The Week: Republicans Are Done Trying to Repeal Obamacare. Maybe. Kinda. Not Really.

The Week brings us the following bizarre analysis:

After vowing to kill President Obama’s eponymous health-care law for going on four years now, Republicans appear to finally be moving on.

To be sure, the party hasn’t dropped its opposition to ObamaCare. But a shift in the way it has framed that opposition indicates that the days of “repeal or bust” are a thing of the past.

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday that coming up with an ObamaCare alternative would be “one of the big issues” at the GOP’s annual policy conference this month, adding that such a proposal could come up for a vote this year.

“It’s important for us as a party, especially in an election year, to tell the people what you’re for,” he said. “We’re for getting rid of ObamaCare and replacing it with a patient-centered health-care system.”

It’s a subtle shift, but a significant one.

I’m not seeing any real shift here. Am I missing something?

(h/t Karin Riley Porter)
This entry was posted in Healthcare and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    Nah, no shift. It’s the same old “talking out of both sides of their mouth” thing they’ve always done.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    What exactly is a “patient-centered health care system”?

    As far as I know, the health care system is already “patient-centered” to the extent that patients are the ones being cared for, patients make the final decisions as to treatment options presented by their doctors, and patients are the ones who have to either buy insurance or pay for their care. What is it about the current system that is not “patient-centered” that can be made “patient-centered” by federal statute? Enlighten us, please.

    • D_C_Wilson

      I would say as opposed to “insurance comapny-centered health care,” but this is the republican party we’re talking about.

    • Zen Diesel

      “patient-centered health care system” is supposed to make us feel all warm and fuzzy, we are in control of our health, without intrusion of the guvmint mitts. However, like most of the crazy acid dropping dreams that come from the Republicans it’s all bullshit. They have a plan and it’s being implemented as we speak, “it’s called Obamacare”. Their stupidity in fighting this is so deep, they can never acknowledge or ever claim any credit for their own plan.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        Well, yes. “Patient-centered health care system” is an empty, meaningless buzzphrase.

        • Zen Diesel

          I wonder what will it take for the Republican to finally realize that they need to put the Tea Party and Evangelicals back in the crates, and come back to some sense of decency in which one might actually warm up to the idea of the bullshit they are spinning.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            When it starts hurting their bank accounts. Hate, fear, selfishness, cruelty, resentment, religious fervor and a balief in one’s own personal heroism are very marketable commodities. Persistent massive electoral defeats won’t be enough. People have to literally stop buying what they’re selling.

    • JimmyAbra

      Knowing republicanspeak, I am guessing it is something opposite to systematic healthcare where best practices are used as a benchmark to guide patient care for everybody…Something that would like similar to pay as you go but in the guise of insurance coverage where only those with money and who are healthy can buy in…like the “good ole days”

      • GrafZeppelin127

        …best practices are used as a benchmark to guide patient care for everybody.

        “Are used” by whom? Who gets to define “best practices” or decide what “practices” are “best”? How do you draft a federal statute that will ensure that “best practices are used as a benchmark to guide patient care for everybody”?

        This doesn’t sound very “patient-centered” to me. [I know you're postulating someone else's position, not advocating your own, so don't take this personally.] It sounds very government-centered and/or doctor-centered and/or insurer-centered. It sounds like requiring doctors and insurers to do things, which is what the ACA already does.

        • http://phydeauxpseaks.blogspot.com/ Bob Rutledge

          (he also said opposite to, FWIW)

          • GrafZeppelin127

            Oops. My bad.

  • D_C_Wilson

    I guess the shift is they’re pretending they actually have something to replace Obamacare with?

    • Mike_Norris

      I was thinkin’ that…

  • 1933john

    Same Ole Shit from the Reagan Eighties.
    What we really need is Medicare for All.
    Fuck the insurance racket in the ass
    with a rusty dildo with no batteries!

    • Churchlady320

      Of course we need Medicare for All – or some version of universality that is sustainable. But single payer folks have done squat to show Congress or the American people how affordable and sustainable it is. I worked for over a decade on it in CA, and once the ball landed in our court, those who could help provide new data on how single payer could improve on ACA just walked away mumbling about their moral superiority. However, ACA lays the identical foundation for care use in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and part of the French system. So is the Canadian model – with its regressive 17% VAT – the ONLY one? Surely not. And if we want that, why can’t we do the work to prove its superiority? What are WE afraid of? I’m well and truly tired of rants. Gimme FACTS, and I will keep lobbying. Until then, not so much. And BTW I find your second sentence as repellant as anything the Baggers ever said.

      • 1933john

        Sorry, scratch dildo and make
        that a “Baseball Shoe”.
        I really didn’t mean to offend
        good “Church People”,
        that fallback on “Activism”
        with “Bagger” thrown in for
        good measure.
        Suggest that in the future
        you avoid reading my, what
        you consider, offensive shit.
        Regards,
        Dirty Old Man

      • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

        And BTW I find your second sentence as repellant as anything the Baggers ever said.

        I assume you’re referring to the racist teabaggers? And you find 1933john’s last sentence more repellent?

        Not even close. And, you are under no obligation to read what offends you.

  • Badgerite

    The reason for the ‘shift’ being that people are signing up in droves demonstrating that there is indeed a need for such legislation and people who have literally been shut out of the healthcare system due to cost. Also, they are now going to have to demonstrate someone who has actually died from a ‘death panel’ decision and they, of course, will not be able to do so. The liars!

  • Nefercat

    “I’m not seeing any real shift here. ”

    That’s because there isn’t one.

    “Patient-centered health-care system” = Profiteering insurance company decides if you live or die.

  • Christopher Foxx


    “It’s important for us as a party, especially in an election year, to tell the people what you’re for,” he said. “We’re for getting rid of ObamaCare

    “It’s important for us to tell the people what we’re for,” he said. “We’re for being against things.”

  • http://phydeauxpseaks.blogspot.com/ Bob Rutledge

    Again, y’all ain’t looking at things from the Repellican POV (for which I suppose I should be grateful).

    It’s a total shift, from the negative “We’re against ObamaCare” to the positive “We’re for getting rid of ObamaCare”. Just like every R change for the last everhow many years, it’s only the semantics that change.