Rep. Mo Brooks files bill to repeal Obamacare

[Just_Victor]

Source: AL.com
http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2017/03/rep_mo_brooks_files_bill_to_re.html

By  Paul Gattis | March 27, 2017 at 3:24 PM

In a simple two-page document, an Alabama congressman has filed a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to repeal Obamacare.

Or, as it is stated in the bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Huntsville, introduced the bill Friday.

"This Act may be cited as the 'Obamacare Repeal Act,'" the bill states.

And the bill uses just one sentence to do it.

"Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted," the bill states.

And that's it - one sentence.

more...

I've been waiting for someone to take this approach.  Repeal on a future date, with enough time to implement any subsequent provisions, but with the certainly that 0bamacare is dead.

[libertybele]

Source: AL.com
http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2017/03/rep_mo_brooks_files_bill_to_re.html

By  Paul Gattis | March 27, 2017 at 3:24 PM

I've been waiting for someone to take this approach.  Repeal on a future date, with enough time to implement any subsequent provisions, but with the certainly that 0bamacare is dead.

Not much information yet on this other than it has been initiated; H.R. 1718. This resolution was introduced on March 24 and as of yet has no co-sponsors.  Perhaps we need to start making some phone calls asking our reps to co-sponsor this bill.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1718

[Oceander]

Source: AL.com
http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2017/03/rep_mo_brooks_files_bill_to_re.html

By  Paul Gattis | March 27, 2017 at 3:24 PM

I've been waiting for someone to take this approach.  Repeal on a future date, with enough time to implement any subsequent provisions, but with the certainly that 0bamacare is dead.

And watch that future date keep getting pushed back, a year at a time, in perpetuity, because somehow, things will never be quite ready for actual repeal.

[Jazzhead]

A straight repeal was always an option only for a party not tasked with governing.   Sorry, GOP,  you caught the car - you now own the consequences of repeal without relief for all the damage.   And because of that reality,  this bill is DOA. 

[NavyCanDo]

This is how it should have happened in the first place, giving the Republicans nearly a year to agree to a sensible more agreeable replacement plan and pass it. Why did we rush into something so important?

[libertybele]

This is how it should have happened in the first place, giving the Republicans nearly a year to agree to a sensible more agreeable replacement plan and pass it. Why did we rush into something so important?

I could be mistaken, but I believe the rush into this was Pres. Trump's doing.  I do not fault him for getting the ball rolling, but I do fault him for touting Ryan's plan as grand and glorious and then trying to push it through with threats.  IMHO, the damage has been done and now time is of the essence before the 2018 elections.  If a bill to repeal isn't passed, I fear we are going to see a large number of seats lost in the House and we may even lose the majority.  Oh, don't get me wrong I would love to see RINO's lose their seats, but ONLY if we have conservatives to take their place...that would surely be icing on the cake.

[Jazzhead]

This is how it should have happened in the first place, giving the Republicans nearly a year to agree to a sensible more agreeable replacement plan and pass it. Why did we rush into something so important?

The AHCA wasn't a rush job, but it did represent a fragile compromise.   The reason it was attempted first was to reduce the budgeting baseline by billions in order to provide the room for fundamental tax reform.   Its demise therefore puts in jeopardy yet another key conservative goal.   

[Jazzhead]

I.  If a bill to repeal isn't passed, I fear we are going to see a large number of seats lost in the House and we may even lose the majority.  Oh, don't get me wrong I would love to see RINO's lose their seats, but ONLY if we have conservatives to take their place...that would surely be icing on the cake.

Dreaming is free,  but reality is that the GOP's majority is in peril.   Some RINOs (and conservatives) will lose their seats, and all to the same culprit -  Liberal Dems.  Dems are counting on disunity on the GOP caucus, and it seems they've bet right.   Conservatives have always been the weakest link because the don't want to join the coalitions necessary for effective governance.   

[libertybele]

Dreaming is free,  but reality is that the GOP's majority is in peril.   Some RINOs (and conservatives) will lose their seats, and all to the same culprit -  Liberal Dems.  Dems are counting on disunity on the GOP caucus, and it seems they've bet right.   Conservatives have always been the weakest link because the don't want to join the coalitions necessary for effective governance.   

[Idaho_Cowboy]

A straight repeal was always an option only for a party not tasked with governing.   Sorry, GOP,  you caught the car - you now own the consequences of repeal without relief for all the damage.   And because of that reality,  this bill is DOA.

I give it better chances then the last brainchild the experts tried to force feed us. 

[Jazzhead]

I favor all those things, LB, but politics is the art of the possible.  You can't simply repeal the ACA and throw millions off their health insurance and Medicaid.   The political blowback will be like a tsunami.   

Conservatives need to get serious  - and quickly - about the realities of governing.   

[GrouchoTex]

The AHCA wasn't a rush job, but it did represent a fragile compromise.   The reason it was attempted first was to reduce the budgeting baseline by billions in order to provide the room for fundamental tax reform.   Its demise therefore puts in jeopardy yet another key conservative goal.   

I ain't buying that line, no matter how many times it is said.

There is a majority of Republican House members, and Tax Reform and Repealing Obamacare can be worked on simultaneously.
Different committees can work out the details, that's why they have them.
Everyone acts like they can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

Well, that last line may be, true..........

[Maj. Bill Martin]

At this point, this bill is a good idea simply because there is so much disagreement over whether or not it can pass.  As long as conservatives believe such a bill can pass, they won't vote for anything less.  Why should they?

Now, if this bill cannot get significant cosponsors, or loses such a vote, then maybe we can reset.

