The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: txradioguy on September 19, 2017, 06:10:20 pm
-
No one wants to repeal ObamaCare more than I do. As a career physician, there are few in Congress who have as much firsthand experience on all sides of the health care debate as I do. I’ve voted for repeal. I’ve sponsored my own Repeal and Replace plans.
But I’ve also led the fight to stop and block “ObamaCare Lite” plans offered in both houses of Congress this year. These have been plans that have spent nearly as much money as ObamaCare, that left most of the taxes and regulations in place, and basically failed to honor our promise of repeal.
Unfortunately, they’re back again, and I must add to the list of ObamaCare Lite plans to oppose the new Graham/Cassidy bill that was introduced last week in the Senate.
In all ways, this bill is also ObamaCare Lite. In no way is it repeal the way we promised. I will oppose this bill as I did the other fake repeal bills, and I urge those who want repeal to do so, as well.
Make no mistake – Graham/Cassidy keeps ObamaCare funding and regulations in place. Oh, it rearranges the furniture a bit, changes some names, and otherwise masks what is really going on – a redistribution of ObamaCare taxes and a new Republican entitlement program, funded nearly as extravagantly as ObamaCare.
Graham/Cassidy doesn’t repeal a single ObamaCare insurance regulation. All of the Title 1 rules, the Essential Health Benefit rules, all of them - they’re still in place here.
States may grovel on bended knee for some relief to the federal government, with no guarantee of success and no permanent solution beyond the current administration.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/09/18/sen-rand-paul-grahamcassidy-does-not-repeal-obamacare-and-oppose-it.html
-
So, given a choice between Obamacare and Less than Obamacare (with the option to pursue even less later down the road), Senator Paul, with only two weeks left before reconciliation expires, chooses Obamacare.
Some Tea Party conservative he is.
-
So, given a choice between Obamacare and Less than Obamacare (with the option to pursue even less later down the road), Senator Paul, with only two weeks left before reconciliation expires, chooses Obamacare.
Some Tea Party conservative he is.
No he didn't say that. Nor did he imply it.
IIRC he believes like many of us do that the only way to "fix" Obamacare is to scrap the entire thing "root and branch" and put healthcare and healthcare providers and insurance back into the free market where it belongs.
-
No he didn't say that. Nor did he imply it.
IIRC he believes like many of us do that the only way to "fix" Obamacare is to scrap the entire thing "root and branch" and put healthcare and healthcare providers and insurance back into the free market where it belongs.
@txradioguy
Are there any of those kinda bills currently in the works? If not then he chose to keep Obamacare.
-
No he didn't say that. Nor did he imply it.
IIRC he believes like many of us do that the only way to "fix" Obamacare is to scrap the entire thing "root and branch" and put healthcare and healthcare providers and insurance back into the free market where it belongs.
If you think, as long as the current Senate is in power, that a wholescale repeal is ever happening in one fell swoop, you're wrong. There are too many turncoats.
It is perfectly fine to say that this does not repeal Obamacare. It is NOT OK to reject any and all efforts to scale back Obamacare until it is repealed, because it doesn't do it all at once (something that, again, was rejected once by the Senate and will be rejected again).
It is long past time for the Republican Party to start thinking about the Long War. Obamacare was, to the Democrats' far-left wing, a stepping stone for the coming push for government monopoly on health care payment (single payer). They did not push single-payer on us at once. They are chipping away, bit by bit, piece by piece. We on the right need to start taking the same approach.
-
@txradioguy
Are there any of those kinda bills currently in the works? If not then he chose to keep Obamacare.
Yes, Paul actually keeps submitting really good repeal bills but it keeps getting shot down.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/26/moderate-senators-shoot-down-rand-pauls-clean-obamacare-repeal-bill/
By opposing the half assed measures, that allows him to continue to resubmit his own bills (one of those convoluted Congressional rules).
-
@txradioguy
Are there any of those kinda bills currently in the works? If not then he chose to keep Obamacare.
That's crap and you know it.
-
Give it up, Congressional Republicans. You're incompetent to lead.
I stand with the President. Do what you have to do, make deals with the Dems, anything rather than having to kowtow to these flippin' idiot Republicans who won't take yes for an answer.
-
Give it up, Congressional Republicans. You're incompetent to lead.
I stand with the President. Do what you have to do, make deals with the Dems, anything rather than having to kowtow to these flippin' idiot Republicans who won't take yes for an answer.
So you support deals with the Democrats to get more Democrat policies?
You do know you can oppose both, right? You can be pissed at Republican's lack of spine but still oppose dealing with Dems.
-
So, given a choice between Obamacare and Less than Obamacare (with the option to pursue even less later down the road), Senator Paul, with only two weeks left before reconciliation expires, chooses Obamacare.
Some Tea Party conservative he is.
He's a narcissistic idiot. Unfortunately, like McCain he's dragging the rest of the GOP Congress down with him.
-
So you support deals with the Democrats to get more Democrat policies?
You do know you can oppose both, right? You can be pissed at Republican's lack of spine but still oppose dealing with Dems.
