Die Now, Die Later, Or Just Go Away

Speaking at the Port of New Orleans on Thursday, President Obama implored Governor Bobby Jindal, who has rejected Medicaid expansion, to accept free money:

We want to work with everybody, mayor, governor, insurance companies -- whoever it is that wants to wants to work with us here in Louisiana to make sure even if you don't support the overall plan, let's at least go ahead and make sure that the folks who don't have health insurance, let's make sure we do that. It's the right thing to do.

But the Louisiana governor would have none of it, responding (according to The Huffington Post, punctuation included)

We will not allow President Obama to bully Louisiana into accepting an expansion of Obamacare. “We have rejected Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion in Louisiana because it would cost Louisiana taxpayers up to $1.7 billion over the next ten years and move nearly 250,000 Louisianians from private coverage to Medicaid. “The disastrous rollout of Obamacare is a case in point that we don’t need top-down, one-size-fits-all federal mandates, and instead should continue to focus on health care solutions that make sense for Louisiana. “Obamacare needs to be repealed. The dysfunction of the website and the President’s broken promises on being able to keep your health plan are just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the problems with this law.

The big 'bully' says "take our money- or else I'll give a speech," and Bobby Jindal quakes. Obviously, "Obamacare" is anything but a "one-size-fits-all-mandate," given that states can set up their own (private insurance) marketplace, allow their citizens to participate in the federal (private insurance) marketplace, or collaborate with the federal government in establishing a (private insurance) marketplace. And then the individual may choose from among a range of (private) insurance companies, as planned by the Socialist president.   Of course, an expansion of Medicaid would move Louisianans from costly private coverage to Medicaid, for which Louisiana taxpayers would have to pay a whopping 10% of the cost beginning in 2016 to insure its poorest citizens. That's after paying 0% until 2010.

Bobby Jindal wants to repeal Obamacare and continue the system in which residents of his state in 2009 paid $6,795 per capita for health care, lower than in most states but approximately twice as great as that of the 34 nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development as of 2010.

Bloomberg recently released a study of health care systems world-wide on, as The Huffington Post, explains

three criteria: life expectancy (weighted 60%), relative per capita cost of health care (30%); and absolute per capita cost of health care (10%). Countries were scored on each criterion and the scores were weighted and summed to obtain their efficiency scores. Relative cost is health cost per capita as a percentage of GDP per capita. Absolute cost is total health expenditure, which covers preventive and curative health services, family planning, nutrition activities and emergency aid. Included were countries with populations of at least five million, GDP per capita of at least $5,000 and life expectancy of at least 70 years.

The map below illustrates how the U.S.A. fared on one of the measures of cost:

Cost per capita in this nation are exceeded only by those in Switzerland, which ranked first in the world in health care efficiency, which put it 45 places ahead of the U.S.A. of the 48 nations studied by Bloomberg:

In its 2010 update of the study (entitled "Mirror, Mirror") of the health care systems of Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the U.S.A., the Commonwealth Fund found that our nation ranked last overall... as it did in 2007, 2006, and 2004. But Bobby Jindal knows what all those analysts don't, that prior to the Affordable Care Act, the U.S.A. had an efficient, humane health care system with access to all and malice toward none.

In September, 2009 then- (and again) U.S. Representative Alan Grayson of Florida presented on the floor of the House a visual display slamming the G.O.P. approach to health care.   He explained "if you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: die quickly."

Two Tennessee Republicans were horrified.   Jimmy Duncan exclaimed "That is about the most mean-spirited partisan statement that I've ever heard made on this floor and I, for one, don't appreciate it." Professional liar Marsha Blackburn whined "it's fully appropriate that the gentleman return to the floor and apologize."

Grayson declined to apologize and, truthfully, not all Republicans want every sick American to die.  But if you're poor, or elderly and out of funds, and are sick, Governor Bobby Jindal and those Repub governors who are declining to expand Medicaid have a request: Take your time, or hurry. But just die.

Share |

Problem Not Solved

On November 5, Fox News reported

CGI Federal Inc, the company that created large parts of the error-plagued ObamaCare exchange website, which it says it is scrambling to fix, has recently been awarded several other government contracts.

