Health care reform

Six Republicans Who Voted for Obamacare Repeal in 2015 Sank the 'Clean Repeal' Bill Today

Another day, another defeat for the Senate's health care effort

|

Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

In 2015, when presented with a bill that would have repealed much of Obamacare's taxes and regulations, Senate Republicans were eager to send a political message. Though the bill would be vetoed by then-President Barack Obama, 52 Republicans voted "aye."

With 48 of those 52 senators still in office, the Senate on Wednesday could muster only 45 votes in favor of a "clean repeal" of Obamacare. Six senators who voted for the 2015 bill voted against the repeal effort.

They are Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., Dean Heller, R-Nev., John McCain, R-Ariz., Lisa Murkowski R-Alaska, and Rob Portman, R-Ohio.

After a comprehensive repeal-and-replace bill failed Tuesday night, senators voted Wednesday on a proposal to scrap most of Obamacare in two years, giving Congress a chance to work-up some sort of replacement. The so-called "repeal-and-delay," which had been pushed by conservative and libertarian members of the Senate, including Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, met the same fate.

With two defeats in as many days, Senate Republicans are running out of time to pass anything that could be considered a victory in their years-long quest to repeal Obamacare. Under the rules of the reconciliation process, the Senate can only debate the health care bill for 20 hours before embarking on a so-called vote-a-rama (probably sometime tomorrow) and then taking a final vote Friday on whatever bill emerges from that process.

It's a total mess.

The last ditch effort will likely focus on what's become known as the "skinny repeal" option. There's no actual language for the amendment, but Politico and other outlets are reporting the proposal would include a repeal of Obamacare's individual and employer mandates and a repeal of the medical devices tax.

If Republicans can get a skinny repeal bill out of the Senate, the two chambers could go to a conference committee to iron out the differences and, perhaps, find a version of the two bills both chambers could pass.

There is also a chance the House will accept that measure and pass it just to make the whole issue go away. But Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, the head of the House's Freedom Caucus, says the "skinny repeal" bill will not pass the House. Conservatives in both chambers may have a hard time voting for a bill that does not touch Obamacare's Medicaid expansion. Policy considerations, though, have taken a backseat to simple mathematics in the Senate.

"Whatever gets to 50," Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, told Politico.

The least common denominator approach is really the only choice left, and the clock is ticking.

"I've always said I will vote for any permutation of repeal," Paul told Politico before the vote on full repeal failed Wednesday. "Obviously I want as much as I can get but I'll vote for whatever the consensus can be. It's what I've been saying for months: Start on what you can agree on."

Instead, the health care debate will end with whatever 50 Republican senators can agree on.

NEXT: My very first article on the dangers of political ignorance

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Another day, another defeat for the Senate’s health care effort

    Anyone else feel like they’re watching a bunch of retards trying to fuck a doorknob?

    1. >>>a bunch of retards trying to fuck a doorknob

      words i could not find. perfect.

    2. Just imagining a pregnant doorknob.

      1. The Pregnant Doorknobs, what a great band name!

  2. One less vote for Rob Portman.

  3. And we have clearly identified who the problem children are. These are the Senators who have been only faking.

    1. Unfortunately they aren’t all of them. Several Senators didn’t vote Yes until the No vote got to 51. But, gotta start somewhere.

  4. And now there’ll be non-stop stories in the media of those obstructionist Democrats knee-jerk opposed to anything put forward by the GOP. Sad.

    1. How many demorats voted for the repeal? None. Demorats are STILL the major obstructionists.

      1. How shocking that Democrats continue to support a bill that they passed, that at this point has majority support, where the proposed Republican alternative received a very poor review from the CBO. There couldn’t possibly be any other reason for not voting with the Republicans on this; the Democrats are definitely just obstructing for the sake of disrupting the Republican agenda.

        So I guess I agree with you….

        1. I would say the shocking part is that no part of the Democrat party recognizes that reform, at the very least, is needed. And soon. That part should be the question. Why are they totally, to a man, against any possible reform?

