Posted on 03/30/2017 6:57:15 AM PDT by Tea Party Terrorist
"The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!" - Donald Trump
“Pure bullshit on your part. Let’s see you back that up with facts. Here is one: My guy, Ron Desantis, founding member of HFC, was publicly pro-Trump and still is. “
My Rep, part of the HFC Justin Amash is not.
Are you happy now?
Ah yes. The blame game is on. You blame the HFC for allowing PP to continue on.
Do you honestly believe RyanCare would keep that provision intact as it moved from committee to committee? From House to Senate?
Do you honestly belive that concessions with the democrats in Phase II or Phase III would still allow defunding for PP?
Of course you don’t.
Like normal people, you don’t believe RyanCare would even get enough RINO support to pass. Much less any support from true conservatives.
So now you want to blame the fact PP is still being funded on conservatives?
Hoo boy!
I didn't say he was strongly Trump. I said he was "publicly Pro-Trump", and he was. So don't twist my words.
>>But for now ...
>>I think they want to win something.
That’s the vibe I get too. Political posturing for the folks back home.
Interesting set of false choices.
I trust Trump to do what’s best for the COUNTRY & expect him to stumble now & then along the way.
I do not trust any caucus that supported Ryan for Speaker. The difference between the GOPe & the RATs is negligible.
In this spirit, let me suggest a compromise on Health Care, which could satisfy both the strict Constitutionalist & strict Jeffersonian, on our side, while reassuring the "moderates," who fear the result of an abrupt abandonment of the present Federal involvement in Civilian Health Care. This approach, understood, is intended to be acceptable in principal by almost all Republicans, as well as some Democrats in districts where everyone is not a Leftist "whack job."
We start with a brief recital of medical history, to postulate the ideas--the long term objectives--first, what the framers of our Constitution intended, when they left health care legislation to the States; and secondly to the honorable intentions of the class of physicians, who assumed the responsibility of the Hippocratic oath.
{Why this is important as a unity gesture, is not just that it would appeal to the hard core right--of which I am one. It actually leads to a public debate as to an ideal that argues for a Republican approach. It leads to an ability to demonstrate why Obama care has simply worsened the already grossly inflated medical costs that LBJ's 1965 intrusions have directly contributed to. The fact is that it is lunacy to allow the Federal Government, via various mandates, to meddle in something as immediate as the relation between a physician and patient, and expect the two certain results that anyone able to picture the dynamic interaction of factors, would expect: to wit, soaring costs & declining efficiency of service. Properly employed, this discussion will help public attitudes.)
Next, there needs to be what at first blush will appear as a factual recital in the opposite direction, relating only the factors now present in American Health Care, which actually have to be taken into account, as we endeavor to pursue a reasonable strategy, acceptable to all fair minded people of all persuasions, to back the bureaucrats in Washington out of American medicine. Here is the essential legal analogy:
We have in the law a doctrine that provides an exception to ordinary contract law, which allows the creation of a binding obligation, where one party--even without legal consideration for the promise--induces another party to commit to something, or part with something of value; where the party inducing the commitment is deemed to be estopped from denying the benefit promised. Under such an understanding, it would be unfair to immediately cancel the benefit promised to those who voluntarily signed up for Obamacare, under the promises made at the time.
Note, I am not suggesting a permanent continuation of any Federal entitlement; only that we recognize the concept that people who committed their future medical needs under the fallacious--but for many over-powering--inducements, have a legitimate situation--from a lay perspective--that needs to be addressed in a satisfactory manner.
We have to acknowledge these concerns--both sets of concerns--the reality of what worked without the Federal Government for 2200 years, and what works in human concerns generally, and the mess that the Socialist manipulators have created by their misuse of Federal power, for functions never delegated to those Socialist manipulators.
Just starting with a brief discussion of both factors, will elevate the level of public trust that we are not bulls in the proverbial china shop.
