Posted on 03/23/2017 8:02:07 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
House Freedom Caucus member Ted Yoho told CNBC on Thursday he will vote against the GOP's Obamacare replacement without more concessions to get rid of "a growing entitlement."
The Florida Republican said he prefers a "clean repeal" of former President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act, but he acknowledges it's a negotiation.
"We're getting closer," Yoho said on "Squawk Box." "I have the utmost confidence in [Freedom Caucus] leadership that we will come out with a bill that the president will sign [and] that the American people will thank us for."
The House vote is crucial for the Trump agenda. President Donald Trump has said the repeal and replacement of Obamacare must happen before action can be taken on his other plans, including a major tax reduction.
Trump is expected to meet Thursday with the House Freedom Caucus to try to get the conservative group on board, as GOP leaders offered a tweak of their health-care plan Wednesday night to include getting rid of the set of minimum benefits required of insurers.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Nothing wrong with tweaking it as you wish, other than it’s a waste of time. If you know the Senate can’t pass what you send to them, how is that efficient?
Politics is the art of the possible. Pelosi sent Reid a single payer plan. It almost cost them the time they needed to get SOMETHING, ANYTHING through. Then their hardcore leftists who hated Obamacare because it wasn’t single payer circled the wagons around it.
Ryan isn’t evil or left wing or a Democrat. He’s efficient. He’s not making the mistake she made. He’s gotten educated about cloture and Reconciliation and arranging text accordingly before it goes to the Senate.
The petulant faction here on FR just can’t seem to accept they don’t have 60 votes, but that’s only half of what they don’t accept. The other half is that the Dems DID have 60 votes. They had a bigger majority.
Trump gave them this chance. To get SOMETHING, ANYTHING, with a tiny, tiny, tiny majority. You guys need to go back and read about Ben Nelson and the Nebraska features Reid had to put in the process to get Nelson to vote for it. There is nothing new here. The extremists NEVER get what they want. True on the left, and it will be true on the right, too.
A HUGE picture of the Freedom Caucus applauding Trump’s entrance into the meeting...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7nUVTbWsAAiQqD.jpg
“Does this bill end the mandate to buy?”
The Parliamentarian will allow this via setting the fine to $0, which is what the bill does.
The problem is, you don’t know what will pass in the Senate. You are buying into a fatalistic end game pretending to know what will pass in the Senate. If the House bill cannot pass, the Senate will pass its bill and it will go to a conference committee.
Let’s see what can actually pass the Senate.
No offense, I don’t give a rat’s hairy hind about the fine being lowered to zero. All that means is that the mandate is STILL in place, as well as the capability to fine, which can be raised at a later date.
They need to REPEAL the damn mandate.
BTW, fervent apologies. I didn’t mean to shoot the messenger. Thanks for your reply!
hopefully we’ll hear something either way today!
It’s not ideological fatalism.
It’s mechanism fatalism. All that can pass the Senate is what can get past the Parliamentarian. Only budget Reconciliation can get past the Parliamentarian.
You can’t extract text that describes the individual mandate. That’s not budgetary. The Parliamentarian would say, nope, that can’t be in a Reconciliation bill. You have to vote it as a normal bill, and that would be subject to Filibuster.
But you CAN set the individual mandate fine to $0. That’s what Ryan did. It will get thru because it’s purely budgetary.
The extremists are demanding the text be pulled because “in the future the Dems can just increase $0 higher”. But if you pull the text you need 60. It is no longer merely Reconciliation.
So . . . yes, I am predicting what will be in the Senate version, but not ideologically.
Unbelievably, Congressman Yoho was on NPR and he was right on the money. Every answer he gave made lots of sense. Repeal, then replace.
I am not talking about the individual mandate. I am talking about the removal of the minimum requirements for all insurance plans. That is what is being talked about on the House side.
Difficult to do. It’s non budgetary. Maybe they forward that to the Senate and it disappears there, or they somehow quantify it in the budget and adjust numbers on it.
The core point is, all you really can change are numbers. Not words.
Look, all I am saying is at least try. If the parliamentarian says that it cannot be done, so be it. But you don’t know until you try.
the Kentucky congress member, not part of the freedom caucus, seems to be 100% dependent on the illiteracy of useful idiots not knowing how laws are actually made.
He is pushing a lady’s tea society vote model.
Perhaps these guys can get permission to show the Parliamentarian their text without occupying the weeks necessary to get a full House vote only to have it fail there.
So?
Yep—the “freedom caucus” can’t even bring itself to defend the free market in health care.
And So what? What if they do?. So what if they eliminate the unconstitutuonal filibuster. So what. Was last November really out last chance to save the country? Save the country first. Who gives a damn about Trump and his agenda or ‘re election. The country comes first, if Trump happens to pick the right side, great. If he is wrong, screw him. Country first. You compromise, deal and negotiate with the other side, no within your own party. There are more than enough R’s moderate or not who promised repeak to pass a repeal bill. They made the promise, were elected on that promise, they can deal with it.
The problem I have with your logic is “how does it ever change?”
If they have been playing dirty politics for years and shafting the American people to get something passed, whether it serves Americans or not, how about taking a leaf from the Brits & shaming people like Sasse in public, as a body.
Ryan is nothing to hold up as an embodiment of any virtue. He has no saving grace. As the speaker perhaps he tells us much about the level of virtue, truth, honor, commitment in the House that we would prefer not to face. When we have members that think Guam is tipping over, Trump should be impeached because I don’t like him, something should be done. Perhaps there should be a civics & literacy test, simple math test to be able to run for office.
The one thing we shouldn’t do is go along because we aren’t willing to speak out and keep speaking out for something better.
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.
