usmbguest5318
Gold Member
It was clear to me sometime this past week that the ACHA was doomed. The signs that longtime locals are used to seeing -- Congressional staffers busier than a one-armed paper hanger to name one -- when "something's not right" were all over the place. Be that as it may, though I was pretty sure the ACHA would go down in flames, I didn't get a sense that Trump would back off from wanting a roll call vote on it anyway. I don't think he should have done that.
One aspect of the aspect ACHA's non-passage -- a material one, but not the biggest one, per se -- is that there were two camps of Republican who had to be satisfied: moderate Republicans (MR) and Freedom Caucus Republicans (FCs). The moderates can be worked with, negotiated with and they know when to take a good deal that may not be an ideal deal. The FCs don't understand that at all. Technically there is a third group -- the Republicans who'll go along with pretty much anything so long as it's backed by Republican leadership -- but they don't really matter because unless the thing being pushed is tantamount to infanticide, they won't let the party down no matter how extreme or moderate a proposition be.
Come Friday afternoon, the ACHA had been tweaked to better suit the FC folks. They'd demanded concessions, got them and then pushed for more and rather than taking what they could, they played "all or nothing."
Trump should have forced them to go on record so he can put the screws to them later when he senses-up and takes a bipartisan approach that includes a coalition of MRs, conservative to moderate Dems,and the party loyalists. He also needs the FCs to be on record so they can be sent home come the midterm elections.
The fact of the matter is that the FCs, with their inflexibility, screwed a host of groups/goals:
One aspect of the aspect ACHA's non-passage -- a material one, but not the biggest one, per se -- is that there were two camps of Republican who had to be satisfied: moderate Republicans (MR) and Freedom Caucus Republicans (FCs). The moderates can be worked with, negotiated with and they know when to take a good deal that may not be an ideal deal. The FCs don't understand that at all. Technically there is a third group -- the Republicans who'll go along with pretty much anything so long as it's backed by Republican leadership -- but they don't really matter because unless the thing being pushed is tantamount to infanticide, they won't let the party down no matter how extreme or moderate a proposition be.
Come Friday afternoon, the ACHA had been tweaked to better suit the FC folks. They'd demanded concessions, got them and then pushed for more and rather than taking what they could, they played "all or nothing."
Trump should have forced them to go on record so he can put the screws to them later when he senses-up and takes a bipartisan approach that includes a coalition of MRs, conservative to moderate Dems,and the party loyalists. He also needs the FCs to be on record so they can be sent home come the midterm elections.
The fact of the matter is that the FCs, with their inflexibility, screwed a host of groups/goals:
- The American people as a whole because there are parts of O-care that do indeed need "fixing."
This is the group of citizens includes those who don't get their insurance via O-care and its exchanges, but who do indirectly "pay" by dint of the flaws having a national economic impact. I'm in this group. I'm not going to be materially "put out" whether the ACA gets fixed or not, but I'd sooner see it fixed than not fixed. I don't see fixing it as the most important thing we need to do, but Republicans seem to think it is, so fine. I'm all for fixing it, so long as it's done so as to prioritize low and middle income people actually having health insurance. (I can discuss what I think should be done re: O-care/health insurance, but here isn't the place for that.)
I'm as much as one can be an advocate of trying something, seeing what's wrong with it and making incremental adjustments until it's working right. Obama "got the ball rolling" in that regard by enacting O-care, and for all it's imperfections, he's the only one who's been able to do that. It's a start and Obama deserves props for that. It's a hell of a lot easier to build on something that's at least functioning at the main thing it's supposed to do, and doing exactly that is what we're currently called to do. It's also what the FCs are a major impediment to achieving.
- The GOP tax and budget agenda. The fact of the matter is that for however horrible the ACHA be, it's passage was critical to the GOP tax reform and tax rate objectives and Trump's budget austerity proposals. Not passing it means that avoiding ~$600B in federal spending will not be possible, and because it won't be, the GOP's tax reform measures won't happen. Additionally personal income tax reduction won't be happening as promised; however, corporate tax cuts likely will (no surprise). Lastly, the defense spending increases won't be anything near what Trump proposed.
People wondered why the ACHA was first among the major proposals tacked. All those other things depended on it, and the FCs knew that, or at least they were told as much. Whether they, like typically intransigent obstructionists, refused to believe what they were told is unclear to me. - Low to low middle income folks. These folks were going to be screwed if the ACHA passed, and some of them -- the same ones as now -- remain screwed as their penury exposes them further to the pinch of premium proliferation and prideful political pandering. The FCs deserve to be identified and sent packing solely for their disregard and lack of empathy for the least among us.
After all, of people in these segments of our society, if they don't at least have their good health, they have little chance of boosting their livelihoods. We've seen that before when our nation literally discarded the opportunity to realise the full potential of some twelve to twenty percent of the nation's population. I don't have "the answer" for just how far we go to enable poor to low-middle income -- that's a very difficult question to answer -- but I do know there are too many people in those segments to risk their good health by reducing their ability to obtain health insurance, thus healthcare, yet that's exactly what the FCs were and remain willing to do. Their call to let O-care collapse -- a grossly irresponsible thing to let or actively make happen, for only upper income people will receive healthcare if that happens -- is an indication of as much.