Sixty attempts to repeal

[Ktoyou]

It is also worth noting, or considering, had the Democrats faced reality, they would have known the the majority of men would not elect a female president, nor do the vast majority of married women, even today, vote different than their husbands.

The second part of this is Hillary Clinton, for some reason, or reasons, is much disliked by many people, both by Republicans and Democrats.

 

[jgarden]

Ironically the ACHA favoured the 1% and penalized Trump's core constituency - older, white, rural, working class.

So instead of draining the swamp, Trump and his wealthy friends are doing everything in their power to punish those who voted for him!

 

[ok doser]

well, they certainly deserve it



seems to me, though, that listening to whiny trump haters for the next four years would be punishment enough

 

[Danoh]

It is also worth noting, or considering, had the Democrats faced reality, they would have known the the majority of men would not elect a female president, nor do the vast majority of married women, even today, vote different than their husbands.

The second part of this is Hillary Clinton, for some reason, or reasons, is much disliked by many people, both by Republicans and Democrats.

Those millions of Dems votes sure were a whole lot of women who supposedly did not vote for Hillary.

Fact is she ran a campaign with serious strategic holes in it.

That, and that last minute Comey thing.

Both sides of voters were obviously willingly oblivious to who it was they were each actually voting for, in Trump and Hillary.

Both of which have a life-long history of political and financial corruption for self-serving gain.

 

[Jonahdog]

Had Donald Trump ever been true representative of any common people, he would have dealt with the Freedom Caucus and had taken more time to pass the new health care bill.

Correct. Interesting how he ran against the "elites". How much does it cost to join Mar-a-Largo? And the blue collar workers who voted for him could not figure that out? Or were they more impressed with his 5th grade level name calling of his opponents?

 

[kmoney]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/g...-promise-in-political-history/article/2618413

Yep. Especially last paragraph.

Failing to get the votes on one particular bill is one thing. But failing and then walking away on seven years of promises is a pathetic abdication of duty. The Republican Party is a party without a purpose.

That's something I don't really understand. So this bill didn't have the votes. Why give up so soon? I get Trump not having the patience to persevere but it's more surprising for Congress who has been talking about this for years.

 

[musterion]

Failing to get the votes on one particular bill is one thing. But failing and then walking away on seven years of promises is a pathetic abdication of duty. The Republican Party is a party without a purpose.

That's something I don't really understand. So this bill didn't have the votes. Why give up so soon? I get Trump not having the patience to persevere but it's more surprising for Congress who has been talking about this for years.

I've said it before. Occam's razor applies very nicely here. If they WANTED to repeal it, they would have found a way to do so. Else all those fake attempts in the past when O was there to veto every one, liberal Republican defections aside, should be ready to go AND actually succeed. Unless they were actually fake attempts, lying gestures, showboating to get votes at re-election time. Which they evidently were.

This week just told me what I already knew: the Rs weren't remotely serious about repeal then, and they aren't now.

THE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO GET RID OF IT.

As for Trump...I know a lot of die-hard Trump fans (which, Danoh's delusions of insightful grandeur notwithstanding, I am not) keep saying he's playing some Spock-like game of Machiavellian 12 dimensional chess with a bunch of halfwits and simians. I'd like to believe something like that is possible but...

 

[ok doser]

...he's playing some Spock-like game of Machiavellian 12 dimensional chess with a bunch of halfwits and simians. I'd like to believe something like that is possible but...

:darwinsm:

 

[Foxfire]

Tired of "winning" yet?

 

[musterion]

We'll let you know.

 

[Foxfire]

Looking forward to that, I am. Yeesssssss.

 

[kmoney]

I've said it before. Occam's razor applies very nicely here. If they WANTED to repeal it, they would have found a way to do so. Else all those fake attempts in the past when O was there to veto every one, liberal Republican defections aside, should be ready to go AND actually succeed. Unless they were actually fake attempts, lying gestures, showboating to get votes at re-election time. Which they evidently were.

This week just told me what I already knew: the Rs weren't remotely serious about repeal then, and they aren't now.

THE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO GET RID OF IT.

Why do you think they don't want to get rid of it?

