"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to William Tell again."Originally Posted by William Tell
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.
The only thing stopping that is states' rights. You already know what happened when they federalized the banks, so careful what you wish for.
You have obviously never studied political strategy. You demand 100% and don't accept anything else. You force the opposition to move your direction.
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
Do you even Ron Paul, bro? Dr. Paul would have voted no on this steaming pile of $#@! and you know it.
-Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
Author of, War is a Racket!
- Diogenes of SinopeIt is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
They have been oh so careful about states rights up till now. As an alternative, I'd be ok with just banning insurance altogether.
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
His office says he will release a statment. Keep calling.
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.
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.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Did he hold his nose for the North Korea vote too?
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.
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.
Last edited by Brett85; 05-05-2017 at 05:04 PM.
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.
-Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
Author of, War is a Racket!
- Diogenes of SinopeIt is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
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.
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.
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.
Oh crap, Justin made the Onion.
http://www.theonion.com/article/repu...nts-even-55936WASHINGTON—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.
The bill is "just like Obamacare." Not.
http://www.atr.org/list-obamacare-ta...ampaign=bufferThe 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.
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.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 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 ...
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 05-05-2017 at 08:08 PM.
The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
-- The Law (p. 54)- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Government (p. 99)- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
-- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
-- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)· tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
ATR is a bunch of establishment shills who support tax increases. They can't be trusted.
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
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.
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?".
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.
"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.
https://www.facebook.com/justinamash...11436255562443
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.
Uh no. If you were actually involved in paying attention then you would know that he gives cover to many in the establishment.
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
Yeah, Matt's right about that.
https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...32086464581633
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us