This is how to kill RyanCare, says one conservative group

Conservative Review ^ | March 08, 2017 | By: Chris Pandolfo

[TBP]

Conservative groups are now campaigning for the defeat of the American Health Care Act, the bill introduced by House Republican leadership to allegedly repeal and replace Obamacare.

Heritage Action labeled the bill “bad policy.” FreedomWorks called it “Obamacare-lite.” And the Club for Growth said it is a “warmed over substitute for government-run healthcare.”

Senate Conservatives Action, the political arm of the Senate Conservatives Fund, is urging voters to contact their representatives to oppose “RyanCare” (or, “Obamacare 2.0”) and demand full repeal of Obamacare.

“The truth is that RyanCare keeps Obamacare's most expensive coverage mandates,” SCF President Ken Cuccinelli writes. “[I]t keeps much of Obamacare's costly Medicaid expansion, it continues to impose penalties on people who don't keep their coverage, and it continues to provide government subsidies using a new entitlement program.”

After campaigning on full ACA overhaul for years, and noting that Congress managed to place a full repeal bill on President Obama’s desk in 2015, SCA notes GOP leadership could only come up with “minor changes” to the ACA.

Conservatives such as Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. (A, 92%) and certain members of the House Freedom Caucus are urging Congress to, first, pass the 2015 repeal bill, and then move forward with a replacement bill from there.

“The sad, but unavoidable, fact is that RyanCare will not lower costs and improve access to health coverage, but it will cause Republicans to own the disaster that follows,” Cuccinelli writes, calling voters to action:

According to Senate Conservatives Action, only 20 to 25 Republicans in the House of Representatives and three to five Republicans in the Senate are needed to scrap RINOcare and send GOP leadership back to the drawing board on a true Obamacare repeal conservatives can get behind.

SCA provided the contact information for the following 20 members of Congress and urged voters to call and "insist on full repeal of Obamacare."

GOP REPRESENTATIVES

Jim Banks (R-Ind.)

Ted Budd (R-N.C.)

Bill Flores (R-Texas)

Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas)

Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.)

Tom McClintock (R-Calif.)

Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.)

John Ratcliffe (R-Texas)

Mark Walker (R-N.C.)

Roger Williams (R-Texas)

GOP SENATORS

Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)

Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)

Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

[momincombatboots]

Repeal Today! They can repeal through reconciliation today! Then get busy playing all the clips where democrats admit Obamacare failed. They are just stalling for midterms... bass turds! Either replace it with sanfords bill, or just leave it dead. They are simply playing games with us, repeal today!

[Jim Noble]

Kiling RyanCare should be easy.

I have come around, though, to the view that there are not 218 votes in the House OR 51 votes in the Senate to pass anything else.

So, if RyanCare does not pass, ObamaCare stays unchanged. This has the advantage that the Democrats SHOULD have all the blame - but I don’t know if that’s how it would actually turn out.

[Eric Pode of Croydon]

They will all negotiate and reach a deal or Obamacare will remain.

Obamacare won't remain for long. The death spiral is in full effect.

Once it crashes and burns, the problem of "taking away an entitlement" becomes more manageable.

[Alberta's Child]

I'm not sure what your point is. The voters sent their Representatives and Senators to Washington to do a job. They either do their jobs, or they don't.

Note that I'm not even suggesting what the voters would actually want their government representatives to do in this particular case. I have a suspicion that the GOP has proposed an "ObamaCare lite" bill here because they believe their constituents are OK with most of ObamaCare's provisions. They're probably right about that. Those constituents just don't want to pay for what they're demanding, though.

[xzins]

I doubt that OCare crashing will make any differences to the factions that exist.

Also, crashing means it gets down to just one provider and the law is still in effect that says the fed must pay them back for their losses.

IOW, single payer will be upon us. And the death panels law will still be in place.

Personally, I’m hoping they reach a compromise.

[Alberta's Child]

That's a good point. The GOP has presented this RyanCare bill as one step in a three-step process that can only be completed after 2018. So what does that mean if this first step doesn't get done now, and ends up in play when the 2018 mid-term election season is underway?

Unlike a lot of folks here, I'm not all that critical of the GOP in this case. They are facing a situation that isn't all that uncommon in a democratic system of government where the people have become increasingly ignorant over time. There's just no way in hell to do anything that's going to meet expectations that are delusional at best.