I stand with the President at this point. Whatever needs to happen. I am disgusted beyond words at the Congressional GOP.
-
I stand with the President at this point. Whatever needs to happen. I am disgusted beyond words at the Congressional GOP.
And, where does the President stand this afternoon, @Jazzhead?
-
I stand with the President at this point. Whatever needs to happen. I am disgusted beyond words at the Congressional GOP.
Hmm, that's like standing on sand in front of a rising tide.
-
I stand with the President at this point. Whatever needs to happen. I am disgusted beyond words at the Congressional GOP.
Let's see the logic here.
I'm angry at the Congressional GOP because they lack spines and give into the Democrats and not accomplish anything.
But I'm also angry at Rand Paul for not compromising and submitting a clean bill that does fully what we want.
So I'm going to stand with the President at this point in his compromising with Democrats because I'm disgusted with the GOP for compromising with Democrats.
Allrighty then.
-
Let's see the logic here.
I'm angry at the Congressional GOP because they lack spines and give into the Democrats and not accomplish anything.
But I'm also angry at Rand Paul for not compromising and submitting a clean bill that does fully what we want.
So I'm going to stand with the President at this point in his compromising with Democrats because I'm disgusted with the GOP for compromising with Democrats.
Allrighty then.
That's how we end up with Trump cutting deals with the Democrat leadership in Congress.
And no one wins when that happens.
-
ObamaCare is a serious problem. It cannot be permitted to ruin the insurance markets. If the GOP caucus cannot fix it or repeal it, then I support the efforts of centrists from both parties to hammer something out. The President should encourage the work of bipartisan centrists. Conservatives had their chance, and blew it. Idiots like Rand Paul deserve to be backbenchers - they lack the responsibility to govern.
-
So, given a choice between Obamacare and Less than Obamacare (with the option to pursue even less later down the road), Senator Paul, with only two weeks left before reconciliation expires, chooses Obamacare.
Some Tea Party conservative he is.
No....he probably just doesn't want to put the GOP label on a sure-fire FAIL (another one, that is). Offhand, I'd say that's pretty smart. Unfortunately, smart people in politics is a very rare commodity in this day and age. I've been no Rand fan, but on this he is 100% correct. Either repeal the damned thing or leave it alone and let it collapse. It ain't rocket surgery.
-
That's how we end up with Trump cutting deals with the Democrat leadership in Congress.
And no one wins when that happens.
You're right - no one wins. But I have lost all patience that conservatives will ever get their act together. There is no sane reason that any conservative should oppose Graham/Cassidy as a viable alternative to O-Care. It's better than the status quo, because it shuts down the permanent entitlement that O-Care represents.
You're right, no one wins when you have to deal with idiots. Jmyrlefuller is right:
So, given a choice between Obamacare and Less than Obamacare (with the option to pursue even less later down the road), Senator Paul, with only two weeks left before reconciliation expires, chooses Obamacare.
Some Tea Party conservative he is
To hell with Rand Paul. Cut the best deal with centrists that you can, Mr. President.
-
So, I heard some expert talking about the future of Government healthcare.
Obamacare would lead us to single payer in about 5 years.
Reforms that have been voted on this years would lead us to single payer in about 8 years.
Do nothing, it leads us to single payer.
Do something, it leads us to single payer.
The only real solution is to repeal.
We were always told by these politicians that it would be (1) Repeal, and (2) Replace.
Some said repeal only.
Nothing says it has to be done at the exact same time.
-
So, given a choice between Obamacare and Less than Obamacare (with the option to pursue even less later down the road), Senator Paul, with only two weeks left before reconciliation expires, chooses Obamacare.
Some Tea Party conservative he is.
Right. The guy standing on sound principle is in your way. Go figger that out, why not.
-
So, I heard some expert talking about the future of Government healthcare.
Obamacare would lead us to single payer in about 5 years.
Reforms that have been voted on this years would lead us to single payer in about 8 years.
Do nothing, it leads us to single payer.
Do something, it leads us to single payer.
The only real solution is to repeal.
We were always told by these politicians that it would be (1) Repeal, and (2) Replace.
Some said repeal only.
Nothing says it has to be done at the exact same time.
None of the plans proposed, including this one, is anything even remotely close to repeal. Essentially, they are the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig.
Republicans, including Trump, promised us repeal. They aren't delivering on that promise and they should all be held accountable.
-
And, we know how useful that is.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http:%2F%2Floveslc.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F11%2FLipstick-on-a-pig.jpg&sp=81ff8b1e6ac02c814b5658156392402c)
-
None of the plans proposed, including this one, is anything even remotely close to repeal. Essentially, they are the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig.
Republicans, including Trump, promised us repeal. They aren't delivering on that promise and they should all be held accountable.
Paul's is the only full, clean repeal bill. He has been submitting this over and over. This wasn't just 'the last two weeks' we've been hearing from him as some implied.
-
None of the plans proposed, including this one, is anything even remotely close to repeal. Essentially, they are the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig.
