Poltically, there are two things that MUST happen. This is not rocket science:

1. REPEAL Obamacare. Fully repeal. She's dead Jim....jab a fork in it.
Let the media stew over this for a few days so it is clear: Obamacare has been repealed.
Let the libtards go into their mouth-frothing frenzy.

2. Enact some IMPROVEMENTS...i.e. the "replacement". This needs to happen soon after #1, which means they had better actually have it agreed upon in closed door meeting prior to number 1.

If Obamacare is not claerly REPEALED, the Republican party and Trump are simply toast. That is the main reason he was elected.

If #2 doesn't happen soon after, it creates problems from EVERY direction, creating the same result as #1: Republicans/Trump lose all support.

On the other hand, the do have an opportunity to be real political heroes

Well said, Crom.

quote:

Do you really think this cast of clowns in the GOP can do any better with tax reform or any of the other 'big' issues?

Only a little, a wee smidge more than not-really, a tiny bit of well-maybe. It's the most optimism I can muster at this juncture - which is a reflection of my lack of confidence in Congress and the GOP, not a lack of faith in President Trump.

But I am definitely confident that there's no material upside for America or the GOP by taking over this piece of shit that is Obamacare and barely changing the thing. It is and has been a colossally bad idea from the get-go. Really, just leave the damn thing alone.

Rushing through half-baked ideas is one of the ways we got the cluster fuck we have now. That we (loosely we) don't have a better plan by now is appalling, embarrassing really, and a testament to the fact that no one seems to want to actually do what's best for the people.

It's nothing but big government factions and special interests bickering over how to best enrich themselves and fuck over the rest of us and grab more control. If there's been more than a few hours of honest, earnest, actual problem solving happening I'd be amazed.

i think we need to replace the pink panty republicans with ones that want to do the job and JOHN McCAIN should be first to go he is doing more damage than the dems

quote:

Originally posted by SapperSteel:

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:
It doesn't matter if this passes or not. . .

Well, I have to disagree.

It matters a great deal.

If it does pass, the Republican Party will be left holding a putrid package of shit that it will never be able to wash off its hands.

It better NOT pass.

Repeal of ObamaCare is the only acceptable "solution".

Well, that is of course true. The Republicans will get the blame should it pass, then surely fail.

I was referring to the healthcare itself rather than the political implications. Pass or not pass, people who work for a living will take it in the kiester. The working man will pay out the nose for minimal services, while the freeloaders get the fruits of his labor.

Republicans Cannot Win The Health Care Debate Unless They Have The Courage To Reclaim Conservative Philosophy

Frank Camp
June 25, 2017

According to Vox: “Senate Republicans are expected to revise their health bill early next week, adding in a provision that could lock Americans out of the individual market for six months if they fail to maintain continuous insurance coverage.”

The six-month waiting period would fill a big policy gap in the current Better Care Act, which requires health plans to accept all patients — but doesn’t require all Americans to purchase coverage, as the Affordable Care Act does. Experts expect that this would cause a death spiral, where only the sickest patients purchase coverage and premiums skyrocket.

Save for a select group of elected officials, conservatism has died in the Republican Party.

For seven years, Republicans campaigned on repealing Obamacare; President Trump campaigned on repealing Obamacare. Now that the election is over, and Republicans have dominance in the House, Senate, and Oval Office, one would think the next logical step would be to repeal Obamacare. Instead, the House and Senate have drafted legislation that not only retains major provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but enshrines new entitlements.

As if the Senate bill couldn't get any worse, according to Vox, there may now be a penalty added for those who “fail to maintain coverage for six months.” This penalty is a funhouse reflection of the ACA’s individual mandate. However, considering how the GOP legislation looks nearly identical to Obamacare, it would need such a penalty in order for it to function on even the most basic level.

This bill is bereft of conservative philosophy, and there's a reason for that. As Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro has repeatedly pointed out, once Republicans accepted the progressive premise that the government serves an intrinsic role in health care, conservatism lost the debate.

