Magox

Well, then it is a bit confounding that you don't seem to have a grasp on this matter. My argument isn't that it wouldn't eventually get to an overall "death spiral", because at this rate it would. My argument is that in order for the markets to implode as you and others suggest, would take many years to occur, which I've state on this board on numerous occasions. Let's play devils advocate, when would the entire market collapse, as you define it "half the country wouldn't have access"? This year? Next year? 2 years? How long?

Yes, but they know that in order for it to pass the Senate, it has to go through guys like Tom Cotton, Cruz, Lee and Paul. Then if it passes through them then it goes back to the House. You didn't know that?

Hello, I've been saying this. Essentially all you are doing by voting for it is you are voting to advance the ball. It's going to change dramatically once it gets to the Senate, and if it passes the Senate, which will have much more rigorous debate then it still goes to conference. Which then party leaders have to negotiate with their members what they are willing to vote for. There is a lot of ignorance displayed by people in the media, the hucksters, politicians, social media and here on this board regarding this process. No, it's not. This statement shows that you really don't understand the insurance markets. Yes, some markets are in a death spiral, but virtually all urban areas where higher populations exist are no where near in any sort of a death spiral. Waiting for it to fall apart is a fool's errand. You would have to wait years and years for it to be an overall state of a death spiral. This is what we are dealing with, people run off with ideas that they hear politicians and other hucksters say and then they run with it passing it off as fact, when in reality it is a lot more complicated than these inaccurate claims. If people truly had an understanding of the process and reality then we would have a much more reasoned debate.

The Freedom-from-reality-caucus Pretty much everything I've been saying for the past 10 days.

Don't worry, the ignorant faction of the right will blame Ryan before that happens.

TyTT, lets be real here. You, nor most of these guys were all that familiar with the Byrd Rule and what could or could not be permitted through budget reconciliation. Not only were they not familiar with the legislative process but they lack complete awareness of the political realities. Or the fact that once it passes the house then it has to go to the senate and it will be changed once it gets there. Then if it were to pass the Senate then it would go to conference where more changes would be made. Plus, the way the bill would be crafted it would provide broad discretion to the HHS to make regulatory reforms, reforms that wouldn't be able to be implemented under budget reconciliation. So to believe that voting for this bill is representative of what a final product would look like is simply put, pure ignorance. If they can't get this done, the Republican party would prove the Democrats right, which is that they aren't fit to lead. They make one hell of an opposition party, but when it comes to forming consensus, they struggle. There are more middle of the Road Republicans than there are staunch ultra conservatives and advancing what the Freedom Caucus wants is a non starter for a number of these politicians and same vice versa. I think enough Freedom Caucus and some of the more moderate voices will end up getting this through to the house, but if they can't..... Well, Obamacare could stay. What would Trump do? Probably look to get tax reform done and then possibly may decide to go a totally different route, which is to then work with Democrats, not by repealing Obamacare but portions of it and adding some Republican ideas. He probably would get as many Democrats on board as Republicans to push through legislation, and all they would need is 50 votes because no filibuster would be used. Uhh, if you think what the Freedom caucus is what the American public would want, then you are deluding yourself. Yes, compromise. You are right, the far right and the far left are both corrosive forces in American politics. yep Well, the CBO score will play no factor in what the Senate does because they would change it to their liking. However to your second point, the new bill would be completely owned by them. Personally, I always believed when you do something as big and impactful as healthcare, you should always do it on a bipartisan basis. The Republicans haven't learned from the Democrats mistakes which is to do it on a party line basis is asking for political disaster. What they should do is to work with Democrats and not repeal and gut the law but to repeal portions of it and add Republican provisions to make it more market based than it is. If they were to do that, they could improve the law and lower premiums. They still may end up doing that if these efforts fail. True. The GOP and Democrats are both hyper partisan morons. Dysfunction, total dysfunction. With the mainstream media and polarizing organizations, talk radio and the advent of Social Media, it is nearly impossible to form consensus and bipartisanship. Look at what the Democrats did, they tried to jam through their nonsensical laws and they got crushed at every level. Now that the GOP is in control, they don't know how to wield that power. They are a bunch of clowns.

That's not the ACA.

The art of the deal? Bluff? Same thing? If the repeal of the ACA ultimately fails, it will fall squarely in the hands of the hold outs, primarily the Freedom Caucus and Rand Paul.

That's right, the consensus argument is a lazy one. You hire talent evaluators and scouts to do this job, not rely on "consensus". If your hired guns and your GM believe he has the right stuff, then you pull the trigger.

Maybe I could have been more clear, I didn't mean tonight. I mean if it fails and never gets through the house and senate

Yes, and if Democrats aren't willing to negotiate in good faith after a reconciliation is/if passed for the legislative proposals to supplement the bill, then they should put the nuclear option on the table for the following year bypassing the parliamentarian to institute their proposed legislation. It's a matter of who is willing to work in good faith and who isn't. That includes Republicans as well, I've made this argument for them as well on a number of occasions. Of course you don't, you are a hardcore partisan.

Yes it does. And you are right, you don't get it. I've tried explaining to you on a number of occasions on the process. First there is the house version of the reconciliation bill, which will be pushed more to the right than the current form. Then it will go to the senate which there it will move more towards covering more people. Then there will be the regulatory portion that will do away with unnecessary regulations and then there would need to be added legislation. Judging the first draft of the house reconciliation bill as an overall product means one of two things: A) You don't understand the process or B) You are a partisan trying to score poings

Because if Ryan were to have it his way, the bill along with what they are wanting to do would be much better than the ACA.

Wishful thinking. Considering that Trump has already signed a executive order that implies that they won't enforce the Mandate through the IRS for collecting the penalty and the funding that they are going to shift away from the ACA, the Democrats and the media would actually have a legitimate gripe in Republicans "gutting" the law. In order for their version of the law to work, they need the funding and they need the mandate. Plus, lets not forget that the mainstream media throws out all objectivity when it comes to defending Obama and going after Republicans.

If repeal of the ACA fails, it will be because of these sort of intransigent members of the GOP. Holding out until you get everything you want, knowing that even if you did get all the concessions you were gunning for would lead to a failed outcome in regards to the vote, implies that A) you are delusional or B) you have no interest in negotiating in good faith and are in it for yourself.

This is something that I would have thought would have been a no-brainer to be included in the repeal if it would have been permitted by the rules of budget reconciliation. Apparently, it would be permitted. Which begs the question why did they not include that in the first draft and what else could be added to the Repeal? In any case, I am glad they are looking to add this to the repeal. This alone will help drive down rates.

I think the problem is that the allegation is A) That this was ordered from the Obama administration to look into Trump officials B) That Flynn was unmasked C) That Obama loyalists then went on to leak information regarding an unmasked citizen.

Why would he need to?

What the Freedom caucus would want would largely be rejected by the country, would have even less Republican votes and would be NOT on what the president campaigned on.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where I You made the claim, lets see it. I'm not sure how you aren't understanding this, it really isn't that difficult.

You made the assertion, naturally I'd like for you to back it up. yes, at it's core, morality is logically fallacious.

I did. It's my opinion. I'm allowed to believe what I want to believe. Hence, morality being subjective.

Copy and paste the part to where I advocated "for an absurd position in which all opinions hold equal weight"

Ok, what does that have to do with morality being subjective? One can find something to be morally repugnant and still believe it to be subjective. That's where you two are getting tripped up.