Republicans, including Trump, promised us repeal. They aren't delivering on that promise and they should all be held accountable.
True
-
@txradioguy
Are there any of those kinda bills currently in the works? If not then he chose to keep Obamacare.
It is pretty much guaranteed that if the GOP gets to pass a bill that does little to nothing to remove the onerous provisions which eliminated insurance for many of us, and then rebrand it as their 'fix' that no meaningful progress will be made on the issue. Period. They will deem it "fixed", and that, as they say, will be that.
-
It is pretty much guaranteed that if the GOP gets to pass a bill that does little to nothing to remove the onerous provisions which eliminated insurance for many of us, and then rebrand it as their 'fix' that no meaningful progress will be made on the issue. Period. They will deem it "fixed", and that, as they say, will be that.
But on all of us, how many here have called their Congressman and asked him to support Paul's clean repeal bill? (I took for granted myself that Gohmert would support the clean bill, I think I was wrong).
-
So, I heard some expert talking about the future of Government healthcare.
Obamacare would lead us to single payer in about 5 years.
Reforms that have been voted on this years would lead us to single payer in about 8 years.
In other words, this bill buys us three more years to keep working.
Do nothing, it leads us to single payer.
Do something, it leads us to single payer.
The only real solution is to repeal.
Repeal has been rejected, repeatedly. So continuing to push clean repeal is pushing for doing nothing, because repeal won't pass as long as the current Senate is in control. As I noted before, this bill buys us three years which gives a better opportunity for the next Congress, which given Dem landslides in '06 and '12 should have room for some more conservatives to find their way in.
We were always told by these politicians that it would be (1) Repeal, and (2) Replace.
Some said repeal only.
Nothing says it has to be done at the exact same time.
Unless you live in the states where these rogue Senators are based, it doesn't matter what our votes do. Living in New York, neither of my state's Democrat senators ever promised repeal and are actively fighting it. The GOP is hopelessly corrupted and incompetent.
I'll counterpoint that nothing says it has to be done in that order, either. Start with this and keep working.
-
If you think, as long as the current Senate is in power, that a wholescale repeal is ever happening in one fell swoop, you're wrong. There are too many turncoats.
It is perfectly fine to say that this does not repeal Obamacare. It is NOT OK to reject any and all efforts to scale back Obamacare until it is repealed, because it doesn't do it all at once (something that, again, was rejected once by the Senate and will be rejected again).
It is long past time for the Republican Party to start thinking about the Long War. Obamacare was, to the Democrats' far-left wing, a stepping stone for the coming push for government monopoly on health care payment (single payer). They did not push single-payer on us at once. They are chipping away, bit by bit, piece by piece. We on the right need to start taking the same approach.
So you think it more likely that, if this version is passed, that some future Republican Congress will look at it yet again, and change it further to our liking? I have some serious doubts about that. In the meantime, a crap sandwich is still a crap sandwich, no matter if there's more or less crap between the bread.
-
@McCormackJohn
Odd that Rand Paul backed skinny repeal, which kept all of Obamacare's $, but opposes bill that block grants $
-
Sen. Rand Paul: Skinny repeal is better than no repeal:
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/07/26/sen-rand-paul-skinny-repeal-is-better-than-no-repeal.html
-
Fishrrman's credo:
Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be.
obamacare is an edifice that is best torn down several blocks at a time.
Trying to demolish it in one fell swoop ain't gonna work.
-
Fishrrman's credo:
Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be.
obamacare is an edifice that is best torn down several blocks at a time.
Trying to demolish it in one fell swoop ain't gonna work.
In fact, it is the only thing that will work.
-
In fact, it is the only thing that will work.
Somewhere in all this babble about "how much", the central argument got lost.
What in the Hell is the Federal Government doing mucking about requiring or mandating or micromanaging Health Insurance anyway? By what Constitutional Authorization?
-
Somewhere in all this babble about "how much", the central argument got lost.
What in the Hell is the Federal Government doing mucking about requiring or mandating or micromanaging Health Insurance anyway? By what Constitutional Authorization?
That's it. Anything less than repeal is accepting an unconstitutional mandate. The LAST gasp at preserving the truth is for the Republicans to reject it and set things right.
-
This Republican is Opposing the Senate Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood
National Steven Ertelt Sep 19, 2017 | 11:05AM Washington, DC
....
But Senator Rand Paul is a no vote and Senator John McCain, who voted against the last bill to defund Planned Parenthood, is uncommitted.
Continued: http://www.lifenews.com/2017/09/19/this-republican-is-opposing-the-senate-bill-to-defund-planned-parenthood/
It defunds the beast. I'd vote aye.
-
Fishrrman's credo:
Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be.
obamacare is an edifice that is best torn down several blocks at a time.
Trying to demolish it in one fell swoop ain't gonna work.
:thumbsup:
And per the prior post, this bill will defund Planned Parenthood. There are no easy answers; I respect what others say but I'd support this as being of primary importance.
-
So, given a choice between Obamacare and Less than Obamacare (with the option to pursue even less later down the road), Senator Paul, with only two weeks left before reconciliation expires, chooses Obamacare.