Since the ObamaCare exchange website launched on Oct. 1, government officials have signed at least five different agreements with CGI totaling $7 million, according to USASpending.gov, a government website that lists government contracts. The contracts were for computer and software development at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Commerce, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

One contract, for instance, was signed Oct. 19 by Department of Commerce officials that gives CGI Federal $266,164 to provide "IT and Telecom Systems Development" for the Patent Office.,,

“This is a typical example of government creating perverse incentives,” George Mason University economics professor Donald Boudreaux told FoxNews.com. “Unlike, say, a private homeowner who fires a contractor who does a poor job, the government rewards such poorly performing contractors with new work at lucrative rates.”

The Hill reported two days later "Ten Republican senators sent a letter to President Obama on Thursday urging him to terminate all federal contracts with CGI or whatever private contractor is most responsible for the terrible rollout of Obamacare."

Correction:  the article by staff writer Jonathan Easely actually reads

Ten Republican senators sent a letter to President Obama on Thursday urging him to fire Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "immediately."

“When you have good management and you have clear accountability, you usually get something done right,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee said in a statement. “In the rollout of this health care law, we have had neither.” 

Alexander and others have previously called for Sebelius to resign, but Thursday’s letter urges the president to “immediately relieve” her.

Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) also signed the letter.

In addition to the botched launch of the HealthCare.gov, the senators say Sebelius should be fired because she ignored signals that the site wasn’t ready in the run-up to Oct. 1, and because she “misled the public by claiming the issues were the result of high volume.” 

“While assurances have been made that solutions are forthcoming, we have little confidence that immediate resolution is imminent,” the senators wrote.

It goes a ways toward explaining the fix we're in that the GOP will attack the federal government- and, especially, the HHS Secretary- and completely ignore the role of the private market in fouling the nest.   Confronted with health care reform loosely based on a plan by the Heritage Foundation, put into effect (apparently successfully) by a Republican governor in Massachusetts, and which steers consumers into private insurance plans, the GOP charged the Affordable Care Act was "a government takeover of health insurance."

The President is playing defense, admitting in his interview with NBC's Chuck Todd

I think we, in good faith, have been trying to take on a health care system that has been broken for a very long time. And what we've been trying to do is to change it in the least disruptive way possible. I mean, keep in mind that there were folks on the left who would have preferred a single payer plan. That would have been a lot more disruptive. There were folks on the right who said, "Let's just get rid of-- you know, employer deductions for health care. And give people-- a tax credit and they can go buy their own health care in their own market." That would have been more disruptive.

We tried to find-- a proven model. We've seen it work in Massachusetts. That would be as-- as undisruptive as possible. And in good faith, tried to write the law in such a way that people could keep their care. Although we really believe that ultimately, they're going to be better off when they're buying health care through the marketplaces. They can-- access tax credits. And they're benefiting from more choice and competition. But obviously, we didn't do a good enough job in terms of how we crafted the law. And, you know, that's something that I regret. That's something that we're going to do everything we can to get fixed.

Obama could have blamed the insurance industry for dropping people from their insurance plans, especially for not explaining to their client that he/she can go onto the exchange and purchase alternative health care insurance.  Ezra Klein notes "he shouldn't apologize for blowing up the individual market. It needed to be done."

But he didn't (blame insurance companies) and he did (apologize).  Obama should go on the offensive while continuing to rebuff Repub efforts to force him to fire HHS Secretary Sebelius.

Republicans who previously had called for Obama's impeachment could use the botched ACA rollout and the President's lie about all being able to keep their insurance as excuses to bolster their (weak) case. But they won't because if they were successful, Joe Biden would assume the presidency and win election on his own in 2016.  Instead, they aim their fire at Kathleen Sebelius, an easy target. But as David Atkins explains

The reality is that one of the primary reasons for the difficulty of implementing Obamacare, beyond the fact that it's a needlessly complicated Rube Goldberg public-private neoliberal contraption, is Republican sabotage.

That sabotage will only continue if anyone whose replacement Republicans can block is fired over the rollout. If Obama were to fire Sebelius, Republicans would see to it that no one to the left of Newt Gingrich would be allowed to replace her. Nor is there any reasonable incentive for the President to allow the saboteurs to be given a trophy of that magnitude regardless of her alleged culpability.


