Posted on 03/22/2017 6:08:54 AM PDT by pgkdan
That is what I would expect him to say. To openly say otherwise would be to hand the Democrats and the media yet another talking point against Trump. It would also further divide the GOP. In my opinion.
Too many ‘Pauls’ to keep straight. :)
My apologies.
Trump only said that in jest. Even Political admitted it.
Excellent GIF!
Wow are you Catholic?
Because what you describe sounds like the greatest Hail Mary effort at a spin I’ve seen since Trump officially started to back this monstrosity.
Maybe you’re right and may be that’s his plan. But why not show leadership from the beginning put Rep. Lyin in his place and nix this entire piece of garbage before it even gets out of the House?
I sure hope you’re right at this point. I really do. Cuz the way it stands right now, Trump isn’t coming off as a conservative at all (gasp! It’s almost like what some were saying about him during the primaries!)
Yeah, no he’s looking more and more like the populist statist some were describing him as. I sure hope I’m wrong I really do. I’d love to be impressed by some of his promised 3 dimensional chess right now. (Which is what you’re describing)
We’ll see.
Nope. Repeal was the war cry in 2010, immediately following passage and early 2011. Mitt Romney changed repeal to "Repeal and Replace" in 2011 during the primary campaign and we've been stuck with it ever since.
Actually, yes, on the Catholic part.
I, too, am pretty nervous about how this goes because it will establish how and if he can lead on this crazy issue which touches the lives of every American. Because it affects every one of us, I am not sure it should at all be the subject of federal law at all.
If federal law should be applied in health care, it should only be the 13-page federal statute that governs the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. Just give that to all Americans!
Sure. Let me know when trump decides we have to repeal every word of obama or he wont sign the bill
Mark Meadors said yesterday that Trump made this remark in jest. Mark said he took absolutely no offense and the meeting went very well.
The GOP has had 8 years to come up with an alternative. They are like the dog who catches the car and can’t figure out what to do with it.
The theme from Ryan and Trump is that you cannot proceed with tax reform until you repeal and replace Obamacare. Supposedly, it is a process problem related to budget reconciliation.
The rest of the Trump agenda allegedly hangs on what happens to Obamacare. The question you should be asking is why has the GOP failed in the past 8 years to come up with a consensus plan on the alternative to Obamacare. It should have been ready to go. The Dems had their plan (Obamacare) ready when Obama took office. Of course, Obama had a 60 senator filibuster proof majority. The Reps must deal with the reality of having only 52 senators.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3536846/posts
It was brought up on several threads by a Freeper who uses that as his/her healthcare. I will add the post when I relocate it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3536846/posts?page=170#170
There were several mentions above:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3536846/posts?page=166#166 is one. This would get you started.
In the interests of putting some things to bed:
1) No, Mike Pence can’t ignore the Parliamentarian. This would be the mechanism in effect of making all bills budget reconciliation bills. That obviously is just a way to kill the filibuster in the Senate. It would not get even 10 votes. That’s why this proposal has already been dismissed as a non starter.
2) You can stop filibuster in ways not requiring 60 votes? No. You can’t. People are saying this via the Two Speech Rule. Senators are limited to 2 speeches per legislative day on a given subject. So glory be, you can require them to talk, they’re only allowed to talk twice and you shut them down without 60 votes! Bullshit. Completely wrong.
Senators are allowed to offer amendments to a bill. They can then give two speeches on each amendment. A minority can propose zillions of amendments. You CAN limit the number of amendments (NO senators like being limited in amendments) but then if you do that, senators can raise points of order and give two speeches on those. No limit on points of order.
Here’s discussion of this from 2010, when the Dems were raging at the power of the GOP filibusters.
Bottom line: THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. If there were a way around 60 votes that does not constrain to Reconciliation, the Dems would have used it. There is nothing new under the sun in all this. The GOP is not going to discover any genius maneuver. The Dems would have discovered it in 2010 if there were.
The Filibuster is what spared the country from a single payer Canada NHS style healthcare plan. Only the Filibuster and Scott Brown stopped that. You will not find even 10 votes to kill the Filibuster for non USSC issues.
Thanks much!!
Yep. That's my guess. And if that is the case...Trump is picking a fight with the wrong group. "Art of the Deal"....not! Threatening to come after them (of that is not some false flag) will not make the right happy. What that will ensure it a massive defeat in 2018...because I will stick a fork in it. I'm already getting screwed here in Texas by RINOs during this session. I've about had it.
The Christian healthcare companies are NOT TAXPAYER FUNDED but the REFUGEE INDUSTRY is...
Spot on!
When u find solid info let me know we were considering getting out from under 1200 per month under CIGNA. I cannot believe they would do this...
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.