Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Exclusive — Mark Meadows: Send Clean Obamacare Repeal to Trump Now, Replacement Later
Breitbart.com ^ | 18 Jul 2017 | Matthew Boyle

Posted on 07/18/2017 8:40:53 AM PDT by Rockitz

House Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) is joining with President Donald J. Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in pushing for Congress to send a clean repeal of Obamacare to President Trump’s desk now, and work on the replacement later.

Meadows, who is making the call in an exclusive statement to Breitbart News, joins them as both Trump and McConnell called for clean repeal of Obamacare to go to Trump now and a replacement later after the Senate health bill failed late Monday. When Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Mike Lee (R-UT) came out against the bill—joining Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Susan Collins (R-ME)—Trump and McConnell called for clean repeal of Obamacare now then a bipartisan replacement plan later.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: markmeadows; repealobamacare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last
To: All

This is mute now.

From ZeroHedge:

“Well that did not take long. Somewhat unsurprisingly, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s new proposal to simply repeal Obamacare is already dead after GOP Senators Susan Collins, Shelley Moore Capito and Lisa Murkowski said Tuesday they’ll oppose a repeal of the Affordable Care Act.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-18/seante-gop-lacks-votes-obamacare-repeal


41 posted on 07/18/2017 10:15:41 AM PDT by Rockitz (This is NOT rocket science - Follow the money and you'll find the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
Their constituencies will again be without insurance after the two year period.

Because the Republicans repealed their insurance. You don't think the Democrats aren't salivating at the thought of running on that issue?

42 posted on 07/18/2017 10:17:09 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz

Add RETROACTIVE REFUND of lost Premiums and lost Deductibles. Refund all lost insurance payments. People are hurting from big govt takings.


43 posted on 07/18/2017 10:17:37 AM PDT by TheNext (RETROACTIVE REFUND & REPEAL of ACA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateRightist
Democrats and the Media (but I repeat myself) will portray a full repeal as “throwing 25,000 people off their healthcare plan and resulting in 15,000 near-term deaths.”

And Obamacare NO REPEAL has

o thrown millions off healthcare
o killed thousands in hospitals
o hurts Grandmother and children

And FULL REPEAL saved many lives.

Why do you want to hurt so many people?? Why are you liberals so callous and hurtful to others??

44 posted on 07/18/2017 10:33:44 AM PDT by TheNext (RETROACTIVE REFUND & REPEAL of ACA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
In the most simplified way of answering that question, I would say that if Obamacare is repealed, the free market will have to jump in immediately to fill the void. There are questions as to whether or not that can be done.

Furthermore, the states will once again be in charge of medicaid and that means that there will an immediate wrangling over money turned over to the states and the adequacy of that money to cover medicaid as it is now constituted. That will lead to pressure on Congress to cut medicaid (as has been planned).

Bottom line, by the repeal of Obamacare without a replacement plan, Congress will have lit a bomb that, when it goes off, will p!ss off a lot of voters and this will create an immediate desire for them to find a solution to the collapsing insurance market.

All this said, it is possible that, if the state boundaries on the selling of insurance are eliminated at the same time Obamacare is repealed, the free market may actually save the day.

I am sure I have overlooked many details, but this is my quick response.

45 posted on 07/18/2017 10:36:46 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

I agree 100%, but how they would get the medicaid genie back in the bottle is anyone’s guess.


46 posted on 07/18/2017 10:38:17 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz

Thank you!! It’s what you promised for 7 years; do it.


47 posted on 07/18/2017 10:39:30 AM PDT by MayflowerMadam ("Negative people make healthy people sick." - Roger Ailes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux
In the most simplified way of answering that question, I would say that if Obamacare is repealed, the free market will have to jump in immediately to fill the void. There are questions as to whether or not that can be done.

If it is an immediate replacement. With the two year delay in implementation that people seem to be talking about then the can is only being kicked down the road a ways and the free market can't work it's replacement.

Furthermore, the states will once again be in charge of medicaid and that means that there will an immediate wrangling over money turned over to the states and the adequacy of that money to cover medicaid as it is now constituted. That will lead to pressure on Congress to cut medicaid (as has been planned).

One of the major reasons why the Republicans couldn't get 50 votes to begin with. Why do you think that will change?

Bottom line, by the repeal of Obamacare without a replacement plan, Congress will have lit a bomb that, when it goes off, will p!ss off a lot of voters and this will create an immediate desire for them to find a solution to the collapsing insurance market.

