Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, warned moderate Republicans who supported the measure: “You have every provision of this bill tattooed on your forehead. You will glow in the dark.”
४ मे, २०१७
"The vote, 217-213, on President Trump’s 105th day in office, keeps alive the Republican dream to unwind the signature legislative achievement of former President Barack Obama."
"The House measure faces profound uncertainty in the Senate, where the legislation’s steep spending cuts will almost certainly be moderated. Any legislation that can get through the Senate will again have to clear the House and its conservative majority...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१३२ टिप्पण्या:
Er, considering how Pelosi's skin never moves on her face, not sure if she should be making forehead jokes.
McConnell is going to have to either let it die and risk the backlash or kill the filibuster.
Everyone likes to pretend that Obamacare is wonderful and loved by everyone, but I swear it seems I have more patients who can't afford healthcare since it was passed. They pay large premiums then have to pay large deductibles, so they go without care. And some of them just skip insurance all together because they figure why should they give an insurance company their money in premiums if they have to pay for everything themselves anyway. I would like to see the statistics on how many people have been hurt by Obamacare. I don't think anyone has done that poll/study.
Note well Kevin McCarthy's comments. President Trump was on the phone frequently with him and other Members. Trump really worked it.
Trump's work ethic makes me so positive about change. Don't count this guy out.
With the release of Trump's tax plan it has become clear what Trump's governing plan is going to be. It is known formally as the Norma Desmond strategy: "I am big. It's the congress that got small".
Trump will promise big and then blame any failure to deliver on congress. In 2020 he will run against congress, both sides.
Sydney:
Dems will just say "no evidence" that Obamacare has hurt people. But there have been no studies!
Sydney is correct I figured why pay for a premium if insurance is not going to pay.So I pay for my doctors and do without insurance. I am hoping that gutting this welfare in medical insurance will provide incentive in insurance companies competing for my needs.
Pelosi is a moron. What happened to the House and Senate after they passed Obamacare? I will give you a hint. There was not an upwelling of support for the Democratic Party. I think this helps the Republicans greatly
I have purchased insurance through the exchanges.
There are good things, but there are a lot of problems For one thing, it is really expensive and the deductibles are really high. My kids pay for theirs because we subsidize them, but I don't know what person their age has the money for the premiums plus the money for the deductibles. I don't know what young people with student loans to pay off do. Yes I do. A lot of them skip paying, assuming they will get the care they need. Which is for the most part, correct.
The other stupid thing about the argument today is talking about people who have pre-existing conditions that don't keep continuous coverage. They say they will lose coverage. Well, news media and Democrat Politicians, I have news for you. In ACA, if you don't have insurance at the beginning of the year, you can't get it for the rest of the year. You may be able to buy a short-term limited catastrophic plan, but you may not.
I have not heard a single mouthpiece mention that today.
Nobody on CNN is willing to actually talk in depth about the pros and cons of the policies. None of the talking heads, I mean. It's all politics, which does nothing for the citizens of this country.
“You have every provision of this bill tattooed on your forehead. You will glow in the dark.”
Say what you will about warhorse Pelosi, that's a great line.
McConnell is going to have to either let it die and risk the backlash or kill the filibuster.
Believe it can be passed without the filibuster under reconciliation.
Dream? It will be a nightmare politically if they do not replace it. Eight years of yelling Repeal! and then do nothing? Can you say "Minority Party?"
Will the bill be any good? Who knows? A lot of people thought Obamacare was good until it actually went into operation. They have to do something, and then fix it on the fly.
A better line is "So much winning, you will get bored with winning", although I am not bored yet.
I do not think this circle can be squared.
I think they should just have enforced Obamacare as written and let it implode so thoroughly that no one would ever again dare propose that Congress meddle in either the healthcare or the insurance business.
I think this helps the Republicans greatly
As always, it depends what happens -- what is it replaced with?
The difficulty Republicans face is that Health Care for All is a good campaign slogan for Democrats -- far better than anything they've had in the past 8 years. Especially since every single media outlet will be harping on this and publishing sob stories of people who have no coverage for some dire condition.
I'm a CPA. Most of my clients have been affected negatively by the Affordable Care Act.
Hagar said...
I do not think this circle can be squared.
I think they should just have enforced Obamacare as written and let it implode so thoroughly that no one would ever again dare propose that Congress meddle in either the healthcare or the insurance business.
This. At this point, they should let the Democrats filibuster in the Senate, then enforce Obamacare as written. After it collapses, enact free-market reforms.
The difficulty Republicans face is that Health Care for All is a good campaign slogan for Democrats -- far better than anything they've had in the past 8 years. Especially since every single media outlet will be harping on this and publishing sob stories of people who have no coverage for some dire condition.
Then how did the dems lose so much after Obamacare's passage? It certainly didn't make them any more popular among the public at large.
The passage of this bill in the House was four times larger than the margin that Obamacare passed the House.
The other stupid thing about the argument today is talking about people who have pre-existing conditions that don't keep continuous coverage.
The obvious solution is to keep continuous coverage. I understand there are situations where that may be virtually impossible, and that may be a problem that should be addressed by the states (not the federal government). But there are also those who opted to do without insurance when they were young and healthy in order to save money. I see no reason to give such people taxpayer support when they find themselves unhealthy and uninsurable. That is like letting giving them tax money to buy auto insurance retroactively to cover an accident.
Sydney said...
I would like to see the statistics on how many people have been hurt by Obamacare. I don't think anyone has done that poll/study.
