quote:

Originally posted by olfuzzy:
A little arm twisting going on ?

Ryan-aligned super PAC pulls support from GOP member who opposes healthcare bill.

The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), a super PAC aligned with Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) announced on Thursday that it is pulling its support from GOP Rep. David Young (Iowa), who is opposing the ObamaCare repeal bill.

The CLF is closing down an office in Young’s Des Moines-area district, The Wall Street Journal first reported. The super PAC had been sending staffers to help out Young almost two years before his reelection race in 2018.

Young announced on Wednesday that he woudn't support the House GOP’s bill in its current form.

“CLF will be terminating our lease because David Young has decided not to support President Trump and House leadership,” CLF executive director Corry Bliss said, according to the Journal.
“At this time the Congressional Leadership Fund has no plans to spend any money for David Young this cycle but we wish him the best of luck.”

Young has been a top Democratic target since his election in 2014, though he won reelection in 2016 by a sizable margin. The political action committee poured nearly $2 million into the Iowa Republican’s 2016 reelection race.

American Action Network, a sister organization of the CLF, has had a sustained ad campaign to urge GOP members to support the bill that has been pushed by President Trump’s team as well as Ryan and other House leaders.

The American Health Care Act has divided Republicans, and Trump and House GOP leadership were scrambling hours before a planned floor vote to make negotiations and seek to sway conservatives who opposed to the bill. But the Thursday vote has now been postponed as efforts to woo conservatives may be turning away moderates.

"This only applies to Iowa's 3rd congressional district,” a CLF spokeswoman told The Hill. “CLF, like any organization, analyzes and makes spending decisions on a daily basis and will continue to do so over the next two years

http://thehill.com/homenews/ca...r-who-opposes-repeal

quote:

Originally posted by olfuzzy:
“At this time the Congressional Leadership Fund has no plans to spend any money for David Young this cycle but we wish him the best of luck.”

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
I can understand the issues/concerns about the pre-existing conditions. Health care and a pre-existing condition such as diabetes is not quite the same as car insurance and pre-existing condition of a dent in the fender. Get you fender repaired, then get the insurance at going rate.

Can't just fix the diabetes or cancer and be back to stock condition to enter the market. The far left wants carte blanch coverage from day one, the far right wants absolute capitalism, no gubbermint meddling.

Obamacare created a new entitlement and the hard truth, regardless of what everyone would like to believe is that taking away an entitlement once granted is political suicide. I suppose the R's could do it but they would quickly hand all branches back to the D's who in no time would restore everything and even give away more of the store.


So how about someone actually consider compromise to reach something agreeable, if not delicious, to both sides? Fix the problems, address the legitimate concerns and actually improve the process.

Complex problems can't be fixed with simple solutions. Address the coverage issues, address the competition issues, address the regulation issues, and the the malpractice/tort reform issues.

Those with pre-existing conditions get coverage albeit at an increased (but affordable) cost. Maybe some what higher premiums to start and coverage for the condition is limited at first, say at a reduced rate and phasing up over time (2-5 years) to be fully covered as if it was not pre-existing.

If I come into a policy with diabetes there is a definite cost. If I develop diabetes after being cover for a period, they cover the condition so essentially let those with a pre-existing condition "catch up" and get it covered as if they developed it down the road.

Give choice of levels of care, offer catastrophic/major condition coverage but routine care be out of pocket for those who want to keep costs down. Folks who can afford more complete coverage with preventative included, can choose to pay more.


For those extreme cases, bring in some sort of enhanced deduction for medical expenses with a sliding scale based on income level or certain diseases. I can now deduct medical in excess of 2% of my gross income IF I am am able to do Schedule A.

What about letting folks below a certain income level deduct all medical expenses, regardless of whether they use the standard deduction or not, similar to how those of us in states without state income tax are allowed to deduct our sales taxes paid even if we file 1040A?


I think the only hope for real reform is a full repeal and a comprehensive plan to address the various drivers as well as human factors. So long as either side focuses solely on the one or two hot button topics important to their base, we are destined to waste time and money with nothing to show for the efforts.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
I can understand the issues/concerns about the pre-existing conditions. Health care and a pre-existing condition such as diabetes is not quite the same as car insurance and pre-existing condition of a dent in the fender. Get you fender repaired, then get the insurance at going rate.

Can't just fix the diabetes or cancer and be back to stock condition to enter the market. The far left wants carte blanch coverage from day one, the far right wants absolute capitalism, no gubbermint meddling.

