GOP reluctant to back Tea Party plan to kill health law
WASHINGTON — A Tea Party-inspired plan to kill President Obama's healthcare law by forcing a government shutdown unless funds to implement the law are denied has not gained traction among senior Republicans in the House of Representatives, lawmakers said on Wednesday.
“I think leadership is giving other options that they think are more effective,” said Republican Rep. Pat Tiberi, a close ally of House Speaker John Boehner.
Tiberi, speaking to Reuters after a closed-door meeting of House Republicans, said that while a final decision probably had not been made, his colleagues are more likely to continue pushing for Congress to repeal individual provisions of “Obamacare.”
Republicans have been on a continuous campaign to kill Obama's landmark healthcare law, which aims to help provide medical insurance for millions of people who cannot afford it on their own. They argue that the law, which is taking effect in stages, will discourage job creation and saddle businesses with higher costs.
Tea Party-backed conservatives in the Senate, including Sens. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, have been trying to persuade enough of their fellow Republicans to join them in a high-stakes gamble that would threaten a government shutdown on the start of the new fiscal year, Oct. 1, unless legislation to keep Washington operating specifically defunds Obamacare.
More senior Senate Republicans have savaged the idea, with some calling it “dumb,” “silly,” “feckless” and “dishonest.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ISIS beheads American photojournalist who was kidnapped 2 years ago in Syria
- Scathing report says college trustees fail in mission
- Health care data breaches hit 30M patients and counting
- Grand jury to hear evidence in Missouri shooting
- Simple changes — nicotine drug, phone calls for reassurance — found to help more smokers stop
- Weather keeps Calif. fire in check
- Agency makes high-tech push to improve military vehicles
- Justice to alter removal process for no-fly list
- Monsoon rains wreak havoc in Arizona
- Ex-Va. first lady sought credit for loan, sister-in-law says
- Woman, 5 children held hostage in home