If properly implemented, the majority of people who buy insurance lose. That is the expected, and correct outcome.
However, they lose by a small, predictable amount, rather than taking the risk of losing a large, unpredictable amount.
I'm not claiming Obamacare is properly implemented, nor that the correct number of people are losing by the correct amount. I just want these policy discussions to be rational and realistic.
BADuBois said...
Er, considering how Pelosi's skin never moves on her face, not sure if she should be making forehead jokes.
So her skin is like the stiff leather of a gun holster?
@hagar That may feel satisfactory, but it would be irresponsible. It is becoming evident, to anyone willing to look, that Obamacare is imploding and will be entering negative territory very soon. Premiums in rural areas are out of control, networks are getting narrower by the day, Anthem just pulled out of the individual market leaving BC/BS the only provider in many states. My wife joins those above who are uninsured and pays cash, because it would cost us close to $20,000 a year in premiums, deductible and co-pays if she were insured. I am sure that any study of the individual market would reveal that there is a large number of people who have dropped insurance because the economics don't make sense, that many who are considered enrolled at the beginning of the year (by HHS propaganda arm) don't pay premiums through the year thus are not insured; that a very high percentage of young people remain uninsured; and that most of the new insureds are Medicare patients who may have insurance, but have a hell of a time finding a doctor who will take them.
I believe that the Republicans will suffer more if they fail to make drastic changes in "Obamacare" than if they do. The new Representative from Kansas - who won in a "close" race - wrote an op-ed in the WSJ that stated when the first attempt to pass the AHCA failed there was a noticeable - and large - drop in enthusiasm for Republicans in his district. Red state people are very aware of the problems of Obamacare. If you don't live in a big city you are screwed.
This. At this point, they should let the Democrats filibuster in the Senate, then enforce Obamacare as written. After it collapses, enact free-market reforms.
I agree. The biggest favor we could ever get from Senate Dems would be a filibuster. And letting Obamacare run its course.
And the worst thing for Republicans in 2018 would be a bill that somehow let Trump crow about having "repealed" Obamacare, while hurting lots of sick and poor people on the margins and most of all in the Marketplaces.
Tale of two bills. Healthcare passes with total Democratic opposition plus a score of Republican nays. Meanwhile, here's the breakdown on the omnibus spending bill. Reason Democrats crowed? They were the ones who voted it in:
YEA 309 Rep 131 Dem 178
NAY 118 Rep 103 Dem 15
Remember when thin victories were heralded as the success of the president and his party against difficult odds? Man. I remember about a year ago.
"or kill the filibuster."
I think this will be necessary as there are two or three GOP Senators who will fold. Murkowsky is one and Collins is the other. I hear she is going to run for Governor.
The "Preexisting conditions" thing is welfare, pure and simple. They should get Medicaid and copayments (Balance Billing) for both Medicare and Medicaid should be legal.
The healthcare bill was structured so it can't be filibustered in the Senate.
"My kids pay for theirs because we subsidize them, but I don't know what person their age has the money for the premiums plus the money for the deductibles."
-- I get my insurance through work. I've looked at the numbers for getting it myself. Not pretty.
"I think they should just have enforced Obamacare as written and let it implode so thoroughly that no one would ever again dare propose that Congress meddle in either the healthcare or the insurance business."
-- The quickest solution to a bad rule is vigorous enforcement. The problem is it only works if you can guarantee no Democrat presidency for at least 12 years that would then do what Obama did, which was selectively enforce measures of the law to keep it from imploding.
The healthcare bill was structured so it can't be filibustered in the Senate.
Yeah that's what I was trying to say in my above comment.
Under Reconciliation you can bypass the filibuster. There can't be a filibuster of the bill because the bill will bypass.
"The "Preexisting conditions" thing is welfare, pure and simple."
-- And also wildly popular and even 8 years ago could have passed as a stand alone bill.
It can pass with a simple majority vote in the Senate under reconciliation.
LOL - the party who crammed the lie down our throats is making threats. FU - Corrupt South American dictator Democrats.
Sorry, this senior mis-remembered the final vote totals. Obama care passed the House by six votes. The majority party in both cases barely held their troops together.
Trump and the House GOP should have simply stood aside and let the damned jury-rigged edifice collapse.
Same thing with omnibus funding bill in Senate
Totals Republican Democrat/Independent
YEA 79 32 47
NAY 18 18 0
If they really believe in TrumpRyanCare, they should welcome that tattoo. But I'll bet many will hide from it on the claim that Obamacare was dying and they had to do something. We'll see if this passes the nothing standard. But if it's not going to pass the Senate, it's another meaningless throwaway vote, like all the other repeal votes they've taken over the years.
ARM, the second part of your post is spot on -- Trump will run (If he runs in 2020) against both sides of Congress.
Heck, ANYONE who runs in 2020 will probably run against both sides of Congress.
INCUMBENT CONGRESSMEN will probably try to run against Congress in 2020.
Congress is extremely unpopular.
I disagree with the first part of your post. Norma Desmond's strategy failed. Running against Congress is almost a necessity for victory in 2020. The delusional politicians will be those who DON'T run against Congress.
“You have every provision of this bill tattooed on your forehead. You will glow in the dark.”
I like "We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it." better.
AReasonableMan said...
Trump will promise big and then blame any failure to deliver on congress. In 2020 he will run against congress, both sides.
He should run against all of them. They are all terrible. Both sides.
Hagar said...
I do not think this circle can be squared.
