Version 2 of Senate GOP Trumpcare Out: Pre-Existing Condition Discrimination Is Back

[Mormolyce]

Obamacare was passed by reconciliation and every criticism leveled against Democrats using that tactic is absolutely legitimate.

But it's also something that happened 8 years ago now.

To be fair it was partisan obstinacy on the part of the Republican party at the time that necessitated it.

And that same pigheadedness is what has ultimately landed them in this trap.

But yes it is lousy politics.

[MoanaLisa]

Obamacare was passed by reconciliation...

This isn't true. The ACA was passed with 60 votes in the Senate. It was not passed by reconciliation.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/7...orm-bill-60-40

[Skroe]

This isn't true. The ACA was passed with 60 votes in the Senate. It was not passed by reconciliation.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/7...orm-bill-60-40

No. The Senate passed ACA by 60 votes. The House passed their bill, which had changes to it. That would have required a Conference, and then both houses re-passing the compromise bill. Between those two points, Ted Kennedy died and was replaced with Scott Brown, giving Democrats 59 votes. This necessitated the Senate passing the House bill via reconciliation.

But regardless, something as big as Obamacare should have been a 85 to 90 vote bill, not a 59 vote bill done through reconciliation. Obama justified it with his "Fierce Urgency of Now" bullshit. It was nonsense.

Basically if the ACA couldn't get 85 votes, it shouldn't have been voted on. As a matter of principle legislating and governing by just-barely-enough-votes-to-pass is a way of doing business that... well... invites exactly what has happened to happen.

I sincerely hope liberals, if they ever get another President who tries to push them to do things via the "Fierce Urgency of Now" line of thinking, promptly tell him to take a long walk off a short bridge. No matter the policy, it's not worth the long term consequences, and equally, by a more competent President/politician than Trump, could be used to justify truly anything against liberals interests, the next time power changes hands.

Without a broad consensus, in my view, don't even bother putting it to a vote.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...trumpcare.html


John McCain made high drama of it. Schumer gestured harshly to democrats to stop applauding. Audible *gasp* by the crowd.

[Gestopft]

I am a big believer in the free market but there needs to be some regulation when it's clear that businesses are abusing those free market principles. People in the US are paying 10 times the price that people in other countries are paying for the same medicines. There is clearly something wrong. Right now, those businesses are taking advantage of the concept of free market and paying the politicians to cover them.

I'm not even sure I'd call it "abusing the free market" as much as taking advantage of the lack of regulation. The issue is that competition, supply and demand, and informed choice - the very things that make free markets efficient- are all weakly or non-applicable in healthcare. The mechanisms that drive down cost are ineffective, and the result of not controlling costs is that we have the most expensive healthcare in the world.

[MoanaLisa]

No. The Senate passed ACA by 60 votes. The House passed their bill, which had changes to it. That would have required a Conference, and then both houses re-passing the compromise bill. Between those two points, Ted Kennedy died and was replaced with Scott Brown, giving Democrats 59 votes. This necessitated the Senate passing the House bill via reconciliation.

You have your history wrong.

Dec. 24, 2009: The Senate approves its version of the health care overhaul in a 60-39 party-line vote. Democrats have to break a GOP filibuster. The bill’s passage confirms majority agreement in both chambers of Congress.

January 2010: Obama, in his first State of the Union address, says the health overhaul will “protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry.” … In a major upset, Massachusetts state Sen. Scott Brown, a Republican, wins the special election to finish the remaining term of U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy. It gives the GOP a key vote and is seen as a major rebuff to Obama. Brown works actively against Obamacare. Meanwhile, the GOP-controlled House votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but the effort fails in the Senate.

February 2010: Anthem Blue Cross of California informs many members they’ll be paying a 39 percent increase in premiums. The move, under investigation by the White House and in Congress, galvanizes Democrats on the health care issue. Obama calls a bipartisan health care meeting for leaders of both parties on Feb. 25. He later says “the Republican and Democratic approaches to health care have more in common than most people think.”

March 2010: President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi keep up pressure on Democrat lawmakers to ensure passage of the health care act. “We are this close to the summit of the mountain,” Obama tells staffers. A New York Times analysis calls it “the most riveting cliffhanger of the Obama presidency so far.”

March 21, 2010: The Senate’s version of the health care plan is OK’d by the House in a 219-212 vote. All Republicans voted against it. “The American people are angry,” House Republican leader John Boehner said. “This body moves forward against their will.”

March 23, 2010: President Obama signs the Affordable Care Act into law. “We did not fear our future, we shaped it,” he says.

Go read up. You're thinking of something else. The ACA was not passed through reconciliation.

http://affordablehealthca.com/timeline-obamacare/

[Gray_Matter]

But regardless, something as big as Obamacare should have been a 85 to 90 vote bill, not a 59 vote bill done through reconciliation.

I can't see very many bills passing with 85 to 90 votes now days. The primary system ensures that both the left and right put forward more and more extreme candidates. Politics is becoming far more partisan and people are looking at what their politicians say first, before deciding what stance to take on subjects. There should be no way to pass anything through the senate without 60 votes, including SCOTUS appointees. Hell, make it 70 votes. Force the politicians to include the moderates from the other side. But before they can do that, they need to get rid of primaries and include ranked voting which will drive the politicians back to the center. It would be nice if they could get rid of lobbyists and money in politics too but that's a long shot.