          If they were serious, they could at least put forward a reform package of their own to fix some of even the small parts. Even if just for a show for the common man. No bill or program is ever perfect as conceived. Ever. To pretend the ACA was immaculately written is the most retarded thing you should have ever heard of.

          Yet oddly, no one asks this. No one.

          1. As fair as your criticism is, Democrats don’t have the presidency, senate, or house. Their ability to do anything about fixing the ACA is limited. It’s also completely besides the point. The claim is whether Democrats are being unreasonable for not helping Republicans dismantle the ACA. They are, of course, NOT being unreasonable.

            1. I didn’t say they were irrational, it’s clearly pure politics, but what is irrational are the people they represent not seeing the assumptions they’re using are blindingly idiotic and foolhardy.

              Right now they are in an excellent position as the minority party to make-or-break the Republican so-called ‘repeal’ effort that makes no real effort to actually repeal anything.

              Politics are purely theater, and the power resides in the Emperor and robed priest-class. Ah, Rome!

            2. Well, they admitted it was broken.

              They kind of look like assholes doing nothing to fix it.

              1. “Well, they admitted it was broken.

                They kind of look like assholes doing nothing to fix it.”

                Not exactly. It’s obviously broken because Republicans broke it. Republicans get all the blame for screwing up what the noble Democrats created.

            3. Nor were Republicans being unreasonable when they blocked Democratic c legislation. And yet, they are ‘the American Taliban.’

  5. I can’t believe Lamar Alexander is still sucking the government tit. He’s been living at the expense of working people for too too long.

    1. You could replace Lamar Alexander with 92 other names from the Senate and this paragraph would still be valid.

  6. the proposal would include a repeal of Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates and a repeal of the medical devices tax

    Eliminating the mandates while returning community pricing and pre-existing condition coverage and community pricing in place sounds more like an strategy to collapse the insurance industry in hopes of forcing single payer coverage.

    1. Correction: Obamacare was a strategy to collapse the insurance industry in hopes of forcing single payer coverage. The Republicans are right now facing the reality of a country filled with parasites who want to cut everyone else’s free shit but not their own. Morally, they have a choice to salvage our system and avoid turning us into a European-style socialist shithole. Politically, they can’t “take away” coverage or they get voted out and replaced with idiots who will.

      This was always the plan. Once Americans got a taste of “fairness” and free* stuff, it would be impossible to take it away from them, and the Democrats would manipulate, lie, and demagogue their way into government-controlled healthcare. And then the Democrats will control voters strongly enough to shift the Overton window leftward permanently, the way their leftist brethren have done all over the world.

      1. Bullshit. Republicans were voted overwhelmingly because they promised to repeal Obamacare, which has affected most people negatively. Given that voters entrusted them with the House, the Senate and the Presidency, and they were still not able to repeal it, this is their biggest political blunder.

        1. It’s no political blunder, it was a bald-faced lie on the part of some Senators and Congresscritters.

          1. Why would they lie? Why would their opponents not lie? At some level you have to believe people get what they want. What could have happened that I believe is that voters lied to themselves.

          2. Seriously, they get paid the same no matter what they do, so why would they not be truthful, unless it was the voters who didn’t want the truth.

          3. It’s a political blunder to think they can get away with lying to their voters. I doubt that many of them will show up to vote for them a second time – and elections tend to be all about turnout. On the other hand, some of them are up for reelection in 2020 or 2022, so they might pray that the electorate will forget. But they’ve damaged the Republican brand severely, which will hurt their colleagues up for reelection in 2018.

      2. But most Americans have not gotten free stuff, they’ve gotten a deterioration of their bargains.

        Meanwhile, there’s no such thing as “permanently”. Forever is a long time. Things will be 1 way, then another, then back again, then forward again, & so on. That does go on forever. Change is “constant”.