I think they should just have enforced Obamacare as written and let it implode so thoroughly that no one would ever again dare propose that Congress meddle in either the healthcare or the insurance business.
That would be the thinking of a rational person, but Democrats would just use their failure with ObamaCare as justification for going to a government-ran single payer system. Some say that was their plan all along. Failing upwards, or nothing succeeds like failure. "Sure, we screwed up last time. But things will be better now. Trust us!"
Left Bank of the Charles said...
If they really believe in TrumpRyanCare, they should welcome that tattoo. But I'll bet many will hide from it on the claim that Obamacare was dying and they had to do something. We'll see if this passes the nothing standard. But if it's not going to pass the Senate, it's another meaningless throwaway vote, like all the other repeal votes they've taken over the years.
Disgusting. Obamacare is dying. You people are just awful.
Stupid, stupid stupid. ans short-sighted.
Vicki from Pasadena
I think the filibuster will be a casualty.
The Senate is no longer collegial and the complaints that no filibuster will mean the Senate is just like the House are true already.
Personally, I would like to see the 17th Amendment repealed.
I'm not too happy about the 19th but that will never be changed. Unless another is added to remove the vote of white men.
I'm leaning towards killing the Senate filibuster too.
Historically, it served its purpose by thwarting tons of bad legislation (some good stuff too). But we're past that point. The fillibuster will be used to thwart efforts to hack away the weeds of big government.
The key, of course, is for the GOP (despite many of its gutless wonders) to control at least one house of Congress.
Didn't people here complain endlessly about how Pelosi passed Obamacare to find out what was in it?
Now the Republicans passed this monstrosity to find out how much it cost?
No CBO scoring before the vote.
Hypocrites
Here is the quote I got a couple of years ago from Carefirst Maryland, for the equivalent of my current insurance on ACA. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1_EiCPi0cabZVFCb2NkYTVsVk0. The part that was relevant for me was the very last number of the last page (p.9): $4,452.16. This was the quote for monthly premium, if I wanted coverage similar to what I had before.
I never heard of insurance that cost that much. Made a believer out of me.
Instead, we got less coverage. Much less.
I post this link in various situations when people tell me I'm a liar for claiming that my health care has gotten worse since ACA.
Hagar has it.
I've not followed this very closely but my understanding is that it is basically still Obamacare with some tweaks and twinkles.
They should have Just repealed Obamacare and let the market take care of itself. With a safety net.
The other thing that needs to be done is provide equity between employer paid and individual paid healthcare. Either make employer paid care fully taxable as income (my preference) or make private insurance fully deductible from taxable income.
I'm still hoping the bill fails to pass. Obamacare won't last much longer.
John Henry
Sydney said...
I would like to see the statistics on how many people have been hurt by Obamacare. I don't think anyone has done that poll/study.
This is a little out-of-date (taken before last fall's premium increases), but then it was 18% helped; 29% hurt.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195383/americans-negative-positive-aca.aspx
"Note well Kevin McCarthy's comments. President Trump was on the phone frequently with him and other Members. Trump really worked it. "
Picking up the phone was beneath The Lightbringer.
No CBO scoring before the vote.
Hypocrites
The CBO was spectacularly wrong about Obamacare.
The CBO is one swamp Trump still needs to drain.
The left loves the fascism that the ACA represents.
David Begley said...
Note well Kevin McCarthy's comments. President Trump was on the phone frequently with him and other Members. Trump really worked it.
Trump's work ethic makes me so positive about change. Don't count this guy out.
5/4/17, 2:38 PM
Yeah, I noted that sentiment from a number of Congressional members. The Art of the Deal in action.
I'm OK with the filibuster. I am even OK with the way it was before where it required 3/5 vote for cloture or, before that, no cloture at all.
But I agree with President Trump, it has lost all meaning. If there is going to be a filibuster, unlimited debate, make them stand up and hold the floor the way it used to be.
Let's see the demmies filibuster by talking for 60 days straight like they did trying to stop the Civil Rights Act in '63.
I think that a minority in the Senate should be able to stop ANY legislation. That is the original purpose of the Senate, to slow things down, "to be the cup that cools the coffee" as someone said (approximately) in the Federalist Papers.
A filibuster probably can't ever stop anything permanently. Eventually it will run out of steam and the Senate can get back to work. But it can slow things down, let the coffee cool, the public chime in and another view considered.
I really think we need a real filibuster.
Mark: "Didn't people here complain endlessly about how Pelosi passed Obamacare to find out what was in it?"
This bill was only 200 pages and will easily be scored by the CBO before potential Senate markup and passage, followed by reconciliation in the conference committee followed likely by additional votes in both Chambers after the conference vote.
So Mark, you can now go and change the diapers you have soiled and rest easy.
Glow in the dark, perhaps; but, not in the privacy of abortion chambers. That's your refuge, Pelosi.
It remains to be seen, but it seems that both parties fear or loath capitalism, including organic economics and individual prerogative, while embracing some form of managed economic model and [class] diversity.
"But I agree with President Trump, it has lost all meaning. If there is going to be a filibuster, unlimited debate, make them stand up and hold the floor the way it used to be."
I've been saying this for years (on more than this issue). Make them pee in their pants.
"Didn't people here complain endlessly about how Pelosi passed Obamacare to find out what was in it?
Now the Republicans passed this monstrosity to find out how much it cost?
No CBO scoring before the vote.
Hypocrites."
They'll own it.
Mark said...
Now the Republicans passed this monstrosity to find out how much it cost?
