Here we go: Trump now ready to work with Democrats on health-care fix

[Sanguine]

Well, he certainly tried working with Republicans...who had a once in a generation shot to end Obamacare...but they dropped the ball. At least, some of them...Ryan failed to garner any consensus, and the Freedom Caucus were too stubborn to make some compromises (and yes, politics IS the art of compromise....within the bounds of reasonable principle). The Great Ronaldus Magnus understood this, the Freedom Caucus doesn't. Thus we get failure and humiliation.

Obamacare is imploding, no doubt about it, so as president he has little choice but to work with Dems to prevent disaster. A president can't just let a major chunk of the economy go into total free fall...politically beneficial as that might be in the short term. This choice of letting the economy collapse around Obamacare or working with the Dems is what the Freedom Caucus has wrought...and I say that as someone who agreed with most of their ideas on Health Care. They have let the perfect be the enemy of the good...or even the mediocre...and now we are left with the utter train wreck of Obamacare. Not a wise choice.

 

[Rivergirl]

Don't know many people on either side who are in a forgive and forget mode when it comes to DT.
Seems to me he burned a lot of bridges along with way.
The constant egging on by FNC is doing him no good.  Unless he wants animosity to be coming his way from all sides.
The most recent Time mag. interview did nothing to encourage anyone to cooperate with him on any level.

[roamer_1]

Of course there is.  If you're trying to repeal such a law, and because you lack sufficient votes can only get rid of 50% of it, then it is completely consistent with your principles to accept that 50% deal as the best that can be had at the present time.

@Maj. Bill Martin
Exactly wrong. So called 'conservatives have been compromising ever since the 94 congress. It gets us nothing. In the mean time, liberals have shoved their crap right down our throat, by hook or by crook, and have advanced on every front.

What the FC has done is made themselves irrelevant on this issue, which is bad for all of us.  The reason they're irrelevant is that they've just shown that the only deal their willing to do is one that isn't acceptable to a majority.  Which means that if you want to cut a deal on ObamaCare, their voice isn't going to matter.  That is inevitably going to move the parameters of a deal to the left of where they would have been otherwise.

Nonsense. Conservatives seek to promote conservative principles, and are doing precisely what is necessary. Who should be ashamed are so called 'moderates' and our liberal president.

[bigheadfred]

They ALL know/knew obamacare would fail. But it achieves a goal. A segment of the uninsured now have insurance. 50%-53% of the population have insurance through their employer. About 38% have insurance through medicare/medicaid or other public programs. Leaving 9%-12% of the population uninsured. When obamacare fails they will trot out a shiny new pony and tells us look: We figured out how to cover everyone. The government controls the blanket application--coverage. The insurance companies control the money. The businesses (ultimately the working class) pay for it through a payroll tax. A "fair" flat tax rate for small to large businesses. Everyone is happy. Everyone has coverage. Everyone gets what they want.

Single payer. Eventually leading from the now 38% (+/-) under direct government control to 50%>60%>70%>80%>90%>100%.

[Silver Pines]

@r9etb

It's worse than that.  For all his bluster about it during the campaign, he couldn't be bothered to learn the details.  He couldn't discuss them, because he didn't know them.  This was going to be Trump Care, just like Trump Steaks and Trump Wine (ew). 

Trump is the guy with the big ideas -- it's for his people to work out the details.  Interestingly, that's exactly how Obamacare happened, too.

So, when pressed, he did what he always does -- he deflected and attacked.  The details were "sh*t details," not important because not in his head.

I think you're exactly right.

Note, too, the role of the Freedom Caucus in that story: they were trying to do an end-around on Ryan by trying to make deals with Trump.  Think about that for a moment: how is that helpful?  How did they expect that to work out?  They make demands of Trump, Trump orders Ryan to make changes and....?  Were they hoping Trump would get his hands dirty for them?  Were they that out of touch with Ryan that they couldn't talk with him directly, and vice versa?

Honestly, your guess is as good as mine.  If they were expecting Trump to get his hands dirty for them, they were being very naive.

[endicom]

@Maj. Bill Martin
So called 'conservatives have been compromising ever since the 94 congress.

Since always.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@roamer_1

@Maj. Bill Martin
Exactly wrong. So called 'conservatives have been compromising ever since the 94 congress. It gets us nothing. In the mean time, liberals have shoved their crap right down our throat, by hook or by crook, and have advanced on every front.