Obamacare created a new entitlement and the hard truth, regardless of what everyone would like to believe is that taking away an entitlement once granted is political suicide. I suppose the R's could do it but they would quickly hand all branches back to the D's who in no time would restore everything and even give away more of the store.


So how about someone actually consider compromise to reach something agreeable, if not delicious, to both sides? Fix the problems, address the legitimate concerns and actually improve the process.

Complex problems can't be fixed with simple solutions. Address the coverage issues, address the competition issues, address the regulation issues, and the the malpractice/tort reform issues.

Those with pre-existing conditions get coverage albeit at an increased (but affordable) cost. Maybe some what higher premiums to start and coverage for the condition is limited at first, say at a reduced rate and phasing up over time (2-5 years) to be fully covered as if it was not pre-existing.

If I come into a policy with diabetes there is a definite cost. If I develop diabetes after being cover for a period, they cover the condition so essentially let those with a pre-existing condition "catch up" and get it covered as if they developed it down the road.

Give choice of levels of care, offer catastrophic/major condition coverage but routine care be out of pocket for those who want to keep costs down. Folks who can afford more complete coverage with preventative included, can choose to pay more.


For those extreme cases, bring in some sort of enhanced deduction for medical expenses with a sliding scale based on income level or certain diseases. I can now deduct medical in excess of 2% of my gross income IF I am am able to do Schedule A.

What about letting folks below a certain income level deduct all medical expenses, regardless of whether they use the standard deduction or not, similar to how those of us in states without state income tax are allowed to deduct our sales taxes paid even if we file 1040A?


I think the only hope for real reform is a full repeal and a comprehensive plan to address the various drivers as well as human factors. So long as either side focuses solely on the one or two hot button topics important to their base, we are destined to waste time and money with nothing to show for the efforts.

I never understood this whole "Can't revoke an entitlement" thing. Why would it be political suicide? The people who will lose out were not GOP voters before Obamacare. They were not GOP voters after Obamacare. They will not be GOP voters no matter what the GOP does with healthcare. The GOP won control of the House, the Senate and the White House in large part due to the promises to get rid of this craptacular, statist, top-down law. So how is it political suicide to do what a substantial majority of the electorate wants you to do?

I think the risk to the GOP is in rushing through another comprehensive bill that has been put together behind closed doors, passed by arm-twisting and ultimatum and that ultimately fails to address the most serious flaws in Obamacare.

GOP voters don't seem to be in any mood these days for broken promises. They might forgive and forget if the end result were something better than what they were expecting, but if the end result is the usual GOP establishment's "conservative" vision of big government that is only microscopically smaller than the Democrats' version, then I think the Trump is a one-termer and the GOP Congressional majorities are at risk over the next couple of elections.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
As far as the Republican plan, it's as much a cobbled together POS as Obamacare is.

quote:

And, I think that it's important to note here that Trump has never said, nor did he campaign on, repealing Hadjicare. He has said that he wants to "repeal and replace" it...which is the next county away from a repeal. He has also said that he is in favor of making sure that everyone is covered,

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

And, I think that it's important to note here that Trump has never said, nor did he campaign on, repealing Hadjicare. He has said that he wants to "repeal and replace" it...which is the next county away from a repeal. He has also said that he is in favor of making sure that everyone is covered,

That's mostly right... but from Donald Trump's campaign website,

"On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare."

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...-day-one-agenda.html

quote:

Trump said at his Wednesday news conference they'll bring out a full plan to repeal and replace the law after his HHS nominee is approved.

quote:

There will never be a vote to fully repeal Obamacare. Such a bill would maybe get 100 votes in the House and less than 10 in the Senate. It will never happen.

quote:

I'd love a fully market based solution in healthcare. I'm part of probably less than 10% of the population in the US that would support something so radical. It will never fly politically, so what's the next best thing? That's the question.

quote:

It's actually a win for Trump if this fails. The finger pointing will be between Ryan and the Freedom Caucus rather than at him and he won't have "Trumpcare" hung around his neck. He has said he will just "let Obamacare collapse" on its own.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

There will never be a vote to fully repeal Obamacare. Such a bill would maybe get 100 votes in the House and less than 10 in the Senate. It will never happen.

Maybe... but then why did they vote 14 months ago for a full repeal?

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

There will never be a vote to fully repeal Obamacare. Such a bill would maybe get 100 votes in the House and less than 10 in the Senate. It will never happen.

Maybe... but then why did they vote 14 months ago for a full repeal?
Isn't that the one thing Republicans supposedly agree on?