THE BLOG LINE: Republicans Wouldn't Try To Repeal Health Reform. Or Would They?

The notion that Republicans would attempt to repeal health reform legislation got one blogger thinking, while another looked at the hurdles that remain between the anticipated debates in Congress and the eventual signing of reform legislation at the White House. These and more, in today's edition of Blog Line.

Jumping off a claim in a recent National Journal article, Ezra Klein of the Washington Post examines the likelihood that Democrats and supporters of health reform will need to worry that Republicans would attempt to repeal reform legislation if they take control of Congress or the White House. A Republican proposal suggesting such action "might prove a popular applause line in 2012, but I doubt it's actually worth worrying about," Klein writes, noting, "There's just not much precedent for changes in partisan power ending in the repeal of large pieces of recently passed legislation." He argues that "a Republican president isn't going to want to spend his or her time battling the Obama administration's achievements" but on "enacting their own agenda."

However, in a separate post, Klein features an e-mail from a reader that serves to "remind that though it's uncommon" to repeal legislation, "it does indeed happen." The e-mail was from Tim Westmoreland, a George Washington University professor and a former aide to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). Westmoreland relays the story of how he wrote a one-page repeal of the Mental Health Systems Act -- which was championed by former first lady Rosalyn Carter, and signed into law in 1980 for enactment in 1981 -- as part of the Reagan administration's first budget legislation.

Meanwhile, Robert Laszewski at "The Health Care Blog" offers his analysis on the prospects for health reform, noting that there still remain "some giant obstacles on the way to a Rose Garden bill signing." Laszewski points to the "growing angst" among lawmakers and reform advocates on whether the legislation will be able to control health care spending and generate the projected savings. He also believes that the "blow" from last week's CMS report on the House-passed bill and polls "still showing opposition well ahead of support for the Democratic bills" are cause for concern.

At "The Wonk Room," Igor Volsky offers a thoughtful analysis of a recent George Washington University study that "casts doubt on the argument that 'restrictions on abortion coverage approved in the House version of the health care bill likely will affect the affordability of the procedure for only a small minority of women.'" Volsky notes that the "unintended consequences of [the Stupak/Pitts amendment] are alarming."

Finally, Kevin Sack writes on the New York Times' "Prescriptions" that it was "death panel redux" this week because it "did not take long for Republicans in Congress to start arguing" that new guidelines on mammograms and routine breast cancer screenings for women amount to "rationing" of health care. Well, at least that was according to House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Dave Camp (R-Mich.), Sack notes. He writes that Camp and other Republicans maintain their concerns are "substantive, and that the recommendation ... gave shape to fears that research into the effectiveness of medical procedures would be used to deny or ration care."

by Santosh Rao, staff writer