Anyone on the right want to defend senate Republicans for secret health care bill?

[NesuD]

FACT: The ACA had a historic number of hours of debate and amendments during Committee development of the legislations.

• The House process spanned three committees - Energy and Commerce, Ways and means, and Education and Labor - with dozens of hearings over many months.
• Specifically, the House held 79 bipartisan hearings and markups on the health reform bill over the period of an entire year.
• House members spent nearly 100 hours in hearings, heard from 181 witnesses from both sides of the aisle, considered 239 amendments (both Democratic and Republican), and accepted 121 amendments.

FACT: The Senate held dozens of public meetings and hearings in both the Finance and HELP Committees and accepted hundreds of Republican amendments.

• The HELP Committee held 14 bipartisan roundtables, 13 bipartisan hearings, and 20 bipartisan walkthroughs on health reform.
• The HELP Committee considered nearly 300 amendments and accepted more than 160 Republican amendments.

• The Finance Committee held 17 roundtables, summits, and hearings on health reform. The Finance Committee also held 13 member meetings and walkthroughs and 38 meetings and negotiations for a total of 53 meetings on health reform. [Senate Finance Committee, 5/3/10]
• The Finance Committee held a seven-day markup of the bill, the longest Finance Committee markup in 22 years, resulting in a bipartisan 14-to-9 vote to approve the bill. [Senate Finance Committee, 5/3/10]
• The Finance Committee markup resulted in 41 amendments to revise the bill, including 18 by unanimous consent or without objection. [Senate Finance Committee, 10/13/09]

FACT: The financing of the ACA's coverage provisions was well known and debated.

When the bill came to the floor, the Senate spent 25 consecutive days in session on health reform, the second longest consecutive session in history. In total, the Senate spent more than 160 hours considering the health reform legislation.

• The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office issued many reports on the Affordable Care Act's financing, clearly showing that revenue would be raised by the personal responsibility provision, also known at the individual mandate or free-rider penalty, in every case that it described the law's coverage provisions. [CBO, 12/10; The Washington Post, 9/24/14; ASPE, 9/24/14]

• CBO also wrote extensively about how a properly-functioning insurance market would work as designed under the ACA. The entire purpose of insurance is to balance out the risk of healthy and non-healthy enrollees; anyone who believes that this point was avoided during debate of the ACA was simply not paying attention to advocates of the law as they described it during the many public hearings the law received.
  
  https://www.dpcc.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=328
  

I remember all that. It was roundly debated and discussed in the halls of Congress extensively as I recall. I also recall at times it seemed very much like an auction with many of the Democratic congress men/women selling their yes votes dearly for pork barrel projects and grants for their districts and states.

 

[xthetenth]

"When pigs fly." Pigs are unprocessed bacon, if you've a rather dark sense of humor, as I do. It's a little like how a bundle of barbed wire and some machine guns formed a "strategic hamlet" in 'Nam.

Ahh. Okay. I'm more prone to dysphemistic use of corporate euphemism, but it recognized a kindred spirit. Makes sense.

Strategic hamlets were just top to bottom a dog's breakfast though. Malaysia "worked" for reasons that didn't apply in Vietnam but good luck paying attention to that when the whiz kids are pretending an MBA is a valid substitute for actual knowledge and trying to rightsize the hell out of an enemy army that draws support from a disaffected population by pissing off the population.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

This body was born in July of '85, so I wasn't there (at least in current form, if at all) for Viet Nam, but...I read. A lot. Time doesn't make much sense to me anymore.

 

[xthetenth]

This body was born in July of '85, so I wasn't there (at least in current form, if at all) for Viet Nam, but...I read. A lot. Time doesn't make much sense to me anymore.

I'm personally a pretty decent capstone on the Cold War, but ditto about the reading. Time makes a lot of sense though. Things happen, people ascribe the cause of those things to something that justifies their biases, things happen for similar reasons, the world keeps turning, people still aren't learning.

And here I am, the world's cheeriest nihilist. (How's that for an ugly rhyme?)

 

[mect]

They haven't even been able to see the bill they would be amending, idiot.

That's a weak excuse. They should be able to guess the things republicans would put into a secret healthcare bill and amend from there.

 

[xthetenth]

That's a weak excuse. They should be able to guess the things republicans would put into a secret healthcare bill and amend from there.

That honestly wouldn't be a bad idea. Just start throwing totally arbitrary accusations and make the Republicans try and disprove them or admit that they're making the bill in secret.

 

[Atreus21]

If they passed this, they'll write their ticket to a huge 2018 loss.

Reminds me of the 2010 midterms.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Oh shut up. It isn't anywhere even close to that, and your desperate false equivalencies and both-sides-ism are not doing you any favors.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Oh shut up. It isn't anywhere even close to that, and your desperate false equivalencies and both-sides-ism are not doing you any favors.

Careful, she bites!

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

You just now noticed that? Not only do I bite, I do that roll-around-and-twist thing 'gators do when they really, really want to make it clear they need, as it were, a leg up.

 

[senseamp]

Republicans seem intent on making the biggest mess for themselves to own.

 

[1sikbITCH]

It sucks when you're treated the same way you treat everyone else, huh?

He did not say it sucked. He said you cried before and now you seem to like it.

 

[xthetenth]

You just now noticed that? Not only do I bite, I do that roll-around-and-twist thing 'gators do when they really, really want to make it clear they need, as it were, a leg up.

Nice. Good technique is important.

 

[mect]

Republicans seem intent on making the biggest mess for themselves to own.

In some ways. At the same time, they also seem to be limiting the amount they actually get done.

 

[dphantom]

Will anyone on the right put the country before the party?

Will anyone on the left?

I abhorred the ACA process and the same with this.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Will anyone on the left?

