Today The Hill published a story that Eric Cantor and the Republicans would "embrace" parts of the ObamaCare Bill. Specifically, the story said that the Republicans would attempt to repeal the ObamaCare legislation and replace it with a bill that would also include a provision that protected those with Pre-Existing Conditions, and would increase the age limitations of dependent "children" to age 26.
In Mr. Cantor's defense it is only fair to say that this story may not be factually accurate. It wouldn't be the first time that The Hill lead contained a misleading article. That being said, Mr. Cantor must be advised that to the extent the article is true; he and the Republicans are falling for a trap.
It would seem that Cantor et al, have polled the concept of "covering those with pre-existing conditions" as something that Americans favor. Well la dee da, Americans also favor ice cream and lollipops. It's doubtful that the cost or consequences of "pre-existing condition coverage" were ever polled. What Cantor and the Republicans are missing is that while "pre-existing coverage" might be the most liked aspect of ObamaCare - It is inseperable from the "Individual Mandate" (the most dis-liked) aspect of ObamaCare.
Yes - this is the Cost and the Consequence of mandating coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. It is the ONLY possible justification for the "Individual mandate". "Pre-existing condition coverage" and "Individual Mandate" are, in fact, reciprocals of the same principle. Simply, if a law exists to require insurers to cover people without regard to their medical condition, there must be a law that requires individuals to purchase health care. Without the requirement for individuals to purchase healthcare insurance - it would be foolish to do so - if an insurer would be required to cover ones medical costs at the moment of his choosing. It becomes effectively impossible to argue for the repeal of an "individual mandate" if one is to support "pre-existing condition coverage."
Notwithstanding the "trap" of pre-existing conditons, the political consequences of keeping portions of ObamaCare would be catastrophic for the Republican Party. Should the Republicans attempt anything short of a full and complete repeal of ObamaCare - their WILL BE a third party movement in 2012, it's nominee WILL BE Sarah Palin, and the chances of a 2nd Obama term will go up dramatically.
But so what. If Cantor and Crew can't even start out by attempting a full repeal of ObamaCare - there is no hope for a return of Constitutional Limited Government under the leadership of either Republicans or Democrats.