Posted on 03/10/2017 5:24:50 PM PST by ForYourChildren
Obamacare won’t be repealed, because it can’t be repealed - or, more exactly, it can’t be repealed without ushering in huge Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate.
Members of Congress don’t know much, but they can count votes like a pimp in a whorehouse can count money.
Yes, the voters “hate Obamacare and want it repealed”. That is absolutely true.
It’s also true that they want the ability to buy insurance for pre-existing conditions, want insurance companies to be forbidden to cancel policies for non-payment, want zero payment at the point of service, want their adult children who are smoking dope in a dive in Oakland to stay covered, want their States to expand Medicaid without taxes going up, and so on.
In other words, the only two things they hate about Obamacare are paying for it, and the name.
Republicans in Congress understand this perfectly well, which is why there’s no plan.
And, not coincidentally, Obamacare (and Romneycare) were the culmination of fifty years of “reform”, all of which had the purpose of destroying the private sector or making it impossible for the private sector to function, except for boob jobs and a few other things. And, by 2009, the mission was largely accomplished.
Obamacare was merely a temporary mop-up operation, until full nationalization was possible.
And now, it is.
Like Nixon to China, Trump will propose single payer within the year. It’s really the only way out at this point.
And before you accuse me of favoring it, realize that it will destroy a lifetime of work for me. I don’t like it - I hate it.
But it’s coming, because it’s what the voters, bless their pointy little heads, want.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14313/it-really-true-republicans-cant-just-repeal-aaron-bandler
Sounds like an effective way of handling a crisis.
“...the future of this country as we know it will be over...to destroy the Senate...” etc, etc.
Yes, that is exactly what I meant by “hyperbole”. Thanks for the added example.
Harry nuked us a few years ago, are we over now as a country? Is the Senate destroyed?
Of course, not.
The rest of your screed is about how you trust Trump more than common sense or the Constitution. Good luck with that.
I voted for the guy too - in the general there was no other choice for a man of reason. But Trump IS the establishment when it comes to fed level entitlements. He was quite clear about that all along.
You have put your faith in a man, not any sort of principle. And in a rule created/evolved in one half of one branch of one level of our govt. And seemingly that internal and always evolving rule, which has nothing to do with the Constitution, is more important to you than our founding principles.
I’m on Freedom’s side.
And, no, I’m not supporting your illogical plan to somehow magically achieve more freedom by having Republicans vote as Democrats. For subsidies, for mandates, for penalties and such.
You are an idiot!
“You are an idiot!”
I will admit that is possibly true.
But I will wisely wait for a slightly more reasoned assertion than yours above before I determine whether you are correct.
In the meantime, if I change my mind and decide the Ryan/TrumpCare bill is somehow Freedom-oriented, then you (and all) should count that as evidence your diagnosis is valid.
Your reply compels me to retract my name-calling and apologize. We’ll all just have to see what unfolds in the end.
“Your reply compels me...”
No need to apologize, fellow Freeper.
Actually, I’d rather they did NOT resort to the nuke option. But my point would be that IF they think the only two options are nukes or the Ryan/Trump bill, then I would go with the nukes.
I still have not seen Ryan’s answer to why nearly the same Congress/Senate passed repeal in 2015, when they knew absolutely that it would not be signed. Yet now they say it absolutely can’t be done. Seems dishonest at the least.
And even if there was no 2015 passage, why not write and vote on a single, simple new bill? Then start working on the 60 votes in the Senate as they admit they will need for the best parts of Phase 3 anyway. If it does not pass before ‘18, we will at least have a bill to campaign on in positive, unified way instead of issuing threats against our most conservative members with AlGore-like doomsday predictions from the leadership if we don’t blindly trust them now and pray they follow through later in a way they never have before.
In other words, instead of expecting trust they should demonstrate honesty, openness and resolve.
On the nukes vs Ryan choice, I really can appreciate your point of view. And although I have expressed my concerns for not wanting to go that route, who the hell really knows which is best. Maybe just threatening to amend the filibuster rule would compel enough Democrats to change their minds. It may turn out to be the only way to get anything done––health care aside. I hope not, but these are strange times.
As for the passage of the 2015 bill, I don’t have to tell you that we’ll never get a straight answer from Ryan or any other politician. We must never forget that it was so many issues like this one that compelled us to vote for Trump.
But to answer your question directly, the reason why they were able to pass the bill with less than 60 votes was because Obama did assure the Senate he would veto it. With a veto guarantee, the Democratic Senators simply voted “no” (all voted against it) and let it pass with the veto assurance. Today they cannot get that guarantee so they must and will filibuster.
The last question you raise is not so easily answered. “And even if there was no 2015 passage, why not write and vote on a single, simple new bill?”
Nevertheless, the argument against that approach goes like this. To begin with, Trump and the GOP are already working on getting the 60 votes, and they have drafted a new “budget reconciliation bill”. Indeed, it’s the one everyone is complaining about. As you may be aware (despite the assertions that it is being done in secrecy) is online and anyone can read it that so wishes.
