• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans Yank Obamacare Repeal Bill

reinoe said:
Why is HHS obligated to offer advertisements? Isn't word of mouth sufficient to convince people of how wonderful the ACA is for them?
Click to expand...

You find the policy you want through a marketplace, and a marketplace has to be advertised so people can know to get it. Word of mouth is only so effective.

If the next CEO of Apple takes over and makes the decision to no longer advertise the next iphone and, surprise!...the iphone 8 suddenly doesn't sell very well...that is the new CEO's responsibility for that awful decision.

So if the Republicans try to squeeze the Affordable Care Act by eliminating the messaging for the marketplace, then yes, that is their fault because making it fail was specifically the point.
 
JasperL said:
Well, they could have passed a Freedom Caucus friendly bill that eviscerated Medicaid and would cause even more funding cuts for poor red states and millions more than Ryan's plan without insurance, but it's not clear that's a better option as it would be DOA in the Senate and if passed into law would be the Democrats' dream come true for 2018 and 2020.

BTW, if you had someone of Pelosi's skill as speaker, the GOP would have a bill sitting in the Senate right now.
Click to expand...

HA! Good one. Wait, you're serious?
 
ObamacareFail said:
I cannot agree with the last part of that statement. The majority of Americans absolutely want Obamacare repealed. And if the GOP does not try again to repeal Obamacare....and again and again if necessary, they will soon cease to be a viable political party.
Click to expand...

I doubt that. According to RCP averages 48.0 favor Obamacare while 43.8 oppose

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law

But 51% favor repeal to 43.8 against.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Repeal of Health Care Law: Favor/Oppose

Talk about mixed signals from the public.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Which makes it odd that there would have been no democrat votes for the healthcare bill Ryan just tried to push. It was not a repeal bill. it was actually an attempt to repair Obamacare. I don't think the RINOs in the republican congress had any intention of repealing Obamacare.
Click to expand...

It's not odd at all that Democrats wouldn't sign onto a bill that cuts funding by over a $trillion and CBO projects will result in 24 million fewer uninsured.

And my guess is the RINOs have a lot of poor people in their states and they have been elected in part to represent them, and throwing 500,000 off insurance isn't the job they were elected to do. Most importantly - we promise to cover 25 million fewer people and those with insurance have worse coverage, with old people hit really hard! were not the promises made to voters.
 
JasperL said:
I can't let you off that easy - you've been telling us for months that the GOP did too have a replace plan!
Click to expand...

:shrug: they did. I have no idea why they chose to go with this mismashed abortion instead. The most plausible hypothesis is attempting to yank it off to the side to meet the Presidents' preferences (which are outside GOP mainstream), but really, we don't know yet.

Now you're joining Trump in the bus rolling over Paul Ryan. That guy's not getting any love today. :(
Click to expand...

... ? I was mocking Trump in that post.
 
Perotista said:
I doubt that. According to RCP averages 48.0 favor Obamacare while 43.8 oppose

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law

But 51% favor repeal to 43.8 against.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Repeal of Health Care Law: Favor/Oppose

Talk about mixed signals from the public.
Click to expand...

Right? It's almost as if the public has only a loose grasp of the realities of healthcare policy, have unrealistic expectations, prefer simple narratives, and are highly responsive to changes in ways the questions are phrased.
 
bubbabgone said:
HA! Good one. Wait, you're serious?
Click to expand...

Well, let's see here: Pelosi, Speaker when health care reform passed. Ryan, speaker when health care reform did not even make it to vote...

Are you at all aware in any way of current events?
 
bubbabgone said:
HA! Good one. Wait, you're serious?
Click to expand...

I'm not making a political argument. And of course I'm serious. The historical fact is she was good at her job as speaker. If she needed 218 votes from her caucus, she got 218 votes. If she called a vote, you could bet your last dollar it would pass. She lined up needed support from outside the Congress when necessary.