Share |

Giving Chrissy Christie A Pass

The Weekly Standard's Chris Lowry, who has not seen starbursts since he first cast eyes upon Sarah Palin on television, writes of the mainstream media's favorite politician

In his victory speech, Christie spoke of being “one of you.” As Henry Olsen writes, Christie’s potential is in matching that Everyman appeal with substance. He could set out to make himself a Republican by and for the middle class in a substantive and stylistic departure for the contemporary party.

Congratulations on the big win, governor. Now show us what’s next.

Opining in Time- whose current cover features Christie as "the elephant in the room"-  MSNBC's Joe Scarborough is even more excited. He compares the governor to Dwight Eisenhower and Saint Reagan and suggests "that the gruff-talking Jersey boy may not be a beauty, but in the words of the Boss, he may just be all right."

Rachel Maddow, on a campaign against Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, ought to contemplate the enthusiasm of the likes of Lowry and Scarborough. Politico reports

Rachel Maddow says Sen. Rand Paul is “melting down” in the face of plagiarism accusations against him.

The MSNBC host, who was the first to report on instances of plagiarism in Paul’s speeches last week before multiple media outlets uncovered other examples, read on her show Wednesday night scathing editorials criticizing the Kentucky Republican in his home-state newspapers.

“The terrible hometown press that Rand Paul is getting right now might explain why the senator is melting down over this issue,” Maddow said. “Now he’s come to the point where he is threatening to quit and leave politics altogether unless people stop criticizing him over his plagiarism problems and reporting on them.”

Maddow read from interviews that Paul gave to The New York Times (which she called “exasperated, emotional, sweary”) and National Review, in which he discussed going back to being a doctor if necessary and asked if he would have to “be in detention” for the rest of his career.

“One thing that is maybe under-appreciated about this stressful episode for Sen. Paul is that it is happening for him at a key time in his career,” Maddow said, mentioning POLITICO’s report that Paul met with News Corp Chairman Rupert Murdoch and Fox News chief Roger Ailes. “Obviously two of the kingmakers you need on your side if you’re a Republican running for president. … This is the time when these guys are trying to establish themselves as viable candidates.”

But in the face of that pressure, Maddow said, the possible 2016 presidential candidate is cracking.

“Paul is all but breaking down in these interviews,” Maddow said. “Not only can he apparently not handle the rigors of the difficult workload of being a freshman senator, which was his excuse for plagiarizing an article for an op-ed, not only can he not handle the workload of being a senator, he apparently can’t handle criticism of things he’s has done wrong. … If this is the way he handles pressure, that is probably a good thing to know about him now.”

For the people of Kentucky- who will probably re-elect him as long as he runs- it "is probably a good thing to know about him now."   For the rest of us, aside from voters in a GOP caucus or primary in Iowa or New Hampshire, it really doesn't matter.  Even before Rachel Maddow's researchers found that Senator Paul had plagiarized from Wikipedia passages about something called Gattica, Paul had about as much chance of being the Repub presidential nominee as Billy Paul or Les Paul, and Les has been deceased for four years.

Christie, though, has some supporters far more significant that Scarborough or (the more restrained) Lowry.   He has been able to attract big money from Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley, enamored as they are of his tough guy swagger and corporatist allegiance.   He does have a legitimate shot at the Repub presidential nomination, though less than the media believes and far less than it wishes.  That gives him a better chance than Rand Paul, who at a Senate hearing on Wednesday noted

Some of these ads, people running for office put their mug all over these ads while they're in the middle of a political campaign. In New Jersey, $25 million was spent on ads that included somebody running for political office. I'm thinking there might be a conflict of interest there. That's a real problem.

And that should be a real problem for Rachel Maddow, the star-struck Chris Matthews, and the other pundits who can't get enough of this guy, immediately below (story further below):

Share |

Bombs May Be More Dangerous


Barack Obama and Bill Clinton may have had more in common than a burning desire to see Democrat Terry McAuliffe elected governor of Virginia (as he was Tuesday) and no interest in Democrat Barbara Buono elected governor (as expected, she lost) of New Jersey.  In September, 1998 Slate's Timothy Noah wrote of President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky

Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton's presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton's rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." How can this be? Here's what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr's report):

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

The distinction between "is" and "was" was seized on by the commentariat when Clinton told Jim Lehrer of PBS right after the Lewinsky story broke, "There is no improper relationship." Chatterbox confesses that at the time he thought all these beltway domes were hyperanalyzing, and in need of a little fresh air. But it turns out they were right: Bill Clinton really is a guy who's willing to think carefully about "what the meaning of the word 'is' is." This is way beyond slick. Perhaps we should start calling him, "Existential Willie."

