The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : ObamaCare Repeal Passes House 245-189

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

ObamaCare Repeal Passes House 245-189

By Philip Klein on 1.19.11 @ 6:21PM

The House of Representatives voted 245 to 189 to repeal the national health care law.

The legislation attracted more votes in the House than the initial passage of the law itself, which received 219. Just three Democrats, however, joined Republicans in voting for repeal -- Dan Boren, Mike Ross and Mike McIntyre. Full roll call here.

While this particular repeal bill won't move further, it could have some longer term political ramifications. Republicans needed to hold the vote so that in 2012 they can tell their voters, "you elected us and we passed repeal, but to complete the process we need to take back the Senate and the White House." At the same time, there were 13 Democrats who voted against the original health care bill who are still in the House, meaning that Republicans can now paint the 10 who didn't vote for repeal as supporters of the law.

The vote was also a victory for the tea parties. Nine months ago, Nancy Pelosi, then described as the most powerful Speaker in the history of the House, was able to jam through the health care law over fierce opposition from Republicans and the American people. At the time, repeal was seen as a joke and high profile Republicans seemed to be distancing themselves from it -- or at least talking in terms of repealing only the worst aspects of the law. But now, not only have Republicans taken over, but they've made repeal their first act of any significance, and every member of their caucus has voted for it.

Democrats who I spoke to outside the House floor were dismissive of the vote.

"This is basically an unfortunate waste of time of the House of Representatives," Rep. Tim Bishop, a Democrat from New York, told me. "This has no chance of being enacted into law, and we should spend our time doing what the American people told us they want to do, which is work on getting this economy back on track and putting people back to work."

He went on, "An issue that has been fully litigated, as this one has, when there is absolutely no chance of this measure ever being enacted into law, I'd say the House's time would be much better spent engaged in the work the American people sent us here to do."

Rep. Barney Frank was a bit more measured in his comments.

"The Republicans have met their commitment to voters to vote for repeal, but it won't go anywhere in the Senate, and we'll move on legislatively," Frank said. "I think it was more of a legitimate political statement. I don't use 'political statement' as a bad word. It was a legitimate political statement, making clear what their position is."

View all comments (42) | Leave a comment

Long Ben| 1.19.11 @ 7:53PM

Good on the Republicans of the House !

Alan Brooks| 1.19.11 @ 8:23PM

But you will LOSE in the Senate, because you are LOSERS.

tonypal| 1.19.11 @ 8:50PM

Truly compelling analysis.

Patriot| 1.19.11 @ 9:05PM

Wow. Alan is even pissier than usual. Guess he's mad 'cause he won't get his ObamaCare now.

Derek Leaberry| 1.20.11 @ 11:36AM

But at least he has a flare for using capital letters. Got to give him that.

Ab| 1.19.11 @ 9:40PM

Always an intelligent comment from Brooks,

Clint| 1.20.11 @ 2:02AM

Brooks is quite PMS'y over this vote.

Stan Redmond| 1.20.11 @ 10:17AM

I ask as many liberals (I'm assuming you're liberal) as I can this question.

Why do you trust politicians and beaurucrats to run your life and my life more than yourself?

Oldefarte| 1.20.11 @ 11:19AM

No, moron, the only LOSER has the initials AB, etc! As to who will lose, the Democrats in conservative districts/states had better start dusting off their resumes' for alternative employment. November 2012 will represent a further electorial hurricane than did 11/2/10; and except for Pilosi, Frank, Schumer, etc and their ilk; the second wave of conservatism is a comin, dumbars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kerry D.| 1.19.11 @ 8:05PM

Just refuse to fund this socialist utopian healthcare plan. DEFUND! DEFUND! DEFUND!

katherine| 1.19.11 @ 8:17PM

Defund!
Another vote up or down on HR2 next week. Make them vote again and again until November 2012. Cut the budget so much it squeals, especially the EPA, Commerce, Education, Energy, and every other government office that only stifles the American people in their daily lives.

Patrick| 1.20.11 @ 2:31PM

I call BS on this 'symbolic' claims from the Democrats. This is the most consequential vote on the most important issue, concerning the biggest and most intrusive bill passed in our era. We now have 245 Congressional Reps on record to end Obamacare. Next steps: DISMANTLE it, by repealing regulation requirements piece by piece and DEFUND it, by ending ALL the spending requirements, and end the tax increases in it. Allow ALL states to opt out. Change the bill to allow all biz to have waivers. Take it apart bit by bit and have vote after vote on this to get it done. HR3 - end taxpayer funded abortions.

Those Dems claim they are concerned about doing the 'will of the people' why don't they listen to us and repeal the danged thing?

