15%: Time House GOP has devoted to useless Obamacare repeal votes

A rather stunning figure from the New York Times. Since taking office in January of 2011, House Republicans have spent 15% of their time trying to repeal Obamacare. Unsuccessfully at that.

And they’re at it again, for the 43rd time, tomorrow.

House Republicans have held so many Obamacare repeal votes that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is now refusing to consider any additional repeal legislation.

Keep in mind that, since coming to power, House Republicans have held votes on only 281 days.  43 of those have been on Obamacare repeal.  Thus 15%.

All the while, the country limps along economically.

The Times goes on to report that this is the least productive US House in over a decade.

Stephen-Colbert-on-ObamacareOf course, what’s going on is election-year politics. Rather than actually accomplish something, conservatives – particularly southern conservatives, but they are the GOP nowadays, so it’s a bit redundant – are concerned that while older GOP congressman can say they voted against Obamacare 36 times, the new ones haven’t had nearly that many chances to futily vote against the legislation that they most certainly don’t even understand.

So the House is holding more fake Obamacare repeal votes in order to give newer GOP members a chance to build up their talking points for re-election.

Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid says the House GOP have “lost their minds.”

Fortunately, Democrats are going on the offensive.  The DCCC (the Democratic body in charge of election Democrats to the House) will be robo-calling voters in key states, urging them to vote against members who would “deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, raise prescription drug costs, [and] kick kids off their parents’ healthcare before they turn 26.”  The members they’re targeting include:

They will target GOP Reps. Chris Gibson (N.Y.), Michael Grimm (N.Y.), Joe Heck (Nev.), Frank LoBiondo (N.J.), Gary Miller (Calif.), Steve Pearce (N.M.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), Jon Runyan (N.J.), David Valadao (Calif.), and Bill Young (Fla.).

House Republicans are so focused like a laser beam on keep health care prohibitively expensive in order to keep their rich campaign donors well fed, that they’re even trying to block the IRS from hiring agents to enforce Obamacare.

Stephen Colbert weighs in on the latest GOP effort to make health more expensive in America and hold more meaningless votes for partisan reasons:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,Video Archive


Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

28 Responses to “15%: Time House GOP has devoted to useless Obamacare repeal votes”

  1. karmanot says:

    ppppffffftttt

  2. nicho says:

    We could. Pass universal, single-payer health care. Once health care isn’t dependent on employment — like in all other industrialized countries — the problem will be over. I can’t believe that employers aren’t screaming for this — but they’re the very ones opposing it.

  3. nicho says:

    Clarence, please take your crap somewhere else. Or take your meds.

  4. perljammer says:

    Hmm. $1.1 billion/12.8 million … that’s nearly $86 per consumer. That’ll pay for, what, a couple of days of decent health insurance? I feel richer already.

  5. Matt Munson says:

    If we could solve the issue of people’s work hours or jobs cut because of these health care regulations, then maybe some of the zeal to repeal the law would not be needed.

  6. karmanot says:

    Next!

  7. clarenceswinney says:

    CUT RICH TAXES CUT POOR FOOD STAMPS
    The House Farm Bill proposes reducing Food Stamps $39.7 B over next ten years.
    Much of this cut comes from food stamps and other nutritional programs.
    No expiring tax cuts for top 2% with incomes As high as $1000 Million.
    Wall Street is staffing with former government employees who have influence in Congress.
    The Big Banks in particular. Ben White at Politico gave a list showing hires by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, IBM, GE,, Citigroup, Credit Suisse and JP Morgan.
    Buying influence.
    The Republicans in the House plan to held another Debt Ceiling Hostage to demanded unspecified tax reform at a future date. The leaders are too chicken to tell their backers that we have to increase the debt ceiling to pay off bills Congress has already voted on and spent.
    We have a $14,000 Total National Income and in 2013 fiscal year we get $2700B Revenue And spend $3600B. We borrow $900B. Shameful that the richest nation refuses to tax wealth to balance the budget. $2700B of $14,000B is a 19% Tax Rate. If we were to tax to pay our budget of $3600B
    it would be a 26% National Tax Rate.
    We rank third in OECD nations As least taxed.
    It is time to tax wealthy estates and top incomes at a much higher Effective rate.

  8. PeteWa says:

    0%: Time House GOP has spent on “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!”

