Why ObamaCare Cannot Simply Be Repealed…

FACT: ObamaCare was passed, using the original legislative vehicle, at 1:38am on 12/24/09 with 60 votes in the Senate (see below).  The House then approved that Senate Bill without changes; and in February 2010 created a secondary bill which created the opportunity for the Senate to modify ObamaCare using “reconciliation” for a lower vote threshold of 51 votes.

Literally under the cloak of darkness Democrats rammed their holy grail of a socialist construct down the throat of every American. We no longer needed to imagine having usurping representation that did not represent the will of the people – we saw it.

[Understand the full construct by reading HERE]  If you do not understand how legislation is created; if you do not understand the difference between the Senate and House; if you do not understand the way ObamaCare was created, you really need to read this first.

A clean repeal bill, meaning a law to repeal the entire ObamaCare construct only, would require another 60 vote hurdle in the Senate.

Republicans, while in the majority, only control 52 seats.  Without 8 Democrats voting to approve a “repeal bill”, any House (Or Senate) bill that repeals ObamaCare cannot pass the Senate.

This is why Mark Levin is a con-man; selling snake oil as outrage to keep a listening audience angry, yet clueless and hopeless.   That’s what I don’t like.

A complete repeal of ObamaCare is currently impossible.  The House Freedom Caucus can push all the repeal bills they want, but they cannot get a clean repeal bill through the Senate because they cannot get the 60 votes needed. Period.

Additionally, despite claims to the contrary, the GOP has never passed an Obamacare “repeal bill”. Ever.  What they did previously pass was a “defund bill” using the lower vote reconciliation process. President Obama vetoed it.  A defunding bill was possible because of the financial pathway which falls under reconciliation rules.  The current Ryan bill is almost identical to the 2016 defunding bill everyone is mistakenly calling a prior “repeal bill”.

A complete independent repeal bill of ObamaCare is currently impossible.

The only bill that can pass the Senate is a bill that can utilize the process of reconciliation, which has a lower vote threshold of 51 votes.   A reconciliation bill is a budgetary bill designed around the financial drivers of ObamaCare.  This is what HHS Secretary Tom Price, Speaker Ryan and President Trump are attempting to do.

A reconciliation bill cannot add substantively to the existing law.  It can only modify the financial structures and retain the same 10-year budgetary impact.  If you want substantive adds or removals of the law, beyond the financial structure, it is no longer a reconciliation bill.

If it is no longer a reconciliation bill, it requires 60 votes.  52 Republicans + 8 democrats. Democrats have already stated they will not support any substantive changes that undermine the key ObamaCare provisions.

Accepting the Democrats will not vote to repeal their signature law…  The only way to fully repeal ObamaCare as an independent bill, and overcome the 60 vote threshold, would be to eliminate the filibuster rule (3/5ths vote threshold or 60 votes) in the Senate and drop the vote threshold to 51 votes, a simple majority, for all legislation.

However, if the Senate was to drop to a simple majority vote for all legislation the entire premise of the upper chamber minority party protection is gone. Forever.

There would no longer be any difference in the House or Senate for vote thresholds, and as a consequence there would no longer be any legislative protections for the minority positions.  What this means, in combination with the previous passage of the 17th amendment, is the constitutional republican framework is gone.

The constitutional republic being now replaced with a pure majority rule democracy.  The founding fathers regarded majority rule democracy less desirable than a monarchy because a simple majority means mob rule.  At least in a monarchy you might get a wise king once-in-a-while.  In a mob rule democracy emotion drives everything.  You go from being a nation of laws, to a nation of laws of the moment based on emotion.

Eliminating the 3/5th’s vote threshold in the Senate would also mean there’s no real reason to keep the Senate around when in the hands of the same party as the House. The House can pass 50% +1 bills all by themselves.  The Senate, the place where grand deliberations required the protection and consideration of the minority position, would be unnecessary.

All structural protections for the minority views would be dispatched.  Forever.

Without the filibuster rule, and with the Senate having only a simple majority rule for passage, there would no longer exist an internal legislative check for any minority party to  protect themselves from the laws created by a greater mob.

The ruling party would be in power as if they held a Senate super majority at all times.  As a consequence, with minority protection eliminated, legislation impacting Texas (or any state) is then ruled by the legislative federal dictates from those representing New York and California (or any other aggregate).  There is no legislative pressure to listen to, or consider, the position of the minority party.

You would think that constitutional conservatives would be necessarily predisposed against the dropping of a constitutional republic in favor of a pure democracy (mob rule).

However, within this current argument over the Price/Ryan approach to replacing ObamaCare you find exactly that.  Emotional conservatives, and crony-constitutional conservatives like Mark Levin, arguing against the current House bill leaving only the option to drop the Senate filibuster on legislation and pass laws with a simple majority.

So you tell me, is this really a constitutional-conservative approach?

Really and honestly?

Of course there are problems with the current Ryan bill.  It can only approach ObamaCare from the reconciliation aspect.  It cannot go into the substantive changes, adds or modifications because that would require the 60 vote Senate. Again, See Here.

Additionally, despite claims to the contrary, the GOP has never passed an Obamacare “repeal bill”. Ever.  What they did previously pass was a “defund bill” using the lower vote reconciliation process. President Obama vetoed it.  A defunding bill was possible because of the financial pathway which falls under reconciliation rules.

Yes, the GOP could defund it 100% again, but then what?…  It still exists as a program, and Trump would have to fund the existing (non repealed law) from somewhere.  So you’re back to the 60 votes for a replacement again or eliminate the filibuster and go with the 51-vote threshold for all future legislation.

Back to current ObamaCare’s replacement – there are three options if we are going to retain a constitutional republic, and pass laws with the 60 vote senate filibuster threshold:

Option #1 –  We can do nothing – and allow ObamaCare to collapse on it’s own.  In the interim many Americans will be negatively impacted and the more vulnerable and needy will be worst hurt.  Premiums and co-pays continue to skyrocket while the insurance system tries to preserve itself.

Option #2 – We can Repeal and Replace using the three-phase approach being proposed by Tom Price, Paul Ryan and Donald Trump:

  • 1. Pass reconciliation legislation targeting the financial mechanisms.
  • 2. HHS rewrites rules.
  • 3. New laws are proposed by a full congress to adjust ObamaCare and add to it, and laws debated/passed.

Yes, this has it’s risks.  No guarantee you’ll get the cookie you want in phase three.

Option #3 –  Pass futile structural repeal bills in the House, and watch them pile up in the Senate without the ability to pass and earn 60 votes.   Shout and holler some more, gnash some teeth, and wait for 2018 when Republicans will attempt to win the other 8 seats needed.  Again, even less of a guarantee on the outcome.