Some Tea Party conservative he is.
:thumbsup:
-
It doesn't appear to be defunding the Beast, @TomSea
It is just shifting the burden to the States, through block grants and Federal Regulation at the order of HHS Price.
Repeal has proven a delusion, with this Congress, this party and this President, and probably all future Congresses.
It's over, they won, obummercare is their vehicle to Single payer, we are so screwed.
-
It defunds the beast. I'd vote aye.
Bingo. This bill deserves conservative support.
-
Right. The guy standing on sound principle is in your way. Go figger that out, why not.
The guy "standing on sound principle" is the one directly responsible for sustaining ObamaCare. The proposed reform would replace the entitlement with block grants. Whatever else may become of ObamaCare, that would be an important conservative victory.
I used to love Rand Paul. This guy's a flamin' idiot.
-
The guy "standing on sound principle" is the one directly responsible for sustaining ObamaCare. The proposed reform would replace the entitlement with block grants. Whatever else may become of ObamaCare, that would be an important conservative victory.
I used to love Rand Paul. This guy's a flamin' idiot.
EXACTLY WRONG. It is those SAVING it that sustain it. Not those opposed to saving it.
Repeal this unconstitutional bullshit.
-
In other words, this bill buys us three more years to keep working.
Repeal has been rejected, repeatedly. So continuing to push clean repeal is pushing for doing nothing, because repeal won't pass as long as the current Senate is in control. As I noted before, this bill buys us three years which gives a better opportunity for the next Congress, which given Dem landslides in '06 and '12 should have room for some more conservatives to find their way in.
Unless you live in the states where these rogue Senators are based, it doesn't matter what our votes do. Living in New York, neither of my state's Democrat senators ever promised repeal and are actively fighting it. The GOP is hopelessly corrupted and incompetent.
I'll counterpoint that nothing says it has to be done in that order, either. Start with this and keep working.
Right now the Democrats own Obamacare. As soon as the Republicans diddle around the edges they own it. It can't be "fixed". If they do diddle around the edges they're idiots. Either get rid of it and own that or stay far away from the coming wreck. And if people demand their foreseeable wreck then let them have it.
-
Trying to demolish it in one fell swoop ain't gonna work.
How do you know?
We...or more specifically Congress has never tried.
They gave up before even taking a swing.
-
It doesn't appear to be defunding the Beast, @TomSea
It is just shifting the burden to the States, through block grants and Federal Regulation at the order of HHS Price. ...
Statehouses had historically regulated the health insurance industry (prior to Obamacare) ... including insurance carriers, eligibility and coverage. It is my understanding that HHS does not dictate these features of health insurance, that each state would set up a system to meet the needs of its citizens. This being the case, the bill would not be shifting a "new burden" to the states, but returning the power back to them.
-
Statehouses had historically regulated the health insurance industry (prior to Obamacare) ... including insurance carriers, eligibility and coverage. It is my understanding that HHS does not dictate these features of health insurance, that each state would set up a system to meet the needs of its citizens. This being the case, the bill would not be shifting a "new burden" to the states, but returning the power back to them.
And that would be great except that it appears that almost all of the ACA taxes remain in place, and the State has to appeal to FedGov to be able to remove the "essential" healthcare coverage that will still be required.
-
Statehouses had historically regulated the health insurance industry (prior to Obamacare) ... including insurance carriers, eligibility and coverage. It is my understanding that HHS does not dictate these features of health insurance, that each state would set up a system to meet the needs of its citizens. This being the case, the bill would not be shifting a "new burden" to the states, but returning the power back to them.
It isn't shifting power back to the States. What it shifts is the responsibility to conduct their business as the Federal Government demands, with funding withheld in the event they do not.
The Feds retain the regulatory power.
If the health insurance business relationship with the government was to be honestly described, it is fascism at this point. Making the States the middlemen just adds another layer of bureaucracy and expense to an already insanely expensive system.
-
It isn't shifting power back to the States. What it shifts is the responsibility to conduct their business as the Federal Government demands, with funding withheld in the event they do not.
The Feds retain the regulatory power.
If the health insurance business relationship with the government was to be honestly described, it is fascism at this point. Making the States the middlemen just adds another layer of bureaucracy and expense to an already insanely expensive system.
And thinking more about it, how does that not jack the price up even more? Now each state needs some kind of Board or Committee or new Department just to show management at the State level.
-
And that would be great except that it appears that almost all of the ACA taxes remain in place, and the State has to appeal to FedGov to be able to remove the "essential" healthcare coverage that will still be required.
So if/when the states have to go begging to the FedGov for anything.... it's not really returning power back to the states. It's still the FedGov regulating and controlling it. And as we all know... once the FedGov gets control of something.... they never ever let go of it.
-
So, given a choice between Obamacare and Less than Obamacare (with the option to pursue even less later down the road), Senator Paul, with only two weeks left before reconciliation expires, chooses Obamacare.
Some Tea Party conservative he is.