Like there was any reporting on the costs following the first CBO scoring of AHCA. ALL the reporting consisted of was 24 million people "losing" coverage. In fact, CBO originally projected AHCA to reduce federal deficits $337 billion between 2017 and 2026.
I would expect the number of uninsured to be lower with the version passed today, and the deficit reduction less because of the $8 billion pre-existing conditions amendment.
Inga said..."No CBO scoring before the vote."
The Dems manipulated ObamaCare's budget to include 10 years of revenue but only 6 years of outlays and the CBO scored that (although, to their credit, not without calling "bullshit"), so spare us the outrage.
Why doesn't that Gallup poll that Grimson linked to get more attention? 29% hurt by the ACA vs. 18% helped. There has to be a better way to help the 18%.
"Inga said..."No CBO scoring before the vote."
That's not my quote. I quoted Mark @4:03 PM. I'm glad that Republicans now own it though.
This first part of the repeal doesn't need to clear cloture, Cubanbob. It can be done via reconciliation. However, the bill will get altered in significant ways just to get to 50 votes. I think it 50/50 nothing passes the Senate right now, but if it does, the House/Senate conference will be an extraordinary one.
I think I wrote here, or maybe at Neoneocon's site, that one should expect the House to pass something by the the beginning of Summer at the latest immediately after all the glee the Left had after the failure at the beginning of March.
This was an easy prediction to make since the exchanges are likely to start major unraveling because there was no money ever appropriated for part of the funding needed to keep the insurers from losing money. It had proceeded to a court case that Obama had a chance to win, eventually, at the DC Appeals level, but events after November 8th made that case essentially unwinnable since Trump was unlikely to press ahead with it.
ARM wrote:
"Trump will promise big and then blame any failure to deliver on congress. In 2020 he will run against congress, both sides."
I don't disagree- he largely ran against both sides in 2016 already. There is no reason to change. However, I predict he won't have to run against the Republicans in 2020- they have been slowly coming around to his point of view since late last Summer. Today was just the latest installment of that.
Nancy Pelosi sez:
“You have every provision of this bill tattooed on your forehead. You will glow in the dark.”
Nice line, skillfully delivered. A powerful political threat and/or promise.
But.
After Obamacare was passed, in 2010, the Dems lost 63 House seats, and Speaker Pelosi became Minority Leader after 4 short years. Obama acknowledged that he got "shellacked."
Does anyone think or predict that the GOP will lose 63 House seats in 2018? I'd take that action.
I love all the lefties pretending, once again, that history began anew this morning and all of the left's lies and BS pulled to pass their designed-to-fail obamacare monstrosity never happened and no one remembers any of it.
Dream on.
I don't think Iowans are going to forget the "gift" from Mark and Inga if NO providers in 94 of 99 counties.
Thanks Dems! That's some great "insurance" you've got there!
News report:
According to the Washington Examiner, a 12-member Senate group is currently working to draft their own health care legislation. Their version will apparently be so different that they won’t take up the House version as a starting point.
Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) did say that he and his colleague will try to include some of the House bill in their own version.
“The safest thing to say is there will be a Senate bill, but it will look at what the House has done and see how much of that we can incorporate in a product that works for us in reconciliation,” Blunt said.
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) added, “We are going to draft a Senate bill. That is what I’ve been told.”
Moreover, the Examiner quoted Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) as saying there is “really no deadline” for the dozen-member Senate group to draft a bill.
ARM I think is basically correct on the coming Trump "triangulation" politics of all this although there will be some significant difference in the tactics due to differing political landscape.
Everyone thinks it's so weird that the Senate will vote on a different bill. Even people who should know better. They always do this. Then they meet in reconciliation and finally pass the same bill.
Readering links us to what the Senate republican strategy has been all along. This is no surprise.
Many have argued the best possible outcome from a republican political perspective was to pass something out of the House, the Senate does their own thing which the Dems kill and we are left with the continuing collapse of the wholly-dem owned Obamacare AND the Dems having killed "the fix".
Many commentators, including Krauthammer, identified this strategy months ago.
Readering,
The Senate faces the same deadline the House faced- they will have to take a vote or publicly drop the entire thing at some point before Summer begins. Yes, the bill the Senate passes is likely to be quite different than what the House passed, but where they start is irrelevant- the only real question is if anything passes the Senate- once that happens, it will be in the hands of the House/Senate conference. Would conference report face turncoat voters in both houses? Maybe, it really depends on just how different the two bills are, and we won't know that until the Senate passes something out of committee.
I may still get my old prediction that the best thing to do is to simply watch the exchanges unravel this Fall.
After almost 50 years as a practicing lawyer, one thing I've learned is that you can dazzle a lot of people with bullshit (not that I ever did that, of course). That's what the pro-Obamacare line was back in the day (we have to pass it to know what's in it, etc.).
But if we go back in our minds to the Dark Ages before Obamacare, we don't remember myriads dying in the streets for want of medical attention. That really wasn't the problem. Not that there weren't problems, of course. For example, there was the problem that too many low-income people were using hospital emergency rooms as their clinic of choice, which was (a) too expensive, and (b) sometimes too late. But Obamacare, from what I've read, didn't solve that problem.
What Obamacare did was cause a whole bunch of new problems, such as requiring very broad coverage for very high premiums/high deductibles, where people might have preferred something more like major medical coverage, where they pay for their own routine medical expenses, and buy insurance for catastrophic events.
I think we would be better off if we could go back to the pre-Obamacare status quo and address intelligently the problems that existed then -- but our system doesn't permit that. Still, if we start from the assumption that most people can be left alone to make their own decisions about health insurance, and that all the government (state or federal) needs to do is provide a safety net for those who can't afford that, we'd be much better off.
