Health/Medical
See other Health/Medical Articles
Title: Jim Jordan Crushes Reince Priebus False Narrative on Obamacare Repeal
Source:
Politistick
URL Source: http://politistick.com/jim-jordan-c ... se-narrative-obamacare-repeal/
Published: Mar 27, 2017
Author: Matthew K. Burke
Post Date: 2017-03-27 17:47:53 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 18127
Comments: 68
One of the false narratives peddled by establishment RINO squishes like Reince Priebus in order to get principled conservatives to act like liberal Democrats is to spew the phony premise, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Priebus said as much to FOX News’ Chris Wallace Sunday when he said, “We can’t be chasing the perfect all the time.” It was intended to be a slam against the House Freedom Caucus, which insisted that Republicans keep their promise of fully repealing Obamacare, something the failed American Health Care Act (AHCA) did not do and kept in place the entire Obamacare apparatus and many of the regulations that caused health insurance premiums and deductibles to unnecessarily skyrocket. But as House Freedom Caucus founding member Jim Jordan told MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Monday, House GOP leadership didn’t come anywhere close to perfection when they crafted Paul Ryan’s health care bill behind closed doors, the bill dubbed Obamacare 2.0, Obamacare Lite, RINOCARE, or Swampcare. Far from seeking perfection, the bill “wasn’t even good.” “The lesson here is, don’t try to pass a bill that only 17 percent of the country approves of,” Jordan declared. “That’s a problem.” “When no one likes the legislation, you have to do it different,” Jordan said. “It wasn’t going to bring down premiums — it had a host of problems. And frankly, the key promise we made to the American people in the 2010, 2014, and 2016 election[s] was we would repeal Obamacare, this legislation didn’t do that. And that was the fundamental flaw in this entire process. So let’s get back to work and let’s do what we said we would do.” Jordan went on to say that the House Freedom Caucus was completely united on the 2015 clean Obamacare repeal bill that was passed in both the House and Senate and was sent to Obama’s desk. But instead of starting with the “perfect,” Paul Ryan and his team of RINOs stupidly crafted a turd sandwich behind closed doors first and somehow thought it would pass muster with principled conservatives who were excluded from the writing of the legislation. President Trump, as the author of “Art of the Deal” should know, this is exactly the opposite way a negotiation should have been constructed. “Mr. Priebus was talking about don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Well, this wasn’t even good.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-16) not displayed.
.
.
.
#17. To: Tooconservative (#15)
The 2015 Price bill is no different than what Trump offered. If it was, I'd agree with you. But it's not. Republicans voted for the Price bill and 53 other similar bills because they knew Obama would veto them. Even if the 2015 Price bill was flawed, who cares? It's not going to pass anyways. But when the 2015 Price bill was turned into a real bill by Trump, the Freedom Caucus got cold feet.
They are not the same. And the idea that Trump even read it is laughable.
What do you know that I don't? If they are not the same then tell me the difference.
Why don't we just glance at the text? The differences are glaring. Or are you too lazy or incompetent to find the bill for yourself? H.R.2653 — 114th Congress (2015-2016), the American Health Care Reform Act of 2015 The list of changes is quite extensive. High-risk pools at the state level, extensive support for medical savings accounts, VA reform, tort reform, association plans (for self-insured and small businesses), and more. That. Pass that. Like they did twice only 14 months ago.
That's not the Tom Price bill. That bill went nowhere. I gave you the link to the Tom Price bill which Congress DID pass and looks just like what Trump proposed.
No, it doesn't. Tort reform, interstate purchasing, and a lot of other elements aren't there and it is at least twice as expensive.
Where did you see "tort reform, interstate purchasing, and a lot of other elements" in the 2015 Tom Price bill?
Here, for instance:
Yep ...
Uh, no. That was "tort reform, interstate purchasing, and a lot of other elements" in a 2015 Tom Price bill (HR2300)that was introduced and went nowhere. You referred to the 2015 Tom Price bill that passed and was vetoed. THIS is the bill and I posted it to you once before: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3762 No mention of "tort reform, interstate purchasing, and a lot of other elements". From now on, use HR3762.