Those are our options.

….Unless you want to eliminate the Constitutional Republic and kill the vote threshold in the Senate.  Even nasty Harry Reid didn’t do that when he created it.

Choose wisely.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Decepticons, Dem Hypocrisy, Election 2016, Legislation, media bias, Paul Ryan, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

503 Responses to Why ObamaCare Cannot Simply Be Repealed…

  1. soozword says:

    Years ago Ross Perot had his charts to try to educate the public on govt spending and its long-term repercussions. While many criticized his delivery, there are those like myself (ex-Dem who voted for Perot) who appreciated this effort to go beyond mere soundbites. While PTrump’s use of Twitter is effective in calling attention to issues, they are still little more than soundbites again.

    It would be great if he did a series of short fact-based speeches focused exclusively on the healthcare realities and goals, using visual aids like Perot but employing 21st century sophistication. There are a lot of Democrat voters who are very worried about their healthcare and they just might tune-in to such an in-depth presentation, especially since he got such good ratings on this speech to Congress. However, this needs to get in the weeds in a very visually-compelling way rather than depend on the rally motivational style or a formal Congressional speech. It would appear a more one-on-one, intimate talk in contrast to the big group audience.

    We need those Dem voters to eventually get to the 60 vote threshold in the Senate and this educational approach could be the vehicle rather than just offering a series of “bite-size” tweets the MSM will mangle and misinterpret. Instead, give them several big, appetizing meals and see if we can peel off more voters to our side. Since we are in a civil war of sorts, I think trying something new on the communication front to break through the MSM noise is absolutely necessary.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Jan says:

    Well, at least Sundance finally admitted that the 60 votes to end debate is but a rule of the Senate and is not part of the Constitution. As a rule, it can be changed. The people can change the Senate as as been done. That’s how you counter “mob rule” as you chose to state. If 1 party has both the congress and the Presidency and they do things the people don’t like, they get tossed out. The Dems are a minority party because of how they chose to govern.
    And don’t think for a minute that they wouldn’t have changed the rules if needed to ram through obamacare just as they did for judges.
    The Repubs DO NOT need 60 votes in the Senate. Period.

    Liked by 4 people

    • ginaswo says:

      If you eliminate the filibuster before you repeal the 17th Amendment, the Republic will die.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Jan says:

        Dramatic.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Maquis says:

          I suppose the final poisoned arrow to our Republic would indeed be dramatic.

          The 17th was a gutting of our true Republic. Taking States out of ruling the country. Throwing the Senate to self appointed demi-gods.

          Look at the destruction that has followed John McCain all his days. Most especially in the Senate. He has wandered the globe in search of wars to start, and found plenty.

          Were he an appointee of his State, there would be pressure from a good many of the other States to retire the fool. His Governor could call him home in an instant, his appointment terminated at will.

          At the moment, Senators acquire more power, and send home wealth plundered from the other States. They are quite difficult to dislodge.

          States should be jealous of the power they have thrown away. But they are happy to ignore the World and our place in it, whilst dining at the Federal trough.

          To kill the minority protections in the Senate protocols, one does indeed create mob rule, which would be, besides disastrous, quite dramatic.

          Like

      • way2opinionated says:

        Except for a few issues addressed specifically in the Constitution (e.g. Treat Ratification), everything in the Senate passes based on a simple majority vote EXCEPT cloture, which ends debate and allows the simple majority vote to take place. The other way to end debate is to use the ‘Two Speech’ rule in Rule XIX of the Senate procedures. After the Two Speech period expires, the Senate votes on the issue by simple majority. Sixty votes are NOT REQUIRED! The Republicans just have to out wait the opposition.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jim S says:

        We didn’t have the filibuster until after the civil war.

        Liked by 1 person

      • John Morris says:

        Ok, so don’t do that. Reject the premise of the media and the RINOS and win. Keep the fillibuster, just stop playing games and tell the Democrats to get their catheter in, put on a fresh pair of Depends(r) and get ready to rumble with a real fillibuster. Let em talk until they collapse and then call for a VOTE.

        Like

      • Tenet says:

        “The Republic” will die” without … the filibuster? LOL What a weak republic that would be! What about the hundreds of other republics around the world who don’t have filibusters, how do they ever survive? Oh, but they are inferior for lacking the U.S. Senate’s filibuster rule, of course.

        The Revolution was fought for the filibuster! The filibuster is the foundation of the republic! To the barricades, to the barricades!

        Like

    • Willy says:

      Even if we lose, get the anti votes on the record for 2018.

      Lots of democrap senate seats up for grabs…

      Liked by 2 people

      • scotl70 says:

        True. There’s no reason to capitulate to the democrats and claim something can’t be done. We should have all learned by now to never surrender. A full repeal IS possible.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Tenet says:

      “However, if the Senate was to drop to a simple majority vote for all legislation the entire premise of the upper chamber minority party protection is gone. Forever.”

      So? There are TWO chambers that must pass the same legislation. Then there is a president with veto power. Then there is a Supreme Court striking down laws. That’s plenty of protection.

      The filibuster is “the constitutional republican framework”? Complete nonsense. Removing it means “a pure majority rule democracy”? Also complete nonsense, with all the existing checks and balances.

      “In a mob rule democracy emotion drives everything.” No it doesn’t. But it seems to drive certain amateur pundits.

      By the way, the U.S. already is a democracy – it has elections, the definition of a democracy. “No, it is a republic!!!” That only means it isn’t a monarchy. A country can be both a republic and a democracy, as nations all around the world are. Everyone understands this. Except some U.S. Republicans who think that “Hey, our party is called the Republicans, and the other guys are called Democrats. Let’s drag out the ‘A republic, not a democracy’ line by Jefferson to rub the Democrats’ faces in! That’ll show our party is the only legitimate party!”

      Yeah, that Jefferson who together with Madison founded … the Democratic-Republican Party in 1791. Apparently he also understood that the United States was both a republic and a democracy. Let’s end this ridiculous “democracy means mob rule!” BS once and for all. Democracy doesn’t mean “mob rule”, and it doesn’t mean elections without a constitution (that scary thing!). It also doesn’t mean elections WITH a constitution. A democracy – and republic that is a democracy – can either have constitutional laws, or not have constitutional laws. As luck would have it, every democracy today has a constitution, so let’s end the “mob rule!” scare at the mention of the word democracy.