  9. Restricting the supply of a commodity–by, say, restricting its availability to fewer persons–would actually increase its price. Capitalism 101, sparky.

  10. Papa Bear says:

    and police, and the fire department, and the court system — don’t forget them…

  11. BeccaM says:

    He’s not worth it.

  12. BeccaM says:

    As ever, I’m hoping this starry-eyed little Randroid will do the right thing and refuse to accept Social Security, Medicare, student aid, public education, and unemployment insurance benefits, and will refrain from driving on the roads and bridges the rest of us don’t have a problem paying for.

  13. samizdat says:

    Could someone with more time on their hands tear this dufus a new one? Pleeeeease?

  14. BeccaM says:

    No, it would just guarantee that college education be limited to the 1% plutocratic bastard class, which is how it used to be and how people like you want it to be again.

  15. Guess that explains the DoD budget.

  16. nicho says:

    No, but thanks for playing.

  17. guest1 says:

    Well it would work for tuition anyway, cut the student loans and tuition would go down for sure

  18. nicho says:

    Please tell me you’re just trolling and that you don’t really believe that crap.

  19. karmanot says:

    Yes, they do have their crosses to bear! I just hope they get crucified in the end.

  20. BeccaM says:

    I have lots of complaints about PPACA, but one of them isn’t denial of coverage or an insurance policy.

    I lost my group insurance in 2003, and was locked out of the private insurance market for most of the next decade. Why? A folder full of pre-existing coverage denials based on hay fever allergies and migraines, both of which respond just fine to the occasional prescription medication.

    The subsidized policy I got through PPACA’s early adoption program is (1) affordable and (2) gives me peace of mind that my wife won’t be thrown immediately into bankruptcy should I get sick or have an accident.

    In short, I had no healthcare choice before PPACA. Now I do.

  21. karmanot says:

    Oh please, are you new here? We are already bitching about Obama’s failure of a health bill. Go troll over at the Drudge Report. And, we do expect something less of you—every time.

  22. guest1 says:

    Helathcare is expensive mostly due to all the government spending in healthcare, same with college tuition. Fact is the more money the government pumps into something the more expensive it gets.

  23. pappyvet says:

    Come on emjayjay,dont confuse the poor little hateful Ayn Rand troll with facts. They dont like facts ya know. As long as they have theirs,their fellow Americans can starve as far as they are concerned. Remember,you’re dealing with the new christians here.

  24. Naja pallida says:

    So the Republican idea that health insurance companies should be able to charge whatever they want, deny coverage for whatever they want, and let 45,000 people die unnecessarily every year because they can’t get the basic treatments they need, is a better choice?

  25. Choose my own healthcare, that’s a laugh! Yeah, I certainly had a choice between accepting whatever my employer gave me, which usually has been nothing, or…nothing. Greatest healthcare in the world! Seriously, have you ever actually had to deal with a medical issue? Ever?

  26. emjayay says:

    Feed the troll, don’t feed the troll…..decisions, decisions.

    OK, one little snack.

    As of August of last year, health insurance companies were forced to send rebates totalling $1.1 billion to their customers due to requirements in the ACA . So it hit about 12.8 million consumers in their wallets already by putting money back in. This is due to the 80/20 and 85/15 rules. If the insurance company spends less than 80 percent of premiums on medical care it must rebate the excess. For large group plans (the kind provided by companies that employ 50 people or more), health insurance companies must spend 85 percent of the premiums on medical care.

  27. NorthAlabama says:

    yet another example of congressional republicans acting like children, picking up their toys, then stomping off the schoolyard.

    if congressional republicans aren’t in the majority and can’t get everything they want passed, then nobody gets anything – block, delay, go on vacation, pass legislation that’s dead on arrival, refuse to work – all while being enrolled in the best health care and continuing to draw a paycheck.
    i wonder, if the sequester had prevented a member of the house from receiving cancer treatment (like some elderly on medicare) if action to avoid the stalemate would have been taken?
    if the sequester had cut congressional payroll and healthcare coverage, would it have happened?

  28. Put_up_or_SHUT-UP says:

    43rd time? The last article said the 38th time. Do you people even know what you’re talking about, and can you honestly tell me you think this health care law is a good idea? You’ll all be the first ones b!tching when it hits your wallet. And your right to chose your own health care…… keep lapping up this administrations filthy lies we don’t expect anything less from you.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS