Murkowski: GOP should focus on Economy and Jobs, not Health Care Repeal

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The only thing she gets is how to whore herself to the media for attention.


The GOP can't just forget the health care repeal now. "That ship has sailed, doctor".  Secondly, she is up and conceding that somehow if you work to repeal healthcare, you aren't focused on the economy which is just pure BS all the way. If that were true, we are all screwed anyway because there is no way Congress can just sit around and do only economy related things (of which there are very few that can be done at this point). That is not why they were elected (multi-tasking is part of the job discription, hence all the damn committees), which of course is why it is done. It is an open invitation to buy praise and end criticisms in exchange for the GOP "focusing on the economy" alone. I know how it ends. The GOP congress will be a do nothing congress that violated their promises. Pelosi couldn't have designed a better bait and switch, with her as the beneficiary, even if she had done it herself . Finally, on the economic front itself, repealing health care or atleast substantially modifying it will be essential for the economy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, it's more important that we prevent tens of millions of Americans from getting health insurance than it is we help millions of Americans find employment. Good job, libtards.

Cease with the hyperbolistic talking points. Points for the creative false dichotomy.


Simple facts
1. There will still be a large number of uninsured people with this bill.
2. This bill does nothing to really controll costs, just pays lip service to it, which even if your intentions are just to insure the uninsured you have to address this regardless, and it wasn't practically at all.
3. There is nothing that could be done for the economy, that can't be done because of the focus on repeal. Even one of your precious worthless stimulus bills could just as easily be passed if there was the need or even the faint belief that it would be worth making our finances that much worse. If our congress people are that freakin lazy and stupid that they can only "focus on one thing at a time" then we need to replace every damn last incumbent. But you see, it is a talking point. Congress can easily address more than one thing at a time. Its whether the media and the power players want them too. I would think you would agree with me here. After all, Obama was hurt by this ridiculous nonsense too.   

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Simple facts
1. There will still be a large number of uninsured people with this bill.
2. This bill does nothing to really controll costs, just pays lip service to it, which even if your intentions are just to insure the uninsured you have to address this regardless, and it wasn't practically at all.
3. There is nothing that could be done for the economy, that can't be done because of the focus on repeal. Even one of your precious worthless stimulus bills could just as easily be passed if there was the need or even the faint belief that it would be worth making our finances that much worse. If our congress people are that freakin lazy and stupid that they can only "focus on one thing at a time" then we need to replace every damn last incumbent. But you see, it is a talking point. Congress can easily address more than one thing at a time. Its whether the media and the power players want them too. I would think you would agree with me here. After all, Obama was hurt by this ridiculous nonsense too.   

The basic points of the bill change many things. Pre-existing conditions are gone and you can't be drop from coverage if you get sick, those are important improvements.

Multi-tasking isn't the issue. The Republicans wasted hours of debate and votes on something that will fail, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Both of which will be in the Republican replacement bill. I won't get into all the practical promises those areas of bipartisan agreement cause in reality.
 
And how many damn hours are waisted anyway in every congress? Atleast in my opinion its on something productive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tens of millions less than if the act is repealed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, it does significantly more to control costs than repealing the act would. Is the argument here really that because the Affordable Care Act is not perfect we should repeal it and return to the much worse status quo?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The GOP isn't even talking about jobs, unless it's in regard to the "job-killing" healthcare act. The next thing on their agenda is amending the clean air act!

Could have sworn it was "Repeal and Replace".


Actually that is a very important, pro-jobs measure, if they amend the clean air act so that the EPA can't regulate carbon emissions, something which no one ever intended to give them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Both of which will be in the Republican replacement bill. I won't get into all the practical promises those areas of bipartisan agreement cause in reality.
 
And how many damn hours are waisted anyway in every congress? Atleast in my opinion its on something productive.

A replacement bill doesn't exist. If it does, why haven't we heard anything about? Facts not fiction, please.

No, but we can be pretty sure what will be in it.

As for that second sentence in my post, some went wrong. It should have been either "impractical promises" or "practical problems". hmm, can't remember which.

     The odds of a health care repeal ever passing are pretty small (doubly so if they push for a clean repeal without a packaged replacement bill), & completely nonexistent in this Congress. Murkowski is just being rational in suggesting the GOP focus on other things. Not to say that I agree with said rationality.

Its rational to view it as a "distraction from the economy". Boehner could pass 100 jobs bills inspite of them "waisting time on repeal". Its simply ridiculous what she is suggesting. Its not like there is a damn thing that congress can do short term to fix the problem and all long term solutions are just that, long term. Hence spending time on repeal does nothing to take away from dealing with the economy. Its rational only from the perspective that its rational for her to use such spin out of spite.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Dude Yank, the Democrats got slammed for focusing on health care when they should have focused on the economy. The same thing will happen to the Republicans. Fair is fair (although whether it's fair to either Republicans or Democrats is a matter of debate, the public's perception is what is important here).

Yes you are right, it is for the public to decide.

The difference is the GOP's easy response is that repealing and replacing health care is essential to economic recovery and they also have more then enough to back that up with in the court of public opinion. And its rhetorically and ideologically consistent for Republicans to argue that Gov't taxes, regulations and programs get in the way of the economy. Thus in order to ensure job creation the EPA must be reigned in, the Health care bill repealed and replaced, etc etc. And there will be stories to trumpet even if anecdotal of people whose insurance got canned or had their job axed because of health care mandates, fees, taxes etc.

Dude Yank, the Democrats got slammed for focusing on health care when they should have focused on the economy. The same thing will happen to the Republicans. Fair is fair (although whether it's fair to either Republicans or Democrats is a matter of debate, the public's perception is what is important here).

Where did you get the idea that Republicans are focused on healthcare? The Democrats spent almost a year on it. The GOP has spent 2 weeks.

Kind of funny how people are writing the fate of the 112th congress 700 days before it ends.

Are you kidding? You must not have received the memo. The 112th congress has to be destroyed to save Obama.