Centrist group in House 'will never' meet with Freedom Caucus

[r9etb]

I do not know a single Republican who ran on the platform of fixing Obamacare.  All I heard were a few "Repeal"s and a lot of "Repeal and Replace".  Didn't hear any calls for 'Fix Obamacare'.

One might loosely equate "fix" with "repeal and replace."

Trump campaigned that he liked the mandates.  No surprise here that you agree with Trump.

And he also campaigned that he didn't like them -- what he said, and to whom, depended on the exigencies of the moment.

What's frustrating is that the ACHA does not do what Republicans have been promising to do for the last seven years.  Not even close.

To be fair, as for those alleged promises, I think a lot of voters heard what they wanted to hear, rather than what was actually said.

But as the saying goes, "politics is the art of the possible."  The reality was always that they weren't going to do what some Republicans promised to do, because they were never going to have the super-majority necessary to do it.  The Democrat push-back was predictable, as was the disagreement between the FC and the moderates about what was happening. 

Particulars aside, something like the AHCA is the most we were ever going to get.  Of course, at the moment what we've (still) got is Obamacare.

[Jazzhead]

Yup.  Best to just scrap it and start over fresh.  Oh wait, you didn't mean it that way, did you?

Be careful what you wish for,  DL:

Why Trump Should Embrace Single Payer Health Care

That wasn’t what Trump promised, in any event. What he said he wanted was a plan that would leave no one uninsured.

The simplest way to do this is universal health care, on the Canadian model, with a right of individuals to purchase a Cadillac plan on top of this out of pocket. And there are things that might be added, like removing the ban on reimporting drugs from Canada.

Not only would this be close to what Trump promised, but it would be a responsible response to the problem — one, moreover, that would reach across the aisle to the Democrats. Take out all the killer amendments that would give them a plausible excuse to reject it, and ask them to put up or shut up.

Now let me tell you who’d support this. The people who elected Trump in 2016. They weren’t right-wing ideologues. They were people who had lost or who feared they’d lose their jobs. Many were but a few steps away from the diseases of despair, social isolation, drug and alcohol poisonings and suicide that Anne Case and her husband, Nobel laureate Sir Angus Deaton, tell us have lowered the life expectancy of white Americans.

The defeat of RyanCare is thus a victory for the Trump agenda, if used wisely as a means of reinventing the Republican Party as a party of working Americans of all races and ethnicities. Split the Republican Party, if need be. Send the Charles Koch Institute packing. The defeat of RyanCare shows the party needs splitting, if it’s not entirely split already.

Leave behind all the people who hated you, who curse when you succeed. Reach out to the people who voted for you. Challenge the Democrats by offering them what they’ve always said they wanted.

In “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” Thomas Frank asked how it was that the poor folks of his home state voted for a Republican Party that cared so little for their economic interests. Become the jobs and the health-care president, and you’ll have answered Frank’s question. And the answer will be — nothing, now.

Steve Bannon has said the Republicans will become a party of “economic nationalism.” No one has bothered to define this, but here’s one thing it must mean: We’re going to treat Americans better than non-Americans. We’re going to see that Americans have jobs, medical care and an enviable safety net.

Trump gave conservatives a shot at working with him.   They rejected him.   But there are other coalitions that can be formed to address the concerns of THOSE WHO VOTED FOR HIM.   

[r9etb]

Be careful what you wish for,  DL:

Why Trump Should Embrace Single Payer Health Care
 

Wow.  What an ... interesting .... article.  Of course, Mr. Buckley neglects all of the economic consequences of his suggestion.  For reference,  here's how one big Single Payer system is faring:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/26/nhs-plans-radical-cuts-to-fight-growing-deficit-in-health-budget

[txradioguy]

Trump gave conservatives a shot at working with him.   They rejected him.   But there are other coalitions that can be formed to address the concerns of THOSE WHO VOTED FOR HIM.   

Trump wanted single payer healthcare all along...he's on record as advocating for it.  This is no surprise to those that pay attention to these things.

And what about the concerns of those that voted for representatives and senators who vowed...if elected...to repeal Obamcare "root and branch"...do those voters matter?

[Jazzhead]

Trump wanted single payer healthcare all along...he's on record as advocating for it.  This is no surprise to those that pay attention to these things.

And what about the concerns of those that voted for representatives and senators who vowed...if elected...to repeal Obamcare "root and branch"...do those voters matter?

My point is that Trump's supporters aren't necessarily conservative.  And the rejection of the AHCA by conservatives is no skin off of Trump's nose.

