Just to clear some things up.

1. Yes
2. NO
   

Yes. Will replace it with something terrific.

So you are admitting that the ACA is a piece of sh*t law that needs to be replaced?

I have yet to see a piece of legislation with my own eyes that is an actual replacement to Obamacare nor have I seen a formal vote taken in the house nor have I seen a Dem filibuster of the alternative bill. We most definitely have heard congressmen saying the bill exists, but nothing in its entirety that was shared with the public.

I have yet to see a piece of legislation with my own eyes that is an actual replacement to Obamacare nor have I seen a formal vote taken in the house nor have I seen a Dem filibuster of the alternative bill. We most definitely have heard congressmen saying the bill exists, but nothing in its entirety that was shared with the public.

Repeating that this is a completely false premise.

Dems wouldn't need to filibuster. President would simply veto. Nobody in their right mind doesn't believe that Obama wouldn't veto an overturn of his ONLY significant policy piece. Why should Republicans negotiate with themselves, only to then later (once they have the White House and assuming they don't have 60 votes) negotiate with Dems again?

They don't need to propose anything until they have the ability to overturn the ACA, which they don't have as long as they don't have 2/3rds of Congress or the White House.

Not only do they not NEED to, but IMO they would be STUPID to.

The whole key in passing the ACA was that we didn't have time to vet or study it, and the average American is a gullible moron. 'Smart' people knew it was going to cause problems, and were 90% correct on what many of those problems were going to be.... and people on your side of the aisle point at the 10% that they didn't get correct as if that invalidates everything they did get right... ignoring that the parts they DIDN'T get right were often even worse.

I mean seriously... can ANYONE name ANYTHING within the ACA that has turned out to be 'better' then we were told it would be?

The whole key in replacing the ACA will similarly be in avoiding some long drawn out explanation to the Average American about how insurance and the healthcare industry work... because most of them can't understand it anyway.

Again many many many people disagree with you Hambone. Including many Republicans.

(05-05-2016 10:09 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Again many many many people disagree with you Hambone. Including many Republicans.

Repealing it, by definition, replaces it, because there previously was pages and pages of law and regulation on our health care system. Those would then become current law.

No...They have not proposed a damn thing. They are as useful as a football bat.

Well glad we are getting this cleared up.

I think you're arguing a meaningless abstract. Numerous proposals have been put forth and gone nowhere... because they have nowhere to go.

As others have alluded, repealing it does not eliminate healthcare. Lots of rules go away. Lots of rules would be replaced by old ones. Lots of others would need to be replaced.... but those are all contingent upon which parts are necessary to get The President's signature (or enough votes in Congress to over-ride him)... and Democrats have refused to consider a repeal, and of course Obama won't sign it.

The argument that 'we don't know what he won't sign because it hasn't been proposed' is a cheap political argument. You're not specifically saying this, but it is a part of the 'support' for your position. Democrats won't vote to repeal it, and Republicans won't vote to allow it to remain and simply fix it. Whether there is an official 'repeal' of the ACA or not is immaterial to me. There are MAJOR provisions of the ACA which MUST be eliminated in order to fix it, rendering the bill essentially moot. Democrats still want it to be called the ACA... Republicans don't. Dems are 'smart' to stick to their guns while they have them, and are arguably smart (politically) to engage in the argument they are... but this is just like the SC nomination. Why should Republicans (who can vote as we approach the election to confirm Obama's choice) settle if they think there's a chance of a better offer later? Not from Obama, but from a Republican? Or if they think they can get 60 votes from a new Senate? Republicans are smart to NOT vote to 'fix' the ACA, especially as it is sinking on its own and the more it sinks... the more of the 'delayed' negatives that come to fruition... the more likely they are to 'win' by running against it.


All you're arguing is that some Republicans are 'overstating' how much has been done to repeal/replace Obamacare... which IMO is semantics and immaterial. I feel very confident that there have been numerous plans bantered about, all of which are contingent upon whom they have to negotiate with to pass it. Until now, that has been Obama and others who have refused to negotiate at all on it.

The only reason to banter it publicly is to raise public support for your proposal... but because so few really understand it, this is pointless. It is far easier to convince people that a Pinto sucks than it is to convince them that a Ford truck is better than a Chevy or Dodge.

Hambone,

You have taken the time to explain your reasoning and I appreciate that. Politically I think you are being naive. One, it would definitely help them if they had passed something that made Obama use his veto pen. I don't think you would have near the problem you are having now within the GOP. I saw polls where 2/3rds of the GOP felt betrayed. The voters gave them this majority and what do they have to show for it? Nothing. Not putting something on the table to replace Obamacare was the very definition of stupidity in my view. Heck they ran on it have overwhelming numbers and still to this very date nada zlich zero. We had some things out of the House when the D's ran the Senate. Nothing since. Now they know they could get something to put on his desk and what do we have? I understand your argument but I just happen to believe your argument is wrong. We're not the first people to disagree here on the Spin Room and certainly won't be the last. I do understand the reasoning just think it falls very flat in reality.

I appreciate and respect your opinion mach, but I similarly think you're being politically naïve.

With many of the 'bad' provisions of the ACA still yet to come, it is far easier to get the electorate to unite behind 'not the ACA' than it is to get them to unite behind ANY single proposal... and it is far easier to attack an alternative proposal than it is to defend the ACA.