There's no way I can read this bill or completely understand it, but does anybody know if it contains anything worth passing.
Obviously, it's not what we want but is it a step in the right direction?
I understand Rand Paul's objection ... I don't believe he was even for the bill with the Ted Cruz amendment ... although I could be wrong. He wants a really good bill and obamacare repealed but it's become obvious that we're not gonna get that for a while.
So is there anything in this proposal that makes it worth passing?
-
There's no way I can read this bill or completely understand it, but does anybody know if it contains anything worth passing.
Obviously, it's not what we want but is it a step in the right direction?
I understand Rand Paul's objection ... I don't believe he was even for the bill with the Ted Cruz amendment ... although I could be wrong. He wants a really good bill and obamacare repealed but it's become obvious that we're not gonna get that for a while.
So is there anything in this proposal that makes it worth passing?
@Emjay There are a couple of things that are an improvement, if you can believe the news articles. One is that it increases the amount you can contribute to your HSA and your HSA can be used to pay the insurance premiums.
The empolyer mandate is supposedly gone.
-
It isn't shifting power back to the States. What it shifts is the responsibility to conduct their business as the Federal Government demands, with funding withheld in the event they do not.
The Feds retain the regulatory power.
If the health insurance business relationship with the government was to be honestly described, it is fascism at this point. Making the States the middlemen just adds another layer of bureaucracy and expense to an already insanely expensive system.
That's my worry of the bill. While the insurance mandate and tax goes away, the remaining taxes and regs don't. States won't be able to make it float if they have no leeway to make decisions outside the federal box they are put in.
-
So if/when the states have to go begging to the FedGov for anything.... it's not really returning power back to the states. It's still the FedGov regulating and controlling it. And as we all know... once the FedGov gets control of something.... they never ever let go of it.
In fact, it becomes yet another Sword of Damocles in the hand of the fed, hanging over the head of the State.
This is a very bad idea.
-
That's my worry of the bill. While the insurance mandate and tax goes away, the remaining taxes and regs don't. States won't be able to make it float if they have no leeway to make decisions outside the federal box they are put in.
What eliminated my health insurance was the coverage demands of the ACA. My (then) high deductible hospital surgical policy didn't meet all the criteria, and with that, my insurance carrier quit offering health insurance in my state. Period. Effectively, by requiring too much of the company (more than I wanted them to cover), the ACA cost me my health insurance. Now the 'cheap' plan offered on the exchange here costs more than 4 times as much with a deductible nearly three times what my old deductible was. I have not had insurance since a little while after the ACA passed, because I can't afford to dump 28K a year into insurance. In the average year, the premiums are over 3 times the cost for care for a family of 4.
-
What eliminated my health insurance was the coverage demands of the ACA. My (then) high deductible hospital surgical policy didn't meet all the criteria, and with that, my insurance carrier quit offering health insurance in my state. Period. Effectively, by requiring too much of the company (more than I wanted them to cover), the ACA cost me my health insurance. Now the 'cheap' plan offered on the exchange here costs more than 4 times as much with a deductible nearly three times what my old deductible was. I have not had insurance since a little while after the ACA passed, because I can't afford to dump 28K a year into insurance. In the average year, the premiums are over 3 times the cost for care for a family of 4.
So the Democrats' destruction of the American middle class (the ones they consider to be their political opponents.... since they embraced blue-collar minorities, instead) has been very successful. And THAT is why they lost in the last election. The American middle class struck back at them. Too bad the GOP, thanks to the RINOs and establishment morons, are going to trash that victory.... as usual.
-
I have not had insurance since a little while after the ACA passed, because I can't afford to dump 28K a year into insurance. In the average year, the premiums are over 3 times the cost for care for a family of 4.
Look into a Christian Brotherhood plan... There are several out there, and they 'count' as insurance. My brother was 28k/12k ded(per person) on the TN version of GubOMintCare ... He's now running about 400/mo for a fam of 4
-
Too bad the GOP, thanks to the RINOs and establishment morons, are going to trash that victory.... as usual.
Careful not to be sucked into the idea of their stupidity - It is not stupidity. It is collusion.
-
Careful not to be sucked into the idea of their stupidity - It is not stupidity. It is collusion.
I am under no illusions that their treachery is due to their stupidity. It's due to their greed, mostly. They fear any 'real' draining of the swamp that might upset their game. They have nothing to fear in Trump, however. If anything, they will get fatter and richer. And the corruption will go on unfettered.
-
@Emjay There are a couple of things that are an improvement, if you can believe the news articles. One is that it increases the amount you can contribute to your HSA and your HSA can be used to pay the insurance premiums.
The empolyer mandate is supposedly gone.
Thanks. So, that being said, is there any fatal downside into passing this bill. I mean, will passing it make it harder somehow to get a really effective bill passed down the road.
-
Thanks. So, that being said, is there any fatal downside into passing this bill. I mean, will passing it make it harder somehow to get a really effective bill passed down the road.
I can't see anyone revisiting the subject. The Republican song will be that they've given us the best bill they could pass and move on. At least imo.
