Texas Republican Ted Poe Quits Freedom Caucus Over Their #NeverTrump Intransigence…

[IsailedawayfromFR]

No, it's the truth

you can call it any way you want, but it is most definitely a lie.  Telling it again and again does not change the fact that many more Dems were against it.

Your spin just doesn't work any more here, so go ahead and begin your plan to change screen name so as to infiltrate another way.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

But nobody expects Democrats to vote for bills that end individual and business taxes, convert an entitlement program to a block grant, and reduce federal spending on health care by hundreds of billions of dollars.  People do expect conservatives to support such things.

Maybe the FC is simply playing a bit of poker here, and trying a bluff to ensure they get the most conservative bill possible before voting for it.  So maybe they come back to the table, work out something with the moderates, and a bill gets pushed through.  But if they're really going to hold out for "full repeal or nothing", then it's going to be nothing, and the cause of conservatism will be set back.

this could have been said more concisely by simply saying all Dems lie anyway.

[Sanguine]

that is an outright lie.

Many more Democrats blocked the bill than the Freedom Caucus.

I don't know if it is a deliberate lie or not, but it is definitely a break with reality.

Not only did many more democrats block the bill, more republicans than conservatives also blocked the bill.  Jazz is way off on this one.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And,  yes, guaranteed issue insurance is at the heart of the ACA.  And yes,  I support retaining that requirement, coupled with an insurer's ability to punish free riders.   That's because the alternative is single payer.     

I think there are ways to address the free-rider problem without guaranteed issue, but they're not one-liners.  You do something akin to what's been called "guaranteed renewal", where people who lost coverage because of involuntary unemployment, for example, do get guaranteed issue.  But it is denied for anyone whose employment status has not changed within the last 30 days, or whatever.  The goal would be to prevent people from signing up only after they've gotten sick, and there are ways to write that so as to prevent the gaming of the system.

[Hoodat]

Allowing kids on their parents' policies until age 26 is wildly popular.

If that were true, then there would be no need to implement it at the point of a gun.

[Smokin Joe]

Rush is talking about this right now.  Positing that some say Trump didn't know (or care) what was in the bill.  Since Trump is on record as being pro-single-payer, I'd have to say that he knew what was in it and is playing that multi-dimensional chess he's so famous for playing (according to Trumpists here).  Single-payer is the ultimate goal here, no matter what crap legislation gets "passed".

Yep. After years of the Kabuki theater in DC tilting at the windmill of total repeal, now they throw in the towel after that half-hearted mess?
With a few exceptions, the House GOP, and POTUS are on the same page.

[Smokin Joe]

And,  yes, guaranteed issue insurance is at the heart of the ACA.  And yes,  I support retaining that requirement, coupled with an insurer's ability to punish free riders.   That's because the alternative is single payer.     

I'm not asking for a free ride. I have always made sure my bills will be paid, even in the event of my demise. 
What I want is to not be penalized for paying my bill, my own damned way. How is that a "free ride"?

[Smokin Joe]

I think there are ways to address the free-rider problem without guaranteed issue, but they're not one-liners.  You do something akin to what's been called "guaranteed renewal", where people who lost coverage because of involuntary unemployment, for example, do get guaranteed issue.  But it is denied for anyone whose employment status has not changed within the last 30 days, or whatever.  The goal would be to prevent people from signing up only after they've gotten sick, and there are ways to write that so as to prevent the gaming of the system.

So people who were involuntarily separated from their income stream 6 months, a year ago who lost insurance don't get in? What if their carrier just stopped writing health policies?  The ACA wrecked a lot of jobs out there, too, and closed some businesses. That damage didn't happen in the last 30 days.

[XenaLee]

Not surprising Poe left...he's scores a 77 on the Conservative Review Conservative Scorecard.

And that's a disappointment.  Since... I voted for him, thinking he was an honorable man.  Had jury duty once with him as the judge.  He was very impressive 'back then'.  Things change.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So people who were involuntarily separated from their income stream 6 months, a year ago who lost insurance don't get in? What if their carrier just stopped writing health policies?  The ACA wrecked a lot of jobs out there, too, and closed some businesses. That damage didn't happen in the last 30 days.

No.  The point is what you are trying to stop are people who are working, have good jobs, but decide not to buy health insurance.  Then when they get sick, they suddenly sign up with their preexisting condition and demand coverage.  That's the way to game guaranteed issue, and why people claim a mandate is required.

I'm saying just target that gaming directly rather than using guaranteed issue.  So if you have a job, are eligible for insurance, but choose not to buy it, then you are not entitled to sign up with pre-existing conditions.

On the other hand, if the reason you don't have insurance is not because of choice, but because you lost your job, or your carrier went under, or you are new to the workforce, then you get to sign up even with pre-existing conditions, because you're not trying to game the system.

It still leaves people with the option of foregoing coverage and choosing to run the risk.  But if that's the case, and they get ill, then they don't get coverage, and it all must be out of pocket.

[txradioguy]

If that were true, then there would be no need to implement it at the point of a gun.

IMHO at 26 if you're still considering yourself a kid and depending on your parents then something in how you were raised went terribly wrong.

[Silver Pines]

If I were new to this planet .. I'd walk away from this thread convinced conservatives were crazy, mean-spirited losers.  There isn't one post of substance rooted in thought.

You must be so proud.   

@Right_in_Virginia

What's your excuse?

[Gov Bean Counter]

@Right_in_Virginia

What's your excuse?

Still wants to have Trump's next baby???

[Smokin Joe]

No.  The point is what you are trying to stop are people who are working, have good jobs, but decide not to buy health insurance.  Then when they get sick, they suddenly sign up with their preexisting condition and demand coverage.  That's the way to game guaranteed issue, and why people claim a mandate is required.

We got 1.3 million known AIDS/HIV patients with Obamacare who likely had no health insurance. (Providers have been running blood tests for years, now, you think they didn't check?) Average cost has been estimated between $600,000 and $750,000 in ongoing medical care for these folks over the next 25 years, and there will be more.

I'm saying just target that gaming directly rather than using guaranteed issue.  So if you have a job, are eligible for insurance, but choose not to buy it, then you are not entitled to sign up with pre-existing conditions.

We have already been gamed. The only people who can make a solid economic case for buying horrible plans (with subsidies) have or anticipate serious medical problems and did have. Like I laid out for someone the other day, the cost of the basic cheapest, highest deductible, health plan for the family of 4 which includes two dependent grandchildren will exceed our social security payments long before they are 26. For much of America also raising grandchildren, the choice becomes one of eating and having heat or buying insurance. With the chances of starving or freezing approaching 100%, you gamble that you won't need the insurance.

On the other hand, if the reason you don't have insurance is not because of choice, but because you lost your job, or your carrier went under, or you are new to the workforce, then you get to sign up even with pre-existing conditions, because you're not trying to game the system.

It still leaves people with the option of foregoing coverage and choosing to run the risk.  But if that's the case, and they get ill, then they don't get coverage, and it all must be out of pocket.

With the exception of anything really major, it is now. The $14K deductible on the cheapest plan offered in my state is almost double our actual annual average health CARE costs. the cost of the insurance is $28K. That's $42K of spanking before insurance kicks in?
Not counting co-pays? No thanks, I'll take my chances.

[rodamala]

WhiteMaleArmyPrivate