Obamacare: Say goodnight, Gracie...

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ditto for me on Paul Ryan or any of them. That's why you should be more careful in your speculation.

I was not limiting that to this issue.


So, what do you think the harms of the ACA are?

Will you not admit at least that the proposed bill was an increment towards reversing parts of the ACA?

I guess that's what I'm missing. No one has actually articulated how the proposed bill would be MORE damaging than the ACA. It appears those on INGO are simply against it because it isn't a total repeal.

Can you elaborate on how the proposal would be worse than current state?

This demonstrates how the Overton Window works. Instead of coalescing around complete repeal, root and all, we're down to discussing how this failure might have been effective in repealing parts of ObamaCare. This is how they get us. The democrats knew if they ever got this thing across the finish line the first time, it would be part of our lives forever. And as we are seeing, they're right. There is no appetite to do the right thing -- repeal it...all. Instead, just like welfare, social security, agriculture subsidies/programs, tax incentives for business expansions, you name it, we're going to working around the margins of this thing forever. Oh, we might make "reforms" every now and then; we might change who gets taxed and who gets to subsidized; but unless Trump and the GOP House/Senate do something in the next 10 months, that's going to be it.

 

[Woobie]

This isn't going to be a monster that dies a death by a thousand cuts. Just a few short years after the ACA is passed, the opposition finally gains control, and immediately goes for the worst possible solution short of nothing. And they had the whole panoply of options in front of them. And most of those options would have had enough support to pass. They had a mandate, and they made a limp-wristed attempt to honor it.

As to the party line, it has been to support this feckless bill. And I will not support that. If you really think I'm toeing the Dem line, you need to adjust your bifocals.

You're looking for things that are worse, but that is missing the point. This bill was tacit admission by the Republicans that they couldn't do anything meaningful. It's like when your lazy employee hands you a sub-par performance and says that's the best they could do. You show them where they screwed up and you send them back to fix it. In other words, the Republicans are telling us most of the ACA is here to stay. They tried. Well, do the job or I'll find someone who can.

Oh, and Lex, you've gotta chill out. I've never seen you this personal. It's like you're married to these idiots and I just told you they make a bad meatloaf.

 

[T.Lex]

This demonstrates how the Overton Window works. Instead of coalescing around complete repeal, root and all, we're down to discussing how this failure might have been effective in repealing parts of ObamaCare.

Whoa. I totally disagree, and here's why: Trump was elected to repeal and replace. That was his applause line. He was elected to do that. Straight up repeal - while possibly part of congressional campaigns - was not part of Trumps starting last summer IIRC.

To his credit, he got behind a proposal to do just that.

Secondarily, the House previously held votes on different balances of repeal/replace. This is not a situation where repeal was promised and replace was a bait-and-switch.

This is how they get us. The democrats knew if they ever got this thing across the finish line the first time, it would be part of our lives forever. And as we are seeing, they're right. There is no appetite to do the right thing -- repeal it...all.

For the sake of argument (and reality), let's assume straight up repeal wasn't going to happen.

Is it your belief that the current ACA is better than the proposed legislation? Or is its only failure that it wasn't a straight up repeal?

 

[T.Lex]

This isn't going to be a monster that dies a death by a thousand cuts.

First, it could have been - and still may be.

But instead of trying to debride the infected wound, you're willing to let it continue to fester.

Just a few short years after the ACA is passed, the opposition finally gains control, and immediately goes for the worst possible solution short of nothing. And they had the whole panoply of options in front of them. And most of those options would have had enough support to pass. They had a mandate, and they made a limp-wristed attempt to honor it.

Again, to Trump's credit, he did try to honor his promise on this one. But was stymied by an all-or-nothing group of non-conservatives. At least on this issue.

That's what I don't get. How can a self-styled group called the Freedom Caucus allow a socialist, freedom-hating entity to remain in place when given a chance to cut away at it.

As to the party line, it has been to support this feckless bill. And I will not support that. If you really think I'm toeing the Dem line, you need to adjust your bifocals.