Desire on the part of half. So far as the Democrats are concerned, the GOP broke it and they aren't going to help them fix it. They would much rather use it as a campaign issue, like the Republicans did with Obamacare.

All this said, it is possible that, if the state boundaries on the selling of insurance are eliminated at the same time Obamacare is repealed, the free market may actually save the day.

That won't make any difference.

48 posted on 07/18/2017 10:47:01 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz; All
Thank you for referencing that article Rockitz. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.

From related threads …

Patriots are reminded that regardless what lawless Obama’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices want everybody to think about Obamacare and the Obamacare insurance mandate, these justices, the RINO-controlled Senate, and the corrupt media likely don’t want voters to find out that previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had already clarified that the states have never given the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend in the name of INTRAstate healthcare.

This is evidenced by the excerpts below from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices, and Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker.

Regarding Obama’s justices bluffing that the Obamacare insurance mandate is constitutional for example, consider the fifth entry in the list from Paul v. Virginia. In that case the Court clarified that the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers does not include regulating insurance contracts, regardless if the parties negotiating the contract are domiciled in different states.

Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

Since corrupt Congress is the biggest part of the swamp imo, it is actually up to patriots to drain the swamp in the 2018 elections, patriots supporting Trump by electing as many new members of Congress as they can who will support Trump.

In the meanwhile, patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting candidates on the primary ballots.

Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

Patriots also need to make sure that candidates are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.

49 posted on 07/18/2017 10:56:15 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

You’re right. Most RATs are that evil.


50 posted on 07/18/2017 11:31:51 AM PDT by Rockitz (This is NOT rocket science - Follow the money and you'll find the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Thanks for your comments. Were these cited in the dissents of the NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell decisions?
51 posted on 07/18/2017 11:47:15 AM PDT by Rockitz (This is NOT rocket science - Follow the money and you'll find the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: muleskinner

California plus certain sanctuary cities in other states must all be CUT OFF FEDERAL FUNDS PERIOD. Let them pay for these SOB’s. Frankly, the Federal Gov. has no business in healthcare other then active duty military, Medicare, VA,TRICARE, and CHAMPVA. Each state and their insurance commissioner should run it’s own healthcare and each state must pay for it’s own GOV employee plan plus “the damn freeloaders they allow.” The FED. Gov has USURPED TOO MUCH POWER FROM THE STATES. Each state should have a VOTE for what the CITIZENS want.


52 posted on 07/18/2017 12:23:52 PM PDT by Lumper20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

If we do not cover preexisting over 1/3 will be TOO DAMN OBESE for any individual policy.


53 posted on 07/18/2017 12:27:31 PM PDT by Lumper20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz; All
"Were these cited in the dissents of the NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell decisions?"

I didn’t remember so I did a quicky review of these cases.

And its no wonder that I didn’t remember. The case opinions are a pile of sophistry imo, the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers now wrongly muddied by politically correct Supreme Court case precedent.

At this point in time, I have not found any references in the cases that you referenced to the excerpts that I posted.

I’m of the opinion that the post-FDR era law schools are basically ignoring constitutional history before FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wrongly (imo) decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress’s favor in 1942.

More specifically, although I have seen token references in post-Wickard cases to cases where previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified the fed’s constitutionally limited powers, it seems that the water now falls off of the edge of the state sovereignty-ignoring Supreme Court’s “flat earth” interpretations of the Constitution in cases decided after Wickard which test the fed’s limited powers.

Finally, regarding the integrity of the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Constitution, please consider the following.

"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added].” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.

Thomas Jefferson had put it this way.


54 posted on 07/18/2017 1:36:47 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ichabod1

Now if he could learn the phrase “They will let it fail” instead of “we will let it fail”. That would probably be a good thing for him.


55 posted on 07/18/2017 3:22:18 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Thanks for the Jefferson quotes/facts. Jefferson damn sure knew about Muslims, too. There is no way Jefferson would have allowed any person who practices the Muslim religion, one that emphasizes lying to non Muslims, to enter America. Jefferson knew the lying first hand after paying the ransom. The representative from the Barbary Coast to France told Jefferson their practice of lying to his face after they started capturing ships and taking slaves again. This eventually led to the marines and Tripoli.


56 posted on 07/19/2017 8:31:09 AM PDT by Lumper20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson