Here we go: Trump now ready to work with Democrats on health-care fix

[DiogenesLamp]

Not just Congress, but a people who WANT Communism/Statism and attempt to reason with us that this is a necessary political reality we must accept if we want to 'win' anytime in the future.

It fits the adage that America could survive a tyrant, but it cannot survive the millions of fools who make him their prince.

The majority WANT Communism. 

The arguments happening now are about how Conservatives must compromise and capitulate to that 'reality' or face extinction.

This post strikes me as being pertinent and rational.   Indeed,  many people love Uncle Sugar to give them free stuff.   


My position on this  topic is "F*** those people."  They are using the power of Democracy to deny me my fundamental rights.   Natural law informs me that I have no moral obligation to tolerate the tyranny of the majority.   

 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@r9etb

Whereas I think that insistence on "COMPLETE REPEAL" would probably help to ensure a Democrat majority in 2018 in at least one house. 

If we're not willing to make major changes because we may lose some control afterwards, we may as well give up the ship.  After all, the Democrats did lose the House after ObamaCare passed, but the result was that they actually got ObamaCare.  Had they been afraid of the reaction, they wouldn't have gotten it all.

If we get through a bunch of major reforms on different legislation, and lose the House as a result, I'm fine with that.  Unless we lose the House, Senate, and Presidency, we'll be able to protect what we achieved.  My concern is that the prospect of getting clobbered will mean that complete repeal will not pass in the first place, and we'll waste so much time trying to force votes on it that the clock will run out.  And then we'll lose the House without actually having accomplished a damn thing.

[r9etb]

They were lying to us the whole time, it was "drama," as you put it.  A cynical lie to get votes, never meaning to follow through.  I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not.  What's surprising are some of the arguments I've heard in favor of the crap sandwich that was just defeated.

I'm sure some of them -- maybe even a lot of them -- actually meant it to some extent.  There's a lot to like about the idea of doing something about the crap sandwich we already have.

But meaning something it isn't the same as doing it.  The doing of a major political effort is messy, especially when the vote margins are slim to begin with.

[Cyber Liberty]

‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

I like Ben Shapiro's version:  "You have to be highly educated to be that stupid."

[r9etb]

@r9etb

If we're not willing to make major changes because we may lose some control afterwards, we may as well give up the ship.  After all, the Democrats did lose the House after ObamaCare passed, but the result was that they actually got ObamaCare.  Had they been afraid of the reaction, they wouldn't have gotten it all.

If we get through a bunch of major reforms on different legislation, and lose the House as a result, I'm fine with that.  Until we lose the House, Senate, and Presidency, we'll be able to protect what we achieved.  My concern is that the prospect of getting clobbered will mean that complete repeal will not pass in the first place, and we'll waste so much time trying to force votes on it that the clock will run out.  And then we'll lose the House without actually having accomplished a damn thing.

You're saying it a lot better than I am.  I still think major changes to Obamacare are possible, but it will take some effort to sell the changes.  And I think they'll have to be done in pieces, as a matter of political necessity, and also as a show of good faith toward meeting the spirit of the campaign promise.

Of course, now that the AHCA debacle has occurred, it will be a lot harder to do that. 

[skeeter]

My position on this  topic is "F*** those people."  They are using the power of Democracy to deny me my fundamental rights.   Natural law informs me that I have no moral obligation to tolerate the tyranny of the majority.

As long as one side acquiesces, there will be peace. When the other side finally says enough, the fur will fly. Its a matter of time. That being said, I'm right there with you.

[DiogenesLamp]

What I think you're saying is that you cannot afford insurance in the current system.  I'm not sure what you do if/when you need to go to a doctor or need to fill a prescription, but without some sort of medical plan that's often prohibitive as well.

Cause paying cash for medical services rendered is just crazy talk.   

Any solution -- whatever form it may take -- ultimately has to result in medical care that doesn't bankrupt the patient.  I honestly don't know what that solution would look like, except that it probably doesn't bear much resemblance to the system that we have now.

The problem with the system *IS* Insurance and Government.    Remove both of them and it will cure itself.   


Look at Eye surgery and Dental surgery for examples of medical care where the costs keep getting less every year.   The difference?   They are often elective processes not paid for by insurance.   

[Cyber Liberty]

@r9etb

If we're not willing to make major changes because we may lose some control afterwards, we may as well give up the ship.  After all, the Democrats did lose the House after ObamaCare passed, but the result was that they actually got ObamaCare.  Had they been afraid of the reaction, they wouldn't have gotten it all.

If we get through a bunch of major reforms on different legislation, and lose the House as a result, I'm fine with that.  Until we lose the House, Senate, and Presidency, we'll be able to protect what we achieved.  My concern is that the prospect of getting clobbered will mean that complete repeal will not pass in the first place, and we'll waste so much time trying to force votes on it that the clock will run out.  And then we'll lose the House without actually having accomplished a damn thing.

And there's the quandary.  We either pass it and maybe lose a House or more, or we diddle around with it and lose everything, all the while getting nothing accomplished.  The crap sandwich was, in my feeble opinion, just a diddle at the edges, it wouldn't have gotten the job done. 

