A group of Republican senators have declared their opposition to the Senate’s version of Obamacare reform.

Senators Rand Paul, R-Ky., Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., have released a joint statement announcing they are opposing the Senate’s version of the Obamacare bill in its current form.

“Currently, for a variety of reasons, we are not ready to vote for this bill,” the senators said, noting that they are “open to negotiation” before the bill goes to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Their chief charge against the Senate bill is that it simply does not repeal Obamacare.

“There are provisions in this draft that represent an improvement to our current health care system, but it does not appear this draft as written will accomplish the most important promise that we made to Americans: to repeal Obamacare and lower their health care costs.”

The Republican caucus is fractured between conservatives who want to see the GOP keep its longtime campaign promises with a full repeal bill and progressive Republicans who want to keep key elements of Obamacare in place.

The Senate version of the bill does not repeal several parts of Obamacare, including costly insurance regulations that are driving up the cost of premiums and deductibles. More moderate Republicans argue that these so-called “patient protections” are necessary.

While the bill does immediately repeal the individual and employer mandates that penalize individuals and business owners who do not purchase health insurance, by keeping Obamacare’s regulations in place and removing these mandates – which fund the subsidies that keep health insurance costs artificially low for many – the death spiral in insurance markets will be exacerbated rather than fixed.

Ultimately, the problems with the Republican bill were best expressed by Senator Rand Paul earlier Thursday, when he said he believes that the Senate bill does not repeal Obamacare. “My concern at this point, from what I’ve been able to see so far is that it looks like we’re keeping Obamacare, not repealing it.” At first glance, Paul said that the legislation “actually subsidizes the death spiral of Obamacare.”

Speaking to reporters after the joint statement was released, Sen. Paul said “I didn’t run on Obamacare-lite.”

With a 52-seat majority in the U.S. Senate, Republicans can only afford to lose two GOP votes on the bill. With four GOP Senators announcing their opposition, the current bill is dead.

Now the negotiations to improve the bill begin. Ultimately, however, anything short of a full repeal bill will fail to address the intrinsic problems in health insurance markets caused by Obamacare.

https://www.conservativereview...ors-oppose-swampcare

Since the DC Buffoon Club can't figure out to just freakin' repeal the damn thing with a delay, and insists on passing a tweak, for heaven's sake they better get it right. We're going to own it...and nobody - repeat, nobody - will remember what month it passed.

Downside of tweaking vs. straight repeal: if it works, the press will give Obamacare credit for all the success and say "Obamacare survived despite Republican efforts" and if it doesn't, the press will blame everything on 'Trumpcare' and forget about the negative trajectory Obamacare had.

quote:

Downside of tweaking vs. straight repeal: if it works, the press will give Obamacare credit....

Right you are.
It's a lose-lose proposition.
By tweaking vs. straight repeal Republicans are in a guaranteed lose position. They will lose with the press, of course. But they will also lose with their own base (people like me) who want the damn thing repealed. If they just tweak it, they own it... and every bit of the failure to come from Obamacare.

You can't just simply repeal it with a bill that says, "Obamacare is repealed." It isn't possible, it isn't feasible and it can't be done.

Why not?

I don't know of anything in the Constitution that prohibits a repeal, nor anything in the laws of physics.

quote:

You can't just simply repeal it with a bill that says, "Obamacare is repealed." It isn't possible, it isn't feasible and it can't be done.

Well.....

quote:

I don't know of anything in the Constitution that prohibits a repeal

Speaking of the Constitution, perhaps some should reference section 1 of the 21st amendment. That may provide a clue as to what is possible and not possible when it comes to repealing things.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

You can't just simply repeal it with a bill that says, "Obamacare is repealed." It isn't possible, it isn't feasible and it can't be done.

Well.....

quote:

I don't know of anything in the Constitution that prohibits a repeal

Speaking of the Constitution, perhaps some should reference section 1 of the 21st amendment. That may provide a clue as to what is possible and not possible when it comes to repealing things.

You mean this one?