This isn't something that happened overnight. The government takeover of health care began in earnest when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law in 1965. Over the last 50 years, the terrain on which the health care battle is fought has slowly shifted to the point that conservative ideas aren't even on the map.

Republicans are fighting an unwinnable war in a land in which they have no authority. Once all politicians have accepted the premise that the government must be tied to health care, even the most “conservative” solutions will remain within the confines of that ideological presupposition.

The GOP’s Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) is simply a repackaged Affordable Care Act, and to act as though it's anything different is intellectually dishonest. It's like replacing sarin with cyclosarin — although each nerve agent has moderately different chemical properties, they share base elements, and the end result of inhaling them is the same.

For the GOP to save our failing health care system, they need to change the debate. They cannot simply move the needle within the parameters set by the Democrats; they must boldly move the fight to a new ideological terrain. Freedom of choice, deregulation, individual responsibility — these are the philosophical weapons that need to be deployed. However, these weapons can only be used effectively if the currently accepted premise regarding the allegedly necessary bond between health care and government is firmly and publicly rejected by Republican Party politicians.

Unfortunately, such a move would require courage, and it seems only four Republicans in the Senate possess that essential quality.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/...te-unless-frank-camp

Any plan that includes unrestricted coverage of prior conditions will ultimately fail. Healthy people will just not buy insurance until they fall sick and will then get a policy. In the meantime, they've not been contributing to the big pot, which is what "insurance" depends on. If they must have some kind of prior conditions clause, I'd recommend that there be a restriction on when the condition was certified by a doctor--I'd set the period as 5 years, myself--any prior condition discovered within that time frame would receive higher premiums.

There are those who argue about when a prior condition occurred. I understand that, but I would say it's not real until a doctor has diagnosed it IN WRITING.

Keeping one's children on the parents' policy until age 26 is also ridiculous. If the "child" is still attending school and living at home, I could see it; otherwise, anyone out of school and living on their own should have to get their own insurance.

Flame on.

flashguy

Trump Calls For "Immediate" Repeal Of Obamacare If Senate Deal Fails

Jun 30, 2017

Instead of lashing out at various media personalities on Twitter this morning, President Trump has instead pivoted to Healthcare Law, and in an early morning tweet has endorsed a strategy for replacing Obamacare may resonate with conservatives like Kentucky’s Rand Paul: Repeal now, replace later. Trump tweeted: "If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!"

Donald J. Trump‏ Verified account @realDonaldTrump

If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!

The tweet is notable because it is the polar opposite of what Trump told Paul Ryan shortly after he won the election and shortly before Congress went into session, as Axios reminds us. And, more confusing, part of the reason why the House GOP leadership didn't run with a clean repeal vote, as they'd done many times under President Obama, was because Trump had made it clear to Ryan he wouldn't sign the bill.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...now-replace-it-later

Good description of the new bill's flaws:

It is useful to recall the machinations the God Damned Commies had to go to to get Obamacare passed.

quote:

Key events leading up to the passage of Obamacare (The Affordable Care Act)

Next, follow the timeline of key events leading up to the passage of the Obamacare law, along with key provisions that went into place after the law was enacted.

July 2009: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and a group of Democrats from the House of Representatives reveal their plan for overhauling the health-care system. It’s called H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

August 25, 2009: Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy, a leading supporter of health-care reform, dies and puts the Senate Democrats’ 60-seat supermajority required to pass a piece of legislation at risk.

September 24, 2009: Democrat Paul Kirk is appointed interim senator from Massachusetts, which temporarily restores the Democrats’ filibuster-proof 60th vote.

November 7, 2009: In the House of Representatives, 219 Democrats and one Republican vote for the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and 39 Democrats and 176 Republicans vote against it.

December 24, 2009: In the Senate, 60 Democrats vote for the Senate’s version of the bill, called America’s Healthy Future Act, whose lead author is senator Max Baucus of California. Thirty-nine Republicans vote against the bill, and one Republican senator, Jim Bunning, does not vote.

