Freedom Caucus balks at Republican leadership's Obamacare replacement

[LonestarDream]

I deleted the post,  LD.  Sorry about that - I'm in a dark mood this morning.  Even substantive posts are met with harassment - and the mods' censure goes only one way.   

That is big of you .  Really.   

[don-o]

I agree with on the subject matter but it is not necessary to insult members over this issue.

Perhaps your thinking is eschew, since you are agreeing with me.   

@DiogenesLamp
@don-o

It's a new day. Can we all try to get along? I will try.

@LonestarDream
@DiogenesLamp

[Norm Lenhart]

I deleted the post,  LD.  Sorry about that - I'm in a dark mood this morning.  Even substantive posts are met with harassment - and the mods' censure goes only one way.   

If you state liberal positions, don't cry victim and one sided moderation when you get called on them. Simple math.

[txradioguy]

I deleted the post,  LD.  Sorry about that - I'm in a dark mood this morning.  Even substantive posts are met with harassment - and the mods' censure goes only one way.   

Your constant bashing of Christians and references to "brain dead" Conservatism don't help your cause much...just sayin.

So you want substance?   Here ya go.

There is nothing in the Constitution that supports your argument for the Individual Mandate....in fact  IIRC the Constitution goes to great lengths to prevent such things from happening. If I'm in my 20's...hell in my 30's...why should the Federal Government be able to force me to spend money that I may or may not have at the time to buy something I don't want or need?

[Silver Pines]

There's absolutely nothing conservative or Constitutional about the government requiring us to buy insurance.

There's absolutely nothing conservative or Constitutional about driving up healthcare costs to unaffordable levels for most in order to pay the costs of some others.

That's factual, and undeniable.  Claiming otherwise won't alter it, just like stating the Pope is a springer spaniel won't make the pontiff chase balls across the yard.

[skeeter]

Regarding the substance of this thread - my understanding is much of the ACA that Freedom Caucus claims is being kept in the new house bill - such as the Cadillac Tax - is being retained because it would be nearly impossible to remove it in under house reconciliation rules with 51 votes. The implication being that those items will be removed via a different process.

[txradioguy]

Regarding the substance of this thread - my understanding is much of the ACA that Freedom Caucus claims is being kept in the new house bill - such as the Cadillac Tax - is being retained because it would be nearly impossible to remove it in under house reconciliation rules with 51 votes. The implication being that those items will be removed via a different process.

IMHO this is one of those times where using Dem tactics would be appropriate and almost poetic.

Pass a spending bill in the House...send it to the Senate...have them strip out the language of the original bill...insert language to completely end the ACA and return to pre- 2010 health care laws...deem it passed by the House and vote to approve...send to Trump's desk for signature.

Call it the "Reid Exception" or something like that.

[Jazzhead]

There's absolutely nothing conservative or Constitutional about the government requiring us to buy insurance.

There's absolutely nothing conservative or Constitutional about driving up healthcare costs to unaffordable levels for most in order to pay the costs of some others.

That's factual, and undeniable.  Claiming otherwise won't alter it, just like stating the Pope is a springer spaniel won't make the pontiff chase balls across the yard.

The ACA has never "forced" folks to buy insurance.  Millions have freely chosen to forego insurance and pay the tax,  in part because - just as you say - the design of the policies to be sold on the ACA exchanges are expensive and unattractive.   Do not mistake me as a champion of the ACA.   I understand its flaws and that it needs to be fixed.   The House plan indeed gets rid of the hated "mandate" - but will it be enough for the social conservatives that back the Freedom Caucus? 

I doubt it - because the TEA party and social conservatives want the ACA repealed and NOT replaced.   The plight of the working poor is simply not something that concerns them.   

The point of my post on this thread is that the GOP needs to be prepared to pass this legislation without the help of the Freedom Caucus.   

[Norm Lenhart]

The ACA has never "forced" folks to buy insurance.  Millions have freely chosen to forego insurance and pay the tax,  in part because - just as you say - the design of the policies to be sold on the ACA exchanges are expensive and unattractive.   Do not mistake me as a champion of the ACA.   I understand its flaws and that it needs to be fixed.   The House plan indeed gets rid of the hated "mandate" - but will it be enough for the social conservatives that back the Freedom Caucus? 

I doubt it - because the TEA party and social conservatives want the ACA repealed and NOT replaced.   The plight of the working poor is simply not something that concerns them.   

The point of my post on this thread is that the GOP needs to be prepared to pass this legislation without the help of the Freedom Caucus.   

"The ACA has never "forced" folks to buy insurance.  Millions have freely chosen to forego insurance and pay the tax, "

Truly disgusting.

Do you also believe millions of women have willingly forgone a severe beating an instead freely chose to be raped? Because both are being FORCED into doing something under threat of something else happening if they do not 'freely' choose the 'correct' path.

[skeeter]

IMHO this is one of those times where using Dem tactics would be appropriate and almost poetic.

Pass a spending bill in the House...send it to the Senate...have them strip out the language of the original bill...insert language to completely end the ACA and return to pre- 2010 health care laws...deem it passed by the House and vote to approve...send to Trump's desk for signature.