Now I’m certainly not pushing this legislation (and I know that’s the impression I’ve left at least with you), but I’m looking at the system as it exists under current House/Senate legislative rules, and I’ve come to believe that at least something like this is all that can be passed without 60 votes. I’ve reached that conclusion simply by reading published article that suggest the bill goes as far as it can toward repealing/changing as many Obamacare provisions as the rules will allow.
Whether that’s absolutely the truth or not, I simply don’t know. To answer that question definitively I would have to carefully study both Obamacare and this bill to see what else should (and could be included). But notwithstanding the fact that I haven’t done that (nor intend to dod so), I’ve not seen where anyone is arguing that specific provisions are not included (that could be included) that would improve the legislation from our point of view. Maybe there is, but as the line from the movie goes, “show me the money”. Trump has said that if you have a good amendment, show it to me and it will be included.
This “bill” that has been introduced (Ryan-care), is actually the budget reconciliation bill. Its important to understand what this actually is and the rules under which it operates. There are many places online that offer simple to detailed explanations of it, but one of the most important provisions of budget reconciliation is the so-called “Byrd rule”––named after the late Senator Byrd of WV. The Byrd rule has a number of restrictive provisions, but the most significant one is the fact that the bill cannot be used to pass provisions in major legislation that aren’t directed related to spending or revenue. Of course, many of the changes we are all seeking would be unrelated to spending or revenue. The good part, however, is that it cannot be filibustered.
Now, this legislation aside, Tom Price has the ability (and the willingness) to adopt a number of regulations that will have a significant impact on Obamacare. Again, the specifics of what he is intending to do have not been published, but whatever it is must conform to whatever the current law may be. He could certainly make those changes today, but if Ryan-care passes (which is their plan) Price would have to re-draft his rules to conform to those changes in the law. But even more importantly, the Ryan-care bill would give him additional authority to make many more helpful changes.
You do raise a valid and important question in suggesting that another (and maybe better) approach would be to draft whatever repeal legislation is planned at this time, try to pass it by working on getting 60 votes, and if that fails, bring it up again in 2018 when maybe the 60 votes are there. And that, many believe, is a reasonable and responsible way to proceed. But the argument against this approach is that what actually would happen is completely unknown.But while unknown, there are compelling reason to believe that the likelihood of a complete disaster unfolding (economically, personally and politically) is very possible. Some reason it is inevitable.
One can blame who they want to for this, but here’s the problem. Trump has, essentially, changed the law/rule with respect to forcing citizens to buy health insurance. The law hasn’t changed; he’s just not enforcing it. Now the insurance companies were getting into trouble even before he did that, but now they will be facing an unmitigated disaster. They are still required under the law to accept all-comers, (those with pre-existing conditions, such as someone who had no insurance but were diagnosed with cancer yesterday, or became involved in a major auto accident last night, etc.); yet those who simply don’t feel they need (or can afford health insurance) can opt out. The result is the insurance companies will be insuring far more “sick” people and not collecting premiums from the “healthy” people.
This will cause the premiums to rise (skyrocket) causing even more relatively healthy people to drop out, leaving more relatively sick people in the insurance pool. This cycle begins to repeat itself (very quickly if not instantly) and the insurance companies go into what they call a “death spiral”. In short, they quit selling insurance as they’re only in it to many money. For many this will be tragic, as most doctors will simply stop treating without a being first presented with. VISA card. Many writers have set forth what they believe this would look like, in detail (its been online for some time), but it wouldn’t take a genius to figure out that it would not be a good political scenario for the Republicans to run on in 2018. Whether it would happen just like that or not is unknown, but many politicians believe that it is very possible.
The media, of course, want just that to happen. So do the anti-Trump Republicans. So do the establishment globalists. What many of these people and forces see is the beginning of the end for Donald Trump. They reason that if the Obamacare health care system crashes and burns, Trump and the GOP will get the blame. If it’s a serious crash there would be serous repercussions. The globalist-Democratic hope would then be to take over both the House and Senate in 2018, and ultimately defeat Trump in 2020. And not only is that the dream of the Democrats, many never-Trump Republicans feel no different. Some are simply smarting because they or their candidate lost to Trump (Rubio, Paul, Sasse, Cotton, McCain, etc.); others, it seems, because they were overlooked by Trump for an appointment. I’d throw Palin into that crowd.
But while I do appreciate the fact that not everyone sees it the way I do, I am convinced that sometimes a poor choice (Ryan care) is better than a bad choice (passing nothing). As they often say in legislative circles, try not to let the “perfect” be the enemy of the “good”.
Sorry for the length.
I appreciate the time for the fully detailed response.
I’m still against the RyanCare bill, though. Which inevitably will be called TrumpCare. And legitimately so as we’ve been calling Nancy’s bill ObamaCare for 7 years now.
