Pence presents new healthcare offer to Freedom Caucus

[Maj. Bill Martin]

What got us into this problem was giving the left half of our loaf anyway.
Now they want more. (Shocking!).

We didn't "give away" half the loaf.  The left took the entire loaf away without a single GOP vote back in 2010.

If we have a chance to grab back half of it, I'll take that if the alternative is getting nothing and letting them keep the whole damn thing.  And maybe if we get away with taking half, we can come back and try to grab the rest later.  But taking nothing back?  Where does that get us besides martyrdom?

I can't even believe this point has to be argued.  Reminds me of this bunch:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUHk2RSMCS8

[Smokin Joe]

Ah, but that's where you're wrong.  If you just say "They Must Vote For Full Repeal" three times while standing on one leg, then click your heels together, it will magically happen!

That sounds a little awkward, but if that's what it takes, git 'er done!

[r9etb]

Ah, but that's where you're wrong.  If you just say "They Must Vote For Full Repeal" three times while standing on one leg, then click your heels together, it will magically happen!

Ah, see, now you've shown me where I went wrong.

And here I was thinking that damned peddler wasn't on the up-and-up.  I just wasn't using those ruby slippers right.

[Smokin Joe]

We didn't "give away" half the loaf.  The left took the entire loaf away without a single GOP vote back in 2010.

If we have a chance to grab back half of it, I'll take that if the alternative is getting nothing and letting them keep the whole damn thing.  And maybe if we get away with taking half, we can come back and try to grab the rest later.  But taking nothing back?  Where does that get us besides martyrdom?

I can't even believe this point has to be argued.  Reminds me of this bunch:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUHk2RSMCS8

Cute.

Consider that if the left can take the whole thing, then the GOP better find the wherewithal to take it back. It is our loaf (they don't have to abide by the terms of the ACA, they're exempt up on The Hill), and we've given them the tools they need.

Otherwise, there's going to be a lot of 'splaining to do, especially to the people they won't go to bat for now. They could vote to get rid of it before, so they know how. Just do it.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Cute.

Consider that if the left can take the whole thing, then the GOP better find the wherewithal to take it back.

I'd love if we did.  But it's not "wherewithal" that conservatives need to find -- it's 218 votes in the House, and 50 in the Senate.

Nobody -- except perhaps @Jazzhead -- is disputing that getting the entire loaf is the preferred result.  The dispute is 1) whether or not it is possible to get those votes, and 2) what should be done about if the votes aren't there.

[corbe]

    Hey @Jazzhead No one is trying to take your hard fought prize - the GOP away from you, it's yours do with it as you wish, I'll keep working for and electing Conservatives, they have principle and will not bow toward your guy.
   The squishy moderates Rep/Dems are all yours too, Shirley, you can get something done with the great Negotiator in Charge.
   
    Not 'MY' problem.

[r9etb]

I'd love if we did.  But it's not "wherewithal" that conservatives need to find -- it's 218 votes in the House, and 50 in the Senate.

Maybe a bigger hammer would help you get this point across?

Nobody -- except perhaps @Jazzhead -- is disputing that getting the entire loaf is the preferred result.

That all depends on who you mean when you say, "nobody."  I'd say that in the country as a whole, probably more people would disagree than agree with the goal of "getting the entire loaf."  So you're probably not referring to them; nor could you be referring to the entirety of the GOP in the House and Senate.

Around here, even, I suspect the enthusiasm for the entire loaf has a lot more to do with fact that it's a lot easier to type boldly that we want it, than it would be to actually have to cast a vote that affects real people - reference the change in outlook by those who voted for full repeal last year, when they knew it wouldn't be signed into law.

The dispute is 1) whether or not it is possible to get those votes, and 2) what should be done about if the votes aren't there.

The dispute is more basic than that: it's a question of whether or not there's a problem in the first place, and if there is, how best to address it.

The "full repeal" position relies pretty heavily on the idea that there's not really a problem -- at least, not a problem for which government action is needed. 

The truth is that there is a problem -- people who cannot afford access to proper health care -- and I think honest people can at least acknowledge that it exists, without diving into particular suggestions for fixing it.

Obamacare was an example of the old saying that the best lies are built around an element of truth.  The problem really does exist, and they used it as a pretext for achieving a much different goal.

And so the debate about goals and votes circles once again back to the underlying problem, and what to do about it.  The moderates, and perhaps even a fair number of the less moderate Republicans in the House would probably tell you that there is room for a government role in solving it. 

