quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:


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.

Except that no vote to repeal is possible in the senate without 60 votes.

You will say, "Fine. Change that, just like confirmations."

Getting appointments confirmed is one thing. Now it is glorious. May it be ever be thus.

I'm not sure opening Senate rules like that is worth it. The shoe on the other foot is going to kick a lot of butts.

My thought is that the entitlement mentality won't be changed. Since Obamacare there's now a mindset that everybody gets health care. Plus, any change will somehow kill people.
My daughter had to use an emergency room. First it was had finding a place that took Obamacare. Now the bill has arrived and the insurance has plaid little or nothing. My take is the system sees she has a job so she can pay for all those we saw in the ER that had didn't pay.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:I'm not sure opening Senate rules like that is worth it. The shoe on the other foot is going to kick a lot of butts.

I agree, but is there anything (other than tradition) stopping the Democrats from doing it the next time they take power regardless of what the Republicans do now? I'm not saying that upholding tradition isn't a fairly powerful motivator, but it certainly isn't absolute.

quote:

Originally posted by Icabod:
My thought is that the entitlement mentality won't be changed. Since Obamacare there's now a mindset that everybody gets health care. Plus, any change will somehow kill people.

To accept that is to accept the purely political gambit behind the law. Let's gamble.

Sent messages to both Cornyn and Cruz this morning to pretty much tell McConnell to get off the pot, stop pandering to the Democrats, and do the right thing by repealing the ACA. They KNOW it's the right thing to do and not only are their CONSTITUENTS telling them that's what they need to do, but also their PRESIDENT (boss) is telling them that's what they need to do.

Doubt it'll do any good......

McCain says Obamacare repeal likely dead in the Senate. If he's right - then I don't know what the future holds for the Republican Party. If they can run for 7 years on repealing Obamacare and pass numerous repeal bills when there was no chance of them becoming law and then fail to deliver when they have all 3 levers of power, then I think there is a good chance that a lot of people stay home in the next election cycle.

Link


Republicans expressed increasing pessimism on Sunday about the prospects for the healthcare bill in the U.S. Senate as lawmakers prepared to return from a week-long recess.

One prominent Republican lawmaker, Senator John McCain, said he thought the Republican bill to roll back Obamacare would probably fail.

"My view is that it's probably going to be dead," Senator John McCain, a senior U.S. Republican, said on the CBS program "Face the Nation," adding that Republicans would likely need to work with Democrats on a healthcare bill.

The Senate bill, which faces unified Democratic opposition, has been further imperiled during the recess, when Republican senators have had to return to their states and face constituents strongly opposed to the bill. Senators return to Washington on Monday.

The Senate bill keeps much of Obamacare intact but strips away most of its funding. It repeals most Obamacare taxes, overhauls the law's tax credits and ends its Medicaid expansion. It also goes beyond repealing Obamacare by cutting funding for the Medicaid program beginning in 2025.

At least 10 Republican senators have opposed the bill in its current form, but many more have criticized the legislation or said they are undecided. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy on Sunday said the draft bill was undergoing a "serious rewrite."

"Clearly, the draft plan is dead," he said on Fox News. "Is the serious rewrite plan dead? I don't know. I've not seen the serious rewrite plan."

Critics have derided the bill as a giveaway to wealthy Americans who would see some tax increases rolled back. Opponents also warn that the legislation would cause millions of poor and sick Americans to lose healthcare coverage.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which assesses the impact of legislation, estimated 22 million people would lose health insurance over the next decade under the Senate bill. In a separate report, it found the proposal would cut government spending on Medicaid by 35 percent come 2036.

White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said on Fox News Sunday that U.S. President Donald Trump expected Congress to pass a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare before lawmakers leave Washington for their August recess.

A spokesman for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Senate leadership is continuing to work with Republican senators and the CBO on the legislation, but did not comment on McCain's remarks or the bill's future.

Republican Senator Ted Cruz on Sunday said failure to pass the bill was "not an option," and said the Senate effort must focus on lowering premiums. He pointed to an amendment he offered that is being scored by the CBO.

Cruz's amendment would allow insurers to offer plans that do not comply with Obamacare's mandate that they charge sick and healthy people the same rates and that they cover a set of essential health benefits, such as maternity care and prescription drugs, as long as they also offer plans that do comply with the regulations.

Cruz's amendment has drawn support from conservative senators and groups, who say the amendment will help lower premiums. But moderate Republicans and outside critics say it will erode protections for people with pre-existing conditions and make their insurance unaffordable.

McConnell has said he plans to hold a vote on the legislation, which needs the support of at least 50 of the Senate's 52 Republicans, before a six-week recess that begins on July 29.

Yet McConnell himself voiced doubts on the bill's prospects last week, telling a luncheon in his home state of Kentucky that if Republicans fail to pass a repeal of Obamacare, they may need to work with Democrats to shore up private health insurance markets to keep them from collapsing.

