Pence presents new healthcare offer to Freedom Caucus

[Hondo69]

Apparently the partial repeal has some really odd language . . .

You are exempt if your last name falls within this range:  A - F  but only if you do not have a hyphenated last name.

You are exempt if you own any Duck Dynasty merchandise.

You are exempt if your pocket Constitution has worn edges.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Very often, the response to a moderate Republican voting that way instead of as a conservative is "he should be primaried!"  The reality is that isn't really a practical option in many cases.  For example, Charles Dent, Elise Stefanik, and Tom MacArthur are the three chairs of the Tuesday Group.  They represent districts in Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey, respectively.  Those are not conservative districts, and none of them were even opposed in the GOP primary in 2016.  If they are replaced, it is going to be a with a Democrat.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That's just one of the problems.  The other problem is Pence's plan does not REPEAL the ACA.  I sent a short but 'sweet' letter to Trump/Pence on the issue; REPEAL was the only option acceptable ...

If you're one of those people who prefers no legislation at all to anything less than 100% complete repeal, then fine.

But if that's how you really feel, then I'd expect all of you to oppose the actual deal, whatever it is, that is reached.

[Silver Pines]

Who came up with this "deal"?  Ivanka and her husband?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Who came up with this "deal"?  Ivanka and her husband?

The article says it was presented by Pence and other White House officials, though I'd suspect Ryan may have had some input.  They're trying to attract the HFC and enough Tuesday Group votes to pass a bill, which it seems most here oppose.

[Jazzhead]

Very often, the response to a moderate Republican voting that way instead of as a conservative is "he should be primaried!"  The reality is that isn't really a practical option in many cases.  For example, Charles Dent, Elise Stefanik, and Tom MacArthur are the three chairs of the Tuesday Group.  They represent districts in Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey, respectively.  Those are not conservative districts, and none of them were even opposed in the GOP primary in 2016.  If they are replaced, it is going to be a with a Democrat.

Correct.   These "moderate" Republicans aren't going to be replaced with Freedom Caucus conservatives.   They are, however, vulnerable to being replaced by Dems.   That's why they cannot support full repeal - too many of their constituents are plagued by such vices as compassion for those who'd lose their insurance.       

I'm labeled a "troll" for recognizing that we live in the real world rather than the conservative fever swamps.   Politics is the art of the possible.  Those who don't recognize that reality may as well be represented by Dems.   

[Smokin Joe]

Very often, the response to a moderate Republican voting that way instead of as a conservative is "he should be primaried!"  The reality is that isn't really a practical option in many cases.  For example, Charles Dent, Elise Stefanik, and Tom MacArthur are the three chairs of the Tuesday Group.  They represent districts in Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey, respectively.  Those are not conservative districts, and none of them were even opposed in the GOP primary in 2016.  If they are replaced, it is going to be a with a Democrat.

Why would they have had a primary challenger? They had voted to repeal the ACA before, when it didn't count. Who would have expected them to not vote to repeal when it would count?
2018 may be a different story.

[txradioguy]

If they are replaced, it is going to be a with a Democrat.

Dave Brat...Ted Cruz and Dan Donovan would beg to differ with your theory.

[Emjay]

If you're one of those people who prefers no legislation at all to anything less than 100% complete repeal, then fine.

But if that's how you really feel, then I'd expect all of you to oppose the actual deal, whatever it is, that is reached.

Thanks for hanging in on this issue.  I don't have the patience to do so.  One thing that's mildly despicable about the purists.... even if they kill any bill at all, they will still feel self-righteous.

[GrouchoTex]

Just repeal Obamacare, already.

[txradioguy]

Thanks for hanging in on this issue.  I don't have the patience to do so.  One thing that's mildly despicable about the purists.... even if they kill any bill at all, they will still feel self-righteous.

Were all these Congress critters who voted for repeal in 2015...that all of us cheered...and who have now gotten cold feet "purists" back then too? 

That seems to be a subjective term these days used only when squishy moderates can't get their quasi Liberal pieces of legislation passed.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Why would they have had a primary challenger? They had voted to repeal the ACA before, when it didn't count. Who would have expected them to not vote to repeal when it would count?
2018 may be a different story.

Dent has a long history of supporting things such as expanded tax credits for health care spending, etc..  Voters knew all that when he was re-elected.  None of the rest of them are hardcome conservatives, and I suspect they know their constituency better than you do.

If you did manage to successfully primary any of the three with a conservative Republican, they'd lose in the general election to a Democrat, and you wouldn't have any more votes to pass your legislation.  And none of that could happen until 2019 anyway.

[Victoria33]

"Multiple lawmakers said the White House is hoping to have a vote as soon as this week, though Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the Freedom Caucus chairman, cautioned against setting "artificial" deadlines."

The White House is trying it again - rush it through this week.  The Freedom Caucus doesn't have the legislation yet and they would like to read and discuss it before they approve it.  What a novel idea - actually read it and discuss its pros and cons.   

[txradioguy]

"Multiple lawmakers said the White House is hoping to have a vote as soon as this week, though Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the Freedom Caucus chairman, cautioned against setting "artificial" deadlines."

The White House is trying it again - rush it through this week.  The Freedom Caucus doesn't have the legislation yet and they would like to read and discuss it before they approve it.  What a novel idea - actually read it and discuss its pros and cons.