Anyone who thinks Pelosi wasn't a skilled speaker doesn't have a clue what her role was. For example - it's not the Speaker's job to write all legislation coming out of the House or to dictate its terms. It's to coordinate that then get what the Democrats decide on passed and on to the Senate. No one can point to her record and conclude she did anything but a great job at her actual job.
 
reinoe said:
I thought the PPACA was already working well?
Click to expand...

No, it is working... but could stand improvement. The structure is good (not as good as single payer, but...). As with any major piece of legislation, it has bugs that need to be worked out.

This thing Ryan cooked up, however, was ill-convinced and made zero sense. If you want to expand healthcare coverage and keep private health insurance as the centerpiece, the PPACA does the trick, as the Heritage Foundation told us nearly 30 years ago.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: they did. I have no idea why they chose to go with this mismashed abortion instead. The most plausible hypothesis is attempting to yank it off to the side to meet the Presidents' preferences (which are outside GOP mainstream), but really, we don't know yet.
Click to expand...

It's only surprising to republicans that the "plan" was a stinking, rotten egg. The rest of us figure out long ago they couldn't do what they promised, which was to at worst keep coverage etc. at current levels and cut spending by a lot.

And that's not a plausible hypothesis at all. Trump doesn't know enough about healthcare to give a damn what the GOP passes, and the idea that he would veto anything on the subject that got to his desk is laughable. More plausible is they made conflicting promises that are impossible to keep - see above - and fulfilling either one OR the other is a political loser. Equal or better coverage is an endorsement of Obamacare and higher taxes, cut spending and you throw millions of good GOP red state voters off the rolls and hand the Democrats a dream issue for 2018 and 2020.

... ? I was mocking Trump in that post.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I guess I was thinking of Ryan, who also doesn't seem to understand how legislation actually gets passed in Congress. A good strategy isn't to roll it out THEN find out that virtually every conservative interest group, and industry, and half your caucus representing the moderate and far right wing, and the public, thinks your 'plan' is a piece of crap.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
I'm not making a political argument. And of course I'm serious. The historical fact is she was good at her job as speaker. If she needed 218 votes from her caucus, she got 218 votes. If she called a vote, you could bet your last dollar it would pass. She lined up needed support from outside the Congress when necessary.

Anyone who thinks Pelosi wasn't a skilled speaker doesn't have a clue what her role was. For example - it's not the Speaker's job to write all legislation coming out of the House or to dictate its terms. It's to coordinate that then get what the Democrats decide on passed and on to the Senate. No one can point to her record and conclude she did anything but a great job at her actual job.
Click to expand...

Tell ya what.
If you or I were Speaker with a Democrat majority and Obama as President pushing a Socialized Healthcare Bill, we'd get it passed also.
In that case the Democrat Party fell both in love and in line and was happy to do it.
That's the story of the Democrat Party.
They are ideologically focused.
There's no division and no chance of division.
Even the balls out Socialist wing will comply.
 
Cardinal said:
You find the policy you want through a marketplace, and a marketplace has to be advertised so people can know to get it. Word of mouth is only so effective.

If the next CEO of Apple takes over and makes the decision to no longer advertise the next iphone and, surprise!...the iphone 8 suddenly doesn't sell very well...that is the new CEO's responsibility for that awful decision.

So if the Republicans try to squeeze the Affordable Care Act by eliminating the messaging for the marketplace, then yes, that is their fault because making it fail was specifically the point.
Click to expand...

"Making it fail". Everyone is required to have insurance or pay a tax. It can't possibly fail unless insurance providers pull out.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The vast majority of people were not impacted. They kept the same doctor they saw for years, their premiums went up the same rate they had for decades.