You have laid out what facts we know and your position that this piece of crap might stink somewhat less than Obama’s.
And you use logic well in your arguments but there is still an unbearable and unbelievable level of trust involved. What Ryan types arrogantly ignore is that there is nothing in the trust bank left to spend as far as the leadership is concerned.
Nobody I know who voted Republican or specifically voted for Trump was expecting a multi-phase approach that involves passing some awful stuff (subsidies, mandates, etc) and then trusting the Congress to pass better stuff later. We’ve seen that movie several times before. Never a happy ending.
There is literally zero chance in my mind that, even IF (very big if) phase 3 ever is enacted, we are going to get rid of the awful parts of phase 1. Quite the contrary, I expect Trump and other non-conservatives to be bragging about how many people are subsidized under the coming TrumpCare. That number should be zero.
You are correct that it is possible, if we went with my suggestion to just pass the correct bill to start with and then work on the votes in the Senate or run on that in ‘18, it might never happen and we are stuck with ObamaCare. However, it is a near certainty that phase 3 will disappoint even if ever passed - all the same things that could stop a good single bill can stop phase 3 as well. Then we are stuck with a Republican version of ObamaCare potentially forever.
The only way I can see me supporting the multi-phase approach is this:
-do all the phase 2 things possible now
-write and vote on phase 3 so we know that the hell it is and so we know who to campaign against
-add an auto sunset to phase 1 so it dies either way, to the extent there are good things in phase 1, have them made permanent in the phase 3 bill. It will be an added incentive to pass phase 3.
Also, Palin was quite kind to Trump at times, including this weekend when she correctly pointed out the current bill is crap but that she expected Trump would fix it.
Great analysis! There’s little I can disagree with in what you’ve said. We’re both seeking the same end, and we both distrust the politicians. I guess that’s why we voted Trump.
Here’s something you don’t want to miss. Fortunately, not all the GOP are RINO’s. If this approach (of Cruz’s could work, it might be a way to introduce and pass the complete Obamacare repeal with 51 votes. On it’s face it seems to make sense.
http://tinyurl.com/zxputct
Thanks for the link!
I had read about Cruz’s efforts on this front a bit yesterday. He is a good conservative who was treated unfairly by Trump and to childish extents by many folks here during the campaign.
I voted for Cruz and he whipped Trump pretty badly here in WI. You are probably aware that this had nothing to do with Paul Ryan, I’m not sure he is all that well liked outside his district - a few counties south of me. I don’t believe Ryan could win up here.
Trump got slaughtered here, even though he was well on his way to winning overall by then, mostly because Trump was very wrong and very unfair in his treatment of WI’s recent track record of success and of his treatment of the man responsible for that success: Gov Walker. If we had a mountain here, Walker’s goofy looking mug would be on it.
But WI has matured into a very reason-driven state, so we did carry Trump over Hillary even though he was a complete jackass to us and Walker. And even though we are still considered a blue or purple state historically. Walker even whole-heartedly endorsed Trump in the general as opposed to whiner/losers like Kasich.
Walker was my first choice because he is the best on policy, but he was doomed with the early-peak disease and crapped out. Same as my 4yrs ago fave, Michele Bachmann from my hometown across the river in MN.
Gov Walker is like the Trump of Governors in some ways. Very much an outsider. And his advice to Trump and Congress recently was to “Go Big and Go Bold”. He is a very big proponent of leveraging our party’s historic status of owning Congress/ WH/ soon the court/ big majorities of Govs and statehouses to rollback the federal beast and give power back to states where it belongs. Walker is also fearless and steady - whipped the government unions here in a way that virtually everybody said could not be done. Since WI was instrumental in starting the awful gov-union trend decades ago, this was analogous to taking on Social Security at the federal level. He won, didn’t even blink when disgusting protesters from all over America came to occupy the capitol. And survived a recall, actually gained votes during it.
Walker differs from Trump in that Walker, like Cruz, is more policy and principle-driven rather than just a big successful guy who means well. Walker is also different in that he is the consummate average man - hell, he does not even have a college degree.
Anyway, sorry about all that WI propaganda - must be the cheese and venison I had for breakfast. I really have been pleasantly surprised at how well Trump has turned out on most issues.
Back to the point, I will be quite interested in the result of Cruz’s efforts. It sounds a lot like the nuke option. Though slightly better in the sense that it requires Executive branch involvement too. Which gives it a somewhat greater air of legitimacy and makes it harder to abuse - at least on a frequent basis. Since it requires owning both the House and the WH.
Cruz has proven to be a mature guy too, still fighting the good fight for the party despite how he was mistreated. You certainly can’t count on those old establishment types to dig up technical details to help us out - even though some have been there nearly since the time the rule in question was established. Certainly they (McCain, Graham, etc) are not as smart as Cruz and not nearly as dependably conservative.
Thanks again for the link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.