Tomorrow's Vote in the House (vote postponed)

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

Nah. I like !@#$ing with gatorman.

I was talking about the people who block him.

[Meathead]

 

I will go back to my original thoughts before they tried doing this which is when it comes to healthcare, they should try to do this on a bipartisan basis. When you do this from a hard partisan line, these sort of things are destined to fail. You'll have constant opposition to the bill and when Democrats get back in control they'll do the same thing and repeal that bill and next time it will be single payer. Which to be honest with you, unfortunately I think that is where we are inevitably headed.

 

 

ultimately it has to be bipartisan bc the parties always swap power and it will be a never ending build up/tear down cycle. the citizenry appears to finally be tiring of that pendulum screwing everything up every political cycle

 

and its always destined to end up single payer in one form or another. we will end up with a baseline of hc run by the gubmint, something like medicare, and a drastically shrunk insurance industry supplying rider policies on top of that to improve care and coverage for those that can afford it. its not a mystery why all the plans end up looking similar, theres only so many ways to make that complexity work. you cant have a good system covering a maximum amount of the population without everyone participating, which means some form of single payer

[DC Tom]

I was talking about the people who block him.

 

Yeah, because gatorman's a real threat to their beliefs. "Dammit, my conservative opinions are being successfully challenged by all these fart noises!"

[Tiberius]

I'm just quoting you to show all the people that have you blocked that you really are capable of not being a complete tool.

 

Although really, knowing that you're a complete tool by choice is just going to encourage them to keep you blocked.

Thanks

Yes, Ryan would have to be on board. Ryan is a free market guy but unlike some of his colleagues he's a realist and understands the legislative body better than almost anyone. Unfortunately, he's not a good salesman and he really underestimated the outcome of his proposal. Having said that, I would imagine before Trump would look to do this, Ryan would basically outline what he'd be willing to give up and what they would like to include in a compromise.

 

I think a good compromise would look like the following, not sure Ryan would accept this, but this would what I would try to do.

 

Democrats would get to keep:

 

1) Medicaid expansion with slight reforms

 

2) Taxes on the "rich" over $500,000 a year income

 

3) Some of the minimum essential benefits, such as Preventative care, mental health, no life time and annual limits.

 

4) Planned parenthood

 

Democrats would have to give up:

 

1) Repeal of taxes of those over $250,000- $500,000 a year

 

2) Individual Mandate

 

3) Employer mandate

 

4) Taxes on Medical devices

 

Republicans would look to add:

 

1) Rather than mandate coverage for Pre existing medical conditions from the carriers, create Federally subsidized Risk pools. By the way, I think this would be a fantastic idea. 5% of the sickest of the population makes up over 50% of the entire healthcare costs. Think about that for a second. Imagine for a minute that you are able to place a good portion of those 5% into a separate risk pool, what do you think that would do to insurance premiums for the rest of the 95% of the population? I think they could actually create a medical reimbursement rate sort of program for this subsidized pool like they do with Medicare, where the providers who accept it understand that they will charge at medicare reimbursement rates which is much lower. I think this is something that should be heavily funded. It would be great for the American public because lots of money would be saved on the behalf of the consumer, which means more money would be available to go back into the economy.

 

2) Tort reform

 

3) Competing across state lines

 

4) pilot programs where people can choose the option of the cost share reduction subsidy or a fixed amount of funds that would go directly into an HSA. HSA's should be something that they really try to promote. The problem in the past is not a lot of people can save money to put into the HSA. So if you give the public a choice to choose a plan with either the Cost share reduction that is currently in the ACA, (which for those of you who aren't familiar with it, basically the cost share reduction is something that is income based, and if you quality the plan will have its deductibles, max-out-of-pockets and copays reduced) And a choice to where they can place those allocated funds into an HSA and give them the choice to spend those dollars, I think that would be very interesting and help reduce medical costs.

 

5) reform of how subsidies or advanced tax credits are distributed.

 

6) pilot programs to promote price transparency from Medical providers

 

 

This would reduce taxes, lower premiums, take away the two big mandates which would give more freedom to individual consumers and help out employers and still provide expanded coverage at probably at an even higher amount than where we are today.

 

 

But of course, this won't happen.