Trump has paid admirable attention to conservative issues and conservative priorities.   But when conservatives in Congress repay such attention with disloyalty, well, then,  Trump will do what he has to do.   Trump's supporters want a functioning health care system.   Ideology is a luxury for those with good jobs and great health care plans.  Trump's supporters are hurting - and they are disgusted with GRIDLOCK in Congress that keeps the nation from fixing its problems.     

[r9etb]

And what about the concerns of those that voted for representatives and senators who vowed...if elected...to repeal Obamcare "root and branch"...do those voters matter?

Well, what about them?  If the votes in Congress aren't there for such a thing, then they're not there.  The real question is, can those voters (and their representatives) lower their sights a little to achieve something for which the votes are there?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Trump wanted single payer healthcare all along...he's on record as advocating for it.  This is no surprise to those that pay attention to these things.

I would say that if that is the case, then we should have leapt at the opportunity to repeal 25-35% of ObamaCare.  Because if the alternative is going to be him turning to single payer, then tossing away Ryan's bill will have been a horrible mistake.  And that's what I'm really worried about, to be honest.  Trump has been rather shockingly more conservative as President than he was as a candidate, almost right across the board.  He talked about the public option during the campaign, he talked about global warming, etc., and he's been to the right on all that.  Frankly, even Ryan's bill was more conservative than what Trump was saying during the campaign.  Getting something that rolled back a good chunk of ObamaCare without a public option is more than we probably should have expected from the guy.

And what about the concerns of those that voted for representatives and senators who vowed...if elected...to repeal Obamcare "root and branch"...do those voters matter?

Sure they do.  But we're in a representative republic, and any given group of voters isn't guaranteed to get what they want.  And whether anyone wants to admit it or not, most of that group of 50 or so members of the Tuesday Group ran on keeping at least some parts of ObamaCare.  So if we all just say "I'm entitled to get what I voted for", nothing is going to pass.  Of course, there are some who actually want nothing to pass.

[txradioguy]

Well, what about them?  If the votes in Congress aren't there for such a thing, then they're not there.  The real question is, can those voters (and their representatives) lower their sights a little to achieve something for which the votes are there?

I don't think they should have to lower their sights.  Voters trusted these people to go there and get rid of this fiscal train wreck that Obama and company forced on us...if they don't repeal all of it and succeed somehow in getting some squishy lite version of the ACA as you've pointed out...the Republican voters will stay home and the Dems will be back in control in about 18 months.

[r9etb]

But when conservatives in Congress repay such attention with disloyalty, well, then,  Trump will do what he has to do.

First off, they don't owe "loyalty" to Trump, and Trump should understand that. 

But at the same time, those conservatives of whom you speak do owe something to their constituents.  They were elected not simply to do the voters' will, but rather to act in the most effective way possible on matters which the voters themselves have neither the time nor resources to grapple with.  And in their intransigence they failed, having now guaranteed the prolongation of the very thing they claim to be against.  They set what was possible against their "principles," and thereby failed their constituents.

All that said: the AHCA was not a well-conceived bill.  It was rushed to the floor when it should not have been.  The proper role of all Republicans, whether moderate or conservative, was to work with Ryan to get a bill that could pass.  Instead, it seems that there was a lot of posturing that only led to defeat.

[geronl]

That is a farfetched idea that somehow sounds believable.

They go to DC to reform and fix it. They go to meetings and drink afterwards. They wake up next to a dead underage child with their supposed "pals" taking pictures. Welcome to the club, now you're as compromised as the rest.

[Jazzhead]

I would say that if that is the case, then we should have leapt at the opportunity to repeal 25-35% of ObamaCare.  Because if the alternative is going to be him turning to single payer, then tossing away Ryan's bill will have been a horrible mistake.  And that's what I'm really worried about, to be honest.  Trump has been rather shockingly more conservative as President than he was as a candidate, almost right across the board.  He talked about the public option during the campaign, he talked about global warming, etc., and he's been to the right on all that.  Frankly, even Ryan's bill was more conservative than what Trump was saying during the campaign.  Getting something that rolled back a good chunk of ObamaCare without a public option is more than we probably should have expected from the guy.

This.   Conservatives weren't given a mandate.  But they WERE given an opportunity.   They would be wise not to blow it. 

[r9etb]

I don't think they should have to lower their sights.  Voters trusted these people to go there and get rid of this fiscal train wreck that Obama and company forced on us...if they don't repeal all of it and succeed somehow in getting some squishy lite version of the ACA as you've pointed out...the Republican voters will stay home and the Dems will be back in control in about 18 months.

