How did you guys do it with Obama?
Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter falcondfw69
- Start date
How did you guys do it with Obama?
Is that your BEST answer? Pretty weak.
...Obama was a very popular president coming IN, and a very popular president going OUT ... many of the perceived lies Republican voters charge Obama with are because of the "Just Say NO" conservatives BEFORE the president even took his FIRST OATH of Office, determined to make him FAIL and not be a second term president. They FAILED! Look at the Trump & Republican's Health Care ... 6 YEARS of conservatives saying they had a better health play and would replace ACA ... uhhhhhh .... hello .... where IS that plan? Also,. you can't tie Obama to the Russians, money laundering, tax evasion, etc and its for sure his first 100 days in office were way more productive. Even the Bush caused declining unemployment turned around by the end of the 2nd month and he had 76 consecutive months of unprecedented job growth. What other president has done that? Stock market ... UP over 11,600 points ... uhhhh HELLO?!
All Trump has managed to do is sign Executive Orders ... of which most he has no clue, except what Fox News tells him, as to what the executive orders are reversing.
...And all Trump is currently doing is trying to bully N Korea, Syria, and Iran into another Republican created WAR ... the president that took 3 medical waivers to stay out of the military.
...There's NO Trump comparison to Obama ... his name shouldn't even be spoken in the same sentence as Obamas.
Perceived lies....bullshit! Politifact has four whole pages full of Obummer lies....One full page of his lies rated Pants On Fire! Lest we not forget his whopper he should burn in hell for. "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan....if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/
Can't tie him to tax evasion....oh how short our memories are. His cabinet was stocked full of tax cheats. Lest we forget, he appointed Tim Geithner, a tax cheat, as head of the damn treasury department...HELLO Macfly????
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/congress-taxes-irs.html
Uh hello...WTF do you think happens when you print money and dump it into the market to the tune of $1.1 TRILLION a year. Sure Obummer didn't call it that...they used the term "quantitative easing" since the useful idiots wouldn't understand that. Of course we're all paying for it since it is highly inflationary. They shielded the CPI from the impact, but it stands out like a sore thumb when you look at the price of things we have to buy like, oh say FOOD: Note then the big mac index suddenly diverged dramatically from the CPI...right when QE kicked in.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/13/12-trillion-of-qe-and-the-lowest-rates-in-5000-years-for-this.html
Just like your man.... pushing a replacement ACA... when he actually has no idea what's in it... but has made promises that it will be so much better.... Obama believed that to be the case... his mistake was trusting the ins industry!.... honest MISTAKE!
but if you look it up you will find Bush WAS the biggest liar in in presidential history....until Trump came along!
Is there anything sacred?... that he won't give to his rich friends.... now we will get to see oil wells in Nat'l Parks!
remember when Trump said Obama signing these executive orders was an abuse of power?... and now he has set a record for signing so many
Trump to order review of national monuments
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order Wednesday directing his interior secretary to review the designation of tens of millions of acres of land as "national monuments," an action that could upend protections put in place in Utah and other states as Trump tries to rack up accomplishments in his first 100 days.
The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the president to declare federal lands as monuments and restrict how the lands can be used.
"The executive order will direct me as the secretary to review prior monument designations and to suggest legislative changes or modifications to the monuments," Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters at the White House Tuesday evening.
While Zinke acknowledged criticism that the act has been over-used by past presidents, he insisted he'd approach the topic with an open mind.
"I'm not going to predispose what the outcome is going to be," he said.
Former President Barack Obama infuriated Utah Republicans when he created the Bears Ears National Monument in late December on more than 1 million acres of land that's sacred to Native Americans and home to tens of thousands of archaeological sites, including ancient cliff dwellings.
Republicans in the state said it was an egregious abuse of executive power and have asked Trump to take the unusual step of reversing the designation, arguing it will stymie growth by closing the area to new commercial and energy development. The Antiquities Act does not give the president explicit power to undo a designation and no president has ever taken such a step.
The order is one of a handful the president is set to sign this week as he tries to rack up accomplishments ahead of his 100th day in office. The president has used executive orders aggressively over the last three months, despite railing against their use by Obama when he was campaigning.
Zinke said the order, which Trump will sign during a visit to his department, will cover several dozen monuments across the country designated since 1996 that total 100,000 acres or more, from the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah to the Bears Ears in southeastern Utah.