The feelings of betrayal within the GOP aren't specifically related to the ACA, but date back to even George W, who expanded the government arguably just as bad as Obama did... and looking at Bernie's support, it's hard not to see that the democrats similarly feel betrayed.

As I said in one of these threads... the LAST thing I'd want to do is to put my best ideas out there when I know they can't pass. All that would happen is when next I ran on them, people would call them 'old ideas that have already been defeated'. Obama isn't running. Neither is Pelosi or his VP... people tightly associated with Obamacare. If they were, I'd probably do as you suggest. Hillary actually ran on (and was known for) something substantially different than the ACA... which many democrats actually prefer (single payer)

It's the same reason Obama nominated a person to the SCOTUS whom in EVERY aspect except gun control, seems to be somewhat moderate. I feel 100% confident that this wasn't his first/preferred choice, but he was compromised by the political realities.

But yes... we can disagree on which is 'best'....

I just have a hard time believing that the Republican Party and all of their advisors and operatives are as politically naïve as you feel I am... since they obviously don't agree that they needed to pass something (since they didn't).

I think you are giving too much credit to the current crop of Republican Advisers, but your points stand nonetheless.

(05-05-2016 02:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I think you are giving too much credit to the current crop of Republican Advisers, but your points stand nonetheless.

maybe so... I certainly don't identify with them, so maybe I am.

Sometimes I feel like the enemy of my enemy is my friend with Republicans. The don't like the ACA, but only a few of them really know why they don't. MAYBE my problem is that I have serious issues with 'how smart' the average voter is. I think the average voter is a moron, and that is whom they are trying to appeal to. Maybe this is just another 'decent' response for the totally wrong reason. FTR, I think Owl generally agrees with you about this.

At any rate, I really appreciate that people can disagree and yet still have very constructive conversations.

THAT is (imo) how things actually get solved, and I appreciate your perspective and opinions

(05-05-2016 12:43 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hambone,
You have taken the time to explain your reasoning and I appreciate that. Politically I think you are being naive. One, it would definitely help them if they had passed something that made Obama use his veto pen. I don't think you would have near the problem you are having now within the GOP. I saw polls where 2/3rds of the GOP felt betrayed. The voters gave them this majority and what do they have to show for it? Nothing. Not putting something on the table to replace Obamacare was the very definition of stupidity in my view. Heck they ran on it have overwhelming numbers and still to this very date nada zlich zero. We had some things out of the House when the D's ran the Senate. Nothing since. Now they know they could get something to put on his desk and what do we have? I understand your argument but I just happen to believe your argument is wrong. We're not the first people to disagree here on the Spin Room and certainly won't be the last. I do understand the reasoning just think it falls very flat in reality.

Day one after regaining the house in 2011, republicans should have passed Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin or some combination of the best of both (not hard, they are both pretty much the same thing, just minor differences in details) and French Bismarck health care. Pass them by voice vote and send them to Harry Reid, and let him and Obama pass that hot potato back and forth.

But they didn't.

but then for the next 4 years, they'd be 'married' to that proposal and Dems would have 4 years to shoot holes in it and convince the gullible public, especially those who simply fear the unknown that it would be 'worse' than the ACA... completely distracting from the fact that the ACA keeps getting worse as time passes and more of it gets implemented. If they'd amended it, they would be accused of admitting that it wasn't 'better' in the first place, and asked why they wouldn't similarly amend O-care... and let's face it... MOST people don't understand why you can't.

I respect you all's opinions, but I respectfully disagree.

I wouldn't have done it unless I thought Obama felt pressure to repeal it... and regardless of the election, he didn't.

(05-05-2016 04:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  but then for the next 4 years, they'd be 'married' to that proposal and Dems would have 4 years to shoot holes in it and convince the gullible public, especially those who simply fear the unknown that it would be 'worse' than the ACA... completely distracting from the fact that the ACA keeps getting worse as time passes and more of it gets implemented. If they'd amended it, they would be accused of admitting that it wasn't 'better' in the first place, and asked why they wouldn't similarly amend O-care... and let's face it... MOST people don't understand why you can't.
I respect you all's opinions, but I respectfully disagree.
I wouldn't have done it unless I thought Obama felt pressure to repeal it... and regardless of the election, he didn't.

But no matter how hard they tried to shoot holes in it, democrats would be left arguing against the generally accepted best systems in the world. There's a tangible comparable, and it acquits itself very nicely.

(05-05-2016 05:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But no matter how hard they tried to shoot holes in it, democrats would be left arguing against the generally accepted best systems in the world. There's a tangible comparable, and it acquits itself very nicely.

That hasn't hurt anyone so far. It certainly hasn't hurt them arguing against VAT.

Don't get me wrong... you know I agree with you... I just disagree on the best way to accomplish it. Being straightforward doesn't sell well to the average voter.

I like Ben Carson's Health Empowerment Accounts plan the best of what candidates have proposed so far. The fact that Carson endorsed Trump soon after he bowed out gives me hope that trump will take Carson's plan or most of it and adopt it as his own.

Ben Carson's Health Empowerment Accounts Plan for fixing healthcare for all Americans