As for Trump...I know a lot of die-hard Trump fans (which, Danoh's delusions of insightful grandeur notwithstanding, I am not) keep saying he's playing some Spock-like game of Machiavellian 12 dimensional chess with a bunch of halfwits and simians. I'd like to believe something like that is possible but...

I'm skeptical of that. lain:

 

[kmoney]

Paul Ryan isn't part of the Freedom Caucus, and most of the blame is his. He isn't following a legislative process that can succeed, and the reason is that up until this year, it hasn't needed to. Last year, they had the excuse that Obama wouldn't sign anything they want to do. Now, he has to wrangle his base or risk exposing their insincerity and cluelessness.

Paul Ryan didn't want to be House speaker because he knew it was basically impossible to get them on the same side. A party like that is barely a party at all. And it wouldn't have been any better if they passed this horrible bill instead of allowing Ryan and Trump to face-plant, because then they'd be on the record supporting a law that took away insurance for many of their own voters. They were in a no-win scenario of their own making, with Democrats actually trying to stop them the whole way.

Trump can blame Democrats all he likes for the bill failing, but this is 60% on Paul Ryan, and 40% on Trump.

Can you explain more the part in bold? What is a legislative process that can succeed?

 

[rexlunae]

Can you explain more the part in bold? What is a legislative process that can succeed?

I'm not entirely sure what would have worked, but I know that what they tried had little chance. It's like they were trying to minimize the number of people who had input to the bill. First of all, they kept it secret while it was being written. Then they ran it through committee as fast as they could, limited the opportunity for it to be fixed. Then they acted like somehow everyone was obligated to vote for it. Apparently Steve Bannon got the freedom caucus into a room and told them "this isn't a discussion, you have to vote for it," and was told in colorful terms that he was mistaken.

Any legislative process that seeks to reform an industry that accounts for something like 1/7th of the economy should be serious about including input from as many people as possible. No one is going to be allowed to force the issue through without input. And also, every deadline on this thing was completely artificial. There's no excuse for trying to rush when you're doing something this complicated and important.

From the time that Obama announced the push for the ACA, it took just over a year to actually pass it. They consulted with industry. They reached out to Republicans, who didn't really participate much, but they had the chance, and they were involved in the committee meetings, and actually offered amendments which made it into the bill. They reached out to Democrats with reservations, and did a whole bunch of horse-trading. Obama went on tour to promote the effort (as opposed to Trump, who goes on tour to hear the adulation of masses). In other words, they took the effort seriously, and they invested heavily in it.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-timeline/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-health-plan-incorporates-ideas-of-Democ/

 

[rexlunae]

I've said it before. Occam's razor applies very nicely here. If they WANTED to repeal it, they would have found a way to do so. Else all those fake attempts in the past when O was there to veto every one, liberal Republican defections aside, should be ready to go AND actually succeed. Unless they were actually fake attempts, lying gestures, showboating to get votes at re-election time. Which they evidently were.

This week just told me what I already knew: the Rs weren't remotely serious about repeal then, and they aren't now.

THE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO GET RID OF IT.

As for Trump...I know a lot of die-hard Trump fans (which, Danoh's delusions of insightful grandeur notwithstanding, I am not) keep saying he's playing some Spock-like game of Machiavellian 12 dimensional chess with a bunch of halfwits and simians. I'd like to believe something like that is possible but...

I don't often agree with Musty, but this seems mostly right to me. They either don't really want to repeal it, or are afraid of the electoral math of millions of their own supporters being tossed off their health care.

 

[drbrumley]

From the EconomicPolicyJournal.com

Under the incompetent management of House Speaker Paul Ryan the statist*Trumpcare*bill has been defeated without even a House vote.

This is a good thing. The bill was horrific and worse than Obamacare. It would have actually*expanded parts of Obamacare and would have made the mandate much more ironclad and difficult to escape.

If President Trump continues on a path I reported on back in February, the Trump-Ryan defeat could actually be a small plus for advocates of healthcare freedom.

I*reported*in February on an important Dick Morris observation:
[Morris] reports that President Trump has ordered that the IRS not enforce the individual mandate and that Trump has changed the rules for health insurance coverage so that insurance companies can offer insurance plans that are much more flexible than what was the case under Obamacare.