Alan Brooks| 1.19.11 @ 8:28PM

You will be sore when you lose in the Senate, because you are sore losermen and sore loserwomen.

tonypal| 1.19.11 @ 8:51PM

Again, compelling analysis.

Patriot| 1.19.11 @ 9:06PM

What do you expect from a libtard?

Clint| 1.20.11 @ 2:09AM

Brooks is unraveling again.

Robert McClain| 1.20.11 @ 6:45AM

Didn't Soreloserman (both) go down to defeat in 2000? And now, loserman has announced he's retiring from the Senate?

As for losing in the Senate, (yawn). This is simply step one. Besides, the GOP might have a few tricks up their sleeves regarding getting a vote on the calendar. If they do, there might not be four Endangered Dems who vote to repeal. If there is, Obama will veto.

See, Mr. Brooks, we conservatives have learned Marxist theory, too. Two steps forward, one step back. (Oh, and my favorite: Elephant legs good; donkey legs bad).

Oldefarte| 1.20.11 @ 11:21AM

We all now understand what Forrest Gump meant by his statement, STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES [ or in your case, SAYS]!!!!!!!!!!!

Boy Mulcaster| 1.20.11 @ 11:37AM

And I am soreloserboy.

Ralph| 1.19.11 @ 9:42PM

gives the SCOTUS political cover to declare unconstitutional.

Yosemeti Sam| 1.19.11 @ 11:21PM

" ...Democrats who I spoke to outside the House floor were dismissive of the vote...."

Yo, Pelosi - VOTERS, not you, have drained a lot of the HR swamp but there's still raw evidence of swamp fever!

LOL.

Intelligent Design| 1.20.11 @ 7:56AM

The Senators who oppose repeal will be replaced.

MarkJ| 1.20.11 @ 9:57AM

"An issue that has been fully litigated...."

Memo for Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY): Wrong. The problem with Obamacare is that it was barely debated, much less "litigated," in Congress before Pelosi and Reid rammed it through on party-line votes.

Nope, Timmy-Boy, for your info the REAL litigation is only just beginning now that the majority of states are actively opposing it. And they're going to win.

Christopher Landrum| 1.20.11 @ 10:05AM

Symbolic victories always satisfy the human heart more than those of substance—that's why humans will never give up religion—therefore, substantial victories should always be taken with a grain of salt.

As a conservative, I believe anything that has the ability to substantiate itself carries some deeper desire to change itself—and anything that has the desire to change itself (and does not have the desire to conserve itself) must instead be liberal.

But I prefer to conserve. I prefer the symbolic and all the vigorous victories that come with it.

LiveFreeOrDie| 1.20.11 @ 11:55AM

"Symbolic victories always satisfy the human heart more than those of substance..."

Sorry, Troll. What a load of crap right there in the first sentence. The rest of your drivel is based on this false premise and as such will be ignored.

Patriot| 1.20.11 @ 12:28PM

Christopher Conundrum strikes again! This troll is touched in the head.

Christopher Landrum| 1.20.11 @ 12:09PM

Wrong wrong wrong, you namecalling, namecaller: For example, the Faith of Christianity (the highest of symbolic victories for mankind) satisfies the human heart more than the substantive empiricism of science. I guess you think that's just "a load of crap,"— I’ve come to expect that from atheists—their creeds have always had kinship with the concept of “Life Free of Die.”

LiveFreeOrDie| 1.20.11 @ 3:04PM

"For example, the Faith of Christianity (the highest of symbolic victories for mankind) satisfies the human heart more than the substantive empiricism of science."

Again, first sentence contains false premise and once again you've come up short. The highest symbolic victory for all mankind is the faith of Christianity?

I'll take back my Troll comment since you actually continue to make an argument and not just "hit and run" which is typical behavior from the trolls. I look forward to good discussion and dialogue. This can't happen when you spout a false premise then argue that point.

Atheists are inherently ignorant as you cannot prove there is no God. "Live Free Or Die" is the state motto of New Hampshire but for me it's an idea that's self-explanatory and has no religious meaning whatsoever.

Christopher Landrum| 1.20.11 @ 5:48PM

I take back anything implying cowardice--but some have a hayday throwing insults while hiding behind a mask (which you have NOT done). I look forward to further conversations concerning conservatism with you, LiveFreeOrDie.

Christopher Landrum| 1.20.11 @ 1:05PM

So anyone who disagrees with Patriot and LiveFreeOrDie is a Troll? Why don't you put that on the front page of "American Spectator"? I wasn't aware that when it comes to conservatives discussing policy, name-calling triumphs all analytical thinking, common sense, discourse, dialogue, intellectual debate.
I'd sooner spit on a liberal than spar with a conservative--guess that's not good enough for brave "Patriots" hiding behind fake internet names, disguises.