I think it was poor legislative strategy going for this item on the list first.  Should have gone for the tax reform.  If somebody thought this was going to be an easy get, then they should be kept well away from a leadership position in Congress.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Look at Eye surgery and Dental surgery for examples of medical care where the costs keep getting less every year.   The difference?   They are often elective processes not paid for by insurance.

Excellent point.  High deductible policies to protect against catastrophic injuries, and HSA to pay for other stuff are the clear path to a more rational system.  They also have the virtue of fewer claims being processed, which means less money wasted in administrative costs.

[Cyber Liberty]

Excellent point.  High deductible policies to protect against catastrophic injuries, and HSA to pay for other stuff are the clear path to a more rational system.  They also have the virtue of fewer claims being processed, which means less money wasted in administrative costs.

Large corporations with a huge pool of employees can self-insure.  It's been working for years.  My company still does it, and contracts out to Aetna for networking services.  The problem is, fewer and fewer people are in the pool.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

We either pass it and maybe lose a House or more, or we diddle around with it and lose everything, all the while getting nothing accomplished.  The crap sandwich was, in my feeble opinion, just a diddle at the edges, it wouldn't have gotten the job done.

If you assume that a full repeal would actually pass, then you're correct.

My view is that a complete repeal won't pass, which means we either do a partial repeal, or nothing.  I think if we do nothing, we'll definitely get clobbered in 2018.  I don't think we'd have gotten clobbered with the AHCA because most of the "negative" effects, like converting Medicaid to block grants, would have been delayed.

But I think this is a reasonable point on which people can disagree.  None of us can actually know/prove whether a complete repeal would pass or not, so reasonable people can disagree on that.  And whether or not you believe it would pass basically controls what you advocate should be done right now.

[Silver Pines]

Erica Werner‏
@ericawerner

Mcconnell making clear Obamacare repeal efforts dead. "We have the existing law in place and we'll just have to see how that works out."


Steve Deace‏Verified account @SteveDeaceShow  49m49 minutes ago

I hate these people.
#KillTheGOP

[DiogenesLamp]

@r9etb

I'm actually further to the right than you are on this, but you make a good point.  We have to be aware of how our actions/proposals are likely to be perceived,

Here we go again.   And what, pray tell,  is the most salient factor in how Republican politicians and ideas are perceived by the electorate?   


If you said "The New York and Los Angeles controlled liberal Media propaganda system"   then go to the head of the class.   

You cannot simply ignore the elephant in the room.   We have a trillion dollar propaganda system aimed at destroying policy at odds with Liberal ideas and doctrines. 

Back in 1995 when Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House,   in pushing for a balanced budget the headlines screamed "How the Gingrich stole Christmas!" 




This coordinated Liberal propaganda went out on every network television station and virtually all the magazines.   

The perception of what Gingrich was actually trying to do was not shaped by reality,   but instead was shaped by the near total control the New York Liberal Democrat propaganda system had on the electorate.   


We should be trying to figure out ways to utterly F*** up the Liberal Democrat propaganda system instead of trying to figure out how we can sneak our way past the power they wield by giving them concessions.   


Fight them,   don't reward them.    Fight them like the Barbary pirates.  Don't pay them tribute.   

[r9etb]

And there's the quandary.  We either pass it and maybe lose a House or more, or we diddle around with it and lose everything, all the while getting nothing accomplished.  The crap sandwich was, in my feeble opinion, just a diddle at the edges, it wouldn't have gotten the job done. 

I think it was poor legislative strategy going for this item on the list first.  Should have gone for the tax reform.  If somebody thought this was going to be an easy get, then they should be kept well away from a leadership position in Congress.

That's always been my biggest question: why must we pass an "it"  to deal with Obamacare?  IMO, one big reason it didn't work, is that they tried to do it in one big piece -- an "it", rather than trying to deal with specific aspects of Obamacare that can be fixed or eliminated.

I definitely agree with you about the timing.  There was every reason to take the time to get the health care stuff right, and to ensure that it would pass both houses with comfortable margins.

[Cyber Liberty]

If you assume that a full repeal would actually pass, then you're correct.

My view is that a complete repeal won't pass, which means we either do a partial repeal, or nothing.  I think if we do nothing, we'll definitely get clobbered in 2018.  I don't think we'd have gotten clobbered with the AHCA because most of the "negative" effects, like converting Medicaid to block grants, would have been delayed.

But I think this is a reasonable point on which people can disagree.  None of us can actually know/prove whether a complete repeal would pass or not, so reasonable people can disagree on that.  And whether or not you believe it would pass basically controls what you advocate should be done right now.

I agree with what you said right there.  I don't think a "full repeal" where everything get cancelled tomorrow would fly, but a definite sunset date next year would.  It would give the insurance markets some certainty, which is something they haven't had since Obumbler first tripped into office.  With certainty, they can start their prep work to get us back to where we were.

