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

[INVAR]

My issue with the tactics, not the goal.  My concern is if there is no deal at all.  That would mean full-bore ObamaCare, huge political price to be paid in 2018

If they do not repeal ObamaCare "Root and branch" as they promised, the same or worse political price is going to be paid in 2018.

None of this 'half measures' crap, because the purpose of Obamacare is to collapse the entire system and pave the way for Single Payer.  Period.  It is a wrecking ball.  That is it's purpose on top of taking over 1/7 of the economy and creating the largest entitlement ever created.

If they just pass small 'fixes' and create ObamaCare Lite, the collapse of the insurance industry happens anyway and the Uniparty at Mordor on the Potomac pushes for Single Payer.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

If they do not repeal ObamaCare "Root and branch" as they promised, the same or worse political price is going to be paid in 2018.

Well, I'm sure you won't vote them.  But a whole lot of other people would be willing to accept something less than complete repeal, especially if the alternative is to do nothing.  And the reality for some of those GOP moderates -- whose votes are absolutely essential if legislation is to pass -- is that a "root and branch" repeal without preservation of some popular elements of Obamacare will lead to them getting crushed.  That's why they won't vote for it.

The political calculus is not the same for the moderates as it is for the conservatives because their constituencies are different.

[txradioguy]

How times change, eh?

Now look who's all about insider dealmaking.

@skeeter

But it's different this time /s

[Cyber Liberty]

If you want to talk about "correct solutions," it's useful to consider how they might be achieved.  A solution that you just talk about is useless; it's got to be put in place. 

Which brings up the main problem with the FC: it's at most 30 people.  However wonderful their stated goals, they're only about 7% of the House.  Any solution they may propose is going to require them to convince about 190 other representatives just to get a bare majority in the House, and the Senate is a separate matter.

If they want to be effective in any way, they're going to have to adjust their strategy.

I wouldn't be too hung up on the relative size of the FC.  For the purposes of discussion, I'll concede they're 7% (I didn't bother plugging the numbers into my calculator, because I'm busy).  In Colonial times, only 3% of Americans wanted Independence from England, and it was enough to do the job.

[r9etb]

I wouldn't be too hung up on the relative size of the FC.  For the purposes of discussion, I'll concede they're 7% (I didn't bother plugging the numbers into my calculator, because I'm busy).  In Colonial times, only 3% of Americans wanted Independence from England, and it was enough to do the job.

I'm reasonably sure that you understand the difference between gunfire and the political processes of a democratic republic. 

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm reasonably sure that you understand the difference between gunfire and the political processes of a democratic republic.

Of course.  Does not negate my point.

[Jazzhead]

And the reality for some of those GOP moderates -- whose votes are absolutely essential if legislation is to pass -- is that a "root and branch" repeal without preservation of some popular elements of Obamacare will lead to them getting crushed.  That's why they won't vote for it.

The political calculus is not the same for the moderates as it is for the conservatives because their constituencies are different.

It's always the moderates who suffer when the party leadership tries to force extremism.   There sure as heck aren't many blue-dog Dems left.  And the only GOP representatives in vast sections of the country are more moderate than conservative,  and survive by triangulating themselves with respect to the partisan ideologues in both parties. 

[r9etb]

Of course.  Does not negate my point.

Given what the 3% did back in the 1770s, unless you're suggesting that the FC lead a New Revolutionary War, it's not clear what your point would be.

If the idea is for the FC to work within established political processes, then they've got to be willing to bend a bit.

[INVAR]

Well, I'm sure you won't vote them.  But a whole lot of other people would be willing to accept something less than complete repeal, especially if the alternative is to do nothing.  And the reality for some of those GOP moderates -- whose votes are absolutely essential if legislation is to pass -- is that a "root and branch" repeal without preservation of some popular elements of Obamacare will lead to them getting crushed.  That's why they won't vote for it.

The political calculus is not the same for the moderates as it is for the conservatives because their constituencies are different.

It is amazing that in America, we are busy arguing over how much Socialism and Communism we have to accept and vote for because it's what we are told everyone wants.

As Adams famously stated, there isn't a democratic Republic yet that hasn't committed suicide.

Here we are watching our country slit its own throat, and pretending it's not really that bad.

[Sanguine]

Given what the 3% did back in the 1770s, unless you're suggesting that the FC lead a New Revolutionary War, it's not clear what your point would be.

If the idea is for the FC to work within established political processes, then they've got to be willing to bend a bit.

What on earth are you asking?  If 3% could accomplish something in the 1770's, then surely 3% could do something now. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Given what the 3% did back in the 1770s, unless you're suggesting that the FC lead a New Revolutionary War, it's not clear what your point would be.

If the idea is for the FC to work within established political processes, then they've got to be willing to bend a bit.

If you don't get my point, nothing I say will get through so what's the point in trying any more?

The FC was, simply speaking, asked to bend too much for their tolerance.  Try again, and don't blame them if they tell you to go pound sand again because you're willing to tolerate more infringement upon your freedom than their constituents.

If they're number is so tiny, you should have no difficulty running roughshod over them anyway, right?

[r9etb]

What on earth are you asking?  If 3% could accomplish something in the 1770's, then surely 3% could do something now.

The 3% started a war.  Is that what CL is suggesting the FC do?  I doubt it.

[r9etb]

If you don't get my point, nothing I say will get through so what's the point in trying any more?