      Like

  3. ivehadit says:

    I am hoping and I emphasize hoping that a message is being sent to Ryan et al that we are not going to let him do his b.s. HOWEVER WE MUST HELP OUR PRESIDENT WORK THIS THROUGH THE PROCESS!! The obstructionists ARE NOT OUR FRIENDS!!
    Send Sundance’s article to EVERYONE you know and get them on board. As to those here who are not getting it, with all due respect, WHO ARE YOU?

    Liked by 6 people

  4. Mac says:

    Someone is missing the point concerning the new House bill.

    First, it does not matter if Obamacare is repealed this year. What is important is that the Republicans present bills which actually address the repeal of the current healthcare laws and the possible enactment of legislation which would provide small, common sense protections to the public. If the Dems obstruct the passage of those bills, then they will own both the initial passage of Obamacare and its demise. This provides leverage to replace sufficient Democrats in the senate with Republicans to obtain a super-majority.

    Second, the current bill actually makes the healthcare situation worse, by increasing federal subsidies for public and private insurance. This indicates that the Establishment politicians do not really wish to eliminate the current health care system. They wish the status quo to continue while appearing to push for change. However, on the off chance that their bill would actually be passed, at some point, and the President actually sign it into law, the contents of the bill will not change the healthcare laws significantly.

    This is all smoke and mirrors and only exists because the deplorables are putting pressure on the Congress to act. It is not designed to gain any traction. It is simply filler so that the Republican Congressional leadership does not have to answer any hard questions about why they are dragging their feet.

    Liked by 3 people

    • georgiafl says:

      What do you think of Secretary Price’s work so far?

      What do you think of Rand Paul’s bill/point of view?

      Liked by 1 person

      • ginaswo says:

        This bill eliminates the employer mandate, ending the horrible incentive to hire only part time workers.

        That single thing will do more to unleash #JobsJobsJobs than anything else we could do.

        The Donald is moving to tax cuts once this is done.

        That is the second best thing to do for #JobsJobsJobs

        Or, we could let the COC, dressed as ‘TrueCons!!’, totally derail this bill and leave us wounded and weakened.

        Liked by 6 people

        • ginaswo says:

          And I would add that we dont just need 8 Dem votes for repeal, we need more like 12.

          Anyone doubt Murkowski, Collins, CapitoMoore and all the Senators getting pushback from GOP!! Governors who dont want to give up that sweet sweet govt spice?

          Full repeal is dead in the Senate.

          I want the mandates killed. I will *gladly* take those victories.

          For those of us who want *more*, we need to get on the ground and get Senators in some of the many Dem seats up in 18.

          Liked by 5 people

      • singingsoul says:

        susiepuma “Not much to either one……I just want the Government OUT of the provision of health care for everyone………………..that is socialism. ”

        SS is socialism also and so is medicare .
        You do not want for everyone to have healthcare..? I am a Christian and do believe we need to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. We are our bothers keeper after all.
        I heard today that many governors want all people to be able to have healthcare. I personally do not want to be responsible for those who are illegal . I also did not ask for refugees but whoever elected Obama should pay their medial bill. Whoever voted for the congress the past 20 years should pay also. They put these clown into the government.
        Whoever voted for Bush should pay for it also because he started the war in Iraq by lying.

        All those of us who did not vote for either of the Presidents and congress should not have to pay but we are one country we are all Americans and therefore bear each others burden.

        Like

      • Brenda says:

        Ideologically that sounds great, but Medicaid was around before Obama Care. That is not going away. The taxpayer has always paid for others healthcare.

        Like

    • Albertus Magnus says:

      the problem with your post is that you assume that everyone wants to repeal and not replace Obamacare, only to repeal it.

      President Trump promised to repeal and replace AND that no American would do without healthCARE, but didn’t say healthINSURANCE. He was forceful in his statements that he did NOT want just to repeal it and caught crap from the Cruzs and his supporters because HE DID NOT and DOES NOT support your position.

      It is NOT just Ryan, it is also the President who wants this bill. As he continues to tweet.

      Liked by 1 person

      • sunnydaysall says:

        Rand Paul is also calling to “replace”!

        Like

        • E C says:

          There is no other way.

          There are two elements working in tandem. A human element and a political element. If you start out from the approach of do no further harm the politics takes care of itself. If you reverse it and make it about political expediency, you get the opposite (2018 blood bath).

          Like

          • dstarke says:

            It takes courage to make an omelet, ’cause you have to break some eggs. Obamacare is existentially bad. Like a bullet in the gut, it must be removed for the patient to survive.

            Like

      • Mac says:

        Some people are actually HAPPY with the current Obamacare. so, it is a gimme that not everyone wants to repeal the existing law. However, the whole point of repeal and replace is that we end up with something which WILL NOT kill the medical health insurance industry and throw everyone into a government funded and controlled health care system. The only way to be sure of accomplishing this is to totally repeal the provisions of the AHCA and replace them with new laws which will severely reduce the regulations on insurers and scale back the government funded aspects of health care.

        Of course, it may already be too late to save the private medical insurance industry. The main reason that health care costs have skyrocketed over the last 20 years is because of guaranteed payer programs, either government or private. Medicare did more to drive up the cost of healthcare than anything else. As soon as the amount that the third party payer would cover became a percentage of that charged, this forced the provider to raise the charges to clear the same amount for a given procedure. This forced people into the insurance market as medical costs climbed beyond their ability to afford, without insurance. The insurance companies then introduced plans which controlled the costs they incurred, by setting up networks which placed price controls on medical providers within their networks as well as introducing programs [HMOs] which controlled their clients’ access to health care and providers. No one really cared though, as long as they had access to medical insurance or another third party payer. Now that they can not afford the insurance, they are screaming for something to be done. But, you can’t have it both ways. Either you have to rely upon a third party payer for your healthcare, which will lead to higher costs, less access and poorer healthcare, or you eliminate the third payer entirely and suffer while the market adjusts to the new conditions.

        It may be too late to save the private healthcare industry, without draconian measures which will cut a significant portion of the population off from affordable healthcare, for a while. The other choices are government enforced price controls or government funded medical insurance programs, which will also include government enforced price controls. Take your choice.

        Like

      • Brenda says:

        That is right. And POTUS is adamant about keeping his promises.

        Like

    • dstarke says:

      Worse. It is to agitate for single payer, Ryan’s repubs and Dems goal all along. Keep your eye on the ball.

      Like

  5. pooteeweet says:

    Thanks Sundown, Your explanation made things more clear!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  6. jaimeInTexas says:

    Another option is the repealing of the 17th Amendment which was an earnest that “the constitutional republican framework is gone.”