        1. If this is true, then these Americans should be just as loud, or louder, in demanding their Senator critters vote to repeal Obamacare. The squeaky wheel – the Left and their sob-stories – are getting the grease.

    2. & when that happens, then they’ll have to repeal those mandates as well. It’s a win no matter how.

  7. These jackasses better do their job or they will out of one! Repeal the damn Act!

    1. To what end?

      1. To force Marxist parasites like you you earn your healthcare install of stealing it from us or suffer the natural consequences of your dunderheaded behavior.

        1. Do these parasites who need to make better choices include toddlers with cancer?

          1. We’ve had this discussion and you could name not a single Rethuglican who was in favor of withholding medical care from the indigent. But you keep putting up those strawmen anyway, you sleazy commie.

            1. Cutting Medicaid by a shit ton doesn’t do that?

              It’s always lovely how little exceptions to core principle are made when obviously monstrous outcomes are pointed out. Almost as if the principle is shit.

              1. “Cutting Medicaid by a shit ton doesn’t do that?”

                Nope.

                Listen, it’s obvious what you’re trying to do, you’re trying to portray the loss of Medicaid as the loss of access to health care, but it isn’t. They still have the same access as before, now they just have to pay for it themselves.

                So really, all you’re doing is bitching that someone is making you pay for the shit you consume, and hiding behind the access argument.

                1. They still have the same access as before, now they just have to pay for it themselves.

                  Medicaid being healthcare subsidies for people who can’t afford it otherwise… so even with your own psychopathic word choice, you’re not correct. If you can’t afford to buy something, you don’t have access to it.


                  1. If you can’t afford to buy something, you don’t have access to it.

                    And yet, somehow, people still manage to be seen the E.R. and we can not legally ask how they intend to pay for it, let alone if they can pay for it, before we see them.

                    And yes, that aforementioned fact is one of the many government created points of price inflation.

                    So in other words, what you’re really saying is that healthcare should be more expensive but that fact should be hidden from the people who are using it. It’s no surprise that you’re for more smoke and mirrors along with more price inflation.

                    What will you say, I wonder, when access to healthcare is rationed based on a government needs test and half your paycheck, should you ever accidentally earn one, goes to healthcare? What’s more, I wonder what you will say when the government tells you that you’re not a priority and therefore will not be seen for 6 months to a year yet you have ‘paid’ for care?

                    If the government itself is the one telling you that you can’t get care, who might you turn to in order to get that care? You’ll have no recourse, and no one to blame but yourself. Unless you’re rich, that is. You’ll always have recourse then, even if it involves flying abroad to get that healthcare.

                    VA Care for all, amiright?

                  2. “If you can’t afford to buy something, you don’t have access to it.”

                    You can say that all you want, it doesn’t make it so. They don’t ask for a credit card when you go to the ER.

                    I love that after I directly address your argument and debunk it, your only move is to double down.

                    You apparently haven’t read anything from your betters that gives you a non-repetitive, non-debunked reply.

                    1. RE: You can say that all you want, it doesn’t make it so. They don’t ask for a credit card when you go to the ER.

                      The government and the country ultimately saves money by more people having coverage and the ER being used less. Ideology aside, it’s completely pragmatic to make sure the most amount of people possibly have coverage/care. You can stick to that talking point if you wish, but don’t pretend like it actually reduces the cost of healthcare.

                    2. “The government and the country ultimately saves money by more people having coverage and the ER being used less.”

                      [citation needed]

              2. You are astoundingly consistent. 10 years I’ve been reading Reason and you still post the same bullshit talking points no matter how many times they are destroyed. Fuck off, troll.

          2. “Do these parasites who need to make better choices include toddlers with cancer?”

            Fair enough. Discard the “Medicare for all” sentiment and use it only for toddlers with cancer and we have a deal.

            1. “Fair enough. Discard the “Medicare for all” sentiment and use it only for toddlers with cancer and we have a deal.”