Just how many 0care repeal bills did Price write in 2015 anyway? I see this one has a title of "Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015". Yet other reporting did indicate that its title was AHCRA. At any rate, the Price bill does not go far enough. It will result in another 0bamaCare death spiral. But the GOP will own it 100% with the voters and the Dems will be happy to point out that the entire exercise was just so the GOP could deliver big tax cuts to the richest Americans (with a few tax cut scraps for middle-class Americans to go along with it). And the GOP has publicly admitted that this was just something to cut costs so they could make their tax cuts bigger while complying with budget law and reconciliation. Trump should get on his knees and thank God for the Freedom Caucus spiking this atrocity of a bill. It fulfills every negative stereotype in the public's mind about the GOP.
That went through the House and Senate and was vetoed by Obama? Just one.
Correct. But it goes as far as it can for a reconciliation bill. Which is why there is a Part II and a Part III to Trump's plan.
"... big tax cuts to the richest Americans?" You should change your screen name to Tooliberal". They get the biggest tax cuts because they pay the biggest taxes. You want to scrap a bill because the middle class gets a tax cut, but it's not as big?
Me? I don't want any tax cuts until the national debt is paid down. Neither should anyone else who actually gives a damn about the country. OTOH, if you want to levy debts and taxes on children not even yet born to pay for your luxuries and your retirement, then I suppose you like it just fine.
Again, spoken like a liberal. A "tax cut" is a tax rate cut. Reagan cut tax rates and tax income to the treasury increased. Liberals think that's voodoo.
Cut government spending, not tax rates. You can cut taxes after the debt is reduced. And you stop robbing babies and unborn children by passing your debts on to them, ya deadbeat.
What else do you suggest? Is the deficit something we can "cut" our way out of?
For Trump's budget to mean much, he'd have to be willing to veto bills that spend more than he wants for given departments. I'm not sure he will do that. This is why presidential budgets are routinely declared DOA on the Hill.
When's the last time you saw a President propose a budget like that? Yet it's not good enough for you.
That's all it is, a proposal. But if Trump wants to hold the line on a budget, he has to be ready to veto. Right up to closing down the government if need be. I assume you do know that it is Congress that sets spending. The prez can only veto specific spending bills and dare them to override him.
Yes. But I thought we were discussing Trump.
That is because you somehow think everything is about your lord and savior, Donald Trump. And Trump doesn't even care what is in the bill. "Forget about the little shit", is what he told the brave and wonderful Freedom Caucus when he went to the Hill to threaten them. I was talking about Congress who is, after all, the only ones who can pass or repeal anything. Unlike you, I don't think Trump has read so much as a single page of RynoCare.
What bill? The budget bill? The healthcare bill? You're jumping all over the place.
I've only discussed RynoCare, not the upcoming budget (which doesn't exist yet).
In your post #33, you said, "Cut government spending, not tax rates."
As a general principle, sure. Naturally, there is no budget bill from Ryan so we have nothing to discuss yet. A president is required to propose one to indicate to Congress what he wants in the budget but Congress never pays that much attention. Well, unless the prez is insisting on massive new spending and expansion of federal power so they can dole out a lot of goodies and further control everyone's lives. This would be for major wars and such when they shift into high gear. LBJ and FDR and Lincoln would be prime examples.
Correct. But he's not required to propose one with the massive cuts that Trump proposed.
I see. In the middle of a healthcare debate, you just decided to throw in overall government spending as a general principle? In case I forgot? In case you forgot?
The only way that the proposed budget means much is if Trump is willing to veto one or more of the 11 major spending bills if they don't bend spending seriously in the direction his budget requested. Otherwise, Trump's budget means exactly zero.
The reason they went with specific measures in RyanCare was to drive the CBO score downward so they could have a bigger tax cut. As it stood, it sounds like they started out wanting a $350-$400 billion tax cut but after the House worked its magic, the savings would have been down to $150-$200 billion. And that was before it headed over to the Senate to get porked up some more. And for all that bait-and-switch to pretend that this is the repeal the GOP dangled in front of us for the last four elections, you want these tiny cost savings for a small tax cut (which would go to the richest people in America who happen to be overwhelmingly Dem donors and advocates). And the GOP would utterly own it. The libmedia would accurately call it GOPcare, RyanCare, or TrumpCare.
My point was ... what other President had the balls to even propose such cuts? What comes later, well see. All you have now are "ifs".
The CBO scored it as a $337 billion savings. That's the only CBO number that I've heard. So, where did you get your $150-$200 billion number? From the Tooconservative magic calculator?
I'll be impressed if Trump is willing to start vetoing bills that are far out of line from his budget. Then it will actually mean something and he will have accomplished something. I'm waiting to see whether the Ryan budget will give Trump even 50% of what he is asking for. And I'm pretty sure the Senate budget will be business-as-usual other than increased defense spending.
Do you prefer to be called Nancy or Chuck? You sound like them. Trump hasn't even proposed tax reform but you already know what it's going to look like? Geez Louise. Cut the guy some slack. You'll have plenty of opportunity to nit-pick it to death later.
And I'll be impressed when we put astronauts on Mars. In the meantime, it looks as though we'll both have to wait.
I think it was an article someone else posted here. Or maybe it was another news site. I don't recall. I still think its dead. McConnell has declared it dead until 0care goes off the cliff, probably because he knows that Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Tom Cotton are three hard no votes. Add in Sasse and some others who like the 0care Medicaid gravy train to continue forever and you have a miserable and divisive defeat in the Senate. No matter what the House does, McConnell will not move on any House healthcare bill until Gorsuch is confirmed. And I tend to doubt he will want to even then. I think he wants to wait for the fall and the next round of bad news for 0care: spiraling premiums, more companies pulling out of the market, counties or even entire states where no insurance company will offer a policy through the exchanges.
And what to people do when they're riding something that's going off a cliff? They scream. Probably loud enough to be heard in Washington, DC. Even loud enough to be heard by Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Tom Cotton and every Democrat running for reelection in 2018.
We'll see. McConnell is still riding the wave of admiration for refusing to move on Merrick Garland. They won't get McConnell to move again any time soon. Since Kentucky is the state that CBO projects will lose the most from RyanCare because they have so many working poor in the 55-65 range, McConnell probably never wanted to do this to begin with. Toss in stiff opposition from Rand, Cotton, Lee, Sasse (none up for re-election in 2018) and even opposition from Cruz and Collins and Murkowski (both representing states that would lose under RyanCare) and it's just unwinnable for McConnell. So Mitch the Bitch plays the waiting game and hope it pays off a second time. In the meantime, he doesn't want any new fights (like 0care "repeal") to show up until he gets Gorsuch confirmed and a good start on the new budget, the wall, defense increases, infrastructure, and tax cuts. To McConnell, this would look like way too much for the Senate to pass anyway. Would you really be that much happier if RyanCare had failed in the Senate instead of the House?
Trump got 63% of the Kentucky popular vote based on Obamacare repeal and replace. If Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell want to tell their constituents that they have to live with Obamacare, that's up to them.
They have a lot of voters in KY who are currently in the Medicaid expansion as working poor, partially subsidized. RyanCare (supposedly) will see them going from, on average, around $3500/year to over $10K/year. Anyway, those are the figures thrown around and KY seems to be identified as the state where the most people will take a big hit to the pocketbook. Neither McConnell (up in 2020) nor Paul (up in 2022) has any great incentive to vote for something that would hit these people that hard. All politics is local.
Comments (58 - 68) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"Just bring back the Price bill from 2015 for a vote. That's all."
#18. To: misterwhite (#17)
But when the 2015 Price bill was turned into a real bill by Trump, the Freedom Caucus got cold feet.
#19. To: Tooconservative (#18)
"They are not the same."
#20. To: misterwhite (#19)
#21. To: Tooconservative (#20)
H.R.2653 — 114th Congress (2015-2016), the American Health Care Reform Act of 2015
#22. To: misterwhite (#21)
#23. To: Tooconservative (#22)
"Tort reform, interstate purchasing, and a lot of other elements aren't there"
#24. To: misterwhite (#23)
(Edited)
Where did you see "tort reform, interstate purchasing, and a lot of other elements" in the 2015 Tom Price bill?
#25. To: misterwhite (#16)
They don't know how to govern, and they're demonstrating why they shouldn't be given the power to govern.
#26. To: Tooconservative (#24)
#27. To: misterwhite (#26)
(Edited)
Uh, no. That was "tort reform, interstate purchasing, and a lot of other elements" in a 2015 Tom Price bill (HR2300)that was introduced and went nowhere.
#28. To: Tooconservative (#27)
"Just how many 0care repeal bills did Price write in 2015 anyway?"
#29. To: Tooconservative (#27)
"At any rate, the Price bill does not go far enough."
#30. To: Tooconservative (#27)
"was just so the GOP could deliver big tax cuts to the richest Americans (with a few tax cut scraps for middle-class Americans to go along with it)."
#31. To: misterwhite (#30)
#32. To: Tooconservative (#31)
"Me? I don't want any tax cuts until the national debt is paid down."
#33. To: misterwhite (#32)
#34. To: Tooconservative (#33)
"Cut government spending, not tax rates."
#35. To: misterwhite (#34)
(Edited)
#36. To: Tooconservative (#35)
For Trump's budget to mean much
#37. To: misterwhite (#36)
(Edited)
When's the last time you saw a President propose a budget like that? Yet it's not good enough for you.
#38. To: Tooconservative (#37)
"I assume you do know that it is Congress that sets spending."
#39. To: misterwhite (#38)
(Edited)
Yes. But I thought we were discussing Trump.
#40. To: Tooconservative (#39)
"And Trump doesn't even care what is in the bill."
#41. To: misterwhite (#40)
#42. To: Tooconservative (#41)
"I've only discussed RynoCare, not the upcoming budget (which doesn't exist yet)."
#43. To: misterwhite (#42)
In your post #33, you said, "Cut government spending, not tax rates."
#44. To: Tooconservative (#43)
"A president is required to propose one to indicate to Congress what he wants in the budget"
#45. To: Tooconservative (#43)
"As a general principle, sure."
#46. To: misterwhite (#44)
Correct. But he's not required to propose one with the massive cuts that Trump proposed.
#47. To: misterwhite (#45)
In the middle of a healthcare debate, you just decided to throw in overall government spending as a general principle?
#48. To: Tooconservative (#46)
The only way that the proposed budget means much"
#49. To: Tooconservative (#47)
"As it stood, it sounds like they started out wanting a $350-$400 billion tax cut but after the House worked its magic, the savings would have been down to $150-$200 billion."
#50. To: misterwhite (#48)
#51. To: Tooconservative (#47)
"for a small tax cut which would go to the richest people in America"
#52. To: Tooconservative (#50)
"I'll be impressed if Trump is willing to start vetoing bills that are far out of line from his budget. Then it will actually mean something and he will have accomplished something."
#53. To: misterwhite (#49)
So, where did you get your $150-$200 billion number?
#54. To: Tooconservative (#53)
"McConnell has declared it dead until 0care goes off the cliff"
#55. To: misterwhite (#54)
And what to people do when they're riding something that's going off a cliff? They scream. Probably loud enough to be heard in Washington, DC. Even loud enough to be heard by Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Tom Cotton and every Democrat running for reelection in 2018.
#56. To: Tooconservative (#55)
"Since Kentucky is the state that CBO projects will lose the most from RyanCare"
#57. To: misterwhite (#56)
If Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell want to tell their constituents that they have to live with Obamacare, that's up to them.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]