    Liked by 2 people

    • Maquis says:

      Agreed. So many ills stem from States shirking their roles in guiding our country. Long as they get that sweet Federal gravy, they’ll shrug their shoulders and blame the people for the Fools, I mean McCain’s they elect.

      Senators have far, far too much power. Who invited McCain to Community Organize the Jihadis across the ME? To start wars? That man is a disgrace. And he’s on Our Side?

      Liked by 1 person

  7. thesitrep says:

    To net it out:
    You should not buy anything, especially medical care from a casino.
    Insurance destroys the prime motivator of economy, which is price.

    And subsidies set up a “minimum price” that raise prices for us all, but most egregiously, the people that pay for the subsidies, also have to pay for their own insurance which is artificially higher because they have to compete with those they subsidize.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. HalfPastHuman says:

    I vote option #1. Freedom is never free.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. founders1791 says:

    “What this means, in combination with the previous passage of the 17th amendment, is the constitutional republican framework is gone.”

    The 17th Amendment destroyed our constitutional republic when it stole the rights of rural voters and gave them to cities and mob rule. Without the 17th Amendment the Democrats would never control the senate. To restore the Founding principles of this nation the democrat proposed, written, and passed 16th & 17th Amendments must be abolished just like their 18th.

    Liked by 5 people

    • sunnydaysall says:

      We are a constitutional republic but over the past century, we have been brainwashed to believe that we are a democracy… This will be our downfall if not corrected!

      Liked by 4 people

    • sunnydaysall says:

      Daniel Douglas, Attorney and Constitution-Enthusiast.
      Written Jul 9, 2015
      All three amendments were significant changes in the balance of state power vs. federal power.

      The 16th Amendment allowed the national government to collect income taxes, a power that was formerly limited to the states. As a result, under its taxing and spending power, it was able to interfere more in intra-state issues by offering funding if states would voluntarily comply with federal policies.

      The 17th Amendment took away the power of state legislators to select Senators and gave that right directly to the people. Senators (who could receive campaign donations from anywhere, not only the citizens of their state) were given a much stronger incentive to respond to national party politics than to the interests of only their state.

      The 18th Amendment took away the power of states to allow or regulate alcohol, making it prohibited by the Federal government. Up to that point, every state had had the power to decide whether it was a “wet” or “dry” jurisdiction.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Orygun says:

      I really never understood the significance of the 17th amendment until this election cycle. It is literally the only way to give representation to the more rural states that have issues that are inherent to that lifestyle. I am a rural person displaced into a city environment and I hate it everyday but you go where the work is.
      We really do need to repeal the 17th amendment it has allowed the big cities to rule the country.

      Liked by 1 person

      • You are right, Orygun, but if you do live in Oregon, as I believe you do (?), then you know the big cities rule our state, too. But, I get your point.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Orygun says:

          The big cities in Oregon are completely out of control and run the entire state. They pass legislation that is unconstitutional knowing that we the people have no way to rein them in since our so called representatives only represent the left. I hate Federal overreach but it may be the only way to get our state back is to get voter id and honest elections. I miss Tom McCall and the real Democrat party instead of these people who are little better than Socialists/Marxists.

          Like

    • Brenda says:

      Explain how allowing the people to vote their US senators in is any different than the state legislature, that is voted in by the people, voting the U.S. Senators in. How would that guarantee a different party result. What an I missing?

      Like

      • Blade says:

        That’s a good question and is the reason I point out that repeal of th 17th Amendment is not a quick fix to anything. But it would be a step in the right direction.

        The first problem brought forth by the 17th is the fact that all would-be and sitting Senators find themselves in a year or two long election cycle. This means they are easily bought and paid for by donors. There was no campaign per se prior to this, aside from the backroom lobbying within the State power structure ( indeed this is one reason for this “reform” Amendment ).

        Secondly, and perhaps more importantly is the fact that these elections are increasingly nationalized, meaning money pours in from out of state ( maybe out of country ) along with the issues those out of staters are purchasing, overwhelming the local issues that would normally drive a state campaign ( e.g., Maine, Iowa, Alaska, Hawaii, etc ). In other words, the money behind Murkowski or Collins has less to do with Alaska resources or Maine fishing than the leftist globalist ambitions of their donors who may never set foot in those states.

        Finally, on principal this Amendment restructures the Intent of a bicameral legislature with an upper and lower House, one representing the States, and the other representing the People directly. Note: even though the two Houses now mirror each other as far as election process, the actual Constitutional duties remain as originally written. IOW, the much stronger powers given by the Constitution to State Legislature appointed Senators now fall upon popularly elected persons. Therefore the people ( and out of state corporate interests ) electing the Senators crushes the 10th Amendment restatement of original intent found in the Federalist Papers.

        What would happen if it was repealed? Most likely a net reduction of at least 10 (D)emocrats in total. A lot of money would get out of politics and election seasons would be much saner. Local State elections would become a little more publicized and interesting. Like I said, a step in the right direction, but not a silver bullet by any means.

        The one way to actually pull the rug out of the FedGov is to repeal the 16th Amendment ( and also prohibit all direct taxes on USA citizens or companies ). Then sit back with a barrel of popcorn.

        Like

      • jaimeInTexas says:

        These uSA Senators were to represent their Respective States as States, a throwback to the now quaint notion that these uSA was an union of, a compact among, sovereign States. Senators appointed by a State are, well, were, subject to recall by their State if they did not represent the best interest of their State as a whole.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. thesitrep says:

    If the problem is the high cost of medical care, then logic dictates the very last thing you would want to do is create price supports with subsidies.
    Subsidies are nothing but price supports.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jan says:

      Lots of thing wrong with this bill. Not getting all Repubs in a room to agree on a plan makes them look stupid and creates lots of questions and confusion with the public.

      Liked by 2 people

      • andrewalinxs says:

        Funny, you need to realize having the repubs do circular firing squad is the intended uniparty out come.

        Rand Paul is lying the Goal is not to pass Obama care lite. The Goal is to get enough people screaming Purity that no one can get anything done.

        If nothing gets done Obama care stays as law of the land which is what the uni party wants. The Uni party wants option 1.

        The strategy is splitter the old and true play of establishment politicians. Divide your opponents in option 2 and 3 galvanize the sides and prevent any form of progress and thus the current law remains untouched. That being option 1.

        If you step back and get out of the emotion of the debate which is what is being used to create a fog of war. You realize the spliter strategy the keeps people Like John McCain in office election after election is the very thing being done right now.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Jan says:

          If that is the case then why is Trump on board with this bill?

          Like

          • andrewalinxs says:

            Because option 1 and option 3 are unacceptable if you want to help get the country back on its feet.