              We don’t even need that. It’s amazing how little we actually need government to solve these problems for us.

              Charity is much more effective than Government forcing you to pay for this stuff with a gun. One example.

          3. Why do crooks always invent starving / sick kids when they’re caught stealing?

            1. So sick children don’t exist?

              1. No, Mrs. Broflovski. Children don’t exist.

      2. To lower premiums and reduce the size and scope of government?

        1. Unsure how it would lower premiums considering the law being repealed was responsible for bending the cost curve down. You do know that just because something comes out of a Republican mouth-hole doesn’t make it true, right?

          1. Bending the cost curve down???? WTF are you prattling on about? My yearly premium increases have gone through the roof since Messiah-care was enacted.

            But you know that already and are just making shit up as usual. I won’t even bother with a CITE PLEASE! this time.

            1. He’s going to give you another one of his links that links to a partisan org doing wish/forecasting.

              As I said before, he thinks people don’t recognize it for what it is because he’s not smart enough to recognize it for what it is.

              1. Cost growth is significantly lower even than the law was projected to accomplish.

                1. And still no link

                2. False, premiums have over doubled in most places. Basic research makes this clear.

            2. Good, do your own homework. Growth in healthcare costs is historically low since the passage of Ocare, and, just to mention it, more people are insured than ever have been before.

              I’m sure you and all these other internet rightwingers who say the same thing really did see a large jump in healthcare costs and aren’t lying through your teeth. But you understand that everyone’s costs go up every year, and this natural result of how private insurance does business has only been mitigated, overall, by Ocare. If Democrats and healthcare economists had their way, there would be been more restructuring and even lower cost growth.

              1. Wow he knew he was caught and didn’t even bother with a link

                1. You just said anything I link to would be totally and utterly discredited because of a supposed partisan conspiracy it would automatically be engaged in. So fire up your own Google, and don’t just go to page 4 where all the rightwing blogs are.

                  1. And I was correct, apparently, as no reputable defensible link has appeared.

              2. It was sold to the public that premiums would decrease

                Of course, that never happened.

                The fact that you are arguing that costs did not go up as much, means you’ve already conceded that they did not go down.

                How heavy are those goalposts?

                1. “It was sold to the public that premiums would decrease”

                  Citation needed for that. It certainly was never projected to do that.

                  Nobody should expect healthcare costs to go down in our system, unless we’re in some kind of hellish recession.


                  1. “I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”

                  2. “Citation needed for that”

                    Did you actually just ask someone to find video of Obama saying premiums will decrease?

                    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..imbed-4865

                    The video is linked as well.

                2. My premiums were cut in half when the ACA was enacted and I’m not getting any subsidies. The individual market was a freakin PITA before the ACA. My premiums have been going up quite a bit since then but I’m still have a long way to go to match that preACA premium.

          2. “Unsure how it would lower premiums ”

            I’m shocked.

          3. “the law being repealed was responsible for bending the cost curve down”

            [citation needed]

              1. I Believe I had that

                1. The United States is on track to spend $2.6 trillion less on health care between 2014 and 2019, compared to initial projections made right after the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

                  Lol It’s exactly what I said it was I can’t believe you did exactly what I said you were going to do

                  1. I’m beside myself with laughter here, you posted THAT in response to proof that the cost curve was being bent down.

              2. This report is about aggregate health care spending. Not about the price of insurance or the cost of medical services.

                “but the recession and sluggish economic recovery were also important factors”

                Which means spending is lower because people are buying less.

          4. I’m still waiting for that $2500/ year savings to materialize.

            1. What else would you like the federal government to do for you that it doesn’t already?

              1. Leave me alone

              2. Not pile on a bunch of mandates that make my insurance more costly?

                1. The mandate’s purpose is to bring costs down by enlarging the risk pool. It’s the preexisting conditions provisions that would raise insurance costs.

                  1. “It’s the preexisting conditions provisions that would raise insurance costs.”

                    Which Is mandated. Which is what he said.

