Politico reported this afternoon that House Republicans will hold a vote on January 12th to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Democrats quickly accused the new majority of bringing the measure to the floor without allowing time for adequate debate or bipartisan negotiation. During a joint appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball this afternoon with Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA), Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) argued that Republicans will force the Congress to vote on repeal without first considering the consequences of completely eliminating the measure:

MORAN: We had 80 bipartisan hearings, we made this bill available for a month to consider before we brought it to the floor. They’re going to bring it right to the floor. This party supposedly of transparency and open government, right to the floor without any hearings.

MATTHEWS: January 12th, without any hearings.

MORAN: Without any hearings.

LUNGREN: Oh no, the hearings have been held on under Obamacare…

MORAN: Not considering the ramifications, the adverse consequences of repealing it and it’s a whole new bill you’re talking about now.

Watch it:

Indeed, Democrats in the House held “79 bipartisan hearings and markups” since 2008, incorporated Republican amendments and posted the original House bill online for 30 days. Republicans, meanwhile, intend to post the repeal legislation tonight but have not announced any formal hearings or plans to bring Democrats into the process.

But throughout the 15-month health reform debate, the GOP repeatedly accused Democrats of ramming through the health care bill without going through a bipartisan process. In February 2010, for instance, Speaker-elect Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) wrote a letter to President Obama endorsing his call for a bipartisan health care summit and encouraging Democrats to scrap the existing bill and start over in a bipartisan fashion. “In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats,” they began.

The two Republican leaders argued that “our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency” and asked Obama to invite Governors and experts to participate in the discussions before moving forward with reform. “‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support,” they said. “Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.”

Earlier today, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent reported that Democrats intend to discuss the consequences of undoing the measure on the House floor and through a series of amendments.

During today’s RNC debate, some Republicans expressed frustration over candidate Maria Cino’s past as a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, accusing the former Bush administration official of lobbying on behalf of ‘Obamacare.’ In June of 2009, Pfizer, along the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PHRMA), agreed to provide $80 billion worth of discounts on brand-name drugs over 10 years to seniors who fall within the ‘doughnut hole’ not covered by Medicare. In return, Democrats resisted pushing proposals that would have used the government’s purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices.

Pressed on her role in helping secure the deal — which also kept PhRMA from lobbying against reform — Cino insisted that she worked to promote “innovation” and Republican ideas:

CINO: I think that noone wants to go to a government-run health care system. I think that we’ve seen what has happened overseas, particularly in Europe and I’m proud to say this last year, I worked with our Republican members in the House and in the Senate. I worked against death panels and rationing. I worked to reform malpractice suits. I worked to make sure that innovation was rewarded and I worked to increase intellectual property protection.

[Audible crowd protest]

CINO: No, I did not, I worked for the Republican principles that I just mentioned.

Watch it:

Conservative blogs have criticized Cino for her Pfizer connections since she announced her candidacy in early December, but have failed to explore how health care repeal would benefit Cino’s former employer. The Wall Street Journal noted this morning that pharmaceutical companies stand to gain millions of dollars if the law is repealed and they’re off the hook for closing the doughnut hole in Medicare Part D:

The Republican gains in Congress in November’s election added new questions to the outlook for health-insurance costs borne by companies. Since then, some party leaders have said they aim to reverse or at least starve the Obama health-care law; meantime, lawsuits challenge some aspects of it. “You don’t know where it’s going to go,” said Robert J. Olson, CEO of Winnebago Industries Inc., a maker of motor homes.

For many pharmaceutical companies, the health-care law will be 2011′s biggest challenge. The closing of the “doughnut hole,” a gap in Medicare Part D prescription-drug coverage, will cost drug makers revenue and profit because they must give a discount on brand-name drugs for people who fall in the gap.

Dave Holveck, CEO of Endo Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc., estimated that closing the Medicare hole will cost his company between $20 million and $30 million in annual revenue.

As Merrill Goozner put it, “Repeal the law and that’s $20 to $30 million that will come straight out of senior citizens’ pockets. I suspect most senior voters, who disproportionately supported Republicans and their call to repeal health care reform, were not aware they were voting for higher drug prices. Democrats in the coming weeks will undoubtedly be telling them about that consequence of reform’s repeal.”

