Obamacare: Say goodnight, Gracie...

[Woobie]

Doesn't matter who you allow in your sandbox. You want to rule on the best flavor of Jello.

Trump has made America Ordinary again. The republicans have no idea how to accomplish anything.

God forbid you got the deal you voted for.

The topic is healthcare. That is funded by taxation.

You have nothing to support your collectivist position, except a fluffy feeling in your chest. So you move to barbs, other subjects, and metaphors given to you by the lady in the bong water.

I'm not a man on an island, literally, metaphorically or philisophically. I give charitably. I help others in a number of ways. I visit sick people. But I won't pay anyone to force charity with the threat of violence. It is immoral. Never mind the practical matter of how charitable a government program can be.

 

[Woobie]

Doesn't matter who you allow in your sandbox. You want to rule on the best flavor of Jello.

Trump has made America Ordinary again. The republicans have no idea how to accomplish anything.

God forbid you got the deal you voted for.

The topic is healthcare. That is funded by taxation.

You have nothing to support your collectivist position, except a fluffy feeling in your chest. So you move to barbs, other subjects, and metaphors given to you by the lady in the bong water.

I'm not a man on an island, literally, metaphorically or philisophically. I give charitably. I help others in a number of ways. I visit sick people. But I won't pay anyone to force charity with the threat of violence. It is immoral. Never mind the practical matter of how charitable a government program can be.

 

[Libertarian01]

This is the bill they need to pass.

"Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted,"

And that's it - one sentence.

Rep. Mo Brooks files bill to repeal Obamacare | AL.com

Love it - except for the date.

That is too soon to try to change on a dime.

My father owned his own independent insurance agency. He moved locations twice. Each time he moved it took monthes to organize the move. Everything from contacting clients to ordering phone transfers, renting moving trucks, getting people to help move, letting the insurance companies know where and when to send mail, etc etc etc. That was just to move in an orderly and organized way. That was also with my father being able to, within certain parameters, dictate his wishes without going through a committee.

Now we're talking about changing an entire industry, along with several hundred million citizens, then comes the thousands, maybe millions, of small businesses that do provide health insurance.

Would I vote for it? Yeah! Would I push for at least 2018? Hell yeah!

Regards,

Doug

 

[Alpo]

The point, methinks is not what the world looks like today. Don't you think legislation ought to take a longer view? Certainly, there is 10-year economic scoring, but in almost all cases those voting on the issue are bereft of a good understanding of economics and are caught up in a web of special interests and issues du jour. I attempted to make an observation that the trend world wide is toward more social programs. With a larger and larger population, individualism will likely suffer, although it might be the ultimate luxury of the elite.

What does it mean when we have 9 billion people on the planet, heavy automation and service-based economies? Will we have a middle class or will 95% of the population live at a subsistence level? Why would we spend a dollar on health care that serves to extend life if we don't need all those people in the first place?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Cornyn says flatly that health care will not be attempted again via reconciliation. "It's clear it needs to be done on a bipartisan basis."

They were never serious about repealing it. Just sounded good on TV.

 

[Thor]

Would I vote for it? Yeah! Would I push for at least 2018? Hell yeah!

Regards,

Doug

I would have no problem with that.

Saying it's too hard to do is not a good argument to use with our 'representatives'. Yet I do not mislead myself about the possibility that it will pass...it should and we should all tell our 'reps' that.

 

[Thor]

Cornyn says flatly that health care will not be attempted again via reconciliation. "It's clear it needs to be done on a bipartisan basis."

Just one among the hundreds of cowards cowering in DC. Needs to be bipartisan...why again do they have a majority? How bipartisan was the bill they need to repeal?

 

[T.Lex]

Cornyn says flatly that health care will not be attempted again via reconciliation. "It's clear it needs to be done on a bipartisan basis."

They were never serious about repealing it. Just sounded good on TV.

Wait. The majority whip is saying we need bipartisanship?

That's not his job.

I'd say he's a significant part of why it failed.

 

[jamil]

Doesn't matter who you allow in your sandbox. You want to rule on the best flavor of Jello.

Trump has made America Ordinary again. The republicans have no idea how to accomplish anything.

God forbid you got the deal you voted for.

I will partially agree on this. But it's more that republicans have no idea how to shore up support within a party of diverse ideology, without resorting to the tactics Democrats used to ram through Obamacare. Democrats seem to have much less ethical dilemma when it comes to an anything goes approach to accomplishing their agenda. Democrats used parliamentary tricks and strong-arming those in their own party to go along with it. No strategy was off the table for getting it rammed through. Republicans sure aren't the ethical standard bearers by any means, but far fewer of them are willing to use the same Democrat tactics to get their legislation through their still diverse caucus.

As far as getting the deal I voted for, I voted for the candidate most likely to get an originalist appointed to the SCOTUS. Partisan politics notwithstanding, I'm damn far closer to getting that than if the big bag-o-**** won the presidency. The only stuff I'd rhetorically beg god's forbidding is the authoritarian crap Trump wants to accomplish. But I'd have gotten far more sinister authoritarian crap had the bag-o-**** won the election.