He'll provide an interim report in 45 days in which he'll provide a recommendation on Bears Ears and a final report within 120 days.
Over the last 20 years, Zinke said, tens of millions of acres have been designated as national monuments, limiting their use for farming, timber harvesting, mining and oil and gas exploration, and other commercial uses.
Though "by and large," Zinke said, he feels the designations have done "a great service to the public," he said he worries about overuse and overreach.
"I think the concern that I have and the president has is that when you designate a monument, the local community affected should have a voice," he said.
Some, including Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, have hailed the order as the end of "massive federal land grabs" by presidents dating to Bill Clinton.
But Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., said that if Trump truly wants to make America great again, he should use the Antiquities Act to protect and conserve America's public lands. In New Mexico, Obama's designation of Rio Grande del Norte National Monument and Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument have preserved important lands while boosting the economy, Heinrich said, a story that has been repeated across the country.
"If this sweeping review is an excuse to cut out the public and scale back protections, I think this president is going to find a very resistant public,'" Heinrich said.
Recent polls have shown strong support for national parks and monuments, said Christy Goldfuss, who directed the White House Council on Environmental Quality under Obama
Kristina Waggoner, vice president of the Boulder-Escalante Chamber of Commerce in Utah, said business near the Grand Staircase-Escalante monument in southern Utah are booming, driven by sharp increases in tourism since the area was designated in 1996 by President Bill Clinton.
"I'm here today to support the monument and my 3-year-old *******," Waggoner said on a conference call with reporters organized by a pro-Obama group. "Once our land is gone, it's gone forever."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-order-review-national-monuments-010131011.html
remember when Trump said Obama signing these executive orders was an abuse of power?... and now he has set a record for signing so many
Trump to order review of national monuments
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order Wednesday directing his interior secretary to review the designation of tens of millions of acres of land as "national monuments," an action that could upend protections put in place in Utah and other states as Trump tries to rack up accomplishments in his first 100 days.
The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the president to declare federal lands as monuments and restrict how the lands can be used.
"The executive order will direct me as the secretary to review prior monument designations and to suggest legislative changes or modifications to the monuments," Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters at the White House Tuesday evening.
While Zinke acknowledged criticism that the act has been over-used by past presidents, he insisted he'd approach the topic with an open mind.
"I'm not going to predispose what the outcome is going to be," he said.
Former President Barack Obama infuriated Utah Republicans when he created the Bears Ears National Monument in late December on more than 1 million acres of land that's sacred to Native Americans and home to tens of thousands of archaeological sites, including ancient cliff dwellings.
Republicans in the state said it was an egregious abuse of executive power and have asked Trump to take the unusual step of reversing the designation, arguing it will stymie growth by closing the area to new commercial and energy development. The Antiquities Act does not give the president explicit power to undo a designation and no president has ever taken such a step.
The order is one of a handful the president is set to sign this week as he tries to rack up accomplishments ahead of his 100th day in office. The president has used executive orders aggressively over the last three months, despite railing against their use by Obama when he was campaigning.
Zinke said the order, which Trump will sign during a visit to his department, will cover several dozen monuments across the country designated since 1996 that total 100,000 acres or more, from the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah to the Bears Ears in southeastern Utah.
He'll provide an interim report in 45 days in which he'll provide a recommendation on Bears Ears and a final report within 120 days.
Over the last 20 years, Zinke said, tens of millions of acres have been designated as national monuments, limiting their use for farming, timber harvesting, mining and oil and gas exploration, and other commercial uses.
Though "by and large," Zinke said, he feels the designations have done "a great service to the public," he said he worries about overuse and overreach.
"I think the concern that I have and the president has is that when you designate a monument, the local community affected should have a voice," he said.
Some, including Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, have hailed the order as the end of "massive federal land grabs" by presidents dating to Bill Clinton.
But Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., said that if Trump truly wants to make America great again, he should use the Antiquities Act to protect and conserve America's public lands. In New Mexico, Obama's designation of Rio Grande del Norte National Monument and Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument have preserved important lands while boosting the economy, Heinrich said, a story that has been repeated across the country.
"If this sweeping review is an excuse to cut out the public and scale back protections, I think this president is going to find a very resistant public,'" Heinrich said.
