs on, but loudly clammer for bigger helpings and denounce anyone wanting to exchange the 'spit' for something actually nutritious....
[whistling]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.