            Option 1 keeps many of the aspects of Obama care active that are crippling the health market which is negatively affecting businesses like mine.

            Option 3 is the same as option 1 except you might get a repeal in 2019. The Purity chant says we cant wait for repeal but the very position being taken involves waiting for 60 or more votes a thing that can not happen tell sometime maybe in 2019.

            Look at the top of this article Reid got the bill passed with 60 votes. Unless you want to destroy the republic it takes repeal of 60 votes or doing it as option 2 laid out.

            Like

            • Jan says:

              You make some assumptions here which just are not true. I, along with millions of other with no insurance will continue to wait for the Repubs to do what they promised to do,
              If they don’t want to “kill the Republic” by changing the Senate rules, then they could have done a better job on “phase 1” instead of this bill and they certainly could have done a better job of getting people on board BEFORE putting it out and causing a fight.

              Like

              • andrewalinxs says:

                hint: I am one of those millions without insurance. Mentioned in your talking point.

                fun fact: I am also one of those thousands of small business hurt by Obama care because I can’t afford to hire anyone due to the costs involved.

                Also nothing you said contradicts anything I said it is just more empty posturing.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Jan says:

                  The empty posturing is stating the Republic will be destroyed by passing bills with a simple majority. The men who signed the Declaration of Ind. and approved the Constitution would be appalled at such statements. It is a scare tactic and a cop-out to actually doing what is right and according to the Constitution. The people know that onothingcare is a bad bill. They would take note of the Dems opposing a repeal and would applaud changing the stupid senate rule.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • andrewalinxs says:

                  No, All I said is the Republic becomes a pure democracy when you abolish minority protections. Something heavily fought over and advocated for by the founding fathers was minority protection. That is why the senate was made in the first place.

                  I find the irony in your statement amazing. Have you even read what was written in the Article above? They way your talking it sounds like you haven’t.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • armie says:

                  I doubt they’d be appalled, avoiding dictatorship by the majority was one of their major concerns. Read Federalist 10.

                  Like

            • Tolerance4 says:

              The bill that Reid initially passed was NOT Obamacare. It was something else entirely, which bill was completely rewritten to be Obamacare, then passed on a nuclear vote only. Ryan should do EXACTLY the same thing to repeal and replace Obamacare.

              Like

              • andrewalinxs says:

                Right, Lets follow that logic.
                This is how Reid got 60 Votes excerpt copyed from:https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/07/repealing-and-replacing-obamacare-much-confusion-is-in-the-process/
                –start copy—
                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.
                —-end copy—-

                So No Ryan could not do that. Folks need to first Realize how this law got passed before you argue about why it has to be done a certain way.

                Liked by 1 person

          • Jan, Pres. Trump is on-board with this bill b/c he understands what is at stake if it falls as well as that negotiations are ongoing and may well produce a more.desirable bill.

            I will repeat the ancient saying which Googling revealed is a variant on a saying by
            Voltaire: “Don’t let Perfect be the enemy of Good.”

            Like

            • jaimeInTexas says:

              “Don’t let Perfect be the enemy of Good.”

              Let me rephrase,

              Don’t let the proximity to the cliff let you freak out at the lack of sufficient deceleration.

              Like

        • dstarke says:

          The Uniparty (Ryan Repubs and Democrats) wants single payer. Keep your eye on the ball.

          Like

      • singingsoul says:

        Republicans are different then democrats, republicans are individual oriented whereas the democrats are group oriented. We have to many egos in the senate on the republican side and each is not caving and working together because they all want their own way. I am only observing this. What I see is republicans do not want to work together and rather keep Obama care or settle with a lesser healthcare structure.
        Just reading on this blog how many are set in what they as individual want without concern of the whole. This is astounding and as conservative Christian find it fascinating.
        The republicans in the senate will look like fools and maybe that needs to happen. So many fought Trump what makes us think they want to make him look good…?

        Like

  11. dayallaxeded says:

    Rather than try to repeal <0-don't-care, through reconciliation defund all enforcement as to private citizens, but quintuple enforcement, penalties, and allocation of the cost of subsidies to government officials, esp. U.S. Senators and Reps. No exemptions for them and their staffs. Maybe even specify the "enhanced" provisions only apply to those who voted for it in the first place. After POTUS Trump signs it, there'll be plenty of votes in the senate to repeal the whole mess, but then we can take our time–wait 3 years, at least. Those f–kwits who foisted this on us have been getting very wealthy off of us for too long–time for payback.

    Like

  12. dayallaxeded says:

    Edit: Make the enhanced enforcement etc. apply to Senate and House pensioners, too. Wouldn’t want to leave Louisiana sell-out Landrieu or dirty, filthy, rotten Harry out.

    Like

  13. Trumpter says:

    If I trusted anyone in DC other than team Trump I would say go for it. As trust has been shredded by the Deep State Rino’s I am for letting it go down by itself. We can still claim that we tried to fix the problem but the Dem’s wouldn’t let us.

    Like

    • Blaming doesn’t work with most voters. Voters want their representatives to keep their promises, not whine and cry that the big, bad Dems wouldn’t let them do it. Didn’t you see how badly that tactic worked with the Dems? Total R control of both Houses and Pres. in about four years..

      Liked by 1 person

      • dstarke says:

        We claim that voters want repeal. This does not repeal. Therefore this keeps the promise no less than trying to repeal ans failing.

        Like

  14. sunnydaysall says:

    Thank you so much, Sundance for the ammo! I am out there trying to put out the fires and in some hot spots, your words are working! I wish I had more time and fingers for typing, but I am headed back into the fray with your words of wisdom… The neverTrumpers are having a field day with the repeal push and Trumpsters are falling for the rhetoric against Trump! I wish Trump would come out and explain all this, but then the dems would have all the info they needed to stop us at every turn! Come on people! This is a process… “Oh, ye of little faith” who believe that President Trump would renege on his promise to the people and be outwitted by a bunch of swamp leeches in congress…

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Matt712 says:

    I realize government healthcare is unconstitutional; so any replacement will also be unconstitutional, like most everything the federal government does. But there WILL be a replacement; so how does this market-based solution sound?

    Replace Obamacare with direct payments to a national Insurance Pool consisting of a small number of the lowest bidders for national group coverage, with an annual rebidding process to keep patient costs low, but fair to the Insurance Companies. Consolidate the bids into a single, fair rate.

    a. Eliminate the VA, Medicaid, Medicare, and all other government medical assistance programs and place those individuals into the Insurance Pool. Place all government employees with government-paid insurance, including the executive, judiciary and congress into the Insurance Pool, excepting regular active duty military personnel. Allow state and local government personnel, as well as businesses and individuals — everyone — to join the pool at the going rate.

