One of the arguments forwarded during the health bill debate was that the provisions would get stronger over time, as a constituency for new services developed. I thought it a doubtful assertion at the time (consider that no new government program – yes, a public insurance program – was created) and I imagine folks who argued that assertion are thinking it is doubtful now too. From today’s NYTimes:
For starters, Republicans say they will try to withhold money that federal officials need to administer and enforce the law. [. . .] “They’ll get not one dime from us,” the House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, told The Cincinnati Enquirer recently. “Not a dime. There is no fixing this.”
[. . . ] Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, a senior Republican on the Finance Committee, has introduced a bill that would eliminate a linchpin of the new law: a requirement for many employers to offer insurance to employees or pay a tax penalty.
[. . .] Republicans say they will also try to scale back the expansion of Medicaid if states continue to object to the costs of adding millions of people to the rolls of the program for low-income people.
What you will have left is an individual mandate and state based exchanges (with inadequate subsidies.) Would that still be “the biggest progressive accomplishment in 40 years?”
That’s a winning argument you got there, BTD- “If Republicans strip all the progressive aspects out of legislation, it won’t be very progressive. Suck on that, Obots!” Likewise, if I took out all the words in a dictionary, it wouldn’t be much of a dictionary, would it! Haha! I got you with my impeccable logic!
Even more ridiculous is that despite his attempts to spin this as a reason to not vote for Democrats (they weren’t progressive enough, why should I vote for them!), it’s actually even more of a reason to vote for them, because of what a Republican majority would attempt to do. I need a drink.