I'm not sure Ryan is open to much compromise and I think his speakership could be in danger if he gives too much away to Democracts. The Freedom Caucus would go nuts if he struck a deal with Nancy

And Dems might not be able to accept whatever Ryan wanted. They just want very different things, not sure how much common ground there is between house members

[Meathead]

Graham said he believed the U.S. House Republicans' failed attempt at replacing the Affordable Care Act, often referred to as Obamacare, was the best way for things to turn out. After a scheduled attempt to secure a vote Friday, House Speaker Paul Ryan and the GOP pulled the bill.

"If the House had passed the bill that we were pushing in the House, I'm not so sure that it would have made things much better," Graham said. "I don’t think one party is going to be able to fix this by themselves, so here’s what I think should happen next. I think the president should reach out to Democrats, I should reach out to Democrats, and we should say 'let's get a shot at doing this together, because it ain’t working doing it by ourselves.'"

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-lindsey-graham-fights-back-rowdy-town-hall-bring-it-n738521

[grinreaper]

 

Yes, Ryan would have to be on board. Ryan is a free market guy but unlike some of his colleagues he's a realist and understands the legislative body better than almost anyone. Unfortunately, he's not a good salesman and he really underestimated the outcome of his proposal. Having said that, I would imagine before Trump would look to do this, Ryan would basically outline what he'd be willing to give up and what they would like to include in a compromise.

 

I think a good compromise would look like the following, not sure Ryan would accept this, but this would what I would try to do.

 

Democrats would get to keep:

 

1) Medicaid expansion with slight reforms

 

2) Taxes on the "rich" over $500,000 a year income

 

3) Some of the minimum essential benefits, such as Preventative care, mental health, no life time and annual limits.

 

4) Planned parenthood

 

Democrats would have to give up:

 

1) Repeal of taxes of those over $250,000- $500,000 a year

 

2) Individual Mandate

 

3) Employer mandate

 

4) Taxes on Medical devices

 

Republicans would look to add:

 

1) Rather than mandate coverage for Pre existing medical conditions from the carriers, create Federally subsidized Risk pools. By the way, I think this would be a fantastic idea. 5% of the sickest of the population makes up over 50% of the entire healthcare costs. Think about that for a second. Imagine for a minute that you are able to place a good portion of those 5% into a separate risk pool, what do you think that would do to insurance premiums for the rest of the 95% of the population? I think they could actually create a medical reimbursement rate sort of program for this subsidized pool like they do with Medicare, where the providers who accept it understand that they will charge at medicare reimbursement rates which is much lower. I think this is something that should be heavily funded. It would be great for the American public because lots of money would be saved on the behalf of the consumer, which means more money would be available to go back into the economy.

 

2) Tort reform

 

3) Competing across state lines

 

4) pilot programs where people can choose the option of the cost share reduction subsidy or a fixed amount of funds that would go directly into an HSA. HSA's should be something that they really try to promote. The problem in the past is not a lot of people can save money to put into the HSA. So if you give the public a choice to choose a plan with either the Cost share reduction that is currently in the ACA, (which for those of you who aren't familiar with it, basically the cost share reduction is something that is income based, and if you quality the plan will have its deductibles, max-out-of-pockets and copays reduced) And a choice to where they can place those allocated funds into an HSA and give them the choice to spend those dollars, I think that would be very interesting and help reduce medical costs.

 

5) reform of how subsidies or advanced tax credits are distributed.

 

6) pilot programs to promote price transparency from Medical providers

 

 

This would reduce taxes, lower premiums, take away the two big mandates which would give more freedom to individual consumers and help out employers and still provide expanded coverage at probably at an even higher amount than where we are today.

 

 

But of course, this won't happen.

On the surface, I like it.

[Rob's House]

20% of the GOP < 10% of the country's interest. Last I checked, democracy was a majority/minority thing when it comes to interests and votes. The "sheer stupidity" is trying to cater to everyone on both sides. That's why you get this clown show. Lack of leadership is the root of the problem. That and lack of patience to craft something right before shoving it under everyone's nose.

Democracy = tyranny

[jr1]

Judge Jeanine told Ryan to resign

[Benjamin Franklin]

"I don't think that one party's going to be able to fix this by themselves," the South Carolina senator Lindsay Graham said Saturday at a town hall event. "I think the President should reach out to Democrats, I should reach out to Democrats, and we should say, 'Let's take a shot at doing this together because it ain't working doing it by ourselves.'"

 

Pretty consistent reasonable voice of the middle.