 

[jamil]

The point, methinks is not what the world looks like today. Don't you think legislation ought to take a longer view? Certainly, there is 10-year economic scoring, but in almost all cases those voting on the issue are bereft of a good understanding of economics and are caught up in a web of special interests and issues du jour. I attempted to make an observation that the trend world wide is toward more social programs. With a larger and larger population, individualism will likely suffer, although it might be the ultimate luxury of the elite.

What does it mean when we have 9 billion people on the planet, heavy automation and service-based economies? Will we have a middle class or will 95% of the population live at a subsistence level? Why would we spend a dollar on health care that serves to extend life if we don't need all those people in the first place?

Just because the trend is towards more social programs doesn't itself justify those programs. I don't disagree that having 9 billion people, heavy automation, and service-based economies, will be a challenge for existing economic systems. But I am certain that human nature will not change from its most basic instincts. There will still be a market economy and whether it is overt or covert will depend on leaders willingness to admit human nature and devise a system that works with it rather than against it.

 

[Alpo]

I will partially agree on this.

I bask in your semi-approbation.

Just because the trend is towards more social programs doesn't itself justify those programs.

Who justified any civilization? They develop the way they do because it works for the requirements of the time. No one asked the Egyptians or Assyrians to justify themselves. In the former case, it resulted in a high form and reasonable standard of living for millions. In the latter, it was a continuation of war-dominated hegemonic goals.

I suppose we will always have markets, but I don't suppose that the word "market" will mean what you think it means.

 

[jamil]

I bask in your semi-approbation.



Who justified any civilization? They develop the way they do because it works for the requirements of the time. No one asked the Egyptians or Assyrians to justify themselves. In the former case, it resulted in a high form and reasonable standard of living for millions. In the latter, it was a continuation of war-dominated hegemonic goals.

I suppose we will always have markets, but I don't suppose that the word "market" will mean what you think it means.

I think you're giving large scale socialism a far more organic origin than there was. The idea of communal economies is very old, especially in smaller scales. Trying to scale that and apply it in a democratic society still requires someone at some point saying, hey, let's try this, and then having to justify that policy to build support for it.

European socialism didn't happen unilaterally. It didn't just happen by natural societal evolution, as you seem to imply, either. Socialism isn't the next logical and natural evolutionary step in the development of societies as much as you would like that to be the case. It grew in popularity in part because it is quite efficient at giving fewer people power over large societies. Capitalism, by itself doesn't most naturally do that. Crony capitalism, which is a function of socialism, does naturally do that.

Capitalism is a far more naturally evolved economic system because it is the default economy for human nature. No matter what socialism tries to provide, or ban, or control, it must place arbitrary limitations that are less natural to the needs and wants of the people. Economies will still exist for what the people really need and want.

It's true that tribal cultures are more communal in their economies, but a tribe isn't a scale much beyond a family unit. The inner economy in my family is not capitalist. It is communal as most families are. My son doesn't have to trade something of value in return for food. Tribal economies are like that. Communal economies work fine in families and scales of community where homogeneity of purpose can exist. But where there is wide diversity, it's much harder to pull off without creating losers for every winner. We're all still traders by nature and have been since recorded history. That's still the most natural economy.

 

[Twangbanger]

Can I interrupt the late-night dorm room philosophy discussion for a moment, and back up to cover a general health -reform assumption many here seem to be making?

What makes you so sure there's going to _be_ another repeal attempt from the GOP?

They still have Tax Reform, the Budget debate (>> The Wall Debate), and infrastructure to get through before midterm fever sets in a year from now...in addition to all other priorities.

What makes you think you're getting another chance at this?

(This is more toward The Woob...but anybody feel free to take a chorus if you wanna).

 

[T.Lex]

Can I interrupt the late-night dorm room philosophy discussion for a moment, and back up to cover a general health -reform assumption many here seem to be making?

What makes you so sure there's going to _be_ another repeal attempt from the GOP?

They still have Tax Reform, the Budget debate (>> The Wall Debate), and infrastructure to get through before midterm fever sets in a year from now...in addition to all other priorities.

What makes you think you're getting another chance at this?

(This is more toward The Woob...but anybody feel free to take a chorus if you wanna).

Yeah, I've been avoiding stepping into the organic-socialism thing with actual quotes from Marx. The modern understanding is so completely different than its origin that it defies the labeling.

Anyway, to your point, my sense is that this will become the rallying cry for the midterms. Elect more Trumpers to get this actually done. Whether that helps or hurts the FC is beyond my ken. They've brought it up so quickly, and so early, that there will be an opportunity as the midterms draw near.

I hold no hope for meaningful tax reform or a non-debt-increasing budget. Yes, my expectations are extraordinarily low.

 

[Denny347]

Can I interrupt the late-night dorm room philosophy discussion for a moment, and back up to cover a general health -reform assumption many here seem to be making?