As such, the debate would probably not center around strategies for achieving full repeal, but rather the extent to which the scope of Obamacare can and should be reduced.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That all depends on who you mean when you say, "nobody...."  Around here, even, I suspect the enthusiasm for the entire loaf has a lot more to do with fact that it's a lot easier to type boldly that we want it, than it would be to actually have to cast a vote that affects real people - reference the change in outlook by those who voted for full repeal last year, when they knew it wouldn't be signed into law.

I was referring to people here.  Although you have a point -- one person here who has argued strenuously for nothing less than full repeal is outraged that Ryan's bill would have permitted insurers to charge older people up to five times more for the same policy on the individual market.  When I explained that a full repeal would mean there would be no limit at all on how much insurers could charge older people on the individual market, I got disbelief. 

 

The dispute is more basic than that: it's a question of whether or not there's a problem in the first place, and if there is, how best to address it.

Again, I was referring to the far more limited in scope debate that was occurring here regarding the insistence on full repeal.  Whether or not it is desirable is kind of moot if it isn't achievable anyway.

[Bigun]

Ah, but that's where you're wrong.  If you just say "They Must Vote For Full Repeal" three times while standing on one leg, then click your heels together, it will magically happen!

It just might!  And if it doesn't it will damned sure highlight who exactly it is that needs replacing!

[r9etb]

Again, I was referring to the far more limited in scope debate that was occurring here regarding the insistence on full repeal.  Whether or not it is desirable is kind of moot if it isn't achievable anyway.

Fair enough.  But I would argue that a lot of what we see here results from a lack of understanding of the grounds on which the real debate is actually being conducted, by those whose opinions (and votes) actually count.

[libertybele]

    Hey @Jazzhead No one is trying to take your hard fought prize - the GOP away from you, it's yours do with it as you wish, I'll keep working for and electing Conservatives, they have principle and will not bow toward your guy.
   The squishy moderates Rep/Dems are all yours too, Shirley, you can get something done with the great Negotiator in Charge.
   
    Not 'MY' problem.

    

[libertybele]

It just might!  And if it doesn't it will damned sure highlight who exactly it is that needs replacing!

Exactly!!  We have nothing to lose by standing our ground and everything to lose by caving.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'd love if we did.  But it's not "wherewithal" that conservatives need to find -- it's 218 votes in the House, and 50 in the Senate.

Nobody -- except perhaps @Jazzhead -- is disputing that getting the entire loaf is the preferred result.  The dispute is 1) whether or not it is possible to get those votes, and 2) what should be done about if the votes aren't there.

What the real dispute should be is 'Why in the world is the fed govt involved in healthcare?'

[Cyber Liberty]

What the real dispute should be is 'Why in the world is the fed govt involved in healthcare?'

Naw, I wanna debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, as we've been doing on this subject for the past week or so.

[Bigun]

What the real dispute should be is 'Why in the world is the fed govt involved in healthcare?'

And I might add,  what authority do they have to be involved in health insurance markets as a competitor?

[LonestarDream]

That mentality is exactly the mindset that got us into the mess the country is in today.

No it isnt. To win, you set precedents and start a virtuous cycle.

[bigheadfred]

Listen. Repeal. Free market free-for-all.

In 2008, the year that Barack Obama was elected as president, the combined annual profits of America's ten largest health insurance companies were $8 billion. Under Obamacare, the ten largest health insurers' annual profits have risen to $15 billion. This is another fine example of the natural alliance between Big Government and Big Business, which flourishes at the expense of Main Street Americans.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/insurers-profits-have-nearly-doubled-since-obama-was-elected/article/2005073

Why have insurance at all? Because it is a system designed to feed off of fear. That is the only reason. One big lie.

And you can't tell me there is any justification for the extremely high prices charged for "major" medical issues. One big lie.

One big system designed to feed off human misery.

Yay for us.

[Jazzhead]

So you side with those who lied to our face for years. You side with those who tell lies in order to pass a POS bill ("phase 2&3 would never happen). Then they blame conservatives when the moderates were the real reason it failed.

These liars had no intention of repealing ACA. They are miserable, horrible, untrustworthy establishment pieces of excrement no better than toe jam.

So of course, in your opinion, we should back them to the hilt!

You're a petulant child.   One cannot do deals with children,  who cannot say yes for an answer,  who prize stubborn self-righteousness instead of realizing the politics of the day -  if no Dems will be involved,  the GOP coalition must be united.   

Or nothing gets done.    Or Trump finds new deal partners.   

