House GOP advances Obamacare repeal efforts this week

[WorthyNewsBot]

(Worthy News) - House Republicans are advancing Obamacare repeal efforts this week with multiple member meetings to discuss key elements of a replacement plan, even as conservatives increasingly demand a quick vote on repealing the law.

Majority Whip Steve Scalise is holding three meetings with rank-and-file members this week, two on Tuesday afternoon and one on Thursday afternoon, to discuss elements they want to include in a bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Among the topics discussed will be tax-free savings accounts, Medicaid reforms and tax credits to buy private coverage.

A Republican conference meeting will be held Thursday morning to detail what will be in a replacement plan, led by Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady and Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden. [ Source ]

View the full article

[Ezra]

Both the Republicans and the President should already have had a comprehensive and detailed replacement plan for Obamacare, and by now it should have been repealed, and the new plan voted on.  All parties have had ample time to come up with a winner, and if they cannot do even that, then the RINOs should resign en masse.

Furthermore, there is no need for reams and reams of paper to outline what should be done.  The more obfuscation there is, the more chances of things going wrong.  A two-page plan would probably be sufficient.

[Guest]

On 2/14/2017 at 1:28 PM, Ezra said:

Both the Republicans and the President should already have had a comprehensive and detailed replacement plan for Obamacare,

 

On 2/14/2017 at 1:28 PM, Ezra said:

A two-page plan would probably be sufficient.

Perhaps this is just hyperbole on your part, but how is a two-page plan equal a comprehensive and detailed replacement plan for the ACA (aka Obamacare)?

Just as ridiculous as it is for Nancy Pelosi to say a bill needs to be passed before it can be read (or apparently understood), it is equally, if not more ridiculous (and reckless) to think that a replacement for Obamacare can be enacted in 2 pages.

[Ezra]

21 minutes ago, CCole1983 said:

Perhaps this is just hyperbole on your part, but how is a two-page plan equal a comprehensive and detailed replacement plan for the ACA (aka Obamacare)?

Well if Obamacare is REPEALED, the whole package is null and void.  

So starting from scratch, Trumpcare can easily be simplified and made fairer, using commonsense solutions. The idea is to ensure that no one is excluded, so a two-page document could easily be put together.  

The Heritage Foundation has already done the legwork, so it is simply a matter of implementing sound ideas in simple everyday language.

http://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/plan-repeal-and-replace-obamacare

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Ezra said:

Well if Obamacare is REPEALED, the whole package is null and void.  

So starting from scratch, Trumpcare can easily be simplified and made fairer, using commonsense solutions. The idea is to ensure that no one is excluded, so a two-page document could easily be put together.  

The Heritage Foundation has already done the legwork, so it is simply a matter of implementing sound ideas in simple everyday language.

http://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/plan-repeal-and-replace-obamacare

But a two page replacement is hardly comprehensive or detailed, especially in dealing with entities such as government and insurance. And I highly doubt it would be fair.

There are no simple solutions here. Recklessness gave us Obamacare in the first place. Repeal and replace should be handled with careful consideration

[Steve_S]

On 2/15/2017 at 8:10 PM, CCole1983 said:

But a two page replacement is hardly comprehensive or detailed, especially in dealing with entities such as government and insurance. And I highly doubt it would be fair.

There are no simple solutions here. Recklessness gave us Obamacare in the first place. Repeal and replace should be handled with careful consideration

Repeal should not, replace should, but that is just my opinion. We have had eight years to carefully consider the repeal and voters have consistently elected pro-repeal politicians across the country at virtually every level. When obamacare was passed there were 60 senators in the democratic caucus and 255 members caucusing with the democrats in the house of representatives and they also had the presidency. As of now there are 52 republican senators and 48 senators caucusing with the democrats (this is after an election in which the republicans had to defend a whopping 24 seats and were still able to maintain a majority, only having lost two seats) and 193 representatives caucusing with the democrats in the house. This is not counting the flips that have happened at the state level, which is probably more impressive, not to mention the fact that donald trump, a man who was roundly mocked by pretty much every pundit from both parties a year and a half ago as being a joke of a candidate, is now president, as a republican. I'm pretty sure the republicans could get away with an outright repeal politically. The wise political move would be to attempt to find ways to decrease the cost of premiums and the size of deductibles. That wound garner them sufficient enough accolades politically to where they probably wouldn't have to "replace" most of the rest of obamacare.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