LiveFreeOrDie| 1.20.11 @ 3:14PM

While I appreciate your sentiment (wanting to spit on liberals) that makes you no better than them, does it not?

So I use a fake name...who doesn't? That hardly reveals a person's patriotism. I didn't see your address and phone number at the end of your post, Christopher.

Christopher Landrum| 1.20.11 @ 3:59PM

I don't answer the phone even when it's people I know, but if you insist on investigating my credentials: www.facebook/landrumc is as good a place to start as any. Bookbread.com is another, though I haven't posted for several months.

Patriot| 1.20.11 @ 4:26PM

Don't hold your breath, Conundrum--I'm not interested in nor do I care about your "credentials."

I have better things to do like bathing the dog and taking out the trash.

Patriot| 1.20.11 @ 2:47PM

Lol Troll, thou doth protest too much.

Christopher Landrum| 1.20.11 @ 3:06PM

You must be a bright boy, Patriot: your come-backs are always full of sound logic, absolute articulation, and crisp, clear common sense minus anything fancy-shmancy, all the makings of a conservative leader. You beat me on the merits every time, and never stray off topic. But like Cool Hand Luke, I’m too dumb to learn to back down for my own good. "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

LiveFreeOrDie| 1.20.11 @ 3:20PM

Great movie and great line. Newman's character was either going to live free, or die.

Christopher Landrum| 1.20.11 @ 3:35PM

Right, right: It “is” a great movie, and the hero’s philosophy truly is “live free or die.” And that’s the perfect atheist creed: no god means no authority and no authority means you can live free and die free. Authority is for servants, slaves, and churchgoers. Freedom is for atheists and anarchists. Authoritarians need symbols and symbolic acts like the House’s vote to repeal Obamacare—libertarians care only for substances and substantial acts that can be measured by godless science, and cold, cruel logic. I think we agree more than we realize, LiveFreeOrDie.

Patriot| 1.20.11 @ 4:21PM

Atheism is your religion, Conundrum, and you are an unwitting slave to your own delusions.

The Republicans fulfilled their campaign promise to their constituents with their repeal vote, and that wasn't authoritarian, that was honorable.

I guess atheists like you don't know much about honor. Color me shocked!

Christopher Landrum| 1.20.11 @ 4:55PM

Thank you for responding with an actual argument, Patriot, it was very refreshing: But I'm a Gnostic, not an atheist. I do believe in a God, I just believe he’s a great conartist and I’m but a mark for his next scam. You seem to let your assumptions of other people's religions cloud your attention when posting online comments. (What is it like to worry about what other people believe regarding religion? Why wouldn’t you just worry about yourself? I’ve got three planks in my own eye and I’m not about to try and pull the splinter out of your finger.)

The Republican vote was honorable, but political honor pays cheap: I see no substantial consequence of that honor as far as policy is concerned. Nothing about that vote changed my or your future healthcare (should you or I choose to receive it). I tend to agree with Jim Henson: stay away from all doctors—it’s better to burn out than to fade away.

Patriot| 1.20.11 @ 5:25PM

Are you also omniscient? There is no way yet to know if the Republicans' repeal vote has changed our future health care. Not unless you own a crystal ball, that is--and perhaps you do, Conundrum.

There is no such thing as political honor--you just made that up. Honor is honor, it is a virtue unto itself, and the Republicans showed themselves to be honorable public servants by insisting on the repeal vote. It was the principle of it all. Do you understand?

I try to avoid doctors, too, I prefer prevention to after the fact intervention. Even more anathema to me, though, is big government; that's authoritarianism on steroids.

Christopher Landrum| 1.20.11 @ 5:36PM

I understand "it was the principle of it all," but in my lifetime, the political principles of either party have amounted to little more than hocus pocus. I'm sure there were lots of principles passed in '94 and "The Contract with America." But it seemed to accomplish little more than reelecting Clinton, two terms of George-Spend-as-I-Please-Bush, followed by the election of O. But hey, maybe human nature can be changed, and Republicans have "learned how to govern," but I'm not much of a breath holder.

Patriot| 1.20.11 @ 6:29PM

I understand your cynicism, but if we predicate our future on past failures there's no hope for a better tomorrow. Politicians are just a symbol of the electorate who put them in office; in the final analysis, it's the integrity of the American people or the lack thereof that will determine our future.

Thomas Jefferson said it best, "People get the government they deserve." Sadly, it's true.

I pray for our country every day.