[truth_seeker]

Exactly!!  We have nothing to lose by standing our ground and everything to lose by caving.

Republicans now own "Repeal" and "Replace," since they talked about it, and ran on it ever since it passed in 2010. Each election was influenced by this in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016.

The judgment of the public will now be made on the results of the soon to be passed revisions.

[INVAR]

What the real dispute should be is 'Why in the world is the fed govt involved in healthcare?'

And I might add,  what authority do they have to be involved in health insurance markets as a competitor?

The Republican Party at Mordor on the Potomac will have signed over the legitimacy and authority of the government to manage, run, direct and regulate your health care, your way of life and perhaps even the way you think or vote.

Once they pass ANY of these 'replace' efforts instead of total and full repeal, the GOP will have agreed with the premise that the feds are granted that power and authority over your lives - and they can tell you what to buy, how much to buy, what you cannot buy, where you can buy, where you cannot buy and what amounts you are permitted to buy.

Go ahead and laugh if you think that near future is not going to happen here.  That future is guaranteed if they pass any 'replacement' bill that shores up ObamaCare and leaves any trace of it in operation.

We're all Socialists now.  Might as well get used to it and get what you can, while you can, for as long as you can before the boots come down on your neck and those of your posterity.

That is apparently the argument now by those in favor of keeping ObamaCare, but only changing ownership and some nuts and bolts.

[Hondo69]

Once they pass ANY of these 'replace' efforts instead of total and full repeal, the GOP will have agreed with the premise that the feds are granted that power and authority over your lives - and they can tell you what to buy, how much to buy, what you cannot buy, where you can buy, where you cannot buy and what amounts you are permitted to buy.

Well said

 

[Hondo69]

Trump and the Republicans risk losing the support of their base.

George W Bush had two years to repair a lot of the damage incurred during Clinton's time in office.  Bush and the Republicans bent over backwards to compromise, cut deals, and eventually get screwed to the wall by Democrats.  That short two year window went by in a flash and during the following mid-term elections a disgusted base stayed home and did not vote.

We're 10 weeks into the Trump administration and the window is already closing fast.  We still have ObamaCare, Dodd/Frank, and have to get to the airport two hours early to stand in long lines just to be treated like criminals.

The Freedom Caucus is not the problem.

[Bigun]

The Republican Party at Mordor on the Potomac will have signed over the legitimacy and authority of the government to manage, run, direct and regulate your health care, your way of life and perhaps even the way you think or vote.

Once they pass ANY of these 'replace' efforts instead of total and full repeal, the GOP will have agreed with the premise that the feds are granted that power and authority over your lives - and they can tell you what to buy, how much to buy, what you cannot buy, where you can buy, where you cannot buy and what amounts you are permitted to buy.

Go ahead and laugh if you think that near future is not going to happen here.  That future is guaranteed if they pass any 'replacement' bill that shores up ObamaCare and leaves any trace of it in operation.

We're all Socialists now.  Might as well get used to it and get what you can, while you can, for as long as you can before the boots come down on your neck and those of your posterity.

That is apparently the argument now by those in favor of keeping ObamaCare, but only changing ownership and some nuts and bolts.

Can't argue with anything you wrote there!  In fact you make my point better than I did!   

[Cyber Liberty]

Trump and the Republicans risk losing the support of their base.

George W Bush had two years to repair a lot of the damage incurred during Clinton's time in office.  Bush and the Republicans bent over backwards to compromise, cut deals, and eventually get screwed to the wall by Democrats.  That short two year window went by in a flash and during the following mid-term elections a disgusted base stayed home and did not vote.

We're 10 weeks into the Trump administration and the window is already closing fast.  We still have ObamaCare, Dodd/Frank, and have to get to the airport two hours early to stand in long lines just to be treated like criminals.

The Freedom Caucus is not the problem.

I was curious so I looked this up yesterday.  The Republicans picked up 8 seats in the House in 2002.

[Jazzhead]

Trump and the Republicans risk losing the support of their base.

I'm less concerned about the "base" than the millions of new voters - many of them independents - who voted GOP in 2016.   The chaos caused by full repeal will be felt by millions,  and the GOP will own the consequences.   It is politically smart to eliminate the mandates that incense the right while retaining those features of the ACA that are popular with everyone else.   

The Freedom Caucus is not the problem.

It most certainly is.   The FC has provided the Dems with a stunning political victory,  and voters with evidence that, even with majorities in both Houses as well as the Presidency,  the GOP isn't unified enough to lead.