Unless you're suggesting that the FC behave like the supposed 3% of 1776, then the point in question is comparing apples to oranges -- wars to legislation.

The FC was, simply speaking, asked to bend too much for their tolerance.  Try again, and don't blame them if they tell you to go pound sand again because you're willing to tolerate more infringement upon your freedom than their constituents.

Principle is all very nice, if all you want to do is talk about it.  If you're part of a tiny minority that wants to put its principles in action, then unless you plan to win a revolution you're going to have to work within the political system.

Bottom line: if the FC is going to get anything done, they're going to have to work within the system, with the other elected representatives who make up the remainder of the House and Senate.  There just aren't very many people in the FC: their strategy is going to have to rely on deal-making and persuasion.

[Cyber Liberty]

Unless you're suggesting that the FC behave like the supposed 3% of 1776, then the point in question is comparing apples to oranges -- wars to legislation.

Principle is all very nice, if all you want to do is talk about it.  If you're part of a tiny minority that wants to put its principles in action, then unless you plan to win a revolution you're going to have to work within the political system.

Bottom line: if the FC is going to get anything done, they're going to have to work within the system, with the other elected representatives who make up the remainder of the House and Senate.  There just aren't very many people in the FC: their strategy is going to have to rely on deal-making and persuasion.

Then I'll repeat my question:  If the FC is so tiny, you should have no trouble running roughshod right on over them.  Therefore, this conversation is dumb.  See you next fight.

[kevindavis007]

Unless you're suggesting that the FC behave like the supposed 3% of 1776, then the point in question is comparing apples to oranges -- wars to legislation.

Principle is all very nice, if all you want to do is talk about it.  If you're part of a tiny minority that wants to put its principles in action, then unless you plan to win a revolution you're going to have to work within the political system.

Bottom line: if the FC is going to get anything done, they're going to have to work within the system, with the other elected representatives who make up the remainder of the House and Senate.  There just aren't very many people in the FC: their strategy is going to have to rely on deal-making and persuasion.

 

[r9etb]

Then I'll repeat my question:  If the FC is so tiny, you should have no trouble running roughshod right on over them.  Therefore, this conversation is dumb.  See you next fight.

I honestly don't understand why you're so worked up about this.  The reality is that the FC is going to have to change their approach if they want to be effective as anything other than swing-vote spoilers. 

[Cyber Liberty]

I honestly don't understand why you're so worked up about this.  The reality is that the FC is going to have to change their approach if they want to be effective as anything other than swing-vote spoilers.

I never said I was "worked up" over anything.  Are you projecting or something?  Like I said, run over them, Mr. Huge Majority on Your Side.   

[INVAR]

Always and forever it is the Principled Conservatives who are demanded to 'compromise', give up, surrender, capitulate and go along with that which is anathema to liberty if they want to have any influence on that which is going to be rejected for the continued imposition of tyranny anyway.

Compromising with tyranny is surrender.

[bigheadfred]

One of the really big problems is people have been sold on the idea that health care is really expensive and full coverage insurance is a must.

IMO, neither of those things are true.

There are too many vampires and too many zombies in this country to bring about anything in the way of any reform.

PS: I am one of the 3%.

[Bigun]

Always and forever it is the Principled Conservatives who are demanded to 'compromise', give up, surrender, capitulate and go along with that which is anathema to liberty if they want to have any influence on that which is going to be rejected for the continued imposition of tyranny anyway.

Compromising with tyranny is surrender.

[kevindavis007]

Always and forever it is the Principled Conservatives who are demanded to 'compromise', give up, surrender, capitulate and go along with that which is anathema to liberty if they want to have any influence on that which is going to be rejected for the continued imposition of tyranny anyway.

Compromising with tyranny is surrender.

You do realize that this country was founded on a compromise correct?

[Cyber Liberty]

One of the really big problems is people have been sold on the idea that health care is really expensive and full coverage insurance is a must.

IMO, neither of those things are true.

There are too many vampires and too many zombies in this country to bring about anything in the way of any reform.

PS: I am one of the 3%.

You should know, my dear friend.  Feeling OK these days?

[corbe]

I honestly don't understand why you're so worked up about this.  The reality is that the FC is going to have to change their approach if they want to be effective as anything other than swing-vote spoilers. 

   I respectfully disagree with your conception of reality here @r9etb , you are saying the FC needs to abandon or soften on their 'principles' in order to accomplish anything in the House and I think that is what got is in this mess, to begin with - people throwing their morals and principles out the window to the breeze.

[corbe]

    I want to ADD, this thread is one of the reasons this place is so Great, such a diverse group of people with respectful opinions, from G_d  and Spirituality to the evil's of the FC on one dam thread.   thanks to the owner and the light handed mods for keeping the peace and sanity.

[INVAR]

You do realize that this country was founded on a compromise correct?

Wrong. 

The Founders did not compromise by surrendering the liberty they knew the Crown intended to subjugate with tyranny.  They went to war to secure liberty, not appease tyrants and compromise.  Especially when it was clear that olive branch petitions only emboldened the Crown to impose greater measures of despotism.

And what we are talking about is tyranny.  ObamaCare and government control of health care is tyranny having been imposed on us via corrupt and unlawful means.  We give into that, then we have traded essential liberty for tyranny and made what was done to impose tyranny - a legal precedent.

Now if you want to compromise your liberty with tyranny, and call it freedom and democracy, be our guest.

We reject the premise.