Posted on 03/26/2017 5:51:52 PM PDT by cotton1706
You see, when all Republicans running for office ran incessant ads during the past four election cycles promising to fully repeal Obamacare, Meadows actually thought they meant it! What a fool. When Mitch McConnell promised to repeal Obamacare “root and branch,” Meadows actually thought that he meant … well … root and branch.
And when Mr. Meadows read the fifth sentence of Speaker Paul Ryan’s “Better Way to Fix Health Care,” which declared, "Obamacare must be fully repealed so we can start over and take a new approach,” well, he though it meant full repeal, starting over, and a new approach.
Meadows, along with a few of his compatriots, didn’t seem to get the memo: that this was all a joke. Who do they think they are? Amelia Bedelia? Doesn’t he know they only meant to repeal the funding mechanism of Obamacare to make it more insolvent?
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
I’m missing something here. Is Meadows an HFC member who went full RINO?
Meadows is a backstabber. He was on Hannity last week saying he was very close to supporting the Ryan bill and only had a small list of demands. His demands were included in the bill between Thursday and Friday and he still opposed it.
Great article.
I would hope that at least a few of the crap sandwich defenders in this forum would reconsider their position, based on the arguments contained therein.
I doubt it though. What I see are the same GOPe supporting cast doing nothing but attack conservatives, constitutionalists and other Patriots. Moreover, there seems to be zero argumentation from most of these folks. They simply want AHCA passed without debate. And if they can’t have that, some of them think we should embrace single payer. Seeing this argued on FR is unbelievable.
He’s just not smart enough to know that Trump is playing 9D Chess on this one /s
He stood with Ryan on this.
All the absurd 8D Chess, You Magnificent Bastard, He’s Independent, He’s a Businessman, it’s smoke and mirrors.
NO> He could have publicly stated he would campaign against RINOs. But he didn’t.
He’s done a lot of good things. But it seems he might be ok with using middle class money to fund healthcare for the lazy/illegal.
Opposing a president who supported such a bill is not "backstabbing" at all ... it's a suicide prevention mission.
Do you have a link to a thread where FReepers advocated for single payer?
Not a specific one. But if you read across several of these threads there are posters claiming that single payer is a “conservative” choice if Obamacare implodes.
“And why was Meadows so credulous to take Paul Ryan seriously when he said the better way to deal with pre-existing conditions was to fund state high-risk pools instead of mandating the destruction of the entire market?”
this is just dumb. The reason for the individual mandate is because the pre-existing conditions cannot be refused coverage.
Funding high risk pools and pulling pre-existing conditions out of the rest of the market will reduce the premiums for the rest of the market, and the mandate is no longer required.
Tell me, under your plan if a poor child is involved in a hit and run accident should that child be allowed to die if the parents don’t have ‘health insurance’? Just wondering...
It is perfectly understandable as the result of abandoning conservative principles for a charismatic celebrity.
I like ending the enrollment new people preexisting conditions after a certain period and allowing those with preexisting conditions to be covered if they continue premiums. Your way sounds better than what we have.
Even so.. Meadows is the only one to come out and reveal the management amendment portion which would give veterans substandard care.. just one group.. while illegals and other susidy takers get choices in healthcare. If giving veterans as many choices as illegals was his hold out.. then.. woohoo. Proud of that.
The bill was do a in the House and Senate. Crying over it does no good.
What a sad tale.
Since there were no cars when our nation was founded, I guess the writers of the Constitution just didn't think of the awful consequences of not mandating that the people should be taxed to cover such a possibility.
Wouldn't we also have to form a "low-risk" pool that would insure 30-year-olds who think they will live forever and would rather party than pay health insurance premiums?
I carry fire insurance on my house despite the low risk of a fire. I do this because I am quite confident that the government would not rush to my rescue if a fire should destroy my house.
We need to stop using the term "insurance" to describe what is supplied by governments. Let's just call that "coverage". Coverage supplied through insurance is the result of a business arrangement between the insured and the insurance company.
Coverage supplied by the government is welfare.
I agree. I am old enough to remember a time on FR when, every time Bush and Rove made some head-scratching blunder, we would hear about how they were really playing 3D chess.
No, they do not.
I think taht when Bannon tried to bully them into supporting the bill, it hardened them against it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.