"The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. (Should the 21st Amendment pass, it will strike the 18th Amendment from the Constitution as the law of the United States.)"

I'm starting to believe it's going to take an act of Congress or something to repeal this thing...

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:
Why not?

I don't know of anything in the Constitution that prohibits a repeal, nor anything in the laws of physics.

Because as a practical matter you face several very real problems:

1. While you can repeal it as written, you have no plan in place to cover those who had the care. If you couldn't afford or were unable to keep your doctor under Obamacare, a repeal doesn't get you back to your doctor the second the law is undone. People can go to the ER but that isn't a desired interm solution.

2. Obamacare was written with tentacles, on purpose, so that a repeal wouldn't change the working machinations without a lot of digging through rules and regulations to find the enabling language within each agency. For example, if the Obamacare allowed HHS to set up various committees and working groups to identify inner city poor who might qualify for subsidies, getting rid of Obamacare wouldn't undue the HHS aspect on its face. You need people with extreme skill to drill through all the rules and regs to find out which ones are associated with Obamacare so that the agency can remove them. That's one primary thing Obamacare did in masking and hiding the enabling rules and regs and in any administrative organization, the rules and regs are really what governs how the agency runs.

3. You need to have a plan, a true working one, that will start to cover people or provide a mechanism for alternate coverage once Obamacare is repealed. It has to be a phase in.


Finally, while don't belive that practicality favors outright repeal, I'm a lot pissed at the Republicans for not having something ready to go a long time ago. They've had years to figure out an alternative and while they proposed dozens of repeal bills, they were just for show. Still, it's isn't like the Republicans didn't know they'd need a real bill and not this shit show.

I almost died laughing when I saw the CNN.com headline this morning. "Senate to reveal secret healthcare plan, created behind closed doors".

There is nothing about Obamacare and its complexity that can't be fully understood, in breadth and depth, and undone in short order - by most any team of competent analysts and subject matter experts if actually empowered to do so.

I've worked in key roles deep inside such programs (hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal gov't health care programs administered on State levels, not at all dissimilar to this), and have seen them hire local/regional SMEs, and bring in armies of consultants, and move mountains, so to speak.

Any assertion that we can't or that it's too difficult are excuses or ill informed or are lacking the correct amount of sheer will and sense of purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
You can't just simply repeal it with a bill that says, "Obamacare is repealed." It isn't possible, it isn't feasible and it can't be done.

Other than three facts - they could, it is feasible, and it could be done with the same slim majorities it passed with.

It would take one sentence, and here it is. "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is hereby repealed in its entirety, effective December 31, 2017." Do it, as the original was done, under reconciliation - simple majorities suffice. Done deal, film at 11. Campaign promises fulfilled (check) governmental interference in the market reduced (check)

If in certain circles the specter of going back to 2010 causes some angst, there would be plenty of time to put a new bill together. If December 31, 2017 proved too aggressive a timeline, the same process could be done to amend the repeal law with another date. But, whatever came out of that, the current Congress and President would actually own, and justly so.

Or if no subsequent legislation got through we would be back were we were in 2010. Gollygeewhillikers, what a horrorshow that was - American healthcare was the envy of the world.

People could pick whatever insurance they wanted, or were free to choose none if they preferred. Healthy/young people would not be subsidizing unhealthy/old people's health coverage. The new taxes/penalties would be gone. Insurance companies would not need Federal subsidies to make up their losses participating in the sucker's game Obamacare set up. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Sure, 2010's status could be improved upon. If the Democrats actually wanted to participate, their moderate wing might have votes the Congressional leadership might pursue. A bipartisan, thorough job done right would have some legs and might avoid being the object of future repeal efforts from the other side.

Doing the 'solely-partisan, pass the bill to see what's in it' thing cost the Democrats dearly when it imploded. As the mostly-passive beneficiaries from the political backsplash of that fiasco, I have to hope the Republicans are smart enough not to go down the exact same road seven years later.

This time the media is not an accomplice, handing out free passes. Something done on a purely partisan basis had damn well better be well thought out, well executed and well marketed to the 2018/2020 voter base. Or we'll be the ones scratching our heads in future Novembers.

