Trump accused the Freedom Caucus of 'saving' Obamacare. Its leader said it's not over.

[txradioguy]

I disagree.   The changes made by the ACHA would have converted the ACA into a true bipartisan bill.   It would have picked up its share of GOP support - unless you're of the view that the GOP back then - like the Dems now - would simply have refused to work with the party in power on anything whatsoever.

Everything that's in the bill now...Republicans and Conservatives 7 years ago rejected.  They didn't want ANY kind of government run healthcare.  And the ones that stay true to their principles now don't want it either.

You seem to forget that when Pelosi and Reid rammed Obamacare down our throats they cut out Republicans entirely from having anything at all to do with the bill.

San Fran nan said Republicans weren't needed or wanted.  We didn't refuse to work with them...they shut and locked tohe doors to the chambers and left the Republicans out in the cold.

Which is why it's completely asinine and 100% wrong to suggest that we need to "reach across the aisle" now to find a bipartisian agreement with them.

The GOP is the battered wife and the Dems are the abuser and some people for some reason thinking that one day they will change.

[Jazzhead]

Which is why it's completely asinine and 100% wrong to suggest that we need to "reach across the aisle" now to find a bipartisian agreement with them.

Well, we sure as hell can't depend on the Freedom Caucus.  Unless you just want to extend partisan gridlock for another four years,  we need coalition partners.   Trump is, thankfully, not as head-in-the-sand foolish as you.   

[musiclady]

Everything that's in the bill now...Republicans and Conservatives 7 years ago rejected.  They didn't want ANY kind of government run healthcare.  And the ones that stay true to their principles now don't want it either.

You seem to forget that when Pelosi and Reid rammed Obamacare down our throats they cut out Republicans entirely from having anything at all to do with the bill.

San Fran nan said Republicans weren't needed or wanted.  We didn't refuse to work with them...they shut and locked tohe doors to the chambers and left the Republicans out in the cold.

Which is why it's completely asinine and 100% wrong to suggest that we need to "reach across the aisle" now to find a bipartisian agreement with them.

The GOP is the battered wife and the Dems are the abuser and some people for some reason thinking that one day they will change.

Well said.

[Jazzhead]

Well said.

It's fascinating how so many conservatives rush to embrace the victim meme.   

[INVAR]

Well, we sure as hell can't depend on the Freedom Caucus. 

Absolutely.  You should not depend on the Freedom Caucus to embrace and promote Statism/Communism and government control of healthcare.

Unless you just want to extend partisan gridlock for another four years

I'm good with that because it is become obvious that unless Mordor on the Potomac pushes further Left - nothing is going to get passed that will benefit anyone beyond the Welfare State.

we need coalition partners.   Trump is, thankfully, not as head-in-the-sand foolish as you.   

I think the Oligarchy leadership and Trump have said they intend to coalesce with the Marxist Left Democrats as partners. 

Time for you to throw a party.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

It's fascinating how so many conservatives rush to embrace the victim meme.   

Pot meet kettle, kettle pot. Yesterday you were whining like you got robbed by the Freedom Caucus led by Jessie James himself.

[INVAR]

It's fascinating how so many conservatives rush to embrace the victim meme.   

]

I find it fascinating how many self-identifying "Conservatives" rush to embrace Statism/Communism and insist that such Leftism is "Conservative" while insulting and ridiculing those who recognize the Big Government Central Planning garbage for what it is.

[Rivergirl]

anyone here really think it would have been a good thing for the new and improved O care to have premiums keep on going UP UP UP and AWAY for the next few years?

[INVAR]

anyone here really think it would have been a good thing for the new and improved O care to have premiums keep on going UP UP UP and AWAY for the next few years?

Oh yes.  You will be told that having a 10% sandwich is better than having none at all, and you are merely an unrealistic child throwing a tantrum if you are upset your premiums would continue to skyrocket regardless of whatever 'fix' was passed.

Oh... and we were 'unrealistic' to have expected the GOP to actually do as they said and 'repeal' ObamaCare because that was impossible to do - even though it was a major campaign issue for most of those whom were sent to DC.

[musiclady]

It's fascinating how so many conservatives rush to embrace the victim meme.   

Wow.

Considering your whining, moaning, Eeyore routine yesterday, that's rich.