McCain says a lot of things, and, in DC, the truth changes about fifteen times a minute in as many locations as possible. If the good guys push a clear, specific proposal - repeal before even talking about replacement - the Arizona Attention Whore could not only find himself being dead wrong but forced to go along with the crowd.

FWIW, I suspect his fear of being forced to go along with the crowd may be why he keeps publicizing doom'n'gloom prognostications based on nothing but whatever his opinion happens to be at the moment.

just repeal, don't replace

health care should never have been a federal issue to begin with

in my company, wages are my number one expenses every month

health care premiums are the second thing - enough of a drain on our profitability that we don't give out 5-digit bonuses any longer

quote:

Except that no vote to repeal is possible in the senate without 60 votes.

You, yourself pointed out (on the last page) that the Dems gave it to us without 60 votes in the Senate:

quote:

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.

History and Timeline of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
https://resources.ehealthinsur...ordable-care-act-aca

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

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Except that no vote to repeal is possible in the senate without 60 votes.

You, yourself pointed out (on the last page) that the Dems gave it to us without 60 votes in the Senate:

quote:

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.

History and Timeline of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
https://resources.ehealthinsur...ordable-care-act-aca

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

They got it through using Teddy's replacement, except for one last vote which they did via reconciliation.

My understanding is that they cannot repeal Obama care through reconciliation which has to do with budget processes. A repeal is via ordinary bill and 60 voted.

Obamatax as John Roberts explained to us is a tax.
I think 51 votes is sufficient. The problem is I doubt there are 51 votes to repeal.
What about the prior repeal they sent to Obama in January 2016 and he vetoed? I doubt that had 60 votes.

"The idea that Obamacare is the law of the land for good is a myth. This law will collapse under its own weight, or it will be repealed,” he said. “We have now shown that there is a clear path to repealing Obamacare without 60 votes in the Senate. So, next year, if we’re sending this bill to a Republican president, it will get signed into law.”
-Paul Ryan

The GOP can't seem to count on Collins and Murkowski, so they are at 50 if no one else jump ship.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Obamatax as John Roberts explained to us is a tax.
I think 51 votes is sufficient. The problem is I doubt there are 51 votes to repeal.
What about the prior repeal they sent to Obama in January 2016 and he vetoed? I doubt that had 60 votes.

"The idea that Obamacare is the law of the land for good is a myth. This law will collapse under its own weight, or it will be repealed,” he said. “We have now shown that there is a clear path to repealing Obamacare without 60 votes in the Senate. So, next year, if we’re sending this bill to a Republican president, it will get signed into law.”
-Paul Ryan

I'm not aware of a straight repeal that made it through the Senate. It would be helpful to know how.

December, 2015: The Senate voted to repeal Obamacare with 52 votes:

The measure passed 52-47 after the Senate voted to significantly strengthen the bill originally passed by the House and brought straight to the floor by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The House will need to approve the amended legislation before it can be sent to the White House.

Thursday’s vote was a major event in the Senate, as Democrats never allowed a stand-alone vote on an ObamaCare repeal bill when they controlled the chamber.

Democrats were also unable to block the GOP measure, which was brought to the floor under budget reconciliation rules that prevented a filibuster.

“For too long, Democrats did everything to prevent Congress from passing the type of legislation necessary to help these Americans who are hurting,” McConnell said on the floor. “Today, that ends.”

The measure guts the law by repealing authority for the federal government to run healthcare exchanges, and scrapping subsidies to help people afford plans bought through those exchanges. It zeros out the penalties on individuals who do not buy insurance and employers who do not offer health insurance.

http://thehill.com/policy/heal...ng-much-of-obamacare

January, 2016:
Obama used his veto pen without fanfare on a legislative package rolling back his signature healthcare law and stripping federal funding from Planned Parenthood.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Friday pledged that Congress would vote to override Obama’s veto. The party lacks the two-thirds majority necessary to achieve that, however.

“It’s no surprise that someone named Obama vetoed a bill repealing Obamacare. But we will hold a vote to override this veto, taking this process all the way to the end under the Constitution,” Ryan said in a statement.

Ryan said the vote showed there is a “clear path” for Republicans to repeal the law.

“The idea that Obamacare is the law of the land for good is a myth. This law will collapse under its own weight, or it will be repealed,” he said. “We have now shown that there is a clear path to repealing Obamacare without 60 votes in the Senate. So, next year, if we’re sending this bill to a Republican president, it will get signed into law.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/ad...althcare-bill-repeal

Well, now, why not vote on the same bill as before?

It seems like that would be doable, and with a different pen and phone down the street, sure to become law.

Exactly!
... and that's what Rand Paul and several others who truly want to see it repealed were saying when the House first took this up (March?) shortly after Trump became President.

Trump tweets: Congress wouldn't 'dare' leave without 'beautiful' healthcare bill

Donald J. Trump ✔
@realDonaldTrump

I cannot imagine that Congress would dare to leave Washington without a beautiful new HealthCare bill fully approved and ready to go!