Inga: "I'm glad that Republicans now own it though."
"Own" what, exactly? A bill that goes over to the Senate? Uh, ok.
Lol
Obamacare, which remains untouched, is such a wonderful and awesome thing that the Dems can't wait to hand off to republicans!
If you needed any further evidence that even the leftiest of the lefties understand what a piece of crap Obamacare is, there you go!
Drago,
I don't think blaming the Democrats for failure to pass something in the Senate is workable- this first part should all fall under reconciliation rules, so a filibuster won't be needed to defeat it. Failure to pass something will be due to the Republicans not being able to produce a majority for passage despite having a 52-48 edge.
Pelosi learned threats from her father's Mafia ties.
The Godfather: "What Obamacare did was cause a whole bunch of new problems.."
Obamacare was designed to fail in such a way as to allow for massive money laundering to Dem groups and payoffs to Dem constituencies, setup the insurance companies as the "fall guys", create a crisis of such proportions that the "good guy" government socialists would step in to create Single-Payer for all and permanently put a Dem controlled health care bureaucracy in place to better control the masses.
And without Trump winning, they were easily more than 50% of the way there.
"too many low-income people were using hospital emergency rooms as their clinic of choice, which was (a) too expensive, and (b) sometimes too late. But Obamacare, from what I've read, didn't solve that problem."
No it didn't, not even in California.
Nancy Pelosi said: “You ha'e e'ery pr'sion o' dis bill ta'ooed on 'ur fo'head."
Yancey Ward: "Drago, I don't think blaming the Democrats for failure to pass something in the Senate is workable- this first part should all fall under reconciliation rules, so a filibuster won't be needed to defeat it. Failure to pass something will be due to the Republicans not being able to produce a majority for passage despite having a 52-48 edge."
The Senate could easily roll in the removal of the structural components of Obamacare which would require 60 votes.
Besides, just how many voters are truly up to speed on what you outlined? 10%?
"But Obamacare, from what I've read, didn't solve that problem."
Obamacare was not designed to solve problems.
It was designed to create more problems with sufficient complexity for deniability leading to Single Payer.
Period.
"Dems manipulated ObamaCare's budget to include 10 years of revenue but only 6 years of outlays"
Mark, Inga, Vikki, ARM,
I generally try to keep from insulting people on AA, but it hard to do with you guys. I don't think you all are stupid, but you are certainly dishonest. You know ACA is either going to fail or be pumped up with massive amounts of cash. Yet you offer no solutions, just partisan bullshit. Are you all this way in real life? If so you have my sympathy. Or maybe you all are just the idiots you seem.
What would you prefer to be done with ACA??
For example, there was the problem that too many low-income people were using hospital emergency rooms as their clinic of choice, which was (a) too expensive, and (b) sometimes too late. But Obamacare, from what I've read, didn't solve that problem.
Obamacare can't solve this problem because it's not a lack of health care problem, it's a cultural problem. I've known a lot of people with good insurance who still show up at the ER because that's what they do.
Drago wrote:
"The Senate could easily roll in the removal of the structural components of Obamacare which would require 60 votes."
Sure, they might do that as an alternative to not being able to find 50 votes for a bill via reconciliation, but that failure to do that latter is still theirs. The problem will be that the media will not play along, though, with a such a strategy.
However, I also agree that I don't think failure or success will matter to the voters in 2018 all that much, and the Democrats would still logically own most of the blame for the ACA's collapse since it was passed with only their votes in the first place. In other words, I don't expect the Republicans to lose many seats in 2018 in the House unless a recession is on progress by the middle of next year.
Bay Area Guy:
Couldn't agree more with killing the filibuster or radically changing it. The Senate Dems will block everything Trump wants to do. That means no tax reform. The way to set this up is to immediately submit the Paris Agreement to the Senate as a treaty. It does not get ratified but public attention is focused on Dems in flyover states that flip for Trump. So when the same Dems indicate they won't vote for Trump's bills, they look really bad. Nothing in the Constitution that says bills must have 60 Senate votes.
Thanks to OriginalMike for bringing up the fact that the ACA used 7 years of funding just to fail in 4 years. The bill was a POS to begin with.
I think this is a side note to this question: One of the more execrable Lifehacker writers, Beth Whatsername (what is she, from Jezebel? I can't recall), used Jimmy Kimmel's irrelevant sob story to start her own tirade on the Evil Right's plans for health care/insurance (I find it interesting how readily these two things are conflated in the minds of the Left). The snark was heavy, the substance absent, and her response to comments that dared to point out the obvious flaws in her article and in the "reasoning" that she recycled therein was f-bombs and wild ad-hominems. It was as if, say, Instapundit put up an SNL comedian caricaturing a Republican to be actual spokesperson for the Republicans: she couldn't have been more publicly inarticulate with rage if she tried.
Inga said...
"Inga said..."No CBO scoring before the vote."
That's not my quote. I quoted Mark @4:03 PM. I'm glad that Republicans now own it though.
Democrats don't care about the results of a policy. They only care about the power they can gain.
Disgusting people.
I'd like to see some news organization with Pelosi on air show a series of her verbal gaffes and ask her if she is concerned about her memory or mental status. Great story.
Pacwest, you accuse me of being nothing but partisan. Perhaps you should talk to the conservative posters here who just above your post posted this 'Pelosi learned threats from her father's Mafia ties.'