You, poor fellow, are claiming the victim status to a few, lonely conservatives who actually did what they were elected to do.

The Republican party has done the damage to itself.  Own it.  It's yours, Jazzhead.

[Cyber Liberty]

Oh yes.  You will be told that having a 10% sandwich is better than having none at all, and you are merely an unrealistic child throwing a tantrum if you are upset your premiums would continue to skyrocket regardless of whatever 'fix' was passed.

Then you'll be told that 10% is all you're going to get...which is why I've been calling this a crap sandwich the whole time.  A surrender to people who continue to lie about being "conservative."

[Sanguine]

I disagree.   The changes made by the ACHA would have converted the ACA into a true bipartisan bill.   It would have picked up its share of GOP support - unless you're of the view that the GOP back then - like the Dems now - would simply have refused to work with the party in power on anything whatsoever.

Of course you disagree - it's accurate and makes sense.

[Smokin Joe]

Well, we sure as hell can't depend on the Freedom Caucus.  Unless you just want to extend partisan gridlock for another four years,  we need coalition partners.   Trump is, thankfully, not as head-in-the-sand foolish as you.   

"We", who? I'm depending on them to keep their promises. So far, so good.

YOU can't depend on them to roll over and piddle on themselves the first time Trump or Ryan bark like the rest of those LOSERS in the GOP, but that's just fine by me. The only partisans extending gridlock are the GOP wing of the Uniparty, who all voted for repeal when it wouldn't count.
As for where Trump's head is, I'll refrain from comment, except to agree that it isn't in sand.

[Hoodat]

It's fascinating how so many conservatives rush to embrace the victim meme.   

It's telling how you separate yourself from Conservatives.

[Silver Pines]

It's fascinating how so many conservatives rush to embrace the victim meme.   

@Jazzhead

We'd be victims if Trump and Ryan had succeeded in inflicting that lousy bill on all of us.  As it is, we escaped victimhood, thanks to the Freedom Caucus. 

[chae]

So in "The Art of the Deal" Trump basically said that when you start negotiating, you ask for something totally outrageous that you don't really want, and then eventually after haggling you get what you really wanted in the first place and the person you were dealing with feels like they won because they haggled you down.  That's like negotiating 101. 
The approach taken by the moderate squishes made no sense. 
It was fun listening to Levin tear McConnell a new one yesterday.

[Cripplecreek]

@Jazzhead

We'd be victims if Trump and Ryan had succeeded in inflicting that lousy bill on all of us.  As it is, we escaped victimhood, thanks to the Freedom Caucus.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I disagree.   The changes made by the ACHA would have converted the ACA into a true bipartisan bill.   It would have picked up its share of GOP support - unless you're of the view that the GOP back then - like the Dems now - would simply have refused to work with the party in power on anything whatsoever.

I think you're wrong here.

The absolute worst thing about the ACA wasn't the exchanges -- it was the creation of a new entitlement program in the form of Medicaid expansion and subsidies.  That was going to be the core of any Democrat plan, because the Progressives would have rebelled without that.   The GOP was absolutely correct in going to the mattresses to try to defeat it, without giving it even a single vote in Congress.  Cooperating on a bill that makes us a more statist country is a horrible idea, in any form.  And the GOP actually did come very, very close to defeating it.

We should never, ever support a bill if we think it makes the status quo worse, and the enactment of the ACA did that. You don't "compromise" with Democrats to water down something we don't want in the first place.

You might argue that we'd have been "better off" making some concessions to get a slightly better bill, but I think that's wrong.  The party-line opposition to the ACA paid huge electoral dividends, and gave us a Republican Congress.  Having that Republican Congress meant that a bunch of things Obama wanted to do in terms of global warming, immigration, etc., couldn't get through Congress, and had to address via Executive Order, many of which are already being undone.   And I'd say that our opposition to the ACA is what has presented us with an opportunity to, among other things, convert an entitlement to a block grant.  If the GOP had "worked with" the Democrat to get a "better" ACA, we'd have had zero chance of ever repealing any of it now.  We'd own it just as much as they would.
 
Compromising with the AHCA may make sense because it would move the ball in our direction.  In contrast, passage of the ACA was always going to move the ball in theirs.

[Jazzhead]

I think you're wrong here.

