Why didn’t the GOP try to pass last year’s vetoed health-care bill?

[Smokin Joe]

First, letting the child stay in the parent's insurance doesn't mean the parent has to pay for it, that's between the parent and the child -- the parent *can* say, "I'll keep you on my health insurance, but you have to pay the marginal cost" -- that's between the parent and the children.  It's acutarially sound because it keeps a lot of healthy young people, and their premiums, in an insurance pool.

But that parent CAN'T say "I can't/won't, you have to get your own."

Ever co-sign a loan and have someone back out of their end of the deal?

At age 70, health insurance is more expensive than ever, yet earnings are at an all time low for most people. Still, those grandparents are on the hook, whether or not the child pays in a dime.
It doesn't keep the young people in the insurance pool, but it will eliminate the assets of those who raised them. Already, just a few years from drawing SS, my projected income from social security would not cover the current cost of the cheapest plan in my state for a family of 4, and that based on current ages, not by the time the grandkids are 26.
 
For the forward looking, that means grandparents will be economically forced to abandon grandchildren to the tender mercies of the State to prevent this situation. Yet another rift in the extended family, and yet another gap which will ensure that a generation which could provide wisdom and perspective for a younger generation is prevented from doing so--exactly what the totalitarians want, because children not regaled with memories of a much freer existence will never crave a (relative) Liberty they never knew.

All of this crap has far deeper implications than just money, that is only the blunt instrument by which policy will be imposed.

[Cyber Liberty]

They had the votes in February 2015. What makes you think they don't have the votes now?

They had the votes when they knew it was going to be cut off well before becoming law, and now that there's somebody indicating a willingness to sign it, they suddenly discover problems with a law they gladly voted for several times before.

This is cynical pandering by a very large number of RINOs.

[FreeReign]

It's a simple thing to REPEAL Obamacare, it's another thing to consider the MILLIONS whose lives will then be upended because for the past 7 years, they have enrolled are come to expect government subsidies under Obamacare.

I hope that answers the question --- what are they afraid of?

The effective date of HR 596 is 180 days. If that's no long enough, change it to 360 days, or whatever. Add the provision that insurance companies must accept the transfer of people with pre existing conditions who were covered by ACA.

Still seems simple to repeal.

[FreeReign]

They had the votes when they knew it was going to be cut off well before becoming law, and now that there's somebody indicating a willingness to sign it, they suddenly discover problems with a law they gladly voted for several times before.

This is cynical pandering by a very large number of RINOs.

Cynical pandering? You mean that they are "pandering" to their voting constituents? You mean they voted the way their constituents wanted them to vote?

[Cyber Liberty]

Cynical pandering? You mean that they are "pandering" to their voting constituents? You mean they voted the way their constituents wanted them to vote?

Not at all.  I mean they promised to vote one way to get the votes (that's the pandering part), then voted the other way when it could have meant a real change in policy.  IOW, "Lying to their constituents."  Quite the opposite.

[Smokin Joe]

Cynical pandering? You mean that they are "pandering" to their voting constituents? You mean they voted the way their constituents wanted them to vote?

Yes, pandering. They voted as the constituents wanted ONLY when they knew full well the vote would mean nothing (the bill would be killed or vetoed). When push came to shove, they backed off and found all sorts of problems with actually getting the job done.

If someone promised X and Y and then when the time came to deliver, delivered crap, you'd never do business with them again--and do your best to make sure no one else you knew did, either.

Congress pulls this stuff and gets reelected.

[FreeReign]

Not at all.  I mean they promised to vote one way to get the votes (that's the pandering part), then voted the other way when it could have meant a real change in policy.  IOW, "Lying to their constituents."  Quite the opposite.

So then you agree that with me that the 2015 repeal bill should be put up with a vote NOW?

[The_Reader_David]

But that parent CAN'T say "I can't/won't, you have to get your own."

You seem to misunderstand how it works.  If you don't want your kids on your health insurance from your employer, at open enrollment you sign up for employee only or employee and spouse only.  No one is forcing you to keep them on your insurance.  Like the other actuarially sound part of the law, it's permissive.  States didn't have to expand Medicaid, they were allowed to.  Parents don't have to keep their adult children under the age of 26 on their policies, they are allowed to.

[roamer_1]

So then you agree that with me that the 2015 repeal bill should be put up with a vote NOW?

YES.

[FreeReign]

Yes, pandering. They voted as the constituents wanted ONLY when they knew full well the vote would mean nothing (the bill would be killed or vetoed). When push came to shove, they backed off and found all sorts of problems with actually getting the job done.

