The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on September 20, 2017, 02:23:13 pm
-
The two senators who will likely decide fate of ObamaCare repeal
By Jessie Hellmann - 09/20/17 06:00 AM EDT
All eyes are on Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) as Republicans try to approve a new Obama-Care repeal bill in the next 11 days.
The two were among the three Republicans who sunk the last GOP effort to repeal ObamaCare, and President Trump and his allies probably can’t afford to lose either if they are to win a vote next week.
Murkowski says she wants to make sure her huge, isolated and sparsely populated state fares well under the new bill. It would repeal much of ObamaCare and use the savings for block grants for states, giving them much more discretion on how to spend the federal funding.
more
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/351465-mccain-and-murkowski-hold-the-key-to-bills-fate
-
Would McCain really break with his good friend Lindsay Graham??
-
How did they flip Collins because if I'm not mistaken PP funding is being removed for a year just like the other 2 HC Bills one of which she voted against?
McConnell gonna give the great state of Maine some pork?
-
Yay everybody!! Our fates are in the hands of these two clowns!!
-
I trust Ted Cruz on this issue, he has been supportive of these bills.
-
I just saw a PP tweet (paid advertisement) urging people to contact Sen. Capito (WV) and tell her not to take away healthcare. I wanted to ask them how slaughtering babies constitutes healthcare, but figured it was pointless.
-
It's not a repeal and I wish news outlets would stop calling it that.
-
@TomSea
(http://m.likesuccess.com/quotes/14/697075.png)
-
How did they flip Collins because if I'm not mistaken PP funding is being removed for a year just like the other 2 HC Bills one of which she voted against?
McConnell gonna give the great state of Maine some pork?
Probably another Cornhusker kickback kinda "deal".
But realistically, I don't see Collins flipping on this if it truly does defund PP....even for a year (and why just for a year?). I see her and McCain tanking the bill.... again and as usual. McCain figures what does he have to lose....and Collins will just be adhering to her standard libleftie values.
-
Grandstand Rand has already vowed to tank it.
-
Grandstand Rand has already vowed to tank it.
You must like the idea of paying all those taxes to fund it?
-
Would McCain really break with his good friend Lindsay Graham??
He did on the last bill.
-
How did they flip Collins because if I'm not mistaken PP funding is being removed for a year just like the other 2 HC Bills one of which she voted against?
McConnell gonna give the great state of Maine some pork?
Probably something along the lines of what Pelosi had to do to get the holdout Dems to vote for the ACA in the first place.
-
Grandstand Rand has already vowed to tank it.
Good...I'm sure he's not the only one.
-
I trust Ted Cruz on this issue, he has been supportive of these bills.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fa2%2F30%2F53%2Fa23053f14947a0fdd38d7af0740d6b67--emoji-emoticons-emojis.jpg&sp=fb0fa18debb2c97a6387411cbac4e576)
-
You must like the idea of paying all those taxes to fund it?
I'll be able to opt out and my low income means my hands are clean. I'll let the rest of y'all figure out the mess I'm no longer a part of handling.
-
I'll be able to opt out and my low income means my hands are clean. I'll let the rest of y'all figure out the mess I'm no longer a part of handling.
That's a novel approach to the subject.
-
I'll be able to opt out and my low income means my hands are clean. I'll let the rest of y'all figure out the mess I'm no longer a part of handling.
That is so considerate of you.
-
It's not a repeal and I wish news outlets would stop calling it that.
It's not repeal but it still advances important conservative priorities. Pay off Murkowski if necessary, just let's get this thing done.
I may be mistaken, but I assume we need both McCain and Murkowski, since Collins really is a RINO and Rand Paul is an idiot.
-
I may be mistaken, but I assume we need both McCain and Murkowski, since Collins really is a RINO and Rand Paul is an idiot.
I may not agree with you about much, but that observation is spot on. I owe you a ceegar. :smokin:
-
I may not agree with you about much, but that observation is spot on. I owe you a ceegar. :smokin:
McCain said he wanted the governor of his state to weigh in, and he's done so - Arizona wants the ability to innovate that Graham/Cassidy provides. Let's hope McCain is a man of honor. As for Murkowski, I hope she can be bought off with a Kodiak kickback - Alaska really does have some unique issues with its scattered population and high proportion of native Americans.
Rand's a fool who's beyond redemption, but for the record - Kentucky's governor, too, is in favor of Graham/Cassidy. Collins? The less said, the better - at least she's been consistent in defying GOP leadership throughout this whole process. That, folks, is a RINO.
-
It's not repeal but it still advances important conservative priorities.
Expanding government and having the Federal government run the healthcare industry is NOT furthering ANY Conservative priorities.
-
Expanding government and having the Federal government run the healthcare industry is NOT furthering ANY Conservative priorities.
The vast majority of conservatives in the Senate think it does.
-
Like McCain. :bigsilly:
-
The vast majority of conservatives in the Senate think it does.
The Conservatives...the real Conservatives...don't think it is. Otherwise the first attempt at Obamacare-lite would have passed.
Every attempt at anything short of a repeal has failed because Conservatives...not the RINO's you call "conservative" because they have strong Liberal leanings like yourself...but real Conservatives have blocked an expansion of Federal power that their own party is trying to shove on Americans.
That you don't understand that is not surprising.
-
The vast majority of conservatives in the Senate think it does.
Do you know who is and isn't a conservative? And if so, have you taken a poll of real conservatives to back up your assertion?
You do know that being Republican and being conservative is not necessarily the same thing, right? And you do know that those who claim to be conservative might nott be.
-
Expanding government and having the Federal government run the healthcare industry is NOT furthering ANY Conservative priorities.
You've said that about every bill that's been proposed.
-
Obamacare lite.... I am gonna buck with Cruz and go with Rand on this one.
Send her down the tube and put up a REAL repeal (would be nice to have assurances that they will stay out of healthcare in the future also).
-
I’ve covered the GOP repeal plans since day one. Graham-Cassidy is the most radical.
Other Republican plans create a poorly funded version of Obamacare. This one blows up the law entirely.
Updated by Sarah Kliffsarah@vox.com Sep 20, 2017, 9:10am EDT
https://www.vox.com/health-care/2017/9/20/16333338/obamacare-repeal-graham-cassidy
IF this is accurate I'm all for it!
-
You've said that about every bill that's been proposed.
And I'll keep saying it because it's true.
-
I’ve covered the GOP repeal plans since day one. Graham-Cassidy is the most radical.
Other Republican plans create a poorly funded version of Obamacare. This one blows up the law entirely.
Updated by Sarah Kliffsarah@vox.com Sep 20, 2017, 9:10am EDT
https://www.vox.com/health-care/2017/9/20/16333338/obamacare-repeal-graham-cassidy
IF this is accurate I'm all for it!
Vox views it as radical because it messes up the Liberal push for single payer. Remember Vox is a liberal mouthpiece.
Ezra Klein is about as radical left as it comes and he's certainly going to not give you an unbiased view of anything Republicans do.
Just keep that in the back of your mind when you start citing his website.
-
I’ve covered the GOP repeal plans since day one. Graham-Cassidy is the most radical.
Other Republican plans create a poorly funded version of Obamacare. This one blows up the law entirely.
Updated by Sarah Kliffsarah@vox.com Sep 20, 2017, 9:10am EDT
https://www.vox.com/health-care/2017/9/20/16333338/obamacare-repeal-graham-cassidy
IF this is accurate I'm all for it!
From the article:
"The bill offered by Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy takes money from states that did a good job getting residents covered under Obamacare and gives it to states that did not."
So taxpayers of the "good" states will be subsidizing the "bad" states? I don't know that that is a good thing. The problem with Obamacare is that the responsible are paying big bucks to fund coverage for the irresponsible. Sounds like this is more of the same Am I wrong?
-
From the article:
"The bill offered by Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy takes money from states that did a good job getting residents covered under Obamacare and gives it to states that did not."
So taxpayers of the "good" states will be subsidizing the "bad" states? I don't know that that is a good thing. The problem with Obamacare is that the responsible are paying big bucks to fund coverage for the irresponsible. Sounds like this is more of the same Am I wrong?
@Applewood no you're not wrong.
Bad states = states that refused to take federal money and/or set up the Federal exchanges.
Typical Liberal mindset being displayed by Ezra Klein and Vox completely twisting around what constitutes a good state and a bad state.
-
From the article:
"The bill offered by Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy takes money from states that did a good job getting residents covered under Obamacare and gives it to states that did not."
So taxpayers of the "good" states will be subsidizing the "bad" states? I don't know that that is a good thing. The problem with Obamacare is that the responsible are paying big bucks to fund coverage for the irresponsible. Sounds like this is more of the same Am I wrong?
You are not wrong. That's how EVERY government program is.
-
From the article:
"The bill offered by Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy takes money from states that did a good job getting residents covered under Obamacare and gives it to states that did not."
So taxpayers of the "good" states will be subsidizing the "bad" states? I don't know that that is a good thing. The problem with Obamacare is that the responsible are paying big bucks to fund coverage for the irresponsible. Sounds like this is more of the same Am I wrong?
Here's the part that I found of great interest: While other Republican plans essentially create a poorly funded version of the Affordable Care Act, Graham-Cassidy blows it up.
If that is true then I'm all for it!
-
I’ve covered the GOP repeal plans since day one. Graham-Cassidy is the most radical.
Other Republican plans create a poorly funded version of Obamacare. This one blows up the law entirely.
Updated by Sarah Kliffsarah@vox.com Sep 20, 2017, 9:10am EDT
https://www.vox.com/health-care/2017/9/20/16333338/obamacare-repeal-graham-cassidy
IF this is accurate I'm all for it!
Do you believe "Vox?"
-
Do you believe "Vox?"
Frankly, until I get a look at the ACTUAL bill, I won't fully believe anyone!
-
I'll be able to opt out and my low income means my hands are clean. I'll let the rest of y'all figure out the mess I'm no longer a part of handling.
Spoken like a true Democrat. As long as someone else pays, you are good with it.
-
The Conservatives...the real Conservatives...don't think it is. Otherwise the first attempt at Obamacare-lite would have passed.
Every attempt at anything short of a repeal has failed because Conservatives...not the RINO's you call "conservative" because they have strong Liberal leanings like yourself...but real Conservatives have blocked an expansion of Federal power that their own party is trying to shove on Americans.
That you don't understand that is not surprising.
Who in your view are the "real conservatives" in the Senate?
-
Who in your view are the "real conservatives" in the Senate?
No one that fits your very loose definition of Conservative that's for sure.
-
Would McCain really break with his good friend Lindsay Graham??
Lindsey's hands on this bill were what I've been worrying about.
-
It's not repeal but it still advances important conservative priorities. Pay off Murkowski if necessary, just let's get this thing done.
I may be mistaken, but I assume we need both McCain and Murkowski, since Collins really is a RINO and Rand Paul is an idiot.
I think it's worth passing.
-
Expanding government and having the Federal government run the healthcare industry is NOT furthering ANY Conservative priorities.