In other words, a lot of the coercion of Obamacare has been eliminated by Trump already through the backdoor...

Congress can dillydally all it wants with "repeal and replace,' in fact, the more delay the better if Morris is correct in his analysis.
Got that? Long before Trumpcare*took shape as a bill, Trump had already ordered that the Obamacare mandate not be enforced by the IRS. Further, he has apparently created an environment where insurance companies are given much greater flexibility to tailor insurance plans in line with consumer desires.

We are far from a free market in healthcare but if Trump continues to allow insurance plan flexibility and continues to provide guidance to the IRS not to enforce*the Obama mandate, then we are in a much better position, free market-wise, than if Trumpcare*had passed.

 

[kmoney]

I'm not entirely sure what would have worked, but I know that what they tried had little chance. It's like they were trying to minimize the number of people who had input to the bill. First of all, they kept it secret while it was being written. Then they ran it through committee as fast as they could, limited the opportunity for it to be fixed. Then they acted like somehow everyone was obligated to vote for it. Apparently Steve Bannon got the freedom caucus into a room and told them "this isn't a discussion, you have to vote for it," and was told in colorful terms that he was mistaken.

Any legislative process that seeks to reform an industry that accounts for something like 1/7th of the economy should be serious about including input from as many people as possible. No one is going to be allowed to force the issue through without input. And also, every deadline on this thing was completely artificial. There's no excuse for trying to rush when you're doing something this complicated and important.

From the time that Obama announced the push for the ACA, it took just over a year to actually pass it. They consulted with industry. They reached out to Republicans, who didn't really participate much, but they had the chance, and they were involved in the committee meetings, and actually offered amendments which made it into the bill. They reached out to Democrats with reservations, and did a whole bunch of horse-trading. Obama went on tour to promote the effort (as opposed to Trump, who goes on tour to hear the adulation of masses). In other words, they took the effort seriously, and they invested heavily in it.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-timeline/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-health-plan-incorporates-ideas-of-Democ/

Thanks for clarifying. I agree with you on that, and one of my earlier posts in this thread mentioned some similar ideas. The way they went about this is hard to understand. And the fact that they've been trying to repeal for 7 years makes it even more hard to understand. Maybe the only idea that makes sense is musterion's. I'm not really convinced by that either though. So maybe the GOP is just that incompetent.

 

[kmoney]

They did offer a compromise they were willing to allow medicade expansion to stick around for a few years as well allow a new entitlement in the form of refundable tax credits, in exchange for some type of repeal of essential health benefits in phase 1 instead of phase 2 or 3 in order to bring down the cost of premiums immediately instead of later. trump and ryan were more concerned about getting a quick victory while ignoring short term consequences

I don't remember hearing about the FC being open to keeping the Medicaid expansion. I found one article that talks some about their actions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...bill-at-11th-hour_us_58d31ae2e4b0b22b0d19c317

That talks about the essential benefits, but not the medicaid expansion.

EDIT: Now I see something about them wanting to end it 2 years earlier than the original bill. Yes, the expansion sticks around a bit, but I'm not sure how they are paying attention to short term consequences any more than Ryan. And the first article says there is skepticism that premiums would be lowered much.

 

[kmoney]

Tired of "winning" yet?

:chuckle:

:mock: Trump

 

[rexlunae]

Thanks for clarifying. I agree with you on that, and one of my earlier posts in this thread mentioned some similar ideas. The way they went about this is hard to understand. And the fact that they've been trying to repeal for 7 years makes it even more hard to understand. Maybe the only idea that makes sense is musterion's. I'm not really convinced by that either though. So maybe the GOP is just that incompetent.

That's the thing, they haven't been trying to repeal it for 7 years. They've been messaging for 7 years. They ran on repeal and replace in every election since it passed. But until now, they could always be confident that President Obama would veto their nonsense. Suddenly this legislating is all too real, and they don't really know how.

Don't get me wrong, there are tons of Republicans who would love to repeal. But I think they looked at those numbers from the CBO, and realized that it would end their careers. Obama asked members of his party to vote for the ACA because it was worth losing their seats over. The whole repeal and replace narrative has been about winning seats, so why would they vote in a way that would almost certainly lose seats?