Call it the "Reid Exception" or something like that.

I can imagine the howls.

[Norm Lenhart]

I can imagine the howls.

From a lot of us laughing hysterically? ;)

[skeeter]

"The ACA has never "forced" folks to buy insurance.  Millions have freely chosen to forego insurance and pay the tax, "

Truly disgusting.

Do you also believe millions of women have willingly forgone a severe beating an instead freely chose to be raped? Because both are being FORCED into doing something under threat of something else happening if they do not 'freely' choose the 'correct' path.

Agree. Debate team semantic games at the HS level.

[Norm Lenhart]

Agree. Debate team semantic games at the HS level.

Not even that really. Just the very argument the left made justifying why coercion was not really coercion in the leadup to Obamacare.

[Jazzhead]

"The ACA has never "forced" folks to buy insurance.  Millions have freely chosen to forego insurance and pay the tax, "

Truly disgusting.

Do you also believe millions of women have willingly forgone a severe beating an instead freely chose to be raped? Because both are being FORCED into doing something under threat of something else happening if they do not 'freely' choose the 'correct' path.

Well, there's always single payer - where you'll be "forced" to pay higher taxes to support the working poor.   Fools like you should be careful what you wish for.   As much as "Christians" like you lack empathy for the working poor, the larger community will not allow folks to die as you'd prefer. 

[Norm Lenhart]

Well, there's always single payer - where you'll be "forced" to pay higher taxes to support the working poor.   Fools like you should be careful what you wish for.   As much as "Christians" like you lack empathy for the working poor, the larger community will not allow folks to die as you'd prefer.

Cupcake, "I'm" one of the people that losing Barrycare's mandate would hurt. Today...not in some invented future. And you know what? I don't think even a liberal should be forced to pay for my healthcare anyway. I PREFER scraping up enough cash for my doctors/Meds than forcing it on someone.

So ball's back in your court.

[Jazzhead]

Not even that really. Just the very argument the left made justifying why coercion was not really coercion in the leadup to Obamacare.

Taxes as an agent of social policy are old news.  Conservatives use the tax code for their ends just as liberals do.  The ACA tax wasn't coercive - read Roberts' opinion.  It was a tax advancing a desired social policy just like any other.

I say let's do the selfish Christian thing - allow hospitals to refuse treatment to free riders.   Allow prayer to provide.       

[Norm Lenhart]

Taxes as an agent of social policy are old news.  Conservatives use the tax code for their ends just as liberals do.  The ACA tax wasn't coercive - read Roberts' opinion.  It was a tax advancing a desired social policy just like any other.

I say let's do the selfish Christian thing - allow hospitals to refuse treatment to free riders.   Allow prayer to provide.     

I say lets put all liberals in cages and save the country from destruction.

[Silver Pines]

The ACA has never "forced" folks to buy insurance.  Millions have freely chosen to forego insurance and pay the tax     

@Jazzhead

LOL

[skeeter]

I say let's do the selfish Christian thing - allow hospitals to refuse treatment to free riders.   Allow prayer to provide.     

This gets tiresome. Why not just admit you personally benefit from ACA and cut the holier than thou act?

[Jazzhead]

This gets tiresome. Why not just admit you personally benefit from ACA and cut the holier than thou act?

I'm one of the lucky ones who gets health benefits from my employer.  Sorry, skeet, I don't benefit personally from the ACA.   It's the lack of compassion for the plight of the working poor that's tiresome - and, IMO, both disgusting and antithetical to real conservatism (as opposed to the selfish social conservative variety).     

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You can make the claim that the ACA never forced anyone to pay the tax, in a manner of speaking. Someone made the point that if the ACA was such a great deal they wouldn't have to "tax" people into buying it. Very good point.


The HoR HC bill has a decent way to solve the pre-existing conditions problem: you cannot keep the pre-existing conditions part of Obamacare without a mandate of some sort, or a penalty of some sort when you buy. I prefer making "free riders" pay more, way more in premiums, when they sign up for health care after getting a pre-existing conditions. It's only fair.

[Norm Lenhart]

and, IMO, both disgusting and antithetical to real conservatism (as opposed to the selfish social conservative variety).   

But your opinion is one of a liberal. Your position is textbook liberal. You have no concept of conservatism.You have at times used Reagan as reinforcement but it was Reagan that talked about the three legged stool, one of which was irrevocably 'Social conservatism". You call mandates conservative yet they are wholly the liberal arguement for the funding mechanism of Obamacare.

You simply lie.

[Jazzhead]

I prefer making "free riders" pay more, way more in premiums, when they sign up for health care after getting a pre-existing conditions. It's only fair.

30 percent more, under the House bill.  It's a start.  But hospitals must still provide for the uninsured, and pass the cost on to the rest of us.   I say let the churches pay - maybe it'll bankrupt a few of 'em.   

[Norm Lenhart]

30 percent more, under the House bill.  It's a start.  But hospitals must still provide for the uninsured, and pass the cost on to the rest of us.   I say let the churches pay - maybe it'll bankrupt a few of 'em.

Would that be the Christianity you profess?

[Silver Pines]

Would that be the Christianity you profess?