Begun, The War On Conservatives Has (Shapiro)

[Sanguine]

Here's my rhetorical question: if the bill did all that's been described here, why were less than 20% in favor of it?

Rhetorical question #2? Why weren't Ryan and the rest of his caucus working on "repeal and replace" starting on 11/9/16, and have the bill ready for President Trump's signature the day after the Inauguration?

Great questions.

[XenaLee]

Here's my rhetorical question: if the bill did all that's been described here, why were less than 20% in favor of it?

Rhetorical question #2? Why weren't Ryan and the rest of his caucus working on "repeal and replace" starting on 11/9/16, and have the bill ready for President Trump's signature the day after the Inauguration?

I have another question.  If the bill was so great, why did it require 'tax credits'....which is yet another form of subsidies?  Why would anyone really "need" tax credits to help pay for their health insurance under the new bill.  Wasn't it supposed to lower costs across the board.... for everyone (not just for a special, favored few)?  (rhetorical, as you said)

[Idaho_Cowboy]

 
I've got a question. If this turkey was so great why would it leave more people uninsured than a straight up repeal?

[Bigun]

I have a question!  Where in the US Constitution does it say that the federal government can be a player in the health insurance market?

I can't seem to find that!

[Jazzhead]

I have another question.  If the bill was so great, why did it require 'tax credits'....which is yet another form of subsidies?  Why would anyone really "need" tax credits to help pay for their health insurance under the new bill.  Wasn't it supposed to lower costs across the board.... for everyone (not just for a special, favored few)?  (rhetorical, as you said)

Refundable tax credits can indeed be viewed as a form of subsidy.  Health insurance by its nature is expensive;  there's nothing that can change that reality if you want coverage for that knee replacement, or heart transplant, or chemotherapy, or designer drug.   What we expect from health care has changed dramatically in the last few decades, as well as the things that good health care can do.   

Like many,  I favor subsidies to help the working poor acquire catastrophic coverage at a minimum,  and health savings accounts can also go a long way to make us careful consumers of medical care.   I don't have dental insurance, so I always ask questions about the need for, and efficacy of,  tests and other procedures my dentist recommends.   I tend to be less careful when accessing medical care,  because all I'm usually responsible for is a co-payment.

But the working poor can't afford meaningful contributions to an HSA, either.   It's no wonder that developed countries take so many different approaches to health care financing.   Don't dismiss single payer - if constructed properly,  it can be a boon to many, including employers who can concentrate on building widgets rather than running health care plans. 

Generally speaking, the AHCA's refundable tax credits would have been better for folks earning between approximately $40,000 and $70,000, and the ACA subsidies are better for folks earning less than $40,000.  There would have been winners and losers had the AHCA passed,  and I strongly suspect that the Senate, had it had a chance to reconcile the AHCA, would have skewed the credits more toward the poor and the old,  and probably would have substantially reduced tax credits for the young.   Younger workers would have benefitted from the abolition of the ACA's 3 to 1 rule,  which forced the young to pay higher premiums to subsidize the old.       

[INVAR]

Don't dismiss single payer - if constructed properly,  it can be a boon to many, including employers who can concentrate on building widgets rather than running health care plans. 

There it is, from his own twisted Communist logic.  He's telling us all that we should not dismiss Communism, because if constructed properly, Communism and tyranny can be a boon to many - including companies approved by bureaucrats who get a cut of the profits.  Companies who will benefit from imposing the will of the State, rather than building products or services for the free market.

So why were you slamming the FC yesterday for making 'Single Payer' an inevitability if you have been for it all along?

Rhetorical question - don't bother answering - because we already know the answer.

[Cripplecreek]

There it is, from his own twisted Communist logic.  He's telling us all that we should not dismiss Communism, because if constructed properly, Communism and tyranny can be a boon to many - including companies approved by bureaucrats who get a cut of the profits.  Companies who will benefit from imposing the will of the State, rather than building products or services for the free market.

So why were you slamming the FC yesterday for making 'Single Payer' an inevitability if you have been for it all along?

Rhetorical question - don't bother answering - because we already know the answer.

It always comes down to communism is great but just hasn't been done right. 

[Jazzhead]

The old and the poor already have single payer, let's not forget.    Even INVAR will, with luck, end his days on single payer.   