The prescient Noah suggested Clinton's rationalization might become "the defining moment of his presidency," though years of uninterrupted economic growth and a balanced budget probably have become the defining themes.  Nevertheless, "it depends upon what the meaning of 'is' is" became an enduring punchline.

And then there is Barack Obama's rationalization, less funny but far more damaging.  The Guardian's Jeffrey Bachman analyzes

whether President Obama's targeted killing program, implemented through the use of drone strikes, complies with both international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Outside of a defined conflict zone, international human rights law is the applicable law. This is important because human rights law demands significantly more stringent rules for the use of lethal force than does humanitarian law.

If the United States is only involved in an armed conflict in Afghanistan, international human rights law would be the regime that regulates the use of lethal force in Pakistan and Yemen. Therefore, as noted by Amnesty International, the use of lethal force outside of Afghanistan is legal when it can be demonstrated that:

[It was] only used when strictly unavoidable to protect life, no less harmful means such as capture or non-lethal incapacitation was possible, and the use of force was proportionate in the prevailing circumstances.

Amnesty International concluded that it is highly likely that drone strikes in Pakistan fail to "satisfy the law enforcement standards that govern intentional use of lethal force outside armed conflict", and therefore:

[T]heir deliberate killings by drones … very likely violate the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of life and may constitute extrajudicial executions.

If we accept the argument made by the Obama administration and the Bush administration before it – that the United States is involved in an armed conflict with al-Qaida and associated forces wherever they are engaged – international humanitarian law is the lex specialis in Pakistan and Yemen. Yet, even with less rigorous limitations on the use of lethal force under international humanitarian law, there is mounting evidence that the Obama administration's use of drones constitute violations of international law in the form of war crimes.

Human Rights Watch examined six strikes in Yemen. According to its report:

Two of these attacks were in clear violation of international humanitarian law – the laws of war – because they struck only civilians or used indiscriminate weapons. The other four cases may have violated the laws of war because the individual attacked was not a lawful military target or the attack caused disproportionate civilian harm.

Going beyond the examination of individual strikes, President Obama has utilized tactics that inherently violate the laws of war. These include the use of so-called "signature strikes" and "double taps". According to Amnesty International:

Under international humanitarian law, US drone operators must at all times abide by the principle of distinction; namely distinguish between civilians and combatants … All feasible precautions must be taken in determining whether a person is a civilian … In case of doubt, the person must be presumed to be protected against direct attack.

Signature strikes target individuals for death based not on the confirmed identity or activities of the targets, but rather "behavioral characteristics" identified as those typical of militants. This is a clear violation of the principle of distinction. Further, Amnesty International questions President Obama's assertion that drone strikes are only launched when there is "near certainty" that civilians will not be killed in the strike – a likely reference to President Obama's disputed method of counting "all military-age males" in the vicinity of an alleged target as militants.

Amnesty International argues that the president's precautionary measures "are only relevant if the US applies the status of 'civilian' to unidentified individuals, rather than presuming they are combatants whom they deem directly targetable. Otherwise, these killings could constitute war crimes or extrajudicial executions."

So for President Obama, it depends upon what the meaning of "defined conflict zone" is. But even if his definition is accurate, it depends upon what the meaning of "civilian" is- and given "civilian" is contrasted with "combatant," it's clear that the Administration is making it up. Clinton's con, by contrast, had the advantage of being true: he wasn't at the time having an affair.  Nor were hundreds of civilians- uh, er, combatants- killed while the President misbehaved.




Share |

New Hampshire Or Bust

Many Democrats long for a Republican who will at least not call Barack Obama the first Muslim President from Kenya. Amidst all the pundits who long for Chris Christie, imagining him as a single solitary reasonable Republican, one individual has the New Jersey governor's number. Charles Pierce writes

Chris Christie's only claim to being a Republican "moderate" is that he condescended to accept the president's help when half of Christie's state had been blown out to sea. Beyond that, he's a rich guy who will do what richer guys than he is want him to do. He has a gender gap wider than the Dardenelles. 