-
I can't see anyone revisiting the subject. The Republican song will be that they've given us the best bill they could pass and move on. At least imo.
That's how I see it too. McConnell will be able to say: "see, we passed the best bill we could, just like we promised."
-
Thanks. So, that being said, is there any fatal downside into passing this bill. I mean, will passing it make it harder somehow to get a really effective bill passed down the road.
There is one factor that long term may tip the balance - the fact that this is going to fall on the states. Generally that's a very good thing if the FedGov gives them the proper leeway.
Except for getting rid of the mandate and the penalty, they aren't doing that right now. It does though open the door in the future for beneficial tweaks. For example allowing companies to pool across state lines by reciprocity agreements, exclusions/carve outs, incentives for companies to take high risks but not jack their premium, etc.
But, it is a fundamental structural shift to boot it to the states, even if the motive likely is to get it out of the Congress critters hair. That does end alot of the FedGov bureaucratic control over it via the Executive branch, as long as the states obey the parameters.
-
There is one factor that long term may tip the balance - the fact that this is going to fall on the states. Generally that's a very good thing if the FedGov gives them the proper leeway.
Except for getting rid of the mandate and the penalty, they aren't doing that right now. It does though open the door in the future for beneficial tweaks. For example allowing companies to pool across state lines by reciprocity agreements, exclusions/carve outs, incentives for companies to take high risks but not jack their premium, etc.
But, it is a fundamental structural shift to boot it to the states, even if the motive likely is to get it out of the Congress critters hair. That does end alot of the FedGov bureaucratic control over it via the Executive branch, as long as the states obey the parameters.
Thanks. Sounds like it may pass and that may be okay.
-
I can't see anyone revisiting the subject. The Republican song will be that they've given us the best bill they could pass and move on. At least imo.
I think you're close, you just forgot to mention that they will always refer to it as repeal. And the media and the Dems will go right along with that so they can:
1) Campaign on the evil republicans taking away medicine from children and minorities.
2) Not worry about actual repeal, since the narrative is that that already happened.
-
Thanks. Sounds like it may pass and that may be okay.
But.... how would we know if it is okay? Has anyone (other than Congresscritters) actually seen or read the bill? I can't find it anywhere. So much for that "transparency" BS. I don't think they want us to know what's in it (channeling Nancy Pelosi) before it's passed.
-
But.... how would we know if it is okay? Has anyone (other than Congresscritters) actually seen or read the bill? I can't find it anywhere. So much for that "transparency" BS. I don't think they want us to know what's in it (channeling Nancy Pelosi) before it's passed.
That’s exactly how they swamp works. They can’t be challenged if they keep the public who elected them in the dark.
-
I think you're close, you just forgot to mention that they will always refer to it as repeal. And the media and the Dems will go right along with that so they can:
1) Campaign on the evil republicans taking away medicine from children and minorities.
2) Not worry about actual repeal, since the narrative is that that already happened.
Spot-on.
-
But.... how would we know if it is okay? Has anyone (other than Congresscritters) actually seen or read the bill? I can't find it anywhere. So much for that "transparency" BS. I don't think they want us to know what's in it (channeling Nancy Pelosi) before it's passed.
I wonder how many of the congresspersons actually read it. I'll bet most of them won't. As I've said many times before, they are all eager to pass any old bill, call it "repeal" and be done with it.
-
I think you're close, you just forgot to mention that they will always refer to it as repeal. And the media and the Dems will go right along with that so they can:
1) Campaign on the evil republicans taking away medicine from children and minorities.
2) Not worry about actual repeal, since the narrative is that that already happened.
Agreed. :thumbsup:
-
That's how I see it too. McConnell will be able to say: "see, we passed the best bill we could, just like we promised."
And if it goes down, he'll be able to say: "see, we tried our best, put forth every possible bill we could, just like we promised, but we couldn't get it passed so there's no point in revisiting it."
-
And if it goes down, he'll be able to say: "see, we tried our best, put forth every possible bill we could, just like we promised, but we couldn't get it passed so there's no point in revisiting it."
Pssst....hey guess what?
He's going to do that anyway.
-
Prayerfully, Senator Paul changes his mind.
Pro-Life Senators like Senator Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz support this bill. I commend them.
-
Thanks. So, that being said, is there any fatal downside into passing this bill. I mean, will passing it make it harder somehow to get a really effective bill passed down the road.
From what I've seen it takes us closer to single payer. States need federal permission to go further away from single payer but no permission to go towards single payer under this legislation. In other words, it has a bias towards single payer. So states like California and New York can go full bore single payer with federal dollars with no questions asked. If Texas wants to go the opposite direction it has to get permission from the Feds to do so.
-
I wonder how many of the congresspersons actually read it. I'll bet most of them won't. As I've said many times before, they are all eager to pass any old bill, call it "repeal" and be done with it.
@Applewood I'd guess about as many as the number that read the ACA before it was shoved down our throats.
