Posted on 03/07/2017 9:59:16 AM PST by GIdget2004
Outside conservative groups on Tuesday blasted House Republicans' newly unveiled health care proposal, saying it doesn't live up to the GOP's promise of fully repealing ObamaCare.
The Club for Growth dissed the proposal as "RyanCare," and threatened to record names of Republicans who vote for the bill unless it includes significant changes.
Heritage Action, FreedomWorks and the Koch Brothers-aligned Americans for Prosperity also issued scathing statements highly critical of the legislation dubbed the "American Health Care Act," which was released on Monday.
"This is simply not a full repeal of ObamaCare. It falls far short of the promises Republicans made to the American people in four consecutive federal elections," AFP President Tim Phillips said in a phone interview Tuesday.
"The proposed legislation trades one form of government subsidy for another government subsidy, and doesn't roll back the mandate of ObamaCare. It's a poor first attempt."
The seemingly coordinated statements -- all released within an hour of each other -- from these four big-money, influential conservative groups creates a huge headache for Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and the two authors of the House bill: Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas).
Club for Growth said it may "key vote" the bill and whip votes against the House proposal unless major changes are made.
"The problems with this bill are not just what's in it, but also what's missing: namely, the critical free-market solution of selling health insurance across state lines," Club for Growth President David McIntosh said in a statement. "Such an injection of competition would lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in savings, nullifying any argument by Congressional Republicans that this provision cannot be included in the current bill."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I appreciate your anger, but the fact is, NO “clean” repeal will come out of any Congress. There is too much pressure back home from the people who will lose something, and the result is that they will always “put stuff back in.”
Do it the old way. We used to have a pre-existing insurance program to cover those group,but politicians lied to the public saying they (pre-existing) can’t buy insurance when Congres tried to pass ACA.
Trump is going to OWN a crappy version of Obama Care. It will be Obama Care without an employee mandate and more subsidies. What the hell is he thinking. Veto it.
1) No “clean” repeal was going to pass. Period.
2) The only hope is to take “some” bill and begin chipping away. Yes, you will have to fix the fix. That’s political life in 2017. Anyone who thought there would be a single swipe of the pen and O-Care would be gone was not thinking.
3) Trump has already tweeted that he “hopes” Rand Paul will come up with a great alternative to Obamacare (not, not to the “House bill” so as not to alienate them). Translation: if Paul and some other Senate conservatives (doubtful) can get a significantly better bill, this might be improved in reconciliation/conference.
4) The Senate is pretty much worse than the House on this, so it’s dubious whether this could happen.
5) There are a dozen “mini-fixes” that will significantly improve even this bill.
Neighbor, I think you are trying to be positive on something where the corrupt Congress knows the mud will stick to Donald and they will just reap the K-street rewards.
Donald Care — don’t like the sound of Failed Donald Care.
Guess we’ll see. I don’t see a bad bill sticking to Trump at all, especially when he’s now “working” Rand Paul to have a “good” Senate bill.
That’s an absurd statement.
In my town a mother of three got brain cancer.
The surgeons refused to operate on her unless she gave them a $35,000 deposit, which would end up in the long run being almost half a million dollars.
She couldn’t get health insurance, add she had a pre-existing condition, diabetes or some such.
She struggled to come up with the deposit, banks and supermarkets had donation jars all over town, but in the end, she couldn’t raise the money...she died, of a treatable condition, leaving three young kids behind.
That, to me, is barbaric...akin to leaving old women on icebergs or female children in fields to be killed by wolves.
I would hope to God that we never descend to that early form of barbarity such as you propose.
Ed
Oh, and another rejoinder to your proposal that if you can’t get health insurance, then you should just die?
I have heart disease, had it most of my adult life, and...as a result, I was NEVER able to buy health insurance...not one single company would sell it to me, not one.
And I tried ‘em all...
My employer stopped offering health insurance, and I was absolutely screwed. I know your philosophy is that when I need health insurance I should just pay my surgeon and cardiologist the half million dollars they charge, but...like most Americans, I don’t have $500,000 sitting around.
Under your proposal I should just die. Be put on an iceberg like an old Eskimo, or enter one of those Soylent Green clinics and be glad I can contribute to meeting the needs of society..
Okay...but what if I want to remain alive for my family? How would you propose I do so, under your scheme?
Serious question...how would you, or WOULD you, enable people with pre-existing diseases, who NO company will sell insurance to, to remain alive?