January 2010: In the Senate, Scott Brown, a Republican, wins the special election in Massachusetts to finish out the remaining term of US senator Ted Kennedy, a Democrat. Brown campaigned heavily against the health-care law and won an upset victory in a state that consistently votes in favor of the Democratic party.

....

March 11, 2010: Now lacking the 60th vote needed to pass the bill, Senate Democrats decide to use budget reconciliation in order to get to one bill approved by the House and the Senate. The use of budget reconciliation only requires 51 Senators to vote in favor of the bill in order for it to go to the president’s desk for signature.

March 21, 2010: The Senate’s version of the health-care plan is approved by the House in a 219-212 vote. All Republicans and 34 Democrats vote against the plan.

March 23, 2010: President Obama signs the Affordable Care Act into law.

Link

The GDC's had a filibuster proof majority, barely, and a guaranteed sign into law. Don't misunderestimate the criticality of the 60 votes.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
...whose lead author is senator Max Baucus of California.

Except Max wasn't from California...although he might as well have been.

quote:

March 11, 2010: Now lacking the 60th vote needed to pass the bill, Senate Democrats decide to use budget reconciliation in order to get to one bill approved by the House and the Senate. The use of budget reconciliation only requires 51 Senators to vote in favor of the bill in order for it to go to the president’s desk for signature.

If you don't have 60 votes... go with 51.

The Rand Paul video was a very good explanation. I truly don't understand why it is so difficult to get the concept of non-employer based group policies advanced. The risk pools could be everything from the NRA to PETA but would have numbers that could be actuarially predictable.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
The President can't leave the country for a few days without McConnell selling out. He tells them to repeal it, so McConnell is willing to run to the Democrats instead?

quote:

McConnell: Republicans may work with Democrats on healthcare bill

With the Senate Republican healthcare bill stalled due to disagreements within the party, some Republicans are admitting they may have to move to a plan B: working with Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday said during an event in Kentucky that if GOP senators fail to reach an agreement on a bill that can get 50 votes in the chamber, they would have to work with the other party on a way to stabilize the Obamacare insurance markets.

"If my side is unable to agree on an adequate replacement, then some kind of action with regard to the private health insurance market must occur," McConnell said.

McConnell pointed to increasing premiums in the individual insurance marketplaces as the reason Republicans would have to reach across the aisle.

"No action is not an alternative," McConnell said, according to The Associated Press. "We've got the insurance markets imploding all over the country, including in this state."

McConnell reportedly used the prospect of working with Democrats as a threat earlier in the negotiations over the Senate healthcare bill, the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA).

Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas on Thursday also suggested Republicans may have to work with their Democratic counterparts to solve healthcare. Moran said he would have preferred to deliberate the bill in a more open fashion in the Senate, instead of using the more secretive process for which McConnell was criticized, and "figure out where there are 60 votes to pass something."

The Kansas Republican also said there was no consensus within the 52-member GOP conference on the healthcare bill.

The BCRA hit a roadblock after its introduction. Conservative members rejected the bill because it did not go far enough in its repeal of Obamacare. On the other hand, more moderate members said the bill goes too far in stripping away funding from programs like Medicaid.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer welcomed the remarks from McConnell is a statement. The Senate's top Democrat expressed willingness to work with Republicans if they chose to do so.

"It’s encouraging that Sen. McConnell today acknowledged that the issues with the exchanges are fixable, and opened the door to bipartisan solutions to improve our health care system," Schumer said. "As we’ve said time and time again, Democrats are eager to work with Republicans to stabilize the markets and improve the law."

This was originally posted in the Trump thread, but I don't want to derail that.

McConnell is willing to run to the Democrats instead? Yep... McConnell's a piece of shit.
There are a lot of RINOs who don't want repeal. Once they have power over something, they never give it back to the people. Obamacare isn't about improving healthcare; it's about .gov control over you and your freedom to take responsibility for your own choices.

Sen. Rand Paul has not been quiet about his displeasure with the Republican healthcare bill as it was written, saying many times that he can't vote for it unless it looks more like an actual repeal of Obamacare.

