Posted on 03/30/2017 11:34:03 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
Defeat from the jaws of victory
You know what their response is going to be, of course. They’re going to complain that the White House and the leadership are putting forth terrible bills that don’t really repeal ObamaCare but institutionalize government-run health care for generations. I’ve already told you why I don’t agree with them, and Rob’s already told you why he does.
So let’s skip all that and see what Trump himself has to say about the matter:
Ryancare’s objective was to preserve as much of Obamacare as possible, not to get rid of it.
>>Maybe the freedom caucus is not what they say they are.
********************************************************
Either way, the President needs to explain to his base why he is threatening to primary objecting Freedom Caucus members. Why punish them for recognizing a turd when they saw one?
If this is some sort of part of a larger plan, it still seems nuts.
Fracturing a solid support base, coupled with a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, over-charged Commie army ready to give him the boot does not make for long term Administration survival.
Yep. And there will be some here on FR who'll tell us this is all some part of Trump's "grand strategy" or "art of the deal" kind of nonsense.
I say bullsh*t. Fighting those who saved you from doing something stupid (extending/mending/"refining" Obamacare instead of flat-out repealing it) seems to me to be a very, very foolish thing to do.
I side with the House Freedom Caucus on this one. Sure you want to alienate those like me who voted for you, President Trump? Doing so to "win over" moderates/Democrats is a losing strategy. They didn't vote for you, they WON'T vote for you in 2020.
Dance with the one who brought you sir.
Certainly that was Ryan’s aim. I despise that man and all his confederates. I think Trump is smarter than Ryan by great leaps and that he had a plan to strip the bill because of the powers given to Price by Obamacare to direct how it was enforced.
This may be Pollyanna time and Trump may be selling us out but my reading of Trump over the course of many years is that he’s a pragmatist and wants the Government trimmed and excluded from this area and all the other overreaches of the past decades.
Or maybe they're EXACTLY who they say they are. They campaigned on REPEALING Obamacare, as did President Trump. That horsesh*t bill that Lyin' Paul Ryan was peddling was NOT an Obamacare repeal, it was an addendum!
NO DEAL! REPEAL OBAMACARE, LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS!
why not
“freedom caucus”
sell outs
THEY TOOK MILLIONS FROM THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY
and
SOLD OUT AMERICA....
2018 boys.... just around the corner.... pay the price
Well then Price is free to carry on with phase II anyway if that is what they really want.
Right now, the attack seems to be on the messenger rather than the message. The message is, the Ryan bill sucks. We can do a LOT better than that.
It seems like some of us are doing the same thing that democrats do - attacking the messenger. They go after Brietbart, they go after Rush, they go after anybody that speaks against them. Listen to what the conservative branch has to say, rather than demonizing them.
Trump said we are going through the process and if the bill that comes to my desk doesn’t take care of the American people I will veto it.
I’m surprised you didn’t get zotted for it.
OK Obamacare is better so then you’re happy? I doubt it. I would love the most conservative plan possible, but it has to be possible.
That is exactly what I’m hoping will happen. Then that part will be ready when OCare fails. The replace will be much simpler, a Medicaid reform.
If people have the choice to buy policies where kids are covered to age 26 then that part is off the table as a Dem platform. So many other parts the same deal. Just let people buy the policies they want with the benefits they choose to pay for.
BTW I despise Paul Ryan and wish to see him gone. I think he’s an incompetent, except at self promotion.
No, I am not happy. Why is every member of Congress, of both parties, and the President so insistent that we keep this law? I think it’s terrible, but I just sit here watching them protect it.
If you mean Trump saying he needs to work against the caucus I think that is less of an attack than a wake up call to them. It is akin to “be part of the solution not part of the problem”. “You will be held accountable if you don’t work with me to find a solution that we can pass that the American people will be well served by.”
Trump is on record supporting preexisting coverage and kids till 26. Once you do that you have a mess on your hands which can’t be completely conservative. Therefore they can’t just repeal it, or let’s say they are not going to. So we need to get as much free market reform as we can.
Yes, after #1 ‘Build the Wall’ (illegal imm - which impacts US jobs, Security, welfare spending, public education) —
Obamacare was ALWAYS #2 and ALWAYS got the biggest cheers during Trump’s campaign.
I was shocked to learn President Trump tweet-attacked Freedom Caucus on this specific issue today.
Can’t overlook this. VERY BAD MOVE
>>I despise Paul Ryan and wish to see him gone. I think he’s an incompetent, except at self promotion.
**********************************************************
Oh no, I think he is extremely competent at thwarting conservatives and serving his global masters. That is the very definition of a Snake.
I can only hope the people who elected him are still paying attention and give him the boot. But I doubt it. Besides, this country won’t last until his next election at the rate we are going, with the People being ruled by black-robed tyrants.
Trump’s statements on pre-existing and coverage of children/adults to age 26 can be parsed to mean: “there should be policies that people can choose that will allow coverage of young adults under their parents”. That is completely c/w a free market, if there is the demand there will be a product and young adults have traditionally been covered by college plans for a couple $100/year so the plans would not be much more expensive.
The pre-existing piece does not need to be a deal breaker either. If States have policies for what can be sold in their states it can be handled as a requirement that patients to be dropped for serious illness have a 3 year period to find other insurance and the policy can only go up X amount/yr.
The States can have exchanges for people who are unable to find policies and work out the rules/subsidies etc that they think work best in their state.
I do not believe insurance companies can be told who they have to cover. Insurance is an actuarial product and if there is a known outcome/cost for a particular individual it is no longer insurance its “who pays.” So there can be rules made about continuing coverage when someone has become seriously ill but forcing a new insurance agency to take on someone who is ill is unreasonable. That is why the State would have to set up a saftey net for people who are uninsurable.
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.