You know a bill is a dog when even its supporters can't admit what's in it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...34b6d506b37_story.html?utm_term=.0a16a85cf59f Claiming that cutting Medicaid funding made Medicaid stronger: Claiming the bill had been scored by the CBO: Claiming it was bipartisan: Claiming nothing would change for Medicaid recipients: The House GOP passed this piece of garbage. They need to own it.
According to Democrats, people die when they lose their health insurance. Did they enter a bill to fund a national memorial for the 4.7 million Americans who lost the healthcare they liked under Obamacare? Unlike Obamacare, no one has been killed by the Republican bill and you have your undies in a bunch. Build a little credibility by assailing Democrats over the 4.7 million victims of Obamacare.
IMO, it was a grave tactical error for the republicans to have handled this the way they did. Essentially, they bought and now own Obamacare, which no republican had a single fingerprint on, prior. It was collapsing under its own weight and doomed to failure. The republicans slapped a couple of bandaids on it and declared it fixed. Now THEY own it. It's still going to collapse and fail (as it was designed to do), just republicans will now shoulder the blame. Tactically, republicans should have either let it collapse and fail untouched, blaming the democrats, or they should have done what their constituency sent them to do, completely repeal it. Problem with that is, they've had 8 years to have come up with HOW to do that, and what to do next, and failed to do so. This should tell the republican constituency something; their republican representatives don't really want to repeal or replace Obamacare, for some reason.
I see this as placing partisanship over the good of the country. I don't think legislation should be allowed to fail, because that harms the American people (us!), the people these idiots in DC are supposed to be working for. I'm tired of monopartisan legislation. I want our government to function again, which means having everyone work together for the good of all.
Republicans don't own anything until the Senate and House pass the same bill and it's signed into law by the President. In the mean time, Aetna pulled out of Obamacare
Well, what would have been good for the country would have been to recognize the disaster that Obamacare is early on and to have developed a better plan ready to drop in when the time was right. The republicans have been beating the 'repeal and replace' drum for 8 years now. Why did they not have anything ready to go when they finally got the ability to do it?
Of course, you're correct. But, nevertheless, what they are TRYING to do, and will ultimately succeed at, is a tactical mistake, IMO.
I agree that deliberately letting legislation fail is irresponsible, especially when doing so hurts millions of people. And I, too, am tired of having to pass everything along party lines. I think both parties should abandon their respective versions of the Hastert Rule, and let legislation with popular support come to the floor. Anyone want to sign on to the Centrist Project? http://www.centristproject.org/
Or maybe it should tell you that Obamacare was a pretty good swing at a complicated issue, warts and all. And that Republicans can't come up with a better alternative because of reality, combined with ideological blinders.
Why is it that in states that actually WANT Obamacare to work, it is working? While in states that don't, it's not? http://www.heritage.org/health-care...cares-exchanges-over-half-us-has-two-or-fewer Look at the map in that Heritage report. The counties with 2 or fewer insurers on the exchanges are in yellow and orange. Note how they are heavily concentrated in conservative states. And the counties with just ONE insurer are REALLY heavily concentrated in conservative states. Conservatives shooting themselves in the foot for ideological reasons is not a failure of Obamacare. Never mind that the exchanges are only one part of Obamacare. The most CONSERVATIVE part, by the way, being competitive marketplaces for comparing and buying private insurance. Even if they failed completely, it wouldn't mean Obamacare as a whole was a failure. It would just mean that the individual insurance market -- a very small part of the overall insurance market -- would still be broken, just like it was before Obamacare.
Indeed. Why were the Republicans so stubborn about healthcare reform under 0bama? Why did the GOP go into obstruction mode? And now the idiot Dems are doing the same thing in their turn, it seems, acting as the new Party of No.
That English is not your first language is not my problem. Democrats claimed that people who lose their healthcare die. 4.7 million lost their healthcare when Obamacare was implemented. According to Democrats, those people are dead. What am I missing?
Well, I actually have this dream that one of the major parties will see that polarization isn't working for anyone, including themselves, and commit themselves to the following: 1. Embracing some nonpartisan reforms (like instant-runoff voting and redistricting done by algorithm or bipartisan commission, not politicians) to lessen the power of polarization; 2. Adopt a platform built around a few core principles, with a few specific proposals chosen because they a) address recognized needs and b) have broad public support. After that, let individual candidates stand for whatever they want. Whichever party did that, IMO, would find broad support. And if BOTH parties did that, we'd have room for bipartisan consensus again, with hot-button social issues kept to the side, and the fringe once again relegated to the fringe. So personally, I would like to see people running as Democrats or Republicans, but publicly committing themselves to something like the Centrist Project. So not an actual third party, but a third way.
Now that sounds like a good thing to strive for, and it seems quite different from what's being proposed at that Centrist Project page. If that project can sway major party politicians, then, and probably only then, it would be worth pursuing. But what to do? Lobby?
Why weren't you democrats mad at former speaker Pelosi when she didn't even read her own freaking healthcare bill? Also, it had no republican support.
The only insurance that was lost was sub-par insurance that didn't meet national standards. The people who lost these types of policies were given a voucher to pay for a new policy off the marketplace.
I guess from following the Democrat's example almost 8 years ago, they thought that lying was a central part of a healthcare bill. After all, even Obama lied about it.
Insurance companies work off projections. How do they project when no one knows what the law will be next week?
