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

[roamer_1]

My wife and daughter are both life long healthcare professionals and agree with that 100%. We have discussed it many times in fact!  The ONLY thing standing in the way are lawyers and the courts!

@Bigun
@INVAR

That is where the rubber hits the road - the rest of this is all kabuki theater - slight of hand - The point is *not* the high cost of insurance. The point is the high cost of healthcare.

When the cost of something is way too high, the only, ONLY reason why is because market forces are not able to moderate the cost. That is invariably a bubble caused by monopoly, governmental interference, or governmental regulation.

We don't need more government and regulation. We need LESS. LESSENING the regulation will allow market forces to intervene and the price will come down.

Simply allowing nurses to practice medicine is a perfect example.

[Bigun]

@Bigun
@INVAR

That is where the rubber hits the road - the rest of this is all kabuki theater - slight of hand - The point is *not* the high cost of insurance. The point is the high cost of healthcare.

When the cost of something is way too high, the only, ONLY reason why is because market forces are not able to moderate the cost. That is invariably a bubble caused by monopoly, governmental interference, or governmental regulation.

We don't need more government and regulation. We need LESS. LESSENING the regulation will allow market forces to intervene and the price will come down.

Simply allowing nurses to practice medicine is a perfect example.

  My friend!    I don't think it can be said any better than that!

[Cyber Liberty]

@Bigun
@INVAR

That is where the rubber hits the road - the rest of this is all kabuki theater - slight of hand - The point is *not* the high cost of insurance. The point is the high cost of healthcare.

When the cost of something is way too high, the only, ONLY reason why is because market forces are not able to moderate the cost. That is invariably a bubble caused by monopoly, governmental interference, or governmental regulation.

We don't need more government and regulation. We need LESS. LESSENING the regulation will allow market forces to intervene and the price will come down.

Simply allowing nurses to practice medicine is a perfect example.

That runs contrary to what a certain other poster keeps saying, that we need government to level the playing field.  And stuff.  Oh, and he keeps calling hisself a "conservative Republican."

[DiogenesLamp]

This is getting weighed down with unnecessary complexity.  So allow me to simplify. The ONLY way anything on the right gets done is if GOP moderates, libertarians and conservatives compromise with one another. If one or all of these groups refuse to do so, we are collectively screwed.

Sure.  But conservatives make up the vast majority of their constituency,  so instead of letting the tail wag the dog,  they should do what the bulk of their constituency want,  not the little rump caucus of moderates and libertarians trying to split the difference with Democrats.   

[roamer_1]

That runs contrary to what a certain other poster keeps saying, that we need government to level the playing field.  And stuff.  Oh, and he keeps calling hisself a "conservative Republican."

But it illustrates why the other poster is stone-dead wrong. Ray Charles could see the sense in it.

Let nurses practice medicine.
Let churches make money with hospitals and handle charity (which they do far better than business).
Bring alternative medicines into the light - many times they work BETTER.

All three of these , right off the top of my head, would have a tremendous effect in lowering health costs, and all three are stifled only by regulation.

[roamer_1]

Sure.  But conservatives make up the vast majority of their constituency,  so instead of letting the tail wag the dog,  they should do what the bulk of their constituency want,  not the little rump caucus of moderates and libertarians trying to split the difference with Democrats.

How about sticking to the platform?
How about fulfilling their promises?

If anyone should be getting an ass-chewing it should be thos so-called moderates who are the ones obstructing what the party purports to stand for.

[DiogenesLamp]

Whatever you may think of the merits of ObamaCare, it is a product of the Constitutional process for the enactment of laws by our democratically-elected representatives.   

No it isn't.   It is an exact perversion of that process.   If you think this was normal and proper law making,  you simply weren't paying attention.   It was like a Frankenstein monster made up of dead flesh patched together and called a person. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Close. I'll do you one better. Allow nurses more latitude and independence.
90% of health care can just as easily be handled by a nurse - You don't need a doctor to splint your finger, stitch you up, or treat common sicknesses - All easily within a nurse's training and capability.

A nurse in a minivan doing house calls can be excellent medical service - more than adequate... And it would be a pittance by comparison, the nurse would make more money, and the patients would not be getting sick from each other getting jammed together in waiting rooms.

The regulations, many of which are well-intentioned, are in the way. They keep the costs extremely high'
I won't go to the doc to get stitched up. That'd be well over a couple hundred dollars.
But the Cheyenne will do it for a bottle of jack, and probably do a better job - He was battlefield trained, and doesn't miss a stitch. My DIL is a very competent nurse, and could easily di it for free. But don't let the nanny state catch you, or they'd be in biiiig trouble for practicing medicine.

The system has  a supply bottleneck because it suits the interests of certain groups of people who make more money because there is a supply bottleneck.   

Allow nurses to go further in their practice,   expand what Physician's assistants can do,  and make getting a medical license easier and cheaper for people. 

