Massie Still A Firm "No" On Latest Trumpcare Bill

[r3volution 3.0]

The AHCA is like a kidney stone- the House doesn't care what happens to it, as long as they can pass it. #sassywithmassie

Amash hasn't publicly commented, but you can imagine where he stands.

In short, some of the Freedom Caucus folded, not all of them.

[Jan2017]

$8 Billion Deal Gives Crucial Momentum to G.O.P. Health Bill

WASHINGTON — Two Republican lawmakers who had come out against the House bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act earlier this week
reversed course on Wednesday and threw their support behind the plan after securing more money to help people with pre-existing medical conditions.

Representatives Fred Upton of Michigan, an influential voice in Republican health policy, and Billy Long of Missouri, a close ally of President Trump’s, told reporters after a meeting with Mr. Trump on Wednesday that the latest revisions had won them over.

Those included $8 billion in additional funds over five years to supplement the insurance of people with pre-existing health problems.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/u...alth-bill.html

[TheCount]

$8 Billion Deal Gives Crucial Momentum to G.O.P. Health Bill


WASHINGTON — Two Republican lawmakers who had come out against the House bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act earlier this week
reversed course on Wednesday and threw their support behind the plan after securing more money to help people with pre-existing medical conditions.

Representatives Fred Upton of Michigan, an influential voice in Republican health policy, and Billy Long of Missouri, a close ally of President Trump’s, told reporters after a meeting with Mr. Trump on Wednesday that the latest revisions had won them over. Those included $8 billion in additional funds over five years to supplement the insurance of people with pre-existing health problems.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/u...alth-bill.html

Upton had previously sponsored and supported full repeals during Obama's presidency. Suddenly he's a moderate and wants to keep many of Obamacare's provisions.

[r3volution 3.0]

Upton had previously sponsored and supported full repeals during Obama's presidency. Suddenly he's a moderate and wants to keep many of Obamacare's provisions.

[Brian4Liberty]

Massie opposes it for all of the right reasons (because it is big govt socialism and ineffective at enabling true competitive markets).

The "moderate" GOP RINOs oppose it because it is not socialist enough.

[Brian4Liberty]

Amash hasn't publicly commented, but you can imagine where he stands.

In short, some of the Freedom Caucus folded, not all of them.

IIRC, Massie is not an official member of the Freedom Caucus.

bf454886c82e31cb1303497f87b7f20e.jpg

[r3volution 3.0]

IIRC, Massie is not an official member of the Freedom Caucus.

Huh, you're right. I just assumed.

[CaptUSA]

Originally Posted by Massie Tweet

The AHCA is like a kidney stone- the House doesn't care what happens to it, as long as they can pass it. #sassywithmassie

Massie... This guy would complain about getting hung with a new rope.

[Jan2017]

IIRC, Massie is not an official member of the Freedom Caucus.

Huh, you're right. I just assumed.

fwiw, the House Freedom Caucus does not disclose the names of its members. In the current 115th Congress, the group has about three dozen members. A number of members have identified themselves, or have been identified by others, as members of the Freedom Caucus, as of March 2017 including:

(Amash, Sanford . . . no Massie)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Caucus

[William Tell]

fwiw, the House Freedom Caucus does not disclose the names of its members. In the current 115th Congress, the group has about three dozen members. A number of members have identified themselves, or have been identified by others, as members of the Freedom Caucus, as of March 2017 including:

(Amash, Sanford . . . no Massie)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Caucus

Right but Massie has publicly stated in multiple interviews that he is not a member.

[Brett85]

That's unfortunate. This bill is the best that we could possibly get. Full repeal has no chance of getting through Congress, which means that we're going to get stuck with all of Obamacare forever.

[Brett85]

Opposing partial repeal of Obamacare makes as much sense as opposing cutting tax rates from 20% to 15% just because the IRS isn't abolished completely. It makes no sense to not take incremental gains.

[Jan2017]

That's unfortunate. This bill is the best that we could possibly get. Full repeal has no chance of getting through Congress, which means that we're going to get stuck with all of Obamacare forever.

A reason for full repeal . . . with a requirement/amendment for a replacement done separately as a one week - 6 months later/extension.

It is how you can get the Senate to consider it as a reconciliation with a simple majority needed . . .
and the only way Dims will get involved in something that doesn't make the nation 1/5 socialist and make the country more in debt and broke.

Ryan only needs to put the full clean, simple repeal bill already there for a House vote - if Senate balks at Ocare repeal then it is on them.

[Brett85]

A reason for full repeal . . . with a requirement/amendment for a replacement done separately as a one week - 6 months later/extension.

It is how you can get the Senate to consider it as a reconciliation with a simple majority needed . . .
and the only way Dims will get involved in something that doesn't make the nation 1/5 socialist and make the country more in debt and broke.

Ryan only needs to put the full clean, simple repeal bill already there for a House vote - if Senate balks at Ocare repeal then it is on them.

I'm not sure what you mean. A large number of moderate/liberal Republicans in the house and Senate have stated that they're opposed to a clean, full repeal of Obamacare, which means that it has no chance at all to actually pass.

[Jan2017]

I'm not sure what you mean. A large number of moderate/liberal Republicans in the house and Senate have stated that they're opposed to a clean, full repeal of Obamacare, which means that it has no chance at all to actually pass.