    Matt

    Like

    • Jan says:

      There are multiple solutions to this mess that are far greater than what Ryan presented yesterday.

      Like

      • dstarke says:

        Agreed. We must beat on this with many hammers:

        1) Introduce and pass repeal of O’care in the House. Give it all the time its needs in the Senate for those who support it to feel the heat.

        2) Do anything administratively possible to make O’care ineffectual.

        3) Mount a new Constitutional challenge and make sure that Justice Roberts knows that we will watch O’care and the healthcare industry crash and burn, unless it is overturned COMPLETELY.

        Like

  16. HolyLoly says:

    I see more options than the three sundance suggested.

    We could make amendments to phase one of repeal and replace to remove the new spending and tax credits and pass it through reconciliation, but that leaves phase two and three both of which would still require an unattainable super-majority in the senate leaving everyone frustrated with the process.

    I disagree that ending the senate filibuster would turn us into a full democracy because we still have representatives who are elected by the people. Best solution is repeal the 17th.

    How about temporarily suspending the filibuster to fully repeal Ocare? Then pass the free market solutions that are necessary to get the government out of our health care decisions. Then reinstate the filibuster. This is an emergency to correct the corrupt way the Dems passed this bill and to correct the corrupt way Justice Roberts justified its upholding!

    Like

    • Brenda says:

      I have tried to find out what the process is for suspending and reinstating the filibuster. How would that work? Because that was my idea also. Suspend filibuster for all legislation so as to move Trumps agenda through and put it back prior to 2018 election just in case that goes badly for Repubkicans

      Like

  17. I can’t support anything that doesn’t completely address full repeal and full replacement inside the time frame of this legislative session. There is only NOW with no guarantee of a “tomorrow” which is what Ryan wants us to buy into for our support of this bill.

    Like

  18. sunnydaysall says:

    The repeal was to defund and they knew obama would not sign it… So it was only political (kabuki) theater, thinking they would look good in the eyes of their constituents and be reelected again! Now their feet are being held to the fire, and many repubs are refusing to repeal! There are simply not enough votes in the senate to repeal obamacare!

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Justin says:

    The proposed bill instructs insurance companies to charge a 30% “penalty” for people who have had a break of 63 days or more.

    So, again, the Supreme Court ruled (unconstitutionally, IMHO) that only a tax, and not a penalty, would be constitutional. I believe both are unconstitutional, frankly.

    So how does the GOP expect this to pass muster?

    Like

  20. sargeyoda says:

    Thank you SD for this great article and clearing confusion! Too many influential conservative that I trust (Wayne Dupree and Bailie Jr.) seem to be angry that an actual repeal is being implemented! I have shared this on my twitter page and we need to inform our circles so we can support our President and our Congress members. If these bills are truly helping Americans, this is the best way to reform healthcare. We need to be unified behind our president especially with the wiretaps and Deep State surveillance controversy.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Wee2low says:

    WOW the IQ over at Breitbart hovers around 80 these days. You should go over there for a laugh at all of the conservatives yelling, “RINO!”, “paid Soros Troll”, “Trump is a fraud” when you try to explain the mechanics of this.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jan says:

      Don’t act like a liberal an say that people who don’t agree with you aren’t smart enough to understand what’s best for them.

      Like

      • singingsoul says:

        If the people wanted a dictator P Trump would come up with excellent healthcare. Trump has been called Hitler and now that he honers the constitution and works with the branches of government people want a dictator. You cannot have it both ways. Ryan is set on his “Better Way” crap and obviously has support from half of his republican senators.
        Trump has to give if he wants anything done. Everything will be negotiated and these clowns hang impeachment over his head and investigation he has Russian connection . He is being undermined by the intelligence community. I wish any of you would understand he is busting his chops for us but cannot do it alone.
        All of you who do not like the healthcare go out protest Ryan and the GOP and democrats. Make you voice heard.

        Like

    • dstarke says:

      Sundance doesn’t explain where the 60% comes from in phase 3. Phases #1 and 2 will guarantee that the Repubs now own “Ryancare”. We’ve left them off the hook for their terrible legislating and provide no incentive for them to join us in fixing it. I can see the ads now.

      Like

  22. tytanshammer says:

    All of this would work if we were dealing with people who were willing to be straightforward and honest, but we are not Congress is as corrupt as ever and is putting forth the parts of the bill that they want and delaying the parts of the bill the don’t want till later. They have NO intention of enabling those things that would undermine the intentions of their political masters the globalists. That’s why its a 3 stage process, because its the manipulation of a shell game, because that is what they do. Make no mistake, it may take 20 years and a lot of fighting, but the end of this journey is a full repeal and we will not accept anything less.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Laura says:

      This is what I’m afraid of. You know, this is a MAJOR issue. Think of it, when tyrants want to take over the country one component is taking over people’s healthcare. Not to mention the odious practice of putting all of our most private business on the freaking internet, surely to be used against you one day if you are a political opponent. I am of a mind that this may be the one thing that I am willing to do whatever it takes, for all the marbles.

      Like

    • singingsoul says:

      I understand the second part of Ryan’s healthcare bill will be modified by Price and does not need congressional input.

      Like

      • dstarke says:

        Yes. It will, according to the MSM “break” Obamacare and the result of phase 2 is that Repubs will FOREVER own government-meddled healthcare in America. There is no incentive then to provide the needed votes for phase 3.

        Like

  23. Joan says:

    I like that solution – but would it require 60 Senate votes?

    Like

  24. AndrewJackson says:

    Sundance where does the nomination of Gorsuch fit into this? If the dems filibuster his nomination, couldn’t we use that as justification to avoid the slow mess of slicing and dicing zerocare?

    Like

  25. Lin Rei says:

    I agree with President Trump Obamacare premiums are out of control … a lot of people have been priced out insurance due to skyrocketing premiums

    ….. so gotta love the GOP solution —push premiums even HIGHER for the age bracket (50-64 yrs)

    GOP plan calls for RAISING premiums from 3X cap to 5X cap for people in their 50’s and 60’s who’ve paid in all their lives into insurance only to get pushed off insurance rolls just at the age they are finally might need to access major medical care.

    I’m in the 50-64 age bracket and have responsibly paid premiums all thru my 20’s, 30’s, 40’s… only to face 5X premium … straw meet camel’s back.

    I guess I feel kicked in the gut to hear my President (whom I enthusiastically volunteered to put in office) ….to hear President Trump call this plan “wonderful.”