That's all very nice, but again: the votes aren't there!  If the representatives can't lower their sights, and the voters can't understand the reason why, then they're either going to get more of the same (Obamacare), or perhaps something far worse (Trump working with Democrats).

It's fine to have goals, but you and others seem to be saying that the only proper way to achieve them, is in one huge chunk -- which is demonstrably a fantasy proposition.  Lower the sights, chew it apart in smaller bites, and in the end you may get something worth having.

[txradioguy]

That's all very nice, but again: the votes aren't there!  If the representatives can't lower their sights, and the voters can't understand the reason why, then they're either going to get more of the same (Obamacare), or perhaps something far worse (Trump working with Democrats).

IMHO he wanted to work with the dems all along.  Trying to work with the GOP is a fan dance.

It's fine to have goals, but you and others seem to be saying that the only proper way to achieve them, is in one huge chunk -- which is demonstrably a fantasy proposition.  Lower the sights, chew it apart in smaller bites, and in the end you may get something worth having.

The problem with going at this with small bites is it never gets repealed like it should.  The Republican hold on the House and Senate isn't forever.  Hell it might not last through the mid terms. 

And when the Dems do get back in control...they'll make sure there is no way ever again the Republicans can even attempt to repeal government run healthcare.

That's why it all needs to be gone...NOW.  There won't be a next good opportunity to do away with this monstrosity.

[skeeter]

That's all very nice, but again: the votes aren't there!  If the representatives can't lower their sights, and the voters can't understand the reason why, then they're either going to get more of the same (Obamacare), or perhaps something far worse (Trump working with Democrats).

It's fine to have goals, but you and others seem to be saying that the only proper way to achieve them, is in one huge chunk -- which is demonstrably a fantasy proposition.  Lower the sights, chew it apart in smaller bites, and in the end you may get something worth having.

The votes aren't there to pass the squishy lite version either, so Trump is out there trying to bring public pressure to bear to get one side to change their vote.

Accountants count votes, leaders change them. Like or hate Trump, thats what leaders are supposed to do. Of course he could just as easily be pressuring moderates for full repeal instead, which would make him more consistent with his campaign rhetoric.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The problem with going at this with small bites is it never gets repealed like it should. 

The Democrats don't think like that.  They scratch and claw for every tiny concession they can get over the alternative of getting nothing, and look at where there strategy has put them today.

I will absolutely agree with you that if we can pass a full repeal, we should.  But if we can't, then how does doing nothing help us?

[txradioguy]

The Democrats don't think like that.  They scratch and claw for every tiny concession they can get over the alternative of getting nothing, and look at where there strategy has put them today.

I will absolutely agree with you that if we can pass a full repeal, we should.  But if we can't, then how does doing nothing help us?

Trump and Ryan automatically went with a watered down version of the ACA...we KNOW it can be fully repealed because the House voted for that very thing in 2015.

Bring that bill word for word back up for a vote...pass it on tot he Senate then on to Trump's desk.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

.

Accountants count votes, leaders change them. Like or hate Trump, thats what leaders are supposed to do. Of course he could just as easily be pressuring moderates for full repeal instead, which would make him more consistent with his campaign rhetoric.

As I recall, there was a report that Trump met with the moderates, and Ryan met with the conservatives, each trying to persuade that group to move.  Or maybe it was the reverse.  The point is, they have pressured both groups.

But the reality is that the Senate is even less conservative than the House, and the moderates in both chambers are more willing to live with Obamacare than agree to a full repeal.  So there is just less leverage to be used on them.  And the truth is the more members of the HFC you can get on board with a bill, the fewer moderates have to be enticed to join, so the more conservative the bill can be.

[r9etb]

IMHO he wanted to work with the dems all along.  Trying to work with the GOP is a fan dance.

That's perhaps true; all the more reason for everybody within the GOP majority to pull their heads out to prevent it from happening.

The problem with going at this with small bites is it never gets repealed like it should.  The Republican hold on the House and Senate isn't forever.  Hell it might not last through the mid terms. 

Irrelevant.  As it stands now, Obamacare hasn't been repealed at all and looks like it won't be, unless the GOP starts working together -- which requires all sides to budge to get a bill that they can all vote for.

And when the Dems do get back in control...they'll make sure there is no way ever again the Republicans can even attempt to repeal government run healthcare.

Which is all the more motivation for everybody on the GOP side to do what's possible.  That means the Freedom Caucus and the Tuesday Group are going to have to descend from the lofty heights of their high horses.

That's why it all needs to be gone...NOW.  There won't be a next good opportunity to do away with this monstrosity.