It is not my understanding that this bill does that. The Feds already run healthcare under Obamacare. Doesn't this bill give more power to the states.
-
It is not my understanding that this bill does that. The Feds already run healthcare under Obamacare. Doesn't this bill give more power to the states.
No. It does not. The power over healthcare still rests with the Federal government.
-
It is not my understanding that this bill does that. The Feds already run healthcare under Obamacare. Doesn't this bill give more power to the states.
On the surface, but not really. They basically have to get permission from the Feds to cut any required benefits. I presume expanding the benefits is A-ok.
-
I think it's worth passing.
Why?
-
Why?
Because it delegates some power to the states and eliminates the mandate (I think) and because baby steps are better than no steps at all.
-
Expanding government and having the Federal government run the healthcare industry is NOT furthering ANY Conservative priorities.
QFT
-
Expanding government and having the Federal government run the healthcare industry is NOT furthering ANY Conservative priorities.
Precisely.
-
Because it delegates some power to the states and eliminates the mandate (I think) and because baby steps are better than no steps at all.
@Emjay
I'm not against compromise but compromise with these folks is usually cutting your own throat.
If this passes the Republicans will claim victory. They will claim they upheld their promises to fix Obamacare and they will move on to their next goat rope and the sheep will fall in line.
No I think its better to hold their feet to the fire. They promised repeal and by golly they need to deliver the repeal of Obamacare.
-
Because it delegates some power to the states and eliminates the mandate (I think) and because baby steps are better than no steps at all.
Read the bill, Emjay. It is still dependent upon the federal government for implementation. States must jump thru hoops to comply and "receive funds". Funds that the states wouldn't need IF (big if) the federal government would just get the hell out of the way via 'full repeal'... and out of the issue and let the states run their own healthcare issues as they choose. Bottom line... it is still ultimately federal control, IMO. I dunno. Maybe somebody here that has read the bill can explain to me how I'm wrong re: that.
https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Section%20by%20Section%20Final.pdf
Each year states will receive their allotted amount based on a formula. Amounts allotted would remain available for use by the state through the end of the second succeeding year.
-
@Emjay
I'm not against compromise but compromise with these folks is usually cutting your own throat.
If this passes the Republicans will claim victory. They will claim they upheld their promises to fix Obamacare and they will move on to their next goat rope and the sheep will fall in line.
No I think its better to hold their feet to the fire. They promised repeal and by golly they need to deliver the repeal of Obamacare.
I agree!
-
@Cyber Liberty
Having now read the actual bill
https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Section%20by%20Section%20Final.pdf
I am for passing it into law warts and all.
-
You are not wrong. That's how EVERY government program is.
Rewarding bad behavior is the leftist way. Only, they're calling states that didn't bend to the will of the ObamaCare leftists the "bad states". Typical.
-
@Emjay
I'm not against compromise but compromise with these folks is usually cutting your own throat.
If this passes the Republicans will claim victory. They will claim they upheld their promises to fix Obamacare and they will move on to their next goat rope and the sheep will fall in line.
No I think its better to hold their feet to the fire. They promised repeal and by golly they need to deliver the repeal of Obamacare.
I don't trust them either but blocking everything to get back at them is pointless. Whatever they claim as a result of this measure, people will still know that the promises aren't kept.
So, I don't see the point in thinking doing nothing is holding their feet to the fire. Obviously, they don't care about the people's wishes.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Having now read the actual bill
https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Section%20by%20Section%20Final.pdf
I am for passing it into law warts and all.
If you actually read the whole bill, I shall defer to you on everything now.
-
I don't trust them either but blocking everything to get back at them is pointless. Whatever they claim as a result of this measure, people will still know that the promises aren't kept.
So, I don't see the point in thinking doing nothing is holding their feet to the fire. Obviously, they don't care about the people's wishes.
@Emjay
I'm not suggesting we "get back at them" although they deserve to be tarred and feathered. I'm suggesting they deliver on their promise. They control the House, Senate, and White House and still cannot deliver on their promise.
From what I've seen this bill wont fix the problem which means it will take the pressure off and they'll ignore it until a new administration comes in.
-
@Emjay
I'm not suggesting we "get back at them" although they deserve to be tarred and feathered. I'm suggesting they deliver on their promise. They control the House, Senate, and White House and still cannot deliver on their promise.
From what I've seen this bill wont fix the problem which means it will take the pressure off and they'll ignore it until a new administration comes in.
And, I expect that that is exactly how and why it was written.
-
If you actually read the whole bill, I shall defer to you on everything now.
As these thing go this one is easy to read.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Having now read the actual bill
https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Section%20by%20Section%20Final.pdf
I am for passing it into law warts and all.
I appreciate that, @Bigun! I just didn't trust that Vox place, they're messed up in the head. :shrug:
-
@Cyber Liberty
Having now read the actual bill
https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Section%20by%20Section%20Final.pdf
I am for passing it into law warts and all.
What specific parts are you in favor of, Bigun?
-
If you actually read the whole bill, I shall defer to you on everything now.
It is my understanding (correct me if I am wrong).... that the actual bill is over 100 pages (140 something?). What was posted is a 20-page summary or 'bullet points' of what's in the actual bill. We still haven't seen the entire, actual bill. Which is scary....considering how well some things manage to be hidden in these bills somehow.
-
What specific parts are you in favor of, Bigun?
Getting rid of the mandates in particular. And the federalism it invokes!
-
@Emjay
I'm not suggesting we "get back at them" although they deserve to be tarred and feathered. I'm suggesting they deliver on their promise. They control the House, Senate, and White House and still cannot deliver on their promise.
From what I've seen this bill wont fix the problem which means it will take the pressure off and they'll ignore it until a new administration comes in.
I don't care. There is no pressure on them now and there are no feet to the fire. They feel no obligation to the people.
If this measure helps at all, I'm ready to go with it.
-
Getting rid of the mandates in particular. And the federalism it invokes!
If the Feds are handing out the money they remain in control, they are just using the states to implement stuff, which means 50 court cases to get rid of parts you don't like instead of one.
-
If the Feds are handing out the money they remain in control, they are just using the states to implement stuff, which means 50 court cases to get rid of parts you don't like instead of one.
Did you read it?
-
Getting rid of the mandates in particular. And the federalism it invokes!
I like the getting rid of the mandates....but the part about leaving the ultimate control to the federal government I do NOT like. It needs to go back to the way it was before the leftist Democrats tried to destroy our economy and take over by passing this disaster of a bill. This bill may have a few good things in it, but the end result is the same....government control of healthcare ..... which government has NO business being involved with. The only way to truly rid us of this government over-reach is full repeal, root and branch... AS WAS PROMISED.
I don't ever see that repeal happening, however. This bill, if passed (and it's a long-shot) would merely delay the collapse and cause yet more chaos and confusion as states attempt to make the resultant and necessary changes to comply. More uncertainty for the economy = slow or no recovery.
-
Did you read it?
I skimmed over it. If the feds are granting block grants, that is the money. If they don't hand out the grants do mandates remain on the States, even without the Federal Money?
-
I like the getting rid of the mandates....but the part about leaving the ultimate control to the federal government I do NOT like. It needs to go back to the way it was before the leftist Democrats tried to destroy our economy and take over by passing this disaster of a bill. This bill may have a few good things in it, but the end result is the same....government control of healthcare ..... which government has NO business being involved with. The only way to truly rid us of this government over-reach is full repeal, root and branch... AS WAS PROMISED.
I don't ever see that repeal happening, however. This bill, if passed (and it's a long-shot) would merely delay the collapse and cause yet more chaos and confusion as states attempt to make the resultant and necessary changes to comply. More uncertainty for the economy = slow or no recovery.
I respect your opinions but I don't see that passing this bill would hurt us. Why do people think Obamacare will collapse of its own weight. It has been an utter failure but it hasn't collapsed yet.
I think we should take what is offered in this bill and continue our efforts to get through to the Congress critters.
-
Would I have prefered a full repeal? Hell yes! Is that going to happen? Nope!
-
I don't trust them either but blocking everything to get back at them is pointless. Whatever they claim as a result of this measure, people will still know that the promises aren't kept.
So, I don't see the point in thinking doing nothing is holding their feet to the fire. Obviously, they don't care about the people's wishes.
This isn't about any kind of revenge...it's about doing what's right for the people. ANY form of government controlled health care...even at the state level IMO is not in the best interest of the people.
And if the politicians have stopped caring about what their voters want...it's time the voters sent them home.
-
It is my understanding (correct me if I am wrong).... that the actual bill is over 100 pages (140 something?). What was posted is a 20-page summary or 'bullet points' of what's in the actual bill. We still haven't seen the entire, actual bill. Which is scary....considering how well some things manage to be hidden in these bills somehow.
@XenaLee
Full Text: https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/LYN17709.pdf (https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/LYN17709.pdf)
-
Would I have prefered a full repeal? Hell yes! Is that going to happen? Nope!
It won't happen because people keep accepting half measures and being lied to that "it's the best we can do".
It's NOT the best they can do.
-
Getting rid of the mandates in particular. And the federalism it invokes!
That's the selling point to me. There seems to be no political will to repeal Obamacare and the current Federal leviathan. I don't expect it to happen. Any solution that has come about simply shuffles the chairs but keeps the FedGov bureaucracy in place.
While this bill keeps many of the rules, it shifts the administration to the states. States for the most part seem to have more efficient bureaucracies than the Feds, and are closer to the customers that they serve.
But most importantly is that politically it now puts the Governors and State legislatures into the game, and at odds with their respective state's congressional officials, as they have to make this work for their consitutuents. State officials are far closer to the public, and by extension that allows for greater ability for citizens to apply pressure to have a set of rules that function.
So if I'm going to be stuck with something at the Federal or State level, I'll take the state and try to make it better over time.
-
It won't happen because people keep accepting half measures and being lied to that "it's the best we can do".
It's NOT the best they can do.
It won't happen because the lobby doesn't want it to happen and we aint going to change that!
-
That's the selling point to me. There seems to be no political will to repeal Obamacare and the current Federal leviathan. I don't expect it to happen. Any solution that has come about simply shuffles the chairs but keeps the FedGov bureaucracy in place.
While this bill keeps many of the rules, it shifts the administration to the states. States for the most part seem to have more efficient bureaucracies than the Feds, and are closer to the customers that they serve.
But most importantly is that politically it now puts the Governors and State legislatures into the game, and at odds with their respective state's congressional officials, as they have to make this work for their consitutuents. State officials are far closer to the public, and by extension that allows for greater ability for citizens to apply pressure to have a set of rules that function.
So if I'm going to be stuck with something at the Federal or State level, I'll take the state and try to make it better over time.
I agree with every word. 888high58888
It isn't what was promised but it is a hell of a lot better than the status quo.
-
I respect your opinions but I don't see that passing this bill would hurt us. Why do people think Obamacare will collapse of its own weight. It has been an utter failure but it hasn't collapsed yet.
You aren't aware that certain parts of ObamaCare were delayed until later years? Like this...