Recent polls have shown strong support for national parks and monuments, said Christy Goldfuss, who directed the White House Council on Environmental Quality under Obama
Kristina Waggoner, vice president of the Boulder-Escalante Chamber of Commerce in Utah, said business near the Grand Staircase-Escalante monument in southern Utah are booming, driven by sharp increases in tourism since the area was designated in 1996 by President Bill Clinton.
"I'm here today to support the monument and my 3-year-old *******," Waggoner said on a conference call with reporters organized by a pro-Obama group. "Once our land is gone, it's gone forever."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-order-review-national-monuments-010131011.html
It wasn't Obama that turned that around - but you are to Star-Struck to see any reality.
Of what type of jobs? Low paying, government part time jobs that won't last. Nothing in the skilled work *******.
But! my comment really wasn't about comparing Obama to Trump - that was YOUR assumption (nor did it have anything to do with "achievements", which is quite different than lying). My comment simply points out that we have not had an honest President (or government) for a very long time. If you are going to bitch about the Republican side of lying and cheating - then you better be just as pissed about the left doing it also, the problem is you simply refuse to see it.
And you point out a great example here;
What do you think the Democrats have been doing since day 1???????????????????? But I'm sure in your mind it is justifiable.
... because it is the ONLY WAY he can get anything passed in Washington. And as far as that stupid wall that Mexico would pay for ... if WE, the US citizens end up paying for the Wall, I'll quit filing a federal income tax.
He's taking back a 100 years!
I'm curious to see how congress handles his tax cut proposals.... a lot of cuts!
this is REAGANOMICS... to the extreme!... people think the last recession was bad....
Sure you will...
All we really need to do is enforce the immigration laws we already have, and hold corporations that hire illegal labor accountable. The problem will go away.
I know I have told this on here before... but it is true
when I lived in Des Moines..... they had a meat packing place there... contracted to Hormel I think.. but the name was "Bookie Packing"... it was a good well paying union job... knew a couple of guys that worked there stout fellows, slinging those carcus's... anyway they decided to go non-union... shut the place down for the required time... hired some back at less pay... and a few Mexicans....got in trouble for some illegals... so shut down changed the name... bought on old brick 3 story school house next door ... for parking?... and started in again... people see sheets over the windows of the old school house and lights on.... after a while the police raid it.... find over 300 illegals in there!... shut the place down for a while... a year or so later... same thing.... so the packing company just locked the doors... moved North about 60 miles and opened again.... what do you want to bet... doing the same thing
No fines to amount to much nor anyone in trouble... just kept doing it even after being caught several times
That place had been there 20 years or better as union and made good money and no problems... but I guess greed took over!
when I lived in Des Moines..... they had a meat packing place there... contracted to Hormel I think.. but the name was "Bookie Packing"... it was a good well paying union job... knew a couple of guys that worked there stout fellows, slinging those carcus's... anyway they decided to go non-union... shut the place down for the required time... hired some back at less pay... and a few Mexicans....got in trouble for some illegals... so shut down changed the name... bought on old brick 3 story school house next door ... for parking?... and started in again... people see sheets over the windows of the old school house and lights on.... after a while the police raid it.... find over 300 illegals in there!... shut the place down for a while... a year or so later... same thing.... so the packing company just locked the doors... moved North about 60 miles and opened again.... what do you want to bet... doing the same thing
No fines to amount to much nor anyone in trouble... just kept doing it even after being caught several times
That place had been there 20 years or better as union and made good money and no problems... but I guess greed took over!
Damn papers/news full of all kinds of *******
war...... with Russia and their jets close to Alaska....with N. Korea.... Iran and the boat thing
taxes.... and the fucking the country is going to get.... just what I read HE will benefit... and guess no one cares about the deficit... but since when have the republicans ever cared about that
Health care..... got the freedom caucus on board by cutting some of Obama's provisions out.... so I'm sure that will hurt a bunch of people
this guy is in over his head and ******* is about to hit the fan from several different directions
let me add to that... he has Mexico hating us and talking??????
and now he is on Canada......
war...... with Russia and their jets close to Alaska....with N. Korea.... Iran and the boat thing
taxes.... and the fucking the country is going to get.... just what I read HE will benefit... and guess no one cares about the deficit... but since when have the republicans ever cared about that
Health care..... got the freedom caucus on board by cutting some of Obama's provisions out.... so I'm sure that will hurt a bunch of people
this guy is in over his head and ******* is about to hit the fan from several different directions
let me add to that... he has Mexico hating us and talking??????
and now he is on Canada......
we always do..... so the big biz can create job growth.....right!..... the only job growth they create is out of country!
with his new tax proposal.... naturally he will benefit the most...by ten million (rough guess)..... they had the high income proposal pretty well worked out to see... the rest was pretty vague....but with his proposals...... HH for one should know the best what will happen.... look at Kansas now after those very same proposals were used there!