-
From what I've seen it takes us closer to single payer. States need federal permission to go further away from single payer but no permission to go towards single payer under this legislation. In other words, it has a bias towards single payer. So states like California and New York can go full bore single payer with federal dollars with no questions asked. If Texas wants to go the opposite direction it has to get permission from the Feds to do so.
@DB shhhhh don't say that too loudly. There's some here that think this bill promotes Conservative principals and empowers the states.
-
@DB shhhhh don't say that too loudly. There's some here that think this bill promotes Conservative principals and empowers the states.
Partial Federalism, isn't Federalism.
The 14th will over-ride the 10 amendment, (in the Federal Government's mind) as at has over and over again
-
There is one factor that long term may tip the balance - the fact that this is going to fall on the states. Generally that's a very good thing if the FedGov gives them the proper leeway.
Except for getting rid of the mandate and the penalty, they aren't doing that right now. It does though open the door in the future for beneficial tweaks. For example allowing companies to pool across state lines by reciprocity agreements, exclusions/carve outs, incentives for companies to take high risks but not jack their premium, etc.
But, it is a fundamental structural shift to boot it to the states, even if the motive likely is to get it out of the Congress critters hair. That does end alot of the FedGov bureaucratic control over it via the Executive branch, as long as the states obey the parameters.
@Free Vulcan
Have you seen the actual bill in question? I can't seem to find it.
-
@Free Vulcan
Have you seen the actual bill in question? I can't seem to find it.
@Bigun I have not, only second hand writeups.
-
@Bigun I have not, only second hand writeups.
Yeah! Me to! I would like to see the actual bill before I pronounce judgment instead of other people's opinions.
IF this is true then I'm all for it!
https://www.vox.com/health-care/2017/9/20/16333338/obamacare-repeal-graham-cassidy
-
Prayerfully, Senator Paul changes his mind.
Pro-Life Senators like Senator Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz support this bill. I commend them.
Ok, I must be behind because last I heard Ted Cruz, at least, was undecided.
-
Yeah! Me to! I would like to see the actual bill before I pronounce judgment instead of other people's opinions.
IF this is true then I'm all for it!
https://www.vox.com/health-care/2017/9/20/16333338/obamacare-repeal-graham-cassidy
That's Ezra Klein's website...gotta take everything he says with a LARGE grain of salt.
-
Yeah! Me to! I would like to see the actual bill before I pronounce judgment instead of other people's opinions.
IF this is true then I'm all for it!
https://www.vox.com/health-care/2017/9/20/16333338/obamacare-repeal-graham-cassidy
That's actually the most detailed analysis I've seen yet. To me this bill is a very mixed bag and a crap shoot.
However, the one thing that this does is take the general day-to-day management of the insurance markets out of the hands of the FedGov bureaucracy and gives it to the states, with rules. That is a major selling point for all the obvious reasons.
It does get rid of the mandate and the penalty which is a high priority. There are some other rules though that have been kept that need to go, and some new rules I'm not sure about.
The crux though, is now the states have skin in the game. They are now motivated to apply pressure to modify the rules. which I doubt would even be a possibility under a total FedGov managed system, or would occur so slowly as to be meaningless deck chair arranging. It means conservatives could mutate the rules along the way to get some of the things they want, like selling across state lines.
And that is the crap shoot. The bill isn't particularly great right now, but there is and open door opportunity to maneuver to improve it. So I can't say I necessarily support the bill, but I'd be willing to gamble on the basic structural shift to the states as a malleable template that could be modified into something much better over time.
-
@Free Vulcan
Have you seen the actual bill in question? I can't seem to find it.
No....cause Lindsey is apparently copying Nancy re: that gotta pass it before we know what's in it. And we all know how that will turn out.
-
@Free Vulcan
Have you seen the actual bill in question? I can't seem to find it.
@Bigun
https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Section%20by%20Section%20Final.pdf (https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Section%20by%20Section%20Final.pdf)
-
@Bigun
https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Section%20by%20Section%20Final.pdf (https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Section%20by%20Section%20Final.pdf)
Wow....they finally got it up there. Excellent.
Thanks!
-
@Bigun
https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Section%20by%20Section%20Final.pdf (https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Section%20by%20Section%20Final.pdf)
Thanks @Elderberry ! After reading that I am four square behind this bill. Warts and all! Can anyone tell me precisely who this CMS director continually spoken of in this bill is?
-
Thanks @Elderberry ! After reading that I am four square behind this bill. Warts and all! Can anyone tell me precisely who this CMS director continually spoken of in this bill is?
@Bigun
The head of the CMS is the Administrator of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The position is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Seema Verma has been confirmed by the US Senate as Administrator of CMS, a top healthcare position in the Trump administration.
-
@Bigun
The head of the CMS is the Administrator of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The position is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Seema Verma has been confirmed by the US Senate as Administrator of CMS, a top healthcare position in the Trump administration.
USA Today's take on Ms Verma, who was in the Pence administration in Indiana: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/30/medicaid-chief-seema-verma-blames-obamacare-collapse-founders-medicare/102313242/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/30/medicaid-chief-seema-verma-blames-obamacare-collapse-founders-medicare/102313242/)
-
@Bigun
The head of the CMS is the Administrator of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The position is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Seema Verma has been confirmed by the US Senate as Administrator of CMS, a top healthcare position in the Trump administration.