Another Obamacare delay has taken effect, although you may not have heard. The administration has quietly announced that it was delaying through October 2016 the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate for millions of Americans who have lost their healthcare coverage.
Offhand, I would say that the collapse is evident re: the millions of struggling Americans having to contend with skyrocketing premiums and unaffordable deductions... forcing them to go without healthcare ... probably for the first time in their lives, for most (thanks, Barry). The collapse is the unaffordable aspect that we are seeing all around us.....as well as the fact that many insurers have dropped out of those exchanges and no longer even offer health insurance. A typical end result when leftist government inflicts leftist policies upon businesses in America.
I think we should take what is offered in this bill and continue our efforts to get through to the Congress critters.
I prefer to hold out for what was promised and for the ONLY thing that will save our economy from implosion (specifically... non-government interference and control over healthcare). It may be a pipe dream at this point, but it still is the only thing that will work. Anything else is merely delaying the inevitable collapse.
-
This isn't about any kind of revenge...it's about doing what's right for the people. ANY form of government controlled health care...even at the state level IMO is not in the best interest of the people.
And if the politicians have stopped caring about what their voters want...it's time the voters sent them home.
Well, yes, but I get the feeling from you that you don't want to do anything because the pols might take credit for it. That is pointless.
I've seen enough comments and reasons to think this bill would be beneficial.
As for sending them home, we have our chances in 2018 and 2020.
-
@XenaLee
Full Text: https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/LYN17709.pdf (https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/LYN17709.pdf)
You're a treasure. Thank you!
-
If our elected representatives are not going to repeal it, I think it would be better to let it collapse. I don't want a half measure to save it and kick that can down the road even further.
-
If our elected representatives are not going to repeal it, I think it would be better to let it collapse. I don't want a half measure to save it and kick that can down the road even further.
And in the meantime people continue suffering under Obamacare.
-
I respect your opinions but I don't see that passing this bill would hurt us. Why do people think Obamacare will collapse of its own weight. It has been an utter failure but it hasn't collapsed yet.
I think we should take what is offered in this bill and continue our efforts to get through to the Congress critters.
Here is how it hurts. At present the issue is to "DO SOMETHING! about Obamacare". The action we were (repeatedly) promised is repeal. This is far less. This leaves the Federal Government in control of the money, the states with mandates that the Feds will supposedly fund, and with an amendment or rider in any other bill, this 'damage' to obama care can be undone. Perhaps in another continuing resolution for the budget, now that the Dems know they can stuff those, or some disaster relief bill.
The bottom line is that as long as the Feds control funding, whether in the form of block grants or more directly, they retain ultimate control of something for which there is no Constitutional Authority.
Whatever the Congress passes, which will be short of the promised repeal, they will be able to say they "DID SOMETHING" and that will be the end of that. Then they will come to their home districts and crow and strut to the people who are content to take scraps from the hands of their servants.
-
And in the meantime people continue suffering under Obamacare.
And, will continue to under this bill also. What's your point?
-
And in the meantime people continue suffering under Obamacare.
How will this bill restore the insurance options I had before Obamacare?
It won't. I am still in the same boat, regardless.
-
If our elected representatives are not going to repeal it, I think it would be better to let it collapse. I don't want a half measure to save it and kick that can down the road even further.
The problem I have with letting it collapse is it could wipe out a lot of private insurers, which will lead to the rubes screaming even louder for single-payer. Many folks (like me) think that was the original intent for Obastardcare in the first place.
-
Here is how it hurts. At present the issue is to "DO SOMETHING! about Obamacare". The action we were (repeatedly) promised is repeal. This is far less. This leaves the Federal Government in control of the money, the states with mandates that the Feds will supposedly fund, and with an amendment or rider in any other bill, this 'damage' to obama care can be undone. Perhaps in another continuing resolution for the budget, now that the Dems know they can stuff those, or some disaster relief bill.
The bottom line is that as long as the Feds control funding, whether in the form of block grants or more directly, they retain ultimate control of something for which there is no Constitutional Authority.
Whatever the Congress passes, which will be short of the promised repeal, they will be able to say they "DID SOMETHING" and that will be the end of that. Then they will come to their home districts and crow and strut to the people who are content to take scraps from the hands of their servants.
Who cares about that? They will say that anyway.
My gosh, people, if there's something that will help AT ALL, let's take it and not sit around whining.
We couldn't even pass a good repeal bill by Ted Cruz and we probably can't pass this either, but I hope we can.
-
Who cares about that? They will say that anyway.
My gosh, people, if there's something that will help AT ALL, let's take it and not sit around whining.
We couldn't even pass a good repeal bill by Ted Cruz and we probably can't pass this either, but I hope we can.
It's simple enough. Drop the mandates, drop the coverage requirements, drop the penalties. Pull the teeth out of the dragon. Let the market decide.
-
How will this bill restore the insurance options I had before Obamacare?
It won't. I am still in the same boat, regardless.
In-state competition. Get rid of government mandates and you open up the market to innovation and competition in insurance marketing. New companies will spring up under this freer regulatory environment. There will be plans to suit all budgets and all health conditions, unlike Ocare’s one size fits all mandates. It’s called the free market.
Additional money saving will come from the lower cost of state administration and innovations found in many state capitals.
-
In-state competition. Get rid of government mandates and you open up the market to innovation and competition in insurance marketing. New companies will spring up under this freer regulatory environment. There will be plans to suit all budgets and all health conditions, unlike Ocare’s one size fits all mandates. It’s called the free market.
Additional money saving will come from the lower cost of state administration and innovations found in many state capitals.
Sure it will.... ****sheep****
-
Ooops, @aligncare, here's your answer: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,282155.0/topicseen.html
-
The problem I have with letting it collapse is it could wipe out a lot of private insurers, which will lead to the rubes screaming even louder for single-payer. Many folks (like me) think that was the original intent for Obastardcare in the first place.
It was indeed the ultimate goal and aim and original intent of the leftist Democrats. Still is, in fact. Problem is... there's a bunch of RINOs that want single-payer too.
As for a lot of private insurers being wiped out or dropping out.... that has already happened under ObamaCare. Which is what always happens if/when greedy government gets involved in anything other than what they should be involved in.... businesses suffer and Americans have less choice and less options. Always.
-
It's simple enough. Drop the mandates, drop the coverage requirements, drop the penalties. Pull the teeth out of the dragon. Let the market decide.
My understanding is this bill, DOES drop employee and personal mandates, DOES eliminate "essential health benefits," etc.
-
My understanding is this bill, DOES drop employee and personal mandates, DOES eliminate "essential health benefits," etc.
Yep. The states and the industry are freed up to innovate. And with 50 different states experimenting, you can bet successful ones will be copied.
-
Yep. The states and the industry are freed up to innovate. And with 50 different states experimenting, you can bet successful ones will be copied.
Actually, what I had worked just fine for me. It's time for the government to quit using us all as it's bleep lab rats and get the hell out.
-
Oh look. Big Government picking winners and losers.... as usual.... via their version of The Bribing Games. Seems that 'some' states are more equal than others.
Cassidy-Graham bill provision would exempt Alaska, Montana from a cap on Medicaid spending
By Juliet Eilperin
As GOP leaders continue to drum up support for the health-care proposal authored by Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy, La., and Lindsey Graham, S.C., a provision buried deep in the 140-page bill benefiting Alaska has begun to draw greater scrutiny. Beginning on Page 95, the bill has a provision that...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/
-
My understanding is this bill, DOES drop employee and personal mandates, DOES eliminate "essential health benefits," etc.
I read that it does NOT eliminate the essential health mandates except that a State can petition Fed Gov to get rid of them. Is Fed Gov going to allow that on a State by State basis? How can it eliminate one in one State and not another?
-
That's the selling point to me. There seems to be no political will to repeal Obamacare and the current Federal leviathan. I don't expect it to happen. Any solution that has come about simply shuffles the chairs but keeps the FedGov bureaucracy in place.
While this bill keeps many of the rules, it shifts the administration to the states. States for the most part seem to have more efficient bureaucracies than the Feds, and are closer to the customers that they serve.
But most importantly is that politically it now puts the Governors and State legislatures into the game, and at odds with their respective state's congressional officials, as they have to make this work for their consitutuents. State officials are far closer to the public, and by extension that allows for greater ability for citizens to apply pressure to have a set of rules that function.
So if I'm going to be stuck with something at the Federal or State level, I'll take the state and try to make it better over time.
Sound reasoning, FV. I agree.
-
I read that it does NOT eliminate the essential health mandates except that a State can petition Fed Gov to get rid of them. Is Fed Gov going to allow that on a State by State basis? How can it eliminate one in one State and not another?
The EHB requirement - which O-Care doesn't impose on group plans - may be the single biggest reason why the individual marketplace can't provide affordable policies for so many people. Understand that this is all trying to be accomplished under the auspices of budget reconciliation, so that only 50 votes are needed. That requires some compromises - such as using a waiver approach rather than getting rid of EHBs altogether. Hopefully under a Trump administration such waivers will be, er, liberally granted.
-
Oh look. Big Government picking winners and losers.... as usual.... via their version of The Bribing Games. Seems that 'some' states are more equal than others.
Montana and Alaska have two of the highest "Native American" population percentages in the country.
-
Actually, what I had worked just fine for me. It's time for the government to quit using us all as it's bleep lab rats and get the hell out.
The truth is today, 435+100+1=536 persons hold the next solution in their hands.
It is messy. It will not totally satisfy you. The clock will not be turned back in time, no matter how much anyone might wish it to be so.
You and I each have influence on just 4 of those people, namely the President, your two senators, and one House Rep.
I am grateful for progress, to remedy matters, to the extent it is feasible.
Unlike some, I do not run about jousting at windmills. Or waiting for perfect solutions in the future.
-
In-state competition. Get rid of government mandates and you open up the market to innovation and competition in insurance marketing. New companies will spring up under this freer regulatory environment. There will be plans to suit all budgets and all health conditions, unlike Ocare’s one size fits all mandates. It’s called the free market.
Additional money saving will come from the lower cost of state administration and innovations found in many state capitals.
You and a few others here need to come to the realization that the Federal government will never give up it's control over the states on healthcare.
It doesn't even do that in this bill.
-
The truth is today, 435+100+1=536 persons hold the next solution in their hands.
It is messy. It will not totally satisfy you. The clock will not be turned back in time, no matter how much anyone might wish it to be so.
You and I each have influence on just 4 of those people, namely the President, your two senators, and one House Rep.
I am grateful for progress, to remedy matters, to the extent it is feasible.
Unlike some, I do not run about jousting at windmills. Or waiting for perfect solutions in the future.
Be pragmatic, be reeeliastic, he sez.
Here is your realistic: $28,000.00 for the cheapest plan for a family of 4 on the exchanges in my state. For someone who makes the industry average annual income of $71K, that is over 39% of their income for insurance NOT FOR MEDICAL CARE which is subject to the $14,000.00 deductible, plus copays, etc.
That isn't realistic, but that is what we have.
