As The Valley Reporter goes to press on July 11, 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives is poised to vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act, a sweeping change in how this country provides health care, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court two weeks ago.

This week’s vote marks the 33rd time that Republican congressional leaders have attempted to repeal or dismantle or reduce funds for the health care law. To many, this House’s action is considered a waste of time – nothing more than political posturing.

Others insist that it is an important symbolic vote to show the country that the House will not let the Supreme Court’s decision lead to the enactment of the law. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has vowed to repeal the law regardless of the Supreme Court decision.

 “We’ve made it pretty clear and I’ll make it clear one more time: If the court does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal what’s left of it,” Boehner said the day the Supreme Court ruling was issued.

But any House vote to repeal faces impossible odds and will never be signed into law. First, the repeal would have to pass the Senate and, secondly, the White House.

It’s not going to happen. So why bother? Will this action by the House make any significant difference in how the 2012 elections shake out? Will this action by the House result in any real changes to the content of the Affordable Care Act?

But more importantly – in making such an overt display of political machismo in repealing the act, have the Republicans in Congress proposed any alternative solution to the health care cost crisis that this country faces?

It’s one thing to try and repeal legislation that you think won’t work because you have a better proposal. It’s another thing entirely to try to repeal legislation strictly on ideological grounds and without any solutions.

Without some better or at least other proposal, this week’s House attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act should fall on deaf electorate ears for the blatant political posturing that it is.