[skeeter]

There it is, from his own twisted Communist logic.  He's telling us all that we should not dismiss Communism, because if constructed properly, Communism and tyranny can be a boon to many - including companies approved by bureaucrats who get a cut of the profits.  Companies who will benefit from imposing the will of the State, rather than building products or services for the free market.

So why were you slamming the FC yesterday for making 'Single Payer' an inevitability if you have been for it all along?

Rhetorical question - don't bother answering - because we already know the answer.

Socialized medicine is a boon to many - government bureaucrats and politicians. But its the bane of a free people.

[corbe]

Refundable tax credits can indeed be viewed as a form of subsidy.  Health insurance by its nature is expensive;  there's nothing that can change that reality if you want coverage for that knee replacement, or heart transplant, or chemotherapy, or designer drug.   What we expect from health care has changed dramatically in the last few decades, as well as the things that good health care can do.   

Like many,  I favor subsidies to help the working poor acquire catastrophic coverage at a minimum,  and health savings accounts can also go a long way to make us careful consumers of medical care.   I don't have dental insurance, so I always ask questions about the need for, and efficacy of,  tests and other procedures my dentist recommends.   I tend to be less careful when accessing medical care,  because all I'm usually responsible for is a co-payment.

  I Should have stopped reading right there, @Jazzhead knowing that your insane Socialist crap, would just go on and on. 
  Get the damn govt out of Health Care and let the free market decide with minimal regulation, pass tort reform and those so called people that you claim HAVE to have/need subsidies - put them on Medicaid, that's where most of them are anyway and their getting the same or better than what our Vets are getting.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

The old and the poor already have single payer, let's not forget.    Even INVAR will, with luck, end his days on single payer.

Now that you've made your usual case for healthcare on the principles of Marx; From each according to his ability to each according to his needs, maybe you can tell us why you say you are against single payer?

[INVAR]

The old and the poor already have single payer, let's not forget.    Even INVAR will, with luck, end his days on single payer.

I pay my own way.  I'm not a serf like you.

[Smokin Joe]

Political capital is limited, and the Dems' resistance means that only legislation that unites the GOP caucus can pass.  I see no reason to take up the ACA anytime soon, given the unwillingness of the rump factions to support party leadership.   

They don't work for Party leadership, they work for the people who voted them in.

If all those folks who were reelected at least in part because they had supported repeal of the ACA fail to do that now that it could be signed, they might not be working for the people who approved of their earlier votes but aren't happy with their lack of consistency.

We've all studied about places where the Party calls the shots and the people don't get heard.

[Smokin Joe]

Don't dismiss single payer - if constructed properly,  it can be a boon to many, including employers who can concentrate on building widgets rather than running health care plans. 

That works so well in Canada. Unless you want to die, if you have something serious, you come to the States or go elsewhere and get it taken care of.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Here's my rhetorical question: if the bill did all that's been described here, why were less than 20% in favor of it?

Fair question.  The best answer is that any bill that got rid of even part of Obamacare was going to have a lot of detractors, and to offset that in terms of advocacy, you needed strong supporters.  The problem was that the people most likely to support things like eliminating the mandates and phasing out the Medicaid entitlement (Freedom Caucus) opposed it for other reasons.  Given how much the media hates Trump in general, you basically had completely one-sided coverage, and that shaped public opinion.

It reminds me a bit of how a bill to ban public employee unions got crushed in Ohio.  The problem was that the natural advocates of anti-union bills are the private sector, but because they weren't directly affected by the bill, they didn't support it.  So the bill had a bunch of detractors (unions and the left) but no real advocates.  Doesn't mean it was a bad bill.  It just means that not enough people were willing to stick their neck out to support it.

Rhetorical question #2? Why weren't Ryan and the rest of his caucus working on "repeal and replace" starting on 11/9/16, and have the bill ready for President Trump's signature the day after the Inauguration?

Well, the primary answer is that they were.  The problem is that all through 2014-2016, the GOP Caucus couldn't agree on a replacement bill.  There were a ton of stories about that, and it kind of foreshadowed this whole mess.  You had hardline conservative who wanted to get rid of the whole thing, and moderates who wanted to preserve some aspects of it.  I even posted the stories earlier.  That's why nobody should have been shocked that a straight repeal wouldn't sail on through -- it was clear for more than a year that there wasn't support for that.