Paul has derided Republicans for dropping the essence of their previous "repeal and replace" mantra for another big government approach, which promises an infusion of more federal money into the healthcare system.

Now that Paul has voiced support for separating the repeal effort from the replace effort into two different bills, he has distinguished himself even further from the rest of his caucus as one of the few remaining small government, pro-liberty Republicans.

Commenting on the current bill, he said, "We have nearly $200 billion in insurance bailouts. Does anybody remember us complaining that Obamacare had insurance bailouts?"

He continued, "Now, there are Republicans getting so weak-kneed they are saying, oh, we're afraid to repeal the taxes. What happened to these people? They all were for repealing Obamacare. Now there's virtually no one left," and continuing, "every time you add more federal money, more spending, for the big government Republicans, it offends the conservatives."

Paul also said on Cavuto: "You could say to the moderates we are going to give you more spending over here but it's going to be on a separate bill, and then you say to conservatives like me that are worried about the debt and think that we're going to ruin the country – I can't vote for all that spending – so if you want my vote, clean up the repeal, don't put all the Christmas ornaments and billion dollar goodies on it, just give me repeal, and if the Democrats and big government Republicans insist on Christmas ornaments that cost $45 billion and $100 billion, it'll be on a different bill."

His implication is clear: he wants to reduce the federal government's role in health care – as he and others in his party previously promised to do – and is, therefore, a conservative, and those Republicans supporting this bill are not.

http://www.washingtonexaminer....arty/article/2627979

quote:

Originally posted by heathtx:
Why does ANYBODY think the US Government, the most inefficient organization, can fix healthcare??

The US Government is very effective, but never efficient.

its the government that created the mess in the first place, and if they think they're smart enough to fix it, they wouldn't have written the piece of shit in the first place

Obamacare is owned lock stock and sinking ship by the democrats and any republican that doesn't work to repeal it needs to be removed from office

we the people are fed up, and soon politicians may start to feel the wrath of the people that are sick and tired of their bullshit games

its really simple - one sentence is all thats needed.

If you don't vote to repeal, the only logical conclusion one can reach is that you fully support Obamacare and all of its provisions. Can't have it both ways.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:

quote:

Originally posted by heathtx:
Why does ANYBODY think the US Government, the most inefficient organization, can fix healthcare??

The US Government is very effective, but never efficient.

its the government that created the mess in the first place, and if they think they're smart enough to fix it, they wouldn't have written the piece of shit in the first place

Obamacare is owned lock stock and sinking ship by the democrats and any republican that doesn't work to repeal it needs to be removed from office

we the people are fed up, and soon politicians may start to feel the wrath of the people that are sick and tired of their bullshit games

its really simple - one sentence is all thats needed.

If you don't vote to repeal, the only logical conclusion one can reach is that you fully support Obamacare and all of its provisions. Can't have it both ways.

^^^^^God bless you, nhtagmember! I agree completely! Couldn't have said it any better!

As always,

Sap

The day they started calling it "Repeal and Replace" (I believe we can thank Mitt Romney for that), I knew that it would never be repealed.

quote:

Obamacare is owned lock stock and sinking ship by the democrats and any republican that doesn't work to repeal it needs to be removed from office

we the people are fed up, and soon politicians may start to feel the wrath of the people that are sick and tired of their bullshit games

its really simple - one sentence is all thats needed.

If you don't vote to repeal, the only logical conclusion one can reach is that you fully support Obamacare and all of its provisions. Can't have it both ways.

But they want to have it both ways....
They say they want repeal.... but they still want to control you and your decisions.

Let's review:
What is Obamacare?
It is a series of mandates, taxes, and subsidies. Period. That's all it is.
We can live (better!) without it.

quote:

But they want to have it both ways....
They say they want repeal.... but they still want to control you and your decisions.

Then let them have what they want - so long as we start with a full repeal. If they don't have the guts to leap on an opportunity for a full repeal, it's kind of hard to see how they're going to have the guts to reinstitute any or all of that crap when they will have to stand up on their hind legs in public and justify enacting it into law from a baseline of zero.