You are saying the current ACA is preferable to what was in the legislation. That is what the Dem leadership said/is saying. How's it feel to be bedfellows with Pelosi?

(Yeah, ick.)

You're looking for things that are worse, but that is missing the point. This bill was tacit admission by the Republicans that they couldn't do anything meaningful.

WHY?

What was going to be actually, functionally worse in this legislation than what currently is?

 

[jamil]

This demonstrates how the Overton Window works. Instead of coalescing around complete repeal, root and all, we're down to discussing how this failure might have been effective in repealing parts of ObamaCare. This is how they get us. The democrats knew if they ever got this thing across the finish line the first time, it would be part of our lives forever. And as we are seeing, they're right. There is no appetite to do the right thing -- repeal it...all. Instead, just like welfare, social security, agriculture subsidies/programs, tax incentives for business expansions, you name it, we're going to working around the margins of this thing forever. Oh, we might make "reforms" every now and then; we might change who gets taxed and who gets to subsidized; but unless Trump and the GOP House/Senate do something in the next 10 months, that's going to be it.

Changing the bill even enough to get one more freedom caucus republican to vote for it, would lose two Tuesday caucus votes. Rock met hard place.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Whoa. I totally disagree, and here's why: Trump was elected to repeal and replace. That was his applause line. He was elected to do that. Straight up repeal - while possibly part of congressional campaigns - was not part of Trumps starting last summer IIRC.

To his credit, he got behind a proposal to do just that.

Secondarily, the House previously held votes on different balances of repeal/replace. This is not a situation where repeal was promised and replace was a bait-and-switch.



For the sake of argument (and reality), let's assume straight up repeal wasn't going to happen.

Is it your belief that the current ACA is better than the proposed legislation? Or is its only failure that it wasn't a straight up repeal?

It was easy to offer bills up and vote for them that offered straightup repeal while Obama was in office and the republicans knew they'd go no where --- except to signal to the voters out there, hurting with 5-digit deductibles and hundreds to thousand-something a month payments that help is on the way if only they'll vote them in in 2016. And it was one of the main reasons voters gave them all 3 parts of the legislative process. Trump's always waffled on this. He'll take a deal that he can hang his hat on that is "better for the people" as long as "everyone is covered".

Saying this failed measure would have been better is having to admit it's better to give people subsidies directly rather than to give them discounts on their healthcare plans or that it's better that people have to pay penalties directly to the insurance companies than to the IRS. While one might be able to assert one tax provision is better than the other, that's just meddling around the margins while the fiasco mastacizes and embeds itself further into our system every year.

 

[T.Lex]

Saying this failed measure would have been better is having to admit it's better to give people subsidies directly rather than to give them discounts on their healthcare plans or that it's better that people have to pay penalties directly to the insurance companies than to the IRS. While one might be able to assert one tax provision is better than the other, that's just meddling around the margins while the fiasco mastacizes and embeds itself further into our system every year.

I guess I need to get something clear: I'm absolutely in favor of straight up repeal.

But that does not mean I am against everything that isn't straight up repeal.

This would have made the insurance market more affordable, with more appropriate coverage in line with market needs. Yes, at a policy level, the mechanism for making it affordable is less than ideal.

But paying less is almost always better than paying more for the same ****.

Killing the legislation effectively FURTHERS the embedding of this program. You're effectively saying that the way this legislation was framed was structurally worse than the current ACA. As a policy wonk, I can see that argument. As a victim of the ACA, I still say that stinks.

 

[Woobie]

First, it could have been - and still may be.

But instead of trying to debride the infected wound, you're willing to let it continue to fester.



Again, to Trump's credit, he did try to honor his promise on this one. But was stymied by an all-or-nothing group of non-conservatives. At least on this issue.

That's what I don't get. How can a self-styled group called the Freedom Caucus allow a socialist, freedom-hating entity to remain in place when given a chance to cut away at it.

As to the party line, it has been to support this feckless bill. And I will not support that. If you really think I'm toeing the Dem line, you need to adjust your bifocals.

You are saying the current ACA is preferable to what was in the legislation. That is what the Dem leadership said/is saying. How's it feel to be bedfellows with Pelosi?