I would become a doctor if it wasn't so damned expensive and restricted.   So would many others I would wager.   

[DiogenesLamp]

Leave any of it in place and it will just come back.

It will grow like a cancer from any cells left behind.   

[DiogenesLamp]

@Bigun
@INVAR

That is where the rubber hits the road - the rest of this is all kabuki theater - slight of hand - The point is *not* the high cost of insurance. The point is the high cost of healthcare.

When the cost of something is way too high, the only, ONLY reason why is because market forces are not able to moderate the cost. That is invariably a bubble caused by monopoly, governmental interference, or governmental regulation.

We don't need more government and regulation. We need LESS. LESSENING the regulation will allow market forces to intervene and the price will come down.

Simply allowing nurses to practice medicine is a perfect example.

Thank you.   This is exactly correct.   

[DiogenesLamp]

How about sticking to the platform?
How about fulfilling their promises?

If anyone should be getting an ass-chewing it should be thos so-called moderates who are the ones obstructing what the party purports to stand for.

Yes.   The wrong people are being called out for this debacle.   It ought to be the ones that have changed their positions from last year to now,  not the people who have consistently said the same thing. 

[Jazzhead]

No it isn't.   It is an exact perversion of that process.   If you think this was normal and proper law making,  you simply weren't paying attention.   It was like a Frankenstein monster made up of dead flesh patched together and called a person.

It was unusual, perhaps unprecedented, lawmaking because Republicans were frozen out of the process.   But the times have changed;  bi-partisanship is apparently dead as we hurtle, metaphorically speaking, toward a second civil war.     

But the ACA was Constitutional,  and the Republicans, now that they are in power, have the Constitutional ability to get rid of some or all of it if they can cobble together the votes. 

[Jazzhead]

Yes.   The wrong people are being called out for this debacle.   It ought to be the ones that have changed their positions from last year to now,  not the people who have consistently said the same thing.

Yep, let's toss out all the Republicans.   That'll advance the cause of conservatism.   

Backbenchers have the luxury of not having to take responsibility.  That luxury's gone now that we are in power.   To just "get rid" of the ACA without regard for the human consequences (let alone the political consequences) is I-N-S-A-N-E. 

Sometimes I think that conservatives are like disturbed teenagers who cut their legs and arms just so they can watch themselves bleed.   

[bilo]

@Mesaclone

Right, the Freedom Caucus...those guys who actually were fighting to keep seven years' worth of promises. 

And the two dozen or so moderates who jumped ship to side with them.  Don't forget them, now.

There was nothing good about that mess Trump and Ryan tried to push off on the American people.  But you go right ahead and side with the Democrats.

 

Well said! I'm getting so tired of conservatives being told they must forget their principals and promises to the voters in order to satisfy those with little or no principals and who's loyalty is only to govt. The freedom caucus did the right thing.

[Sanguine]

It was unusual, perhaps unprecedented, lawmaking because Republicans were frozen out of the process.   But the times have changed;  bi-partisanship is apparently dead as we hurtle, metaphorically speaking, toward a second civil war.     

But the ACA was Constitutional,  and the Republicans, now that they are in power, have the Constitutional ability to get rid of some or all of it if they can cobble together the votes.

No, the ACA was NOT constitutional. Still isn't.

[DiogenesLamp]

It was unusual, perhaps unprecedented, lawmaking because Republicans were frozen out of the process.   But the times have changed;  bi-partisanship is apparently dead as we hurtle, metaphorically speaking, toward a second civil war.     

But the ACA was Constitutional,  and the Republicans, now that they are in power, have the Constitutional ability to get rid of some or all of it if they can cobble together the votes.

It was not constitutional,  despite that made up bullsh*t from Roberts.  All tax legislation must originate in the House.  Roberts declared it a "tax"  and ignored the part about it not originating in the house.   


The congress swore up and down that it was not a "tax",  but instead it was a "fine"  or "penalty."   


Everybody is lying,  including Judge Roberts.   

[Mesaclone]

Yes.   The wrong people are being called out for this debacle.   It ought to be the ones that have changed their positions from last year to now,  not the people who have consistently said the same thing.

This isn't about "ought to be's" or "should be's", its about what is possible in terms of votes. The Reagan method of getting the most conservative legislation you can get. Do you actually think the FC is going to be able to put forward a piece of legislation that has ANY chance of becoming law...without making some compromises with moderates and other conservatives?

I would love to see full repeal of Obamacare...flat out with no strings...followed by very minimal federal involvement in our overall Healthcare system. When I'm king, that's what will happen. Since none of us here are likely to become king anytime soon, the only path forward is for all the groups within the GOP to find a compromise bill that has sufficient voting support to pass. Otherwise, we're all just sitting around waiting for the Dems turn to pass even MORE leftwing legislation when they return to power...which is, at some point, inevitable.