The secondary answer is that the newly elected members didn't have offices, and weren't all in in D.C. and ready to get to work until the new Congress took over in January.  But there was some planning -- they just ran into the same lack of agreement that had existed for the last couple of years.

[Hoodat]

BEN SHAPIRO FOR HOUSE SPEAKER

[Hoodat]

Don't dismiss single payer - if constructed properly,  it can be a boon to many, including employers who can concentrate on building widgets rather than running health care plans.

Throughout man's entire history of dealing with scarcity, can you come up with a single example where a government-run monopoly provided better service at lower cost than did a free market?  Just one.

[Smokin Joe]

You had hardline conservative who wanted to get rid of the whole thing, and moderates who wanted to preserve some aspects of it.  I even posted the stories earlier.  That's why nobody should have been shocked that a straight repeal wouldn't sail on through -- it was clear for more than a year that there wasn't support for that.

The secondary answer is that the newly elected members didn't have offices, and weren't all in in D.C. and ready to get to work until the new Congress took over in January.  But there was some planning -- they just ran into the same lack of agreement that had existed for the last couple of years.

But you have hit upon the missed opportunity.

Go with the "hardline"  conservatives and dump it, lock, stock, and barrel.

Introduce legislation to plug the holes, fill the gaps, and own the 'good' stuff, one issue at a time.

 Enough Democrats would have been placed in the position of supporting things to benefit their constituents or opposing those standalone bills that it would have hurt the Democrats, and the Republicans would have come out smelling like roses.

If the Party leadership can't get around a six dimensional chessboard well enough to think of that, they should get a real job serving the public: "You want fries with that?".

[bigheadfred]

Scrap the fedgov. It is the only way.

Do any of you erudites know anything about single payer municipal insurance?

[INVAR]

The best answer is that any bill that got rid of even part of Obamacare was going to have a lot of detractors, and to offset that in terms of advocacy, you needed strong supporters.  The problem was that the people most likely to support things like eliminating the mandates and phasing out the Medicaid entitlement (Freedom Caucus) opposed it for other reasons.  Given how much the media hates Trump in general, you basically had completely one-sided coverage, and that shaped public opinion.

I marvel at these arguments and analysis of the politics of accommodating tyranny.  I really do.  Arguing over whether or not abolishing tyranny is 'realistic' or 'viable'.

How quickly this people are become accustomed to the evils of being forced to purchase what the Government demands we purchase in health insurance just to breathe the air in country or suffer tax penalty (Shared Responsibility Payment).  It should be an affront to the blood shed to free us from the Crown's mandating similar things: "Buy and Drink our tea or suffer the penalty!'.

I can imagine if (or when) the SCOTUS rules that midnight-passed legislation to ban the possession or ownership of firearms or ammunition by non-military or law enforcement persons is "Constitutional", I expect that 7 years later we would be hearing the same justification about why abolishing said legislation that "regulated" one of our enumerated Rights, is 'unrealistic' and it would be demanded that we should be agreeable that the ban on civilian possession of firearms is here to stay, with some hopes we will be permitted to keep our knives and slingshots from confiscation.

After all, 10% is better than none at all.... right?

All of this is simply an exercise that proves the point that you cannot stop tyranny via legislation or civil means.

As John Adams wrote, Liberty lost, is lost forever - we can never regain it.  Not by civil means.

[Jazzhead]

Do you realize how nutty you sound?  "Not by civil means", huh?   

Really, a chill pill is advised.

[INVAR]

Do you realize how nutty you sound?  "Not by civil means", huh?   

Really, a chill pill is advised.

So you are as historically ignorant as much as you sound like a Soviet Communist.

John Adams was 'nutty' too in your estimation wasn't he?

[corbe]

[Smokin Joe]

Do you realize how nutty you sound?  "Not by civil means", huh?   

Really, a chill pill is advised.

Feel free to examine history and tell me what society has ever recovered lost liberty through civil means. Pointing fingers and saying people sound "nutty" is no reasoned rebuttal to historical fact.

[Bigun]

"Communism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen."

Leon Trotsky