New Republican Health Care Bill Likely to Pass: "A Sad Deadly Joke."


The second paragraph of this post negates the headline.
it was inevitable on 11/8/16. * is going to erase Obama's Presidency.

but i guess there was no choice. she was ARROGANT.
@2: Yes she was. But there was a choice. So you're half right.
I don't think they're dumb enough to actually want this thing to pass both houses, but I also know I've underestimated the stupidity of the republican party a time or 2 before. They don't really want to do this, do they?
A "Sad, Deadly Joke" is pretty much the definition of the Republican Party, isn't it?
If only Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats were ready for single payer health care, we could have a compromise that would be good for America but have a Republican name on it, which is all they really want. Party over Country and all that. But, Pelosi wants the Democrats to get the credit because Party over Country.

We should ban national parties and make everybody run as an independent.
Not to pile on but this new bill will also affect Special Ed services to K-12 students.
What #7 said.

Did anyone here see Dianne Feinstein's town hall during the break when she was quizzed about Single Payer? She got fucking lit up by her constituents.

The sad reality is the same Democratic establishment that handed the Presidency to a fucking clown are the same corporatists that are beholden to their big-med donors that want to fuck us all in the ass.

Big money Democrats are just as crooked and evil as the other guys.
@7, @9 There's a fifth option (the first four being: 1. Unregulated Private Insurance, 2. Regulated, Subsidized Private Insurance [e.g. PPACA], 3. Single Payer, 4. National Health Care), to wit, The Public Option.

The Public Option doesn't directly kill the private health care insurance industry. Even though it does so indirectly, it provides plenty of cover (Competition! Choice! America!). To flip that switch all you need do is add one sentence to the existing Medicare law: "The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) shall annually set a community rate and allow those otherwise not eligible for Medicare to purchase coverage under the existing terms and conditions of the program."

Then the Republicans can repeal the PPACA (Obamacare) and allow the private health insurance industry to "compete" on their own terms.
TheMisanthrope @7 thinks its all the evil Dems fault that we can't have the goodness the Republicans want to give us.

That explains a lot.

Somehow I don't think the Dems letting the Republicans have their way (er, "compromise") is going to give us the glorious future we want.
@11 thinks that it's only the Reoublicans preventing us from single payer and not a bipartisan effort from both Republicans and a bunch of spineless third way Democrats.

Says a lot about party politics.
Let us take the time to remember that Obama had a majority Democratic house and a supermajority Democratic + Independent Senate when the ACA was passed. Let us remember that the only reason we didn't get single payer is because of the Democrats, and the only reason we didn't get the public option is because of Joe Lieberman, a former Democrat.

And, let us remember the commenters like Pridge Wessea who like to think that Democrats aren't capable of being evil and that we shouldn't strive for better representation.
Republicans think the ACA is an "entitlement" because it guarantees coverage to everyone and the government subsidies poor people with taxes on rich people. If there are any congressional Republicans at all who favor single payer that would be a step in the right direction, but it also happens to be the exact opposite direction Republicans are headed on this (and every) issue. Even if Democrats were united in support of slingle payer it wouldn't be enough, though it would be nice if some of them stood up for it regardless. If the government is going to take over a multi billion dollar industry it would require not just bipartisan but near-universal support in government, industry, and the American public.
@13 - Yes, that's the only reason we don't have single payer. Why if those spineless Dems had just compromised more with all those bipartisan Republicans we'd have it now and those same Republicans wouldn't be trying to take it away the same way they're trying to take away Medicare and Medicaid.
@16 Say it with me: Filibuster-Proof Supermajority. The Democrats didn't even try to pass single payer when they had a supermajority or a near supermajority. Instead we have a Frankenmonster that's better than nothing but worse than good.

But, let's not demand better of the Democrats. They try so hard.
@17: Democratic voters have gotten so used to their elected officials not producing any results, that they have just come to expect and accept it, for the most part.

They should adopt a folding chair as their new mascot. They are an embarrassment to donkeys.

Saying this as someone who is heavily in favor of a single payer system and typically votes Democrat.
Dems lost the supermajority when Ted Kennedy died in 09, and they were shitting their pants because Ted's seat went to a Republican in Massafuckingchusetts in the middle of heath care reform a few months later. Even if they wanted single payer (and they didn't) they did not have 60 votes long enough to make use of it.

Don't blame the "spineless Democrats" for failure to pass single-payer "when they had the chance", blame Joe Liebermann, who at the time threatened to filibuster the bill if it contained such a provision, and whose vote was crucial to pass the ACA in the form it eventually took. And we won't even go into the large contingent of "blue dog" Democrats from conservative southern and plains states who were also adamantly opposed to single-payer.
@19 Actually, the senate supermajority died in February 2010 after the special election replaced Ted Kennedy's Democrat interim replacement.

When the ACA passed the senate in December 2009, including the two independents (including former Democrat Joe Lieberman), there was a Democratic supermajority in the senate to break the filibuster.

So, they did have it long enough to make use of it, but they didn't even try to go whole hog so as to not alienate certain wings of the party they couldn't whip into formation.

So, by your own admission they didn't in fact have a filibuster-breaking "super-majority", because "certain wings of the party", namely, conservative southern and plains states "blue dog" Democrats would never have supported single-payer even had it been put to a vote.
@22 If the Democrats had even made a good faith effort to single payer before they tried out the ACA, they might have won a significantly larger vote than they got in 2010.