Viewing those photo-ops of Christie walking around with the Democratic President after Hurricane Sandy, as well as the "Stronger than the Storm" campaign commercials masquerading as promotions for the Jersey shore, it's hard to imagine that the Governor has largely failed in returning New Jersey to normalcy after the hurricane.  Nonetheless, New York University professor of urban policy and planning Mitchell Moss notes "New York has made a faster recovery than anywhere in New Jersey.  The homeowners cannot seem to mobilize, the insurance companies have not moved fast enough, and despite Christie's initial statements and the boardwalks being back open, homeowners are still in bad shape."

Pierce links to a report from August when "the governor completely axed a bill that would ban the Barrett .50 caliber rifle(A3659), which is the most powerful weapon commonly available to civilians. Christie had called for a ban on future sales of the weapon in his own package of violent prevention measures outlined in April."  But in a post to which Pierce links, Think Progress' Ian Millhiser comments

The New Jersey governor claims he vetoed the bill because it went further than he would have preferred — the bill he vetoed would have banned new sales of these military-grade firearms and prohibited current owners from keeping these rifles. But it is difficult to escape the impression that Christie had something else in mind when the unsheathed his veto pen. A group called Pro-Gun New Hampshire rallied out-of-state gun supporters to push Christie to veto the bill, telling them to tell Christie that “you’re watching with 2016 in mind.”

A supporter of same-sex marriage, Pierce declines to mention another action taken by the New Jersey governor with the relatively independent-minded and culturally liberal voters of New Hampshire in mind. After a state court in New Jersey recently legalized same-sex marriage, the Governor requested the court stay its opinion pending an appeal. The Court rejected the Administration's request and Christie responded by withdrawing the state's appeal.  Continuing the fight against gay marriage would have not only imperiled Christie's standing with an adoring media, but also cut across the grain of primary voters in the Granite State. It's all about New Hampshire now.

Recognizing that Christie, a former federal prosecutor has cooled on the gun control he once supported, Pierce concludes

One pissant pressure group in New Hampshire yells, "Boo!" and Chris Christie folds like a lawn chair.

Tough guy.


Share |

Self-Interested Campaigning


Through cue(s) from the President on or his own, David Axelrod wasn't so keen three years ago in aiding Democratic candidates.  According to Politico's reading of  "Double Down" by Mark Halperin and John Heileman (to be published Tuesday), Vice President

Biden wanted to send a pamphlet defending the administration’s accomplishments to a huge swatch of targeted voters ahead of the 2010 midterms, and he drafted language with the help of Clinton. Strategist David Axelrod rejected the idea. “We’re not printing a couple million of anything and dropping it at people’s houses, OK,’” he told Biden.

But it's not true that President Obama doesn't care about any Democrats getting elected.  Sunday, USA Today reports,

"I want to get in on the action!" Obama told a boisterous crowd of more than 1,500 who gathered in a high school gym on behalf of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe.

Obama, McAuliffe and other Democratic speakers sought to link Republican candidate Ken Cuccinelli to the recent federal government shutdown, while Cuccinelli and Republicans hammered Obama and McAuliffe over problems with the president's health care law.

Saying that Tuesday's election in Virginia has national ramifications, Obama praised McAuliffe, defended his own record, and attacked Tea Party Republicans for a series of budget disputes that included last month's 16-day shutdown.

"You've seen an extreme faction of the Republican Party that has shown again and again and again that they're willing to highjack the entire party -- and the country and the economy -- and grind progress to an absolute halt if they don't get 100% of what they want," Obama said.

Bill and Hillary Clinton, for whom McAuliffe once put up $1.35 million of his own money as collateral for a mortgage, have crusaded to get the man largely responsible for the Lincoln Bedroom scandal elected to the statehouse in Richmond.  McAuliffe, an extraordinarily successful fundraiser for Bill Clinton , is the huckster extraordinaire whom a major Republican maintains "is basically bought and paid for by the Clintons right now."

Obama and the Clintons: perfect together, which may leave out in the cold that vice-president whom Obama's close adviser in autumn, 2010 told to take a hike.

And of course it leaves out in the cold Barbara Buono, Chris Christie's Democratic challenger, whose support for an increased state minimum wage (on the ballot on Tuesday), vigorous support for same-sex marriage (a contentious issue in the state), and other liberal causes set her apart from the incumbent and ought to appeal to a President whose supporters still believe is progressive.  Neither Obama nor Bill Clinton has deigned to endorse Mrs. Buono.  Neither has Hillary Clinton, who was rumored as having five years ago boasted of crashing the "glass ceiling."