The world didn't end the day before Obamacare took effect, and it sure as hell won't end, if it were repealed in its entirety tomorrow. Sure, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, but it will go on.

Capitalism finds a way.

So, even if there were mandates with no subsidies, how do we know that health care would end? It seems to me that there is a lot of bloat in the healthcare system. Couldn’t subsidies be phased out?

If insurance companies didn’t want to play anymore what’s to say that new companies, hospitals and doctors wouldn’t find a capitalist way to lower costs and make services available.

Right now, the cash price for hospital, lab and doctor visits are often cheaper by cash than if a person uses insurance. In fact, I was told by my hospital that they had to charge me extra because that was the insurance company’s negotiated rate. It breached their contract if the hospital took the cash price if I paid it right then and there.

I have also noticed that when government makes subsidies available, the price tends to rise. Higher education comes to mind. There are millions in subsidies even though endowments are simply enormous. But, higher education wants more and keeps charging more. Quite often, government money just raises consumer prices.

quote:

1. While you can repeal it as written, you have no plan in place to cover those who had the care.

This is the biggest problem, isn't it?
Overcoming the notion that just because something was given, it cannot be taken away, and it is now an "entitlement"?

Once you accept the premise that health care is something that the .gov owes to anyone you have lost the argument. If the people who were given these new subsidies are "owed" anything, it creates an obligation we the people all must shoulder to provide for their care. This is the thinking that makes health care a "right" in the minds of so many.

Is the purpose of government to protect our freedom? Or has it become to "redistribute the wealth"?

quote:

Any assertion that we can't or that it's too difficult are excuses or ill informed or are lacking the correct amount of sheer will and sense of purpose.

46and2 is right.

The only thing standing in the way of repeal is the desire of politicians to control us. The only thing standing in the way of freedom is the lack of will to be free.

This should never have been done behind closed doors. The GOP is going to screw the pooch on this one.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
You can't just simply repeal it with a bill that says, "Obamacare is repealed." It isn't possible, it isn't feasible and it can't be done.

Well, in theory, it COULD be done.

But your point is valid: as a practical matter, it would create a lot of chaos if simply "repealed".

But this is EXACTLY why the growth of the Socialist Nanny-State is so dangerous and seemingly irreversible" once a bureaucracy is in place a lot of people depend on it for their jobs, and once you give people benefits they start thinking they "deserve" those benefits as virtual rights.

For these reasons, I believe it should be flatly REPEALED.

THEN, after repeal, if we want to consider some good ideas, we can start from there.

Remember that the USA became the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth long before there was any such thing as "Health Insurance" at all! Insurance is a voluntary product, provided by companies that are really under no obligation to do anything for you.

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
This should never have been done behind closed doors. The GOP is going to screw the pooch on this one.

Oh, look, bad predictions for the Right. Yes, plese do post some more of that stuff here, since there hasn't been nearly enough criticism of the new administration.

I just can't tell you how fucking happy I am to see that kind of shit posted in this forum.

quote:

But your point is valid: as a practical matter, it would create a lot of chaos if simply "repealed".

I would just say hasn't Obamacare already created a lot of chaos?
Yes, it would take a bit of additional chaos, and time, for the free market to adapt to repeal.
As Tubetone said: Capitalism finds a way.
Products and services are developed to fill a need, in spite of government interference, not because of government.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

1. While you can repeal it as written, you have no plan in place to cover those who had the care.

This is the biggest problem, isn't it?
Overcoming the notion that just because something was given, it cannot be taken away, and it is now an "entitlement"?

Not necessarily. Detrimental reliance is a big issue. People have been moved to break from former insurance that they would not be able to get back. The freeloading entitlement analysis is not necessarily the biggest problem.

It seems to me that when President Trump speaks of "heart" and others want to have some measure of compassion that they are looking at peoples' predicaments.

Sure, there is an eye to past promises and future elections but there is also the main concern of seeing that our citizens have access to quality care - even if ill.