The Hill’s Jason Millman points out that “House Republicans, including Tea Party favorites Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Ron Paul (Texas)” have filed an amicus brief urging the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn U.S. District Court Judge George Steeh’s decision upholding the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision in the Affordable Care Act. In October, Steeh was the first of two federal judges “to rule that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to require individuals to purchase health insurance.” The lawmakers’ brief claims that if the federal government can force Americans to purchase health insurance coverage, it “would have the power to force citizens to engage in any activity that might conceivably affect commerce in some way” — including seeing the new Harry Potter movie:

The same logic can be used to justify virtually any other mandate Congress might care to impose—even a mandate requiring everyone to see the most recent Harry Potter movie. After all, just about everyone participates in the market for entertainment. Choosing not to go to the movies is just “an economic decision to try to pay for [other entertainment] services later.” Id. Health insurance is undoubtedly an important good. But it has no unique characteristics that transform failure to purchase it into an “economic activity.”

The difference, of course, is quote stark. We don’t have to see movies in the same way that we need access to quality health care. Not seeing Potter won’t kill you, skipping a doctor’s visit might. Entertainment costs also don’t create any kind of cost-shift and are not something we finance through insurance because movies are a predictable expense that are paid for in relatively small installments.

Health care costs, on the other hand, come at you out of the blue and can be enormous. While a young person may choose to forgo coverage in their 20s, eventually she or he will become sick and will need medical attention. Without the mandate, that individual will either be denied coverage because she or he is too sick (remember, if you lose the mandate, the insurance regulations go with it ) or they’ll be priced out of the market. A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million adults — or 36 percent of those who applied for coverage in the individual market — were denied insurance “because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years.” Left uninsured, those 12 million Americans will skip critical doctor visits or avoid treatment, allowing a small medical problem to become a chronic medical condition in need of medical attention. If she or he doesn’t have health insurance, the costs of care are shifted throughout the system – picked up by the government and private premium payers.

This morning, the crew at Morning Joe mocked Rep. Fred Upton’s (R-MI) — the incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee — commitment to hold a vote to repeal of the Affordable Care Act before President Obama delivers his State of the Union address. Upton made the comments yesterday, just one day after some of the law’s most popular consumer protections went into effect. “We have 242 Republicans,” he said on Fox News Sunday. “If we pass this bill with a sizeable vote, and I think that we will, it will put enormous pressure on the Senate to do perhaps the same thing,” he added. “But then, after that, we’re going to go after this bill piece by piece.” Morning Joe played a clip of Upton’s remarks, before describing repeal as a “meaningless legislative exercise”:

BRZEZINSKI: Is it a waste of time?

SCARBOROUGH: You know, to quote Sheryl Crow, ‘if it makes you happy, it can’t be that bad’….it’s going to take them 15 minutes, they’re going to vote to repeal it and it’s not going to do anything.

BRZEZINSKI: Good for them…you’re big men!

SCARBOROUGH: You’re so tough! [...] But seriously, it is a meaningless legislative exercise, but the base will like it.

BRZEZINSKI: No, actually people are sick of this stuff going on. Useless time spent in Washington, when we should be moving forward.

Watch it:

And while the repeal vote may please some portions of the GOP base, the vote would actually have serious implications for Americans who are already benefiting from the law. The GOP’s repeal push comes just as insurers will have to start spending 80 to 85% of premium dollars on health benefits, seniors are saving money on brand-name prescription drug coverage, small businesses are taking advantage of the tax credits, and the sickest Americans are enrolling in temporary insurance coverage (even as enrollment numbers for that program have not met expectations). Repeal would effectively reverse all of these gains: insurers would continue to take in profits with impunity, seniors who fall into the so-called Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole will have to pay out of pocket for their medications, small businesses will stop offering coverage in increasing numbers and Americans with chronic conditions would continue to go uninsured. State governments would also have to send back the billions of federal grant dollars they’re now using to implement reform and forfeit the additional Medicaid funding provided in the law.

And these are just the short-term implications. Over the long haul, repeal would dramatically swell the ranks of the uninsured, blow up the national deficit and increase national health are spending. As Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) put it, “In their first month, House Republicans will break one of their first promises. They will pass legislation that significantly increases the deficit. And they will ignore the impact on the deficit.” Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office found that repealing the entire health care bill would add $143 billion deficit and it would also reverse the course of health care spending. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) estimates that under the law, Medicare spending will decline $86.4 billion from previous projections due to reforms — meaning that it will increase if reform is repealed.