ACA being repealed, why no outrage here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So they are bribing Murkowski by telling her Alaska can keep Obamacare if she is willing to repeal for the rest of the country

WTAF

Wow, sounds more and more like the Obamacare all the time. Remember, the Cornhusker Kickback? The Louisiana Purchase? Landrieu said she was proud of the LA Purchase!

Oh, and please don't forget the promise to Stupak that no abortions would be funded.

[Anonymous]

This from Se. Grassley sums it up

You know, I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill shouldn’t be considered. But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. That’s pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This from Se. Grassley sums it up

You know, I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill shouldn’t be considered. But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. That’s pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill.

Makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they are bribing Murkowski by telling her Alaska can keep Obamacare if she is willing to repeal for the rest of the country

WTAF

Wow, sounds more and more like the Obamacare all the time. Remember, the Cornhusker Kickback? The Louisiana Purchase? Landrieu said she was proud of the LA Purchase!

Oh, and please don't forget the promise to Stupak that no abortions would be funded.

They are also doing it through reconciliation, just like the democrats. How terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama's only legacy is the ACA which is why he is so vocal about keeping it intact and not seeing it repealed. Absent the ACA he would be remembered as the first black president and that is about it.

The goal with ACA was laudable but Obama's greatest failing was that he would come up with half-baked solutions to significant issues - which is what ACA is in the form that it was passed - and then leave it to others to fix when it began to fall apart. He did it with ACA and he did it with DACA where he signed an EO to offer temporary respite to 800K young people in the country illegally and left it to others to fix when the $hit hit the fan.

In both instances he feigns indignation when the "fix" that he wants is one that is not palatable to the successor administration. The reality is that if he wanted something that was more enduring he should have crafted it that way in the first place. ACA was passed entirely by Democrats when they had an almost filibuster proof majority in the senate and a sizable majority in the House. They squarely are to blame for coming up with a flawed piece of legislation that was bound to fall apart.

He didn't leave it to others to fix. The democrats and Obama had all sorts of fixes that the GOP refused to bring to a vote. It is incredibly disingenuous not to acknowledge that.

Why would anyone think Republicans would vote in favor of supposed fixes to the ACA when they wouldn't vote for the ACA in the first place?

Why would anything think Republicans would vote in favor of anything that actually helps Americans rather than their bank accounts?

Okay. Let's say I agree with you. Then why did Obama and the Dems go for a half-assed "compromise" measure like the ACA? Why did they try so hard to get Republican support?

Because they are not Democrats, that is who you are describing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ACA may have been based on the Heritage Foundation plan but the reality is that it passed with a totally partisan vote. The Democrats voted for it and the Republicans were opposed to it. Those who voted against it were the ones who saw how seriously flawed the legislation was and how it would end up - namely a fiasco which would require endless additional funding to keep it viable.

You had one group of people who opposed it because it was the black man.
You had another (like Rand Paul) who opposed because libertarian.

If you could go back in a time machine, you would understand how flawed our previous system was and how costs were already spiraling out of control. While it was and is harmful to many, the ACA reduced the societal cost of healthcare significantly.

It needs to be fixed or changed to single payer, but the GOP plan is awful.

Cue our resident racist. Racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they are bribing Murkowski by telling her Alaska can keep Obamacare if she is willing to repeal for the rest of the country

WTAF

Wow, sounds more and more like the Obamacare all the time. Remember, the Cornhusker Kickback? The Louisiana Purchase? Landrieu said she was proud of the LA Purchase!

Oh, and please don't forget the promise to Stupak that no abortions would be funded.

You don't get the irony?

[Anonymous]

This may actually end up biting the GOP in the butt. On the Federal level, this is viewed as a political or philosophical issue. Just look at how people are talking about it here.

In many respects, this is bill is pushing key components down to the states.

In the short term, that favors the GOP because of the current composition of state legislatures. However to the extent that folks feel real pain (no pun intended), then it becomes a practical issue on the state level with a readily tangible impact. It would be a huge mistake for the GOP to make healthcare reform a grassroots issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they are bribing Murkowski by telling her Alaska can keep Obamacare if she is willing to repeal for the rest of the country

WTAF

Wow, sounds more and more like the Obamacare all the time. Remember, the Cornhusker Kickback? The Louisiana Purchase? Landrieu said she was proud of the LA Purchase!

Oh, and please don't forget the promise to Stupak that no abortions would be funded.

They are also doing it through reconciliation, just like the democrats. How terrible.

The democrats passed the main bill with 60 votes. They only used 50 for HECRA to make technical fixes.

[Anonymous]

It is a state issue, period. Let the Governors decide what is best for their electorate. It would be much easier to fight at the state level if you have a problem than to plow through federal bureaucracy. All the Feds will do is forever keep throwing money at it, it needs to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So they are bribing Murkowski by telling her Alaska can keep Obamacare if she is willing to repeal for the rest of the country

WTAF

So the proposed plan in the current bill is so good that they had to bribe her to vote for it by allowing her state to keep the plan they are repealing? This is batshit crazy. ANd it would be hilarious if so many things were at stake. This is Keystone cops politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is a state issue, period. Let the Governors decide what is best for their electorate. It would be much easier to fight at the state level if you have a problem than to plow through federal bureaucracy. All the Feds will do is forever keep throwing money at it, it needs to go.

Actually it will not be the Governors deciding - it will be the state legislatures. I suspect that Big Pharma and Big Health won't like it too much because they will have to adjust to every state law in which they do business. They would rather have a Federal overlay. Plus, that's more money they have to shovel into state races.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they are bribing Murkowski by telling her Alaska can keep Obamacare if she is willing to repeal for the rest of the country

WTAF

So the proposed plan in the current bill is so good that they had to bribe her to vote for it by allowing her state to keep the plan they are repealing? This is batshit crazy. ANd it would be hilarious if so many things were at stake. This is Keystone cops politics.

Murkowski isn't voting for it. Apparently people were thanking her back in Alaska for voting against it.

really good story on why the GOP decided to beat this dead horse one last time - their wealthy donors back home demanded it during the August recess:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/behind-the-senate-gops-high-stakes-health-care-gamble-unrelenting-criticism-back-home/2017/09/21/fad330da-9e44-11e7-8ea1-ed975285475e_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is a state issue, period. Let the Governors decide what is best for their electorate. It would be much easier to fight at the state level if you have a problem than to plow through federal bureaucracy. All the Feds will do is forever keep throwing money at it, it needs to go.

You think Chris Christie and Scott Walker are going to decide "what is best for their electorate"? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a state issue, period. Let the Governors decide what is best for their electorate. It would be much easier to fight at the state level if you have a problem than to plow through federal bureaucracy. All the Feds will do is forever keep throwing money at it, it needs to go.

You think Chris Christie and Scott Walker are going to decide "what is best for their electorate"? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Yes I do.