    IF President Trump were telling us he recognized some problems with ACHA. If POTUS were saying this is the best we can do given political constraints in the Senate..then I might understand as I was being pushed under the bus that nothing more could be done, but at least he recognizes the severe consequences for my age bracket.

    But no, instead he’s saying it is “wonderful” and so much better than Obamacare ..

    .Well considerably higher premiums is not better for MAGA’s older voter base.

    I care deeply about borders, national security, economy, soverign nation, MAGA …But physical survival rather pushes aside most politcal ideology. I don’t get it… 50-64 year olds …that’s the Trump voter demographic

    Okay, solutions. Wish we’d slow down and take a look at other countries models that have had better success lowering the cost of medical care with better health outcomes. There are a few countries ranked at much lower 1/4 the medical cost per capita and much much better health care outcomes than the U.S. … What are they doing right that might help us find a way to a better healthcare system?

    For people currently uninsured due to Obamacare premium hikes, there is a website http://selfpaypatient.com that has tons of resources for locating cash discount surgery and other self-pay options for anyone already uninsured. Good luck all.

    Like

    • Joan says:

      I would urge you to send all of your comment in a letter to President Trump. I just wonder whether he really knows all of what is in Obamacare 2.

      Like

  26. Pam says:

    I wish our GOP purists in congress (which imo are hypocrites) because they weren’t forced off of their current plans would wake up and realize the importance of trying this stupid move of a clean repeal (which won’t happen because the votes aren’t going to be there) would think about what will happen to the folks who could lose their plans without having a replacement ready to go soon afterward. POTUS has warned congress repeatedly about not letting something like this happen.

    Yes, a complete start over would be nice but the votes won’t be there in the senate. Period.

    Like

  27. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline Blog argues that the Senate leadership does not have to accept the Senate parliamentarian’s ruling on reconciliation, and therefore 60 votes is not necessary to have a comprehensive Obamacare replacement bill. The GOP leadership can argue the entire Obamacare monstrosity is a budgetary, tax bill and therefore the 60 vote super-majority nature of the Senate is not threatened:

    “But there is an alternative view of what is possible through reconciliation. Under that view, reconciliation applies not just to tax or spending provisions, but also to regulations whose main effect is on taxing and spending.

    It is also possible, and I think correct, to view the core of Obamacare — the mandate, the subsidies, the insurance policy requirements, etc. — as a single, integrated mechanism. Under that view, it makes little sense to divvy up its component pieces into spending/taxing provisions and other provisions. Everything is part and parcel of the whole.

    Republicans should take the view that Obamacare can be replaced entirely through the reconciliation process. They should go back to the drawing board and come up with a free-standing replacement, get it through the House, and bring it to a vote in the Senate under reconciliation.

    If, after the Democrats raise a point of order, the parliamentarian sides with them, they should vote to reject the parliamentarian’s ruling which is advisory only, not binding. This they can do without a super-majority.

    Here’s what Republicans should not do. They should not pass Speaker Ryan’s replacement legislation. It effectively maintains the Obamacare subsidies (in the form of tax credits) while removing the subsidy-funding mechanism (the individual mandate).

    This approach seems certain to hasten the Obamacare death spiral. When that happens, Republicans, not the Senate parliamentarian, will own the consequences.”
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/who-will-own-the-obamacare-replacement.php

    Like

  28. Jan says:

    The bill as is is not even a solution. They are saying it is a work in progress so why not get something done that makes sense before releasing something that does not?
    They are making this so much harder because they don’t won’t to get rid a rule in the senate. That’s cowardice. The people just gave the Repubs the entire Gov’t. Why are they afraid? They didn’t do much when in the minority anyway. This is what so many are angry about. Why care so much about a 60 vote rule when the people could actually give the Repubs 8 more seats in the next election. This is nonsense. Change the rule. Do the right thing by those who voted you into power and you won’t need to worry about the next time the Dems control both houses because it will a long time before that happens again IF you keep your promises.

    Like

    • Serpentor says:

      I’m with you. I acknowledge the three choices and also realize that the political capital is not strong enough to truly fix the problem. Instead of submitting dog sh** to the American people and thus reducing trust and political capital, I suggest options 1 & 3 while ACA crashes and burns.

      Never back a pile of dog sh**, even if it would be slightly better than what we have now.

      Like

  29. Bruce says:

    the 17th Amendment was ratified 1913. The republic was functioning without it. Senators were picked by elected reps from their state and there was no outside the state money influence. What is bad about that.

    This country will collapse anyway if handouts continue. America is about trading work for pay, not about handouts forever to those who never work.

    Like

  30. We Are Borg says:

    We don’t HAVE to repeal Obamacare, just eviscerate it from the inside out, just digest the thing like a giant parasite!

    I recall reading a number of commentaries on the actual language from parts of the ACA shortly after Obama signed off on it; more than a few reviewers who actually read this monstrosity noted how virtually every other regulation contained a clause stating, in affect, how the HHS Secretary would has certain discretionary powers over the implementation and procedural protocols associated with the regulation in question

    This law is not only HUGE, it requires the combined AI computing capacity of the NSA, CIA, Goldman-Sachs, Google and Amazon just to figure out what all this stuff does — no single human (let along Congress) could comprehend the entirety of this thing. And THAT, my friends, is ACA’s Achilles Heel — most of it is so open to interpretation, it can say whatever the Secretary BELIEVES it says.

    So-o-o-o … We get out the ol’ red pencil and make few procedural changes — regulation by regulation. We do it quietly, trickling down mundane daily procedural updates throughout this bloated organization. A few EO’s from the White House would help speed things along as well, like what they did with the IRS regarding the need to respond to Line 62 on Form 1040.

    I belief there’s a whole lot we can do to essentially neuter this abomination while Congress works through the longer-term replacement process.

    And if the Secretary seemingly “accidentally” oversteps his bounds by rendering a few onerous regulations essentially ineffective, let Congress sort it out. After all, he’s simply performing his job in accordance with provisions as stated in the law. I’d love to see the likes of Chucky Schumer and Little Al Frankenstein parse over every word of some poorly-written regulation only to encounter the phrase “… at the Secretary’s discretion … “.

    Conservatives need to chill on this issue! Sundance is quite right, there’s no way we can outright repeal ACA, but we CAN place procedural maggots in the belly of the beast — let them slowly consume their fat host until there’s nothing left but a dried up shell.

    Like

  31. Bubba says:

    If Obamacare stays in place as is, then we won’t have a republic anymore anyway. The healthcare system will go into a death spiral from high costs/low participation and insurance companies will fail. This result will add to the national debt and will be devastating to so many people. What comes from the ashes as a new healthcare system is anybody’s guess.