But, the Democrats are spineless and can't unify enough to put their foot down on shitty Senate rules like the filibuster strengthening from 1975.
@22, Exactly - there wasn't even agreement within the party. It's fair to argue that the dems who want single payer could do more to bring others around, but our government requires consensus to pass legislation and that can only be achieved by compromise (in the near term) and/or building a broad coalition of support (in the long term), particularly for something as substantial as rebuilding our entire health care system. Going from an almost exclusively private-market system to one managed by the government is a massive and risky undertaking.
@24 And thus, we shouldn't even try...
@22, 24: I am pretty sure that is Misanthrope's point.

The party had a brief window in which they had a supermajority, and due to the party's disunity and disorganization, they were left with the heavily flawed ACA. They had a golden opportunity and squandered it through incompetence.

I shudder to imagine what the GOP would have gotten through in that brief window. But you know they would have done a hell of a lot more. Can't say I have ever heard a conservative excuse a failing of the GOP by shrugging their shoulders and complaining that law making is too hard
@25, Uh, no? We shouldn't pack up our toys and leave because the minority of single-payer supporters within the democratic party didn't force everyone to agree with them, somehow. What we should do is invest the time and energy to build a broad coalition of support so we have the numbers to achieve single payer. Dismantling an industry that directly impacts the quality of life for every single living human in the country is a difficult thing to achieve, and while it can be frustrating to accept something less than what you want because our government is designed to resist drastic and fundamental change, as a general matter of governance, this is still better than the alternative.
"Academic studies found that Dem. incumbents who voted for Obamacare lost 10-15 points of vote margin in the 2010 midterms. A massive effect."…

"Can't say I have ever heard a conservative excuse a failing of the GOP by shrugging their shoulders and complaining that law making is too hard."

Except for the current occupant of the White House, of course...
@29, That's more or less how they've approached everything on Trump's agenda so far - in fact Paul Ryan literally just said "doing big things is hard" after failing to force through an extreme and unpopular health care bill in March - however they just pushed something through the house today, albeit without bothering to read it or wait for the CBO score, and it looks like it won't survive the senate in its current form.
@29: Not that I am defending Trump, but if you read the article, it is mostly about the freedom as a private citizen that he misses.

@30: I am not saying they never fail, I stated that even when they fail they tend to actually keep pushing for things instead of giving up, or compromising away everything they wanted. And here they are, they failed the first time, and are now their bill has passed the House.
Did the democrats compromise away everything they wanted though? I don't think any of the plans that were on the table in 2008 were single payer, and O-care was not that far removed from what Obama ran on, whereas Trumpcare contains virtually nothing Trump promised* - it will be more expensive for a lot of people and many will lose coverage [*not that he had any idea what he was promising or cared whether he could achieve it]. It's little more than a big tax cut for rich people and it will create more problems than it's ostensibly supposed to fix.

Personally I think this whole spectacle is an exercise in face-saving to create the illusion that they can actually govern, and when the bill eventually dies they will blame democrats and moderate republicans for it. I've been wrong many times before, though.
House GOP to America: DROP DEAD.
@28 Cute...Lawmakers pass flawed bill with supermajority, extend Bush tax cuts, and the PATRIOT Act. And then they lose 10-15 points. Which factor was the decisive one?

@32 Before Obama supported ACA, he supported single payer.

All I meant with the original comment was that this shitty partisan politics game, of which Nancy Pelosi is a Major player, has been weaponized to keep voters in a polarized groupthink and prevent politicuans from thinking independently. When Dianne Feinstein can't get behind single payer, it's a travesty. There's a single payer bill, H.R. 676, that's was moved to the subcommittee on "Indian, Insular and Native Alaskan Affairs" in February. But, I don't see many of the anti-Trumpcare Democratic leaders touting that as an alternative.
@34 - Wgat was the focus at town halls? It wasn't the patriot act or the bush tax cuts, its was those damn dems shoving the government down our throats. I know you like to pretend otherwise but you know, reality.
@32: This thread is likely dead now, but there are a lot of loopholes in the ACA that entities are still taking advantage of.

So by the plain letter of the act, everyone had until 2014 to be compliant (another compromise in itself), but to this day, many are still considered "grandfathered" and can still reject PPACA compliance, as long as they are self insured (meaning they take claim risk onto themselves and the provider just does administrative duties).

Many of these loopholes, such as the religious one regarding birth control and abortion coverage, were added to make the act more palatable to Dems in center to right leaning areas.

In addition, the penalty for not having insurance was drastically reduced to the point where it essentially de-toothed the entire plan. Without a stiff penalty making it more palatable to people to enter the insurance pool, the pool is not big enough to control costs, and we are where we are now. This compromise essentially doomed the ACA from the start.

"Compromise away everything" was admittedly a bit of hyperbole, but this is where I am coming from.
@35 I know you really, REALLY, want the Dems to retain their Republican Lite flavor. Your specious beliefs in the way that the Democratic Party operates and your complete willingness to smooth over every single flawed bill they pass are exactly why young people are increasingly reluctant to call themselves Democrats.

What I remember was the Democrats cowering away from the ACA and freaking out like it was poison, thus letting the Republicans control the debate. And, what I also remember, was the Democrats being very sketchy about the tax cut extension and the PATRIOT Act extensions right up until the last minute.

If the Democrats can't unify behind a bold message of economic equality, why the fuck should they be in office? Did you see Patty Murray try to talk about her fast track vote for the TPP/TTIP? Fuck the national party Democrats until they start pushing back, hard, on the party-line Third Wat losers that Fill so many seats.