Repeal should not, replace should, but that is just my opinion. We have had eight years to carefully consider the repeal and voters have consistently elected pro-repeal politicians across the country at virtually every level. When obamacare was passed there were 60 senators in the democratic caucus and 255 members caucusing with the democrats in the house of representatives and they also had the presidency. As of now there are 52 republican senators and 48 senators caucusing with the democrats (this is after an election in which the republicans had to defend a whopping 24 seats and were still able to maintain a majority, only having lost two seats) and 193 representatives caucusing with the democrats in the house. This is not counting the flips that have happened at the state level, which is probably more impressive, not to mention the fact that donald trump, a man who was roundly mocked by pretty much every pundit from both parties a year and a half ago as being a joke of a candidate, is now president, as a republican. I'm pretty sure the republicans could get away with an outright repeal politically. The wise political move would be to attempt to find ways to decrease the cost of premiums and the size of deductibles. That wound garner them sufficient enough accolades politically to where they probably wouldn't have to "replace" most of the rest of obamacare.

Republicans don't want to repeal it though. They say they do, but then in 2012 their Presidential nominee was the guy who implemented a plan very similar to Obamacare.

[Steve_S]

18 minutes ago, CCole1983 said:

Republicans don't want to repeal it though. They say they do, but then in 2012 their Presidential nominee was the guy who implemented a plan very similar to Obamacare.

I don't disagree that some republicans may not want to, but i think a lot of that has to do with the political gold it has been for the republican party. I cannot remember a single issue that has been so successfully hung on an opposition party as obamacare, but then again, i am only 36. I'm sure it's happened before.

As far as romney. He was the next in line candidate and that is the way republicans have pretty much always went in primaries. Democrats almost always nominate someone who is outsiderish. Ironically the inverse happened this year and the republicans likely won because of it. The only true next in line guy the democrats have nominated in my lifetime aside from hillary clinton was gore, but he was a sitting vice president, which adds a different context to the nominating process. You have to go all the way back to hubert humphrey before gore to find a big time next in line guy for the democrats. Obama certainly wasn't expected to get it in 2008. Look at the republicans though. Over that same time period you had nixon, ford (though as a sitting president, but one that had not been elected himself), reagan (who was pretty much assumed to be "the guy" after his 76 insurgency), bush I, sitting vp, huge republican party insider/establishment guy, bob dole, senate majority leader, george w. bush (son of bush I lol), john mccain (guy who finished second to bush in 2000), mitt romney (guy who finished second to mccain in 2008). These things have patterns that are not always 100 percent on track, but are certainly reasonably consistent over time. Trump is the biggest outsider to get the republican nomination in who knows how long. Trump type outsiders getting the democratic nomination (by that i mean guys outside of the washington establishment who are sometimes very unpopular with that establishment, not speaking on his politics or personality) get the democratic nomination a lot.

[Tea Ess]

32 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

Repeal should not, replace should, but that is just my opinion. We have had eight years to carefully consider the repeal and voters have consistently elected pro-repeal politicians across the country at virtually every level. When obamacare was passed there were 60 senators in the democratic caucus and 255 members caucusing with the democrats in the house of representatives and they also had the presidency. As of now there are 52 republican senators and 48 senators caucusing with the democrats (this is after an election in which the republicans had to defend a whopping 24 seats and were still able to maintain a majority, only having lost two seats) and 193 representatives caucusing with the democrats in the house. This is not counting the flips that have happened at the state level, which is probably more impressive, not to mention the fact that donald trump, a man who was roundly mocked by pretty much every pundit from both parties a year and a half ago as being a joke of a candidate, is now president, as a republican. I'm pretty sure the republicans could get away with an outright repeal politically. The wise political move would be to attempt to find ways to decrease the cost of premiums and the size of deductibles. That wound garner them sufficient enough accolades politically to where they probably wouldn't have to "replace" most of the rest of obamacare.

If Republicans didn't intend to replace the ACA, they shouldn't have said they were going to. Furthermore, lower premiums and deductibles won't help the people whose problem is not being able to get insurance in the first place. 

[Steve_S]

2 minutes ago, Tea Ess said:

If Republicans didn't intend to replace the ACA, they shouldn't have said they were going to. Furthermore, lower premiums and deductibles won't help the people whose problem is not being able to get insurance in the first place. 

I wasn't speaking about what they said or whether or not they were trying to get people insurance who do not have it or may lose it. I was speaking strictly in terms of what would probably be a win politically. If premiums and deductibles start going down as a result of actions they take after a repeal, but they take no other action, that will be hailed as enough of a victory by the cross section of the population that it would probably have positive results at the ballot box. It really just boils down to demographics. If the number of people who's premiums are lowered noticeably are higher than the number of people who are receiving or would receive benefits from obamacare, then it is very likely that it would be a net positive. This is incredibly likely, because there are over a hundred million people who have experienced drastically increasing premiums and only a fraction of that actually enroll in obamacare.