The lack of interest in the Democrat's campaign- and the support for the incumbent Republican, whom the President has appeared twice on camera and personally praised- has been particularly damaging to Buono and contributed significantly to her failure to garner support among black New Jerseyans typically enjoyed by Democrats.  Moreover, polls indicate Christie currently is the most popular Repub among all those individuals expected to be 2016 presidential contenders, particularly among independents, who may be drawn to the governor's schmoozing with his favorite Democrat.  

It is grotesque to see the Democratic president of the United States give de facto campaign support to a governor who has financed a tax cut for millionaires by vetoing women's health care and diverting $175 million of federal money intended to help homeowners prevent foreclosure, $166 million to build affordable housing, and $700 million dedicated to energy efficiency  And it is remarkable that Barack Obama is doing it for a man whom pundits consider the major threat to the election of a Democrat to the Oval Office in 2016.


Share |

More Stand-Up From The GOP


Paul Krugman's Thursday illuminated the absurdity of Repub continuing opposition to the Affordable Care Act:

Has anyone else noticed how much the GOP position on Obamacare resembles the classic borscht belt joke about the two ladies at a Catskills resort? Lady #1: “The food here is so terrible, it’s inedible!” Lady #2: “And the portions are so small!” Republican #1: “Obamacare is slavery!” Republican #2: “And it’s so hard to sign up!”

Ah, but it gets worse, and more absurd.    Prior to the deal raising the debt ceiling, Breitbart reported

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), chair of the House Budget Committee, told conservative talk radio host Charlie Sykes Monday morning that House Republicans had demanded a one-year delay in Obamacare's individual mandate, along with an end to congressional exemptions, while offering a six-week debt ceiling hike to allow room for negotiations on broader budget issues. The offer was made to President Barack Obama last Thursday.

That was back in the day in which Republicans were all about delaying the individual mandate in the ACA. Two days prior to Krugman's post, Fox News noted

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio introduced a bill Monday that would delay the penalty that the people who do not buy insurance under the Affordable Care Act would have to pay.

Rubio introduced the bill with fellow Florida Republican U.S. Rep. Trey Radel. If it passes, it would delay the individual mandate of the new health care law until six months after the exchange website – the site where people sign up for health insurance – is free of any major glitches, according to a statement from Rubio’s office.

Rubio, a staunch opponent of the Affordable Care Act, announced last week that he would introduce his legislation because people should not be punished for not buying the insurance by next March when major technical problems have affected the online sign-up process.

Rubio’s measure, titled the “Delay Until Fully Functional Act,” is co-sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), James Inhofe (R-OK), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Thad Cochran (R-MS), John Boozman (R-AR) and Mike Johanns (R-NE).

And Tom Cotton. In late September, the website of the U.S. Representative from Arkansas declared

Earlier this year, President Obama gave big businesses and corporations a break when he announced a one-year delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. But hard-working Arkansans deserve a reprieve too. As they are seeing their hours cut and taxes go up as a result of Obamacare, a one year delay of the individual mandate would be the least President Obama could offer them.

Now, however, Think Progress' Igor Volsky has found

A Republican Congressman predicted that the GOP will extract political concessions from Democrats should they try to delay elements of the Affordable Care Act, suggesting that Republicans won’t agree to fix the law they claim is hurting millions of constituents without a fight.

“Folks, don’t be surprised if in 30 days, or 45 days, or 60 days, it’s not Republicans who are asking for a delay of Obamacare or a delay of the mandate, it’s Barack Obama and Mark Pryor coming to us, asking us to delay it for them,” Rep. Tom Cotton (R), the GOP nominee for Senate in Arkansas, said during an event for the Benton County Republican Women on Oct. 26.

“And then the issue will be, what concessions are they willing to make, so we can delay their own disaster of a law,” he continued.

The individual mandate Democrats imposed upon the country is such an intolerable burden and disaster that Republicans will allow it to be delayed only if they can extract concessions in return.  That suggests, of course, either that Cotton and some other Repubs were just joshing about the horrors of the mandate- or have always believed it is truly awful and want it to stay in place because they are so darned concerned about their constituents.



Share |