What makes you so sure there's going to _be_ another repeal attempt from the GOP?

They still have Tax Reform, the Budget debate (>> The Wall Debate), and infrastructure to get through before midterm fever sets in a year from now...in addition to all other priorities.

What makes you think you're getting another chance at this?

(This is more toward The Woob...but anybody feel free to take a chorus if you wanna).

GOP will not be revisiting healthcare. Trump told reporters that they are moving on to tax reform, sounding like, "Hey we tried." They have the majority and all we can hope for is "Well we tried." What was the point? If they don't get their crap together, the GOP could be handing the Dems the midterm elections.it seems as if Trumo was just telling people what they what they want to hear. The jury is still out on his leadership abilities. I'm not seeing anything encouraging thus far.

 

[bwframe]

Ryan Tells Donors He Hasn't Given Up On Health Care Reform | The Daily Caller



House GOP has high hopes, but not high likelihood, of reviving health-care bill

 

[jamil]

Can I interrupt the late-night dorm room philosophy discussion for a moment, and back up to cover a general health -reform assumption many here seem to be making?

What makes you so sure there's going to _be_ another repeal attempt from the GOP?

They still have Tax Reform, the Budget debate (>> The Wall Debate), and infrastructure to get through before midterm fever sets in a year from now...in addition to all other priorities.

What makes you think you're getting another chance at this?

(This is more toward The Woob...but anybody feel free to take a chorus if you wanna).

I don't think there's going to be another serious attempt. I just wonder what the republicans who campaigned on and won their seats for promising to repeal Obamacare will campaign on for the midterms. "We tried", as Denny said, doesn't seem like a very compelling thing to run on. I think the strategy is to sell their constituents on the policy of letting Obamacare "explode", and when it doesn't, they'll quietly STFU about it.

GOP will not be revisiting healthcare. Trump told reporters that they are moving on to tax reform, sounding like, "Hey we tried." They have the majority and all we can hope for is "Well we tried." What was the point? If they don't get their crap together, the GOP could be handing the Dems the midterm elections.it seems as if Trumo was just telling people what they what they want to hear. The jury is still out on his leadership abilities. I'm not seeing anything encouraging thus far.

I'm not sure what the Republicans can or should do about this. I'm not saying they should do nothing. I'm just saying I don't think there's a solution. Unless the Republican leadership uses the parliamentary tools of the Democrats, and put every hook and crook strategy on the table for achieving their goals, the leadership isn't going to be as successful at repealing Obamacare as the Democrats were in passing it. Republicans are more politically diverse than the Democrats are now. I think the minimum requirement for Freedom Caucus support shifts the Venn diagram to exclude at least as many Tuesday Club Republicans.

The thing that Ryan concocted is apparently what he thought he thought was the sweet spot for legislation to make it at least acceptable to the most divided caucuses. could sell enough Republicans on to get through. And that couldn't even get enough votes. Now that Obamacare is the law, it's more politically advantageous for Tuesday club republicans to stick with the default answer, and do nothing. Or support a bill that doesn't substantially change Obamacare. There are only a few dozen Freedom Caucus republicans to oppose it.

 

[Woobie]

Can I interrupt the late-night dorm room philosophy discussion for a moment, and back up to cover a general health -reform assumption many here seem to be making?

What makes you so sure there's going to _be_ another repeal attempt from the GOP?

They still have Tax Reform, the Budget debate (>> The Wall Debate), and infrastructure to get through before midterm fever sets in a year from now...in addition to all other priorities.

What makes you think you're getting another chance at this?

(This is more toward The Woob...but anybody feel free to take a chorus if you wanna).

Ryan said they would get back to work on it. So can he be believed?

Well, he is a politician, and a top Republican at that. So take that for what it's worth.


I think the anemic effort this time was to give them a chance to campaign on "continuing the fight to fix Obamacare" next year. Conservatives said "not good enough" and he drew back a bloody stump. So he will either fly the one-fingered salute to his base and go bipartisan as some republicans are signaling, or he will get us a bill that goes farther. I'm guessing the latter, and as Lex said, that will be next year so they can thump their chests going into November. Doing it early enough in 2018 will give incumbents enough ammunition to keep from getting primaried.

 

[jamil]

Ryan said they would get back to work on it. So can he be believed?

Well, he is a politician, and a top Republican at that. So take that for what it's worth.


I think the anemic effort this time was to give them a chance to campaign on "continuing the fight to fix Obamacare" next year. Conservatives said "not good enough" and he drew back a bloody stump. So he will either fly the one-fingered salute to his base and go bipartisan as some republicans are signaling, or he will get us a bill that goes farther. I'm guessing the latter, and as Lex said, that will be next year so they can thump their chests going into November. Doing it early enough in 2018 will give incumbents enough ammunition to keep from getting primaried.

He also said he was confident that he could get the votes to pass his non-repeal bill. What a colossal waste of time and resources, and a complete dismantling of credibility for the Speaker of the House.

 

[Woobie]

He has some work to do to regain that credibility.