[xzins]

Should have pinged you to #25

[Alberta's Child]

Got it.

You might as well accept the fact that single payer is inevitable. The rationale for this is simple:

The Federal government -- in this case with the support of most voters -- has imposed a byzantine system of regulation in the health insurance industry that makes it: (1) unaffordable for most people, and (2) unprofitable for insurance companies. In other words, the Federal government is mandating a "unicorn" that is just as ludicrous and pointless as a Federal law outlawing death.

Just as the Federal Reserve was the "lender of last resort" when came to underwriting mortgages when the housing bubble crashed, the Federal government is going to become the "insurer of last resort" when it is mandating insurance coverage that no prudent business would ever sell.

At this point, the best approach for anyone in Congress who wants to do the right thing is to start working on writing exemptions from this stupidity into law.

[oldasrocks]

The only thing that will break the excessive hospital costs is the elimination of all heath care insurance. Breaking the back of the health care industry is the only way to get costs down just as it broke fracking costs.

Malpractice insurance is an excellent example of thinking “as long as someone else is paying why not give out excessive awards?” After excessive awards were given over and over the people could not understand why their premiums went up. DUH! when penalties of 7 million are given for a hangnail someone has to pay. The payer is the insured person in the end. As an added “bonus” doctors would cover themselves by both protecting each other and ordering extra testing which ended up as even higher premiums.

You don’t lower costs by paying for it all in a different direction.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

The only thing that will break the excessive hospital costs is the elimination of all heath care insurance. Breaking the back of the health care industry is the only way to get costs down just as it broke fracking costs.

Wrong.

It's not insurance, it's "Free Healthcare".

(nothing is free)

[sweetiepiezer]

Repeal
In
Name
Only

[Jim Noble]

just as ludicrous and pointless as a Federal law outlawing death

Actually, Medicare DOES outlaw death.

Well, not exactly.

From USA Today: "Mortality rates among Medicare patients fell 16% from 1999 to 2013. That’s equal to more than 300,000 fewer deaths a year in 2013 than in 1999, said cardiologist Harlan Krumholz, lead author of a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and a professor at the Yale School of Medicine"

Now, think this through for a minute. Medicare, almost exclusively, covers people over 65. The mortality rate in this population (eventually) is 1.0, right?

So, 300 000 fewer death a year (in hospitals) can be achieved by 1) Eternal life or 2) Premature discharges.

And, in fact, Medicare's latest jihad is "readmissions", which occur when patients are discharged too soon. The one advantage of discharging them too soon is they have more of a chance of dying somewhere else, so your mortality rate goes down.

People who comment here, for the most part, do not understand how ridiculous it has all become.

As I have been posting for two weeks, single payer with a private option is the obvious way out.

[Alberta's Child]

I don’t disagree with you, but I’m sure you’d find that malpractice costs and the excessive testing that comes with it are a very small part of the problem here.

[Alberta's Child]

I think the point is that people are living longer, so there are fewer people dying every year under Medicare even though they are all ultimately going to die.

[xzins]

I agree with you that single payer might be inevitable.

But we all go to the grocery and drive prices down because we’re spending our own money. This is despite food stamps and gov’t regulations.

Maybe we could get a market for most of us with health insurance and the remainder get “health” stamps

[TBP]

With only 52 republicans, losing 3 means losing any vote.

But the piece of crap you seem to like so much has ALREADY lost three Republicans.

We need full repeal.

[TBP]

EXATLY!!!

[xzins]

You assume something wrong. I like Pres. Trump’s judgement.

So, I’m letting him negotiate toward the end product.

You did not dispute that 3 liberal republicans can sink anything. They can sink the repeal. It’s just a fact.

The idea is an end product that at least 50 of them will vote for with Pence breaking the tie.

[TBP]

The idea is an end product that at least 50 of them will vote for with Pence breaking the tie.

This isn't it.

[ez]

I have advocated for the statutory elimination of health insurance (among other things) for many years. with little notice. I believe that healthcare should be billed to the customer and collected in accordance with the customers’ ability to pay. Let the market set the rates...
You do this by changing healthcare to a “will deliver” system, and billing all users after care is rendered.