Posted on 03/22/2017 7:32:10 AM PDT by Alter Kaker
WASHINGTON — President Trump on Tuesday turned up the pressure on recalcitrant Republicans to support a sweeping bill to overhaul the health care system, threatening wavering lawmakers in his party with political payback if they failed to get behind a measure that has become an early test of his negotiating power.
In a series of meetings and phone calls at the White House and on Capitol Hill, Mr. Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Republican congressional leaders haggled with holdouts over details as they struggled to assemble a majority to support a bill that would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. The legislation is scheduled for a floor vote on Thursday in the House.
But at a private meeting with House Republicans at the Capitol, the president also delivered a blunt warning that many of those present would lose their seats in next year’s midterm congressional elections if the effort failed.
“I’m going to come after you,” Mr. Trump told Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina, a prime holdout and the chairman of the conservative Freedom Caucus, a hotbed of concern about the legislation, according to several people in the room who described his comments on condition of anonymity because the session was private. “I believe Mark and his group will come along, because honestly, a loss is not acceptable, folks.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“I predict that anyone who chooses to goose-step behind Nancy Pelosi to PRESERVE ObamaCare will be primaried...”
Sure. Vote for repeal. I’m game for that. Wonderful idea.
Voting for Obamacare Lite, however, is a vote for yet another give-a-way from working Americans to taking Americans.
If you support legalized theft from working Americans, then you don’t belong here.
In the interests of putting some things to bed:
1) No, Mike Pence can’t ignore the Parliamentarian. This would be the mechanism in effect of making all bills budget reconciliation bills. That obviously is just a way to kill the filibuster in the Senate. It would not get even 10 votes. That’s why this proposal has already been dismissed as a non starter.
2) You can stop filibuster in ways not requiring 60 votes? No. You can’t. People are saying this via the Two Speech Rule. Senators are limited to 2 speeches per legislative day on a given subject. So glory be, you can require them to talk, they’re only allowed to talk twice and you shut them down without 60 votes! Bullshit. Completely wrong.
Senators are allowed to offer amendments to a bill. They can then give two speeches on each amendment. A minority can propose zillions of amendments. You CAN limit the number of amendments (NO senators like being limited in amendments) but then if you do that, senators can raise points of order and give two speeches on those. No limit on points of order.
Here’s discussion of this from 2010, when the Dems were raging at the power of the GOP filibusters.
Bottom line: THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. If there were a way around 60 votes that does not constrain to Reconciliation, the Dems would have used it. There is nothing new under the sun in all this. The GOP is not going to discover any genius maneuver. The Dems would have discovered it in 2010 if there were.
The Filibuster is what spared the country from a single payer Canada NHS style healthcare plan. Only the Filibuster and Scott Brown stopped that. You will not find even 10 votes to kill the Filibuster for non USSC issues.
Re that post above. All y’all with ideas for better plans than what’s on the table, great!
Let us know when you either get 60 votes or a nod from the Parliamentarian.
If you don’t have either, you don’t have a plan. You’re offered a chance to show an alternative. Go ahead. Show one with 60 or the approval of the Parliamentarian.
Patton said: “Lead, follow or get out of the way!”
I expect our leaders and leader wannabes to know where they are — so they can avoid leading us, lemming-like, over an unseen cliff.
So I am very interested to learn if YOU know where we are:
1. Democrat Senators can use their filibuster “power” to block a simple “repeal-only” bill passed by the House. Therefore, such a bill would be futile and a waste of time.
2. Democrat Senators lose that “power” if the House passes a “Reconciliation Bill”.
3. A Reconciliation Bill is LIMITED with respect to what it can do. It can repeal or replace funding and spending items, but it cannot NOT change “policy”. Any attempt to change policy would enable a Democrat filibuster to occur. See #1. Therefore, it is not possible to get all the changes to ObamaCare that we want in a single “Reconciliation Bill”.
If you understand those three points, then I think we can have an adult discussion of real-world alternatives. And discuss which changes to Obamacare could be bundled into the Part 3 legislation that Senate Democrats would be afraid to reject.
Otherwise, it’s all “puppies” and “rainbows”, isn’t it? No matter how loudly you may scream about the sanctity of a “repeal-only” bill, no one is listening....
Just get of the filibuster. It’s unconstitutional nonsense.
that is not going to happen any time soon unless there is another USSC nomination.
The previous repeals were just McCain-esqe pretend fighting.
Now they have to heavy lift over the 60 person hurdle that is there today. We can wish all we want it is not going to change.
Then why not a bill like they passed last year which eliminated the individual subsidies, the Medicaid expansion, and the payments to insurance companies? Do those three and Obamcare is dead, stripped of funding. Why all the extra crap of tax credits and the like that turn this into Obamacare's bastard offspring?
