Here are the 20 Republicans who rejected ObamaCare repeal

[txradioguy]

So in other words, they repealed the painful revenue parts and kept the universal coverage part that costs a bunch more trying to play both sides.

Yup. That's the way I'm reading this.

[geronl]

So in other words, they repealed the painful revenue parts and kept the universal coverage part that costs a bunch more trying to play both sides.

They also created a massive new entitlement funded by ?? for high-risk pools.

They've just voted for a debt monster.

[rodamala]

After you're half way into a bottle Frank...you should really should  stop posting.

He and his buddy are just out to lunch.

[Smokin Joe]

They also created a massive new entitlement funded by ?? for high-risk pools.

They've just voted for a debt monster.

But two of the chief objections were the mandate and the penalty. By removing them they soften the opposition to the whole idea. This is more carefully planned than any slapdash appearances might indicate. Note that 'risk' will be measured on age (no matter how healthy you are) and tobacco use, and not other factors which might have significant implications for actuarial calculations.

[Taxcontrol]

The replacement bill must be in place before the repeal or there would be lapses in the provisions. That's a procedural necessity which is required by good sense, and as far as I know, not ideologically based in the slightest regard.

False premise
How did this nation function the 200+ years prior to Obamacare?  Free markets can handle a full repeal.  Just as their was market pain moving TO Obamacare, there will be pain moving FROM Obamacare.

[LateForLunch]

The replacement bill must be in place before the repeal or there would be lapses in the provisions. That's a procedural necessity which is required by good sense, and as far as I know, not ideologically based in the slightest regard.

I hate to quote myself but apparently some posters on this thread haven't done much research into the whole matter. The ACA was such a massive octopus of a bill that it will take some time and more-pointed legislation following up to the Reconciliation bill to get things back on track.

Even if this isn't rocket science it is one of the times when complete ignorance of parliamentary procedural requirements and some of the most abstruse aspects of law-making will make one unable to understand (or comment intelligently about) what is going on.

Some of the comments about this bill demonstrate to me that we have some posters who know almost nothing whatsoever about these issues, which also calls into question whether they are really as serious about making informed decisions as they wave flags about.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I hate to quote myself but apparently some posters on this thread haven't done much research into the whole matter. The ACA was such a massive octopus of a bill that it will take some time and more-pointed legislation following up to the Reconciliation bill to get things back on track.

Even if this isn't rocket science it is one of the times when complete ignorance of parliamentary procedural requirements and some of the most abstruse aspects of law-making will make one unable to understand (or comment intelligently about) what is going on.

Some of the comments about this bill demonstrate to me that we have some posters who know almost nothing whatsoever about these issues, which also calls into question whether they are really as serious about making informed decisions as they wave flags about.

Let me sum up your post:  " we all are too stupid to understand what's going on."

My response: "we are smart enough to know the govt should get the hell out of healthcare".

[LateForLunch]

Let me sum up your post:  " we all are too stupid to understand what's going on."

My response: "we are smart enough to know the govt should get the hell out of healthcare".

Not at all - not even those on this forum with whom I disagree strongly on this topic qualify as stupid in my definition. Intransigent or seriously misguided but not stupid. If they were really stupid, they would be democrats (or worse).We are in disagreement over the best way in which the goal you stated above may be achieved, not in the worthiness of the goal. The question is whether some people on this thread believe that the good should be forsaken in pursuit of the perfect (a time-honored proclivity of doctrinaire zealots who wave the flag of "purity" before them as they charge uphill into the blazing guns of the enemy to be annihilated). We are attempting to bring change within the context of the political system. Politics by definition is the "science of the possible". As long as we are within that context, strength is often displayed more by refraining from aggressive action than giving in to the somatotonic impulse.

"Courage without wisdom is evil." - Art of War

[Smokin Joe]

Not at all - not even those on this forum with whom I disagree strongly on this topic qualify as stupid in my definition. Pig-headed or intransigent or misguided but not stupid. If they were really stupid, they would be democrats (or worse). The question is whether some people on this thread believe that the good should be forsaken in pursuit of the perfect (a time-honored proclivity of doctrinaire zealots who wave the flag of "purity" before them as they charge uphill into the blazing guns of the enemy to be annihilated). We are attempting to bring change within the context of the political system. Politics by definition is the "science of the possible". As long as we are within that context, strength is often displayed more by refraining from aggressive action than giving in to the somatotonic impluse

I guess that is a matter of whether you consider it better to remove enough of the painful parts which would compel the average voter to push for repeal and have them settle into that somnolent torpor which enables those in DC to keep all the other aspects of the bill which will prove destructive over the long term (Because once this is "Trumpcare" we will be stuck with what remains), or whether you consider it better to have more howling in agony and aggravation at the polls to have this economically lethal garbage removed from our government and our economy as completely as possible.

I do not think this qualifies for "as completely as possible', but the removal of the most egregious of the onerous mandates might decrease the sense of urgency and necessity sufficiently that people become accustomed to their newfound burdens, having shed just enough of the most uncomfortable parts to find that a relief, and continue to be laden with the balance.

[DB]

I guess that is a matter of whether you consider it better to remove enough of the painful parts which would compel the average voter to push for repeal and have them settle into that somnolent torpor which enables those in DC to keep all the other aspects of the bill which will prove destructive over the long term (Because once this is "Trumpcare" we will be stuck with what remains), or whether you consider it better to have more howling in agony and aggravation at the polls to have this economically lethal garbage removed from our government and our economy as completely as possible.