It was realistic enough to give the GOP control of the House and Senate and the Presidency that they were going to "Repeal it root and branch".
Failure to do that, and I will not vote to reelect anyone.
-
I respect your opinions but I don't see that passing this bill would hurt us. Why do people think Obamacare will collapse of its own weight. It has been an utter failure but it hasn't collapsed yet.
I think we should take what is offered in this bill and continue our efforts to get through to the Congress critters.
Just a few posts back you said that "They feel no obligation to the people." Then what good would it be to "continue efforts" to get through to them? Please explain because I'm confused as to why one would keep beating a dead horse.
I don't even have to read this bill. I won't support anything that isn't a full repeal as promised. I am offended that they have the nerve to call it a "repeal". It's insulting.
-
Montana and Alaska have two of the highest "Native American" population percentages in the country.
Not understanding what your point is.
-
Be pragmatic, be reeeliastic, he sez.
Here is your realistic: $28,000.00 for the cheapest plan for a family of 4 on the exchanges in my state. For someone who makes the industry average annual income of $71K, that is over 39% of their income for insurance NOT FOR MEDICAL CARE which is subject to the $14,000.00 deductible, plus copays, etc.
That isn't realistic, but that is what we have.
It was realistic enough to give the GOP control of the House and Senate and the Presidency that they were going to "Repeal it root and branch".
Failure to do that, and I will not vote to reelect anyone.
What do you believe will be the outcome in your state, if this bill passes and goes into effect? Next year, two years-three years out?
Versus what do you believe the outcome will be if the bill fails to pass and go into effect, in future years?
You want to go on paying those rates for several more years, in hopes the system will collapse, and bring lower rates?
-
Be pragmatic, be reeeliastic, he sez.
Here is your realistic: $28,000.00 for the cheapest plan for a family of 4 on the exchanges in my state. For someone who makes the industry average annual income of $71K, that is over 39% of their income for insurance NOT FOR MEDICAL CARE which is subject to the $14,000.00 deductible, plus copays, etc.
That isn't realistic, but that is what we have.
I agree with you. We have insurance through my husband's work (not Obamacare). We do have to pay around $250 per month for it but the deductibles and co-pays are very high. We put out over $16000 for medical, dental and prescriptions last year. And that was not an unusual year. It's like that pretty much every year. We are not wealthy. Just an average middle class family. It's killing us. We can't save anything and we already cut back on some meds and avoid going to the doctor if we can. And since the government got involved half the time you can't get in to see a doctor. I have COPD and was sick almost the entire winter with one upper respir. infection after another and I never got in to see my Pulmonary M.D. Everything was done via email and over the phone. We have seen doctors leaving the profession. Especially difficult to get in to see specialists. My husband has a medical condition that can affect his eyes and when he had a flair up this past winter he couldn't get an appointment with his opthamologist.
Appointments have been cancelled many times because "they are short staffed". My dad had a broken vertebra for 6 months and they wouldn't order an MRI for him to diagnose it. Things are not good out there. Our healthcare has gone downhill very rapidly since Obamacare. People are not only suffering financially because of it but the quality of healthcare is not up to what we were used to 10 years ago.
There is no easy answer but the band aid needs to be ripped off. This can't be "fixed" in increments.
It was realistic enough to give the GOP control of the House and Senate and the Presidency that they were going to "Repeal it root and branch".
Failure to do that, and I will not vote to reelect anyone.
-
I still can't grasp the reality that the Democrats 'got away' with destroying the US health industry. Oh sure....they lost the last election (narrowly)....but other than that loss, they still got away scott free with the destruction they forced upon innocent, hard-working Americans. It's heartbreaking to hear about someone we actually know and the struggles they are dealing with, ongoing.
I knew this nation was in deep 'stuff' when the nation did not rise up against the Democrats...when they forced this crap through against the will of most Americans. When We, the People didn't stand up and put them in their place (permanently out of office and/or in prison), I knew then that we were just about done (toast). We have been fundamentally transformed by leftists into a nation of sheeple....too accustomed to government control. That pot is just about at a rolling boil....
and it's way too late to jump out now.
-
I've learned a lot on this thread. I've learned that many so-called conservatives are really spineless jellyfish willing to accept whatever lies our masters in Washington tell us because they are afraid of having to take care of themselves for a change. Afraid to take a risk in doing the right thing. Afraid to tell those corrupt scalawags inside the Beltway to go take a leap.
Maybe you are getting what you deserve. Sadly that leaves me and a few others also getting what you deserve.
-
Not understanding what your point is.
Section 128: Enhance FMAP for Medical Assistance to Eligible Indians
• Provides for a 100% FMAP rate for amounts expended as medical assistance for services
provided by any provider under a Medicaid state plan to an individual who is a member
of an Indian tribe and eligible for assistance under a Medicaid state plan.
"Indian Health" is supposed to be part of the treaty packages provided under the BIA, US Dept. of the Interior.
-
Just a few posts back you said that "They feel no obligation to the people." Then what good would it be to "continue efforts" to get through to them? Please explain because I'm confused as to why one would keep beating a dead horse.
I don't even have to read this bill. I won't support anything that isn't a full repeal as promised. I am offended that they have the nerve to call it a "repeal". It's insulting.
That's up to you, of course, but this bill does some things I consider worthwhile and therefore I support it.
I'm not sure if they're calling it a repeal or not. Obviously it is not, but it is a small step in the right direction.
The alternative is to pass nothing at all and I'm not sure the benefit in that.
-
I've learned a lot on this thread. I've learned that many so-called conservatives are really spineless jellyfish willing to accept whatever lies our masters in Washington tell us because they are afraid of having to take care of themselves for a change. Afraid to take a risk in doing the right thing. Afraid to tell those corrupt scalawags inside the Beltway to go take a leap.
Maybe you are getting what you deserve. Sadly that leaves me and a few others also getting what you deserve.
That's okay. They don't mind letting you help pay for what they deserve.
-
That's okay. They don't mind letting you help pay for what they deserve.
I get to pay 2 ways. First as a consumer of health care. Then as a provider I get less and less compensation for more and more work with continually more government regulations on what I can do and how I need to document. At least 1/2 my day is spent documenting so I can get paid and meet government regulations. Then the 3rd slap in the face is Trump saying he wants to raise tax rates on high income earners, so hubby and I keep even less of what we make. As soon as the kids are out of grad school, I'm retiring. And good riddance. At least that way I only get shafted once....
-
I get to pay 2 ways. First as a consumer of health care. Then as a provider I get less and less compensation for more and more work with continually more government regulations on what I can do and how I need to document. At least 1/2 my day is spent documenting so I can get paid and meet government regulations. Then the 3rd slap in the face is Trump saying he wants to raise tax rates on high income earners, so hubby and I keep even less of what we make. As soon as the kids are out of grad school, I'm retiring. And good riddance. At least that way I only get shafted once....
So, do you think this bill will be beneficial at all ... or not? I totally hear you on the problems and the paperwork involved. It's horrible.
But what's your opinion on the bill?
-
So, do you think this bill will be beneficial at all ... or not? I totally hear you on the problems and the paperwork involved. It's horrible.
But what's your opinion on the bill?
I honestly don't know enough of the fine details and unintended consequences. BUT I have never known legislation layered on other legislation to decrease complexity. I think total repeal is the only way to go. Not only are the exchange policies very expensive, but once someone gets in the hospital they cover almost nothing. Patients would be truly better with no insurance at all, because at least then we can get them charity care.
-
I honestly don't know enough of the fine details and unintended consequences. BUT I have never known legislation layered on other legislation to decrease complexity. I think total repeal is the only way to go. Not only are the exchange policies very expensive, but once someone gets in the hospital they cover almost nothing. Patients would be truly better with no insurance at all, because at least then we can get them charity care.
Considering our medical care costs were running about 8K a year, including an ER visit or two, versus 28K for insurance and a 14K deductible on that 'cheap' plan, It has proven far cheaper to have no insurance and just pay the bill.
-
Considering our medical care costs were running about 8K a year, including an ER visit or two, versus 28K for insurance and a 14K deductible on that 'cheap' plan, It has proven far cheaper to have no insurance and just pay the bill.
And you get better coverage. Most facilities are also willing to negotiate a cash price that is much less than what they would bill insurance. Obamacare is a total failure. But then it was designed to fail in such a way that the only recourse would be singer payer. Thanks to the spineless republicans, the plan is succeeding in a big way
-
I get to pay 2 ways. First as a consumer of health care. Then as a provider I get less and less compensation for more and more work with continually more government regulations on what I can do and how I need to document. At least 1/2 my day is spent documenting so I can get paid and meet government regulations. Then the 3rd slap in the face is Trump saying he wants to raise tax rates on high income earners, so hubby and I keep even less of what we make. As soon as the kids are out of grad school, I'm retiring. And good riddance. At least that way I only get shafted once....
I'm curious if it's possible for you as a doctor to provide care only to cash paying patients?
-
I'm curious if it's possible for you as a doctor to provide care only to cash paying patients?
Me, too!
-
"Indian Health" is supposed to be part of the treaty packages provided under the BIA, US Dept. of the Interior.
Ok, but why only those two states? There are Native American populations all over the nation. My ancestors (half of them) were relocated to Oklahoma, for instance.
Thx for the splain, btw.
-
Ok, but why only those two states? There are Native American populations all over the nation. My ancestors (half of them) were relocated to Oklahoma, for instance.
Thx for the splain, btw.
Not sure how OK is affected. Alaska, New Mexico, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Montana, and North Dakota, are the top 6 in terms of American Indian population, Montana and Alaska were mentioned. Murkowski is from AK, not sure if someone from MT was involved in crafting this or not, nor how the other states are affected. Reservation counties tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat in this neck of the woods.
-
I get to pay 2 ways. First as a consumer of health care. Then as a provider I get less and less compensation for more and more work with continually more government regulations on what I can do and how I need to document. At least 1/2 my day is spent documenting so I can get paid and meet government regulations. Then the 3rd slap in the face is Trump saying he wants to raise tax rates on high income earners, so hubby and I keep even less of what we make. As soon as the kids are out of grad school, I'm retiring. And good riddance. At least that way I only get shafted once....
That's exactly what has been happening. My husband and I lost 2 specialists and a GP due to Obamacare. Our GP said he could treat patients the way he is mandated to do so under the new healthcare system and two specialists retired early because they said it wasn't worth it to stay in practice. This is what many of us feared would cause shortages of good doctors. I'm sure many young people who were considering the medical field now have to wonder if the cost of their education and the many years they have to put into it will be worth it.
-
I spoke to my sister yesterday, and had to counsel her out of a panic about receiving a modest inheritance from my dad - she was afraid if she took the money she wouldn't qualify for her ObamaCare subsidy. Like many, she lost her health insurance when it was outlawed by O-Care, and had to take an O-Care policy that was far more expensive except for the subsidy. But she's on the cusp that if she makes more money, she loses the subsidy.