That's what I have been seeing here for years on health care threads.
Don't blame me for acting like a Roman when I visit Rome.
If I saw conservatives calling their own out here and this place had a history of real conversations about this, then I would put forth more effort on this site.
After being called every name in the book I don't see the reason to unilaterally disarm.
"That's not my quote. I quoted Mark @4:03 PM. I'm glad that Republicans now own it though."
IOW, you're relieved to off-load the blame for this POS you foisted on the country.
"What would you prefer to be done with ACA??"
Repeal it. Replace it with a Public Option and give people a choice of private insurance for those who choose to buy it.
"...then I would put forth more effort on this site."
Shorter Mark: My comment was thoughless and it's your fault.
"IOW, you're relieved to off-load the blame for this POS you foisted on the country."
Yes, it's your party's POS now. And it wasn't I who foisted it upon the country. I was one of many Democrats who wanted a Public Option.
"Repeal it. Replace it with a Public Option..."
Inga, ObamaCare is failing because it defies economics. Your "solution" is to double down.
https://www.cato.org/blog/large-majorities-support-key-obamacare-provisions-unless-they-cost-something
"After being called every name in the book I don't see the reason to unilaterally disarm."
Don't disarm. Just provide thoughtful comments. Use snark and insults sparingly. And yes there are a lot the righties that I could accuse of the same thing, but they are not as constant and egregious as the lefties imo.
(I thought twice about including you and ARM in my comment since I've seen both of you make fair points). I'm a bit ashamed of my tirade, sorry. I just wish the "left" would take the time to make thoughtful posts. AA has become to much right wing echo. It wasnt always that way.
"Replace it with a Public Option"
And how would that be paid for?
"Inga, ObamaCare is failing because it defies economics. Your "solution" is to double down."
Wrong.
Physicians for a National Healthcare
The Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act
Even Trump spoke of healthcare on the campaign trail that could be described some form of National Public Healthcare. But most likely he didn't have a clue as to what he was talking about though.
When asked who would pay for healthcare for everyone, Trump said "The government!"
Repeal it. Replace it with a Public Option and give people a choice of private insurance for those who choose to buy it.
You know, in the long run that might be OK. Canada is now finding out that private care can survive quite well in the competition with a form of single payer. In the beginning, the patients all went to single payer. Those that could afford it came to the US. Spokane, for example, has huge medical centers for the western Canadians.
The problem with single payer, as shown in the UK, is that the government tries to stop competition lest the public see how bad the single payer is.
The French system has a form of single payer but it is funded by payroll deductions, not the taxpayer. Then they allow patients to pay extra for better care.
The problem with Medicare here is that balance billing is banned. It tries to pretend that everybody gets the same care.
I don't need to read your links, Inga. Even worse than what government inefficiency would do to the cost is what would happen to the quality of healthcare in this country 20 years after the government takes it over.
Inga, look at the Board of PNHP.
They are all salaried, academics or retired.
Now that most US physicians are on salary, you might find less resistance,
I suspect that it would lead to a major increase in cash practices, which I favor.
"Canada is now finding out that private care can survive quite well in the competition with a form of single payer."
The lefties won't allow private care to exist alongside their GovCare. It would be deemed "unfair".
Blogger Original Mike said...
"I don't need to read your links, Inga. Even worse than what government inefficiency would do to the cost is what would happen to the quality of healthcare in this country 20 years after the government takes it over."
Well then, enjoy your TrumpCare.
@wwww said...
It can pass with a simple majority vote in the Senate under reconciliation.
Senate Republicans will not introduce the House bill as it stands, so there will be no reconciliation proceedings.
News report:
Following today’s narrow House passage of the Republican Obamacare replacement plan, Fox News’ Charles Krauthammer made a somewhat shocking observation about what this means for the future of health care. And small-government conservatives are really going to hope he is wrong.
Asked where he thinks we are in the debate on health care, the Fox News contributor noted that due to the change in expectations brought on by Obamacare, America is going to end up with state-run health care eventually.
“I think historically speaking we are at the midpoint,” Krauthammer stated. “We had seven years of ObamaCare, changing expectations. And I would predict that in less than seven years, we will be in a single-payer system.”
Pete @ 14:56 "I'm a CPA. Most of my clients have been affected negatively by the Affordable Care Act."
Probably true of a solid majority of citizens. Legislators however follow the principle of dispersed cost and concentrated gain. In this case the majority who pay for treating the small minority with pre-existing expensive medical problems.
Perhaps universal health care will be like Prohibition - an issue which negatively affects enough citizens to influence the Legislators.
"The lefties won't allow private care to exist alongside their GovCare."
That is always the problem.
Massachusetts has a bill proposed a few years ago that required participation in "MassCare" the Deval Patrick post Romney plan for licensure in the state.
It did not pass but it will reappear when single payer sees the healthy well going off to catastrophic insurance plus HSAs.
The last time I checked, 25% of the residents of southeast England had private insurance, That is the only part of England with a positive GDP.
All-together Sesame Street kiddies:
One of these things is not like the others.
Three of these things are kinda the same.
1. The "right" to not attend the Anglican Church.
2. The "right" to express a political opinion.
3. The "right" to peaceably associate with another person/s.
4. The "right" to have my medical care (or housing, or food) paid for with money taken from other persons.
Yep, that's right, Kiddies. Three of these things DON'T COST ANYBODY ANY MONEY.
(And to the first group we can add another: the right to keep and carry a weapon of personal defense.)