[Mesaclone]

It was not constitutional,  despite that made up bullsh*t from Roberts.  All tax legislation must originate in the House.  Roberts declared it a "tax"  and ignored the part about it not originating in the house.   


The congress swore up and down that it was not a "tax",  but instead it was a "fine"  or "penalty."   


Everybody is lying,  including Judge Roberts.

While I agree it was a horrible decision by the Supreme Court, Obamacare is beyond doubt now constitutional. That's because the very definition of constitutional is determined by the Supreme Court itself...as intended in that very same constitution. Just another reason why Gorsuch must be confirmed and why we must hold the White House and Senate through the next Supreme Court appointment.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yep, let's toss out all the Republicans.   That'll advance the cause of conservatism.   

Backbenchers have the luxury of not having to take responsibility.  That luxury's gone now that we are in power.   To just "get rid" of the ACA without regard for the human consequences (let alone the political consequences) is I-N-S-A-N-E. 

Not forcing it to go into effect immediately was what was I-N-S-A-N-E.  Those F***ing moderates kept watering it down to make it tolerable instead of letting that piece of sh*t explode on a helpless population which would than have been filled with a need for vengeance on those bastard Congressman and that Bastard Odumbo for doing it to them.   


Obama would have *LOST* in 2012 if his legislation had been quickly applied as written.   Those F***ing moderates saved Obama and hurt *US*.   


Even President Grant said "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution."

Sometimes I think that conservatives are like disturbed teenagers who cut their legs and arms just so they can watch themselves bleed.

Sometimes I think those people out there who think they know politics need to shut up and let those of us who *DO*  know politics take it from here.   

The Republicans should not have watered down the horrors of Obamacare.  They should have forced it onto the public as quickly and onerously as possible.   It would have saved us four F***ing years of Obama,  and it may have saved many millions of lives as a result.


When Iran Nukes someone,  It will be the Moderate Republicans who indirectly caused that bloodshed.   

[DiogenesLamp]

This isn't about "ought to be's" or "should be's", its about what is possible in terms of votes. The Reagan method of getting the most conservative legislation you can get. Do you actually think the FC is going to be able to put forward a piece of legislation that has ANY chance of becoming law...without making some compromises with moderates and other conservatives?

I bring this point up often.  Are you familiar with the NRA?  Are you familiar with the methodology they have used that has been so highly successful for them?   

   Do they compromise?  No,  they make a bloody example of people who cross them.   *THAT*  is how it is done.   


Well that is exactly what I propose we do. Cut off some F***ing heads once in awhile "pour encourager les autres." 

I would love to see full repeal of Obamacare...flat out with no strings...followed by very minimal federal involvement in our overall Healthcare system. When I'm king, that's what will happen. Since none of us here are likely to become king anytime soon, the only path forward is for all the groups within the GOP to find a compromise bill that has sufficient voting support to pass. Otherwise, we're all just sitting around waiting for the Dems turn to pass even MORE leftwing legislation when they return to power...which is, at some point, inevitable.

As Reagan said of the Democrat's submitted budget.   "The Democrats have a great budget if you only plan to live for the next few years."   

I have long been an advocate of the long game.  You seem to be playing for just the next two elections.   


Our position should be this:   Tell them to repeal it all. *AFTER* that is done,  we can discuss what if anything we want the Federal Government to do in the area of "replacing" it.   

[DiogenesLamp]

While I agree it was a horrible decision by the Supreme Court, Obamacare is beyond doubt now constitutional. That's because the very definition of constitutional is determined by the Supreme Court itself...as intended in that very same constitution. Just another reason why Gorsuch must be confirmed and why we must hold the White House and Senate through the next Supreme Court appointment.

As Lincoln said:  "Just because you call a tail a leg,  doesn't make it so." 


How about we get Gorsuch confirmed,  submit a new lawsuit charging it is unconstitutional because the "tax"  that Traitor Roberts dreamed up,  wasn't originated in the house per constitutional law?   

Then the cowards in congress can have their cover while the Court forces it to disappear. 

Oh,  and as a bonus,  we'll correct the inaccurate claim that the law was constitutional. 

[INVAR]

While I agree it was a horrible decision by the Supreme Court, Obamacare is beyond doubt now constitutional.

It is as Constitutional as Dredd Scott.

[DiogenesLamp]

It is as Constitutional as Dredd Scott.

Now there I have to disagree.  According to the US Constitution at the time, Dredd Scott was correctly decided.   

[INVAR]

Now there I have to disagree.  According to the US Constitution at the time, Dredd Scott was correctly decided.

Is it still Constitutional, and therefore immovable and permanent and unable to be done away with as our resident Leftist would like us to believe ObamaCare is?

[Cyber Liberty]

Now there I have to disagree.  According to the US Constitution at the time, Dredd Scott was correctly decided.

According to the US Constitution at the time (as interpreted by SCOTUS), Obamacare was as correctly decided as Dred Scott.