The problem is that everyone wants to blame the insurance companies when they are just a symptom of the problem. The problem is we pay more for healthcare services than they do for the same services anywhere else in the world. The reason for that is that necessary health care does not conform to the laws of supply and demand. The provider dictates the prices, and it doesn't matter how high it is, you either pay it, or you die. The cost of cancer treatment can go up ten fold in a single year and while the pharmaceutical companies that sell the treatments will make a lot more money and the providers that treat patients will make a ton more money, the increase in cost will have nothing to do with the number of cancer patients. Its not like if the cost of heart drugs goes up, you got less heart disease. Its not like if the cost of critical care goes up, you get less trauma patients. With the exception of completely elective healthcare or some ancillary services like medical imaging, consumers of healthcare have very little ability to influence price. You could do away with all government involvement in healthcare and it would not change that fundamental fact. Until people get it through their thick heads that healthcare doesn't work like any other sector of the economy, and that is why its heavily regulated everywhere else (and no other country wants our healthcare system), nothing is going to fundamentally change.
Click to expand...

Well there you go then. People think everything is fine, so they dont care. So long as they can get their free healthcare.
 
bubbabgone said:
Tell ya what.
If you or I were Speaker with a Democrat majority and Obama as President pushing a Socialized Healthcare Bill, we'd get it passed also.
In that case the Democrat Party fell both in love and in line and was happy to do it.
That's the story of the Democrat Party.
They are ideologically focused.
There's no division and no chance of division.
Even the balls out Socialist wing will comply.
Click to expand...

You live in some strange alternate universe, don't you? How many months did it take to get a bill that democrats could all accept? That is hardly falling in line. Obamacare is hardly socialized healthcare. That you fail to understand even the most basic aspects of what you are trying to talk about is pretty sad.
 
JasperL said:
Sorry but that's alternative history. It might be what right wing outlets tell you, but reality was quite different. About the only similarities between the GOP and Democratic approach was both involved 1) a bill 2) about healthcare.
Click to expand...

Sorry thats accurate history. Turn off MSNBC.
 
bubbabgone said:
If you or I were Speaker with a Democrat majority and Obama as President pushing a Socialized Healthcare Bill, we'd get it passed also.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Sam Rayburn, Tip O'Neill, and Tom Foley. All of whom failed in the same circumstance where Pelosi succeeded.
 
reinoe said:
"Making it fail". Everyone is required to have insurance or pay a tax. It can't possibly fail unless insurance providers pull out.
Click to expand...

My post wasn't written for you, reinoe. It was written for someone who was genuinely interested in the topic and how Republicans have already found a way to try to ruin the ACA.
 
cpwill said:
Right? It's almost as if the public has only a loose grasp of the realities of healthcare policy, have unrealistic expectations, prefer simple narratives, and are highly responsive to changes in ways the questions are phrased.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have said time and time again that most Americans don't pay any attention to politics or the goings on in Washington. That is until an election nears and for most it is a presidential election, not midterms. Personally, I think it is all in the name, Obamacare. Who owns it, why Obama and the Democrats. If one can get most Americans to focus on healthcare and not Obamacare, 2018 will be an excellent year for the Democrats. If the Republicans can keep Americans focused Obamacare, that should stem some of their loses. The party who holds the white house almost always loses seats in congress during it first midterm. The only exception was Bush II and his loses were pushed back four years because of 9-11.

I just don't see how one can get around perceptions. It is how the voters perceive something, politics in general that decides how they vote. Not necessarily facts or the truth.
 
JasperL said:
that's not a plausible hypothesis at all. Trump doesn't know enough about healthcare to give a damn what the GOP passes, and the idea that he would veto anything on the subject that got to his desk is laughable. More plausible is they made conflicting promises that are impossible to keep - see above - and fulfilling either one OR the other is a political loser. Equal or better coverage is an endorsement of Obamacare and higher taxes, cut spending and you throw millions of good GOP red state voters off the rolls and hand the Democrats a dream issue for 2018 and 2020.
Click to expand...

HE was the one making ridiculous, conflicting promises that violate basic math and economics. You can't cover 100% of the populace with insurance that covers 100% of everything while lowering costs by more than 100% through Great Negotiation and Making It Great Again.