We agree!
The “filibuster” is not protected by the Constitution, except as a “Rule” which the Senate, in its “wisdom”(?) has imposed on itself.
I especially hate the “fake filibusters”, which do NOT require the impassioned Senators to actually STAND and ORATE.
IMHO, THAT is simply nuts....
I think eliminating the “mandate” that requires individuals and businesses to buy ObamaCare will allow everyone but the truly poor and the truly sick to buy private health insurance — if they want to do so.
AND, the avoided costs and the tax credits will make it attractive for new health insurance policies to be offered in forms people want, whether basic or Cadillac or some forms in-between.
They can now. All they need is the money for the premiums.
AND, the avoided costs and the tax credits will make it attractive for new health insurance policies to be offered in forms people want, whether basic or Cadillac or some forms in-between.
What is driving up the cost of health care premiums are the requirement that pre-existing conditions be covered, prescription coverage, and the fact that there is no cap on how much an insurance company is liable to cover. Nothing in the current GOP plan addresses any of those. In fact it includes all of them. Add in government subsidies and how are premiums supposed to go down?
DD—
==> Here are my comments, inserted in our conversation:
ME: I think eliminating the “mandate” that requires individuals and businesses to buy ObamaCare will allow everyone but the truly poor and the truly sick to buy private health insurance — if they want to do so.
YOU: They can now. All they need is the money for the premiums.
==> ME: Really? Then why are the buyers so angry? Perhaps because they cannot afford to PAY the “premium” and PAY the “deductible”. ObamaCare costs more than it is worth!
ME: AND, the avoided costs and the tax credits will make it attractive for new health insurance policies to be offered in forms people want, whether basic or Cadillac or some forms in-between.
YOU: What is driving up the cost of health care premiums are the requirement that pre-existing conditions be covered, prescription coverage, and the fact that there is no cap on how much an insurance company is liable to cover. Nothing in the current GOP plan addresses any of those.
==> Really? Except the fact that the consumer does NOT have to buy the “Mandated” undesirable add-ons or, having no “pre-conditions”, does NOT have to pay an inflated premium for the good of the pool. And the fact that the new “mega-hospitals” are very, VERY profitable, with new 7-figure salaries for their new smug administrators. Let’s allow competition to bring down these monopolistic costs DOWN.
YOU: In fact it includes all of them. Add in government subsidies and how are premiums supposed to go down?
==> Make competition possible. And prosecute insurance fraud and litigation fraud severely. I can think of several lawyers who would benefit from “breaking rocks” for a few years...
Exactly! I heard a bill was going to be introduced to stop illegals from getting it. But why not put it in the original bill? That it needs fixing already is ridiculous!
I’m beginning to think this is not a good idea.....they’re already stripping out things in order to gain Demorats vote because they don’t have enough Republicans to carry it...that smells to me!
I agree.
I tried to read the post you were responding to but lately it takes 45 minutes to get to a FR page :)
Not all the time and maybe it’s just my PC
but the other websites with a lot more than text load normally
I responded to you saying:
“it STILL incorporates health care for illegals so why is it so important for this POS to pass?”
Yeah, FR is loading slow here too, but not 45 min.
Geez, Shep’s makeup looks like a drag queen helped him with it!
The Ryan bill is an insult to Republicans and everyone else that had ObamaCare shoved down their throats.
>>But why not put it in the original bill? <<
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Simple. This is Trump doing a deal.
I think the bill that gets passed is going to be MUCH BETTER than Ryan-care. Trump has gotten Ryan and the moderates COMMMITTED, then Freedom Caucus and Cruz/Paul axis in the Senate FORCE changes.
I predict we are all going to be a lot happier than we thought a week ago, and it will be Trump’s first TRULY MAJOR TRIUMPH on behalf of America(aside from defeating The Corruption in November).
Maybe I am over-optimistic, but that’s the way I see it coming down.
I hope you’re right
***Yesterday’s tweak means VETERANS who chose to go somwhere other than the VA they lose their subsidy?***
So is this what Trump meant when he said he would fix “Veterans care by offering them to go outside the VA?” Oh well, you’re free to go to a private, civilian facility but taxpayers won’t pay for that, only if you go to the shit hole VA clinics.
Outrageous! This pushing and supporting of Ryancare by Trump has really pissed me off with him. And he was doing so well in my eyes.
You just can’t trust anyone anymore.
Why only VETERANS.. why not all subsidy takers.. something evil this way comes. I’m calling it *veteranicide*. Why get rid of VETERANS? Well it isn’t that hard to figure out, is it?
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.