I'm guessing this legislation won't get rushed through before the Easter break...which is a good thing.

Some of these so called Republican congress critters need to hear some reality from their constituents.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Were all these Congress critters who voted for repeal in 2015...that all of us cheered...and who have now gotten cold feet "purists" back then too?

No, they all weren't purists even back then.  That's what so many people are refusing to understand.

I've posted the articles before so I'm not hunting them down again, but there was a significant number of Republicans who voted for repeal but also said that there would have to be a replacement.  Their support was not unconditional, and they said as much.  And there were articles written in 2015 and 2016 pointing out that the GOP caucus couldn't agree on that replacement bill.

That's been the entire problem.  People have been asking why they didn't just write a bill last year, and slide it on to Trump's desk right away.  And the answer is that Republicans could not agree on a replacement bill even last year.  All that is happening now is that preexisting disagreements that were swept under the rug in the interests of presenting a united front have re-emerged now that it is actually time to pass a bill.

Those moderate Republicans come from districts that do not support a complete repeal without preserving at least some of the elements of ObamaCare.   My own Senator, Rob Portman, also has said that he'd require some elements of ObamaCare be retained before he'd support a bill, and he said that last year.  The problem is that too many people just heard what they wanted to hear last year, and didn't listen closely enough to what some of those moderates were actually saying at the time.

Wishing away those moderates doesn't change the math.

[Jazzhead]

Thanks for hanging in on this issue.  I don't have the patience to do so.  One thing that's mildly despicable about the purists.... even if they kill any bill at all, they will still feel self-righteous.

That's because all they care about is feeling self-righteous.   They are, fundamentally, selfish. 

[txradioguy]

That's because all they care about is feeling self-righteous.   They are, fundamentally, selfish.

Project much?

[Smokin Joe]

That's because all they care about is feeling self-righteous.   They are, fundamentally, selfish.

Yes. I'm selfish. I want to leave a country to my great-grandchildren where the government doesn't run everything (quite badly, I might add) from 2000 miles away.

Bad enough the government already does far too much for which it has no Constitutional Authority.  It:

tells them what light bulbs to use
wants a water collector in their fuel (think winter here, and ice in fuel lines)
tells them how much to flush (repeatedly)
is in the process of saddling them with a debt that will collapse the economy and make Greece look good. I guess that's one way to get the Mexicans to go back to relative prosperity. That's where the Government chased the manufacturing jobs with ridiculous regulations.

By controlling health care, the government will assert that it can also control what they eat, how they spend their leisure time, what clothing they have to wear, what/if gun they can own, and virtually anything else they do. The government will assert a public interest because health care costs money, so anything they do that might cause the public to have to shell out will be fair game.

This is back door totalitarianism. Quit fiddling around the edges and repeal it.

Damn skippy I'm selfish. Sit on your sanctimony and rotate.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Thanks for hanging in on this issue.  I don't have the patience to do so.  One thing that's mildly despicable about the purists.... even if they kill any bill at all, they will still feel self-righteous.

I don't mind people saying the HFC should push harder to get a better deal - that's rational, and I want to see the most conservative deal that can get passed as well.  If all this results in a deal that is more conservative than the AHCA, that'd be great.  But there are some who feel like rigid adherence to "100% or nothing" itself accomplishes something.  It doesn't.  Refusal to accept anything less than 100% doesn't change laws, and doesn't change the real-world effects of those policies.  It's just a finger-pointing exercise.

I suppose there is an internal consistency to it in the sense that if you really view it as "all or nothing", then all-out socialized, single payer health care in which everyone gets only what the government tells them, and nothing more even if they want to pay for it, is no worse than what we have now.  So the prospect of things "getting worse" doesn't exist to them.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Project much?

Are you insinuating that @Jazzhead promoting political compromise is selfish?  That just doesn't make sense @txradioguy

[Smokin Joe]

Are you insinuating that @Jazzhead promoting political compromise is selfish?  That just doesn't make sense @txradioguy

Yes. Sure it does. Ask jazzy about the 1.3 million.

[txradioguy]

Are you insinuating that @Jazzhead promoting political compromise is selfish?  That just doesn't make sense @txradioguy

He's not promoting compromise...he's promoting a Liberal agenda.  And calling anyone who doesn't by in selfish.  The Liberal agenda is by it's very nature selfish and uncaring.

His projection also stems from his remark about "feeling self-righteous"...his every post here drips with that attitude as well as condescension for anyone that doesn't agree with his Liberal world view.

[Emjay]

Were all these Congress critters who voted for repeal in 2015...that all of us cheered...and who have now gotten cold feet "purists" back then too? 

That seems to be a subjective term these days used only when squishy moderates can't get their quasi Liberal pieces of legislation passed.

Whoa.  I'm talking about compromise which is basic to democracy.

Half a loaf is better than none.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
One step at a time.

You're talking about people who won't vote for anything that doesn't meet every jot and tittle of their own personal preferences.

"Purist" may be a little over used nowadays like "at the end of the day." but overused or not, it applies to some people.

[Cyber Liberty]

Then work to oust the GOP representative in your district and replace him/her with a Dem.

That's a rather odd thing for a self-described rock-ribbed conservative Republican to say.  Very peculiar, indeed.  Maybe @txradioguy has your number a couple of posts upthread.

[txradioguy]

Half a loaf is better than none.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
One step at a time.

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