Sorry, I guess I was thinking of Ryan, who also doesn't seem to understand how legislation actually gets passed in Congress. A good strategy isn't to roll it out THEN find out that virtually every conservative interest group, and industry, and half your caucus representing the moderate and far right wing, and the public, thinks your 'plan' is a piece of crap.
Click to expand...

Yup. And that's why I wonder how much of the speed and specifics of this process was driven by the White House.
 
Greenbeard said:
Tell that to Sam Rayburn, Tip O'Neill, and Tom Foley. All of whom failed in the same circumstance where Pelosi succeeded.
Click to expand...

They were old school with old school Democrats and no Obama. The Party has changed. The elected reps are unabashedly Left.
 
cpwill said:
Right? It's almost as if the public has only a loose grasp of the realities of healthcare policy, have unrealistic expectations, prefer simple narratives, and are highly responsive to changes in ways the questions are phrased.
Click to expand...

To be fair, when the public is constantly lied to about healthcare, it makes it hard for them to get a good understanding of the trade-offs involved. The GOP demonization of the mandate is a perfect example. The public wants insurers to accept anyone, regardless or pre-existing conditions, but the GOP has told them for years they could have that without a mandate, and minimum coverage requirements, and it's not possible to have the good (address pre-existing conditions) without the downside of mandates and minimum coverage.
 
cpwill said:
Right? It's almost as if the public has only a loose grasp of the realities of healthcare policy, have unrealistic expectations, prefer simple narratives, and are highly responsive to changes in ways the questions are phrased.
Click to expand...

I see it as... when like a group of people mostly like something, but wouldn't mind if it changed... I think the GOP is currently at that stage... most want it to change... but they like a large percentage of what is already in there...
 
JasperL said:
To be fair, when the public is constantly lied to about healthcare, it makes it hard for them to get a good understanding of the trade-offs involved. The... mandate is a perfect example.
Click to expand...

Oh. You mean like when the Presidency tried to argue that it both WAS and WAS NOT a tax? Or when Obama promised that folks could keep their health plans and doctors when the Administration knew that wasn't true? Or the claim that the ACA would lower our premiums by $2.5K?

Yeah. Good times.


The public wants insurers to accept anyone, regardless or pre-existing conditions, but the GOP has told them for years they could have that without a mandate, and minimum coverage requirements, and it's not possible to have the good (address pre-existing conditions) without the downside of mandates and minimum coverage.
Click to expand...

Eh, there are ways to do it. I'm a fan of the "If you drop off the rolls for more than 90 days, you are no longer protected" rule.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
HE was the one making ridiculous, conflicting promises that violate basic math and economics. You can't cover 100% of the populace with insurance that covers 100% of everything while lowering costs by more than 100% through Great Negotiation and Making It Great Again.
Click to expand...

But the GOP also never ran on - "We're going to save money by throwing 10s of millions off healthcare coverage" either. We have die hard republicans on this place posting every day on healthcare and the cost of it assuming the GOP could do the impossible - not cut coverage AND make premiums affordable, without 'mandating' that the young buy policies or instituting death panels. They want to cut insurance rates for men by removing the requirement to cover maternity care, but don't recognize that women will pay more. They wanted premiums dropped for the young without recognizing that it meant, by definition, the old would pay FAR more. Bottom line is the conservative rhetoric on the issue has been at best irresponsible, leaving most republican voters hopelessly misinformed about the hard choices and what they mean. Trump wasn't really saying anything different, except he made the mistakes of explicitly making promises that the GOP has been implicitly making for years.

Yup. And that's why I wonder how much of the speed and specifics of this process was driven by the White House.
Click to expand...

I've seen nothing to indicate that's what happened - that is that Ryan and company wanted to delay healthcare for a few months but Trump insisted that it be addressed first. Just the opposite. And for a good reason - the AHCA cut ACA related taxes by (as I recall) about a $trillion, and the gutting of Medicaid and ACA subsidies left room for ANOTHER $300B in income tax cuts, which is really all the GOP care about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom