Repealing and Replacing ObamaCare – Much Confusion is in “The Process”…

There are bazillions of opinions on the current ObamaCare repeal and replace efforts. Many people are rightly concerned their wants, wishes or needs do not seem addressed within the Price/Ryan bill announced last night.

CTH is far from a SME on the details.  However, we do know the legislative “process” and we followed the original construct closely.  Many people are missing the big picture challenges with “repeal and replace” – perhaps we can explain a little, and maybe it will settle some nerves.

The best way to explain what appears to be the Price/Ryan legislative road-map is to remind ourselves how a Dem legislature was able to enact ObamaCare with zero Republican support.   In 2017 the reversal of this process also lines up to be a Republican repeal with zero Democrat support.

Way back in 2009 when ObamaCare was being constructed, there were two procedural legislative constructs to create ObamaCare- one from the House (Pelosi) and one from the Senate (Reid).

The biggest hurdle in overcoming the constitutional minority protections for overreaching legislative constructs is the Senate.  The Senate is structurally built around a process that requires minority consideration to pass law.  Knowing this, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid needed a system to work around the legislative blocks (tools) of Republicans.

One of the tricks in their road-map was to get a bill passed the Senate first.  The Senate vote hurdles are the tallest (60).  The plan was for the Senate Bill to then go to the House for changes, and then back to the Senate for reconciliation of those changes, ie. lower vote hurdle (51).

So Harry Reid stripped out an already existing House bill sent to the Senate that was to fund the retirement accounts of federal fire-fighters.  The construct of ObamaCare that Reid created through bribery, deal-making, scheme and fraud, used the House Fire-fighting bill as the “vehicle” holding the Senate legislative construct.  After sequestering the Senators for two weeks, it passed with only dems (60) at 1:38am on 12/24/09.

The House also passed a bill, but their version was remarkably different, which would normally go to the senate for changes, adjustments and a vote. However, after we elected Scott Brown Jan 19th 2010, Harry Reid only had 59 votes when the Senate returned from the holiday recess.

Scott Brown meant the House bill was Dead On Arrival in the Senate.

The only option was for the House (Pelosi) to vote on the Senate bill (Reid) passed on 12/23/09.  However, the Democrats could not change anything; because if they changed anything when they send it back to the Senate another full high-hurdle Senate vote would be needed, and Reid had lost that ability.

So Nancy Pelosi talked one-on-one with each of her House members, and convinced them to vote on the Senate Bill “as is”, even though the Senate bill was highly unliked by massive numbers of House democrats (especially the ‘blue dogs’).  It was a plan that depended on modification of the Senate Bill AFTER House passage.  That “after passage” modification plan was the reconciliation process.

The House voted to approve the Senate bill “without changes” thereby making it law.  At this moment in time the Reid Bill was momentarily the ObamaCare law.

The new law was then immediately modified by a second House bill and sent to the Senate for use in the budgetary technique of “reconciliation”, where only 51 votes are needed to modify an existing bill based on funding, or the budget of the bill.

Think of it like this:  Your team and my team at work agree to purchase a specific car, however we disagree on the color of the car.   We pass a law that allows us to purchase the car (with a high vote threshold), and then hold a vote on the color (with a lower vote threshold).  The color of the car doesn’t change the price, therefore our differences can be ‘reconciled’ with a simple majority.  The BIG decision was the purchase of the car, the LESSER decision was what color it is.  That’s the basic premise behind the Senate budget reconciliation principles.

However, instead of lesser financial details, Harry Reid included big legislative changes in the reconciliation process, and both Reid and Pelosi planned on Obama’s HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius using massive latitude (they provided) within rules and regulations to smooth out the details.

The reconciled bill now passed the Senate with 51 votes, and was sent back to the House for a second vote on the changes.  The bill now contained the stuff the house formerly demanded.  To get the last votes needed, Obama promised an executive order to a group of 19 Democrats led by Michigan Rep Bart Stupak (RE: Abortion funding).   With those votes in hand the bill passed the second time with a simple majority.

That’s the scheme that created ObamaCare as it became law.

Without a single Republican vote.

Now, the Republicans are going to attempt to repeal that bill by modifying it; and have to also plan for a full unity road block of Democrats providing them no support.  That means the Republican repeal/modification needs to pass the house and senate without a single Democrat vote.

Here’s where it gets tricky.

This process takes three phases.  In phase #1 you are repealing a bill through modification knowing you need to use the Senate Reconciliation process (51 vote threshold).  That means the repeal/modification bill itself cannot have any federal budgetary impact beyond 10-years.  Any bill/modification that HAS budgetary impact, beyond ten years, cannot use reconciliation in the Senate and must reach the higher hurdle of 60 votes.

Additionally, phase #2 and phase #3 will take place over time, through the regular process, as the House and Senate debate their constituent provisions.   This is how the law should have been written in the first place – but it wasn’t.  Phase #2 and phase #3 mean compromise, because the higher vote thresholds will be required.

All of the changes that people want in a replaced ObamaCare bill (purchasing across state lines, etc.) can only come after the entanglement/modification of the law takes place.

So why not just repeal the entire thing and start over?  “The hand grenade approach”.

Firstly, a clean “repeal bill” would be “new legislation” that would require 60 votes of support in the Senate.  That means 8 Democrat Senators would be needed to eliminate ObamaCare.  They don’t exist.  Secondly…

POLITICS!  Repeal alone would mean 100% of Americans could immediately be thrown into a state of immediate loss of coverage, and tens of millions -especially those currently using medicaid- certainly would.  And not a single Democrat would be in a hurry to create another construct with the 2018 election coming and their ability to say “republicans destroyed your healthcare” etc.

Here’s the way I would summarize the Trump/Price/Ryan message.

  • In 2010 Nancy Pelosi said to her House majority “trust us in creation, and what you want will follow”, and the Democrats -many unwillingly- did.  ObamaCare was created.
  • In 2017 Trump/Price/Ryan are saying “trust us in repeal, and what you want will follow”, and understandably battered conservatives in the House and Senate cannot trust.

Additionally, there are GOPe special interests (outlined yesterday) which were financially impacted by the creation of the original law.  Those special interests have spent millions in both support and opposition, and they are now leveraging their influence in the untangling of the original law.  This includes GOPe republicans who SUPPORT ObamaCare.

  1. Phase #1 – Dismantle the underlying financial construct of the law through new law targeting the underlying financial architecture.  This process allows reconciliation (lower vote threshold in the Senate).
  2. Phase #2 – HHS Secretary Tom Price rewrites the rules and regulations to focus on patient centered care.  Most of the tens of thousands of pages are rules and regulations.  Secretary Price uses the new architecture created under phase #1 to rewrite the rules.
  3. Phase #3 – The wholesale reforms and changes to the law: malpractice/tort reform, purchasing across state lines, etc. are additions -new bills- (higher vote thresholds) to add to the law that provide the changes most ObamaCare critics are demanding.

The key to understanding the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare is in the process.

The process was the problem in the creation of a highly partisan law, and the process is the problem in the repeal of a highly partisan law.

There’s no good solution other than to ask yourself:

Who do you trust?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, media bias, Obamacare, President Trump, Professional Idiots, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

456 Responses to Repealing and Replacing ObamaCare – Much Confusion is in “The Process”…

  1. ledeplorable says:

    I don’t trust any of the REPUBLICAN leadership. Certainly not to phase in an new health care bill. I say let OBAMACARE rot..
    HELL NO RYAN PLAN !

    Liked by 2 people

    • sundance says:

      OK. Great. There’s a vote to do nothing.

      At least that’s a plan that can work.

      Liked by 7 people

      • You can always succeed at doing nothing. >.>

        Liked by 3 people

      • ledeplorable says:

        You trust Republican leadership ? They have no spine. They posture and do nothing. You are exactly correct…tis a plan that can work if you had honorable men who kept their word and were committed. THEY are none of these things. They are cowards caught having to do something and choosing the easiest way out.

        Liked by 2 people

        • stella says:

          Even if Obamacare fails, you still need the Republicans that you “don’t trust” to get replacement legislation passed, and the Democrats won’t be helping you either. They want people to suffer, and turn on the Republicans in Congress and the President. We have an election coming up in 2018.

          Remember the government shut down? This would be that multiplied by 100.

          Like

      • If nothing is done, who “owns” Obamacare when it crashes and burns? In a world with fair and balanced media, it would be the Dems. With the opposition media though, the failure will be blamed on President Trump, with many or most GOP in Congress stepping aside to ensure Trump would take the abuse.

        I fully trust Trump to keep his eye on the replace and repeal objectives he promised us, and to work the process to get there. Let’s hope we don’t get stymied in search of perfection (or by naysayers who use perfection as their excuse to block) on this first round. It is also imperative we quickly move on to tax reform and reduction, the most important issue for the economy. The tax changes will ensure good results at the mid-term election, allowing further legislation. By the way, more people with jobs will mean less outflow on federal healthcare spending.

        I’m actually hoping Trump will need to call a Special Session, assuming Turtle tries to delay until after the August break. Trump does not take vacations!

        Like

      • Mad Mike says:

        Sundance, I have a simple question… What would happen if the Republican Congress and Trump followed every detail of original Obamacare to the letter? Actually enforce the employer mandate and not bend every rule imaginable to try and keep the crap sandwich afloat?

        If they were out there 24/7 saying “Hey, we’re just enforcing this as written…” would they be able to force an outcry for repeal in it’s entirity?

        Like

    • Rob says:

      There’s a lot to be said for that approach – let it fail on its own while the DEMOCRATS still own it.

      Unfortunately, it’s probably too late for that, since the GOP have more or less committed themselves to this effort.

      Liked by 1 person

    • A plan to let Obamacare die is sheer insanity. Because the people affected – millions – will be outraged toward REPUBLICANS. The Dems cannot be made to own what the GOP allowed to happen by its inaction.

      Like

  2. Justin says:

    IF this is their plan, they should NOT be telling us it will lower premiums.

    That is clearly not the case.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Paco Loco says:

    What we want are options, choice, and simplicity. That’s an imposssibilty if the Feds are involved.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. I am not all that smart but I would like to know why selling health insurance across state lines to lower cost isn’t something all politicians would like to have in the healthcare changes beginning with the first step? Why would that be a problem?

    Like

    • sundance says:

      Because that’s *NEW* legislation. That would require 60 votes in the Senate to pass. That would require 8 democrats to vote to support it.

      That would add to the existing ObamaCare law, and change nothing about the underlying structure.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Jan says:

        New legislation only requires 60 to cut off debate IF the Repubs won’t to follow an unwritten rule. They can do it with a simple majority IF they want to.

        Like

        • Eric Kennedy says:

          No. You need to watch the Ryan presser.

          Liked by 2 people

        • WeThePeople2016 says:

          No, that is not true. I wish it were true, but it is not. The Freedom Caucus keeps pushing the 2015 Bill, but they do not explain how it will pass the Senate, when you need the full 60 to fully repeal the law.

          Liked by 3 people

          • Jan says:

            What senate rule requires 60?

            Like

            • Eric Kennedy says:

              Read Sundance’s article. As he stated, “This process takes three phases. In phase #1 you are repealing a bill through modification knowing you need to use the Senate Reconciliation process (51 vote threshold). That means the repeal/modification bill itself cannot have any federal budgetary impact beyond 10-years. Any bill/modification that HAS budgetary impact, beyond ten years, cannot use reconciliation in the Senate and must reach the higher hurdle of 60 votes.”

              Liked by 4 people

            • sundance says:

              The 3/5th’s rule for passing laws. 3/5th’s of 100 = 60

              In the olden days it was 2/3rds (66 votes)

              Liked by 4 people

              • Joe says:

                Repeal the 60-vote rule. It is only a rule after all.

                It’s long past time for a change.

                The “venerable traditions of the Senate,” in the words of that pompous jackass Mitch McConnell, have given us a monstrosity of government on the scale of Hobbes’ Leviathan by making the Administrative State practically invulnerable to meaningful amendment. Why let a mere rule stand in the way? Moreover, it’s pedigree is unwholesome, to put it rather mildly. The 60-vote rule and the cloture rules governing filibusters were created to protect the interests of what was once called “The Slave Power,” and not in a nice way either.

                At one time filibusters were rarities. Not anymore. Senators are even spared from actually having to undergo the rigors of a real filibuster because the mere existence of the 60-vote rule kills potential legislation dead without even writing it!

                Finally, the 60-vote rule and cloture were born through simple majority votes. Let them die that way.

                Of course Donald Trump would have to lead the Republicans to do it.

                That’s his job. Right?

                Like

                • JoAnn Leichliter says:

                  Filibusters were rarities when I was young because someone actually had to talk. When he couldn’t continue, the filibuster was over (or when the Senate voted to shut him up). But all legislative action ceased during a filibuster. The rule now in effect enables the Senate the ability to just skip the “filibustered” bill and go on to the next item. What it actually does is make every bill hostage to the minority. So very few really difficult issues are ever settled legislatively. I often wonder whether this rules change is the reason or (or excuse) for the legislative branch delegating its law making duties to agencies in non-specific “you write the rules (which are actually laws)” bills. Like the new and old health care laws…

                  Liked by 2 people

                • NebraskaFilly says:

                  I have been wondering for some time why McConnell just doesn’t change the rules? Doesn’t their majority give them the ability to do that? I say why not? With a time limit embedded. Or would that also require 60 votes?

                  Like

                • Joe says:

                  “McDonnell doesn’t do that” because, as I mentioned, Mitch McConnell is a pompous jackass who imagines he is some sort of Daniel Webster, the defender of the traditions of the Senate, even when the tradition in question is as wholly corrupt in its origins as that of the filibuster is. In that regard, McConnell is every inch the heir not to Daniel Webster or Henry Clay but to Robert Byrd, who also liked to maunder on an and on about senatorial tradition. He should know, because he well remembered the filibusters mounted by the Democrats in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, and 60s against every meaningful civil-rights bill to come before the Senate.

                  Liked by 1 person

        • Leftiswrong says:

          If I were as bright and concerned as you I would ring up DJT tonite to tell him he is missing the boat (yet again/not)

          Like

          • Jan says:

            Another useful comment. I guess you have nothing else.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Leftiswrong says:

            To Jan

            Like

          • ivanthenuc says:

            I kind of agree with Jan insofar as I don’t see the reason for being so rude. Obamacare is a real hot button issue and a lot of people have very passionate feelings against it. In addition to this a lot of people have very strong feelings against Ryan and the rest of the republican leadership who have screwed us over so badly for the last 8+ years. Thus, their is bound to be some discomfort and angst. Perhaps you could try either being polite or simply not replying. It is starting to sound like Redstate used to sound on here and that is not a good thing. Not at all.

            Liked by 2 people

            • PNWLifer says:

              There are times Sundance spends a lot of time wordsmithing complicated policy, politics, legislation and strategy to inform, educate, and sometimes motivate or soothe us. Yet people get lazy and won’t read until they comprehend. They repeatedly ask questions which are answered in what Sundance originally wrote. It’s frustrating for many of us to read as I’m sure the majority of Treepers can appreciate. And if you are presenting your questions in the manner and tone of a concern troll you will inevitably get a response as if you are one. #toughlove

              Liked by 4 people

            • Oldschool says:

              I agree. Not only is healthcare emotional, it is very personal and for many, it has brought severe hardships financially and medically. Most with employment provided healthcare don’t understand those hardships. So yes, a little tolerance and kindness for those who are hurting would be a good thing.

              Like

          • maiingankwe says:

            Leftiswrong,
            Why do you have to be so nasty here at the Tree House? As my Father used to tell
            us kids, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all. I’ve always thought those to be wise words, and thought you might see the wisdom in them.

            I’m not used to seeing people belittle others here at CTH, and it’s one of the reasons I come here. I come here to learn, and yeah, my questions may not always be that smart, but it’s why I ask, I ask so I can learn. And never once have I been insulted as I’ve seen you done to the same person twice in the same thread.

            If this is your usual behavior, please take it elsewhere where it may be more common, or relax a bit and just pass on instead of commenting. I’m not asking you to leave, I am only asking if you can show a bit of respect to your fellow Treepers, and if you find you are unable to, you might want to find another place where you are more comfortable. Hpwever, you might be surprised to learn many are real good people no matter their level of intelligence here at CTH.

            I know you may find comments where you just want to shake the person, but it’s best for all if you just shake your head and move on. Or you could gently explain where you feel they are wrong and maybe open up a debate or even help show the light for the person struggling with a concept.

            These are only suggestions and you can do what you will, I just thought I’d pass some of my own to you.

            Take care and be well,
            Ma’iingankwe

            Liked by 1 person

            • MaineCoon says:

              Thank you for your entire comment.

              My mother used to also say, ” if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” It progressed into, It’s not what you say, but how you say it.

              One comment said that people should re-read SD’s posts until one understands it. I agree with that in theory, but in reality further discussion might be necessary for some and in this regard the comments are wonderful when they are positive.

              Negative ones are usually mean and pointless.

              In the last few months the tone of many CTH comments are very negative. Nasty. Insulting. Rude. This is sad.

              IMO what is causing a hurdle for Treepers is that “Repeal” was a campaign promise and it can’t be kept. I have no idea how many Senatorial seats were up for re-election, but I suppose it could have been a possibility to win enough to make “Repeal” possible, but I doubt it.

              To me this is the rub. Expecting a Repeal when it wasn’t even possible.

              This is my unbiased opinion as the outcome of this will not affect me, but for uninsureds like Jan it is a big issue. Let’s have some compassion for the uninsureds. If Jan gets stuck with a big medical bill today, she could lose a lot more than her health.

              Think twice before being nasty.

              It’s not what you say, but how you say it.

              On the other hand, there are times when a firm response is needed. It’s called wisdom and discernment. When in doubt, say nothing.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Well, having been “uninsured” for three decades until I was forced onto Medicare, I can say that it is not the unmitigated disaster some people assume it will be. Neither is hafing insurance a guarantee against disaster. IOW, health care insurance does not keep you forever safe and without pain.

                Know what you can do while you are uninsured? Live a safe and healthy lifestyle. Save money, even if there is no HSA provision available for you. Pray. This great plan will not protect you and keep you forever safe and without pain, but it is the best and most prudent road forward. And you have a 95% chance of escaping a medical disaster. As a doctor friend told me years ago, “Most people are healthy most of the time.”

                Just remember the days when we all paid our doctor bills on the spot! Surprisingly, those bills were affordable. Also, all money went to the doctor and his office staff. What happened? Medicare killed catastrophic insurance. Ocare has killed or is in the process of killing all other health insurance.

                Why is socialized medicine bad for us? Because it costs so much that medical care must be limited to what Congress is willing to pay out of your tax money. One-fifth of the economy? How about half? three-quarters? At what point will Congress stop it? When the spending impacts their own goodies.

                Like

              • maiingankwe says:

                Thank you, I follow your last suggestion quite often, the when in doubt one.

                I never once thought Obamacare could not be repealed. I had my hopes it would simply be taken out and disappear for good. So yes, you’re right, many of us are feeling the frustration. I also agree we need to show compassion for those who are uninsured and cannot afford what we have now. Their questions and concerns are very important. It takes no time at all for a hospital bill to reach the tens of thousands. Most of us just don’t have that kind of money in the bank, and if we did, we would be insured. A close friend had a bill of more than $30,000 and he is still paying it off from April 2015. He didn’t have insurance and if he hadn’t received care he would have died.

                Off topic: I believe you and I had a conversation quite some time ago, and you had mentioned you can shoot from inside your garage, so you don’t get cold. If so, I just wanted to let you know my husband bought me a BB gun for Christmas. It’s a handgun and pretty cool. It’s not the same as my other handguns, but it certainly gives me the ability to shoot out my back garage door now. It also keeps me sharp. Well, a bit sharper.

                Anyways, I wanted to thank you because I had told him how you were able to shoot out of your garage at targets etc, and he must’ve been listening cause now I can too. He even bought me little paper targets and a stand for them. I’m all set in my eyes. I love it.
                Be well and stay smiling,
                Ma’iingankwe

                Like

    • BigMamaTEA says:

      Insurance companies don’t want that. Then they’d have to spend money on advertising and compete.

      Like

    • ledeplorable says:

      If you are bought by insurance companies….who want less competition(more profit)…you don’t vote for more competition.

      Like

      • JoAnn Leichliter says:

        I think that may be true if you are the single provider in a state. However, if you are a competitor looking to get in–not so much. Insurance companies actually do want to sell insurance, and the more they sell the more affordable it can be (larger pool). However, if your company has a statewide monopoly, you have less incentive to lower
        prices.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. Joan says:

    Maybe – if we get Gorsuch onto the Supreme Court – they can go back to the Court to see if Obamacare is really legal under the Constitution – or am I just dreaming in my old age.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Eric Kennedy says:

      If you terminate Obamacare without a viable replacement, and millions of Americans lose their health insurance, the GOP gets slaughtered in 2018 and Trump is a lame duck.

      They have do this in steps because they don’t have the votes in the Senate right now.

      Liked by 7 people

    • carole says:

      It never has been legal since Roberts voted the ‘penalty’ is a tax. The bill, as originally passed did not reflect that and needed to have been revised. It never was. I’m surprised anybody thinks it is a law. But obviously they all do.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Lin Rei says:

    In the spirit of adding useful info to the discussion (not just my concerns), I’m trying to find my way back to a link to a study I came across a couple of years ago. I’ll share when I find it. But basically this is what it showed:

    The study rated various healthcare systems of countries around the world based on two criteria 1. per capita medical costs and 2. healthcare outcomes/health of population … The U.S. was one of the worst/ highest medical costs per person and also one of the worst/ lowest ranked countries for health outcomes and general health.

    What interests me is that a few countries have found a healthcare sweet spot of both low medical costs and high health outcomes … These few countries were 1/4 of the per capita cost of the U.S. and surprisingly also top ranked for healthy pop and health outcomes (better health outcomes than U.S.)….

    I hope Price’s dept has put people on task to look at those countries where much better costs/outcome models exst.

    Like

    • JoAnn Leichliter says:

      Studies like this one can be useful. They can also be deceptive, so you have to know how things in the study are defined. A good example is the often-heard canard that the U.S. has a very high infant mortality rate–way higher than Europe, for instance. This is a misleading statistic, since for us every baby born alive is counted, while in many other countries, no baby is counted until it is several days old. So if it dies after, say, two or three days, it was not a live birth. See how that works? Definitions are crucial in communication.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Bubba says:

    I trust Trump but he’s fighting against just about everybody in congress and he’s fighting against the legislative clock. I also don’t trust Ryan and company. They’re going to have to earn my trust via their actions in this process.

    If the uniparty rebubs really want to sabotage Trump, then healthcare reform is a great way to do it. Complicate and draw out the process and then deliver a less than satisfactory result. Even Trump said that Tax Reform can’t be done until HC reform is completed. So, we get a less than optimal HC reform law or no new law at all and Tax Reform is delayed. Delay allows more time to corrupt the process and create new hurdles for the Tax Reform legislation. All of a sudden, it’s the 2018 election season when nothing gets done (that’s only a few congressional WORKING months away from now). The Dems and media rant & rave about the health care system being ruined and a few key uniparty repubs cower as usual. The Senate flips due to the aforementioned, manufactured environment. The uniparty repubs then have an excuse to not get anything done before 2020…Trump would then be fighting for his reelection under tough circumstances…the uniparty wins if he’s not reelected.

    We need eyes wide open during this process and we need to keep the pressure on congress to help Trump get HC Reform done as quickly as possible.

    Liked by 3 people

    • NC PATRIOT says:

      Even though the Republicans are not trustworthy—-ALL of them in the House are up for re-election in 2018. Do you think they want to go to their voters having NOT done anything about Obamacare after promising it for years? Or lowering taxes? Across the red mid-section of the USA who voted for P45?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Bubba says:

        Do you think that they cared about reelection when they passed omnibus or haven’t had a budget in years or fully funded Obama’s illegal amnesty, planned parenthood, etc. or didn’t complete the border wall under the 2006 legislation or on and on and on I could go……..

        They don’t care about what we think, they only care about what their paymasters think. That’s the problem!

        Like

  8. Timmy-the-Ute says:

    Sundance is right. We have to take ObamaCare out of circulation. Even a bad bill is better even if it becomes law. If everyone hates the new law then it can always be fixed again in congress. There will be no name “Obama” attached to it for liberal judges to feel they have to protect. It is going to take years to fix our health care after Obama, but at least Obama’s name will no longer be attached to heath care. The new bill may be a terrible law too but at least everyone hates it and will want to improve it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • No
      A bad bill is much worse than no bill.

      Let the democrats vote for obamacare.

      Let the democrats keep owning obamacare until it can be repealed fully.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I want every senator and every member of the house to have a recorded vote for or against a repeal of obamacare.

      And for or against various health insurance reform bills.

      Preferably one issue at a time
      ie
      Across state lines
      Tort reform
      Tranparancy in price
      Transparency in billing
      Transparency in ownership (doctors owning testing labs, etc)
      Everyone has a copay min $5
      etc etc

      And Especially :
      Congress and all government workers must be on the Bronze obamacare plan starting today. (This is likely to make more than 60 senators vote to repeal it!)

      Liked by 1 person

      • JoAnn Leichliter says:

        Unfortunately, we cannot control something for which we do not pay. If insurance companies pay for our health care, they will set the terms. We can shop for a different policy or company (if it is available in your state), but the company still pays and will set the rules. Same thing if the government pays: it will set the rules. Only there really will be no appeal from a government decision. If you want to have total control over your health care, give up insurance.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Lindenlee says:

          Hannity had a man on last night that has established a great model for the health costs of everyday visits, etc. Prices are posted. There is a monthly fee. Then a family buys a catastrophic plan for those things that will bankrupt one. This model can be transferred to many other organizations. It is NOT insurance. At its core, it insures for the big stuff, and it costs $50/month that for an adult, and $10 for each kid. They make households. Like it used to be.

          Like

  9. Bob says:

    Repeal and replace seems like a good idea until you see the replacement which is worse than Ocare. Trump needs to get this right or nothing else will matter and it will be a landslide for the Dems in 18 and 20. Care caps is the only thing that will work. Costs need to be capped at 40% below current rates for most items. We have a decent system in Medicare. Just let people buy into that or use any private policy they like with mandated coverage. 20% copays on all Medicaid. So easy, even I can figure it out. If you let the insurance companies and hospitals write this we will just end up with more crap and no savings.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. jstanley01 says:

    The politics aside, there is that other inconvenient subject of reality that has been intruding like an iceberg through the hull. Obamacare was not the cause of the flood of out-of-control healthcare costs, it was a response to them that did not work. The problems are fundamental, but nobody has wanted to deal with the fundamentals for a long time, and still yet despite the undeniable list of the ship, because the politics of the situation won’t allow it. So, one more time, we’ll rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. It’s not going to work, but hey, what the heck. “We need to pass something.”

    Liked by 3 people

    • Oldschool says:

      Absolutely correct.

      Like

      • jstanley01 says:

        The fundamental problem is that healthcare is an inelastic market, which means that demand responds very little to changes in price.

        Think about it. If a triple bypass surgery only cost fifty cents, there are not going to be that many more of them done because, who wants a triple bypass surgery if he doesn’t need itz? But on the other hand, there is no upper limit what people who need a triple bypass surgery in order will pay to continue living.

        The Lord asks in Matthew 16:26, “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”

        The answer to the rhetorical question is, everything he’s got.

        Because healthcare is an inelastic market, the competition is over market share. A piece of a pie, that is, consisting of a static market that only fluctuates with demograpics. So to keep prices pumped, the profession is rotten with guilds like the A.M.A., and monopolies, and government regulations up and down the line from drugs to insurance.

        You can’t say that the Government/Medical-Industry Complex hasn’t been successful at pumping prices ever higher. When I was born, my parents were able to pay for my birth out of pocket. Insurance, back then, was for truly catasrophic events, like insurance still is to this day in everything except for healthcare.

        Nowadays a birth without complications runs $8000 and up, a price that most people cannot pay out of pocket. So they have to be insured against what is a perfectly mundane human event. Anything but a catastrophe.

        If the goal is to get healthcare costs under control, IMHCO halfway measures like Obamacare and Trumpcare are doomed to fail.

        If the goal is to get healthcare costs under control, there are two ways to go, and two ways only: free market or single payer. Under a free market, citizens will be able to obtain the healthcare and insurance that they can afford, and charity will have to pick up the slack. Under single payer, the government will decide who lives and who dies.

        Which means that one day America, and most especially Congress is going to have to something they hate to do, and most especially on this issue: CHOOSE………….

        Liked by 1 person

        • Pinkie says:

          You hit it on the head JStanley01. The insurance companies are bloodsucking middleman in it only for the profit. The more healthcare costs, the bigger their potential cut. The only way to cast them out of the temple is single-payer, which the president does (or did at one time) support

          Like

    • paulinohio says:

      “The problems are fundamental”

      Serious question – What are the problems as you see them?

      Like

      • Oldschool says:

        There are many. Fundamentally, any professional should set their own prices for their services, not an insurance company. Payment rendered at point of service, no forms, codes, submission, copay, reimbursement or negotiated fee. This would bring real competition at the provider level, lowering costs and improving quality. FDA needs to ease regs on testing and approving drugs, driving up costs. Break up these huge monopoly hospital systems because they have eliminated all competition. That’s just for starters. Lots more could be done to lower healtcare costs. If you can do that, insurance is less.

        Liked by 2 people

        • paulinohio says:

          I agree with all.

          Like

        • Mr_Henry says:

          The fundamental problem is other people have been paying for healthcare since WWII. We have private coverage due to Roosevelt instituting wave caps in an attempt to curb inflation during the war. Companies were selling items to the government and making significant profits. They had to offer non-financial perks such as healthcare to attract employees. Hence, we got into a situation where someone, whether the government or a private employer, was covering the cost. Within a couple of generations, costs spiraled out of control.

          No matter how well intentioned th effort, no one is as good a steward with other people’s money as their own. The only real way to reduce healthcare costs is to direct more of the burden on the people that cause it. Make insurance insurance again. There is a reason car insurance doesn’t cover oil changes and break jobs. They are predicable expenses and not unforeseen or unexpected events that one insures against to minimize risk.

          Liked by 3 people

          • JoAnn Leichliter says:

            Very astute, Mr. Henry. I think HSAs are an attempt to get back to what you suggest. Health care would actually be less expensive without insurance and without entitlements.

            Liked by 1 person

      • jstanley01 says:

        Sorry, the above was meant to be in response to your question. ^^^^

        Like

    • NC PATRIOT says:

      If P45 can bargain for lower drug costs and people can buy insurance over state lines, costs will come down from that alone.

      Like

  11. SierraTangoNine says:

    Lets not change our stripes because “our team” is developing it. Make no mistake this will have the same end result as O care. If you cant get what is needed in phase 1 because of high vote threshold, how do you get it in 3? Under this plan one of two outcomes happen: a) people who want insurance wont be able to afford it because premiums will skyrocket covering preexisting and without mandate wont be supplemented b) the budget will blow up paying subsidies.

    GOPe plan to be a W kinder, gentler “conservative”. I’m saying right now I’m not voting for anyone that votes for this. I hate O care with all my heart. Roberts should be on a pike for not striking it down. This plan is just stupid and in the end the establishment will not let it get from point A to point B. How about growing cahones and invoke Nuclear Option if needed and do it correctly from the beginning. Stop expanding the government for a change.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Phoenix says:

    There something Trump can do with EO. Instruct DOJ and any other pertinent federal agency to immediately uphold USC 15, Chapter 1 laws in regards to medical industry.

    RICO also seems appropriate for some.

    They are not immune from these laws.

    Costs to public and federal government would immediately come down hugely!

    No legislative action needed, no 60 vote thresholds

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sentient says:

      ^ yes. Maybe he’ll start that after this Step 1. He’s a lot smarter than he lets on. Also, lets not minimize the importance of eliminating the monstrous affront to liberty that is the individual mandate and the importance of replacing the unconstitutional capitation tax in Ocare with a constitutional increase in premium for purchasing insurance after a gap and coming down with a “preexisting condition”.

      Like

  13. ivehadit says:

    Donald Trump KNOWS that obamacare is killing business. He is not about to let it get in his way to Making America Great Again. He has tweeted about the process already. I say, trust him ONCE AGAIN. He deserves it!
    The hysterical always create a self-fulfilling prophesy but we are not going to let that happen this time!!
    GO DONALD!! WE BELIEVE IN YOU!!

    Liked by 4 people

  14. ivehadit says:

    P.S. I sent Sundance’s analysis to EVERYONE I know.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Eric Kennedy says:

    No. I trust our President.

    Liked by 6 people

  16. ivehadit says:

    One may think saboteurs are on the prowl here tonight! NOT helping the president AT ALL.

    Liked by 2 people

    • paulinohio says:

      I agree.

      Like

    • SierraTangoNine says:

      Yeah, either that or some of us actually don’t trust conrats. Wonder how we got there? I am a little l libertarian. I want the government to leave me the hell alone and I really want a stable country for my children to grow up in.

      Do you know why we hated Obama? Do you know why the other side hates Trump? Because every year the government gets more and more powerful and the fears of those not in power grow larger and larger with government power. Think about it. If their actions didnt effect your life would it matter who was in charge?

      IF and I mean IF we want to provide healthcare to poor people and preexisting medical conditions (Im not saying its the governments job to do it, it clearly is not) there are better ways. Insurance is a middleman that needs to be paid. Even single payer has the goverment lining its pockets. Set up a system like the VA. If it is good enough ( it is not btw) for our vets, it is good enough for everyone else.

      President Trump is correct rx drug prices are probably one of the largest factors in healthcare cost. That needs to be fixed yesterday. HSAs with catastrophic insurance, great idea. Insurance across state lines, great. Please stop messing with everyone’s insurance to benefit a few. That is the same mentality behind gun bans.

      Don’t infer that those that have valid reasons to oppose this plan are the enemy.

      This is the same thinking that has always gotten us into trouble every time. We are told there is an emergency and we need it fixed now. It doesn’t matter that the treatment is as bad as the disease. We need to do something.

      We are better than this. We can debate things and maybe, just maybe, we can come up with something better. Do not accept that this is all that can be done. That is not how we won any battle.

      Like

      • Rachel says:

        I agree. I recall Bannon saying that we should hold the Trump Administration accountable. We love POTUS, and therefore, do not want to see him fall in the trap GOPe has set for him.

        Liked by 1 person

      • JoAnn Leichliter says:

        SierraTangoNine is right in thatcwe destroyed a system that worked acceptably for the vast majority in order to assist a very small minority. That stands the concept of self-government on its head. The fact is, Obamacare was not intended to “help” anyone. It was intended to make us all dependent on the government for our very lives. And so it has. Good luck changing that now.

        Like

  17. Illegal says:

    What I see as missing is the involvement of the states. States currently control a large portion of the health care system. For example if states would allow the sale of health insurance from out of state companies. They could also allow private groups to offer group health insurace to help resuce the existing condition issue.

    Liked by 2 people

    • NC PATRIOT says:

      Right: Before Obamacare, NC had “high risk” pool of patients who were covered as a special group. And it was working quite well. O’care destroyed it all.

      Like

    • das411 says:

      “What I see as missing is the involvement of the states. States currently control a large portion of the health care system. For example if states would allow the sale of health insurance from out of state companies. They could also allow private groups to offer group health insurace to help resuce the existing condition issue.”

      …this is where repealing the 17th amendment comes in!

      Like

  18. I want every senator and every member of the house to have a recorded vote for or against a repeal of obamacare.

    And for or against various health insurance reform bills.

    Preferably one issue at a time
    ie
    Across state lines
    Private groups
    Tort reform
    Tranparancy in price
    Transparency in billing
    Transparency in ownership (doctors owning testing labs, etc)
    Everyone has a copay min $5
    etc etc

    And Especially :
    Congress and all government workers must be on the Bronze obamacare plan starting today. (This is likely to make more than 60 senators vote to repeal it!)

    Like

  19. Buck Weaver (@BuckWeaver27) says:

    Very educational post, Sundance. Thanks.

    Like

  20. MfM says:

    I think the sticking point for a lot of people is they voted for repeal of ObamaCare. What is happening doesn’t look like repeal it looks like Washington politics .

    To me the simple answer is we can’t just repeal and replace ObamaCare, we don’t have the 60 votes to do it. So we are dismantling it in place. Making changes as we go along that we can do with a simple majority. This makes for a more involved process, but will get us there in stages. Hopefully at some point this will start a cascade and everything will fall into place.

    The hard part is a lot of people are being really hurt with high premiums and lousy copays and are desperate.

    Like

  21. Jan says:

    There is nothing in the Constitution that requires 60 votes in the senate to pass a bill.

    Like

  22. Marica says:

    There have only been 2 constants in this entire year that I have been a member (mostly reader) of this site–1. Sundance is ALWAYS accurate 2. Trump is always Right! With that being said…No more circular firing squad!! Lets let this play out–just like every hand wringing, pearl clutching tweet! I will never forget the passing of Obamacare–on Christmas Eve– no less! I gave money to Kennedy’s replacement Scott Brown–I prayed constantly! I got ovarian cancer in 2010 and thought I was going to die! I believed if it came back (Praise God–still in remission) I would Absolutely die! I live in Kentucky–our health plan went from $400 per month to $1200 per month and we only have ONE choice–no options–People—READ Sundance’s ENTIRE article! WE don’t have 60 votes!!!! PDJT understands this! DO NOT listen to Levin! I had him on tonite–accidentally–and He basically said “all is lost!” I am a survivor! I have 3 kids and one adorable 2 year old grandchild! I will NOT give up! But I will trust that President Trump is a gift from God–to save this Blessed USA! …and Sundance is a National Treasure that I pray for as well as the Trump family! God Bless USA and CTH! pray unceasingly….

    Liked by 3 people

  23. saintoil says:

    So if I read this right. Phase 3 is what everyone wants and is the higher vote threshold. So we will be stuck with this legislation anyway?

    Like

  24. paulinohio says:

    I want…. I want…. I want….

    I want people to stop using health insurance like it is a credit card. Imagine, I pull into the 10 minute oil change shop and when it comes time to pay I hand them my auto insurance card.

    No, that is not how it works. It is called insurance for a reason.

    I have a HDHP with an HSA. I won’t bore you with the fact that our plan has gone up a billion percent, but I will say this.

    We have a $3500 deductible – my company puts in the max to my HSA tax free, it was $3350 last year. So everything up to $3500 I pay for 100%, No co-pays for anything until then.

    I spent $1862 on healthcare last year.

    $1862 total.

    So that left a surplus of around $1700 in my Healthcare Savings Account. I get to keep it. It is mine. When I get older and undoubtedly have more healthcare costs it will be there.

    We need more HSA’s and people need to start actually seeing what things cost. Being on this type of plan for 10 years has taught me that you really don’t need to go to the doctor that often.

    Maybe if more people learned this they would quit taking their little snowflakes to the Emergency Room every time they stub their freaking toe.

    This is not something I want, this is something WE NEED.

    Also, I think people tend to get caught up in the “but what if” or “but this person has this problem”. There are always exceptions to the rule. That is the problem with Obamacare it focused on the special cases rather than the country as a whole.

    But most of this was on purpose. Look at the numbers, most people get insurance through their job – and we know this is a huge tax break for all. They wanted to tax that income. Period. So they ruined the system we had in place that, for the most part, was working.

    tl:dr – we need to start treating insurance like insurance again.

    Liked by 1 person

    • SierraTangoNine says:

      Correct. Between my boss and me insurance costs $13,000 a year for my family and i have a $6,000 deductible. Normally we run around $2,000 in med bills a year, which I have to dig out of my pocket anyway. HSAs would be much better

      Liked by 1 person

      • paulinohio says:

        I’ve come to believe it is one of the only ways forward.

        People need to start understanding the cost of things healthcare so they can make wiser choices. There are all sorts of other things that can help that too – like pricing being upfront and not so hidden.

        It is amazing how healthy people get when they actually have to pay for it the ER visits.

        I could go on and on, but it is just frustrating. You’ve got a $6K deductible – ok that sucks. But what really sucks is 8 years ago a 6K deductible might have been considered catastrophic coverage that you could get that for $80 per month. Family was maybe $200.

        I try to block it out because it is so damn frustrating.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Illegal says:

          I think we all know what works, but our elected officials at all levels of government are so corupt they will not implement what we want.

          Here are some ideas on health care from the AAPS

          * Honest pricing. All facilities should be encouraged to post their prices—it should be clear that there are NO antitrust constraints for doing this…
          * Honesty in reimbursement. Patients should demand access to information…
          * Tax fairness. Individually owned policies should receive the same tax treatment as employer-owned policies …
          * Removal of barriers to competition. This includes certificate-of-need laws, attempts to regulate direct primary care practices or health sharing organizations …
          * Group plans available through associations, not just employers.
          * Repeal of insurance mandates that require all to pay for costly coverage they do not need or want.
          * Repeal of antitrust exemptions for the “business of insurance” (McCarran-Ferguson).
          * Enforcement of antitrust law against hospital systems …
          * Repeal of all laws and regulations such as the HMO Act that protect or favor managed-care …
          * Fair trade and nondiscrimination. Insurance collusion with physi….
          * Streamlining regulatory procedures …
          * Streamlining licensure of physicians …
          * Removal of barriers to self-funded plans. Their..”

          Liked by 1 person

          • paulinohio says:

            All great ideas – set the market free and minimal government intervention. Sure, it has to be regulated but not “controlled”. The government can even control their spy agencies, let alone health insurance.

            Like

          • NC PATRIOT says:

            This is where Dr. Price comes in, in phase 2—I trust him to go through all of those 1899+ paces of rules to make changes that are only patient centered. My guess is that he has been working through these since he was first nominated,

            Like

  25. AmericaFirst says:

    Sundance, I also read, and tried to understand, your analysis, but I simply cannot trust that, even if this disaster could be passed, that we could count on the following steps to be passed. And this is at least as bad as the Unaffordable Care Act, if not a lot worse.

    2 questions:
    1. Do you think “truthmatters” might have a good idea in that, if Congress themselves were stuck with what Joe Blow is stuck with, health insurance-wise, that it would be more likely 60 votes could be procured to repeat the ACA?
    2. I read recently that of the 23 insurance companies who were part of the ACA initially, that there were only 4-5 left, at least one of which has already declared they are withdrawing from the program completely next year, and there are already many counties and I believe one entire state which have only 1 company from which to choose now. It DOES seem to be imploding on its own. What happens if … nothing happens?

    I have a really, really bad feeling about this.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. saintoil says:

    Here’s another option. Do the right thing and give the senate a good bill. Fight the good fight and when/if we can’t convince 60 in the Senate, well who gets blamed for trying???? The thing is going to explode later this year and then the next year is mid terms. Under Sundances scenario it seems we might be able to pass Ryan’s Olite but never get the Dems on board for real change. If for no other reason that they know we could boast if we really made significant changes for the good. Respectfully cynical of the current 3 stage plan.

    Like

    • MVW says:

      The problem is we can’t get the tax reform needed without gutting ObamaCare. Without the tax reform, the economy implodes. Further, real people are working two to three part time jobs, many have to do the third because part time jobs pay less and don’t have benefits.

      You can’t jump a canyon in two jumps, but sometimes tricks can be used.

      Trump I trust.

      Liked by 1 person

    • AmericaFirst says:

      This idea I like.

      Like

  27. PatriotKate says:

    What has always annoyed me about this entire discussion is they talk about health insurance like it’s healthcare. It’s not. It’s only a mechanism of payment.

    Every time I call my Congressman’s office I ask “Why can’t Health Insurance be like car insurance and homeowner’s insurance?”

    And, for goodness sakes, get Employers out of our health insurance. Employers aren’t involved in your car of homeowner’s insurance, why should they be involved in your health insurance? If they want to reward good performance or provide a benefit that makes them a better employer, let them pay you a tax-deductible benefit to help you with your insurance and you buy it yourself.

    No, we need tax deductible Health Savings Accounts and then the rest is up to us.

