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: 18113
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 52.
#4. To: All, misterwhite (#0)
Notice Jordan saying here that the House Freedom Caucus was united on starting with the 2015 bill passed in both chambers and then following up with another 'replace' bill. But Ryan refused to offer the House the same bill written by Tom Price. Because it was the RINOs who wouldn't vote for it again. The Freedom Caucus was ready before and is still ready to vote for the 2015 Price bill.
Again. What's the difference between the 2015 Price bill and what Trump proposed? Nothing. So I don't believe you or the Freedom Caucus. As Ted Poe said, they'd vote against the Ten Commandments.
Fine. Bring it back for a vote and we'll find out who the chickenshit hypocrites in the House GOP really are. I'd bet the Freedom Caucus people would have no problem voting for it again. It's the RINOs that wouldn't vote for it. I think it was likely the RINOs that were going to spike it if it came to a vote. On the Wall Street Jornal Report, an hour show on FNC on Saturday, one of their younger (fortyish) reporters had followed this and had a lot of contacts with House aides (he claimed). He said the RINOs were unhappy with it all along with a number of them looking for a reason to desert. As the Freedom Caucus kept insisting on the various repeal provisions (as they had all along), the RINOs got madder. The reporter said that by the time Ryan called Trump to let him cancel the bill, they didn't even have 100 votes left in favor of it. It wasn't just a loss by a few votes in the House, something they would have tried for like they did with the Pill Bill in 2004. It was an utter humiliation because they wanted to pass their own 0bamaCare but one that screwed a lot of working-class people in Red states to punish them for being dumb enough to trust Republicans would do what they campaigned for.
How would that be any different than if the Freedom Caucus got their way and wrote the bill? That's what you want, right? Hardcore repeal and replace, slash and burn, out with the old and in with the new?
Just bring back the Price bill from 2015 for a vote. That's all. It passed both chambers then. And again in a veto override attempt. Pass it again.
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:
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.
"... 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.
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.
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".
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.
And I'll be impressed when we put astronauts on Mars. In the meantime, it looks as though we'll both have to wait.
There are no replies to Comment # 52. End Trace Mode for Comment # 52.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#10. To: Tooconservative (#4)
"The Freedom Caucus was ready before and is still ready to vote for the 2015 Price bill."
#11. To: misterwhite (#10)
What's the difference between the 2015 Price bill and what Trump proposed? Nothing.
#12. To: Tooconservative (#11)
"The reporter said that by the time Ryan called Trump to let him cancel the bill, they didn't even have 100 votes left in favor of it."
#15. To: misterwhite (#12)
(Edited)
How would that be any different than if the Freedom Caucus got their way and wrote the bill? That's what you want, right? Hardcore repeal and replace, slash and burn, out with the old and in with the new?
#17. To: Tooconservative (#15)
"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?
#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.
#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"
#46. To: misterwhite (#44)
Correct. But he's not required to propose one with the massive cuts that Trump proposed.
#48. To: Tooconservative (#46)
The only way that the proposed budget means much"
#50. To: misterwhite (#48)
#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."
Replies to Comment # 52.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]