Will Boehner, Bruised and Battered, Survive?

"And so, yeah, there have been a couple of stumbles, all in our effort to show the American people that we're here to listen to their priorities."  [John Boehner]

"Earlier this month Boehner faced a rebellion within his House Republican caucus when several members tried to oust him after he got GOP members to support funding of both Obamacare and Barack Obama’s executive amnesty." [wnd.com]

 

House Speaker, John Boehner, who mumbles,

Admits there have  been several stumbles.

Members far to  his  Right

Are now vowing  to fight,

So prepare for some GOP rumbles.

Filed under: politics, war

Tags: John Boehner, Tea Party

Comments

Leave a comment
  • There's a good CNN article today outlining Boehner's lawsuits on Immigration amnesty and Obamcare, he says Republican's will have an alternative for Obamacare.

    The New York Times, of all places, had an ironic article the other day 'Harvard ideas on healthcare hit home, hard'. It appears they're up in arms that the healthcare curse they helped inflict on the nation has final found them. I guess the monster turned on Dr. Frankenstein.

    I'm surprised you're reading WND.com Aquinas.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Unless the courts find that the House has standing* and want to wade into a dispute between the other two branches (none of which I think is likely), the suits are just publicity stunts.

    If the Republicans have an alternative to Obamacare, other than the 50 or so votes to repeal it, they sure haven't shown it so far. I assume that an alternative is amending stuff, like the narrow networks. However, since ACA gave private entities the right to set up those networks, it sure sounds like a Republican-like plan, like Medicare Part D. Apparently, Part D is only a government mandated private plan with a penalty for not participating, but somehow the Bush Administration thunk up that one.

    AW: It looks like the Tea Party has deflated Boehner's balls, even if they did not have the votes to depose him.

    ____________
    *How in the world is the Republican caucus aggrieved by Obama granting a waiver of ACA? Did they want him to enforce it more strictly?

  • In reply to jack:

    Publicity stunts? Okay. I want the real world effects of these bad laws out in the light. Consciousness has been proven to alter outcomes.

    You didn't comment on the NY Times article. That was the teeth of my post. 'Chicken's coming home to roost'. It's telling when policy makers don't want to follow their own policies. These thorns will eventually work their way out, so my mother always told me.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    1. The real world effects come out through other means, and besides that courts do not rule on the wisdom of legislation. The only legal issues are whether Congress has standing to enforce a mandatory duty of the President, and if such a duty exists. I mentioned the Marbury v. Madison problem here before. So, it has nothing to do with the merits of the law or whether it should be amended based on "real world effrects"; it is merely a publicity stunt to show that "Congress sued the President." I also bet that, like most filings, it won't get publicity when it is dismissed.

    2. I saw another version of Harvard gets bit in the ass, which again is about as much news as dog bites man. The point is that Boehner has not said what he is going to do about it, in legislation that will pass both Houses of Congress and won't get vetoed.

  • In reply to jack:

    'Real world effects come out through other means'...'People who designed bad law get burned by it' is not news...and Boehner having the only 'publicity stunt' in Vegas is the 'point'...got it, thanx Jack, boy was I mixed up.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    I'm an eclectic reader.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Wasn't Morgan Freeman on The Electric Company for that purpose? And that old goof Letterman?

  • In reply to 4zen:

    The professors are not disillusioned with ACA but are upset about how their employer is dealing with it.

    Of course Shakespeare, though not a university man, knew something about human nature:

    "For there was never a philosopher
    That could endure the toothache patiently".

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    I can get back to the previously discussed professor, Milton Friedman, whose other less observed saying dealt with unintended consequences, such as "we all knew that Medicare was going to result in fraud and raise the cost of health care."

    Yet, I believe the Republicans gave up on repealing Medicare in the late 1980s. So, maybe they will give up on repealing the ACA in 2029 (if we are still here).

    Sure there have been all sorts of problems with implementation, including the website and how companies like BCBS have implemented it, but neither is solved by Boehner filing a lawsuit saying that the statute should be more strictly enforced nor suggesting any solution. At least now BCBS is covering people with minor preexisting conditions that it wouldn't touch before.

  • In reply to jack:

    Great example Jack, that sound financial ship Medicare, forecast to run out of money the year I turn 62, but it looks stellar long as you don't look at the 18 trillion in federal debt. Or how about Medicaid, an Illinois 2013 funded audit did find almost 50% of filings were fraudulent.

    I've seen this game before, we'll just keep watching the chips fall until the roof comes down and then blame something else. My experience has taught me not to go to far with this issue, we'll just keep watching.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    So, are you suggesting that Ted "Birther" Cruz run for President on a platform of abolishing Medicare?

  • In reply to jack:

    Absolutely not. I am suggesting this country could be more financially responsible and health insurance is not healthcare. They didn't tackle this issue with a problem solving mindset, they tackled it with a political one.

    And most importantly, see my latest post on AW's 'The Raison d'etre for my Blogging'.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    In reverse order, I certainly did Debate is the heart of this, as opposed to the great number of Chicago Now bloggers calling people trolls. I just seek to put a bit of precision into it.

    On the first, there definitely was a problem, as I indicated with regard to preexisting conditions, and I admitted that there were problems in implementation. However, it is questionable whether the old system of "hospitals have to provide free care to indigents, even though some like the U of C don't want to" and "the rest of us can go bankrupt" was fiscally responsible, either.

    And, of course, anything that any legislative body does is with a political mindset. You don't think that the sue the President movement isn't political? The problem is that it is solely political. Again, if the House wanted to pass an immigration bill, Boehner would not have used the Boehner rule to keep it off the floor. Instead, his caucus wants to sue.

  • In reply to jack:

    Carpet bombing 18% of our GDP to solve the preexisting condition problem never has made any sense to me and they lied about the costs and the networks.

    Unfortunately, I'm left rooting for anyone that keeps this debate in the public eye.

  • In reply to jack:

    I have nothing against keeping the debate in the public eye, but I prefer that the debate be on relevant problems, such as the networks, deductibles, confusing nature of the signup process, whether this is reducing costs. etc.

    To typify, I was talking to someone (same person I mentioned in the red light topic) who said "I need the number for Obamacare, since my Blue Cross is too high." My first question essentially was "how did you ever qualify for Blue Cross?" but getting past that, I said you can look it up yourself. But there was a "special" on WGN-TV this morning on Get Covered Illinois, so I called her to watch that. She called back that she called the number on the screen, and was given various other numbers, including apparently some agent who had Bronze plans from several companies, which she said were (term that fits into the Louis XIII post), and that she would have to cancel whatever she had to qualify for that. I said call up Blue Cross, which is advertising that they can get you help with playing your bill through tax credits or Medicaid supplements, but didn't have the number on its website for that. Just then, Bob Sirott came on the radio with a commercial for 855-412-BLUE, so I told her to try that. I also told her to get a navigator, because this is too complicated for anyone to figure out for oneself.

    Now, if someone wants to shed light on any of this, more power to them. But it sure doesn't seem like Boehner does.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Oh, so you mean the consequences are mutually exclusive, consequences that were foretold by anyone with a bit of financial commonsense.

    You know I grew up in a single parent household that tended to get us a many a pickle with that type of thinking, no no sir! Not in my household ever again. I'll wait patiently for this Chimera to reveal itself, and I won't feel too terrible about getting the occasional chuckle from the inevitable irony over at Harvard.

Leave a comment