Here are a few excerpts from this morning's lead editorial in the WSJ about Graham Cassidy:
The bill would devolve ObamaCare funding to the states, which could seek waivers from the feds to experiment within certain regulatory boundaries, and it also repeals the individual and employer mandates and the medical device tax. . . . [A] state that receives a waiver from ObamaCare's regulations must show plans that retain access to "adequate and affordable" coverage with pre-existing conditions. ObamaCare's rules are not the only way to do this, despite the claims of Jimmy Kimmel. The ACA's price restrictions have in practice degraded the quality of care for the ill and sent insurers shopping for healthy patients who are more profitable.
States could set up high risk pools, for example. These pools subsidize care for those who need costly treatment without concealing the expense across healthy patients, who may drop coverage if they can't afford it. . . .
That's the bind my sister is in!
The shame is that many Democrats once liked a federalist solution to health care, and Lilndsay Graham was one of those who worked with them. In 2007, he and Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold proposed the State-Based Health Reform Act that would have given states even more freedom than Graham Cassidy. But these days Democrats fear that state laboratories would discredit the command and control approach to health care that they hope will lead to single payer.
The choice Republicans face isn't between Graham Cassidy or some bipartisan beau ideal. Their choice is to pass their own bill, which now means Graham-Cassidy, or fail again, and cede the health care advantage to the single payer wing of the Democratic Party.
This is our last, best hope, folks. I wish Rand Paul would gain some perspective at what's at stake.
-
I spoke to my sister yesterday, and had to counsel her out of a panic about receiving a modest inheritance from my dad - she was afraid if she took the money she wouldn't qualify for her ObamaCare subsidy. Like many, she lost her health insurance when it was outlawed by O-Care, and had to take an O-Care policy that was far more expensive except for the subsidy. But she's on the cusp that if she makes more money, she loses the subsidy.
And yet you want to continue to keep her at the mercy of the Federal Government scared to death at any moment she's going to loose her free government cheese.
How sad.
-
And yet you want to continue to keep her at the mercy of the Federal Government scared to death at any moment she's going to loose her free government cheese.
How sad.
No I want her to have options for affordable insurance that fit her circumstances - like she did before.
I'm for Graham-Cassidy as a step in the right direction; you, by opposing it in the name of ideological purity, effectively support the status quo.
-
No I want her to have options for affordable insurance that fit her circumstances - like she did before.
I'm for Graham-Cassidy as a step in the right direction; you, by opposing it in the name of ideological purity, effectively support the status quo.
@Jazzhead
What you're for is to have the government take money from other people and give it to your sister. If she's getting money then why can't she go look at the open market and get some insurance that isn't through O-care? They are out there.
Graham-Cassidy will let the Republicans claim victory without actually doing anything.
-
@Jazzhead
What you're for is to have the government take money from other people and give it to your sister. If she's getting money then why can't she go look at the open market and get some insurance that isn't through O-care? They are out there.
Graham-Cassidy will let the Republicans claim victory without actually doing anything.
Exactly. Well said.
-
@Jazzhead
What you're for is to have the government take money from other people and give it to your sister. If she's getting money then why can't she go look at the open market and get some insurance that isn't through O-care? They are out there.
Graham-Cassidy will let the Republicans claim victory without actually doing anything.
Yes, that bears repeating.
-
This is our last, best hope, folks. I wish Rand Paul would gain some perspective at what's at stake.
Indeed, Rand Paul is the only one standing that DOES have a proper perspective.
-
I'm for Graham-Cassidy as a step in the right direction; you, by opposing it in the name of ideological purity, effectively support the status quo.
Exactly wrong. Obamacare is failing of it's own weight. Let it fail.
Then the fight will be truly and squarely over a return to a free market v. a single-payer system, rather than this paltry infusion that is Graham-Cassidy.
It is YOU that is preserving the status quo.
-
Well, this all might be moot. McCain has indicated he will vote "No." So I guess there won't be enough votes to pass this sham.
-
Well, this all might be moot. McCain has indicated he will vote "No." So I guess there won't be enough votes to pass this sham.
Yeah, I just saw that. Well, however one feels about him, we can all say, "Thanks Honest John."
:boring:
-
Exactly wrong. Obamacare is failing of it's own weight. Let it fail.
Then the fight will be truly and squarely over a return to a free market v. a single-payer system, rather than this paltry infusion that is Graham-Cassidy.
It is YOU that is preserving the status quo.
You're living in Cloudcuckooland, of course. The Congress and the President won't allow O-Care to "fall of its own weight". Millions of people will be harmed - and most are voters. If this bill fails, the President has indicated he'll work with centrists from both parties to prevent that harm, and I for one will support him in that effort.
This is put-up or shut-up time for Republicans and conservatives. Pass something that moves the ball, but if their intransigence leaves us all with the status quo, they will be tossed over the side. O-Care should not, and will not, be allowed to just "fail". Tens of millions of lives, not to mention the fate of the private insurance industry, are in the balance. I support the goals of conservatives, but I draw the line with this obsession with blood sport.
-
You're living in Cloudcuckooland, of course. The Congress and the President won't allow O-Care to "fall of its own weight". Millions of people will be harmed - and most are voters. If this bill fails, the President has indicated he'll work with centrists from both parties to prevent that harm, and I for one will support him in that effort.
And you will be wrong to do so. The damage wrought in accepting that government should take over nearly one fifth of our open market is where the blood-sport lies. If you think they'll srop there, you've another think coming.
This is put-up or shut-up time for Republicans and conservatives. Pass something that moves the ball, but if their intransigence leaves us all with the status quo, they will be tossed over the side. O-Care should not, and will not, be allowed to just "fail". Tens of millions of lives, not to mention the fate of the private insurance industry, are in the balance. I support the goals of conservatives, but I draw the line with this obsession with blood sport.
I will stand upon the Constitution, and the principles of Conservatism. I can and will do no other.
Those who offer pragmatism have brought us where we are, and one thing is sure - More pragmatism is bound to send us further down the hole.
Somebody had better start drawing some hard damn lines.
-
Exactly wrong. Obamacare is failing of it's own weight. Let it fail.
Then the fight will be truly and squarely over a return to a free market v. a single-payer system, rather than this paltry infusion that is Graham-Cassidy.
It is YOU that is preserving the status quo.
Please, people, explain to me how Obamacare is falling of its own weight. It was a disaster from the start but ... IT'S STILL HERE and I don't see it failing. It will fail when it no longer exists.
And I'm tired of people saying that if we chip away at it, we are making it worse.
We are not. We are chipping away at it.
-
Please, people, explain to me how Obamacare is falling of its own weight. It was a disaster from the start but ... IT'S STILL HERE and I don't see it failing. It will fail when it no longer exists.
And I'm tired of people saying that if we chip away at it, we are making it worse.
We are not. We are chipping away at it.
Many states no longer offer obamacare plans - the major insurers having pulled out. Many states have but one choice. The law is worthless, without veracity, where it's demands cannot be met.
It will fail, and fail big. It already is failing big.
That will mean many people losing coverage, but that is already the case, as the coverage provided costs more than the actual services do out of pocket. And the more it fails, the more it costs. It is literally pricing itself out of the market, and at a quickening pace.
It will come to a point, very soon, that there will be no alternative but to repeal it, or write new law to convert the mess to single payer. That is where the rubber hits the road. And that will be very close to mid term elections, and hopefully (quite predictably), 'a throw the bastards out' campaign.
Let it die the cruel death it deserves.
-
This battle over Obastardcare serves to illustrate a very important point about why we must resist becoming a "Democracy."
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
The quote, which origins are in dispute, is often believed to be from Alexander Tytler. Here is a pretty good column about it.
http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html
Regardless of its pedigree, the quote holds true. The entire battle is over the crowds keeping hold of their Gibsmedats, and getting them to relinquish their ill-gotten goods is damned near impossible without a war.. Here's another quote, which pedigree is not in dispute:
“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”
― Frédéric Bastiat
-
Many states no longer offer obamacare plans - the major insurers having pulled out. Many states have but one choice. The law is worthless, without veracity, where it's demands cannot be met.
It will fail, and fail big. It already is failing big.
That will mean many people losing coverage, but that is already the case, as the coverage provided costs more than the actual services do out of pocket. And the more it fails, the more it costs. It is literally pricing itself out of the market, and at a quickening pace.
It will come to a point, very soon, that there will be no alternative but to repeal it, or write new law to convert the mess to single payer. That is where the rubber hits the road. And that will be very close to mid term elections, and hopefully (quite predictably), 'a throw the bastards out' campaign.
Let it die the cruel death it deserves.
I just hope it collapses before wiping out the insurers.
-
I just hope it collapses before wiping out the insurers.
Those who are left.
-
I just hope it collapses before wiping out the insurers.
Nah. They are distributed. All of them do other types of insurance, and they own most of the health care infrastructure (which is another part of the problem). Their pulling out of the market just means they'll beef up their other concerns.
-
I just hope it collapses before wiping out the insurers.
And btw, I wouldn't lose any sleep if it did - I think insurance to be a big part of the cost of health care. without insurance in the market, the cost of services might well adjust downward dramatically.
-
Many states no longer offer obamacare plans - the major insurers having pulled out. Many states have but one choice. The law is worthless, without veracity, where it's demands cannot be met.
It will fail, and fail big. It already is failing big.
That will mean many people losing coverage, but that is already the case, as the coverage provided costs more than the actual services do out of pocket. And the more it fails, the more it costs. It is literally pricing itself out of the market, and at a quickening pace.
It will come to a point, very soon, that there will be no alternative but to repeal it, or write new law to convert the mess to single payer. That is where the rubber hits the road. And that will be very close to mid term elections, and hopefully (quite predictably), 'a throw the bastards out' campaign.
Let it die the cruel death it deserves.
Dream on. It will simply become another Alternative Minimum Tax: once no insurance options are available, the mandates kick in for more and more people and it becomes a source of revenue for Uncle Sam.
Let me repeat this once again: no government program ever dies on its own accord. Waiting for Obamcare to collapse as if some epiphany moment will hit Congress compelling them to act is like waiting for Godot.
Heck, we already see now how quickly these things become entrenched. If Romney and a GOP Senate had been elected in 2012, this whole mess would have been repealed much more quickly.
-
Let it die the cruel death it deserves.
And to hell with the people harmed by such a collapse, I guess. Your attitude is disgusting - but thankfully the President won't let it happen, because he cares about working folks more than you do.
-
And to hell with the people harmed by such a collapse, I guess. Your attitude is disgusting - but thankfully the President won't let it happen, because he cares about working folks more than you do.
As compared to the hell brought forth by it's inception? I know NO ONE who still has coverage, except those covered by medicaid and medicare. Everyone I know (to include my entire family), all of whom had reasonable insurance before the fact, now run without, or are turning to alternatives like Christian Brotherhood plans.
It doesn't come up often, and I am by no means inquiring, but in every single case where it has come up, it is in the context of costing too much and having to forego coverage.
It is not uncommon for folks to be expected to cover THREE TIMES their mortgage payment, and more, for coverage with so high a deductible that they will never ever use it.