No, doing nothing because you insist only 100% is acceptable gets you nothing.  And the left has beaten us over the decades not because they accept nothing less than 100%, but because they'll take 10% each year if they can get it.  We lose when the moderates join the Democrats, or there is just a Democratic majority, that actually moves things to the left.  We don't lose because movement to the right isn't as much as we'd like.

Look at Obamacare itself.  The Progressive Caucus rebelled because they wanted single payer, and we conservatives were hoping they'd stay rebellious.  Had they held firm -- as you advocate as a strategy -- Obamacare would have failed.  But the Progressive Caucus ended up voting for ObamaCare despite the lack of a single payer option because they figured moving the ball a bit in their direction was better than not moving it at all.  And from the perspective of a leftist, they were right.

Nonsense. Conservatives seek to promote conservative principles, and are doing precisely what is necessary. Who should be ashamed are so called 'moderates' and our liberal president.

Blaming moderates because they're not conservatives doesn't get any legislation passed.  It's just virtue-signaling.  The whole Randian myth of a Galt's Gulch or economic Ragnarok that results in a conservative society emerging from the rubble of a collapsed society is a big fat myth.  You don't win by losing.  You win by winning, and that has nothing to do with Trump.

In military terms, you are essentially issuing a "no retreat" order, and we all know how well that worked out for von Paulus and the Sixth Army at Stalingrad. 

[roamer_1]

Blaming moderates because they're not conservatives doesn't get any legislation passed.  It's just virtue-signaling.  The whole Randian myth of a Galt's Gulch or economic Ragnarok that results in a conservative society emerging from the rubble of a collapsed society is a big fat myth.  You don't win by losing.  You win by winning, and that has nothing to do with Trump.

@Maj. Bill Martin

Obviously not going to agree.
Give me a call when you're ready to stand for something. Up until then, there's no fixing it.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

Obviously not going to agree.
Give me a call when you're ready to stand for something. Up until then, there's no fixing it.

Whether you think I personally stand for something has absolutely nothing to do with whether the problem can be fixed.  It is a matter of having enough votes in Congress.  That's it.

[Cyber Liberty]

Whether you think I personally stand for something has absolutely nothing to do with whether the problem can be fixed.  It is a matter of having enough votes in Congress.  That's it.

Don't you think it's cynical for Congress to be willing to pass bills when they know will they'll be vetoed, then demur when there's a chance their bills might actually make it to law?  That tells me they're not voting for a bill, they're pandering to somebody.

[bigheadfred]

Don't you think it's cynical for Congress to be willing to pass bills when they know will they'll be vetoed, then demur when there's a chance their bills might actually make it to law?  That tells me they're not voting for a bill, they're pandering to somebody.

Same old game, Cyber. Hang out in the halls. Make some soothing gestures and comforting noises at their constituents. Enrich themselves and their friends. Only work at getting re-elected. Leave up the real law-making to the regulatory agencies. And have fun fun fun til someone takes their T-bills awaaa a a ay.

[Sanguine]

Same old game, Cyber. Hang out in the halls. Make some soothing gestures and comforting noises at their constituents. Enrich themselves and their friends. Only work at getting re-elected. Leave up the real law-making to the regulatory agencies. And have fun fun fun til someone takes their T-bills awaaa a a ay.

Yes, they need to be:
1. Term limited
2. On the same insurance they force on everyone else
3. And, the only retirement plan they get while in office is a 401b, with a small contribution from the taxpayers, and that they can take with them when they leave and that they can personally continue to contribute to, should they care to do so.  (That will also help protect 401's)

[Bigun]

Same old game, Cyber. Hang out in the halls. Make some soothing gestures and comforting noises at their constituents. Enrich themselves and their friends. Only work at getting re-elected. Leave up the real law-making to the regulatory agencies. And have fun fun fun til someone takes their T-bills awaaa a a ay.

That's pretty much the game isn't it.

[roamer_1]

Whether you think I personally stand for something has absolutely nothing to do with whether the problem can be fixed.  It is a matter of having enough votes in Congress.  That's it.

Yes, it does have everything to do with all y'all.
Not insisting upon Conservative principles is what filled the Republican party with liberals.

Democrats declare their love of liberalism right in their platform.

Republicans pay lip service to their platform in order to get elected and then turn around and do liberal things once in office... And get away with it... Precisely like what is happening right now.

If all y'all ain't willing to hand them their asses for it, then nothing at all is going to change.
Which is why I am no longer a republican these last 10 years.

Like I said. When your ready to stand for Conservatism, I'll be around.   

[Cyber Liberty]

That's pretty much the game isn't it.