Although maybe the most likely scenario is that it passes, then dies in the Senate, and all that time gets wasted because the House will be waiting for Senate passage.

[Sanguine]

I like this.  I'm calling my representative.

[libertybele]

I favor all those things, LB, but politics is the art of the possible.  You can't simply repeal the ACA and throw millions off their health insurance and Medicaid.   The political blowback will be like a tsunami.   

Conservatives need to get serious  - and quickly - about the realities of governing.

Oh for Pete sakes ... stop with the scare tactics and leftist talking points ... repealing isn't going to throw million off their health insurance and Medicaid ... that's just like saying one insurance company buys out another one and every loses their insurance. They don't, they just aren't insured under the old plan.  Those that have Bammycare would transition to the replacement plan(s).  Obviously there would be a transition phase just like for any other insurance ....  switching house insurance ... you basically have the same or like coverage with a different company and when your old policy runs out your new policy kicks in.

[Bigun]

And watch that future date keep getting pushed back, a year at a time, in perpetuity, because somehow, things will never be quite ready for actual repeal.

It will never see the light of day with the current "leadership" in place!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Oh for Pete sakes ... stop with the scare tactics and leftist talking points ... repealing isn't going to throw million off their health insurance and Medicaid ... that's just like saying one insurance company buys out another one and every loses their insurance. They don't, they just aren't insured under the old plan.  Those that have Bammycare would transition to the replacement plan(s).  Obviously there would be a transition phase just like for any other insurance ....  switching house insurance ... you basically have the same or like coverage with a different company and when your old policy runs out your new policy kicks in.

Honest question here.  Are you saying you'd support re-enacting a new plan that includes equivalent government-funded support for the Medicaid expansion contained in ObamaCare?

[Jazzhead]

Oh for Pete sakes ... stop with the scare tactics and leftist talking points ... repealing isn't going to throw million off their health insurance and Medicaid ... that's just like saying one insurance company buys out another one and every loses their insurance. They don't, they just aren't insured under the old plan.  Those that have Bammycare would transition to the replacement plan(s).  Obviously there would be a transition phase just like for any other insurance ....  switching house insurance ... you basically have the same or like coverage with a different company and when your old policy runs out your new policy kicks in.

It is foolish to dismiss simple pragmatism as "leftist talking points".   Repeal the ACA without a replacement and there will be political hell to pay.   

[Sanguine]

It is foolish to dismiss simple pragmatism as "leftist talking points".   Repeal the ACA without a replacement and there will be political hell to pay.

It is also foolish to conflate pessimism with pragmatism.

[libertybele]

It is foolish to dismiss simple pragmatism as "leftist talking points".   Repeal the ACA without a replacement and there will be political hell to pay.

Who said anything about NOT replacing Bammycare?  If you actually go back and read what I wrote and the examples I gave you would clearly see that I never mentioned not replacing Bammycare.  BTW, it is foolish to dismiss the obvious; just like changing any other insurance plan, a transition phase would need to be implemented.  The next obvious; you pass this law which completely repeals BammyCare within a certain time and then you implement another plan within the same time frame. 

Honest question here.  Are you saying you'd support re-enacting a new plan that includes equivalent government-funded support for the Medicaid expansion contained in ObamaCare?

No. Also as a note, quite a few states did not expand Medicaid. The harm done by BammyCare has already been felt by millions losing their doctors, losing benefits, losing insurance, higher premiums, reduced hours, etc. Those currently on BammyCare would transition over to the new plan(s) if they should so choose. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

No. Also as a note, quite a few states did not expand Medicaid.

The vast majority of the "new" people counted by ObamaCare is due to the Medicaid expansion.  So if you eliminate that, there are in fact going to be millions of people left without any health insurance.

I'm not saying I oppose that - I actually don't.  But it will be a political reality if that happens.

[Jazzhead]

It is also foolish to conflate pessimism with pragmatism.

Well, I AM pessimistic.  The Freedom Caucus aren't team players,  and the GOP coalition won't get anything accomplished in the absence of unity.   

[Just_Victor]

Well, I AM pessimistic.  The Freedom Caucus aren't team players,  and the GOP coalition won't get anything accomplished in the absence of unity.

Given the choice between "team player" or principled Conservative, I'll take the Conservative every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

I didn't vote for the implementation of a kinder gentler libralism.

[libertybele]

The vast majority of the "new" people counted by ObamaCare is due to the Medicaid expansion.  So if you eliminate that, there are in fact going to be millions of people left without any health insurance.

I'm not saying I oppose that - I actually don't.  But it will be a political reality if that happens.

I believe there are 18 maybe 19 states that didn't participate in the Medicaid expansion and it is my further understanding that some who were eligible under Medicaid before were no longer eligible under the Medicaid expansion.  Case in point; at the beginning of Bammycare I worked at a hospital and the hospital cared for a phenomenal amount of patients who qualified for Medicaid; I do know that the hospital had to seek private donations in order to keep care going as the supposedly new and improved Medicaid system actually cut benefits to those needing that hospital. Without private donations and volunteers the hospital wouldn't exist. The hospital is the only Perinatal Intensive Care Center in the region and eligible funds through Medicaid was reduced. So, again, those millions that you are talking about have already been negatively impacted by Bammycare. I'm not saying that some won't be negatively impacted on the new plan, but what I am saying is that Bammy is responsible for the disastrous plan that is out there and doing away with it and putting a new plan(s) in place isn't going to throw millions to the curb; Bammy threw them to the curb long ago.

[libertybele]

Given the choice between "team player" or principled Conservative, I'll take the Conservative every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

I didn't vote for the implementation of a kinder gentler libralism.