Well, we can disagree on these points, but I think we have to consider legislative intent. The GOP intent here was to strip some of the worst parts of Obama’s unconstitutional law, but either keep or improve the so-called better points (which would also be unconstitutional). For example, they wanted the new and improved law to “take care of everyone” including mandating coverage for adult children and preexisting conditions and partially subsidizing the poor or those who can’t afford it with a dubious refundable tax credit scheme.
The intent and end effect is the same as Obama’s. The federal government unconstitutionally sticking its big powerful tyrannical nose into not only what should be decided by free enterprise, but in any case, what is explicitly reserved by the constitution to the states and the people.
The only constitutional option is to repeal it.
And if repeal is against the rules, then who controls the rules and who can change those rules so that our duly elected Republican congressional majorities can do whatever it takes to repeal Obamacare ASAP as we the people intended? No excuses.
And that would be the responsible moral Christian conservative thing to do, by the way.
“mandating coverage for adult children and preexisting conditions and partially subsidizing the poor”
Yes, that’s unconstitutional and Ryan kept it in place.
The choice to me was simple. Obamacare for all practical purposes is “evil”. So given the choice between keeping evil intact or slashing 1.2 trillion in funding from it, what should a moral Christian choose?
There were only two options and the freedom caucus chose to keep Obamacare intact. The moral choice in my opinion was to vote for the Ryan bill and then work to repeal all the rest.