Today’s rhetoric on health care reform repeal

East Bay House members have been busy speaking against the Republican bill to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, the health care reforms enacted last year; the repeal vote is expected to come to a vote today. Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, built up a full head of steam on the House floor this morning:

And Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, went into the lions’ den this morning, on “Fox and Friends:”

On the other side, here’s House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, at his news conference this morning:

UPDATE @ 12:15 P.M.: Here’s Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont:

UPDATE @ 3:11 P.M.: The repeal bill, HR 2, has passed on a 245-189 vote, with three Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with the Republican majority: Dan Boren, D-Okla.; Mike McIntyre, D-N.C.; and Mike Ross, D-Ark.

Josh Richman

Josh Richman covers state and national politics for the Bay Area News Group. A New York City native, he earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri and reported for the Express-Times of Easton, Pa. for five years before coming to the Oakland Tribune and ANG Newspapers in 1997. He is a frequent guest on KQED Channel 9’s “This Week in Northern California;” a proud father; an Eagle Scout; a somewhat skilled player of low-stakes poker; a rather good cook; a firm believer in the use of semicolons; and an unabashed political junkie who will never, EVER seek elected office.

  • Elwood

    35 years and counting.

    How long, O Lord, how long?

    What will George do next? Get down and chew on the carpet?
    He’s like a child’s toy. You push a button and it spouts the same BS over and over.

  • John W

    This House vote is just a show, so that the Repubs can say they delivered on their promise to at least vote for repeal. It’s all a warm-up for after 2012. With Dems defending 21 of the 33 Senate seats that are up in 2012, Repubs are a slam dunk to win convincing control of the Senate, which will give them great leverage over what happens to health care reform, even if Obama wins re-election and has the veto power. What they do about it then, and what voter reaction will be is another matter.

  • RR, Uninvited Columnist

    At least Ol’ George is giving the “international bankers” a brief respite while he aims his fire at “international insurance bureaucracies.”

  • publius

    Miller, Garamendi, and Stark…..Oh my! The great tri-fecta from the Bay Area.

    The only solution is to bring the cost of health care down. The three amigos don’t get the fact that the massive 2,ooo page bill that expands the role of government will not lower costs. Only the free market can lower the cost. De-regulation is the only way to stop the crippling cost of healthcare. With the amount of time Larry, Curly and Moe have been at the public troff, it is no wonder why they cannot grasp this concept.

  • Darlene Ryno

    In our children’s early years, my husband told them if they are old enough to get married, they are old to pay for their own college. It worked! Under the Affordable Care Act, if your plan covers children, you MAY now add or keep them on your health insurance policy until they turn 26 years old with the EXCEPTION until 2014, “grandfathered” group plans do not have to offer this coverage if a young adult is eligible for group coverage outside their parents’ plan. The law states most employers with 50 or more employees must provide health care. Not quality insurance, not even low cost options. It does not matter if these employees are paid minimum wage and pay a good portion of their pay check to pay for extremely low quality insurance. Therefore, a young adult can be married, not live with you, not financially dependent on you and be covered if they do not have a job, or are not offered a health plan in their job. So why are recent graduates who are working part-time for a company with 50 or more employees, struggling to find a job in this depressed economy, paying off student loans, living at home and dependent on their parents, and paying a fairly good portion of their meager income to pay for substandard health care, excluded from this provision until 2014. Why’s this group currently excluded? This same student can – travel the world on their parents dime, volunteer in their community for a couple years (like Adrienne Lowe from Alabama – http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2010/10/14/adrienne-lowe-alabama), get married and have children without even a part-time job, and still be on their parents health care plan. Sounds like a hand-out to the rich. Who is paying for these children who do not work at all and get married, go to grad school, have babies, and volunteer in the community? What happens to the recent grad that is still paying off student loans, struggling to find full time employment and now only minimal hospital and doctor coverage, which requires most of their paycheck to pay for? I really do not get this provision at all. Mostly, until 2014, this seems like a hand-out to families who can pay all their children’s expenses, the very ones that can also probably afford quality health care.

  • John W

    Re: #4 Publius

    While I don’t share Publius’ apparent political views, I do agree, in part, with the observations that getting a grip on rising costs is the key and that free market mechanisms (not necessarily the same thing as de-regulation) need to be a part of that. However, all the noise about creating more competition in the insurance market and the BS about selling across state lines does nothing to address the embedded costs in the health care delivery system. One of the reasons that the health care law does not do more to address the latter is that the response to any effort by Dems to incorporate some “bend down the cost curve” features into the law (some of which were originally Republican and Heritage Foundation ideas), was for the Repubs to start up with all the crap about rationing health care, death panels etc. So, cost reduction stuff got watered down. If the Repubs had seriously engaged in the legislative process, rather than using it to stir up the “keep your government hands off my Medicare” crowd, we could have had better legislation. We still can, if they will focus on “amending it, not ending it.” But they won’t.