Now before someone accuses me of compromising principle, this is how Medicare & Medicaid are handled in the appropriate Chapter of the Conservative Debate Handbook:
People won’t take less! “I will pay more and take less to get rid of SOCIALISM.” National health Insurance =’s socialism. I am damn tired of supporting free loaders.
"Most of the HFC were members of NeverTrump, and were working for Hillary to win."
Back that up, or you are a bald faced liar.
I have now been coerced (forced against my will) to continue to support Planned Parenthood and swallow the fact that O’care is the law of the land “for the foreseeable future”....all because the FC wanted me to die, along with them, on the hill of their choice.
I’m a Trumper ... but he is wrong on this one. The “Ryancare” vote for “party unity” was NOT a good idea. It is just Obamacare lite ... yes, I’ve read the bill. No big difference. So give us a NON-SOCIALIST health care bill that we can vote for. Trump is wrong on this one.
I trust Trump to do what’s best for the COUNTRY & expect him to stumble now & then along the way.
___________________________________________
I agree. I don’t trust Trump at all when it comes to his RINOCare plans.
But on other things - he still is on track.
And like others have said - He’s better than that “Nasty Woman”.
So we take what we get, right?
That is why he is goading them.
Repeal Obamacare!
My song of the day. Rolling Stones: ‘You can't always get what you want’
“the FC kept moving the goalposts during the Obamacare debate. If true, and I believe the professor (since he has contacts over there that I do not have), that would be an absolute no-no in dealing with a DJT”
A couple of things here, and I have negotiated some very large deals.
Whenever anyone moves the goalposts, even the customer, you know they are not dealing in good faith. You can now consider them dishonest, and it is usually better at that point to let them know what they did, and that you are willing to walk away from the deal unless they come back to the table in good faith. If they refuse, then you must walk.
Regarding, the professor, I have seen him say some whacky things. So take some of what he says with a grain of salt.
Remember when it was all supposed to have been debated and designed under the watchful eye of C-SPAN? That didn't happen.
Remember when SanFranNan said we need to pass it before we could find out what's in it?
Remember the "deeming and scheming" to get it out of the House?
Remember how it was designed to fail under the concept of Cloward-Piven to 'overwhelm the system', drive it into failure under Obama, teeing it up for Hillary to transform it into single-payer-socialized medicine?
Remember when Roberts took the law to the woodshop and figured out how to morph it from a mandate to a tax? Hammer to fit, paint to match!
This was a dog, a pig, and a turkey all rolled into a feces sandwich.
It will take some time to undo, and it is being un-done, for the most part, in "regular order" - a concept unknown to the Marxist-Socialist-Leftist (but that is redundant). It doesn't help when there are RINOs siding with the left, or factions looking for the perfect when "good" is a good thing and directionally correct.
So, I ask, should the House use parliamentary parlor tricks to pass TrumpCare? Maybe so. Would the "Phase1+Phase2" Cruz plan have worked where - heaven forbid - the House and Senate act in tandem? We'll never know.
1. Since O-care is “effectively killed” by Trump’s ex order removing ENFORCEMENT of the “individual mandate,” the House really doesn’t need to (yet) “repeal” Ocare. That shouldn’t be the focus.
2. The focus should be on portability across state lines. That would IMMEDIATELY lower prices by creating a national market.
3. Eliminate all provisions for illegals. There is no reason that all GOP can’t agree on this.
4. Since it was a reconciliation bill, the numbers have to even out on both sides. If a subsidy goes up on one side, a tax has to go up on the other, or a benefit go down. That’s a little harder negotiation.
What do you want to do with Obamacare?
He better be throwing out a trial balloon and not serious about it. The Freedom Caucus got it right by voting that crappy bill down.
I voted for Trump because of Immigration talk and his H-1B Visa stuff. Oh, also his very anti-globalist stance, and I’d really prefer he stop talking about Iran.
I’m not extremely upset at this point as I halfway expected Single Payer to be floated, so at least there is some negotiation.
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.