    Dems passed Obamacare using gimmicks, in a disgraceful way and in the dead of night, when the majority of the country did not want it. It was then upheld by a compromised SCOTUS Chief Justice who rewrote the law.

    Change the Senate rules to 51 votes
    Pass the repeal/replace plan
    Then change the Senate rules back to 60 votes

    Let the Dems pound sand. We’ll deal with them if/when they ever get the Senate back in our lifetimes.

    We have no choice because there’s no way in hell that the 3 steps outlined by SD will ever happen!

    Like

    • Jan says:

      House Dems used “the rules” today to force votes on adjourning 3 TIMES.
      Ryan ignored regular order on his bill.
      Clapper lied to Congress. So did Hillary.
      Why are the Repubs and Trump worried about the Senate’s filibuster rule?

      Like

      • Bubba says:

        Congress uses the rules as an excuse when they don’t want to do something and they change or ignore the rules when they want to sneak something through. Every single institution in our world has been corrupted. The only way we’re getting back on track as a society is by winning the epic fight before us.

        The only rules that matter, in the end, are the rules of the jungle. The tiger eats the lamb. That’s life whether we’re talking about animals, nature, mankind, corporations, military, nations, or anything else in this cruel world. Win or be defeated.

        Like

  32. There is one more choice if USA and its media and its alter-media and its contra-media and all other media forms, as well as all who care about USA over themselves, had a backbone

    We all know the four lies told by so many elected DC Democrats from the just elected House members to the more senior ones and same for the Senate and same for Obama and Gruber and possibly Biden as a knowing part of a fraud on an UNREVEALED (til the last minute) bill.

    It was fraud pure and massive explained unquestionably correctly by a greedy Gruber in his videos found in November 2014, eight at least it is said in number. But then the White House said Gruber was not involved in ACA early planning shortly thereafter. That was unequivocally false as the number of e-mail communications by Gruber and the WH were near a hundred. The hub of the lies lied to USA and thereby extended the Statute of Limitation.
    .
    Prosecute the fraud and revoke in federal court the fraudulently passed bill from top to bottom, right to left, front to back and in all other dimensions the bill might have attained when fraudulently made law.

    But no such as you and the rest of the so-called non-mainstream media will never discuss this as y;all are years late in the game

    Like

    • Maquis says:

      No federal court exists that would acknowledge the fraud inherent in this bill, and the treachery in creating it. Even if one were of the correct understanding, it would still defer to P-hat Roberts of SCOTUS.

      I trust Trump.

      Like

  33. saintoil says:

    I TRUST Donald on this one. Educate yourself via Sundance and undertstand what we are doing. All hell is arrayed against him. I will not ankle bite. Getting anything done and then watch the defeated Dems come around to support reconciliation knowing they will have the albatross off of their backs.

    Like

  34. Maquis says:

    Ooooo, looks promising.

    Keep posting! Brother/ Sister, game on!

    Liked by 1 person

  35. TEXASLW says:

    NO replacement… Until the actual cost of healthcare is brought down by breaking the medical monopolies nothing will change. Any plan put out by .GOV is not sustainable. There is not enough tax payer money to keep it going. Tax payers are tapped out. It all needs to crash and burn. Insurance does NOT equal healthcare. https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231890

    Like

  36. coldsnap says:

    Interesting… glad you decided to “come out” of the lurker closet and share your perspective. Welcome!

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Welcome, Deplorable Unum! Fantastic, thought provoking and prescient post. Glad you spoke up! I am copying and pasting your post to email out to others.

    Great post and welcome aboard!
    Hat tip: coldsnap for redirecting us back to your post…. on Today’s March 9th Presidential Thread

    Like

  38. Mike says:

    Like you I appreciate the great mind of Sundance and appreciate his work greatly but I do share your opinion almost exactly in this matter. I hope it shakes out the way you envision and President Trump doesn’t get sucked up into this.

    Like

  39. HRR says:

    Wait… I understand the constraints of Senate rules. But does Reconciliation require the Refundable tax credits in the GOP bill? Does Reconciliation require that all of the Obamacare taxes cannot be eliminated forever? The GOP bill just reinforces that the Republican leadership continues to embrace the heavy hand of government in healthcare for Americans.

    Like

  40. Bubba says:

    Deplorable Unum – thanks for posting and I respect your thoughtful take on this issue. However, I just disagree. Trump and Pence and Price are all in on the 3 step plan. They are working publicly and privately to move the process forward. The specifics of any potential replacement bill is yet to be determined. Ryan’s replacement ideas (and anyone else’s replacement ideas for that matter) are only a starting point and will necessarily be altered via the legislative process.

    The legislative process is going to be like herding a pack of cats that can’t agree on anything (dems, repubs, conservatives, liberals, moderates, libertarians). I do not believe that it’s possible to get 60 Senate votes on a healthcare law in this environment. The conservatives will not support the compromises necessary to get enough dems votes. The dems will not compromise if it means replacing the “crowning achievement” of Obama. Obamacare was 50 years in the making for the dems. And, I believe that they’d rather lose an election then deliver a victory to Trump on health care.

    Unless they change the Senate rules to 51 votes, we’re looking at an Obamacare death spiral. This will contribute to Trump having to preside over a managed bankruptcy and debt re negotiation process for the United States. It will be messy but we will be better off at the end of the process. This was one of the reasons that Trump was asked to run for president – because he’s a master at finance and bankruptcy and debt re negotiation.

    Like

  41. pls says:

    I think it’s very odd to defund a program by passing a bill in the House and Senate and expecting the President to sign it. Since all expenditures have to originate in the House, the normal way to defund something is for the House to not pass funding in the first place. The Senate can’t reject nor the President veto the absence of funding.

    That the President COULD do it to veto the entire budget bill, “shut down” the Federal government, and blame the Republicans. The press parrot any positions the Democrats take and the Congressional Republicans are mostly pusillanimous poltroons so this was an effective threat.

    As far as reducing the requirement for a filibuster, I have no problem at all with eliminating filibuster on a bill that only repeals a law. I like having a higher vote requirement to make a law than to eliminate one.

    Like

  42. int19h says:

    The initial Senate rules as adopted in 1789 didn’t have a provision that would enable filibuster, so what’s all this talk about how it’s necessary for a constitutional republic? It wasn’t even possible until 1806, and the rule change that made it wasn’t intentional to enable it. It wasn’t until 50 years after the Republic was founded that filibuster was used by the minority to block the majority.

    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