Legislation to repeal and replace ObamaCare is currently stalled in the Senate as GOP leaderships works on a new version of the bill. The first draft of the legislation was rejected by several Republican senators, forcing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to delay a vote on the measure initially scheduled for the end of June.

GOP leaders are now debating a proposal from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that many have called a non-starter. His measure would permit insurance companies to sell any kind of coverage as long as they include at least one option that falls under the regulatory requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Republican leaders said they’re considering scrapping the August recess to wrap up work on the bill to repeal and replace ObamaCare and move forward with other priorities on their legislative agenda, like tax reform and passing a budget.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...e-washington-without

“Big, Beautiful” Healthcare?

It seems to me that there are two main thoughts in the approach to healthcare:
1) Practical: How it works for people’s immediate access and cost; then,
2) Philosophical: How it structurally operates in terms of government control.

Consumers want access for their care. They want it at a workable price. Whether that takes government control or not, people want to provide for their own practical healthcare needs. The philosophical either does not matter or is a lower priority to many Americans – they just want to have healthcare when they need it.

There are those who want to ensure the least government meddling, believing that to be the best way to ensure that individuals will have the best ultimate overall costs and self-control over providing for their own healthcare needs.

Before Obamacare, healthcare costs were escalating out of control. Link Voters wanted President Trump’s promised “big, beautiful” healthcare approach. Across the board, people support a practical approach to fixing healthcare in some way that will deliver something better than what existed before Obamacare.

Unfortunately, Republicans in the Senate are split between the practical and philosophical approaches but none offer a bill that will do anything but take us back to what was not working before Obamacare. Not big and beautiful.

Cruz’ blended approach, while laudable, seems to feed fears that sick people will not ultimately have access to health care. Sure, insurance companies would offer non-Obamacare plans at lower costs but those who have a preexisting condition will be concentrated into Obamacare – a plan that all agree is expensive, inadequate and self-collapsing.

Insurance companies, given the choice, would lower costs by eliminating those persons who account for more payouts. This chart seems to say just who those folks might be. Link

I have always thought that we need some transitional form because Obamacare messed up a competitive approach to healthcare. But, nothing being proposed now seems to offer the practical results that our citizens need to meet their needs.

I support the Senate approaches because they are better than what we have. But, from a practical point of view, they do not offer the solution that all citizens need for immediate healthcare needs. It is disappointing that after so many years of thinking about it, we Republicans have not produced a bill that satisfies both the immediately practical and long-term philosophical concerns of our citizens.

I heard one senator say that Cruz’ proposal may work if the Obamacare and private plans use the same risk pool. That is interesting and may form some mechanism to transition to wholly private plans as people were able to choose options that work best for their families.

However, nothing seems like a big, beautiful plan right now. Maybe Senator Cruz’ approach, in some variation, will move things toward something better. If Obamacare plans continue, those wanting it would face the out of control costs and no plan availability that it offers.

Everybody wants to dance, but nobody wants to pay the band.

quote:

Whether that takes government control or not, people want to provide for their own practical healthcare needs. The philosophical either does not matter or is a lower priority to many Americans – they just want to have healthcare when they need it.

Across the board, people support a practical approach to fixing healthcare in some way that will deliver something better than what existed before Obamacare.

Unfortunately, Republicans in the Senate are split between the practical and philosophical approaches ....

I support the Senate approaches because they are better than what we have. But, from a practical point of view, they do not offer the solution that all citizens need for immediate healthcare needs.

However, nothing seems like a big, beautiful plan right now....

So.... what is this practical plan (not philosophical ) that the people support across the board?
Where can I read it's finer points? Why hasn't it been proposed and voted on?
Why does the government have to limit my choices (through mandates), or increase my costs (through taxes on some and subsidies to others)?

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Whether that takes government control or not, people want to provide for their own practical healthcare needs. The philosophical either does not matter or is a lower priority to many Americans – they just want to have healthcare when they need it.

Across the board, people support a practical approach to fixing healthcare in some way that will deliver something better than what existed before Obamacare.

Unfortunately, Republicans in the Senate are split between the practical and philosophical approaches ....

I support the Senate approaches because they are better than what we have. But, from a practical point of view, they do not offer the solution that all citizens need for immediate healthcare needs.

However, nothing seems like a big, beautiful plan right now....

So.... what is this practical plan (not philosophical ) that the people support across the board?
Where can I read it's finer points? Why hasn't it been proposed and voted on?

Chellim1,

That's the point. Most people could care less how it is done. They just want to have access to care at a reasonable cost.

The finer points are what Republicans have the responsibility to create and explain.

Telling people that welfare, charity and bankruptcy is the Republican plan for millions of Americans is not popular.

It also does not assure citizens that anything "beautiful" is being offered. I think that is why support levels in the general public are so low.

Again, the Republicans have had years to think on this in the House and Senate. That is what will bite the Republicans because offering things that have popular support in the teens or so requires the Republicans to come up with better plans or simple, clear explanations about why welfare, charity and bankruptcy are better.

People will suffer if they believe they are doing the best thing. We have done it during wars and other national problems.