AHCA Vote Postponed

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Why even have a military if the American people do not have healthcare or retirement security?

What does that even mean?

You do understand that it is a primary function of our federal government to fund a national defense, right? It's an enumerated responsibility listed in the constitution.

Healthcare and Social Security, not so much.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Aazadan

So, all the special meetings and calls to Representatives were just for show? He wasn't trying to get the votes?
I'll come after you

Trump needs/wants this to be something he can sell as a consensus, because that will give him the political capital to make future changes to it. I don't think he would take it, if it came down to a 50/50 vote. If he passes it in that type of climate he's going to look weak.

It was 242 years ago today that Patrick Henry said Give me liberty or give me death. Seven years ago he was kicked in the teeth with this bit of tyranny and the politicians still kicking him while playing party politics...

Instead of calling up with the mantra of Repeal and Replace, perhaps those calls would be better served reminding them that We the People can just as easily Remove and Replace and we are not talking about Obama(doesn't)Care.

Pipe dream I suppose, that the People become represented rather than spat upon.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

as far as social security, and healthcare really, I don't see where weather or not it's explicitly stated in the constitution as being a responsibility of the federal gov't.
the fact is that in both areas, the gov't has decided it was their responsibility.
an entire generation of boomers have paid into the social security, medicare, and disability programs with the understanding that they will benefit when their days in the workforce have ended. the gov't borrowed the money that they have paid into that program and used it for other things and left ious.. that the gov't is just as obligated to pay off as any other debt that they incur.. and I do believe that the constitution does lay the responsibility to pay their bills onto the federal gov't!
and when it comes to healthcare, it was the federal gov'ts choice to pick up the responsibility for maintaining a decent healthcare system and to provide assistance so that the poor can obtain care. they have funded hospitals, the training of doctors, the development of medicines, the research into various diseases in search of cures. and, they have increased taxes and swiped money from social security and medicare to do these things. much of this "greatest in the world" healthcare system has been built up on the backs of the working americans! because of this taxpayer's investment, the gov't has a responsibility to ensure that those taxpayers can benefit from their tax investment, not just the super wealthy, but everyone!

Going forward, I wonder what the new effort will be? Will they lean further right, which still won't work, or lean further left, which would anger the Freedom Caucus but pull the moderates into play.

Right now, the new law is simply a disaster.

Will Trump be angry at the holdouts and cast them aside? Will he and Ryan concede? Will they simply apply more pressure and try tomorrow???

Gah.

a reply to: AboveBoard
Tune in tomorrow!

Same bat time!
Same bat channel!

a reply to: Phage

Who/what the hell is a "freedom caucus"? I don't recall that being something our elected officials were authorized to form?

It would be so much better if politics was less about deals, and more about just and true.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Who/what the hell is a "freedom caucus"? I don't recall that being something our elected officials were authorized to form?

It would be so much better if politics was less about deals, and more about just and true.

It's a Right Wing, so-called conservative group that sprung-up out of the Tea party movement.

Their goals are to use collective power and influence to affect decisions made in DC, through the guise of conservatism and constitutional principles.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Who/what the hell is a "freedom caucus"? I don't recall that being something our elected officials were authorized to form?

It would be so much better if politics was less about deals, and more about just and true.

It's a voting block in the House made up of around 30 (the exact number changes with each election) Republican Representatives. They're highly conservative and pretty much all vote as one. You can think of them as basically being the extremists of the Tea Party wing.

en.wikipedia.org...

It actually is something they're authorized to form, such groups are written right into the rules of Congress.

Of the various groups in Congress they're the weakest, but the proposed health care legislation is controversial enough that they have enough votes to get some concessions unless the rest of the Republicans unite against them.

So, why does no one ever challenge the outrageous cost on the provider side whether pharmaceutical, hospital, medical network, imaging, technology and testing.

No matter "who" pays ultimate cost wether taxpayer (government) insurance, business or individuals the fact that we've gone from 3-4% of GDP 30 years ago to almost 20% of GDP is an enormous part of the problem.

The gross amount of cost increase throughout the medical industry cannot be reconciled with improved care or technology - unfortunately it can be attributed mostly to greed.

For some reason ( I suspect bought and paid for politicians at State and Federal level) long existing laws (100+ years) are not being applied to medical industry, including insurers who have no legal immunities to those laws, laws within USC 15 chapter 1 and similar laws in most States.

I see any effort from either side of the political aisle or uniparty as complete utter nonsense when dealing with insurance or government benefits as its just kicking can down road a few years at which point mathematics of exponentials undeniably consumes first half entire budget, then rapidly approaches point where entire budget gets consumed.

The choices then are, untenable deficit along with unfeasible taxes, economic collapse and possible revolution.

The time for action was 2008 and instead of doing what needed be done the politicians accelerated the portion of GDP devoted to medical industry.

Leaving us with another "to big to fail" issue, as the proper correction now would indeed cause a short sharp recession.

Trump cannot politically do that as it would be partisanly used by liberals.

Well, down with the ship it is.........

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Who/what the hell is a "freedom caucus"? I don't recall that being something our elected officials were authorized to form?

.

There's a Congressional BLACK caucus.

a reply to: carewemust

Yeah, Im sure somewhere in my 35k + posts i've ranted about that, too.

I believe politically affiliated groupings should NOT be allowed in government, as it allows alliances that do not put the interests of constituents first.

ETA: this goes for political parties (since i didn't say it outright)

a reply to: Phoenix

GOOD POINT..But I've found that Americans are (so far) willing to pay for medical care that reduces their illness or pain ASAP. When insurance companies reduce the payments to physicians/hospitals in an effort to lower costs, those physicians/hospitals stop accepting the people who have those insurance policies that don't pay them what they want.

If ALL INSURANCE (individual and employer) went away, and every American enrolled in MEDICARE or MEDICAID, physicians/hospitals would have no choice. They'd either cut back on quality, or leave that business, or only take the wealthy. Medicaid and Medicare pay physicians/hospitals less than private insurance does.

a reply to: Phage

Wow. This is a surprise. And I'm betting dollars to donuts that this had everything to do with it:

Mike Lee: Senate parliamentarian told me it's possible to push harder on repealing Obamacare regulations

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said on Wednesday that the Senate parliamentarian has told him that it may be possible for Republicans to push harder on repealing Obamacare's regulations than the current House bill, which contradicts the assertion by House leadership that the legislation goes after Obamacare as aggressively as possible under Senate rules.

"What I understood her to be saying is that there's no reason why an Obamacare repeal bill necessarily could not have provisions repealing the health insurance regulations," Lee said in an interview with the Washington Examiner, relating a conversation with parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough about reconciliation he had on Tuesday.

Lee also said that the parliamentarian told him it wasn't until very recently, after the unveiling of the House bill, that any Republican even asked her about the possibility of repealing regulations with a simple majority.

The leadership was feeding them a crock of crap -- that's why they wanted to push the vote through so quick! Naughty naughty!!!

I wonder if they were feeding Trump from that same crock... or if Trump was also feeding the congress critters from that crock...

Wow. Just wow.

a reply to: carewemust

I appreciate what you're saying carewemust but it's not type of cost control I was suggesting due just the points you brought forth.

What I'm getting at is a free and level playing field formed by removing monopolistic practices, price collusion, price fixing and prosecuting violation of consumer laws.

Estimates I've seen say an 85% cost reduction might occur, me, I'd take 50-75% as reasonable.

That done, you'd need no insurance for any routine care and those that are unable to afford that low cost could easily be taken care of by taxpayer.

As most know before PACA catastrophic policies were rather inexpensive and would be with laws enforced as I am trying to educate folks about.

However caveat is enforcement of these laws which legitimately apply would cause large temporary drop in GDP which Wallstreet would react to, until that massive unproductive $$ redeployed to productive investment.

Hence my comment "down with ship" because kicking can down road just makes it worse later when markets and government are forced to correct.

a reply to: Phoenix

Understood. Thank-you for taking the time to clarify your points, Phoenix. Do you think a good starting point is to simply wipe 100% of ObamaCare/ACA off the "books" and let free-market forces take control? If Congress keeps the 10 Essential Health Benefits and Guarantees that everyone can buy health insurance at any time, there's no way prices would come down.

a reply to: carewemust

You mean the pre-ACA nightmare that sick people used to live in? Market forces are not ideal for handling a situation based on shared risk. In that case, the larger pool the better. That is why Medicaid is tons more cost efficient than regular insurance. Single payer may sound ideologically bad, but if it is the foundation, like in Medicare, other riders could be purchased if needed for say, birth control/abortion/family planning, etc. That might mitigate the fuss over some of those issues.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but going backwards to pre-ACA practices is not a good solution.

Seems that tomorrow is the day. Hell or high water.

Meanwhile, a new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office released Thursday evening showed that changes House leaders made to the bill on Monday do not alter a projection that 24 million more Americans would be uninsured by 2026 under the bill. In addition, the updated bill would cut the deficit by $150 billion over the next decade — nearly $200 billion less than the earlier version of the legislation.

AHCA

I don't think there is a way to fix our medical system because it's really a criminal enterprise, like the mob. If the FBI started putting insurance executives that killed people by denying benefits in prison then maybe the cost would go down.

Also medical school is so expensive that the doctors have to charge a lot to pay their loans.

I would like to see a VA like government medical clinic system for citizens to compete with the exorbitant private medical system.