How's that Obamacare Repeal Working Out For You?

[C-Mag]

Hmmm, lower prices through competition. What a concept

Crazy huh?
Why would Health Insurance have boundaries when Life, Home and Car Insurance do not ?

Quite a mystery, verily.

We may never know.

[Fife]

I would have rather seen GOP Single-Payer get truly scuttled, at this point, by someone other than shitbird McCain, but this turn at least puts a spotlight on Lee, Heller, and especially Ruz. Who knows, from this steaming Graham single-payer pile, Randy might actually get some people to come along for a look at his replacement concept; following an actual repeal.

Paul's assessment of the situation seems pretty accurate. Trump has never indicated much of an interest in the policy aspects of the health care debate that has raged on Capitol Hill since March, though he did quickly organize a Rose Garden press conference to celebrate the House's passage of an earlier Obamacare repeal bill. A lack of White House engagement was widely noted in the wake of the "skinny repeal" bill's embarrassing failure in July, but—aside from some bluster on Twitter—neither the president nor his top health officials have been particularly active in selling the Graham-Cassidy bill to potentially recalcitrant Republicans this week.

Indeed, even Republicans in the Senate who said they would vote for the Graham-Cassidy bill appeared this week to be having a difficult time explaining the merits of it. A vote on the bill is scheduled for next week, but that timeline is dictated more by the ticking clock than by any broad agreement that Graham-Cassidy is a good bill. Republicans only have until September 30 to pass a health care bill using the reconciliation process. After that a major rewrite of Obamacare will require 60 votes and therefore must have Democratic support.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/22/rand- ... -a-big-boy

[C-Mag]

I hope it fails.

I'm still waiting for the Dems to put forth some plan to fix the failing Obamacare turd, until that time, let it implode. As insurance rates tick up to a further untenable level and as more people are unable to get healthcare there will be a cry to help. Fix the problem. That is when we must be steady, point to the Democrats and Obama and say.......... what happened, you forced this on us. Yet when the POTUS asked for help fixing it you just voted against it 3 times.

Bury those fuckers.

[Okeefenokee]

Wait . . . what?

Oh, Republicans are setting up another failed run at delivering on their promise to repeal the ACA.



Fascinating.

The march of time makes hitler look like a school marm.

[C-Mag]

How Congress get's paid in Obamacare, and we pay the bill.
https://100percentfedup.com/john-mccain ... obamacare/

[Fife]

[Fife]

No quarter, Rand. Judge Nap explains perfectly above how the swamp has re-set the entire argument to being just about what kind of single-payer we are going to get hosed with.

Poor Donald has been reduced to a quivering lump of jello by the state.

Rothbard expanded way back in the day on why NO QUARTER is the only way to deal with this DC fuckery: The Case for Radical Idealism

Every "radical" creed has been subjected to the charge of being "utopian," and the libertarian movement is no exception. Some libertarians themselves maintain that we should not frighten people off by being "too radical," and that therefore the full libertarian ideology and program should be kept hidden from view. These people counsel a "Fabian" program of gradualism, concentrating solely on a gradual whittling away of State power. An example would be in the field of taxation: Instead of advocating the "radical" measure of abolition of all taxation, or even of abolishing income taxation, we should confine ourselves to a call for tiny improvements; say, for a two percent cut in income tax.

In the field of strategic thinking, it behooves libertarians to heed the lessons of the Marxists, because they have been thinking about strategy for radical social change longer than any other group. Thus, the Marxists see two critically important strategic fallacies that "deviate" from the proper path: one they call "left-wing sectarianism"; the other, and opposing, deviation is "right-wing opportunism." The critics of libertarian "extremist" principles are the analog of the Marxian "right-wing opportunists."

. . .

Neither should there be any contradictions in rhetoric. The libertarian should not indulge in any rhetoric, let alone any policy recommendations, which would work against the eventual goal. Thus, suppose that a libertarian is asked to give his views on a specific tax cut. Even if he does not feel that he can at the moment call loudly for tax abolition, the one thing that he must not do is add to his support of a tax cut such unprincipled rhetoric as, "Well, of course, some taxation is essential . . . ," etc. Only harm to the ultimate objective can be achieved by rhetorical flourishes which confuse the public and contradict and violate principle.

What part of "repeal" do these GOP cuck turds in congress and the WH think the people don't understand?

[Ex-California]

No quarter, Rand. Judge Nap explains perfectly above how the swamp has re-set the entire argument to being just about what kind of single-payer we are going to get hosed with.

Poor Donald has been reduced to a quivering lump of jello by the state.

Rothbard expanded way back in the day on why NO QUARTER is the only way to deal with this DC fuckery: The Case for Radical Idealism

Every "radical" creed has been subjected to the charge of being "utopian," and the libertarian movement is no exception. Some libertarians themselves maintain that we should not frighten people off by being "too radical," and that therefore the full libertarian ideology and program should be kept hidden from view. These people counsel a "Fabian" program of gradualism, concentrating solely on a gradual whittling away of State power. An example would be in the field of taxation: Instead of advocating the "radical" measure of abolition of all taxation, or even of abolishing income taxation, we should confine ourselves to a call for tiny improvements; say, for a two percent cut in income tax.

In the field of strategic thinking, it behooves libertarians to heed the lessons of the Marxists, because they have been thinking about strategy for radical social change longer than any other group. Thus, the Marxists see two critically important strategic fallacies that "deviate" from the proper path: one they call "left-wing sectarianism"; the other, and opposing, deviation is "right-wing opportunism." The critics of libertarian "extremist" principles are the analog of the Marxian "right-wing opportunists."

. . .

Neither should there be any contradictions in rhetoric. The libertarian should not indulge in any rhetoric, let alone any policy recommendations, which would work against the eventual goal. Thus, suppose that a libertarian is asked to give his views on a specific tax cut. Even if he does not feel that he can at the moment call loudly for tax abolition, the one thing that he must not do is add to his support of a tax cut such unprincipled rhetoric as, "Well, of course, some taxation is essential . . . ," etc. Only harm to the ultimate objective can be achieved by rhetorical flourishes which confuse the public and contradict and violate principle.

What part of "repeal" do these GOP cuck turds in congress and the WH think the people don't understand?

I still don't have a problem with gradualism, because it only makes sense.

[Fife]

I still don't have a problem with gradualism, because it only makes sense.

How do we gradualize back from Graham GOP single-payer? It either ends before it starts, gets cut out root and stem by congress, or it goes over the cliff.

#fullrepeal or nothing.

[StCapps]

Single payer isn't necessarily a bad thing, simmer down lolbergs. A universal public option is the way to go, you need to knock off the knee-jerk anti-socialism bullshit at certain point if you want better health care. You could use more free market health care too, but you can have your cake and eat it too, so it's not a one or the other kind of thing.