Something like a healthcare bill should be decided by moderates on both sides, without fear of reprisals by the money men behind the scenes.

[Wyrt]

I can't see very many bills passing with 85 to 90 votes now days. The primary system ensures that both the left and right put forward more and more extreme candidates. Politics is becoming far more partisan and people are looking at what their politicians say first, before deciding what stance to take on subjects. There should be no way to pass anything through the senate without 60 votes, including SCOTUS appointees. Hell, make it 70 votes. Force the politicians to include the moderates from the other side. But before they can do that, they need to get rid of primaries and include ranked voting which will drive the politicians back to the center. It would be nice if they could get rid of lobbyists and money in politics too but that's a long shot.

Something like a healthcare bill should be decided by moderates on both sides, without fear of reprisals by the money men behind the scenes.

The left isn't putting up more extreme candidates, they're putting up more moderates. That's why a good portion of the "left" doesn't support single payer healthcare. Bernie was the most left candidate in years and the democrat establishment hated him, they still hate him.

The right has gone way out to la la land.

[MoanaLisa]

Bernie was the most left candidate in years and the democrat establishment hated him, they still hate him.

The democratic establishment, even as disorganized as it is, would likely prefer to see Bernie join the party before they welcome him whole-heartedly. They're not wrong to ask that.

[PosPosPos]

Without a broad consensus, in my view, don't even bother putting it to a vote.

That must first require the majority of those voting are reasonable and in the right mind. Which means nothing important will ever get passed because Republicans would simply stonewall over and over.

[Gray_Matter]

The left isn't putting up more extreme candidates, they're putting up more moderates. That's why a good portion of the "left" doesn't support single payer healthcare. Bernie was the most left candidate in years and the democrat establishment hated him, they still hate him.

The right has gone way out to la la land.

If you look you will see all of the calls to the democratic members of congress to oppose anything and everything. There have already been threats to replace certain members that aren't left enough. The issue is that activists vote in primaries and activists tend to be more extreme. That means that more moderate candidates get pushed out.

- - - Updated - - -

That must first require the majority of those voting are reasonable and in the right mind. Which means nothing important will ever get passed because Republicans would simply stonewall over and over.

The GoP members of congress, believe it or not, aren't idiots. They vote the way they do because they fear reprisals from the right far more than the general election and those aren't hollow fears. Think back to Erik Cantor. If you get rid of that fear then you would be far more likely to get some progress.

[MoanaLisa]

The GoP members of congress, believe it or not, aren't idiots. They vote the way they do because they fear reprisals from the right far more than the general election and those aren't hollow fears. Think back to Erik Cantor. If you get rid of that fear then you would be far more likely to get some progress.

Quite true which makes their actions around health care even worse. People would die, if they ever get their way, so they wouldn't be subject to a primary challenge.

[Wyrt]

If you look you will see all of the calls to the democratic members of congress to oppose anything and everything. There have already been threats to replace certain members that aren't left enough. The issue is that activists vote in primaries and activists tend to be more extreme. That means that more moderate candidates get pushed out.

I'm not seeing the problem. The US really doesn't need 2 right wing parties. Especially when 1 is so crazy far to the right they think the more moderate position is literally communism.

[Gray_Matter]

Quite true which makes their actions around health care even worse. People would die, if they ever get their way, so they wouldn't be subject to a primary challenge.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's obscene to me that the politicians are playing with peoples lives just so they can get re-elected. They are supposed to be there to represent their constituents.

[PosPosPos]

The GoP members of congress, believe it or not, aren't idiots. They vote the way they do because they fear reprisals from the right far more than the general election and those aren't hollow fears. Think back to Erik Cantor. If you get rid of that fear then you would be far more likely to get some progress.

WELL, maybe they should start by not fearmonger and make up ridiculous boogeymen, then they wouldn't find themselves in a situation where they would have to allay their voters' fears.

How many decades did far right politicians start *and* subsequently fuel things like McCarthyism?

Shocking revelation.

[karumayu]

I agree wholeheartedly. It's obscene to me that the politicians are playing with peoples lives just so they can get re-elected. They are supposed to be there to represent their constituents.

This is not unique to US, but it's a systematic failure of politics that people who consider a political position as a civil service are so rarely found. Instead it has become a career path for morally bankrupt people for whom the only concern is re-election and money.

[Wyrt]

This is not unique to US, but it's a systematic failure of politics that people who consider a political position as a civil service are so rarely found. Instead it has become a career path for morally bankrupt people for whom the only concern is re-election and money.

Shouldn't doing what their constituents want lead to re-election though?

The money part is awful, but we can't do anything about that because all the republicans and the vast majority of democrats like it that way.

[karumayu]

Shouldn't doing what their constituents want lead to re-election though?

The money part is awful, but we can't do anything about that because all the republicans and the vast majority of democrats like it that way.

In part, yes. But what we are seeing now is manipulating and seeding fear amongst the populace in order to drum up support and get re-elected.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Man, this is some great news to wake up to.

[Breccia]

I blinked, what happened?

(reads thread)

McCain, huh? Guy really came through in the end, there.

[Belize]

I blinked, what happened?

(reads thread)

McCain, huh? Guy really came through in the end, there.

He has nothing to lose. Call me pessimistic.

If he were perfectly healthy and up for re-election, I'd doubt he'd have strayed away.