[Sanguine]

This story, The Civil War is Here, has some relevance to this discussion:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,256004.0.html

[Silver Pines]

Here we go again.   And what, pray tell,  is the most salient factor in how Republican politicians and ideas are perceived by the electorate? 

All it means to me is that Republicans are too timid to advance any kind of agenda even when they're in control.

[DiogenesLamp]

But it all pales to nothing before that face of YHWH. Why stay in the shallow end of the pool?

I think YHWH is natural too.   

[Cyber Liberty]

That's always been my biggest question: why must we pass an "it"  to deal with Obamacare?  IMO, one big reason it didn't work, is that they tried to do it in one big piece -- an "it", rather than trying to deal with specific aspects of Obamacare that can be fixed or eliminated.

I definitely agree with you about the timing.  There was every reason to take the time to get the health care stuff right, and to ensure that it would pass both houses with comfortable margins.

I called this "slip shod work" yesterday, and got screeched at by the resident lefty over it.   But it was slip shod, there was no reason to rush this piece of crap into production.  Now we have Turtle over in the Senate saying "It's over, I give up" (See @CatherineofAragon's comment above).  And people want to blame "conservatives" for stopping an endeavor that should never have been undertaken in the manner it was. 

This bill just defeated was so bad, it was worse than no bill.  We'd have gotten maybe 10% of what we wanted, and no more.  That's not what Reagan was suggesting at all when he said "If you can get 80%, take it."

[Cyber Liberty]

All it means to me is that Republicans are too timid to advance any kind of agenda even when they're in control.

Bingo!  Do you smoke cigars?  Because you just earned one!   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Here we go again.   And what, pray tell,  is the most salient factor in how Republican politicians and ideas are perceived by the electorate?   If you said "The New York and Los Angeles controlled liberal Media propaganda system"   then go to the head of the class.   You cannot simply ignore the elephant in the room.

I never said to ignore that.  I'm actually saying we need to be aware of that, and plan strategy accordingly.   

We should be trying to figure out ways to utterly F*** up the Liberal Democrat propaganda system instead of trying to figure out how we can sneak our way past the power they wield by giving them concessions.

I know that you've previously advocated governmental bodies to compel some type of level playing fieldfairness with the media, and I've strongly disagreed with you on that.  But regardless of who is right on that issue, the fact is that there is zero chance of getting anything like that passed anyway in time for these particular bits of legislation.  So to that extent, it is a red herring.  The press landscape is what it is, at least for now.

My point is simply that we need to be aware of what the political landscape is, so we can maximize our chances of actually getting to the end result we are trying to reach.

[Cyber Liberty]

This story, The Civil War is Here, has some relevance to this discussion:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,256004.0.html

When Buckley retired, I spent years looking for as solid a mind as his was.  Daniel Greenfield is that man.  Thanks for the link!!

[Silver Pines]

Bingo!  Do you smoke cigars?  Because you just earned one!   

@Cyber Liberty

I don't smoke at all, but I'll take a bag of dark M&Ms instead!   

[INVAR]

I don't think God has taken a position on the AHCA. 

I think God takes a position with everything that misrepresents it's intentions while subjecting a people to tyranny that robs them of essential liberty, which, according to the Founders, comes from Him to begin with.

Like it or not, we live in a democratic republic in which the votes of citizens determine the direction of the country. 

Ever read the story about Shaadrach, Meschak and Abednego?  I don't care if 99.99% of the entire country votes for evil and programs anathema to the liberty intended for us, I will still refuse to bow down and surrender to government tyranny - even when the vast majority want it.

The fact the majority have discovered they can vote themselves largesse from the treasury does not mean I fall into lockstep with compromising with what is an evil.

In other words, you'd rather be a martyr than actually achieve anything worthwhile.  And that, I believe, is a rather ugly form of pride.

You are free to believe that.  I'd rather stand for what is right, even if no one else does and even if I stand alone.  The whole country can go seig-heil itself to despotism and I will forever refuse to take part in working with it or compromising essential liberty to obtain an empty promise .

If you think that is pride - you can take that up with the scriptures and argue with God about it.

I refuse to compromise with evil, Communism, Statism, Socialism and tyranny because it is the only way "the wise" say we can obtain a breadcrumb of liberty back that was stolen from us by the hands of tyrants.

To me, your argument is akin to someone who advises victims who were roughed up by the mob for 'protection money', that it is noble to negotiate and compromise with the thugs to keep what they will permit us to have after they take their cut.

I do not subscribe to such serfdom.

[r9etb]

I agree with what you said right there.  I don't think a "full repeal" where everything get cancelled tomorrow would fly, but a definite sunset date next year would.  It would give the insurance markets some certainty, which is something they haven't had since Obumbler first tripped into office.  With certainty, they can start their prep work to get us back to where we were.

I generally agree with you on this; however, the "back to where we were" part is still somewhat problematic, as that includes the same underlying problems that were used to sell Obamacare in the first place. 

On the political plane, I don't think it's actually necessary to fully address the problems of Obamacare, so long as the GOP can show that they're actually working on it.  Dealing with the truly ugly aspects of the current system is politically a smart move, and it also creates momentum in the right direction.