So a pox on your statement. Everyone I know is working class and entrepreneurial. This crap is destroying people by it's very existence. *SPIT*
-
And to hell with the people harmed by such a collapse, I guess. Your attitude is disgusting - but thankfully the President won't let it happen, because he cares about working folks more than you do.
Please scroll up a little and read my Frédéric Bastiat quote. Guess who I was thinking of when I looked that up.
-
As compared to the hell brought forth by it's inception? I know NO ONE who still has coverage, except those covered by medicaid and medicare. Everyone I know (to include my entire family), all of whom had reasonable insurance before the fact, now run without, or are turning to alternatives like Christian Brotherhood plans.
It doesn't come up often, and I am by no means inquiring, but in every single case where it has come up, it is in the context of costing too much and having to forego coverage.
It is not uncommon for folks to be expected to cover THREE TIMES their mortgage payment, and more, for coverage with so high a deductible that they will never ever use it.
So a pox on your statement. Everyone I know is working class and entrepreneurial. This crap is destroying people by it's very existence. *SPIT*
He complains bitterly when he thinks people say mean things about him, but look how he tosses about the insults like manhole covers.
-
Dream on. It will simply become another Alternative Minimum Tax: once no insurance options are available, the mandates kick in for more and more people and it becomes a source of revenue for Uncle Sam.
Let me repeat this once again: no government program ever dies on its own accord. Waiting for Obamcare to collapse as if some epiphany moment will hit Congress compelling them to act is like waiting for Godot.
Heck, we already see now how quickly these things become entrenched. If Romney and a GOP Senate had been elected in 2012, this whole mess would have been repealed much more quickly.
So now that it's here, we just have to live with it and hope for the best? Bullshit.
It lives because it has no opposition. The bare fact and cause of pragmatists and their unprincipled way.
Demand that opposition and it will leave, straightaway. But that means voting for the 'purists' who stand upon the principles the nation was founded upon, and upon whom your very liberty rests.
-
So now that it's here, we just have to live with it and hope for the best? Bullshit.
It lives because it has no opposition. The bare fact and cause of pragmatists and their unprincipled way.
Demand that opposition and it will leave, straightaway. But that means voting for the 'purists' who stand upon the principles the nation was founded upon, and upon whom your very liberty rests.
It lives because the Gibsmedats won't give up their filthy lucre, and will scream "Heartless" to keep it. Witness our friend above, notice how his go-to argument is "you are a heartless devil."
-
Many states no longer offer obamacare plans - the major insurers having pulled out. Many states have but one choice. The law is worthless, without veracity, where it's demands cannot be met.
It will fail, and fail big. It already is failing big.
That will mean many people losing coverage, but that is already the case, as the coverage provided costs more than the actual services do out of pocket. And the more it fails, the more it costs. It is literally pricing itself out of the market, and at a quickening pace.
It will come to a point, very soon, that there will be no alternative but to repeal it, or write new law to convert the mess to single payer. That is where the rubber hits the road. And that will be very close to mid term elections, and hopefully (quite predictably), 'a throw the bastards out' campaign.
Let it die the cruel death it deserves.
Amen to all that you said. And if I believed that this would happen within the next year or two even, I would be willing to forego any intended improvement that this new bill will give us.
I wish with all my heart that I could believe it.
-
And to hell with the people harmed by such a collapse, I guess. Your attitude is disgusting - but thankfully the President won't let it happen, because he cares about working folks more than you do.
I'm putting this up in bold so everybody can see what a demagogue looks like, and as a reminder of why setting things right after a world-class destructor like Obama is almost impossible.
-
It lives because the Gibsmedats won't give up their filthy lucre, and will scream "Heartless" to keep it. Witness our friend above, notice how his go-to argument is "you are a heartless devil."
Of course.
-
Amen to all that you said. And if I believed that this would happen within the next year or two even, I would be willing to forego any intended improvement that this new bill will give us.
I wish with all my heart that I could believe it.
It's happening right now, even as we speak. What you are for is actually an attempt to save Obamacare. Research the fact, and you will see, sure enough.
-
It's happening right now, even as we speak. What you are for is actually an attempt to save Obamacare. Research the fact, and you will see, sure enough.
"splain that to me. Are you saying that this attempt to modify some provisions of Obamacare will actually prolong the existence of Obamacare.
-
I'm putting this up in bold so everybody can see what a demagogue looks like, and as a reminder of why setting things right after a world-class destructor like Obama is almost impossible.
Because.... leftists like Obama create yet more gov-dependent slaves via their deliberate destruction of what WAS a good economy. Now, they have more folks cheering them on because they have a vested interest to do so.
In Jazzhead's case, it's his sister's continuance on that subsidy that is his/their vested interest to be for or at least OK with ObamaCare. And so it goes. That dependence creates more fans of Obamacare....cause they're hooked. Just as was intended.
-
"splain that to me. Are you saying that this attempt to modify some provisions of Obamacare will actually prolong the existence of Obamacare.
YES. Block granting the money to the states puts the onus on the states, but the control and decision making retains in the fed. It will wind up a Sword of Damocles held over the sates - damned if they do, damned if they don't, just like highway funding and medicare/welfare already are.
And with the senate no longer representing the will of the state, they wind up the whipping boy.
In the mean time, it does nothing that I am aware of to alter the ridiculous prerequisite coverage and limits which are in fact, that which cannot be covered.
So fed has all the power, states take all the blame, and nothing otherwise will change. TADA! fixed! Repeal! whoohoo!
-
"splain that to me. Are you saying that this attempt to modify some provisions of Obamacare will actually prolong the existence of Obamacare.
Yes, that's exactly what he's saying!
-
Because.... leftists like Obama create yet more gov-dependent slaves via their deliberate destruction of what WAS a good economy. Now, they have more folks cheering them on because they have a vested interest to do so.
In Jazzhead's case, it's his sister's continuance on that subsidy that is his/their vested interest to be for or at least OK with ObamaCare. And so it goes. That dependence creates more fans of Obamacare....cause they're hooked. Just as was intended.
Absolutely correct, which is why I posted the quote about why Democracies always fail, and what happens after they do. We're heading into the bondage phase, while the fellow you reference applauds mightily.
-
YES. Block granting the money to the states puts the onus on the states, but the control and decision making retains in the fed. It will wind up a Sword of Damocles held over the sates - damned if they do, damned if they don't, just like highway funding and medicare/welfare already are.
And with the senate no longer representing the will of the state, they wind up the whipping boy.
In the mean time, it does nothing that I am aware of to alter the ridiculous prerequisite coverage and limits which are in fact, that which cannot be covered.
So fed has all the power, states take all the blame, and nothing otherwise will change. TADA! fixed! Repeal! whoohoo!
That is as good a description I seen of the game as it's being played today. It's fate has been sealed since the 17th Amendment was ratified.
-
YES. Block granting the money to the states puts the onus on the states, but the control and decision making retains in the fed. It will wind up a Sword of Damocles held over the sates - damned if they do, damned if they don't, just like highway funding and medicare/welfare already are.
And with the senate no longer representing the will of the state, they wind up the whipping boy.
In the mean time, it does nothing that I am aware of to alter the ridiculous prerequisite coverage and limits which are in fact, that which cannot be covered.
So fed has all the power, states take all the blame, and nothing otherwise will change. TADA! fixed! Repeal! whoohoo!
Okay. I have never been a strong proponent of this legislation but I was convinced that it would be an improvement in the status quo.
Looks like it's not going to pass anyway with stalwarts like Collins and McCain opting out.
So, I guess you people will get to see of Obamacare does crash and burn on its own. I only hope you are right. Nothing I would love to see more.
-
That is as good a description I seen of the game as it's being played today. It's fate has been sealed since the 17th Amendment was ratified.
That's right. The Senate represents Big Fed, and not the will of the various states.
-
And to hell with the people harmed by such a collapse, I guess. Your attitude is disgusting - but thankfully the President won't let it happen, because he cares about working folks more than you do.
MMmmm MMmmm MMmmm Donald J Trump
-
That's right. The Senate represents Big Fed, and not the will of the various states.
The Senate is nothing but a glorified House of Representatives, only its Members are voted at-large in their states, which actually makes them worse than the worst aspects of the mob rule in the House.
-
MMmmm MMmmm MMmmm Donald J Trump
:bigsilly:
-
I’ve seen nothing to indicate a repeal vote is likely or even possible. If it were possible, then republicans in congress, many who campaigned on repeal, who for seven years promised repeal, including senate majority leader, would have already played that tune. Leadership knows when a vote is not there before they ever submit any legislation for vote.
Just to be clear, if the political winds (in congress) favored repeal McConnell and Ryan would move in that direction, if only for their own purely political reasons.
-
As compared to the hell brought forth by it's inception? I know NO ONE who still has coverage, except those covered by medicaid and medicare. Everyone I know (to include my entire family), all of whom had reasonable insurance before the fact, now run without, or are turning to alternatives like Christian Brotherhood plans.
It doesn't come up often, and I am by no means inquiring, but in every single case where it has come up, it is in the context of costing too much and having to forego coverage.
It is not uncommon for folks to be expected to cover THREE TIMES their mortgage payment, and more, for coverage with so high a deductible that they will never ever use it.
So a pox on your statement. Everyone I know is working class and entrepreneurial. This crap is destroying people by it's very existence. *SPIT*
ObamaCare is a cancer. Don't think I want it addressed any less than you do. But I do not favor addressing it by allowing it, and private insurance companies, to collapse and leaving real people in the lurch.
My sister, for example, wants nothing to do with ObamaCare. She lost her affordable coverage, and must accept O-Care coverage that's at least double the cost of what she had before. Yes, she qualifies for a subsidy, but that means she can't earn more income without forcing her to give up coverage altogether. Most of your friends, it appears, have made that decision already.
Seeking destruction for its own sake is disgusting. Millions have changed their position based on O-Care, and rely on it for better or worse. A pox on you, bub, for allowing your politics to trump your compassion.
-
In Jazzhead's case, it's his sister's continuance on that subsidy that is his/their vested interest to be for or at least OK with ObamaCare. And so it goes. That dependence creates more fans of Obamacare....cause they're hooked. Just as was intended.
A pox on you and your ignorance and cruelty.
-
A pox on you and your ignorance and cruelty.
The truth hurts, eh? Not surprised.
As for that pox....
right back atcha.
-
I’ve seen nothing to indicate a repeal vote is likely or even possible. If it were possible, then republicans in congress, many who campaigned on repeal, who for seven years promised repeal, including senate majority leader, would have already played that tune. Leadership knows when a vote is not there before they ever submit any legislation for vote.
For the record, here is a list, provided by House GOP sources, of the first 49 Republican-passed Obamacare measures:
1. January 19, 2011 – House repealed Obamacare in its entirety. (H.R. 2)
2. February 19, 2011 –House passed the FY2011 continuing appropriations bill including several substantial bipartisan amendments that would severely limit the implementation of Obamacare. (H.R. 1)
3. The Rehberg Amendment #575: Prohibited funding for any employee, officer, contractor or grantee of any department or agency funded under Labor & HHS to implement the health care provisions of Obamacare.