Ed
“Serious question...how would you, or WOULD you, enable people with pre-existing diseases, who NO company will sell insurance to, to remain alive?”
You have posed a profound question which, I believe, should be at the heart of the conservative movement, but is rarely articulated.
I believe we conservatives know in our hearts that society should take care of people regardless of ability to pay. Unfortunately, we get caught in an unresolved conflict between two truths: 1) only market forces can keep health costs fair and affordable. 2) there will always be some people who can’t afford to participate in the market.
When Trump said in the debates that a) health care should submit to market competition, and b) “we can’t leave people to die in the streets” - critics accused him of being inconsistant - is it market driven or does the federal government pay for it?
I think Trump was spot on with that answer: Both! The vast majority of people should pay for their own health care - resulting in a robust and competitive market which reduces costs radically (people wildly underestimate the extent to which competition brings down prices and the extent to which today’s crazy health care costs are due to the lack of competitive bidding) , AND the government should take care of people who can’t afford it - just like with anything else - food, housing, etc.
The trick is, and always will be, to enforce the poverty thresholds and keep people from gaming the welfare system. Not an easy challenge, but one that we must find solutions for.
In general, there is a hard truth we have to face: government provided welfare, whether for food, housing, health or anything else, must always be limited to bare necessity. If the free stuff is as good or better than the purchased stuff, then why would any sane person pay for anything? The whole economy falls apart, and then the poor suffer all the more and everyone becomes poorer, as the history of socialism has shown repeatedly. This leaves us with the hard fact that poor people will always have less - there will always be wealth (and health) inequality. It is a fact of nature.
Still, we can and should be merciful and protect our less fortunate citizens by finding the right balance between a free market and a social safety net.
I suggest that you read Ayn Rand.
I got my social security card at age 10 because I was already fully employed.
I am 73 now and still working. I am tired of my hard-earned money being given to some lazy, probably illegitimate and probably illegal alien who simply does not want to work and thinks that somehow the working people owe them a living.
We all have our opinion.
Have a nice day.
Heart disease?
HA! Try a triple-bypass in 1988. Yes, that is nineteen-eighty-eight, not a typo.....and several heart attacks since then, the most recent being on October 16, 2016.
Please, go cry to someone else. I can’t hear you.
Again, read Ayn Rand. If you cannot solve your problems you expect other working people to pay for your medical care. You seem to be socialistic in your thinking.
You, my friend, are a twit...
I’ve had a social security card since I was sixteen, worked continuously for the last 44 years, never took unemployment, food stamps or disability.
When I get on Medicare in five years I’ll start collecting.
I assume you paid for the whole thing out of your pocket?
I agree that the safety net should be minimal, lest people take advantage. I think food stamps should be limited to staples: wheat flour, potatoes, milk, etc., no chips, dip, steak, etc.
But for people like myself, pre-Obamacare, when NO companies would sell me health insurance, there was no alternative but to die...and I don’t think a civilized country should do that.
I think some problems should be solved collectively: public streets, roads, and highways, public parks and national forests, clean water standards, safety requirements, common defense, public education, and in the case of people who need bypass surgery like other posters here, or heart surgery for a defect, like myself, I do think we need some sort of guarantee that people aren’t dying on the streets for lack of medical care.
I guess that makes me collectivist but I think in some cases it’s both warranted and constitutional.
Thanks for your reply...
Ed
“You, my friend, are a twit...”
The truth hurts, doesn’t it? Go cry to someone else.
It is quite a shame that grown men have to cry as much as you do.
“I assume you paid for the whole thing out of your pocket?”
Yes, of course I did. I hate the thought of anyone having to pay for my problems.
Please, stop crying. It makes you look sad.
“You, my friend, are a twit...”
Name calling not only makes you look small but it also makes you sound like a democrat when you have no substantive reply.
“I’ve had a social security card since I was sixteen, worked continuously for the last 44 years, never took unemployment, food stamps or disability.
When I get on Medicare in five years I’ll start collecting.”
And your point would be what, exactly?
Dunno...maybe that I’m not an irresponsible wastrel, but am instead a responsible contributor to society, who will join the ranks of those on Medicare five years hence, so perhaps you’re viewing me through a wrong lens?
That the only difference between me and you is you had $500,000 to pay your herat surgeon and cardiologist, unlike myself who will finally be able to get the surgery because O-care made it possible to finally buy health insurance, and that the congress should keep the pre-existing clause for that reason, because millions of productive citizens like you and myself will be able to live out the rest of their years in good health?
Maybe that’s what point is?
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.