    If it was, then there would be no insurance for routine office visits. You’d pay out of pocket (or your health saving account) for the routine stuff, just like you pay out-of-pocket for your oil change, new tires and minor things on your car. Medical offices would not be burdened with handling insurance claims on every transaction, it would require less personnel and their rates would be lower as a consequence. Insurance claims would only occur on the not routine expenditures. Just like you can buy an extended warranty on your car, you would have insurance for the out of ordinary, not routine expenses.

    It’s not different than your homeowner’s insurance. Your homeowner’s insurance doesn’t pay for routine maintenance, grass cutting, repainting or even the furnace replacement. But, if you buy a home warranty insurance product, then that covers the major expenses like furnace replacement.

    When I was a child, my parents had five children. The only insurance they bought was “accident” insurance for the broken arms and legs or other childhood things. They paid cash for everything else.

    There are two major problems to the current plans (other than the redistribution aspect):
    1. Too much “mandated” testing. It drives up the cost, because the doctors then need to invest in expensive equipment and testing fees. That’s been driven by the lobbyist for the medical device and equipment manufacturers and other testing services. It’s gotten out of hand and there does not appear to be a causal relationship to better health with it. In fact today, people are fatter and more unhealthy than ever before.
    2. Transparency in costs. As PaulinOhio said, the patient must know what things costs, so we can make informed decisions. The worst thing that ever happened to healthcare was “co-pays.” That means your only value relationship to the cost of that doctor visit is your $35 co-pay as an example. In your mind you’re thinking, well I pay this huge monthly premium, so I’m going to take advantage of this particular visit, because it won’t cost more than my co-pay, not realizing that drives up all costs, including your monthly premium. So, you don’t challenge or question the doctor when they order a bunch of often unneeded tests.

    I’d gladly pay a $100 month premium, have a healthcare saving account and then pay the routine visits when I choose. This would be perfect for the young and healthy. When getting older, we’d then choose to buy that extra “warranty” insurance for the higher risk expenses. Companies used to sell catastrophic insurance policies. If you practice wellness, as we all should, we shouldn’t be running to the doctor all the time.

    I want the government out of this and let the free market handle most of it. The entire reason they claimed it needed to be done last time was those who did not have insurance. O.k., then take care of high risk pools and the poor/uninsurable and leave the rest of us alone. I’ll bet 95% of us would not need any “assistance.”

    Liked by 3 people

  28. Illegal says:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/VP/status/839205290151133185/photo/1

    Please go to VP Pence Twitter site and post his response to the GOP holdouts.

    Like

  29. Juan says:

    Let the “Freedom Caucus” along with Paul, Lee & Rubio have their way. Put up a stand alone bill in the Senate to repeal Obamacare. When that doesn’t come close to 60 votes needed, they will be exposed as weak & ineffective … which they are.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Ray Ashworth says:

    Seems workable but difficult route, & especially hard to explain. Hope u can do it all the way.

    Like

  31. NC PATRIOT says:

    The only way to “equalize” the cost disparity in folks with employer provided health insurance and those without is to 1) remove the tax benefit from the employer based folks–WHICH WOULD GET A MASSIVE BACKLASH or 2) Provide a tax credit for the others (WHICH IS BEING CALLED ANOTHER ENTITLEMENT)

    It is Not. It is actually broadening a tax “entitlement” that is already in place, and has been for 30-40 years! Because I have been a State employee for all those years and I know.I was never taxed for the insurance premiums–it was taken out of my pre-tax dollars.

    Like

    • Pinkie says:

      Agreed — why do we need to subsidize people that already have good employer based plans? They are not the ones hurting. Level the paying field.

      Like

  32. alegenoa says:

    My head hurts! 🙂 But forgive me if it’s already being asked, is there a special committee deciding the Senate vote threshold? I mean: it sounds quite easy to arbitrarily dismiss or accept a projection regarding the budgetary impact, 10 years from now, of a certain bill modification…

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Mike says:

    Thanks for explaining this, Sundance. This I think is the key:

    “POLITICS! Repeal alone would mean 100% of Americans could immediately be thrown into a state of immediate loss of coverage, and tens of millions -especially those currently using medicaid- certainly would. And not a single Democrat would be in a hurry to create another construct with the 2018 election coming and their ability to say “republicans destroyed your healthcare” etc.”

    This scenario is politically untenable, and it’s a trap that President Trump is not going to fall into.
    For the reasons you outlined, President Trump and the GOPe need a scalpel not a chainsaw.

    Like

  34. Rob says:

    What’s missing as far as I can tell is the explanation of how this plan will incentivize the insurance companies to re-enter the markets that they abandoned under Obamacare.

    If anyone has heard that, please tell!

    Like

  35. Here in Oregon we have a great term for Sundance’s more detailed and nuanced discussion of what Reid/Pelosi did to get Ocare into the lawbooks. We call it “Gut and Stuff.” Take the guts out of a bill and put new contents in. You can do this on the last day the Legislature meets b/c the original bill has already gone through the process to get on the calendar.

    Does anybody else have this terminology? I love it, though I hate the process, having been tricked by it once a few years ago. Took my eyes of the bill I was watching b/c I was assured it was “dead.”
    Nope. Contents just got “stuffed” into an emptied shell of another bill. Grrrr

    Like

  36. Howie says:

    This plan is a donor tree decorated by every crooked congresscritter in that shameful place. VETO!!!! They do not give a damn about us. Only their mega donors. I do not back it. Not one bit. It sucks. A Uniparty scheme. I hope Trump torpedos it. Get em’ out..

    Like

  37. Mike says:

    If you can’t repeal it, let it die on its own.
    This is looking more and more like a lose, lose proposition in my mind and at this time the Democrats own it.
    Let them lose.

    Like

    • Mike says:

      I’m starting to think that rushing into this “repeal and replace” was an elaborate trap to drop this terd in President Trumps lap. lose him the House and the Senate basically neutering him for the remainder of his first term…

      Like

  38. William Ford says:

    Thank you Sundance. I opposed what Ryan was doing until I read your explanation of the process. It’s really the only way this can be done. O-care cannot just be repealed because it requires 60 votes in the Senate. Didn’t know that before. Now Ryan’s process makes more sense. The big changes need to be done in re-writing the rules by HHS. But it’s disappointing that both tort reform and selling insurance across state lines will require 60 votes in the Senate. That just won’t happen. Dems will never vote for it. They have a vested interest in seeing GOPCare fail just as Republicans wanted Obamacare to fail. Sad commentary on our system.

    Like

  39. Lee Dager says:

    TERM LIMITS ! Get these idiots out of D.C. who have turned an opportunity to serve our nation into a life style to rape their constituents. I’m sick of the lot of them.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s