Maybe because the need to replace it with something . . .
but I'd see a problem exists in that tweaking of Ocare is going to lead to a constitutional challenge anyway - tip that 5-4 vote.

If that constitutional muster fails, then what (?)

If there are GOP Congressman elected on the premise/promise of a repeal and they don't vote for repeal (phase one),
then they can explain that to voters in 18 months.

[Brett85]

Maybe because the need to replace it with something . . .
but I'd see a problem exists in that tweaking of Ocare is going to lead to a constitutional challenge anyway - tip that 5-4 vote.

If that constitutional muster fails, then what (?)

If there are GOP Congressman elected on the premise/promise of a repeal and they don't vote for repeal (phase one),
then they can explain that to voters in 18 months.

I support voting on full repeal and exposing the Congressmen who vote against it, especially when these same Congressmen voted for full repeal when Obama was President. But, if full repeal is voted on and fails, I don't have a problem accepting partial repeal because that would lead to a better result than keeping Obamacare in its entirety.

[Jan2017]

if full repeal is voted on and fails, . . .

Then we are where we are now . . . but that partial repeal will lead to a Supreme Court challenge either way.
If this partial repeal gets ruled unconstitutional - which I maintain Ryan's first attempt was anyway - then it goes back to Obamacare 1.0 (?)

If Dems realize Ocare is repealed - with a separate distinct clause/amendment that a replacement (some replacement) will start (about the earliest now could be Jan 1, 2019),
then both parties have a reason to work at coming up with something better for the 1/5 of the economy that healthcare has become supposedly.

[Brett85]

Then we are where we are now . . . but that partial repeal will lead to a Supreme Court challenge either way.
If this partial repeal gets ruled unconstitutional - which I maintain Ryan's first attempt was anyway - then it goes back to Obamacare 1.0 (?)

If Dems realize Ocare is repealed - with a separate distinct clause/amendment that a replacement (some replacement) will start (about the earliest now could be Jan 1, 2019),
then both parties have a reason to work at coming up with something better for the 1/5 of the economy that healthcare has become supposedly.

Why do you think partial repeal would be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

[Jan2017]

Why do you think partial repeal would be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

It depends what it is of course . . . based on Ryan's first plan with a mandate paid to insurance monopolies and effectively an "age tax" -
all to replace the 5-4 Supreme Court win for Obamacare 1.0 . . . let's say I am not impressed.

If Ocare version 2.0 (not voted on) or now 2.1 were to fail a constitutional challenge, you then just go back ?
I see it as a problem, so repeal first seems important.

[Brett85]

It depends what it is of course . . . based on Ryan's first plan with a mandate paid to insurance monopolies and effectively an "age tax" -
all to replace the 5-4 Supreme Court win for Obamacare 1.0 . . . let's say I am not impressed.

If Ocare version 2.0 (not voted on) or now 2.1 were to fail a constitutional challenge, you then just go back ?
I see it as a problem, so repeal first seems important.

Do you know if the newest bill that's being voted on still includes the provision that forces people to pay a fine to the insurance companies if they have a lapse in coverage?

[TheTexan]

Does this new bill move us closer to free healthcare?

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm not sure what you mean. A large number of moderate/liberal Republicans in the house and Senate have stated that they're opposed to a clean, full repeal of Obamacare, which means that it has no chance at all to actually pass.

Suppose that nothing is passed, and it's clear to everyone that the obstacle was those moderate/liberal Republicans, wallowing in hypocrisy.

...might this not result in fewer moderate/liberal Republicans next term?

[Brett85]

Suppose that nothing is passed, and it's clear to everyone that the obstacle was those moderate/liberal Republicans, wallowing in hypocrisy.

...might this not result in fewer moderate/liberal Republicans next term?

It's not likely, because most of them represent more moderate and liberal districts.

[r3volution 3.0]

It's not likely, because most of them represent more moderate and liberal districts.

Probably true, but a rebranding of Obamacare that makes no meaningful changes while allowing these types off the hook is worse than nothing.

[Brett85]

Probably true, but a rebranding of Obamacare that makes no meaningful changes while allowing these types off the hook is worse than nothing.

I don't necessarily think the current bill makes no meaningful changes because the bill repeals some of the Obamacare regulations and allows the states to opt out of others.

[eleganz]

When its time to worry, we'll hear about it from Rand, lmao.

[Jan2017]

Do you know if the newest bill that's being voted on still includes the provision that forces people to pay a fine to the insurance companies if they have a lapse in coverage?

No, and even besides the fine there are constitutionality questions probably in any tweaking of the 5-4 win for the AHCA of 2010.

So, I make the decision that I would only need dental care for my optimal care this year . . . baring any catastrophic medical need.
In a free market I might want catastrophic health insurance and dental insurance . . . why should government force me into a contract with a monoploy ?

[osan]

I support the Care For Yourself Act.

Repeal Bammycare and call it "mission accomplished".

Never happen, but a guy can dream. Another of Pandora's boxes has been opened, and stuffing the little wingèd darling back in will not be on the agenda. Some thresholds, once crossed, are almost impossibly unlikely ever to be visited again. This is what FAIL buys us.