Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Attention Republicans in Congress: Voters Will Repeal and Replace You!
The failure to get Obamacare’s repeal and replace puts our Republican majorities in the House and Senate in danger – not from Democrat challengers, but from the wrath of angry Republican voters and Trump supporters. If any Republicans lose in 2018, I pray it’s in the primaries to an “I’m not a wuss” challenger, and that these new candidates get elected the following November. The last thing I want is a Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer.
The only chance they have now is to go for total repeal first. What we had before Obamacare was far better than what we have now. The next step would be to introduce necessary reforms to the system, the biggest (to me) being able to buy across state lines. It works for auto, home, and life insurance. All the other stuff (deregulation, high risk pools for pre-existing conditions, etc.) can be done at a later date.
Heck, I’d vote to repeal if I were in office. It ain’t so hard – they did it several times already – man up! Maybe if our elected officials in Congress were limited to one term (didn’t have to worry about reelection), they’d do the right thing . . .
Published in General
I don’t see why we would want to flush the whole Republican party for this. It seems to me that the defectors are leaking out of both ends of the body and for opposite reasons. (The metaphor is not editorial, unless you want it to be.)
Are we are supposed to blame the vast majority of the Republicans because Rand Paul and Susan Collins won’t agree? I didn’t vote for either one of them.
That’s the Cruz plan, right? As long as the company offers at least one O’care-compliant plan, they can sell any other insurance they want.
We’re on a path to it anyway.
That is one of the biggest cost reduction goals.
Eliminate the filibuster. One problem is debate never starts with the rule. Either eliminate the filibuster, or go back to the “you must actually speak” rule the way it used to be. If the second path is chosen, then a rule would have to be made that the debate has to be substantive, not reading pages from Grimm’s Fairy Tales.
I read a very good speech about restoring the filibuster in Hillsdale’s Imprimus digest. There were reasonable rules in place limiting the duration of the filibuster, as I recall, which allowed the minority to have its say (and, presumably, try to persuade), but eventually there would be a vote.
I don’t see how the Republicans have anything to lose by restoring the rules. Democrats already have their work-around (the sleight of hand that was Obamacare passage by reconciliation). When you’re opponent is willing to do whatever it takes to advance the welfare state, it’s time to play tough.
We could solve 90% of the government-induced problems in this country by passing one simple law:
Congress, all other branches of government, and all Federal employees are subject to the same rules as the rest of us.
“Attention Republicans in Congress: Voters Will Repeal and Replace You!”
No they won’t. There seems to be a curious refusal to acknowledge the fact that congresspeople do what their voters want. In this case the voters are wrong and perniciously stupid, but responding to voters is what these people do for a job and they’re pretty good at it.
They are on Obamacare now, right? I know their staff is.
That bit about no special privileges is already enshrined in the Constitution.
Then how did Obamacare get passed in the first place?
A good idea. Agreed. Similarly, if Congress can’t come up with a balanced budget their paychecks should be withheld. But who does that? Congress certainly won’t be hard on themselves. Maybe an All-Volunteer Citizens Congressional Oversight Committee that governs Congressional behavior.
I confused here. Have Paul, Lee and Johnson said they will vote against repeal?
Why does this myth still persist? The vast majority of Obamacare was passed with 60 votes in the Senate. When Scott Brown was elected the Democrats lost the 60th vote but they still had passed Obamacare beforehand. The House was forced to pass the bill that was passed in the Senate without amendment. They were promised some changes that were possible under Reconciliation if they did so. Then a separate bill with changes to the law were passed under Reconciliation.
Obamacare was not passed by reconciliation. Please stop spreading falsehoods.
Okay, I hate to quote myself. However, a friend at work pointed out that the mandatory minimum coverage requirements are also a big obstacle to lowering premiums. In hindsight, I should have said these two things . . .
They said they would vote against the only bill proposed yet that could possibly pass the Senate. Let’s not confuse support for a full repeal (pipedream) with support for a change from the status quo. Let’s be clear, insisting on full repeal or nothing leaves us with the status quo. I say that as someone who would love to see either a full repeal or the bill Sen. Rand Paul proposed a few months ago. However, I’m also realistic about what is possible. Expecting Senators from states whose voters don’t want full repeal to vote for a full repeal is unrealistic thinking.
I agree about pulling the Congressional health insurance, especially applying ObamaCare to Congress as was in the law but end-run by Rand Paul and Harry Reid.
But there is no way that you can simply repeal and not provide some kind of fix. That horse left the barn in about 1990, and the barn burned down in 2010. Republicans can’t address this issue till they stop leaning into the Democrat punches by talking as though they want to eliminate health care for everyone who doesn’t get insurance through an employer.
The Republican eternally dominant green eyeshade choleric accountant cannot be the image presented by the reformers.
Finally, we need to stop pretending that costs will go down if the insurers are squeezed- they are not the ones pushing up expenses; you can’t push 30% of the expenses out of the system by going after those who make 5% on sales. The alleged free market conservatives provide crony capitalist goodies to the doctors, hospitals, pharmas, and device manufacturers, which anti-competitive enablements cause most of the cost problem.
I don’t think either of these senators would holdout as the deciding vote on a bill that can pass.
Rand Paul 6 months ago: Repeal and replace Obamacare on the same day.
Rand Paul now: Pass a clean repeal bill.
Do you wanna re-evaluate your last statement?
Mike Lee wouldn’t have to be the deciding vote. He got Sen. Moran (sp?) from Kansas to come out against it on the same day. He’s not the deciding vote any more. You see how he did that? Magic!
He was a Never even through the general. There are still those Republicans who will oppose anything that will make Trump look good, even to the detriment of the country. It’s a crying out loud shame.
This is why it needs to be a full and clean repeal. As Paul says then put together the replace bill and get Democrats to sign on.
These are the liars that give me the most heartburn. The Senators who voted full repeal last term but now won’t do that when it means something. I don’t care if it’s a pipe dream, they need to go on the record.
Not just that, Mike Lee is stupid. If he truly has no principles other than opposing Donald Trump he should have criticized Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord instead of defending that action. And he’s so confused that he was solidly behind Trump’s Supreme Court pick, Neil Gorsuch. Or an alternate explanation is that Mike Lee has some principles and he came down against Obamacare Lite because he thought we can do much better, and not because he’s just trying to diminish President Trump’s reputation.
Sure.
I don’t really care what Mike Lee’s motives are; none of us are getting a tax cut until this dog of a bill passes. If it passes we at least get a tax cut and chances are the health care market is stabilized and single payer is post-poned. If it doesn’t pass the health care market is in chaos and there’s a good chance we get single payer soon. I’m a poker player; I don’t mind risk, but I prefer to go in with the best hand. Obamacare-lite or whatever you wanna call it is a better hand than Obamacare. Maybe we come out ahead politically with collapse and replace, but it’s a total crapshoot.
Normally, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. But after listening to Drew Klavan responding to the heat he’s taken for criticizing Rand Paul, I’m less inclined to give these whole-loafers credit for being principled.
Remember, Ron Paul always bragged about never voting for earmarks. That was a luxury he had, because he knew certain spending bills had to pass, so he’d earmark the snot out of them and then vote “no” while everyone else took the hit for overspending on earmarks by passing the bill. Maybe the apple doesn’t fall so far from the tree.
Every time we get close to actually accomplishing some incremental improvement, Rand Paul moves the goalpost. I’m beginning to think the only dissenter with any integrity about her principles is Susan Collins. At least she admits her constituents don’t want to overturn Obamacare and she’s representing them (in order to keep their votes). Paul is doing the same, but couching in terms of conservative “principles.”
I’m not impressed. In fact, I’m disgusted. Same with Lee. I first knew he wasn’t as principled as he claims when I saw his behavior on the floor of the nominating convention. He’s become what he hates.
This is why Republicans are the stupid party. The Left understands incrementalism. Republicans can’t even make it to the first notch of the ratchet. Weak. Sad. Losers.
I agree. One of the things Rush has pointed out on his show is Trump has demonstrated (and to some extent, Obama) that having a lengthy political resume is no guarantee voters will put you into office. I think the biggest worry of career politicians in both parties these days is that now, many voters look at having a lengthy political resume is a negative, rather than a positive.
And let’s face it. I don’t think the Founding Fathers ever envisioned a professional political class ever developing. They believed in citizen legislators who would couldn’t wait to get out of office and go back home to their real jobs. Instead, we get career politicians of both parties who exempt themselves from every law the rest of us have to follow.
I agree about the original desirability of citizen rather than career politicians, but, in all fairness, the original 13 colonies weren’t all that far from the capital and in the same time zone. Today’s politicians can come, for example, from Anchorage or Honolulu to Washington D.C. for their commute, four time zones and thousands of miles away. They are required to have offices and residences in their home state and the same in D.C. The financial investment alone makes it tough unless you have considerable resources. It’s further complicated for people with families and young children in school. All this lends itself to spending more time in Washington and the inevitable “Potomac Fever.” It’s interesting to note the number of former politicians who, rather than returning to the state that originally sent them there, wind up staying in D.C. and taking jobs such as lobbyists. etc.