But I'm sure HH will say things are fine there!
But I'm sure HH will say things are fine there!
Last edited:
I guess this makes it pretty clear what Ryan and the right think of the low-income and the poor
To avoid shutdown, Trump will fund ObamaCare subsidies
Republicans drew battle lines Wednesday over the spending bill that would keep the government running by refusing to fund ObamaCare subsidies. “We’re not doing that,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said Wednesday after a closed-door meeting with his GOP caucus. Declining to include payments to insurers in the April must-pass spending bill increases the drama for a possible government shutdown at midnight Friday. Pulling the money that helps low-income Americans afford insurance would create “monumental” instability in the individual marketplace, Rep. Joe Crowley (D-Queens) warned Wednesday. “I don’t think my Republican colleagues want to see this go unfunded.
WASHINGTON – The Trump Administration told congressional leaders it will continue to fund ObamaCare subsidies in a move that greatly lessens the chances for a government shutdown.
Two Democratic congressional sources said President Trump is no longer threatening to withhold the payments – worth about $7 billion a year – so he can strike a deal on a spending bill to keep the government running past Friday.
“It is good that once again the president seems to be backing off his threat to hold health care and government funding hostage,” said Democratic Senate leader Charles Schumer.
The assurances for ObamaCare payments come a day after Trump dropped funding demands for a border wall with Mexico. Now Democratic leaders say they are much closer to a deal to avoid a shutdown Saturday — Trump’s 100th day in office.
Our major concerns in these negotiations have been about funding for the wall and uncertainty about the CSR [Cost Saving Reduction] payments crucial to the stability of the marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said. “We’ve now made progress on both of these fronts.”
The ObamaCare standoff began earlier Wednesday when House Speaker Paul Ryan said the spending bill would not include the cost sharing payments Democrats wanted.
“We’re not doing that,” Ryan said after a closed-door meeting with his GOP caucus.
ObamaCare payments should be addressed separately by the Trump administration and not be a bargaining chip in the spending bill, Ryan insisted.
To avoid shutdown, Trump will fund ObamaCare subsidies
Republicans drew battle lines Wednesday over the spending bill that would keep the government running by refusing to fund ObamaCare subsidies. “We’re not doing that,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said Wednesday after a closed-door meeting with his GOP caucus. Declining to include payments to insurers in the April must-pass spending bill increases the drama for a possible government shutdown at midnight Friday. Pulling the money that helps low-income Americans afford insurance would create “monumental” instability in the individual marketplace, Rep. Joe Crowley (D-Queens) warned Wednesday. “I don’t think my Republican colleagues want to see this go unfunded.
WASHINGTON – The Trump Administration told congressional leaders it will continue to fund ObamaCare subsidies in a move that greatly lessens the chances for a government shutdown.
Two Democratic congressional sources said President Trump is no longer threatening to withhold the payments – worth about $7 billion a year – so he can strike a deal on a spending bill to keep the government running past Friday.
“It is good that once again the president seems to be backing off his threat to hold health care and government funding hostage,” said Democratic Senate leader Charles Schumer.
The assurances for ObamaCare payments come a day after Trump dropped funding demands for a border wall with Mexico. Now Democratic leaders say they are much closer to a deal to avoid a shutdown Saturday — Trump’s 100th day in office.
Our major concerns in these negotiations have been about funding for the wall and uncertainty about the CSR [Cost Saving Reduction] payments crucial to the stability of the marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said. “We’ve now made progress on both of these fronts.”
The ObamaCare standoff began earlier Wednesday when House Speaker Paul Ryan said the spending bill would not include the cost sharing payments Democrats wanted.
“We’re not doing that,” Ryan said after a closed-door meeting with his GOP caucus.
ObamaCare payments should be addressed separately by the Trump administration and not be a bargaining chip in the spending bill, Ryan insisted.
I swear... we all knew Trump was/is fucking nuts.... and anyone that didn't at least have some suspicion needs to take another look at them selves.... but it sure seems lately... the whole damned gov is following in his shoes... what a fucking mess!