4. The King Amendment #267: Provided that no funds in this Act may be may be used to implement Obamacare.
5. The King Amendment #268: Prohibited funding for the pay of officials who implement Obamacare.
6. The Emerson Amendment #83: Prohibited funding by the IRS to implement or enforce provisions on Obamacare related to the reporting of health insurance coverage.
7. The Price Amendment #409: Prohibited funding for implementing the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) provision.
8. The Burgess Amendment #200: Prohibited funding at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO).
9. The Pitts Amendment #430: Prohibited funding for actions to specify or define, through regulations, guidelines, or otherwise, essential benefits as required in Obamacare.
10. The Gardner Amendment #79: Prohibited funding for implementing Exchanges.
11. The Hayworth Amendment #567: Prohibited funding for implementing IPAB.
12. March 3, 2011 – House repealed (signed into law) 1099 reporting requirements that placed a financial burden on small businesses and independent contractors. (H.R. 4)
13. April 13, 2011 – House repealed the PPHF that was riddled with wasteful, unaccountable spending. (H.R. 1217)
14. April 14, 2011 – House repealed (signed into law) “Free Choice Voucher” program, reduced funding for the CO-OP by $2.2 billion, provided new tools to fight implementation and ensured no increase in IRS funding to hire additional agents to enforce the individual mandate as part of the FY2011 continuing appropriations bill. (H.R. 1473)
15. April 14, 2011 – House directed the Senate to take a vote defunding all mandatory and discretionary spending in Obamacare. (H.Con.Res.35)
16. April 15, 2011 – House passed FY2012 budget which repealed and defunded Obamacare. (H.Con.Res.34)
17. May 3, 2011 – House eliminated ability for Secretary of Health and Human Services to have an unlimited tap on the U.S. Treasury related to government mandated health insurance exchanges. (H.R. 1213)
18. May 4, 2011 – House repealed provision that required $200 million of mandatory “slush" fund spending solely for construction for School-Based Health Centers. (H.R. 1214)
19. May 24, 2011 – House converted $230 million in mandatory spending for graduate medical education programs to discretionary spending, allowing teaching health centers to receive funding through the regular appropriations process with Congressional oversight. (H.R. 1216)
20. August 1, 2011 – House passed (signed into law) the Budget Control Act of 2011 that allowed another mechanism to cut Obamacare mandatory and discretionary spending. (S. 365)
21. October 13, 2011 – House passed the Protect Life Act that prevented funds in Obamacare (including tax credits) from being used to pay for abortion or abortion coverage and codified conscience protections. (H.R. 358)
22. November, 16 2011 – House required (signed into law) certain benefits to be included in the calculation of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) for determining eligibility for certain health care programs under Obamacare. (H.R. 674)
23. December 13, 2011 – House passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act that extended the “doc fix” through Obamacare subsidy recapture and reductions to the PPHF, among other provisions. (H.R. 3630)
24. December 16, 2011 – House rescinded (signed into law) $400 million from CO-OPs and $10 million in funds for IPAB (rationing board) in the FY2012 appropriations bill. The bill also reduced IRS funding by $305 million from FY2011 levels. (H.R. 2055)
25. February 1, 2012 – House repealed the CLASS Act, a microcosm for the problems in Obamacare (budget gimmick, insolvent, done behind closed doors and rushed into law, massive new unsustainable entitlement), which was used to disguise the short-term costs of the broader bill. (H.R. 1173)
26. February 17, 2012 – House passed (signed into law) the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act that cut $11.6 billion from Obamacare including $5 billion from the PPHF and recouped $2.5 billion in excess Medicaid funding via the “Louisiana Purchase”. (H.R. 3630)
27. March 22, 2012 – House repealed IPAB, a panel of 15 unelected and unaccountable government bureaucrats tasked with reducing Medicare costs through arbitrary cuts to providers, limiting access to care for seniors. (H.R. 5)
28. March 29, 2012 – House passed FY2013 budget which repealed and defunded Obamacare, ensuring that not a penny is spent on the government takeover of health care. (H.Con.Res.112)
29. April 27, 2012 – House prevented interest rate increases for certain student loans, offset by repealing the Obamacare PPHF. (H.R. 4628)
30. May 10, 2012 – House replaced harmful discretionary sequester cuts to our military and defense capabilities by defunding and repealing several Obamacare provisions including Medicaid Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements, among other provisions. (H.R. 5652)
31. June 7, 2012 – House repealed the medical device tax, limitations on reimbursement of the over-the-counter medications from tax-advantaged accounts for health care and the Exchange subsidy overpayments. (H.R. 436)
32. June 29, 2012 – House further reduced (signed into law) a Medicaid formula drafting error included in Obamacare’s “Louisiana Purchase” provision, clawing back $670 million as part of the Highway Conference bill. (H.R. 4348)
33. July 11, 2012 – House repealed Obamacare in its entirety in the wake of the Supreme Court decision to uphold the vast majority of the law. (H.R.6079)
34. December 20, 2012 – House replaced, for the second time, discretionary sequester cuts by defunding and repealing several Obamacare provisions including MOE requirements, among other provisions. (H.R. 6684)
35. January 1, 2013 – House passed (signed into law) the fiscal cliff deal which repealed the CLASS Act and rescinded all unobligated CO-OP funds saving $2.3 billion, among other provisions. (H.R. 8)
36. March 21, 2013 – House passed FY2014 budget which repealed and defunded Obamacare. (H.Con.Res.25)
37. May 16, 2013 – House repealed Obamacare in its entirety as a stand-alone bill. (H.R. 45)
38. July 17, 2013 – House delayed the implementation of the Obamacare employer mandate for one-year. (H.R. 2667)
39. July 17, 2013 – House delayed the implementation of the Obamacare individual mandate for one-year. (H.R.2668)
40. August 2, 2013 – House prevented the IRS from implementing or enforcing any portion of Obamacare. (H.R.2009)
41. September 12, 2013 – House prevented fraudulent Obamacare subsidy claims by requiring accurate verification systems to be in place before subsidies are dispersed. (H.R. 2775)
42. September 20, 2013 – House fully defunded Obamacare through prohibiting discretionary and mandatory spending and rescinding all unobligated balances as part of the short-term FY2014 continuing appropriations bill. (H.J.Res. 59)
43. September 29, 2013 –House permanently repealed the onerous job killing 2.3% excise tax on medical devices as part of the short-term FY2014 continuing appropriations bill (Amendment #1 to H.J.Res 59)
44. September 29, 2013 – House delayed all of Obamacare for one year as part of the short-term FY2014 continuing appropriations bill (Amendment #2 to H.J.Res 59)
45. September 30, 2013 – House delayed the individual mandate for one year and required the President, Vice President, and Cabinet Secretaries to join Members of Congress and their staff in purchasing coverage through Exchanges without access to employer provided subsidy as part of the short-term FY2014 continuing appropriations bill (Amendment to H.J.Res 59)
46. October 17, 2013 – House required (signed into law) accurate income verification systems be put in place before Obamacare exchange subsidies are dispersed as part of the short-term FY2014 continuing appropriations bill (H.R. 2775).
47. November 15, 2013 – House allowed American’s to keep their 2013 plan without being penalized under the Obamacare individual mandate (H.R. 3350)
48. January 10, 2014 –House required notification of individuals of breaches of personally identifiable information through Obamacare Exchanges (H.R. 3811)
49. January 16, 2014 – House required transparency in the operation and status of Obamacare’s health exchanges through weekly reports on key metrics to decision makers in Congress and the states (H.R. 3362)
The five most recent measures, numbers 50 to 54, were passed in recent days and included a delay of Obamacare's individual mandate and other provisions.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-house-republicans-havent-voted-50-times-to-repeal-obamacare/article/2545733
The Senate on Sunday voted down a Republican effort to repeal Obamacare, the GOP’s first attempt to get rid of the president’s health law since the party took control of the chamber in January.
The effort fell 49-43, exactly along party lines, with eight senators not voting in the rare weekend session. Three-fifths of the Senate would have had to vote to add Obamacare repeal to a highway funding bill.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is expected to ask the Senate — likely Monday — to reconsider the Obamacare amendment. He would propose a procedural motion to change Senate rules in order to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act with just 51 votes.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/obamacare-repeal-vote-fails-in-senate-120638
-
A pox on you and your ignorance and cruelty.
I used pox first and trademarked it for this thread.
-
Nah. They are distributed. All of them do other types of insurance, and they own most of the health care infrastructure (which is another part of the problem). Their pulling out of the market just means they'll beef up their other concerns.
My health insurance provider sent me a nice letter and basically said they would not be providing health insurance in the future. They are a major insurance company. They got out fairly early, and continue to insure homes, vehicles, and such.
-
For the record, here is a list, provided by House GOP sources, of the first 49 Republican-passed Obamacare measures:
1. January 19, 2011 – House repealed Obamacare in its entirety. (H.R. 2)
2. February 19, 2011 –House passed the FY2011 continuing appropriations bill including several substantial bipartisan amendments that would severely limit the implementation of Obamacare. (H.R. 1)
3. The Rehberg Amendment #575: Prohibited funding for any employee, officer, contractor or grantee of any department or agency funded under Labor & HHS to implement the health care provisions of Obamacare.
4. The King Amendment #267: Provided that no funds in this Act may be may be used to implement Obamacare.
5. The King Amendment #268: Prohibited funding for the pay of officials who implement Obamacare.
6. The Emerson Amendment #83: Prohibited funding by the IRS to implement or enforce provisions on Obamacare related to the reporting of health insurance coverage.
7. The Price Amendment #409: Prohibited funding for implementing the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) provision.
8. The Burgess Amendment #200: Prohibited funding at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO).
9. The Pitts Amendment #430: Prohibited funding for actions to specify or define, through regulations, guidelines, or otherwise, essential benefits as required in Obamacare.
