Back in November we ran a piece on the mechanics of Repealing Health Care Reform which basically concluded that there are only 3 ways to repeal this new law: (i) Congress can pass a bill which repeals this bill (in part or in whole); (ii) the Courts can declare the law unconstitutional; or (iii) Congress can "starve" the law by refusing to vote for its funding. Of the three, we figured that the most realistic form of actions for Republicans determined to "repeal" the law would be #3 - starve it - as they likely do not have the votes in either house to actually do a flat out repeal of the law. But now that the New Republican-lead Congress is in session, a new question is being posed by the American public with respect to repealing the Health Care Reform law - "Why?" As in, remind us why are we repealing these new-found benefits exactly? And with the President's numbers back on the rise (currently standing at about 53% give or take) the Republicans are having an increasingly hard time making the sale to the American public that we should forgo these new health care benefits simply because Obama created them.
Case in point, watch Republican Congressman Connie Mack (FL) struggle with Mike Barnicle on yesterday's Morning Joe when Barnicle asks him, point blank, whether (a) the fact that his 25 year-old son can now stay on his health care coverage until age 26 and (b) the fact that his son cannot be excluded from coverage due to pre-existing conditions should actually be repealed: (watch from 07:16 to 08:30)
Many agree that the Republicans' attempt to repeal "Obama-Care" was purely political, but given that an increasing number of Americans actually don't want to see it repealed, is it good politics for the Republicans to continue down this road?