2 years ago 13% of republicans viewed Russia favorably.... since the election... 56% view him favorably... what changed their mind.... a little help with the election?
Republicans Are Getting Closer To Passing A Health Care Bill Gutting Protections For Pre-Existing Conditions
House Republicans appear closer than ever to repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, after the House Freedom Caucus formally endorsed a revised version of the GOP health care bill and moderates looked to be largely going along with the changes.
It’s still a real question whether Republicans have the votes. There were almost enough moderates publicly opposing the health care bill before an amendment worked out between co-chairman of the moderate Tuesday Group Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) and Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) dragged the legislation even further to the right. But those changes, which would significantly undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, have won over a large swath of conservatives.
The Freedom Caucus announced Wednesday that at least 80 percent of its group of three dozen members supported the revised bill, meaning at most there are seven conservative holdouts from the caucus. At the same time, moderates don’t seem to be significantly withdrawing their support of the bill, even as the legislation would now allow states to let insurers offer significantly higher rates for sick people.
Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), the chairman of the Tuesday Group, reported Wednesday that the amendment had not really changed many moderates’ minds.
My sense is that the members of our group who were opposed to the bill before remain opposed. Nothing’s changed,” Dent said.
Of course, the substance of the bill has dramatically changed. As Republicans acknowledge, the bill would now allow states to opt out of protections that ensure people with pre-existing conditions are charged the same as healthy people. And with further plans from Republicans to allow people to buy insurance plans across state lines, the Freedom Caucus believes it would only take a few ― even one ― state to opt out to fundamentally change the insurance market.
As former Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said Wednesday, “If Kentucky does it, and someone lives in Cincinnati, there’s a plan right there, they probably got the network set up, that looks pretty good, right?”
Republicans generally know the impact of this amendment would undermine their earlier promises, but they seem to be relying on the idea of high-risk pools to cover the sick. Many Republicans, however, acknowledge that people in those high-risk pools would be paying more and Republicans would be breaking their word.
A lot of us have made very clear statements, many Republicans ― not just members of our Tuesday Group, but many Republicans ― have made statements that we want to protect people with pre-existing illnesses and conditions,” Dent said. “We said that. And this amendment calls into question that protection, that guarantee.”
If, as Dent suggested, the vote dynamic among moderates is the same, Republicans could be dangerously close to passing the health care bill even with those changes to it.
Leadership had anticipated an open revolt among moderates, even some rank-and-file Republicans, if the Freedom Caucus got its way and was able to undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions. But that revolt hasn’t happened yet ― at least not publicly.
Instead, moderates and other Republicans who have repeatedly promised to protect people with pre-existing conditions are being coy about their positions.
“I don’t know. I’m not sure. We’ll see,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) told HuffPost when asked if it was now more difficult to support the legislation.
“I’m still looking at the bill,” Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) answered.
“We’ll see, won’t we?” Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.) said.
Moderates may be trying to avoid publicly bashing the bill, while privately telling leadership there’s no way they could support legislation that significantly raises costs on sick people. But the problem with that gambit is that other Republicans who may be uncomfortable with the new form of the bill are disinclined to speak out in opposition, making it ultimately tougher on the moderate holdouts when leadership gets close to a passing threshold.
Moderates who were publicly against the bill before don’t seem to be changing their minds, but this doesn’t seem to have pushed moderates who were undecided before against the bill now.
Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), who reported on Wednesday that he was on the fence before, said he was still on the fence now after the changes.
“I got to figure out exactly how it works before I form a good opinion on it,” he said.
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), who had previously supported the bill, did say he was undecided following a Wednesday afternoon meeting with the Tuesday Group.
But Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), who was previously against the bill, now said she was undecided. “I’ll let you know when I make my decision,” she said.
Again, some of this may be a tactic for moderates to avoid the wrath of Trump. With the vast majority of the Freedom Caucus publicly getting to yes, no member wants to become President Donald Trump’s new punching bag. It’s much safer to publicly sound wishy-washy and privately oppose the bill.
Dent suggested Wednesday that much of this current debate is about who gets the blame for the GOP’s inability to repeal and replace Obamacare.
“Certainly, I’ve often felt that a lot of this has simply been an exercise in blame-shifting,” Dent said. “Because we know that this bill, in its current form, with or without the amendment, will be gutted in the Senate. So this is simply a matter of blame-shifting and face-saving.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-getting-closer-passing-health-191052251.html
House Republicans appear closer than ever to repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, after the House Freedom Caucus formally endorsed a revised version of the GOP health care bill and moderates looked to be largely going along with the changes.