The absolute worst thing about the ACA wasn't the exchanges -- it was the creation of a new entitlement program in the form of Medicaid expansion and subsidies.  That was going to be the core of any Democrat plan, because the Progressives would have rebelled without that.   The GOP was absolutely correct in going to the mattresses to try to defeat it, without giving it even a single vote in Congress.  Cooperating on a bill that makes us a more statist country is a horrible idea, in any form.  And the GOP actually did come very, very close to defeating it.

We should never, ever support a bill if we think it makes the status quo worse, and the enactment of the ACA did that. You don't "compromise" with Democrats to water down something we don't want in the first place.

You might argue that we'd have been "better off" making some concessions to get a slightly better bill, but I think that's wrong.  The party-line opposition to the ACA paid huge electoral dividends, and gave us a Republican Congress.  Having that Republican Congress meant that a bunch of things Obama wanted to do in terms of global warming, immigration, etc., couldn't get through Congress, and had to address via Executive Order, many of which are already being undone.   And I'd say that our opposition to the ACA is what has presented us with an opportunity to, among other things, convert an entitlement to a block grant.  If the GOP had "worked with" the Democrat to get a "better" ACA, we'd have had zero chance of ever repealing any of it now.  We'd own it just as much as they would.
 
Compromising with the AHCA may make sense because it would move the ball in our direction.  In contrast, passage of the ACA was always going to move the ball in theirs.

I understand what you're saying and appreciate your response.

I know I'm older school than most, and remember examples of successful government programs  - such as the federalization of employee benefit law known as ERISA - that were established on a bi-partisan basis.    There WAS a real problem that the ACA was intended to address - what to do, in our employer-based health care system, when folks through no fault of their own lost their jobs and their health insurance, and were unable to purchase insurance in the private market because of pre-existing conditions. 

That problem, at least it seems to me, ought to concern conservatives as well as liberals.    As I'm sure you know, the underpinnings of the ACA, including the individual mandate, had their genesis in conservative think tanks in the seventies.   Those think tanks were concerned with how to address the problem of folks with pre-existing conditions in the context of a private insurance system (that is, conservatives back then knew this was a real problem, and sought a solution that could be a viable alternative to single payer).

The ACA turned out to be a hash because it needed to satisfy both leftists and moderates in the Democrat coalition.  They managed to compromise and keep that coalition together, and had no need to partner with Republicans.   The AHCA was conceived similarly,  but of course GOP unity turned out to be a mirage.   Maybe the solution is to go back to the old days - assemble a coalition of the center, and reject the extremism of both the left and right.     

[Idaho_Cowboy]

It's telling how you separate yourself from Conservatives.

I'm afraid the attempts of myself and others on this forum have pushed him well into Das Kapital thinking. @Jazzhead no longer believes in freedom; but I think he'll come around some day.

[Sanguine]

I'm afraid the attempts of myself and others on this forum have pushed him well into Das Kapital thinking. @Jazzhead no longer believes in freedom; but I think he'll come around some day.

I think he's just playing us.  I think he likes being the devil's advocate, and likes to tweak all of us and get everyone worked up. 

Who knows what he believes; he evidences some confusion on that issue himself.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I think he's just playing us.  I think he likes being the devil's advocate, and likes to tweak all of us and get everyone worked up. 

Who knows what he believes; he evidences some confusion on that issue himself.

Yeah. He sure keeps things interesting. 
I just find it amazing, in general, how people really think the government can allocate scarce resource better than the market. Maybe someone can figure how to make a TV show about Adam Smith. 

[Bigun]

I think he's just playing us.  I think he likes being the devil's advocate, and likes to tweak all of us and get everyone worked up. 

Who knows what he believes; he evidences some confusion on that issue himself.

He's a TROLL! Always has been!

[INVAR]

Who knows what he believes; he evidences some confusion on that issue himself.

No he doesn't.  He reveals what he believes in every expansive convoluted post he makes that defends Statism and the imposition of tyranny which can be demonstrably linked to JH channeling Marx and Engels, sometimes verbatim.

Out of the abundance of the heart, his mouth (or fingers) speak.

That abundance is one of a Communist and his passion for it is self-evident.

[txradioguy]

@Jazzhead

We'd be victims if Trump and Ryan had succeeded in inflicting that lousy bill on all of us.  As it is, we escaped victimhood, thanks to the Freedom Caucus.

Bingo!