(Yeah, ick.)


WHY?

What was going to be actually, functionally worse in this legislation than what currently is?

Please. This wasn't debriding an infected wound. It was putting a bandaid over the top and saying we healed it. And to say otherwise is disingenuous.

You can name call all you want, but if you truly think opposition based upon a desire for substantive, not nominal, change is non-conservative, you don't know what a conservative is. Which isn't surprising for a Republican, sadly.

Great was not the enemy of good, here. Good was the enemy of hopeless and ineffectual. You lost, and that was good for the country. But it smarts since it was bad for Republicans. Why is that good? We are still talking about how to fix the ACA, instead of marketing this awful attempt as the best we could do for the voters. The next attempt will be a better bill.

 

[Woobie]

I guess I need to get something clear: I'm absolutely in favor of straight up repeal.

But that does not mean I am against everything that isn't straight up repeal.

This would have made the insurance market more affordable, with more appropriate coverage in line with market needs. Yes, at a policy level, the mechanism for making it affordable is less than ideal.

But paying less is almost always better than paying more for the same ****.

Killing the legislation effectively FURTHERS the embedding of this program. You're effectively saying that the way this legislation was framed was structurally worse than the current ACA. As a policy wonk, I can see that argument. As a victim of the ACA, I still say that stinks.

Easing the pain in the short term hampers the impetus for a long term fix. For now it still hurts too bad to leave it in place. Repeal isn't the only solution. But this was not a solution.

 

[T.Lex]

Please. This wasn't debriding an infected wound. It was putting a bandaid over the top and saying we healed it. And to say otherwise is disingenuous.

Pick your analogy, it doesn't matter. In essence, you're advocating doing NOTHING over doing SOMETHING.

You can name call all you want

You started it.

, but if you truly think opposition based upon a desire for substantive, not nominal, change is non-conservative, you don't know what a conservative is. Which isn't surprising for a Republican, sadly.

Backatcha babe.

Sadly, YOU are advocating the exact same effect as Pelosi: leaving Obamacare fully in place. You may have different reasons - or not - but it is the same effect.

How's that feel? All your righteous indignation gets muted when you consider that aspect.

Great was not the enemy of good, here. Good was the enemy of hopeless and ineffectual. You lost, and that was good for the country. But it smarts since it was bad for Republicans. Why is that good? We are still talking about how to fix the ACA, instead of marketing this awful attempt as the best we could do for the voters. The next attempt will be a better bill.

You still haven't explained what was substantively so bad about this one. You say "hopeless and ineffectual." HOW?

I lost, and the country lost.

Midterms are looking rosier and rosier for the Dems, which makes it MUCH harder for any "better bill" to be achieved.

But, I'm kinda glad you mentioned that. What would a "better bill" look like? Something other than straight up repeal? I mean, the FC has basically come out and said that's the only thing they'll vote for. Explain to me the political calculus that gets the votes for that in the House and Senate?

 

[T.Lex]

Easing the pain in the short term hampers the impetus for a long term fix. For now it still hurts too bad to leave it in place. Repeal isn't the only solution. But this was not a solution.

Then what does your non-repeal solution look like?

Or is this another version of nihilism where you don't feel compelled to offer an alternative, just express disdain for what is presented?

 

[Woobie]

Pick your analogy, it doesn't matter. In essence, you're advocating doing NOTHING over doing SOMETHING.



You started it.


Backatcha babe.

Sadly, YOU are advocating the exact same effect as Pelosi: leaving Obamacare fully in place. You may have different reasons - or not - but it is the same effect.

How's that feel? All your righteous indignation gets muted when you consider that aspect.


You still haven't explained what was substantively so bad about this one. You say "hopeless and ineffectual." HOW?

I lost, and the country lost.

Midterms are looking rosier and rosier for the Dems, which makes it MUCH harder for any "better bill" to be achieved.

But, I'm kinda glad you mentioned that. What would a "better bill" look like? Something other than straight up repeal? I mean, the FC has basically come out and said that's the only thing they'll vote for. Explain to me the political calculus that gets the votes for that in the House and Senate?