I do not think this qualifies for "as completely as possible', but the removal of the most egregious of the onerous mandates might decrease the sense of urgency and necessity sufficiently that people become accustomed to their newfound burdens, having shed just enough of the most uncomfortable parts to find that a relief, and continue to be laden with the balance.

It is just more cost shifting - as you are saying. "The government is going to pay for it" hidden from direct view.

[LateForLunch]

I guess that is a matter of whether you consider it better to remove enough of the painful parts which would compel the average voter to push for repeal and have them settle into that somnolent torpor which enables those in DC to keep all the other aspects of the bill which will prove destructive over the long term (Because once this is "Trumpcare" we will be stuck with what remains), or whether you consider it better to have more howling in agony and aggravation at the polls to have this economically lethal garbage removed from our government and our economy as completely as possible.

I do not think this qualifies for "as completely as possible', but the removal of the most egregious of the onerous mandates might decrease the sense of urgency and necessity sufficiently that people become accustomed to their newfound burdens, having shed just enough of the most uncomfortable parts to find that a relief, and continue to be laden with the balance.

Point taken. Though I must also point out that I removed the term "pig-headed" in the original post because I considered it to be too harsh. You are fairly quick on the draw there maestro! Kudos.

That being said, whatever we are stuck with will inevitably be the version that corrected the problems as completely as possible because what was achieved was the best one possible QED. To qualify it further one could possibly add "as complete as humanly possible" since it will not be truly optimal (for conservatives and others who dislike the whole principle of the ACA) but only as complete as the limitations of the human-elements permitted.

If humans were as consistent or predictable as machines, we'd push buttons, adjust rheostats and pull levers instead of using language, advocacy and negotiations based on trust to adjust the mechanisms of government. This is what we are stuck with and as in all things human it is a package deal. To accept the good is also by necessity to be obligated to accept the bad. We don't have to LIKE it (and God knows nobody on this forum does) but we do have to accept it (if we are wise).

[geronl]

The question is whether some people on this thread believe that the good should be forsaken in pursuit of the perfect

I don't the bill was a "good" at all.

[LateForLunch]

It is just more cost shifting - as you are saying. "The government is going to pay for it" hidden from direct view.

As written. We are all speculating and agonizing over a bill that has not passed. Principled conservatives in the Senate will have a chance to change the bill to get it into a condition that could help it to not only pass the Senate but to also go back to the House with more approval for it there.

[LateForLunch]

I don't (think that) the bill was a "good" at all.

I frankly don't understand how any reasonable person could hold that position since the alternative to having it succeed would be for the GOP to get the blame for a major broken promise in addition to the president...oh. Now I get it. Your avatar just answered my question. Your desire to see Trump fail has overthrown your concerns for anything and everything else. I understand perfectly now.

[geronl]

I frankly don't understand how any reasonable person could hold that position since the alternative to having it succeed would be for the GOP to get the blame for a major broken promise in addition to the president...oh. Now I get it. Your avatar just answered my question. Your desire to see Trump fail has overthrown your concerns for anything and everything else. I understand perfectly now.

First calling it a repeal is a blatant lie. The repeal promise is broken. It creates a massive new entitlement funded by debt as far as I can see without getting rid of the insurance subsidies and all the new regulations. It's a bad bill all around.

I oppose this on principle.

Notice I didn't mention Trump, because he is totally out to lunch on this not knowing health insurance from a band-aid.

[geronl]

and of course I completely expected a personal attack on me instead of a response on the issue, it's simply par for the course for the cult of Trump

[LateForLunch]

First calling it a repeal is a blatant lie. The repeal promise is broken. It creates a massive new entitlement funded by debt as far as I can see without getting rid of the insurance subsidies and all the new regulations. It's a bad bill all around.

I oppose this on principle.

Notice I didn't mention Trump, because he is totally out to lunch on this not knowing health insurance from a band-aid.

Well if we would speak of lies, I might think that you are engaging in them on at least one point. A significant amount of subsidies are gone, even in this incarnation of the still-fledgling bill. Same could be said for many of the regulations that people hate. They are gone.

And for the third time, repealing the bill BEFORE a replacement bill is passed would be unwieldy both from a logistic perspective in passage and because it would create too much chaos and uncertainty in the administrative sense of the existing benefits being delivered.

As for the over-the-top hyperbole and harsh vituperations directed at Trump in your post, I will ignore them because well, my policy is never to come between a man and his hate-fetish.

[LateForLunch]

and of course I completely expected a personal attack on me instead of a response on the issue, it's simply par for the course for the cult of Trump

What are you talking about? What "personal attack"? Are you on drugs? Anyone with an avatar like the one you have OBVIOUSLY has a hate-on for Trump. I told you why I think your reason is clouded and responded substantively to your post. If you experience the very mild jabs I took at you and your post as a "personal attack" one might think that you are becoming a snow flake. Next, will we be hearing from Trump haters who are called what they are (unreasonable and vituperative) that they deserve a "safe space" free of such criticism?

How about a substantive answer instead of just whining about being "attacked personally". I expected far better of you sieur!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

We are attempting to bring change within the context of the political system.

Hogwash.

We got Obamacare not within the 'context of the political system' but by naked, idealistic, partisan, cram-it-down-our-throats action.

Your premise is the GOP has to be delicate to change yet the Dems throw bombs to change.

We need to throw bombs.  That changes things up quite well.

[Hoodat]

So who are the 30+ Republicans who voted to save Obamacare?