Posted on 03/14/2017 7:44:34 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Sen. Tom Cotton said Tuesday that it's vital for Republicans to get legislation repealing Obamacare right on the first try because he doesn't believe there are going to be three steps to the process, as proponents have outlined.
"There is no three-step plan. That is just political talk," Mr. Cotton, Arkansas Republican, told radio host Hugh Hewitt.
Republicans say there's only so much legislation they can get through the first time around under agreed-to budget rules. Step two would then involve regulatory changes, followed by more legislation.
Mr. Cotton said step two could be subject to court challenges and that step three would involve "some mythical legislation in the future that is going to garner Democratic support and help us get over 60 votes in the Senate."
"If we had those Democratic votes, we wouldn't need three steps," he said. "We would just be doing that right now on this legislation all together."
"That's why it's so important that we get this legislation right. Because there is no step three, and step two is not completely under our control," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Lyin’ Ryan!
Repeal or bust!
I think he’s saying it won’t work
“remove the pre-existing condition requirement, allow companies to cap coverage at a set amount,”
Trump won’t do that, he’s talked about it many times.
>“remove the pre-existing condition requirement, allow companies to cap coverage at a set amount,”
>Trump won’t do that, he’s talked about it many times
It’s a loser issues politically. About the best we could do is offer such people medicaid and poor treatment to keep costs down.
Many of those people incurred the costs though no fault or choice of their own. They didn’t choose to have a catastrophic accident or illness. People who act like we should abandon them to die are pretty heartless.
hahaha, You’re just listening to even MORE political talk...So, Cotton says, they won’t have 60 votes to do step 3 so we should move it to step 1 where we will definitely have 60 votes...What a tool
“Insurance can be sold across state lines. In my own home town of Kansas City, Blue Cross/Blue Shield sells in both northwest Missouri and northeast Kansas.”
You at aware that this is not the same company as if it was like WalMart?
We also have BC/BS here in Michigan but it is not the same as the one in your state.
Exactly...If you don’t have 60 votes for step 3 then you don’t have 60 votes for step 1. What a joke. The real option is rule 19 but NO ONE is talking about that right now. If Trump knows about it he will push for it because Trump doesn’t care but the politicians are going to be playing games for a year. We need the equivalent of Trump in the Senate for anything to work
>Many of those people incurred the costs though no fault or choice of their own. They didn’t choose to have a catastrophic accident or illness. People who act like we should abandon them to die are pretty heartless.
I’m actually in favor of abandoning such people at the government level because it’s the proper function of family, kin group, and community to care for such people and they’d receive much better care than they would from a government bureaucracy(See the VA for an example of awful care). The higher up the food chain you kick a problem like this the worse the waste, misuse, and abuse.
The problem with my idea is with the mass media controlled by libs will quickly make anything less than government care politically impossible. If we ever get control of the media we can do it but until then best to adapt to conditions on the ground.
Please explain your plan. I assume it will also need to get through the Senate. Go ahead, let’s hear it.
Ok Conservatives...What is your plan. Go for it. You have complete control. Let’s hear it
Many have to declare medical bankruptcy, which means the rest of us pay anyway.
You are so gullible, you’d even lick your chops for stinkbait.
>Many have to declare medical bankruptcy, which means the rest of us pay anyway.
Most of the problem is the medical system consists of insane regulations, a lack of capitalism in finding market prices, and lawsuits. Bankruptcies are a pretty small cost comparatively to the big 3. Eliminate any 1 of the 3 big three would cause an instant 30% or so decline in prices right out the door. Eliminate all 3 and we can afford to be nice to people with pre-existing conditions and still be 1000% better off.
Repeal Obamacare. Nothing more or less than that.
Yes it is. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Kansas City.
Allowing purchase of healthcare policies across state lines
will be in step three and will require 60 votes for passage. What conceivable argument could there be against this provision? I can not think of any downside for the provision. It does not require a dime of taxpayer money and may lower cost. Worst that could happen is that it only minimally reduces premium cost. I personally think Republicans can beat Dems who vote against it over the head with it because a no vote cannot be justified other than the fact that Dems are willing to have their constituents suffer with higher costs just to deny Republicans a legislative victory
Yes, but only in two small countries in Kansas that butt-up against Kansans City, Mo.
Whatever the exception made for this, likely because it is a huge city on the border, it really doesn’t mean you are buying insurance over state lines like people are wanting nationwide.
But it's still across state lines which means it's not illegal.
...it really doesn’t mean you are buying insurance over state lines like people are wanting nationwide.
What people are talking about is a customer in Missouri buying from an insurance company in Montana. There is no benefit from that for either the customer or the insurance company, which is why it has been such a dismal failure in the three states which allow 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.