Your entire position boils down to "do SOMETHING, even if it's wrong."

You assume your pitiful attempt at equating me with Pelosi will have an emotional effect. Sorry, I'm not emotional about any of this. I'm not grasping at the straws Ryan and co. allow me. I'm patient enough to allow the Republicans a second crack at this. That isn't nihilism, it's expecting professional legislators to offer me a product that doesn't require me to overcome my gag reflex.

 

[T.Lex]

Your entire position boils down to "do SOMETHING, even if it's wrong."...

...
That isn't nihilism, it's expecting professional legislators to offer me a product that doesn't require me to overcome my gag reflex.

What would that look like?

If you can't describe a viable (to you) alternative, it is nihilism.

 

[Alpo]

Here's reality. "Society" is just an aggregation of individuals. Society doesn't have a mind. It can't think. It can't act. It can't desire. Only the individuals which comprise it can do those things. Society did not elect Obama. Only about 20% of the 325,000,000 individuals living in the US society made that choice. A slightly lower percentage of individuals voted for Trump. THAT is reality. People who go around thinking societies are cognizant entities are fools.

There is no such thing as a society. There are individuals and there are families that make up what we call our society. A society has no real voice. A society only has the voices of individual members, some of which have more influence than others. Whoever made you think society thinks or acts as one has duped you with pies in the sky bull****.

And. Truman? I don't think highly of him anyway, but even being in the bottom quartile of presidents, Truman still ranks higher than the cripled socialist ********** you're apparently thinking of.

It is not "just" anything. Once again, you go off into your own world and view from inside what you believe is reality. Shakespeare invented 1700 words in his lifetime, most of which are in general use today. You are doing your best to rewrite the dictionary, but I'm afraid you don't have the gravitas to accomplish same.

Your remark is equivalent to saying there is no such thing as a corporation because corporations are comprised of individuals. Well, amigo, there are corporations.

No such thing as society. Yeah. Right. Do you mind if I rely upon real scholarship for the answer as opposed to your view?

 

[Woobie]

What would that look like?

If you can't describe a viable (to you) alternative, it is nihilism.

We're getting there. But I'm not done with the first part yet. We have to come to grips with the reality that the Republicans tried to slip us a mickey, and they must be highly scrutinized going forward. Giving us something a little less broken so they could avoid getting their hands dirty won't cut it, and the house GOPe has a bloody nose for trying. That is good for the country. It gives them a reason to try harder next time, not just on healthcare, but other policy. Had they succeeded, it would have been a little good for the country near-term, but would do nothing to prevent long-term fiscal and economic damage.

But policy wonks tend to think in 2 year intervals.

 

[bwframe]

What is wrong with the Freedom Caucus reintroducing the repeal bill that made it to Obama's desk a couple years ago?

 

[Woobie]

It is not "just" anything. Once again, you go off into your own world and view from inside what you believe is reality. Shakespeare invented 1700 words in his lifetime, most of which are in general use today. You are doing your best to rewrite the dictionary, but I'm afraid you don't have the gravitas to accomplish same.

No such thing as society. Yeah. Right. Do you mind if I rely upon real scholarship for the answer as opposed to your view?

Collectivists gonna collect.....other people's stuff.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[Woobie]

What is wrong with the Freedom Caucus reintroducing the repeal bill that made it to Obama's desk a couple years ago?

A lot of states were dumb enough to play along with Obamacare. A simple repeal leaves them in a precarious fiscal position. Now I'm all about consequences, but we can achieve the desired result with less pain by making judicious use of time.

 

[Alpo]

Collectivists gonna collect.....other people's stuff.

The world is greater than the principality in which you reside.

One thing I've got to recognize Trump for: He's made government ordinary. He's shown the republican party for what it is: a largely simple-minded group of irascible, greedy little men who can't get out of the way of their own self-interest to accomplish a damn thing. Trump has done more to discredit the institutional icons of our republic than any president before. And he's done it in less than 100 days. Bravo.