National Review had a revealing look at our government-mandated healthcare:
1. Health care is neither a right nor a privilege; it’s a commodity. . . . There are only so many doctors, so many hospitals, and so much money. . . . That’s why no health-care system . . . provides unlimited care to everyone.
2. Coverage is not access. Democrats like to pretend that giving everyone . . . insurance guarantees them access . . . but in the real world it doesn’t work that way. For example . . . Medicaid, which is responsible for more than half the increase in coverage under Obamacare. Nearly a third of primary-care physicians won’t accept Medicaid patients. . . Perhaps that’s why Medicaid patients continue to use emergency rooms for routine care at a disproportionate rate. Numerous studies show that health outcomes for Medicaid patients are little better than those for the uninsured.
3. The uninsurable are uninsurable. Let us remember that the definition of “pre-existing condition” is: someone who is already sick. . . . Insurance is the business of spreading risk. But for someone . . . [with] cancer, there’s no risk to spread, just cost. That’s not insurance, it’s paying for health care. Obamacare tried to square this circle by mandating that young and healthy people buy insurance to offset the cost of providing care to those already sick . . . that didn’t work. Not enough healthy people signed up to pay for the influx of sick people. Insurance companies either dropped out of the market, cut back on high-quality providers, or raised premiums. All of this forced more healthy people out of the insurance pool . . .
4. Medicare is not a success. Democrats are increasingly embracing the once controversial idea of “Medicare for all.” . . . but the result would still be a government-run national health-care plan based on Medicare. Medicare is undoubtedly popular, especially with its beneficiaries. It should be. The average two-earner couple pays about $150,000 over their lifetime in Medicare taxes and premiums, while collecting almost $450,000 in benefits. Jackpot! But that disparity is one of the reasons why Medicare is running some $58 trillion in the red, after totaling all projected future liabilities.
5. No, we didn’t have a “free market” health-care system before Obamacare. . . . Nearly all health care was subsidized in some way, either directly or indirectly. Actual health-care consumers paid barely 13 cents out of each dollar spent on health care, while the government directly paid for more than half of all health-care spending [Medicaid, Medicare, VA programs, etc]. This third-party . . . payment mechanism insulated consumers from the cost of their health-care choices and drove up both spending and prices. At the same time, provider cartels, both insurers and medical professionals, used regulatory and licensing barriers to protect themselves from competition and inflate prices. . . . Health care . . . free-market competition and consumer choice have been missing.
Senate Republicans will not introduce the House bill as it stands, so there will be no reconciliation proceedings.
I thought they were going to use reconciliation. If this is so, passing the bill would be unlikely unless McConnell wants it to happen.
McConnell stated he wasn't going to change the filibuster for legislation a few days ago. Unless McConnell wants it to happen, it's not going to happen.
Here are a few of the headlines surrounding Obamacare individual insurance (I 'll let you look them up)
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/14/first-major-health-insurance-company-to-withdraw-from-obamacare/ ( Humana withdraws completely from Obamacare exchanges)
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/health/2017/05/03/medica-last-insurer-selling-individual-health-policies-most-iowa-likely-exit/309664001/ (self explanatory)
In MN for 2017 "Both Medica and HealthPartners are capping their enrollment in the individual market for 2017. Minneapolis-based UCare also has a cap on enrollees, while Golden Valley-based PreferredOne will not accept any new sign-ups in the market."
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/03/news/economy/aetna-virginia-obamacare/ (Aetna pulls out of VA individual health plan market for 2018)
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/aetna-obamacare/496118/ (Aetna pulls out of 11 of 15 state Obamacare exchanges 2016)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-strikes-down-obama-health-law-insurance-subsidy-in-victory-for-house-gop/2016/05/12/67a8af78-1863-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html?utm_term=.8a9aa88d72f7 (Without these subsidies the Individual market will shrink even further. Trump will not appeal.)
Given that this is just a smattering of the current problems with Obamacare, it it is hard to agree with the Inga's of the world that everything is hunky dory under Obamacare.
It really is the height of irresponsibility for the Congress not to do something, hell almost anything, to head off the disaster headed toward the individual health insurance market.
Strange...obamcare was the cat's meow. But many of the insurance companies were bailing out. But still the democrats thought it was greatness.
Now another bill has been put in place, pretty much the same actually except it seems, much better, and it's no longer the cat's meow.
We will see.
Ryancare sounds like just another Frankenstein's monster cobbled together with parts from a different graveyard than the one Obama used. This is a blind alley and will never work.
If a NHS is wanted, it should be possible at least in theory to plan a sort of basic safety net American NHS system, though how Congress would make this work better than the VA or the Indian Health Service escapes me.
The solution, which will not happen except as a last resort, is catastrophic insurance and HSAs.
The HSAs are a sign of surrender for the Democrats,
"If a NHS is wanted, it should be possible at least in theory to plan a sort of basic safety net American NHS system, "
I've dealt with the NHI and its politics. The VA is an example of an NHS.
"The solution, which will not happen except as a last resort, is catastrophic insurance and HSAs."
Yes. A.K.A. insurance.
I don't know much about the bill they passed today, but I am not optimistic it is much more economically sound than ObamaCare. If it's not, it will fail.
A single-payer system like Australia or the NHS is a non-starter in the USA. It's not going to happen because of the system already in place and the political realities.
Germany seems to have a good system, but again -- it's a non-starter & would be impossible to get through the political system.
I don't know what will happen here. It's possible that Obamacare will be repealed, but I think it needs to happen through reconciliation. I don't think the votes will be possible otherwise.