It’s still a real question whether Republicans have the votes. There were almost enough moderates publicly opposing the health care bill before an amendment worked out between co-chairman of the moderate Tuesday Group Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) and Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) dragged the legislation even further to the right. But those changes, which would significantly undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, have won over a large swath of conservatives.
The Freedom Caucus announced Wednesday that at least 80 percent of its group of three dozen members supported the revised bill, meaning at most there are seven conservative holdouts from the caucus. At the same time, moderates don’t seem to be significantly withdrawing their support of the bill, even as the legislation would now allow states to let insurers offer significantly higher rates for sick people.
Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), the chairman of the Tuesday Group, reported Wednesday that the amendment had not really changed many moderates’ minds.
My sense is that the members of our group who were opposed to the bill before remain opposed. Nothing’s changed,” Dent said.
Of course, the substance of the bill has dramatically changed. As Republicans acknowledge, the bill would now allow states to opt out of protections that ensure people with pre-existing conditions are charged the same as healthy people. And with further plans from Republicans to allow people to buy insurance plans across state lines, the Freedom Caucus believes it would only take a few ― even one ― state to opt out to fundamentally change the insurance market.
As former Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said Wednesday, “If Kentucky does it, and someone lives in Cincinnati, there’s a plan right there, they probably got the network set up, that looks pretty good, right?”
Republicans generally know the impact of this amendment would undermine their earlier promises, but they seem to be relying on the idea of high-risk pools to cover the sick. Many Republicans, however, acknowledge that people in those high-risk pools would be paying more and Republicans would be breaking their word.
A lot of us have made very clear statements, many Republicans ― not just members of our Tuesday Group, but many Republicans ― have made statements that we want to protect people with pre-existing illnesses and conditions,” Dent said. “We said that. And this amendment calls into question that protection, that guarantee.”
If, as Dent suggested, the vote dynamic among moderates is the same, Republicans could be dangerously close to passing the health care bill even with those changes to it.
Leadership had anticipated an open revolt among moderates, even some rank-and-file Republicans, if the Freedom Caucus got its way and was able to undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions. But that revolt hasn’t happened yet ― at least not publicly.
Instead, moderates and other Republicans who have repeatedly promised to protect people with pre-existing conditions are being coy about their positions.
“I don’t know. I’m not sure. We’ll see,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) told HuffPost when asked if it was now more difficult to support the legislation.
“I’m still looking at the bill,” Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) answered.
“We’ll see, won’t we?” Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.) said.
Moderates may be trying to avoid publicly bashing the bill, while privately telling leadership there’s no way they could support legislation that significantly raises costs on sick people. But the problem with that gambit is that other Republicans who may be uncomfortable with the new form of the bill are disinclined to speak out in opposition, making it ultimately tougher on the moderate holdouts when leadership gets close to a passing threshold.
Moderates who were publicly against the bill before don’t seem to be changing their minds, but this doesn’t seem to have pushed moderates who were undecided before against the bill now.
Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), who reported on Wednesday that he was on the fence before, said he was still on the fence now after the changes.
“I got to figure out exactly how it works before I form a good opinion on it,” he said.
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), who had previously supported the bill, did say he was undecided following a Wednesday afternoon meeting with the Tuesday Group.
But Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), who was previously against the bill, now said she was undecided. “I’ll let you know when I make my decision,” she said.
Again, some of this may be a tactic for moderates to avoid the wrath of Trump. With the vast majority of the Freedom Caucus publicly getting to yes, no member wants to become President Donald Trump’s new punching bag. It’s much safer to publicly sound wishy-washy and privately oppose the bill.
Dent suggested Wednesday that much of this current debate is about who gets the blame for the GOP’s inability to repeal and replace Obamacare.
“Certainly, I’ve often felt that a lot of this has simply been an exercise in blame-shifting,” Dent said. “Because we know that this bill, in its current form, with or without the amendment, will be gutted in the Senate. So this is simply a matter of blame-shifting and face-saving.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-getting-closer-passing-health-191052251.html
GOP Wants to Save Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions -- But Only for Themselves
Republican lawmakers appear to have proposed health insurance for the American people that they don’t consider good enough for themselves - or their staffs.