                    Which is WHY you get laughed at.

                    Hint: there is not A mandate, there are MANY

                  2. Coverage mandates drive up cost by making people buy coverage they don’t need.

                  3. The mandate’s purpose is to bring costs down

                    BULLSHIT.

                    The mandate’s purpose is to end the last element of price pressure on insurance rates, by forbidding us from opting out altogether.

                    Really rent-boy, you’re outdoing yourself with the baldfaced lies today.

                    -jcr

          5. Costs, in all forms, premiums, deductibles have continued to go up and the rate at which they do so is projected to increase as ACA Medicare/Medicare price controls become untenable.

            Reducing the rule of third party payers is the first step to reintroducing incentives to control costs. If you didn’t every turd the Daily Kos dropped you might learn something about how direct controls impact prices.

          6. the law being repealed was responsible for bending the cost curve down.

            Why would you even attempt to float such an absurd lie?

            -jcr

          7. Ah… crooks also like to invent fake stats so that they can justify their theft! Sorry Tonykins… we’re on to the fact that you’re a liar and a crook.

  8. John McCain voted no. There’s a surprise.

    1. Dude should have retired.

      1. If it’s any consolation, dude might be dead soon. Not that I wish that on him, but it’s certainly one way to leave office.

        1. I just worry he’ll be replaced by someone worse.

          1. Regression toward the mean, dude. Odds overwhelmingly against someone that bad’s being succeeded by someone worse.

        2. That’s OK, I do wish it on him. What’s wrong w having him out of the way sooner rather than later?

        3. There’s billions of people in the world, they’re dying all the time, you couldn’t count them all, let alone care. What’s the big deal about adding him to that statistic?

  9. Fricken cucks.

    ONE job they have and they failed. They’re protecting a piece of legislation they didn’t vote on and now they’re protecting it? I guess it’s true. The GOP are even more gutless than the DNC!

    1. They probably think if they don’t touch Obamacare it will fail without them and they’ll be blameless while the Democrats take the heat. As if leftists were in any sense persuaded by reality-based evidence.

      Obviously the smartest thing would be complete deregulation, but our officials care more about getting re-elected than the lives of the people who voted to put them in office.

      1. Well. It’s a plan.

        But what if it leads to single payer?

        1. If single payer ever happens, we can still work on making medicine more cost-effective, while we work on repealing single payer.

          For example, we have single payer juries, yet NY still managed to make jury service much less onerous; still a long way to go, but a good start. We have single payer water supply, but in most places of excellent quality, & cheap enough that many people have enough $ left over to buy bottled water. We have single payer schools, yet charters have improved that situation.

          1-payer’s not the end of the road.

      2. The people who elected them don’t care about their own lives?

    2. ONE job they have and they failed.

      To be fair, they had other jobs to do and literally shit the bed on those too: cutting taxes, cutting spending, eliminating even one cabinet agency, audit the Fed…. This is the most inept Congress in the 40+ years I have been alive. If the Democrats had Congress, the courts, and the Presidency, the top income earners would be in a new 80% bracket, and spending would have gone through the roof.

    3. This is the time for the Senate Majority Leader to nut up. Get out to each and every one of these assholes’ districts and start putting ads on the TV and hold Town Hall meetings. Start asking WHY they can’t keep their political promises. Get their core base pissed off at them and promise them that you’ll keep this up through their primary election, no matter how far off that is. Put it on all of the AM conservative talk radio shows. They’re fairly cheap, and are listened to by tons of Republicans. Make them understand that their bad actions have actual consequences for their phony baloney jobs. Bring these dogs to heel.

      1. You’re presuming Mitch actually wants Obamacare repealed.

  10. Because the bill would be vetoed by then-President Barack Obama, 52 Republicans voted “aye.”

    There, I fixed it for you.

  11. Let’s admit that no one will be serious about reform until the current system actually collapses.

    Just like social security, etc.

    1. Collapses is the wrong direction. The only solution is to increase the size of Congress by at least 4x overnight (and reduce the number of staffers by 80%). Every one of these incumbents is the problem and has no clue what they are doing and is bought and will never leave office or be voted out. So we need to drown them in a ton of newbie critters. Maybe the newbies won’t have a clue either – but at least it will jack up the cost of buying legislation by 400%.

      1. Abolish the Fixed Apportionment Act of 1929 and quadruple the size of the House.

        1. Make congressional districts be a maximum of 50,000 like the First Congress intended. It’d be fun having 6700 Congressmen.

    2. Even if insurance collapses as a biz, it’s not like doctors are going to stop doctoring. Just the way they’re paid will change.

      Think about it folks: All this is just about how they’re paid. They’ll do biz 1 way or another.

      Same w SocSec. It doesn’t change the total amount of goods & services out there. If SocSec goes away, it doesn’t mean an equivalent amount of goods in the market are going to be destroyed! People’ll buy them somehow.

      1. True, but the number of doctors is dwindling because it has become too much of a hassle and there are too high costs to do business as doctor (too much paperwork due to regulations, higher malpractice insurance, higher costs of medical school).

        It will take a few decades after the collapse of the health insurance industry, reduction of medical regulations, collapse of the student loan bubble (so that universities charge truly affordable tuition again), and tort reform to limit malpractice lawsuits before being a doctor becomes attractive again.

        1. But some of the doctors’ hassle goes away immediately if health insurance disappears.

          1. And a lot of the money they get does as well.

            I’m all for doctors wising up and hopping on something like concierge plans voluntarily. Those seem to make sense for the doctor and the patient. Leave insurance companies to providing catastrophic insurance, and make them compete nation-wide. That should go quite a way toward making insurance rates more affordable. It’ll also lower healthcare costs because people won’t be using emergency rooms and insurance for the flu and minor cuts and scrapes any more. Why would you if you can get to see your doctor, and it’s already pre-paid at $50 a month (real prices for concierge service at one of the places I looked at) for all-you-can-eat style medical service that even includes house calls?

  12. There is only one Republican Senator at risk of losing re-election. More likely than not the party will end up gaining seats because of how the map looks. If this doesn’t provide enough political cover to repeal the damn bill then they will never repeal this boondoggle.

    The Stupid Party is the Coward Party

    1. Cowardice does not adequately describe the phenomenon, because if they’re afraid of losing an election, how does that tell them which way to vote? They could lose this way, or that way. So I don’t accept “cowardice” as an explanation for the pattern of voting. You could just as well say they’re brave, or arrogant, or whatever.

      What I see is a bunch of egos needing to be stroked. They all seem to sense this is a historic moment, & they each want to be the single savior whose plan succeeded while everyone else’s failed. That’s the only explanation I see for this madness.

  13. If I was a cynical person I’d say it looks like the “repeal” chant for the last 7 years was nothing but telling the base what they wanted to hear, with no real intent to act.

    1. *gasp* NO!

    2. But surely the base realized that. So it’s the base that had no real intent to act, just virtue signaling. Or lying to themselves.

      Anybody can be a legislator. If it’s not this 1 from the crowd, it’s someone else. There’s nothing special about them that you could predict would distinguish them from the crowd in terms of what they want.

  14. To paraphrase Vin Suprynowicz, speaking about Team Red’s failure to reduce government programs.

    “It not that Republicans lacked the votes, they just always lacked the will.”

    1. Meaning they lie anonymously to poll takers, which means they like to themselves, which seems likely.

  15. “Senate Republicans are running out of time to pass anything that could be considered a victory in their years-long quest to repeal Obamacare”

    Their quest was to try to “appear” they were repealing Obamacare. In the meantime are there no small government initiatives these clowns can work on? I would think reforming/eliminating asset forfeiture would be popular. Get rid of dairy price supports? Title 9 abuse? How about things related to health care that don’t involve repealing Obamacare? Reforming the FDA to speed up drug approvals? Selling insurance across state lines? Tort reform?

