Can someone help me understand why republicans won’t just pass this and then pass a second law a year or two down the line that pushes it to the right even further?
For folks who are taking sides on ideological grounds the ACHA would still get them closer to their goal than ACA, right?
I think it’s because some of the GOP lawmakers have realized how hurtful the bill would be to the less fortunate. Their consciences simply won’t allow them to pass this.
I was leaning toward “because rainbow-farting unicorns had carried them to the Summer Lands where they learned about the power of love” but you could be right.
Enough of the public knows how bad this bill is that the GOP can’t sugar coat it or claim that it’s what the people want. Pushing through a bill that only has a 17% positive from your constituents is political suicide, even for the seemingly bullet-proof GOP. Now that enough of them have said no, the fence sitters and those scared of repercussions are free to vote “no” too. The GOP might turn on a few naysayers, but they aren’t going to try to alienate and/or Primary 40+ at the same time. That’s a recipe for gridlock, which will also be suicide for a party that is claiming that they are going to get shit done now that they control all 3 houses.
I guess that’s the part that I don’t get.
I mean, by definition repealing ACA with something a lot cheaper would hurt the less fortunate, so wouldn’t this have been something they fully understood going in? It’s really hard for me to believe that republican house reps. really were engaging in this level of “magical thinking”.
Yep! Pretty much everyone recognizes this. Well, everyone but Trump.
Well… you elected Trump… soooooo…
It just seems like Trump is trying to throw ACA reform under the bus while blaming everybody else for the failure. People are talking about Trump being a bad negotiator but this instead looks like him being a well experienced CYA maneuver that pins all the blame on the Republicans and not himself at a moment when it looks like failure is inevitable. And if it comes together at the last second - leadership! Remember you gotta protect your skin in the game first.
A lot of articles say it better than I can, but basically it is because the Republican objections to the ACHA aren’t about it being far enough to the right. It isn’t a lip-service talking point to say that the roots of the ACA are from conservative ideology. The basic conservative view for why the ACA or similar legislation should exist is that in America we don’t let people just die. People receive emergency and general health care regardless of whether they have insurance. Instead of letting people chose to take a ‘free ride’ from taxpayer supported health systems, they should be required to contribute into the system. This was a huge Republican talking point before the Democratic party embraced the idea with the ACA. That poor (shh - also we mean non-white) people were clogging ERs and taking ambulances everywhere costing tax payers so much money because they were too lazy or whatever to get jobs with insurance coverage.
The AHCA as it stands is not more ‘right’ of the ACA in terms of any general conservative principles. It is just a random basket of shit with no internal consistency cobbled together to try and sweeten votes with talking points. It doesn’t actually address any real issue with the ACA and just makes everything worse from basically any viewpoint that isn’t from the ultra-rich. And I think the polling and commentary about it highlight this perfectly. If the AHCA’s problem was just that it was headed in the right direction from the Republican perspective but not far enough then we’d have the Freedom Caucus idiots up in arms but basically everyone else on board. But it is just amazingly not what anyone ever wanted out of it. Pretty much everyone wants to be against it. Basically no one is coming out in support of it. A lot of Republican Representatives seem to just hope to be able to skate by with a no-comment while enough of the others are forced to go on the record against.
As others have already said, a large portion of it is just how unpopular the ACHA is. Any politician needs to think very carefully before voting for a bill with a 17% approval rate.
But that’s not all. For the Freedom Caucus (of which my particular congresscritter is a member so I follow it closely), there are a couple of big issues. First:
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/844764546698924032
Later on in reply to a comment on that tweet, he also said “I support full repeal. I’m pointing out that they can make the system worse by repealing only certain parts.” These folks believe that the way forward on health care is massive deregulation, getting the feds out entirely and throwing it to the states. (Which I’m confident is wrong, but that’s a separate discussion.) If you proceed from that assumption, then the AHCA is just ACA 2.0 with worse results for almost all of your constituents. While some Republicans are willing to support it anyway just so they can say they voted to repeal Obamacare, the Freedom Caucus has no interest in that particular symbolism.
Second:
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/845085285289508866
I’ve gone to several of Amash’s town halls, and this point comes up again and again in his responses to questions on all kinds of issues. The Freedom Caucus folks have a real problem with the way bills are hammered out in committees and back rooms, often changed at the very last minute, and then presented for a vote with basically no opportunity for feedback. The AHCA is a particularly egregious example of this. On this point, I agree wholeheartedly with them - the legislative process as it stands makes it very difficult for a conscientious representative to do the job right.
Thanks for the details. I feel like I understand it more, but I also don’t really get folks who think a full repeal is good but ACHA is bad.
I do agree that ACHA is closer to Obamacare 2.0 than anything a full repeal solution would entail, it would get folks a bit closer to the pre-Obamacare state than ACA would so it seems like it would at least be directionally aligned?
Even if you believe in massive deregulation as being the right step forward that would also result in lots of screwed over folks in that transition period so it seems like there’s lot of double standards at play here (which I guess is the point).
Even Newt is revolting. (double entendre intended)
NBC reporting that the House Republicans are going to private conference right now in advance of vote. Last minute appeal. Are they blinking?
It would take at least attempting to govern in order to be good at it. When they put forward and elect a number of people who think government and governing is the problem I’m not sure what they were expecting.
TRUMP BLINKED!
It’s simple. They believe the government should not be regulating or involved in healthcare. Full stop.
The Art of the Ordeal!
(*Stole that from a different forum)
Yep. And it’s as bad as you think it is:
If this actually happens, it could potentially be good. Even great:
But I doubt Trump has the interest, ability or stamina to actually do something this big and bipartisan. I also doubt the Dems would get on board, as that would make Trump look good.
Our political system sucks.