****************************************
As Congressional Republicans revive their efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare, they have included a loophole that would protect legislators and their staffs from weakened protections that could hurt other American insurance buyers, Vox first reported Tuesday night.
*****************************************
Formally known as the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare included a provision requiring members of Congress and their staffs to buy their coverage on an Obamacare marketplace; they currently get coverage through a Washington, D.C., exchange aimed at small business coverage, where they also get a significant employer contribution from the federal government. Obamacare also established strong protections for people with pre-existing conditions, such as diabetes and depression - preventing consumers from being charged more or denied coverage on an individual marketplace because of their health status.
*******************
Now, in their replacement legislation, Republicans have proposed rolling back these protections on a national level - but have said that those protections must remain in place for themselves and their staffs.
**********************
Critics pounced immediately. “If House Republicans are afraid of TrumpCare for themselves, they have no right to ******* it on hard-working American families,” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. The Republican behind the amendment, Rep. Tom MacArthur, vowed later Wednesday to close the loophole, Vox reported.
One way the House proposal would weaken protections for those with pre-existing conditions is by letting states apply for a waiver that would allow insurers to charge people different premiums based on their health status. Under such a system, someone with metastatic cancer could be charged an additional $142,650 annually in premiums, according to a study by the (liberal-leaning) Center for American Progress, while someone with asthma could be charged an additional $4,340 a year.
States would also have the option, under the GOP-backed amendment, of establishing high-risk pools for state residents who would otherwise be unable to get coverage. These pools existed before Obamacare, and research showed they often failed to make coverage affordable and accessible.
It’s not surprising that Congress members seem inclined to avoid premium hikes based on their existing health conditions. In general, the prevalence of pre-existing conditions tends to rise with age - and the average age of U.S. lawmakers has been increasing. The average age of a U.S. Representative is 57 and the average age of a Senator is 61, according to Quorum.
It remains unclear whether the replacement bill will garner enough votes to pass the House - and whether the exemption will survive the legislative process. “It doesn’t strike me as the most politically savvy provision to include,” says Sabrina Corlette, research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/gop-wants-save-coverage-pre-221933685.html
Republican lawmakers appear to have proposed health insurance for the American people that they don’t consider good enough for themselves - or their staffs.
****************************************
As Congressional Republicans revive their efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare, they have included a loophole that would protect legislators and their staffs from weakened protections that could hurt other American insurance buyers, Vox first reported Tuesday night.
*****************************************
Formally known as the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare included a provision requiring members of Congress and their staffs to buy their coverage on an Obamacare marketplace; they currently get coverage through a Washington, D.C., exchange aimed at small business coverage, where they also get a significant employer contribution from the federal government. Obamacare also established strong protections for people with pre-existing conditions, such as diabetes and depression - preventing consumers from being charged more or denied coverage on an individual marketplace because of their health status.
*******************
Now, in their replacement legislation, Republicans have proposed rolling back these protections on a national level - but have said that those protections must remain in place for themselves and their staffs.
**********************
Critics pounced immediately. “If House Republicans are afraid of TrumpCare for themselves, they have no right to ******* it on hard-working American families,” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. The Republican behind the amendment, Rep. Tom MacArthur, vowed later Wednesday to close the loophole, Vox reported.
One way the House proposal would weaken protections for those with pre-existing conditions is by letting states apply for a waiver that would allow insurers to charge people different premiums based on their health status. Under such a system, someone with metastatic cancer could be charged an additional $142,650 annually in premiums, according to a study by the (liberal-leaning) Center for American Progress, while someone with asthma could be charged an additional $4,340 a year.
States would also have the option, under the GOP-backed amendment, of establishing high-risk pools for state residents who would otherwise be unable to get coverage. These pools existed before Obamacare, and research showed they often failed to make coverage affordable and accessible.
It’s not surprising that Congress members seem inclined to avoid premium hikes based on their existing health conditions. In general, the prevalence of pre-existing conditions tends to rise with age - and the average age of U.S. lawmakers has been increasing. The average age of a U.S. Representative is 57 and the average age of a Senator is 61, according to Quorum.
It remains unclear whether the replacement bill will garner enough votes to pass the House - and whether the exemption will survive the legislative process. “It doesn’t strike me as the most politically savvy provision to include,” says Sabrina Corlette, research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/gop-wants-save-coverage-pre-221933685.html
Similar threads