For as long as I can remember it.  Sometimes the pols get punished when they're caught doing it, usually not.  Lots of times the voters in a Congresscritter's district don't care at all if the pol makes ridiculous votes because he keeps the gravy train rolling at the end of the day, and isn't serious about limiting government.

[roamer_1]

Don't you think it's cynical for Congress to be willing to pass bills when they know will they'll be vetoed, then demur when there's a chance their bills might actually make it to law?  That tells me they're not voting for a bill, they're pandering to somebody.

One might consider it evidence of a collective motive.
Liberalism is not winning on merit.
It is winning because it has no opposition.

[bigheadfred]

Didn't get re-elected? Awww...that's too bad. Here is a nice fat directorship or two. Just whisper sweet nothings in the new guy's ear.

[Bigun]

For as long as I can remember it.  Sometimes the pols get punished when they're caught doing it, usually not.  Lots of times the voters in a Congresscritter's district don't care at all if the pol makes ridiculous votes because he keeps the gravy train rolling at the end of the day, and isn't serious about limiting government.

Yep!  The founders had a great idea but it's failing due to the sloth of the electorate.

[Bigun]

One might consider it evidence of a collective motive.
Liberalism is not winning on merit.
It is winning because it has no opposition.

B I N G O ! ! !

[Cyber Liberty]

Yep!  The founders had a great idea but it's failing due to the sloth of the electorate.

I agree, but I call it the "corruption" of the electorate.  If we don't hand over the Gibsmedat as tribute, cities burn.  I guess you could call it sloth, the root's the same.

[r9etb]

Don't you think it's cynical for Congress to be willing to pass bills when they know will they'll be vetoed, then demur when there's a chance their bills might actually make it to law?  That tells me they're not voting for a bill, they're pandering to somebody.

Ya think?!?

They were pandering in precisely the same way Donald "who knew health care was so complicated?" Trump was pandering.  They're politicians: that's what they do.

The reality of actually undoing something like Obamacare is a whole lot harder than casting symbolic votes knowing they're never going to matter.  Just shouting "repeal," as some folks on this forum like to do, just isn't going to fly.

[Smokin Joe]

Yes, it does have everything to do with all y'all.
Not insisting upon Conservative principles is what filled the Republican party with liberals.

Democrats declare their love of liberalism right in their platform.

Republicans pay lip service to their platform in order to get elected and then turn around and do liberal things once in office... And get away with it... Precisely like what is happening right now.

If all y'all ain't willing to hand them their asses for it, then nothing at all is going to change.
Which is why I am no longer a republican these last 10 years.

Like I said. When your ready to stand for Conservatism, I'll be around.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yep!  The founders had a great idea but it's failing due to the sloth of the electorate.

The Founder's idea was that only they who paid taxes should be able to vote, and since there was no direct taxation of income, only land owners and those who owned businesses (usually one and the same) could vote.

This meant that women, slaves and (generally speaking) recent arrivals to the nation, as well as those with limited means could not vote on the politicians who would decide how property and businesses could be taxed in order to fund the needs of the government. In essence, only people with "skin in the game" were allowed the vote which would elect those who would tax them.

That was a wonderful idea, abound with common sense since (again generally speaking) people who did not own property had no concern for a majority of the issues in the political realm, and as a result were often uninformed of the issues, and the various policies of the political leaders. Their votes, if allowed to be offered, would be based on nothing but guessing, limited knowledge, or influence by the popular media of the day. 

This also avoided the practice of "buying" the votes of the unwashed masses by promising wealth in return for support.

We've deeply and repeatedly screwed the pooch since.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

That was a wonderful idea, abound with common sense since (again generally speaking) people who did not own property had no concern for a majority of the issues in the political realm, and as a result were often uninformed of the issues, and the various policies of the political leaders. Their votes, if allowed to be offered, would be based on nothing but guessing, limited knowledge, or influence by the popular media of the day. 

The reason the landowning voter requirement fell is because it was ridiculously easy to get around:

In 1800, Aaron Burr circumvented New York's requirement that voters own a minimum amount of property by persuading landless Republicans to pool their funds and purchase enough as "joint tenants" to meet the requirement. The special magic of the joint tenancy was that each tenant, no matter how large the group or how small his contribution, "owned" the entire estate. .

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1980/10/deadlock-what-happens-if-nobody-wins/494510/

[Luis Gonzalez]

The reason the landowning voter requirement fell is because it was ridiculously easy to get around:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1980/10/deadlock-what-happens-if-nobody-wins/494510/

It may have fallen, but it does not change the fact that it was a great idea.

It would have been more efficient to close the loop holes than to open the voter rolls wide open.