I don't think McConnell is willing to get rid of the filibuster at this time. He might, in the future. I'm not sure what McConnell would want to support, in the end. He was a big supporter of the medicare prescription drug plan. Really, I don't think it would have gotten through, if not for him. So he will expend political capitol for his President. He might be willing to get rid of the filibuster for Trump on health care, but I think he'll only do it if he thinks it would be a political win for his Senate.
"No CBO scoring before the vote."
If the CBO were worth a damn, then I would care.
"If the CBO were worth a damn, then I would care."
The CBO has produced an estimate of how many will "lose" insurance with the Republican's plan (24M in 10 years) and the Dems love to throw the figure around. How they can do it with a straight face is beyond me, given that their ObamaCare enrollment estimates were off by greater than 50%.
“You have every provision of this bill tattooed on your forehead. You will glow in the dark.”
Funny, just like Pelosi's majority did before they got swept out in 2010. People got time to read what was in the bill after she voted for it.
I don't know why passions are so high on this issue. Maybe because it's a soothing distraction for both sides. Counting the Federal Reserve we have about $26T in so called private/public debt. IMO, there is no real difference in this debt: they both have to be paid unless we declare bankruptcy. There is about $200T in unfunded debt. I guess we could say none of that will be paid if we want instant and unremitting warfare. Whatever additional debt comes from whatever gets passed just adds to the mountain. Does anyone think that we will somehow resolve $225T of debt in some friendly manner? The pension blowout will happen about 2025. I expect the federal government will begin paying all of it. By 2030 we should be at about $50T of direct debt. ObamaCare, TrumpCare at this point what difference does it make?
Everyone likes to pretend that Obamacare is wonderful and loved by everyone
Almost invariably, the people who claim that are the protected—those with secure employer-based group insurance and/or enough money to pay for catastrophic medical situations themselves.
The protected have seen their premiums go up, but they haven't seen them double. They aren't looking at premiums the size of their mortgage.
They didn't keep up continuous coverage for years or decades, only to have their good insurance canceled by the ACA, with nothing left on the market but the awful "metal" plans.
They aren't looking at ruinous deductibles that leave them no good way to pay for medical care, since a hole has already been blown in the budget by the high premiums.
The protected see none of this... and those of them who hail Obamacare and oppose any attempt to give relief to its victims disgust me. All of that suffering, all of that economic damage, all of that sitting and wondering whether you can afford to see a doctor, the yearly cancellations of insurance, the yearly search for new doctors who will take your new insurance, the fear that comes from knowing that only the most cut-rate doctors and hospitals are allowed for you if you do have a major medical problem... all of that is nothing to these people compared to the ability to signal their virtue on the backs of the minority who buy individual insurance. I am, I fear, beginning to hate them.
The entire Left, including Ritmo, Inga, and all the others, know perfectly well that Obamacare was a catastrophic failure. Some may think it was so deliberately in order to get single payer through under President Hillary (heh).
They are lying through their teeth right now, pretending it was going just fine, so that the inevitable disasters around the corner will be blamed on conservatives instead of them. Don't let them get away with it. Don't believe for a moment they are arguing in good faith. Call them the maggot ridden inhumane liars that they are, never let them for a second pin the blame for their destruction of our healthcare on us, ridicule them, shame them, boycott them. And most of all, blame them, because it is ALL on them, and they will furiously attempt to convince everyone otherwise for the rest of our lives.
"They didn't keep up continuous coverage for years or decades, only to have their good insurance canceled by the ACA, with nothing left on the market but the awful "metal" plans....all of that is nothing to these people compared to the ability to signal their virtue on the backs of the minority who buy individual insurance. I am, I fear, beginning to hate them."
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" was a monstrous lie. The lack of concern they showed for the people who lost their plans and doctors was appalling.
"The entire Left, including Ritmo, Inga, and all the others, know perfectly well that Obamacare was a catastrophic failure. Some may think it was so deliberately in order to get single payer through under President Hillary (heh)."
I was never a fan of Obamneycare because it precluded any discussion of, much less any possibility of actually creating, universal or single payer healthcare, which is what we need. However, for all its problems, it did make it possible for at least some people who could either not afford or could not qualify (due to "pre-existing conditions")to buy insurance previously to obtain some kind of insurance. Whatever the Republicans have done in their ACHA is surely worse.
However, only fools think Obamneycare was deliberately terrible to "get single payer through under President Hillary." For one thing, Obama was serving his constituents: Wall Street, the big financial institutions, the Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies, and the corporatocracy in general. For another thing, President Hillary would never have tried to pass single payer; she, too, is a loyal bootlicker to those who run this nation, (who are not "we, the people").
From the beginning of his first term, Obama betrayed all those who voted for him, (just as Trump is betraying all those who voted for him): they each promised to work for "the people," and they each are servants of the oligarchs.
What about people sense? What do they think this Rube Goldberg system of tax refunds, etc., etc., and so forth looks like to normal people? Who is going to want to have anything to do with all these complexities? Not honest people.
it did make it possible for at least some people who could either not afford or could not qualify (due to "pre-existing conditions")to buy insurance previously to obtain some kind of insurance
... while depriving many people of the ability to purchase insurance at all (because it's now too expensive), making many more have to choose between insurance and actually getting medical care (because the high premiums leave nothing in the budget to pay for care), and disrupting both insurance and medical care for just about everyone who buys on the individual market.
Oh, but who cares about those people if you can signal your virtue on their backs, right? They're unpeople.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा