PDA

View Full Version : Did Amash just vote for Obamcare lite?




Matt Collins
05-04-2017, 01:03 PM
Why did Amash just vote for Obamacare lite?



http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll256.xml

Brett85
05-04-2017, 01:07 PM
I hope he voted for it, because the bill is better than what we have now, and incremental change is certainly better than keeping Obamacare in its current form. It was the moderate/liberal Republicans who voted against it.

r3volution 3.0
05-04-2017, 01:08 PM
Rumors on Facebook that Amash just voted for Obamacare lite.

Can anyone confirm or deny this? :confused:

Appears so

Can't find the full vote tally, but this (http://The only Freedom Caucus member to ultimately vote against the bill was Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs. Liberty Caucus members Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Walter Jones of North Carolina, who frequently vote against leadership, also opposed the bill. http://www.rollcall.com/news/politic...ampaign=buffer) article mentions that only one member of the Freedom Caucus (not Amash) voted against it.

Massie and Walter Jones also voted against it.

Rand's just commented critically on it.

Matt Collins
05-04-2017, 01:08 PM
I hope he voted for it, because the bill is better than what we have now, and incremental change is certainly better than keeping Obamacare in its current form. It was the moderate/liberal Republicans who voted against it.
Wrong!


Real conservaitve / constitutionalist / libertarians voted against it... (Massie)

jllundqu
05-04-2017, 01:09 PM
We will see what the Senate and Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and others have to say about this mess. Hopefully Rand Paul's bill is the one that has most traction and they squish his and the house bill together...

Brett85
05-04-2017, 01:10 PM
Wrong!


Real conservaitve / constitutionalist / libertarians voted against it... (Massie)

A "no" vote was a vote to keep Obamacare in its current form forever. I agree with Amash over Massie on this one.

Brett85
05-04-2017, 01:14 PM
Hopefully Rand Paul's bill is the one that has most traction and they squish his and the house bill together...

Rand's bill has zero chance of passing Congress. Why can no one ever be realistic about anything?

Matt Collins
05-04-2017, 01:14 PM
A "no" vote was a vote to keep Obamacare in its current form forever. Incorrect once again. This was a vote for RepublicanCare as opposed to Obamacare. This is going back on promises and not repealing it and keeping most of it. Not to mention violating the Constitution

Brian4Liberty
05-04-2017, 01:15 PM
A "no" vote was a vote to keep Obamacare in its current form forever. I agree with Amash over Massie on this one.

Another lesser of two evils choice.

jllundqu
05-04-2017, 01:15 PM
A "no" vote was a vote to keep Obamacare in its current form forever. I agree with Amash over Massie on this one.

There's differing views on that. A no vote would keep the blame of the failure of Obamacare on the democrats. And seeing as this is NOT a full repeal but more of a tinker with the current system, I think a no vote is fully justified as keeping a campaign promise, on the other hand, this is the best bill that they could get out of the House, so now it's up to the Senate where I think more free market concessions will be gained.

Ron Paul would have voted NO, that's for sure.

CPUd
05-04-2017, 01:16 PM
Amash was one of the last ones to vote on it. Maybe he wanted to pass it so he could see what's in it.

Brian4Liberty
05-04-2017, 01:18 PM
Incorrect once again. This was a vote for RepublicanCare as opposed to Obamacare. This is going back on promises and not repealing it and keeping most of it. Not to mention violating the Constitution

Blame the socialist RINOs who lied.

r3volution 3.0
05-04-2017, 01:19 PM
Amash was one of the last ones to vote on it. Maybe he wanted to pass it so he could see what's in it.

That disturbs me more than the vote itself...

...suggests he was willing to vote Nay only if it was going to pass anyway.

I hope I'm dead wrong about that.

r3volution 3.0
05-04-2017, 01:25 PM
A "no" vote was a vote to keep Obamacare in its current form forever. I agree with Amash over Massie on this one.

Suppose that in a few years time Trumpcare is collapsing and even more unpopular than Obmacare.

If all Republicans had voted for it, who would have the 'mandate' to make the next 'reform'?

William Tell
05-04-2017, 01:27 PM
A "no" vote was a vote to keep Obamacare in its current form forever. I agree with Amash over Massie on this one.

Bullshit.

Brett85
05-04-2017, 01:28 PM
Another lesser of two evils choice.

That's what the choice usually is if you're a politician. But logically it certainly makes sense to support legislation that at least reduces the damage that was caused by previous legislation.

Brett85
05-04-2017, 01:29 PM
Bull$#@!.

It's not. Full repeal has zero chance of passing Congress.

CPUd
05-04-2017, 01:31 PM
A lot of pissed off people blowing up his facebook page right now

Brian4Liberty
05-04-2017, 01:32 PM
Oh well. The pragmatic and draconian solutions that would actually work by enabling competition will never be considered.

- Full repeal of Obamacare.
- Allow full competition across state and international lines for insurance.
- Remove barriers to competition for actual health care providers, especially cash only providers.
- Break the employer/health insurance market distortion. Employers will no longer be able to provide health insurance. Everyone pays for their own, or NONE if they choose.
- Remove barriers to generic and international drugs.
- Pre-tax health savings accounts (HSA) for direct payment of actual healthcare or drugs. No payments from HSA for insurance or pre-paid medical plans.

William Tell
05-04-2017, 01:33 PM
It's not. Full repeal has zero chance of passing Congress.

It is bullshit. Because Trump and the RINO's said the last vote was the only chance or else keep Obamacare. The fact that this came up for a vote today shows that's bullshit.

Brett85
05-04-2017, 01:40 PM
A lot of pissed off people blowing up his facebook page right now

The vast majority of them are liberals.

Brett85
05-04-2017, 01:41 PM
It is bull$#@!. Because Trump and the RINO's said the last vote was the only chance or else keep Obamacare. The fact that this came up for a vote today shows that's bull$#@!.

Well, partial repeal of some sort is all that can pass. The moderate/liberal Republicans only voted for full repeal when Obama was President because it didn't actually mean anything.

nikcers
05-04-2017, 01:52 PM
You guys are not looking at the big picture, Amash is just playing 4d chess in order to get rid of Paul Ryan.

shakey1
05-04-2017, 01:53 PM
Get the Gooberment out of it altogether.

r3volution 3.0
05-04-2017, 01:56 PM
You guys are not looking at the big picture, Amash is just playing 4d chess in order to get rid of Paul Ryan.

https://i.giphy.com/natRqdznmPNNS.gif

jllundqu
05-04-2017, 01:57 PM
You guys are not looking at the big picture, Amash is just playing 4d chess in order to get rid of Paul Ryan.

I see what you did there

Dr.3D
05-04-2017, 01:59 PM
I don't get it.

Congress voted to abolish Obamacare, back when Obama was president and he vetoed it. What has happened that they can't send the same bill to Trump?

CPUd
05-04-2017, 01:59 PM
It has something to do with the Upton amendment. All the MI reps voted yes.

EBounding
05-04-2017, 02:07 PM
This is a colossal fail for Amash. Even if it is incrementally better, there's no way he or his staff had time to read the whole thing.

r3volution 3.0
05-04-2017, 02:14 PM
This is a colossal fail for Amash. Even if it is incrementally better, there's no way he or his staff had time to read the whole thing.

I'm 99.99% certain he's not gone over to the 'dark side,' but he definitely fucked up, judgment fail.

Brett85
05-04-2017, 02:16 PM
This is a colossal fail for Amash. Even if it is incrementally better, there's no way he or his staff had time to read the whole thing.

It's like 100-150 pages. You could read that in one sitting.

kcchiefs6465
05-04-2017, 02:20 PM
I don't get it.

Congress voted to abolish Obamacare, back when Obama was president and he vetoed it. What has happened that they can't send the same bill to Trump?
Well you see, they are a bunch of whores.

r3volution 3.0
05-04-2017, 02:40 PM
Well you see, they are a bunch of whores.

https://i.imgur.com/f7FdEdG.jpg

TheCount
05-04-2017, 02:56 PM
It's like 100-150 pages. You could read that in one sitting.It's 150 pages of changes to the original law, which means that for every paragraph that amends an old paragraph, you have to go look at what the old one says side by side with what the new one says. It's effectively the same length as Obamacare.

afwjam
05-04-2017, 03:47 PM
This is a bunch of bullshit.

Brett85
05-04-2017, 04:14 PM
It's 150 pages of changes to the original law, which means that for every paragraph that amends an old paragraph, you have to go look at what the old one says side by side with what the new one says. It's effectively the same length as Obamacare.

Hmmm. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the bill repeals Obamacare and then replaces it with this 150 page bill. (And the replacement bill includes some of the provisions in the original bill, such as allowing "kids" to stay on their parents insurance until age 26, and what knot.)

Feeding the Abscess
05-04-2017, 04:50 PM
Amash voted for increased North Korean sanctions today, too.

Massie was the lone dissenting vote.

William Tell
05-04-2017, 05:08 PM
Amash voted for increased North Korean sanctions today, too.

Massie was the lone dissenting vote.
WTH

Feeding the Abscess
05-04-2017, 05:16 PM
Massie's fan club should be named The Unwashed Massies.

William Tell
05-04-2017, 05:34 PM
Heh.

860274285520310272

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/860274285520310272

Matt Collins
05-04-2017, 05:38 PM
Amash voted for increased North Korean sanctions today, too.

Massie was the lone dissenting vote.
Damn... what the hell is wrong with this guy?


http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll257.xml

Brett85
05-04-2017, 05:39 PM
Heh.

860274285520310272

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/860274285520310272

Almost all of the comments are from liberals who call him "heartless" for voting in favor of the bill. That tells you everything you need to know.

https://twitter.com/molly_knight/status/860276834188967936

https://twitter.com/molly_knight/status/860275426798718976

https://twitter.com/kellydraper/status/860277151442120708

https://twitter.com/3fecta/status/860274799154692096

Superfluous Man
05-04-2017, 05:47 PM
I hope he voted for it, because the bill is better than what we have now, and incremental change is certainly better than keeping Obamacare in its current form. It was the moderate/liberal Republicans who voted against it.

That's what you said a couple months ago about the bill he voted against. And now, if you're right about this bill, he was right to vote against the last one so that he could vote for this one instead.

Superfluous Man
05-04-2017, 05:47 PM
Almost all of the comments are from liberals who call him "heartless" for voting in favor of the bill. That tells you everything you need to know.

No it doesn't.

William Tell
05-04-2017, 05:49 PM
Almost all of the comments are from liberals who call him "heartless" for voting in favor of the bill. That tells you everything you need to know.

https://twitter.com/molly_knight/status/860276834188967936

https://twitter.com/molly_knight/status/860275426798718976

https://twitter.com/kellydraper/status/860277151442120708

https://twitter.com/3fecta/status/860274799154692096
Lol so he should have voted for RyanCare last time and supported the Iraq war because the liberals didn't like them?

Brett85
05-04-2017, 05:57 PM
That's what you said a couple months ago about the bill he voted against. And now, if you're right about this bill, he was right to vote against the last one so that he could vote for this one instead.

But this bill really has no chance to pass the Senate because it's too conservative. If a bill passes the Senate, it will be much less conservative than this one.

Krugminator2
05-04-2017, 06:20 PM
Just took a look at his social media, it funny watching drooling slobs melt down over this.

I don't agree with the vote but whatever. It is kind of amazing how worked up people get. It looks like Jim Jordan and Mulvaney were pretty adamant that he vote for the bill. There are always a lot of considerations on these votes. Just not a big deal. I think the only way to avoid a filibuster is to pass this bill and perhaps there is some consideration that it will be improved in the Senate. Although I do have to say, this bill looks like it is pretty loathsome to every political group.

anaconda
05-04-2017, 06:36 PM
I hope he voted for it, because the bill is better than what we have now, and incremental change is certainly better than keeping Obamacare in its current form. It was the moderate/liberal Republicans who voted against it.

Better to keep it and let it crash and burn in this faux partisan tyranny.

anaconda
05-04-2017, 06:40 PM
But this bill really has no chance to pass the Senate because it's too conservative. If a bill passes the Senate, it will be much less conservative than this one.

Can't get too much less conservative or the Jordan/Paul/Lee coalition will again voice their opposition.

Brett85
05-04-2017, 06:42 PM
Can't get too much less conservative or the Jordan/Paul/Lee coalition will again voice their opposition.

Yeah, that's what will happen. The Senate will water down the bill, and then the house Freedom Caucus will announce their opposition to the watered down bill. The GOP won't be able to pass anything, and we'll be stuck with Obamacare forever.

anaconda
05-04-2017, 06:46 PM
The GOP won't be able to pass anything, and we'll be stuck with Obamacare forever.

Let it burn, baby.

anaconda
05-04-2017, 06:49 PM
Yeah, that's what will happen. The Senate will water down the bill, and then the house Freedom Caucus will announce their opposition to the watered down bill. The GOP won't be able to pass anything, and we'll be stuck with Obamacare forever.

Paul, Lee, and Jordan should come out full sarcasm and announce that they've had a complete change of heart, now fully endorse the Democratic sponsored law known as Obamacare, and therefore cannot in good conscience vote for the Republican Healthcare Bill.

Matt Collins
05-04-2017, 09:14 PM
Yeah, that's what will happen. The Senate will water down the bill, and then the house Freedom Caucus will announce their opposition to the watered down bill. The GOP won't be able to pass anything, and we'll be stuck with Obamacare forever.You don't win by compromising.

Superfluous Man
05-04-2017, 09:52 PM
Yeah, that's what will happen. The Senate will water down the bill, and then the house Freedom Caucus will announce their opposition to the watered down bill. The GOP won't be able to pass anything, and we'll be stuck with Obamacare forever.

You are much too optimistic. There is definitely a chance that the Republicans' attempt to make things worse will succeed.

CPUd
05-05-2017, 01:06 AM
860278513286381568
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/860278513286381568

angelatc
05-05-2017, 01:17 AM
No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

angelatc
05-05-2017, 01:18 AM
But this bill really has no chance to pass the Senate because it's too conservative. If a bill passes the Senate, it will be much less conservative than this one.

Thats how we got obamacare

Brett85
05-05-2017, 08:01 AM
You don't win by compromising.

Politics is all about compromise. That's the way our political system works. It's the only way you can actually govern. I guess you would oppose a bill that cuts tax rates from 20% to 15% just because it wouldn't completely abolish the IRS.

William Tell
05-05-2017, 08:09 AM
Politics is all about compromise. That's the way our political system works. It's the only way you can actually govern. I guess you would oppose a bill that cuts tax rates from 20% to 15% just because it wouldn't completely abolish the IRS.

There's a difference between reducing something bad and replacing it with something also bad. Like Rand pointed out this puts the GOP on the record as supporting subsidies of Insurance Companies. It would be like if they repealed part of a gun ban and at the same time voted for another gun ban. Not cool. Not the same as reducing regulations and funding.

Superfluous Man
05-05-2017, 08:15 AM
Politics is all about compromise. That's the way our political system works. It's the only way you can actually govern.

Who cares about actually governing and continuing to prop up the way this crooked political system works? Nothing good comes of these stupid compromises.

When Obama was president the Republican Congress passed a clean Obamacare repeal. They could have passed that same bill just by getting the people who already voted for it to vote for it again. And if they're not willing to vote for it, it should have been brought up for a vote just to make them go on record with their hypocrisy.

Superfluous Man
05-05-2017, 08:15 AM
There's a difference between reducing something bad and replacing it with something also bad. Like Rand pointed out this puts the GOP on the record as supporting subsidies of Insurance Companies. It would be like if they repealed part of a gun ban and at the same time voted for another gun ban. Not cool. Not the same as reducing regulations and funding.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to William Tell again."

Brett85
05-05-2017, 08:42 AM
There's a difference between reducing something bad and replacing it with something also bad. Like Rand pointed out this puts the GOP on the record as supporting subsidies of Insurance Companies. It would be like if they repealed part of a gun ban and at the same time voted for another gun ban. Not cool. Not the same as reducing regulations and funding.

If this bill does actually contain subsidies for insurance companies, then I don't have any problem with Rand trying to get rid of that provision and trying to make the bill better. But I just disagree with this whole idea that it either has to be full repeal or nothing at all.

angelatc
05-05-2017, 09:00 AM
Oh well. The pragmatic and draconian solutions that would actually work by enabling competition will never be considered.


- Allow full competition across state and international lines for insurance.

.

The only thing stopping that is states' rights. You already know what happened when they federalized the banks, so careful what you wish for.

Matt Collins
05-05-2017, 09:47 AM
Politics is all about compromise. That's the way our political system works. It's the only way you can actually govern. I guess you would oppose a bill that cuts tax rates from 20% to 15% just because it wouldn't completely abolish the IRS.You have obviously never studied political strategy. You demand 100% and don't accept anything else. You force the opposition to move your direction.

jllundqu
05-05-2017, 09:59 AM
Politics is all about compromise. That's the way our political system works. It's the only way you can actually govern. I guess you would oppose a bill that cuts tax rates from 20% to 15% just because it wouldn't completely abolish the IRS.

Do you even Ron Paul, bro? Dr. Paul would have voted no on this steaming pile of shit and you know it.

Brian4Liberty
05-05-2017, 10:02 AM
The only thing stopping that is states' rights. You already know what happened when they federalized the banks, so careful what you wish for.

They have been oh so careful about states rights up till now. As an alternative, I'd be ok with just banning insurance altogether. ;)

afwjam
05-05-2017, 11:11 AM
His office says he will release a statment. Keep calling.

Dr.3D
05-05-2017, 11:15 AM
Insurance that is required by the state is nothing more than socialism.

Everybody is required to put money into the system and only those who can't afford to pay get the rewards.

CaptUSA
05-05-2017, 11:21 AM
His office says he will release a statment. Keep calling.

Reports from yesterday were that he held his nose while voting and immediately regretted it. The characterization was that he came out like, "what the hell did I just do?!"

These are the kinds of things that can happen when they rush through a bill without a chance to read and consider it. I feel bad for Justin. They caught him on this one. I hope it doesn't ruin him because he's one of the best we got.

afwjam
05-05-2017, 11:30 AM
Reports from yesterday were that he held his nose while voting and immediately regretted it. The characterization was that he came out like, "what the hell did I just do?!"

These are the kinds of things that can happen when they rush through a bill without a chance to read and consider it. I feel bad for Justin. They caught him on this one. I hope it doesn't ruin him because he's one of the best we got.

Did he hold his nose for the North Korea vote too?

William Tell
05-05-2017, 12:04 PM
Reports from yesterday were that he held his nose while voting and immediately regretted it. The characterization was that he came out like, "what the hell did I just do?!"

These are the kinds of things that can happen when they rush through a bill without a chance to read and consider it. I feel bad for Justin. They caught him on this one. I hope it doesn't ruin him because he's one of the best we got.

He's not helping anything by saying he considered it carefully. A lot of people are mad at him and some are even done with him. A shame.

860278513286381568
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/860278513286381568

860332086464581633
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/860332086464581633

This is the problem with throwing in with a group like the Freedom Caucus. You might have good goals but the group mentality can change who you are. :(

Brett85
05-05-2017, 05:01 PM
Do you even Ron Paul, bro? Dr. Paul would have voted no on this steaming pile of $#@! and you know it.

I agree with Ron Paul's position that the federal government shouldn't be involved in healthcare. I just disagree with him in regards to how to get there. I'm not opposed to making incremental progress towards that goal.

jllundqu
05-05-2017, 05:08 PM
Is Ron Paul the only true libertarian?

Didn't say he was but you are on RPF... he earned respect for his principled defense of the constitution over and over. You seem to be in the "go along to get along" compromise crowd.... THAT is how we got here. Bit by bit, the constitution was chipped away. Justin just voted IN FAVOR of:

Massive Insurance company bailouts
New MASSIVE entitlement program (in the form of massive unfunded tax credits)
Mandates
Taxes
...

But more importantly, Justin just voted for the IDEA that GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN HEALTHCARE. He just signed his name on the dotted line for something the progressives have been working to convince the public about for many decades.... it is now only a matter of time before there is a complete government takeover of the system.

This was a mistake. Amash made a terrible mistake.

Brett85
05-05-2017, 05:27 PM
But more importantly, Justin just voted for the IDEA that GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN HEALTHCARE.

No, he didn't. He voted for the idea that the government should get out of the healthcare business incrementally, one step at a time. We aren't going to just wake up one day and all of a sudden Congress votes to pass a bill doing away with all government involvement in healthcare. It doesn't work that way.

Brett85
05-05-2017, 05:29 PM
If every bill that contains any level of government involvement in healthcare at all has to be opposed, then even Rand Paul's bill would have to be voted down. Rand's bill was better than Paul Ryan's but wasn't perfect and didn't get the federal government out of healthcare.

Brett85
05-05-2017, 06:31 PM
You seem to be in the "go along to get along" compromise crowd.

I don't believe in "going along to get along." Heck, I would've voted with Massie against enacting sanctions against North Korea. I just support the idea of taking what we can get and repealing as much of Obamacare as what can actually pass Congress.

William Tell
05-05-2017, 06:46 PM
Oh crap, Justin made the Onion.


WASHINGTON—Hours after casting his vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with the GOP-authored American Health Care Act, Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) reportedly terrified his constituents even further Friday by assuring them he had read every word of the newly passed healthcare bill. “I made sure to read the AHCA bill line by line before I went up to the rostrum to vote Yea,” said Amash in a chilling statement, which according to reports caused the blood to drain from the faces of all 700,000 constituents of his Western Michigan district. “After acquainting myself with each of the provisions of this new bill and carefully reviewing every section, I was able to make the [extremely frightening] decision to support it. I think it’s important to be informed on the issues.” At press time, residents of Michigan’s 3rd district were reportedly frozen in fear after Amash stated that he would be displeased if the Senate voted to remove any parts of the bill.




http://www.theonion.com/article/republican-congressman-terrifies-constituents-even-55936

Brett85
05-05-2017, 06:51 PM
The bill is "just like Obamacare." Not.


The American Health Care Act (HR 1628) passed by the House today reduces taxes on the American people by over $1 trillion. The bill abolishes the following taxes imposed by Obama and the Democrat party in 2010 as part of Obamacare:

-Abolishes the Obamacare Individual Mandate Tax which hits 8 million Americans each year.

-Abolishes the Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax. Together with repeal of the Individual Mandate Tax repeal this is a $270 billion tax cut.

-Abolishes Obamacare’s Medicine Cabinet Tax which hits 20 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts and 30 million Americans with Flexible Spending Accounts. This is a $6 billion tax cut.

-Abolishes Obamacare’s Flexible Spending Account tax on 30 million Americans. This is a $20 billion tax cut.

-Abolishes Obamacare’s Chronic Care Tax on 10 million Americans with high out of pocket medical expenses. This is a $126 billion tax cut.

-Abolishes Obamacare’s HSA withdrawal tax. This is a $100 million tax cut.

-Abolishes Obamacare’s 10% excise tax on small businesses with indoor tanning services. This is a $600 million tax cut.

-Abolishes the Obamacare health insurance tax. This is a $145 billion tax cut.

-Abolishes the Obamacare 3.8% surtax on investment income. This is a $172 billion tax cut.

-Abolishes the Obamacare medical device tax. This is a $20 billion tax cut.

-Abolishes the Obamacare tax on prescription medicine. This is a $28 billion tax cut.

-Abolishes the Obamacare tax on retiree prescription drug coverage. This is a $2 billion tax cut.

http://www.atr.org/list-obamacare-taxes-repealed?utm_content=bufferb13fb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

tsai3904
05-05-2017, 07:16 PM
This is the problem with throwing in with a group like the Freedom Caucus. You might have good goals but the group mentality can change who you are. :(

It shouldn't have been a surprise that Amash voted for the bill. The Freedom Caucus has a rule that if over 80% of the members endorse a position (which they did in support of this bill), they will all vote as a bloc.

Occam's Banana
05-05-2017, 08:05 PM
It shouldn't have been a surprise that Amash voted for the bill. The Freedom Caucus has a rule that if over 80% of the members endorse a position (which they did in support of this bill), they will all vote as a bloc.

I wonder if this is the reason (or one of the reasons) why Thomas Massie is not a member of the House Freedom Caucus.

If so, then I respect him all the more because of it ...

Matt Collins
05-05-2017, 10:13 PM
The bill is "just like Obamacare." Not.



http://www.atr.org/list-obamacare-taxes-repealed?utm_content=bufferb13fb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
ATR is a bunch of establishment shills who support tax increases. They can't be trusted.

Krugminator2
05-05-2017, 10:26 PM
ATR is a bunch of establishment shills who support tax increases. They can't be trusted.


Grover Norquist is more libertarian than 90% of the people who voted for Ron Paul. He does not support tax hikes. That group IS an establishment organization which should be seen as a positive. A radical libertarian has the ear of almost every Republican lawmaker.

loveshiscountry
05-06-2017, 04:08 PM
A current bill has taxes at 20 percent. The replacement bill has taxes at 10 percent. The replacement is less offensive so one should vote for it imo.

It reminds me of when I first got involved in politics around 2007. The time line was when Boobus was complaining about Edwards paying $300 for a haircut. The democrats were debating and Obama, who wanted a cap on interest rates companies could charge said he didn't like the cap which is why he didn't vote for it. So Edwards, laughing at Obama said, "So you'd rather have no cap at all?".

William Tell
05-06-2017, 04:42 PM
It shouldn't have been a surprise that Amash voted for the bill. The Freedom Caucus has a rule that if over 80% of the members endorse a position (which they did in support of this bill), they will all vote as a bloc.

Well, Andy Biggs the freshman from AZ saw through the suicide pact and voted no. I wonder if they will kick him out of their little club. Giving your voting card to Jim Jordan isn't much smarter than giving it to Paul Ryan. The Freedom Caucus has done some good things but Amash has lost a ton of support and even more respect from both the grassroots and the independents he's been courting.

Brett85
05-06-2017, 04:46 PM
The Freedom Caucus has done some good things but Amash has lost a ton of support and even more respect from both the grassroots and the independents he's been courting.

"The independents" are just the people you see on his twitter page who say stuff like "You awful person, you just voted to kill people." A libertarian can't ever get the support of people who believe in socialism and government force.

William Tell
05-06-2017, 04:50 PM
"The independents" are just the people you see on his twitter page who say stuff like "You awful person, you just voted to kill people." A libertarian can't ever get the support of people who believe in socialism and government force.
I'm talking about the hundreds of people who go to his town halls and don't always agree but respected him. Now they think he's just Trump shill and will be more likely to actively support a challenger.

But more importantly the grassroots who put him there and gave to his moneybombs.

Brett85
05-06-2017, 08:09 PM
https://www.facebook.com/justinamash/posts/1411436255562443


This is not the bill we promised the American people. For the past seven years, Republicans have run for Congress on a commitment to repeal Obamacare. But it is increasingly clear that a bill to repeal Obamacare will not come to the floor in this Congress or in the foreseeable future.
When Republican leaders first unveiled the American Health Care Act, a Democratic friend and colleague joked to me that the bill wasn’t a new health care proposal; it was plagiarism. He was right.
The AHCA repeals fewer than 10 percent of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act. It is an amendment to the ACA that deliberately maintains Obamacare’s framework. It reformulates but keeps tax credits to subsidize premiums. Instead of an individual mandate to purchase insurance, it mandates a premium surcharge of 30 percent for one year following a lapse of coverage. And the bill continues to preserve coverage for dependents up to age 26 and people with pre-existing conditions.
I want to emphasize that last point. The bill does not change the ACA’s federal requirements on guaranteed issue (prohibition on policy denial), essential health benefits (minimum coverage), or community rating (prohibition on pricing based on health status). In short, Obamacare’s pre-existing conditions provisions are retained.
The latest version of the AHCA does allow any state to seek a waiver from certain insurance mandates, but such waivers are limited in scope. Guaranteed issue cannot be waived. Nobody can be treated differently based on gender. And any person who has continuous coverage—no lapse for more than 62 days—cannot be charged more regardless of health status.
Consider what this means: Even in a state that waives as much as possible, a person with a pre-existing condition cannot be prevented from purchasing insurance at the same rate as a healthy person. The only requirement is that the person with the pre-existing condition get coverage—any insurer, any plan—within 62 days of losing any prior coverage.
If a person chooses not to get coverage within 62 days, then that person can be charged more (or less) based on health status for up to one year, but only (1) in lieu of the 30 percent penalty (see above), (2) if the person lives in a state that has established a program to assist individuals with pre-existing conditions, and (3) if that state has sought and obtained the relevant waiver. Here in Michigan, our Republican governor has already stated he won’t seek such a waiver, according to reports.
So why are both parties exaggerating the effects of this bill? For President Trump and congressional Republicans, the reason is obvious: They have long vowed to repeal (and replace) Obamacare, and their base expects them to get it done. For congressional Democrats, it’s an opportunity to scare and energize their base in anticipation of 2018. Neither side wants to present the AHCA for what it is—a more limited proposal to rework and reframe parts of the ACA, for better or for worse.
In March, when this bill was originally scheduled to come to the floor, it was certainly “for worse.” The previous version provided few clear advantages over the ACA, yet it haphazardly added provisions to modify essential health benefits without modifying community rating—placing the sickest and most vulnerable at greater risk.
Over the last month, several small but important changes were made to the bill. The current version abandons that fatally flawed approach to essential health benefits (though the new approach includes new flaws), incorporates an invisible risk sharing program, and permits limited state waivers. These changes may slightly bring down (or at least slow down the increase in) premiums for people who have seen rates go up. Even so, the AHCA becomes only marginally better than the ACA.
Many have questioned the process that led up to the vote on May 4. I have publicly expressed my disgust with it. The House again operated in top-down fashion rather than as a deliberative body that respects the diversity of its membership. But it’s important to acknowledge that the bulk of this bill (123 pages) was released on March 6. Only about 15 pages were added after late March. Members of Congress were given sufficient time to read and understand the entire bill.
While an earlier version of the AHCA included a CBO score, the types of changes made to the AHCA in more recent stages render an updated score highly speculative and practically meaningless. For that score to be useful, the Congressional Budget Office would have to effectively predict which states will seek waivers, which waivers they will seek, and when they will seek them. This complex analysis of the political processes and choices of every state is beyond anyone’s capability. I weighed the lack of an updated score accordingly.
When deciding whether to support a bill, I ask myself whether the bill improves upon existing law, not whether I would advocate for the policy or program if I were starting with a blank slate. In other words, the proper analysis is not whether it makes the law good but rather whether it makes the law better. In this case, I felt comfortable advancing the bill to the Senate as a marginal improvement to the ACA. The House has voted more than 30 times to amend (not just repeal) Obamacare since I’ve been in Congress, and I have supported much of that legislation, too, on the principle of incrementalism. If it advances liberty even a little (on net), then I’m a yes.
Nonetheless, the ACA will continue to drive up the cost of health insurance—while bolstering the largest insurance companies—and the modifications contained in the AHCA cannot save it. Many of the AHCA’s provisions are poorly conceived or improperly implemented. At best, it will make Obamacare less bad.
The Framers of the Constitution understood that federalism—the division of powers between the national and state governments—would maximize the happiness of Americans. As long as Washington dictates health insurance policy to the entire country, there will be massive tension and displeasure with the system. I’ve always said, and I will continue to say, we need to start over: Fully repeal Obamacare, let the people of each state choose their own approach, and work together in a nonpartisan manner.

Matt Collins
05-07-2017, 12:07 AM
Grover Norquist is more libertarian than 90% of the people who voted for Ron Paul. He does not support tax hikes. That group IS an establishment organization which should be seen as a positive. A radical libertarian has the ear of almost every Republican lawmaker.
Uh no. If you were actually involved in paying attention then you would know that he gives cover to many in the establishment.

Natural Citizen
05-07-2017, 02:35 AM
Yeah, Matt's right about that.

Superfluous Man
05-07-2017, 11:55 AM
He's not helping anything by saying he considered it carefully. A lot of people are mad at him and some are even done with him. A shame.

860278513286381568
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/860278513286381568

860332086464581633
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/860332086464581633

This is the problem with throwing in with a group like the Freedom Caucus. You might have good goals but the group mentality can change who you are. :(

I don't buy these explanations. I doubt that they would have even taken the vote if Amash had not already given the leadership his assurance that he was going to vote yes.

He and the others who voted no the last time around could have stood their ground and told the leadership, "We may come around to voting for this. But only if you give us and our constituents sufficient time to read and consider the bill before voting. If you try to rush it through before giving the American people to register their opposition to it to their representatives, then we're automatic no votes."

jllundqu
05-08-2017, 10:08 AM
Well, Andy Biggs the freshman from AZ saw through the suicide pact and voted no. I wonder if they will kick him out of their little club. Giving your voting card to Jim Jordan isn't much smarter than giving it to Paul Ryan. The Freedom Caucus has done some good things but Amash has lost a ton of support and even more respect from both the grassroots and the independents he's been courting.

I actually spoke with Rep. Biggs by phone after the vote to personally thank him for his principled stance. He's my rep in AZ. He told me it wasn't even a tough vote. He said it does not repeal obamacare and does not even begin to keep the promises he and the GOP made to the nation when campaigning. His stock is rising, in my book. But he's a border wall nut so I'm not under any illusions that he's a libertarian.... but at least he has balls.

EBounding
05-08-2017, 01:39 PM
https://www.facebook.com/justinamash/posts/1411436255562443

I've read this several times...I'm still not seeing where the incremental benefits are compared to the ACA.

Occam's Banana
05-08-2017, 02:29 PM
I've read this several times...I'm still not seeing where the incremental benefits are compared to the ACA.

If I understand correctly (and I may not, so someone please correct me if I am wrong), one of the alleged "incremental benefits" is that the "individual mandate" is gone - meaning that you won't be penalized for not having insurance when you file your taxes.

Instead, you'll be punished for not having insurance when you try to become insured (by having the insurance companies jack up your premiums by 30% for the first year or whatever). In other words, people who don't have insurance will be punished when and if they ever try to get insurance - thereby discouraging uninsured people from becoming insured.

It seems that this can only serve to increase and reinforce support for the idea of "single payer." After all, the whole point of the ACA in the first place was in reaction to "ZOMG!1!! Lots of people don't have health insurance!!! OMG!!! Somebody's gotta do something!!!"

How this is supposed to be an "improvement" (incremental or otherwise) is beyond me ...

Brett85
05-08-2017, 05:50 PM
I've read this several times...I'm still not seeing where the incremental benefits are compared to the ACA.

Did you see my post about how it repeals over 1 trillion worth of taxes?

EBounding
05-09-2017, 07:44 AM
Did you see my post about how it repeals over 1 trillion worth of taxes?

Why didn't Amash mention any of these things then? My guess is that he doesn't expect the tax and spending cuts to stick because the community rating is maintained which will eventually require bailouts.

susano
05-10-2017, 01:50 PM
If I understand correctly (and I may not, so someone please correct me if I am wrong), one of the alleged "incremental benefits" is that the "individual mandate" is gone - meaning that you won't be penalized for not having insurance when you file your taxes.

Instead, you'll be punished for not having insurance when you try to become insured (by having the insurance companies jack up your premiums by 30% for the first year or whatever). In other words, people who don't have insurance will be punished when and if they ever try to get insurance - thereby discouraging uninsured people from becoming insured.

It seems that this can only serve to increase and reinforce support for the idea of "single payer." After all, the whole point of the ACA in the first place was in reaction to "ZOMG!1!! Lots of people don't have health insurance!!! OMG!!! Somebody's gotta do something!!!"

How this is supposed to be an "improvement" (incremental or otherwise) is beyond me ...

I don't think that's correct (as I read it, anyway). If someone has insurance and they let it lapse for over 60+ days, then they can be charged the 30% premium penalty for one year. Someone who's not had insurance wouldn't be subject to such a penalty (again, as I read it) because there is no issue of lapsed coverage.

Such a clause punishes the financially challenged (as does the Obamacare fine). PEople who can afford it are not going to let their insurance lapse. People living from paycheck to paycheck are the most likely to be faced with a crisis that requires them to chose paying critical bill over another, at times. A good example would be an expensive auto repair that has to be done or the person won't have transportation. In such a case, it's a no brainer - let the insurance lapse and fix the car. BTW, low income and people with poor credit are already punished with higher auto insurance premiums because insurance companies are allowed to use credit scores to set rates. A person could have a perfect driving record but get punished for bad credit. I see this provision in the bill as more of the same.

helmuth_hubener
05-10-2017, 02:06 PM
Why did Amash just vote for Obamacare lite?

Who cares? Really: who cares, Matt? One congressman's vote is completely irrelevant*. Perhaps he got some sort of backroom concessions to something on his agenda. Perhaps he calculated that this would make him more powerful in one way or another. Perhaps he is, in one way or another, thinking long-term and trying to accomplish something. You're always telling us about getting power. Accumulating power. And that's great! Let's think about the topic a little more deeply.

We've already had one Ron Paul. It was great. Do we really need another lone wolf Congressman who maintains a pristine voting record for the next 40 years as the nation utterly disintegrates? Why? To leverage into a Presidential run 40 years from now?

Come on. Let's have a real strategy. Let's have some real strategic thinking. At minimum let's understand basic tactics. At minimum-minimum let's understand stupidly obvious, simple pre-requisites to even fighting a war in the first place. Lesson Number One:

Know who is on your side. Be loyal to your unit. Don't turn around and start shooting at the members of your unit.

Amash has his reasons. They're likely great reasons. I am not going to criticize Amash (nor Massie). I see them as on my side. Eh? Think about it.

*Indeed, Congress as a whole is irrelevant, figureheads exercising no power. As is the President. D.C. just goes on the same regardless. But that's another topic.

Matt Collins
05-10-2017, 11:49 PM
Know who is on your side. Amash isn't on our side here.

Brett85
05-11-2017, 07:03 AM
Amash isn't on our side here.

Yeah, but all of the Democrats and all of the liberal Republicans are. :rolleyes:

helmuth_hubener
05-11-2017, 08:12 AM
Amash isn't on our side here.

Amash is only one man. He is not multiple men: one on one issue and another on another. You cannot bifurcate him into "parts I like" and "parts I don't like."

In a war, you do not say to your trenchmate: "Hey man, I don't feel like you're on my side today. Sure, in general you are. Yesterday you were, and so I had your back. 95%, maybe even 99% of the days you are. But today you sure are messing up. I don't have your back today. Today I'm going to undermine you." That's the enemy's job.

It's called: loyalty. It really is a value and a virtue. Even eight-year-old Cub Scouts know about it. Time we learned it.

William Tell
05-11-2017, 08:23 AM
Amash is only one man. He is not multiple men: one on one issue and another on another. You cannot bifurcate him into "parts I like" and "parts I don't like."

In a war, you do not say to your trenchmate: "Hey man, I don't feel like you're on my side today. Sure, in general you are. Yesterday you were, and so I had your back. 95%, maybe even 99% of the days you are. But today you sure are messing up. I don't have your back today. Today I'm going to undermine you." That's the enemy's job.

It's called: loyalty. It really is a value and a virtue. Even eight-year-old Cub Scouts know about it. Time we learned it.

Well, its time Amash learned it too. I feel like he didn't have my back here. I'm all for giving our guys some slack because we're all they got but I've got to say this was a big let down.:( More than any of my slight disagreements with Rand.

Matt Collins
05-11-2017, 09:08 AM
Amash is only one man. He is not multiple men: one on one issue and another on another. You cannot bifurcate him into "parts I like" and "parts I don't like."

In a war, you do not say to your trenchmate: "Hey man, I don't feel like you're on my side today. Sure, in general you are. Yesterday you were, and so I had your back. 95%, maybe even 99% of the days you are. But today you sure are messing up. I don't have your back today. Today I'm going to undermine you." That's the enemy's job.

It's called: loyalty. It really is a value and a virtue. Even eight-year-old Cub Scouts know about it. Time we learned it.
Actually yes you can bifurcate politicians, its done all the time. Some are good on some issues and bad on others.


And loyalty is only due when someone is on our side consistently. Justin completely botched that (as did Rand in recent history too).

helmuth_hubener
05-11-2017, 09:29 AM
And loyalty is only due when someone is on our side consistently. Justin completely botched that (as did Rand in recent history too).

Loyalty is only due when someone is on our side consistently. That MacArthur, he really messed up when it came to the Philippines. He just got it totally wrong. I'm not going to support him when he does stupid stuff like that. I will stand up and loudly criticize him when he deserves it. That makes me brave, right? He botched it. Let us all down. #NotMyGeneral. For that matter, my squad leader is kind of a jerk and doesn't understand anything about building unit cohesion. I'm gonna bad-mouth him, too.

It is hard. I know. It is seriously hard for those of an individualist, contrarian temperament to understand, to comprehend, the concept of loyalty. Much less to internalize and practice it. But it's important that we do. Lack of loyalty is a severe, severe weakness; will put us at a tremendous disadvantage on the battlefield.

You're going to throw Amash under the bus? And Rand, too? They're both just "botching" things? Your list of allies grows thin.

You're on my side, Matt. You are in my in-group. As of now. I will back you up. You won't hear me criticizing you. Let's just let it rest. OK? Let's give at least the top ten liberty people in Congress a break. If we don't like something they're doing, let's just keep quiet about it. If we do like something they're doing, we can get out the bullhorn and give them ovations of praise. This "loyal opposition" thing doesn't work. It's counter-productive.

jllundqu
05-11-2017, 09:38 AM
Loyalty is only due when someone is on our side consistently. That MacArthur, he really messed up when it came to the Philippines. He just got it totally wrong. I'm not going to support him when he does stupid stuff like that. I will stand up and loudly criticize him when he deserves it. That makes me brave, right? He botched it. Let us all down. #NotMyGeneral. For that matter, my squad leader is kind of a jerk and doesn't understand anything about building unit cohesion. I'm gonna bad-mouth him, too.

It is hard. I know. It is seriously hard for those of an individualist, contrarian temperament to understand, to comprehend, the concept of loyalty. Much less to internalize and practice it. But it's important that we do. Lack of loyalty is a severe, severe weakness; will put us at a tremendous disadvantage on the battlefield.

You're going to throw Amash under the bus? And Rand, too? They're both just "botching" things? Your list of allies grows thin.

You're on my side, Matt. You are in my in-group. As of now. I will back you up. You won't hear me criticizing you. Let's just let it rest. OK? Let's give at least the top ten liberty people in Congress a break. If we don't like something they're doing, let's just keep quiet about it. If we do like something they're doing, we can get out the bullhorn and give them ovations of praise. This "loyal opposition" thing doesn't work. It's counter-productive.

A-freaking-men

I completely disagree with Amash on this vote, but I am under no illusions that he is IN FACT probably the biggest ally we have in Congress. I'm sure as hell not going to toss him to the curb unless there is a continuing pattern of bad votes and positions.

Matt Collins
05-11-2017, 10:29 PM
Loyalty is only due when someone is on our side consistently.I agree, and Justin has not been (and to be fair neither has Rand)


It is hard. I know. It is seriously hard for those of an individualist, contrarian temperament to understand, to comprehend, the concept of loyalty. Much less to internalize and practice it. But it's important that we do. Lack of loyalty is a severe, severe weakness; will put us at a tremendous disadvantage on the battlefield.You just said yourself that loyalty is only due when someone is consistently on our side. Justin is not on our side here. Rand has left the reservation a time or two as well.





You're on my side, Matt. You are in my in-group. As of now. I will back you up. You won't hear me criticizing you. Let's just let it rest. OK? Let's give at least the top ten liberty people in Congress a break. If we don't like something they're doing, let's just keep quiet about it. If we do like something they're doing, we can get out the bullhorn and give them ovations of praise. This "loyal opposition" thing doesn't work. It's counter-productive.If we don't hold our own accountable, then no one else will. We have to police from the inside.

helmuth_hubener
05-12-2017, 08:23 AM
If we don't hold our own accountable, then no one else will. We have to police from the inside.

No. We. Do. Not. Not my job. Not your job. Won't work anyway. Just weakens those you're "policing."

Tell me: which political party is more powerful in the US: the Republicans, or the Democrats?

Oh, really?

And it's not even close, is it?

And how do the Democrats operate, as opposed to the Republicans? Are they a lot more cohesive? A lot more partisan? Are they much, much easier to wrangle and get to vote in a bloc? A lot less likely to publicly in-fight and criticize and undermine each other?

Maybe we could learn something from the most successful political operation in the most successful country in the world. Eh? You think?


Loyalty is only due when someone is on our side consistently. I was mocking this idea with the contempt it deserves, not agreeing with it. Take the idea to its logical conclusion and where does it lead us? To a situation where there is no "our side." Everyone of our "sides" is a little different, after all. Everyone's agenda is unique. No one is going to be on it "consistently" except for one man: you. So with your Purist Policing Principle, there is and can be no "our side." There is only "my side." Just Matt, against the world. An army of one. How much power do you think you will accumulate like that?

Matt Collins
05-12-2017, 01:15 PM
No. We. Do. Not. Not my job. Not your job. Won't work anyway. Just weakens those you're "policing."


Uh no, they weaken themselves when they sell out and compromise. Part of Rand's 2016 problem was that he ran a lousy campaign. But a big part of it was also that he had shifted his rhetoric in a way that ignored his base and didn't win any support from other voting blocs. He weakened himself by selling out (at least on messaging in this case).

Justin will find it harder to fundraise after this.


And yes it is absolutely our job to hold our elected officials accountable.


It is obvious to me that you have never worked or done anything significant in the political process.




I was mocking this idea with the contempt it deserves, not agreeing with it. Take the idea to its logical conclusion and where does it lead us? To a situation where there is no "our side." Everyone of our "sides" is a little different, after all. Everyone's agenda is unique. No one is going to be on it "consistently" except for one man: you. So with your Purist Policing Principle, there is and can be no "our side." There is only "my side." Just Matt, against the world. An army of one. How much power do you think you will accumulate like that?


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

helmuth_hubener
05-12-2017, 01:47 PM
It is obvious to me that you have never worked or done anything significant in the political process. OK. Thanks. Noted.

You're still in my in-group anyway. I've got your back.

See how that works?

helmuth_hubener
05-12-2017, 02:00 PM
Keep up with all the great work you are doing right now, Matt. I do understand your point about holding feet to fire, and it is a great one. Great, wonderful point. We will just have to disagree, but that's OK.

dannno
05-12-2017, 02:30 PM
I was mocking this idea with the contempt it deserves, not agreeing with it. Take the idea to its logical conclusion and where does it lead us? To a situation where there is no "our side." Everyone of our "sides" is a little different, after all. Everyone's agenda is unique. No one is going to be on it "consistently" except for one man: you. So with your Purist Policing Principle, there is and can be no "our side." There is only "my side." Just Matt, against the world. An army of one. How much power do you think you will accumulate like that?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7mpGMarPSA

jurgs01
05-17-2017, 06:05 AM
You aren't going to find or get someone in DC more liberty leaning than Amash. The big worry here is he gets caught up in the politics of the Freedom Caucus, the "greater good," lesser of two evils, etc.

He definitely went against the precedent set by Ron of only forming coalitions and not compromising, but so did Rand a while ago. Everyone should certainly hold his feet to the fire and voice their disapproval, but I wouldn't dump him.

Friends who loudly let you know when you are wrong form a strong base. Friends who dump you at the first sign of you making a mistake are ones I wouldn't want to have.

Too many times, libertarians fall into the latter category.

If you want someone of the caliber of Ron Paul again, start getting your kids into Liberty Classroom, Mises Institute reading and concurrently teach them pubic speaking and ways to influence people. Other than that, you have to work with what we have got. If you want to get Justin out of these positions where he feels like he can accomplish something without working with the Freedom Caucus, send him some help so they can beef up the Liberty Caucus.

If all of this craziness in DC is too much for you, then focus on local politics and issues being brought forward by the 10th Amendment Center.

Occam's Banana
05-17-2017, 12:52 PM
You aren't going to find or get someone in DC more liberty leaning than Amash.

Massie > Amash


The big worry here is he gets caught up in the politics of the Freedom Caucus, the "greater good," lesser of two evils, etc.

Massie has wisely declined membership in the so-called House Freedom Caucus, perhaps (in part or on whole) for this very reason.

Champuckett
05-17-2017, 06:24 PM
This is now two strikes against Amash in short succession. He is one of the best and liberty orientated politicians we have in Washington, which is why this is sad. Playing the neocon/establishment game and voting for garbage like this is eroding the integrity that he spent the last 7 years building with us. I suppose not everyone can be Mr. Consistent like RP.