Club for Growth/Koch Bros are getting their money’s worth with this Freedom Cuck-us scam.
My understanding is that Obamacare’s 2500 pages were supplemented by another sixty or hundred thousand pages of regulations required to make it work. Does any “replace” bill do away with the hundred thousand pages of regulations?
The balkanization of Congress has now been achieved.
I don’t blame the Freedom Caucus for sinking a bad bill with 17% approval ratings.
I blame the swamp Republicans (which may include Trump) for not doing what they said in campaigns.
I blame the swamp for not doing all they could under reconciliation that the Parliamentarian said they could do.
Let’s call the extent the Parliamentarian said we can go 100%, so why is Ryan, Trump and the Republican swamp only going 63% or so and why would we blame Freedom for not settling when we can do more?
Where is Trump? Is the truth that so much of Republicans are so progressive that he might as well go to Democrats, really?
THE FREEDOM CAUCUS IS WORKING FOR WHAT WE VOTED FOR
AND WHAT VOTERS WERE PROMISED
*F* *U* TO THE “CENTRISTS”
So, they assure us that they have not talked to the bill’s dissenters, and will never talk to the dissenters.
So, big surprise, they made no effort to get them on board except maybe to try and bludgeon them into supporting it.
And still have no intention to talk to them. That’s their boast. Somehow I don’t think that’s how you do it.
We have to bridge all unnecessary party conflicts--all that is, that do not reflect a real difference in American objectives.
In this spirit, let me suggest a compromise on Health Care, which could satisfy both the strict Constitutionalist & strict Jeffersonian, on our side, while reassuring the "moderates," who fear the result of an abrupt abandonment of the present Federal involvement in Civilian Health Care. This approach, understood, is intended to be acceptable in principal by almost all Republicans, as well as some Democrats in districts where everyone is not a Leftist "whack job."
We start with a brief recital of medical history, to postulate the ideas--the long term objectives--first, what the framers of our Constitution intended, when they left health care legislation to the States; and secondly to the honorable intentions of the class of physicians, who assumed the responsibility of the Hippocratic oath.
{Why this is important as a unity gesture, is not just that it would appeal to the hard core right--of which I am one. It actually leads to a public debate as to an ideal that argues for a Republican approach. It leads to an ability to demonstrate why Obama care has simply worsened the already grossly inflated medical costs that LBJ's 1965 intrusions have directly contributed to. The fact is that it is lunacy to allow the Federal Government, via various mandates, to meddle in something as immediate as the relation between a physician and patient, and expect the two certain results that anyone able to picture the dynamic interaction of factors, would expect: to wit, soaring costs & declining efficiency of service. Properly employed, this discussion will help public attitudes.)
Next, there needs to be what at first blush will appear as a factual recital in the opposite direction, relating only the factors now present in American Health Care, which actually have to be taken into account, as we endeavor to pursue a reasonable strategy, acceptable to all fair minded people of all persuasions, to back the bureaucrats in Washington out of American medicine. Here is the essential legal analogy:
We have in the law a doctrine that provides an exception to ordinary contract law, which allows the creation of a binding obligation, where one party--even without legal consideration for the promise--induces another party to commit to something, or part with something of value; where the party inducing the commitment is deemed to be estopped from denying the benefit promised. Under such an understanding, it would be unfair to immediately cancel the benefit promised to those who voluntarily signed up for Obamacare, under the promises made at the time.
Note, I am not suggesting a permanent continuation of any Federal entitlement; only that we recognize the concept that people who committed their future medical needs under the fallacious--but for many over-powering--inducements, have a legitimate situation--from a lay perspective--that needs to be addressed in a satisfactory manner.
We have to acknowledge these concerns--both sets of concerns--the reality of what worked without the Federal Government for 2200 years, and what works in human concerns generally, and the mess that the Socialist manipulators have created by their misuse of Federal power, for functions never delegated to those Socialist manipulators.
Just starting with a brief discussion of both factors, will elevate the level of public trust that we are not bulls in the proverbial china shop.
Now before someone accuses me of compromising principle, this is how Medicare & Medicaid are handled in the appropriate Chapter of the Conservative Debate Handbook:
“He said the Tuesday Group had a meeting on Wednesday.”
These dumb asses don’t even know what day it is and we’re supposed to try to work with them?
Doesn’t sound very “centrist” to throw a temper-tantrum and refuse to meet.
The Freedom Caucus is occasionally too much of a purist group, but in this case, they were correct and have great ideas.
Centrist Tuesday group = Progressive bastards!
Will someone tell me again why the Freedom Caucus supported Ryan for Speaker? They knew he wasn’t a conservative.
Should have gotten everyone on record with an actual vote. Now everyone gets to pretend
I have not even scrolled down yet but I just know there will be plenty of “conservatives” siding with the squishy, moderate RINOs who want to preserve socialized health care.
Is it just me who thinks so, but is using words like “never” in making such statements not exactly a “centrist” position?
Just because the Freedom Caucus is smart enough to realize that compromising with bad policy is like adding sewage to your drinking water?