@Elderberry @Smokin Joe
Yeah! I found that but she is listed as the administrator and the bill speaks of the CMS director repeatedly. Maybe they mean her and maybe they don't. It remains unclear to me.
I just want to know that it's not some Obama holdover they are granting these powers.
-
@Elderberry @Smokin Joe
Yeah! I found that but she is listed as the administrator and the bill speaks of the CMS director repeatedly. Maybe they mean her and maybe they don't. It remains unclear to me.
I just want to know that it's not some Obama holdover they are granting these powers.
@Bigun
I just quick scanned it and did not see CMS Director. I saw a lot of CMS Administrator.
-
@Bigun
I just quick scanned it and did not see CMS Director. I saw a lot of CMS Administrator.
You're right! My bad! Guess I'm getting a little paranoid. :beer:
-
@Elderberry @Smokin Joe
Yeah! I found that but she is listed as the administrator and the bill speaks of the CMS director repeatedly. Maybe they mean her and maybe they don't. It remains unclear to me.
I just want to know that it's not some Obama holdover they are granting these powers.
@Bigun
There area Lot of Directors. They are all under the Administrator.
https://www.cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/CMSLeadership/Office_CM.html (https://www.cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/CMSLeadership/Office_CM.html)
-
Thanks @Elderberry ! After reading that I am four square behind this bill. Warts and all!
Agree!! @Bigun .. and I hope Sect 121 gets Murkowski across the finish line.
Thanks so much for posting this @Elderberry !
-
@Bigun
There area Lot of Directors. They are all under the Administrator.
https://www.cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/CMSLeadership/Office_CM.html (https://www.cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/CMSLeadership/Office_CM.html)
Which was exactly my concern! Now cleared up after your previous post caused me to go back and re look.
-
Agree!! @Bigun .. and I hope Sect 121 gets Murkowski across the finish line.
Thanks so much for posting this @Elderberry !
@Right_in_Virginia
My pleasure. I'm heading up Virginia way next week to visit my son in Fairfax.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
My pleasure. I'm heading up Virginia way next week to visit my son in Fairfax.
Well, it's a beautiful time of year around here (weather-wise). I'm a few miles outside the DC border.
Where will you be coming from??
@Elderberry
-
Well, it's a beautiful time of year around here (weather-wise). I'm a few miles outside the DC border.
Where will you be coming from??
@Elderberry
@Right_in_Virginia
Flying from Houston
-
@Right_in_Virginia
My pleasure. I'm heading up Virginia way next week to visit my son in Fairfax.
Take a jacket.
I went up to Leesburg during Irma. Took nothing but shorts and short sleeves. Pulled into a rest area just south of the beltway and it was 52 degrees outside. I still shiver just thinking about it.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
Flying from Houston
Maybe next trip up we can meet in DC for a bite to eat and a beer ... say the Trump International?? ^-^
Safe travels @Elderberry
-
It is pretty much guaranteed that if the GOP gets to pass a bill that does little to nothing to remove the onerous provisions which eliminated insurance for many of us, and then rebrand it as their 'fix' that no meaningful progress will be made on the issue. Period. They will deem it "fixed", and that, as they say, will be that.
I"m tired of arguing about this. Obviously, it is not a repeal, but it does eliminate a couple of the more onerous parts of Obamacare.
Some people are convinced that passing the bill will just extend Obamacare.
But not passing the bill will also extend Obamacare.
-
I"m tired of arguing about this. Obviously, it is not a repeal, but it does eliminate a couple of the more onerous parts of Obamacare.
Some people are convinced that passing the bill will just extend Obamacare.
But not passing the bill will also extend Obamacare.
Right..... either way, we will still HAVE ObamaCare.... whether the full version or the Lite version. The big/huge difference is.....
the GOP will have put their name and brand on the disaster and will OWN it if this bill passes. They will get all the blame when this bill fails miserably, just like ObamaCare is failing. If this ObieCare Lite bill passes.... the system will fail. It's not a matter of if....
it's a matter of when.
The fed still controls the strings under this bill. The mandate is gone, the subsidies replaced with "block grants to states".... which will no doubt be doled out unequally, as big government always does. It was their last chance to get the fedgov the HELL out of our healthcare. But noooo...
-
Right..... either way, we will still HAVE ObamaCare.... whether the full version or the Lite version. The big/huge difference is.....
the GOP will have put their name and brand on the disaster and will OWN it if this bill passes. They will get all the blame when this bill fails miserably, just like ObamaCare is failing. If this ObieCare Lite bill passes.... the system will fail. It's not a matter of if....
it's a matter of when.
The fed still controls the strings under this bill. The mandate is gone, the subsidies replaced with "block grants to states".... which will no doubt be doled out unequally, as big government always does. It was their last chance to get the fedgov the HELL out of our healthcare. But noooo...
QFT