I abhorred the ACA process and the same with this.

The song and dance is just that. Scrap it all, move towards single payer.

 

[brycejones]

Damn that was weak. Can't even get the facts right. You're slipping old man.

When has brang ever had the facts right?

 

[fskimospy]

Will anyone on the left?

I abhorred the ACA process and the same with this.

How on earth could you possibly equate the two?

The ACA was the product of nearly a year of public debate, dozens of hearings, expert testimony, multiple CBO scores, etc.

The AHCA is the product of a couple of months work (at most) which involved zero public debate, no hearings, no expert testimony that I am aware of, and was passed in the House (and maybe the Senate!) before legislators had any idea what its effects would be.

It is literally being crafted behind closed doors and in secret because Republicans are afraid of the backlash from the public that would happen if they found out what's in it. Their plan is to pass it with as little scrutiny as possible and delay the effects of it so that the public doesn't see the damage they are inflicting immediately so they can blame it on other factors. If they truly think this bill is the best thing for the country they shouldn't be afraid to do this publicly. Their shadiness shows they know it's a disaster but want to cut taxes for rich people anyway.

 

[dphantom]

Obamacare was certainly not well understood prior, on or even after passage. Regardless of what you say occurred, the actual bill passed was forced thru with, as Rep Pelosi said, "We will see what is in it when we pass the bill" (paraphrased).

Nothing is open about any of this healthcare crap. The best we can do is scrap it and open up competition across state lines and disconnect healthcare from employment.

 

[tweaker2]

Well, Trump is saying that it's going to be a really goodly bill (for the very wealthy) that everyone will really like (to stuff down his throat and make him gag on it), so I'm going to go with that and trust that our POTUS is a man of his word (of which even he does not know what it actually means) and that he (given a third, fourth and fifth term in office) will provide the nation (well, a very special exclusive part of it anyway) with the leadership (as dictated by Putin) and profound foresight (ban the Muslims and build the wall) that will unite us (against him and his sycophants) into the greatest nation of all time (the moment he gets thrown in jail for treason).

 

[fskimospy]

Obamacare was certainly not well understood prior, on or even after passage. Regardless of what you say occurred, the actual bill passed was forced thru with, as Rep Pelosi said, "We will see what is in it when we pass the bill" (paraphrased).

1) This is factually false and a distortion of what she said. Her statement had nothing to do with what Congress would see, it was that after the controversy died down the public would be better able to evaluate what was in the bill.

2) While I can't quantify what you consider to be 'well understood' it was drafted in a transparent, public manner, the bill was repeatedly and openly scored by the CBO, and the bill was available for both the public and the Republicans to critique and provide input on. All you need to do is go back and read the news about it at any time during its drafting and you can see that the legislative language, while constantly being revised, was open for everyone to see for quite a long time.

None of this is true for the AHCA. Literally no one has seen the language of the bill outside of the people crafting it, and this is on purpose. This is the exact opposite of how the ACA was drafted, and saying 'both sides' just enables bad behavior by conservatives. This is the single most irresponsible act of major legislation the country has ever seen. They are literally trying to remake 1/5th of the US economy in secret with no public input, no expert input, and no input from the opposition party. This is insane and everyone, Republican or Democrat, should commit to voting out every single legislator who took part in this process.

Nothing is open about any of this healthcare crap. The best we can do is scrap it and open up competition across state lines and disconnect healthcare from employment.

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. There is NOTHING preventing insurance companies from competing across state lines. In fact, the ACA actively incentivized them to do so but they declined. This is because building provider networks is really hard, not because the government is standing in the way. If you repeal the ACA you will make competition across state lines LESS likely, not more.

I do agree we should disconnect health care from employment, but good luck on that one.

 

[soulcougher73]

Their not doing a good job at keeping this a secret...

 

[brycejones]

Their not doing a good job at keeping this a secret...

Leakers should get stitches.

 

[dphantom]

There is NOTHING preventing insurance companies from competing across state lines. In fact, the ACA actively incentivized them to do so but they declined.

this is not completely true.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/out-of-state-health-insurance-purchases.aspx

Insurers may not take the risk until rules and procedures are clearly laid out. And States have to lead the way and they have not for the most part. Nor has the Federal Government (as of this articles date) even completed the rule making process.

So it is not surprising insurers have not chosen to move forward.

As for Pelosi, the paraphrasing is factually correct and regardless of how either side wants to spin the comment, it remains an extremely poor choice of words and implies regardless of any public process, there is an unknown(s) to the bill.

"But we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy"

 

[fskimospy]

this is not completely true.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/out-of-state-health-insurance-purchases.aspx

Insurers may not take the risk until rules and procedures are clearly laid out. And States have to lead the way and they have not for the most part. Nor has the Federal Government (as of this articles date) even completed the rule making process.

So it is not surprising insurers have not chosen to move forward.

I suggest you read the linked article from the Hill that your link references. It basically repeats what I already said, the hurdle is not a regulatory one, it is a network one. Insurers have no interest in it regardless of the regulatory framework.

The whole selling across state lines thing is functionally worthless.

As for Pelosi, the paraphrasing is factually correct and regardless of how either side wants to spin the comment, it remains an extremely poor choice of words and implies regardless of any public process, there is an unknown(s) to the bill.

"But we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy"

Both your paraphrasing and your quote are indisputably factually inaccurate. Here is the actual quote:

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it — away from the fog of the controversy.”

She was speaking to a group of voters, meaning 'you' referred to voters, not members of Congress. Your paraphrase indicated the opposite and was false. The only people attempting to spin that quote are conservatives, as the meaning of her words is plain. (Unless you don't believe in pronouns?)

In addition, misinformation spread about a bill by people other then the legislators making it is not the fault of the legislators crafting it.