[Meathead]

lindsey isnt quite the middle but in todays toxic hyper partisan environment hes certainly a major moderate. i love how he told the crowd heckling him that if they dont like him they dont have to voite for him but hes just going to keep doing what he believes in. nice thumb in the eye of the partisans there

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

Yes, Ryan would have to be on board. Ryan is a free market guy but unlike some of his colleagues he's a realist and understands the legislative body better than almost anyone. Unfortunately, he's not a good salesman and he really underestimated the outcome of his proposal. Having said that, I would imagine before Trump would look to do this, Ryan would basically outline what he'd be willing to give up and what they would like to include in a compromise.

 

I think a good compromise would look like the following, not sure Ryan would accept this, but this would what I would try to do.

 

Democrats would get to keep:

 

1) Medicaid expansion with slight reforms

 

2) Taxes on the "rich" over $500,000 a year income

 

3) Some of the minimum essential benefits, such as Preventative care, mental health, no life time and annual limits.

 

4) Planned parenthood

 

Democrats would have to give up:

 

1) Repeal of taxes of those over $250,000- $500,000 a year

 

2) Individual Mandate

 

3) Employer mandate

 

4) Taxes on Medical devices

 

Republicans would look to add:

 

1) Rather than mandate coverage for Pre existing medical conditions from the carriers, create Federally subsidized Risk pools. By the way, I think this would be a fantastic idea. 5% of the sickest of the population makes up over 50% of the entire healthcare costs. Think about that for a second. Imagine for a minute that you are able to place a good portion of those 5% into a separate risk pool, what do you think that would do to insurance premiums for the rest of the 95% of the population? I think they could actually create a medical reimbursement rate sort of program for this subsidized pool like they do with Medicare, where the providers who accept it understand that they will charge at medicare reimbursement rates which is much lower. I think this is something that should be heavily funded. It would be great for the American public because lots of money would be saved on the behalf of the consumer, which means more money would be available to go back into the economy.

 

2) Tort reform

 

3) Competing across state lines

 

4) pilot programs where people can choose the option of the cost share reduction subsidy or a fixed amount of funds that would go directly into an HSA. HSA's should be something that they really try to promote. The problem in the past is not a lot of people can save money to put into the HSA. So if you give the public a choice to choose a plan with either the Cost share reduction that is currently in the ACA, (which for those of you who aren't familiar with it, basically the cost share reduction is something that is income based, and if you quality the plan will have its deductibles, max-out-of-pockets and copays reduced) And a choice to where they can place those allocated funds into an HSA and give them the choice to spend those dollars, I think that would be very interesting and help reduce medical costs.

 

5) reform of how subsidies or advanced tax credits are distributed.

 

6) pilot programs to promote price transparency from Medical providers

 

 

This would reduce taxes, lower premiums, take away the two big mandates which would give more freedom to individual consumers and help out employers and still provide expanded coverage at probably at an even higher amount than where we are today.

 

 

But of course, this won't happen.

Boehner and Biden almost had social security reform done when Obama "moved the goalpost." Takes a couple of good negotiators to get real work done. I like Ryan a lot but I'm not sure that's his strong suit.

 

It will be interesting to see if this failure gives rise to some moderate power. The electorate is probably not quite there yet but the seeds are being sown, which is good.

 

The Gorsuch Dem stupidity to come, and a few more extremist meltdowns may get us to middle governance.

[Tiberius]

I totally agree with this: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/paul-ryan-failed-because-his-bill-was-a-dumpster-fire-214952

 

 

This was all on Ryan. Horrible law crafted by a guy who is in way over his head. Trump could care less what was in the bill so it was up to Ryan to get something decent done so the GOP could run over the goal line with and they came up with the worst law imaginable.

[Magox]

Boehner and Biden almost had social security reform done when Obama "moved the goalpost." Takes a couple of good negotiators to get real work done. I like Ryan a lot but I'm not sure that's his strong suit.

 

It will be interesting to see if this failure gives rise to some moderate power. The electorate is probably not quite there yet but the seeds are being sown, which is good.

 

The Gorsuch Dem stupidity to come, and a few more extremist meltdowns may get us to middle governance.

 

 

As much as I would love to see a strong movement towards fiscal responsibility combined with moderate approach to healthcare and safety nets, that isn't where the passion lies. If you look at the overall numbers where many of the country reside, its pretty much what I described. However all the media and radio hucksters, social media passion and political activists are all aligned with the furthest end of the right and left wings of each party, which is probably somewhere between 25-35% of the country. They are the loudest voices and the ones that vote most often, specially during the midterms.