10. The Gardner Amendment #79: Prohibited funding for implementing Exchanges.
11. The Hayworth Amendment #567: Prohibited funding for implementing IPAB.
12. March 3, 2011 – House repealed (signed into law) 1099 reporting requirements that placed a financial burden on small businesses and independent contractors. (H.R. 4)
13. April 13, 2011 – House repealed the PPHF that was riddled with wasteful, unaccountable spending. (H.R. 1217)
14. April 14, 2011 – House repealed (signed into law) “Free Choice Voucher” program, reduced funding for the CO-OP by $2.2 billion, provided new tools to fight implementation and ensured no increase in IRS funding to hire additional agents to enforce the individual mandate as part of the FY2011 continuing appropriations bill. (H.R. 1473)
15. April 14, 2011 – House directed the Senate to take a vote defunding all mandatory and discretionary spending in Obamacare. (H.Con.Res.35)
16. April 15, 2011 – House passed FY2012 budget which repealed and defunded Obamacare. (H.Con.Res.34)
17. May 3, 2011 – House eliminated ability for Secretary of Health and Human Services to have an unlimited tap on the U.S. Treasury related to government mandated health insurance exchanges. (H.R. 1213)
18. May 4, 2011 – House repealed provision that required $200 million of mandatory “slush" fund spending solely for construction for School-Based Health Centers. (H.R. 1214)
19. May 24, 2011 – House converted $230 million in mandatory spending for graduate medical education programs to discretionary spending, allowing teaching health centers to receive funding through the regular appropriations process with Congressional oversight. (H.R. 1216)
20. August 1, 2011 – House passed (signed into law) the Budget Control Act of 2011 that allowed another mechanism to cut Obamacare mandatory and discretionary spending. (S. 365)
21. October 13, 2011 – House passed the Protect Life Act that prevented funds in Obamacare (including tax credits) from being used to pay for abortion or abortion coverage and codified conscience protections. (H.R. 358)
22. November, 16 2011 – House required (signed into law) certain benefits to be included in the calculation of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) for determining eligibility for certain health care programs under Obamacare. (H.R. 674)
23. December 13, 2011 – House passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act that extended the “doc fix” through Obamacare subsidy recapture and reductions to the PPHF, among other provisions. (H.R. 3630)
24. December 16, 2011 – House rescinded (signed into law) $400 million from CO-OPs and $10 million in funds for IPAB (rationing board) in the FY2012 appropriations bill. The bill also reduced IRS funding by $305 million from FY2011 levels. (H.R. 2055)
25. February 1, 2012 – House repealed the CLASS Act, a microcosm for the problems in Obamacare (budget gimmick, insolvent, done behind closed doors and rushed into law, massive new unsustainable entitlement), which was used to disguise the short-term costs of the broader bill. (H.R. 1173)
26. February 17, 2012 – House passed (signed into law) the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act that cut $11.6 billion from Obamacare including $5 billion from the PPHF and recouped $2.5 billion in excess Medicaid funding via the “Louisiana Purchase”. (H.R. 3630)
27. March 22, 2012 – House repealed IPAB, a panel of 15 unelected and unaccountable government bureaucrats tasked with reducing Medicare costs through arbitrary cuts to providers, limiting access to care for seniors. (H.R. 5)
28. March 29, 2012 – House passed FY2013 budget which repealed and defunded Obamacare, ensuring that not a penny is spent on the government takeover of health care. (H.Con.Res.112)
29. April 27, 2012 – House prevented interest rate increases for certain student loans, offset by repealing the Obamacare PPHF. (H.R. 4628)
30. May 10, 2012 – House replaced harmful discretionary sequester cuts to our military and defense capabilities by defunding and repealing several Obamacare provisions including Medicaid Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements, among other provisions. (H.R. 5652)
31. June 7, 2012 – House repealed the medical device tax, limitations on reimbursement of the over-the-counter medications from tax-advantaged accounts for health care and the Exchange subsidy overpayments. (H.R. 436)
32. June 29, 2012 – House further reduced (signed into law) a Medicaid formula drafting error included in Obamacare’s “Louisiana Purchase” provision, clawing back $670 million as part of the Highway Conference bill. (H.R. 4348)
33. July 11, 2012 – House repealed Obamacare in its entirety in the wake of the Supreme Court decision to uphold the vast majority of the law. (H.R.6079)
34. December 20, 2012 – House replaced, for the second time, discretionary sequester cuts by defunding and repealing several Obamacare provisions including MOE requirements, among other provisions. (H.R. 6684)
35. January 1, 2013 – House passed (signed into law) the fiscal cliff deal which repealed the CLASS Act and rescinded all unobligated CO-OP funds saving $2.3 billion, among other provisions. (H.R. 8)
36. March 21, 2013 – House passed FY2014 budget which repealed and defunded Obamacare. (H.Con.Res.25)
37. May 16, 2013 – House repealed Obamacare in its entirety as a stand-alone bill. (H.R. 45)
38. July 17, 2013 – House delayed the implementation of the Obamacare employer mandate for one-year. (H.R. 2667)
39. July 17, 2013 – House delayed the implementation of the Obamacare individual mandate for one-year. (H.R.2668)
40. August 2, 2013 – House prevented the IRS from implementing or enforcing any portion of Obamacare. (H.R.2009)
41. September 12, 2013 – House prevented fraudulent Obamacare subsidy claims by requiring accurate verification systems to be in place before subsidies are dispersed. (H.R. 2775)
42. September 20, 2013 – House fully defunded Obamacare through prohibiting discretionary and mandatory spending and rescinding all unobligated balances as part of the short-term FY2014 continuing appropriations bill. (H.J.Res. 59)
43. September 29, 2013 –House permanently repealed the onerous job killing 2.3% excise tax on medical devices as part of the short-term FY2014 continuing appropriations bill (Amendment #1 to H.J.Res 59)
44. September 29, 2013 – House delayed all of Obamacare for one year as part of the short-term FY2014 continuing appropriations bill (Amendment #2 to H.J.Res 59)
45. September 30, 2013 – House delayed the individual mandate for one year and required the President, Vice President, and Cabinet Secretaries to join Members of Congress and their staff in purchasing coverage through Exchanges without access to employer provided subsidy as part of the short-term FY2014 continuing appropriations bill (Amendment to H.J.Res 59)
46. October 17, 2013 – House required (signed into law) accurate income verification systems be put in place before Obamacare exchange subsidies are dispersed as part of the short-term FY2014 continuing appropriations bill (H.R. 2775).
47. November 15, 2013 – House allowed American’s to keep their 2013 plan without being penalized under the Obamacare individual mandate (H.R. 3350)
48. January 10, 2014 –House required notification of individuals of breaches of personally identifiable information through Obamacare Exchanges (H.R. 3811)
49. January 16, 2014 – House required transparency in the operation and status of Obamacare’s health exchanges through weekly reports on key metrics to decision makers in Congress and the states (H.R. 3362)
The five most recent measures, numbers 50 to 54, were passed in recent days and included a delay of Obamacare's individual mandate and other provisions.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-house-republicans-havent-voted-50-times-to-repeal-obamacare/article/2545733
The Senate on Sunday voted down a Republican effort to repeal Obamacare, the GOP’s first attempt to get rid of the president’s health law since the party took control of the chamber in January.
The effort fell 49-43, exactly along party lines, with eight senators not voting in the rare weekend session. Three-fifths of the Senate would have had to vote to add Obamacare repeal to a highway funding bill.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is expected to ask the Senate — likely Monday — to reconsider the Obamacare amendment. He would propose a procedural motion to change Senate rules in order to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act with just 51 votes.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/obamacare-repeal-vote-fails-in-senate-120638
Mind-boggling, isn't it. If nothing else, repealing attempts provided the GOP with something to do on the few days of the year that they actually go to DC to work.
-
Exactly wrong. Obamacare is failing of it's own weight. Let it fail.
Then the fight will be truly and squarely over a return to a free market v. a single-payer system, rather than this paltry infusion that is Graham-Cassidy.
It is YOU that is preserving the status quo.
The GOP can barely make the argument for why a market-based system is better now. Once Obamacare crashes, it'll be an emergency and we'll get bum-rushed into single-payer with nary a glance in the direction of a rational system.
-
The GOP can barely make the argument for why a market-based system is better now. Once Obamacare crashes, it'll be an emergency and we'll get bum-rushed into single-payer with nary a glance in the direction of a rational system.
And McCain will be front and center, leading the way, (unless he's dead).... for all of his Democrat friends. Bet on it.
-
The truth hurts, eh? Not surprised.
As for that pox....
right back atcha.
See that? That's what demagoguery on the hoof looks like, you evil money-grubber. I haven't read the rest of the thread yet (I've been on my commute) but I bet there are some choice words for me, now I routinely call him out for it.
-
A pox on you and your ignorance and cruelty.
@Jazzhead cut it out. If you can't get your point across without name-calling, perhaps you need to develop a better point.
-
Seeking destruction for its own sake is disgusting. Millions have changed their position based on O-Care, and rely on it for better or worse. A pox on you, bub, for allowing your politics to trump your compassion.
Bullshit, plain and simple. It is not compassionate to continue this horrendously costly abomination. Where is all that money going, pray tell? Certainly not to the insurance companies, who are bailing out of the program as fast as they can.
For all your whining and complaint, your 'it's for the chidrren' argument falls absolutely flat.
It isn't 'for the chidrren' to quadruple costs for services that are made out-of-reach by scurrilous deductibles. The claim is not only disingenuous, but for all practical concerns, a fallacy.
What makes your sister more important than mine, who has now had THREE fairly large scale medical procedures, ALL PAID OUT OF POCKET, while simultaneously paying over TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR for insurance coverage on her family of three?
SCREW THAT.
-
I used pox first and trademarked it for this thread.
Which Pox, Small or Chicken? I know Small Pox is far more deadly, but Chicken Pox seems more appropriate in this context.... :laugh:
-
And McCain will be front and center, leading the way, (unless he's dead).... for all of his Democrat friends. Bet on it.
Even if he croaks the dead hand of McCain will reach from the grave and make one last effort to destroy the country.
-
So then counter punching should be also unwelcomed, right? If so, then both parties deserve a warning, money grubber.
-
So then counter punching should be also unwelcomed, right? If so, then both parties deserve a warning, money grubber.
I've seen some pretty nasty insults flung in the name of "counter-punching." One shit deed does NOT deserve another.
-
The GOP can barely make the argument for why a market-based system is better now. Once Obamacare crashes, it'll be an emergency and we'll get bum-rushed into single-payer with nary a glance in the direction of a rational system.
We are entering into the midterm election season even now... I will guarantee that the only way single payer is to be avoided is to have this argument fall exactly in the midst of the election season, which it WILL do if left alone.
The only chance there is for those who failed to keep the 'root and branch' promise is to loudly proclaim their innocence with real proof. Even at that, a whole-scale primarying of Republicans is definitely on the table.
-
And McCain will be front and center, leading the way, (unless he's dead).... for all of his Democrat friends. Bet on it.
Heavily!
-
See that? That's what demagoguery on the hoof looks like, you evil money-grubber. I haven't read the rest of the thread yet (I've been on my commute) but I bet there are some choice words for me, now I routinely call him out for it.
All I can say is..... coming from the "you didn't earn/build that, you just got lucky" (sound familiar?) guy that sounds more and more like a leftie as time goes on....
that figures. It's nice that he confirmed what I already suspected with his own words though....lol.
Reminds me of a thread years back with a couple of forum lefties that were hell-bent on the Democrats getting tax increases passed and all in re: the Democrats' targeted tax increases. Of course.... like many in Barack Obama's administration.... they personally had no intention to pay those tax increases themselves. It's always tax increases for thee but not for me with lefties. It was no skin off their nose then, that others would be penalized. They had a vested interest, however, in getting those increases passed so that their gravy train could and would continue. Like I said....
figures.
-
That is as good a description I seen of the game as it's being played today. It's fate has been sealed since the 17th Amendment was ratified.
Woodrow Wilson is throwing a party in Hell about now!