The ever-bombastic Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) told 1250 WTMA in South Carolina this afternoon that the Affordable Care Act “take[s] control” of “vending machines” and “restaurants” and even sends personal medical information to the federal government. “And of course big brother will have every one of your personal medical records,” Gohmert said:

GOHMERT: We take control of vending machines, of restaurants and of course big brother, your federal government will have every one of your personal medical records. Oh yea, we’re farming that out to a good loyal corporation, General Electric, that’s been very loyal to our President. And so, General Electric and the federal government will have access to everyone’s personal records and will be able to keep watch on people and make sure they’re doing what we think they should and will be able to tell who’s being a bully or who’s getting bullied. All of those federal issues that we’re hearing from the Democrats need to be ruled from Washington these days.

Listen:

Conservatives began circulating this myth via chain-emails during the reform debate and Gohmert is still repeating it. In reality, the law did not change the existing protections that prevent anyone from sharing personal medical information with third parties without consent of the patient.

During the segment, Gohmert also suggested that Republicans may not be completely united in going after the mandatory funding (what Republicans are now referring to as “secret funding”) in the law. Echoing the concerns of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — who recently expressed frustration at the GOP’s reluctance to defund the mandatory spending — Gohmert said that Republicans must have “total commitment from our party that that is truly what we’re going to do.”

In a speech at the National Press Club on Friday, likely presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said he expects that the Affordable Care Act would be repealed by 2013 and predicted an “enormous mess” if the Supreme Court doesn’t strike down the law and the administration is forced to “defend the indefensible.” Politico’s Jennifer Haberkorn:

“We have very few examples of reform which has been opposed by the American people which survives”… “The sheer weight of public opinion consistently forces the system to ultimately follow the people, rather than the other way.” [...]

In the short-term fight against health reform, Gingrich said he’s confident that House Republicans can deny money to the program in the next appropriations bill. The White House and Senate Democrats “can block them from repeal, but they can’t coerce them into funding” all of the Affordable Care Act provisions, he said.

For the long term, the former House speaker has his own reform plans at the ready. He supports a flat tax credit to help Americans buy insurance, and he would also use block grants to reform the state Medicaid system.

Newt’s own proposal aside (I’ll return to it in a future post), his argument that the health law is destined to fail because it is “opposed by the American people” is unlikely. This country has adopted its share of contentious legislation, most of which has remained on the books, as will the health law.

The 1965 Medicare law provides the best parallel. Opponents of that measure relied on the very same rhetoric as today’s Republican party: they referred to the bill as socialized medicine, warned Americans that it would erode personal freedom and lead to health care rationing. As a result, public opinion remained mixed. A July 1962 Gallup poll found that just 28 percent of responds “said they held generally favorable views” of the plan, “24 percent were generally unfavorable, and a sizable plurality (33 percent) said they didn’t have an opinion on it or hadn’t heard about the plan.” By 1965, more Americans supported than opposed the measure, but the public was still decidedly divided. Today, nearly 96 percent of Americans consider the plan “very” or “somewhat” important.

The point here isn’t to say that all unpopular plans can survive — this was clearly not the case with the 1988 Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act — or to draw a direct comparison to the political atmosphere of the 1960s (when Americans were far more trustworthy of the federal government). Rather, it’s to say that a bill’s immediate unpopularity is not the best predictor of its longevity. And this is doubly true for the health law which more Americans want to expand or leave it as is than repeal it entirely or replace with a yet-to-be-determined GOP alternative. Most also support key provisions of the law.

But if Newt’s standard for repealing law is its popularity, then he should probably start with NAFTA, which was supported by just 38% of the population in 1993 and for which support remains rather subdued today.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) dismisses the possibility of Republicans successfully defunding the Affordable Care Act in a new interview with Politico Pro’s David Nather and disputes the GOP claim that Democrats sought to protect reform from Congressional action by funding parts of the law through the mandatory spending process:

On defunding reform:

These are riders that they’re putting on the bill, and appropriations bills, we’re not going to have any riders. So, that’s just not going to happen. It won’t be part of the deal. Now again, if there is legislation that they send over to repeal the health care bill or to do other things to it, well, it’s just not going to get through the Senate, period.

On “mandatory spending” in the health law:

To those arguing against mandatory spending on the health care bill, you might ask them about all the farm programs … because I see some of those are from rural states. That’s mandatory spending. It’s in the law, and it goes on year after year after year. So we do a lot of that around here for things that we don’t want to have to come up year after year after year because they have long-term implications for our country. And some of that is in farm programs and conservation programs and things like that…there is mandatory spending in defense, there is mandatory spending in transportation, energy. I think just in the whole gammit of the government there are mandatory spendings.

Watch it:

Indeed, even some Republicans are disputing the now oft-repeated claim — being advanced by Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Steve King (R-IA) — that Democrats misused the mandatory spending process. As Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) explained during an appearance on the Sean Hannity radio show, “with the advanced appropriations they built in there, it exists outside the normal appropriations process, but tell me something I don’t know.”

Indeed, mandatory funding was openly discussed in the various Congressional Budget Office estimates of health care reform. For instance, this CBO estimate from December 19, 2009 addressed the effects of “mandatory appropriations” for the Prevention and Public Health Fund,” “community health centers” and “the National Health Service Corps.” In an earlier document from November 2009, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf writes, “For example, the House bill would finance the operations of the insurance exchanges through mandatory appropriations rather than a surcharge on the plans offered in the exchanges. ” (The word “mandatory” is used throughout this CBO compilation of health care related documents).