OK, so this is just you refusing to accept reality.  What you're demanding has no chance of ever happening.  The votes are not there.  They will never be there.  They were never going to be there. 

[skeeter]

The Democrats don't think like that.  They scratch and claw for every tiny concession they can get over the alternative of getting nothing, and look at where there strategy has put them today.

I will absolutely agree with you that if we can pass a full repeal, we should.  But if we can't, then how does doing nothing help us?

I totally agree we should be so lucky that our leadership would mimic the democrats.

The reason being the democrats never find themselves 'scratching for concessions'. No, their leaders put the whole enchilada out there and beat their members into lockstep & get it done and to hell with the consequences. Because they BELIEVE.

WE'RE the ones who scratch for concessions. Thats why we're at the place we are today.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Trump and Ryan automatically went with a watered down version of the ACA...we KNOW it can be fully repealed because the House voted for that very thing in 2015.

C'mon, you know that isn't true.  First, there are fewer Republicans in the House now than there were in 2015 -- that makes it much tougher to pass bills because you can afford fewer defections.  Second, that passed with the votes of a bunch of moderate Republicans who stated at that time that they'd want a replacement that preserved some elements of ObamaCare.

It's like you're trying to score rhetorical points rather than addressing today's reality.  Just because they voted for it in 2015  does not mean they must vote for it now, and many of them have been public about requiring the preservation of some of ObamaCare.  I wish the votes were there too, they're not.  And honestly, anyone following the GOP attempts to come together on a replacement bill even before the election should have seen this coming, because they could not agree on that bill even then.

What happened is that so many people convinced themselves that repeal was going to happen that they just stopped seeing evidence to the contrary that was available even prior to the election.  I mean, conservatives constantly mock politicians for lying, right?  So why cling to the fiction that they must vote the same way they voted (when it didn't count) back in 2015?

[geronl]

OK, so this is just you refusing to accept reality.  What you're demanding has no chance of ever happening.  The votes are not there.  They will never be there.  They were never going to be there.

It passed in 2015 with pretty universal GOP support.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I totally agree we should be so lucky that our leadership would mimic the democrats.

The reason being the democrats never find themselves 'scratching for concessions'.  No, their leaders put the whole enchilada out there and beat their members into lockstep & get it done and to hell with the consequences. Because they BELIEVE.

From your perspective, ObamaCare was "the whole enchilada."  From the perspective of a great many Democrats, it was a crappy compromise with the public option that they really wanted.  And for awhile, the Progressive Caucus said they wouldn't support a bill unless it had a "robust public option".  Many on the left criticized Obama for giving up on the public option too easily.  ObamaCare was not the bill most of them wanted, but they had to make all these compromises go squeak out enough votes in the House.

Don't you remember that?

Anyway, the point is that most of those progressives ended up swallowing what they saw as a turd of a bill because they bought the argument that even if it wasn't what they wanted, it was nevertheless a move in the right direction.

[r9etb]

It passed in 2015 with pretty universal GOP support.

Indeed.  It's so very easy to pass something you know has no chance of ever actually becoming law.  A totally unaccountable gesture.

When it came down to making something that would get signed.... turns out to be a bit more difficult, because people can be held accountable for that. It's like being sentenced to hang: it focuses the mind wonderfully.

[DiogenesLamp]

  Trump's supporters are hurting - and they are disgusted with GRIDLOCK in Congress that keeps the nation from fixing its problems.   

Increasing government intervention in the economy is not fixing problems,  it is compounding them.   

[skeeter]

From your perspective, ObamaCare was "the whole enchilada."  From the perspective of a great many Democrats, it was a crappy compromise with the public option that they really wanted.  And for awhile, the Progressive Caucus said they wouldn't support a bill unless it had a "robust public option".  Many on the left criticized Obama for giving up on the public option too easily.  ObamaCare was not the bill most of them wanted, but they had to make all these compromises go squeak out enough votes in the House.

Don't you remember that?

Anyway, the point is that most of those progressives ended up swallowing what they saw as a turd of a bill because they bought the argument that even if it wasn't what they wanted, it was nevertheless a move in the right direction.

What I remember was 'you gotta pass it the find out whats in it', 11 pm Christmas Eve 100% party line vote. I do not recall any horse trading or bargaining. At all.

ACA represented a watershed, long sought after achievement for the left - total government run health insurance. That it didn't represent their eventual goal is immaterial - once their foot was in the door that end became pre-ordained anyway. So in reality it was the whole, foot in the door, enchilada.

They did it even though they knew it would cost them. And that the GOP would either be too cowardly - or too complicit - to do what it took to undo it.