If someone promised X and Y and then when the time came to deliver, delivered crap, you'd never do business with them again--and do your best to make sure no one else you knew did, either.

Congress pulls this stuff and gets reelected.

Of course. But you are missing my point.

Some folks here are saying that we shouldn't put up again the 2015 bill, because there isn't enough support in the House, because the isn't enough support by their constituents.

If there was pandering to ones constituents in 2015 when the repeal only bill passed, then there would be public support of a similar repeal bill now.

[Cyber Liberty]

So then you agree that with me that the 2015 repeal bill should be put up with a vote NOW?

Yes I do.  I think there are already a couple of versions very similar to the 2015 bill introduced in this Congress.  I don't know the bill numbers off the top of my head, but I think one was introduced January 5th, 2017.  I don't know if it's ready for the floor vote, but it should be developed ASAP so that it is.  I'm not generally a fan of short-circuiting the Committee process, unless it's obviously being used to sabotage a bill.

[Cyber Liberty]

Of course. But you are missing my point.

Some folks here are saying that we shouldn't put up again the 2015 bill, because there isn't enough support in the House, because the isn't enough support by their constituents.

If there was pandering to ones constituents in 2015 when the repeal only bill passed, then there would be public support of a similar repeal bill now.

I think there would be plenty of support for it, if the pols would actually defend it.  The problem is, the pols in DeeCee like the system the way it is, and don't want to change it.  Therefore, they lie to their constituents to get reelected.  It's a time honored tradition, Joe has it down perfectly.

[FreeReign]

I think there would be plenty of support for it, if the pols would actually defend it.  The problem is, the pols in DeeCee like the system the way it is, and don't want to change it.  Therefore, they lie to their constituents to get reelected.  It's a time honored tradition, Joe has it down perfectly.

Perhaps if House R's didn't have leadership, such as Ryan and Trump twisting their arms, things would be different.

[Bigun]

OK here's a question to all -- Let's say they passed the repeal bill they sent to Obama (which he vetoed), what happens to the millions of those who are already enrolled under Obamacare?

It's very easy to accuse someone of bad intentions.... the practical reality they have to face is another thing.

They completely repeal Obamacare effective some future date and fix what needs fixing in the interim.  But THAT is not what their masters want.

[Bigun]

So then you agree that with me that the 2015 repeal bill should be put up with a vote NOW?

Absolutely!  The sooner the better! But it won't happen because they KNOW that vote will remove all the masks!

[Cyber Liberty]

Perhaps if House R's didn't have leadership, such as Ryan and Trump twisting their arms, things would be different.

I have no idea.  I do know Ryan and Trump were pushing a crap sandwich, but how much of that is just them, and how much is pushback from the rank and file?  I honestly don't know.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You seem to misunderstand how it works.  If you don't want your kids on your health insurance from your employer, at open enrollment you sign up for employee only or employee and spouse only.  No one is forcing you to keep them on your insurance.  Like the other actuarially sound part of the law, it's permissive.  States didn't have to expand Medicaid, they were allowed to.  Parents don't have to keep their adult children under the age of 26 on their policies, they are allowed to.

That's true.  However, I know that while insurers have different rates for "single" (1 person), "married" (two people), and "married with kids (3+)", many don't charge per child.  In other words, if you're covering one kid, you may as well cover all of them because the cost is the same.  That means that a lot of those adult children are free-riding, and the cost of their premiums is being picked up by other insured.

[Cyber Liberty]

That's true.  However, I know that while insurers have different rates for "single" (1 person), "married" (two people), and "married with kids (3+)", many don't charge per child.  In other words, if you're covering one kid, you may as well cover all of them because the cost is the same.  That means that a lot of those adult children are free-riding, and the cost of their premiums is being picked up by other insured.

So, if I have two teenagers, and my policy is either Single, Married or Family, one of my kids is freeloading on the premiums of others if I use Family?  I know lots of two-children parents who might object to that characterization.

[Taxcontrol]

Because they don't have the votes.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, just commenting on the political reality

Only partially true.
They DO have the votes required to pass - only a simple majority is required.
However, in the Senate it is going to be filibustered and that requires a 60 vote threshold
So go ahead and do it.  Put the Dems on the hot seat requiring a REAL shutdown of the government.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why didn’t the GOP try to pass last year’s vetoed health-care bill?

Because a year ago they knew they were safe because it would get vetoed.  Now if they pass it,  they will have to actually take a stand that might have some consequences.   


They don't really want to repeal Obamacare.