    When the left says these yahoos can’t govern they aren’t wrong. They have no direction and no ideology to guide them outside of tax cuts which is swell but is there really no other low hanging fruit for these alleged “constitutionalists”?

    1. Yes. There are lots of items they can address to try to reduce costs in many small ways. They don’t want to try because it would impact one special interest or another and it wouldn’t make a big splash. No one in congress wants to do the actual day-to-day grind work. (Selling insurance across state lines isn’t a big win though. It’s not profitable for insurance companies to get in new markets and build new provider networks, especially if they are small markets with few competitors now like rural places).

  16. This should not surprise people. Some politicians vote for bills they don’t like because they know the bill will lose even with their vote and they want to give the appearance that they advocate the bill to placate their constituents. Anyway, at least those 5 Republicans have now revealed themselves and should be voted out of office in the next cycle.

    1. Don’t be so cunty.

  17. “Within these three openings are the hallows set for them. And behold what I would do to them if their three heads were therein … She setteth her hand toward the openings and draweth forth a pin that was fastened into the wall, and a cutting blade of steel droppeth down, of steel sharper than any razor, and closeth up the three openings. “Even thus will I cut off their heads when they shall set them into those three openings thinking to adore the hallows that are beyond.”

    High History of the Grail, translated by Sebastian Evans

  18. They are Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., Dean Heller, R-Nev., John McCain, R-Ariz., Lisa Murkowski R-Alaska, and Rob Portman, R-Ohio.

    I wonder if something along the lines of “It’s unfortunate that six is too few for a baseball team.” would run afoul of a/the ‘Preet filter’.

  19. This definitely a big blow to the current commander-in-chief

  20. Instead of everyone proposing his favorite package, why don’t they vote on bills that do 1 narrow thing at a time? Surely they can get majorities for some things. Like how about a bill to repeal the med’l device tax? Then another to repeal the penaltax? & so on?

    1. And that, is a damn good question.

      1. Simple answer? Not enough boilerplate to hide the pork. Plain and simple. This is actually known.

        1. I was thinking they could pick a narrow and relatively uncontroversial thing to repeal and start there. Surely they agree on something?

          But, I think they don’t want to pass anything. because then they own it.

          Watching this debacle makes me think Team Red is a bunch or liars, or incompetent,

          or both.

          1. Just realized my answer sounds a lot like your’s, Robert. That’s because I agree with you.

          2. But what does it mean to “own” the repeal of a tax? The tax isn’t there any more, nothing to own. Same w the repeal of a mandate of any kind.

            1. “Own” it in the sense of:

              “Health care policy sucks. You guys were the last ones to work on it, so it’s your fault.”

              Because that would be the narrative for the next two election cycles if Team Red changes a single thing about the ACA.

    2. That’s what they are going to do next. McConnell’s pinning his last hope on a “skinny repeal” which repeals the individual and employer mandates and one of the taxes.

      I think it might pass, but that doesn’t make it law. It’ll go to a conference committee with the House, at which point the Freedom Caucus will eat them alive for doing so little and it will die in committee.

    3. Because politicians love big bills. It’s easier to hide pork in there. They aren’t really interested in the well being of the nation. They just want to continue their gravy train.

  21. Conservatives in both chambers may have a hard time voting for a bill that does not touch Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.

    What is this mania to take their friends hostage all about? Like they’re against all the other changes if they don’t get this? Like they prefer the status quo?

  22. Two wings, one bird.

  23. Spineless cowards, more interested in getting re-elected than saving the Republic from a continued slide into socialism.

  24. How is your two party dictatorship working for you now America!

  25. “Unsure how it would lower premiums ”

    I’m shocked.
    My recent post: Sticky Sellers Review
    Sent from Honest Jvzoo Reviews

  26. very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it.
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder for pc
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder download

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.