 

It's going to take strong leadership and someone who isn't beholden to either extreme faction of their irrespective base to achieve this. Someone who is able to identify those positive forces in politics that are willing to do what is best for the country as opposed to their narrow ideology and political base. Someone who will always try to achieve things on a bipartisan basis and when confronted with intransigent unreasonable voices to not be afraid to call them out and marginalize them for being corrosive forces in our Democracy.

 

That's the hope I have, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[Tiberius]

Maybe Trump will come out and support this?

 

 

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/325814-sanders-says-he-will-introduce-medicare-for-all-bill

[boyst]

In short, tear it down. Gut the bureacracy and regulations and get the Federal government out of the health care business. It would have to be done gradually but it would be the most humane approach. It would make better medical services more affordable and accessible to more people.

 

Simultaneously it would cut the chain to an economic anchor that's dragging us down. The results would be amazing. It would be a medical and economic miracle.

this is similar to my beliefs.

Letting the aca crash allows democrats to politically say Republicans never cared about your health, etc.

Letting it be fixed time and time again only places more hands in the cookie jar and spreads the disastrous responsibility and liability.

Working together on this could have happened if not for Reid's doing.

The best decision they could make is as you said. Remove regulation. Let states decide their involvement with the regulations removed. Further, let states generate their own revenue for assisting the retards who need welfare.

 

I had an argument with a gay man a while back on the merits of federal involvement. His argument was the federal government protected the rights of gays forcing States to comply with the interpretation of the constitution. I expressed that it should be a states right, if at all it was going to be a law. That state could decide for itself if it wanted gay marriage or not. His rebuttal was that the gay population of NC, for example would be upset and disappointed. I shared the idea that they could relocate based upon their viewpoint. He was taken back simply saying that NC is home and that it was not on him to have to change his life because of his choices and the state must change their life, essentially. It was lost upon him but I used other state laws that are radically different to expound upon my belief. At the end of the night he saw the larger picture but still felt on social issues it was not on him to change his life because he did not choose to be gay. Whether that is true or not is indifferent, and I'm all for any type of marriage.

[/dev/null]

"I don't think that one party's going to be able to fix this by themselves," the South Carolina senator Lindsay Graham said Saturday at a town hall event. "I think the President should reach out to Democrats, I should reach out to Democrats, and we should say, 'Let's take a shot at doing this together because it ain't working doing it by ourselves.'"

 

Pretty consistent reasonable voice of the middle.

Wait, I thought Graham was a Neo-Con warmonger

 

We have always been at war with Easasia. Amirite?

[Magox]

Shots fired:

 

"Democrats are smiling in D.C. that the Freedom Caucus, with the help of Club For Growth and Heritage, have saved Planned Parenthood & [Obamacare]!" the president tweeted.

 

[Tiberius]

Shots fired:

 

And telling everyone to watch Fox show that called for Ryan to resign.

[Magox]

Boehner and Biden almost had social security reform done when Obama "moved the goalpost." Takes a couple of good negotiators to get real work done. I like Ryan a lot but I'm not sure that's his strong suit.

 

It will be interesting to see if this failure gives rise to some moderate power. The electorate is probably not quite there yet but the seeds are being sown, which is good.

 

The Gorsuch Dem stupidity to come, and a few more extremist meltdowns may get us to middle governance.

 

 

WIth Trump's tweet this morning and now Priebus saying this

 

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said Sunday that President Donald Trump’s administration would seek support from moderate Democrats going forward in the ongoing efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

“I think it's time for our folks to come together, and I also think it's time to potentially get a few moderate Democrats on board as well,” Priebus told anchor Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday."

 

 

 

Priebus also expressed some degree of frustration with members of the House who expressed their opposition to the bill, implying that their actions had not remained “loyal” to the president.

“The fact," he said, "that some of these members took that and decided not to move forward with it I think is a real shame and I think the president is disappointed in the number of people that he thought were loyal to him that work."

 

 

 

I'm hopeful. This would indicate that they would look to cut out the purists and most intransigent of forces from both sides of the aisle. The way it should be.

[Nanker]

 

 

WIth Trump's tweet this morning and now Priebus saying this

 

 

 

 

 

I'm hopeful. This would indicate that they would look to cut out the purists and most intransigent of forces from both sides of the aisle. The way it should be.

Agreed. There is a need. There are the means. There needs to be a bipartisan solution.