Republicans didn’t like their health-care bill but voted for it anyway

[Kwatt]

I heard they had to vote for it before they could read it. Wait ..... never mind.

Dem Plan = vote yes, read, don't like.
Rep Plan = read, don't like, vote yes.

.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I believe that them declaring that they didn't like it is the official cover story for mid terms in a lame attempt to retain support from people who will soon regret losing their health care coverage.

 

[ivwshane]

That applies to any bill. I was against the ACA because it did not address health care at a fundamental level but was all about insurance. No one thought to ask "What can we do to help the provider and patient have better outcomes". Instead they focused on the wrong end of the cart so to speak focusing on cost containments without considering if they might not work. Still it was better than nothing and about what I would expect for a political solution. I wish we had a group of us professionals given license to start a ground up unified system, but that was too difficult a concept for partisans.

Actually the ACA did attempt to address the issue of quality of care, I don't know if its up to your level but to claim it doesn't is false.

One of the main things the ACA did was to establish PCORI
http://www.pcori.org/

Now you could argue whether or not its been effective or if there were better solutions but law makers did in fact look at the quality of care.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Actually the ACA did attempt to address the issue of quality of care, I don't know if its up to your level but to claim it doesn't is false.

One of the main things the ACA did was to establish PCORI
http://www.pcori.org/

Now you could argue whether or not its been effective or if there were better solutions but law makers did in fact look at the quality of care.

There is that, and that's good so I'll give it a thumbs up. Some problems though was with cutting funding to institutions which didn't meet performance standards. Sounds good on the surface but it didn't help, sometimes hurt. What would have been helpful is to see just what the problems were then assist in formulating a plan which may require increased funding.

Yeah I'm not a huge fan of the ACA as you know, but it helped a lot of people to get coverage and until something better is proposed and acted on the Republicans should not make things worse. Absolutely not a fan.

 

[Jhhnn]

If the Dem's hadn't passed 0bamacare none of this would have been necessary. Congress could be addressing other problems instead of having to clean up this mess. Fully grown adults clean up the mess small children make.

Everyone knows this.

Tell it to the 20M people who gained coverage & care under the ACA, imperfect as it obviously is.

Repubs have no alternative that won't diminish that. Zero. Zip. Nothing. Nada.

 

[Sonikku]

I believe that them declaring that they didn't like it is the official cover story for mid terms in a lame attempt to retain support from people who will soon regret losing their health care coverage.

"It's not like it was good policy, but hey. Party before country. Give me your vote in the upcoming primary!"
~Sinercerly, Republicans.

 

[theeedude]

I'm not talking about Republican leaders, but voters. When it was an abstraction they coulf afford to believe anything, but remember that woman who was shocked because Trump kept his promise and her husband got deported? Imagine people finding they aren't covered multiplied by countless people. When it gets personal it all changes.

They voted for it, so that will be hilarious.

 

[Capt Caveman]

If the Dem's hadn't passed 0bamacare none of this would have been necessary. Congress could be addressing other problems instead of having to clean up this mess. Fully grown adults clean up the mess small children make.

Everyone knows this.

Tell that to the millions of people who didn't have health insurance before. Now, won't only those people not have health insurance but anybody with a pre-existing condition is screwed. Many interviewed didn't even read the bill before voting on it.

 

[deeplyblue]

Republicans did not listen to any experts or any medical groups or patients. Or even the CBO. They weren't looking for a solution to any problem except tax cuts for the rich.

I think you wrong at least some of the Republicans. I have no doubt that for many the idea that their donors will get huge tax cuts was very important. I believe, however, that to some the whole idea behind government-supported healthcare is abhorrent. There are those who find paying for someone else's healthcare almost enraging. Interviewer: "But your family might face huge and unexpected bills and then you would benefit." Tea-party supporter: "I'd rather my family suffered, than have the government give my money to someone else."

I believe there are Republican lawmakers who will say, at any rate off-camera, that healthcare is not a right, it's a service. And like any other service, those who can't afford it must go without it. That, they will tell you, is how capitalism works. If you can't afford an iphone, then you go without one. If you can't afford an insurance which will pay for heart surgery for your baby, then it must die. Any other approach will undermine the values upon which the USA is/was built.

The question of how far this principle goes seems to be one which citizens of the US keep having to debate with each other. I presume that Betsy deVos would like to see it applied to education. Then the public purse would support no schools at all and those who did not wish to see the Church / churches (or mosques??) provide education for the young can keep their offspring at home and educate them, or not, in their own way. That was how it was done in the days of the Founding Fathers.

I do not know how far Republicans would go in applying this idea to law and order. Again, the public supply of policemen is a development which postdates the Constitution. The provision of laws and of systems of justice is very much older, but human communities have got along without written laws or appointed judges before now - think of it as the paleo system of law and order.

I think perhaps someone in the US should draw up a list of all those things which are paid for by taxation and then each law maker would have to tick which ones s/he supported and we would have a useful way of "grading" their position on a left-right or freedom-safety axis.

 

[deeplyblue]

I believe that them declaring that they didn't like it is the official cover story for mid terms in a lame attempt to retain support from people who will soon regret losing their health care coverage.

I understand that many Republicans were more afraid of the powerful donor class who might pay to have a red-meat candidate stand against them in their primaries. "Give me my tax cut or I'll see that the ordinary voters never get a chance to reject or support you. I have enough resources to see that your name is smeared across every TV screen and Facebook page in the state and someone else will be the Republican candidate in your district."

"Yes, Sir."

This is part of the secret of the success of the Freedom Caucus (aka the Tea Party). they can't get out-flanked on the right.