It’s a weak bill. It doesn’t fully repeal Obamacare, it still has a penalty, and it doesn’t provide the path towards lower cost health insurance and care that was promised
(The Hill) House Republican leaders on Tuesday struggled to pick up votes for their ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill, even after President Trump visited Capitol Hill to sell the plan.
With only a day before a scheduled vote on the House floor, the White House and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) are facing an uphill fight to get the majority — 216 votes — needed to clear the lower chamber.
In a closed-door meeting with House Republicans, Trump warned that failure to pass the legislation might trigger a backlash for the GOP in the 2018 midterm elections. Republicans, the president said, could lose their seats next year, give Democrats the majority and derail Trump’s ambitious 2017 agenda if they fail to fulfill their campaign promise of repealing ÂObamaCare, said sources in the room.
The reality is that if the GOP votes to enact this poor bill, they will lose. Many Trumpcare supporters are saying that it would be bad for Trump to lose on his very first big bill. Well, Paul Ryan should have put up a better bill, and Trump shouldn’t have backed it. Furthermore, if this is just stage one, then the GOP leadership should have shown us the following steps, the follow on legislation. With only a vague notion that they are going to Do Something, that’s not enough.
Leadership has “maintained the general framework of ÂObamaCare. They haven’t fixed the real problems with ÂObamaCare, and then they expect us to vote for it?†asked Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), a Freedom Caucus co-founder.
“It’s unreasonable and unrealistic.â€
In the Senate, it appears as if it is already dead. There are enough Republican senators who will be “nay” votes right from the get go, and, unless there are substantial changes before a supposed Thursday House vote, you can’t count on having 50 plus VP Pence to pass it on reconciliation.
^^This^^
#NoMandates
#NoPenalties
Problem solved…
You are here, Jeffery.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ay1Q6lexfVc/WNFQ4FjaxvI/AAAAAAABHmg/XIBdDiH65Eg8IttDMZs5UQxwX7AkBqxNwCLcB/s1600/C7UoBEOVAAABIxr.jpg
drowningpuppies: #NoMandates #NoPenalties
As the law requires health insurance companies to not discriminate against preexisting conditions, eliminating the mandate would mean people could wait until they were sick to acquire insurance. This would lead to a meltdown of the insurance markets.
Repeal the “law” then.
You can eliminate the tax penalty through reconciliation as it can be arguably be considered having to do with the federal budget; however, eliminating the mandate has to be done through regular order, meaning you have to have sixty votes in the Senate to proceed.
Oops.
Z: eliminating the requirement to offer insurance regardless of preexisting condition has to be done through regular order, meaning you have to have sixty votes in the Senate to proceed.
You eliminate the “penalty” then the mandate is unenforceable.
The rest of your argument is bullshit.
The Senate can pass pretty much anything it pleases by a simple majority because they make their own rules.
Ask Harry Reid.
Oh my…
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2618154
Lee is about the only one who thinks that.
That’s right. Without a penalty it’s not a mandate, but just a suggestion.
Sure they can. But eliminating the filibuster for the one bill would eliminate it permanently for all such bills. That’s a step that the Senate majority may not want to take.
Zachriel, preexisting conditions doesn’t mean what you think it does apparently. Eliminating a mandate to force companies to accept preexisting conditions would mean people with them would either be denied insurance or rated extra premium for their condition. They can’t “wait until they were sick to acquire insurance” because then they’d have a preexisting condition.
A health insurance mandate refers to requiring a person or company to have health insurance or pay a penalty. Eliminating the insurance mandate does not eliminate the law requiring insurance companies to offer policies regardless of existing conditions.
This is what you wrote.
That’s right. If people aren’t mandated to have insurance, then they could simply wait until they were sick to seek insurance. Under current law, insurance companies have to sell them insurance even if they are already sick. The reason this is an issue is because the insurance mandate (the requirement to buy insurance) is based on a tax penalty for enforcement, and the Senate can use reconciliation to change or eliminate the penalty. However, the requirement that insurance companies not consider preexisting conditions is not directly related to the budget, so probably can’t be part of a reconciliation bill, and passage will under current rules require a supermajority in the Senate.
It is what Nancy Pelosi did to pass Obamacare. We just couldn’t see through the closed doors.
Actually, the Affordable Care Act included extensive public hearings over months. The text of the bill was published well in advance of passage.
Actually the ACA had zero “public hearings” whatever they are and was not “published” until weeks after it was passed. That is WHY PELOSI SAID WE HAD TO WAIT TILL IT WAS PASSED TO READ WHAT WAS IN IT!!!!!! Or do you forget that?
Where do you get your information? Weren’t you watching this shit on TV like the rest of us?
Hoagie. The only thing I can find that the z-bot may be using is this:
https://www.dpcc.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=328
The DPCC chaired by Schumer.
This is the part that talks about public hearings, public hearings in the Finance and HELP committees.
FACT: The Senate held dozens of public meetings and hearings in both the Finance and HELP Committees and accepted hundreds of Republican amendments.
The HELP Committee held 14 bipartisan roundtables, 13 bipartisan hearings, and 20 bipartisan walkthroughs on health reform.
The HELP Committee considered nearly 300 amendments and accepted more than 160 Republican amendments.
The Finance Committee held 17 roundtables, summits, and hearings on health reform. The Finance Committee also held 13 member meetings and walkthroughs and 38 meetings and negotiations for a total of 53 meetings on health reform. [Senate Finance Committee, 5/3/10]
The Finance Committee held a seven-day markup of the bill, the longest Finance Committee markup in 22 years, resulting in a bipartisan 14-to-9 vote to approve the bill. [Senate Finance Committee, 5/3/10]
The Finance Committee markup resulted in 41 amendments to revise the bill, including 18 by unanimous consent or without objection. [Senate Finance Committee, 10/13/09]
Guess that’s why not one single R voted to pass that bill.
Roundtable Discussion on Financing Comprehensive Health Care Reform
The hearings were subject to protests over the single-payer options.
Text of Affordable Care Act, published 12/24/2009, archived on 1/7/2010
Affordable Care Act, legislative history
Wow. I guess Pelosi was, as usual, lying. I’m stunned!
Paul Ryan should stand at the pedestal and say: “As my predecessor so aptly said ‘we have to pass the bill to see what’s in it’, and that’s all we’re gonna say about it”.
The loud and resonating “F**K YOU” would be optional.
Hoagie,
Let’s see if Mr Ryan has enough Republican votes tomorrow to pass this turd of a bill.
His optional F**K YOU would be directed at working class Americans I guess.
It’s almost like the Rinos & Dems are one party.
Fuck you.
It’s simple: the Democrats established the principle, in 2010, that the federal government would be ultimately responsible for seeing to it that everybody had health care coverage, and the Republicans are scared shitless of taking that away.