The Entitlement Rose

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Sep 23, 2010
7,628
748
205
If socialized-medicine-lite is about patients this guy would start by doing something about hospital deaths instead of giving hospitals more money with a name change. In short: An entitlement by any other name would smell just as foul.

VIDEO ▼


Price: ObamaCare replacement bill is about patients

If I understand the lies being put out about “repealing” Obamacare not a damn thing is going to change since I posted this message in 2013:

Socialized medicine’s champions always point to healthcare systems in countries like England, Canada, and Cuba then tell us how wonderful they are. Here’s a few words about socialized medicine in foreign countries to show that it ain’t so wonderful.

For every horror story the Left tells about people without healthcare, there are 100 horror stories done to the sick under socialized medicine.

XXXXX

In short: Democrats know that once parasites are seated at the public trough it will be impossible to unseat them. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, ever loses government funding. In fact, the opposite is always true. Once funding begins it grows and grows until “It is too big to fail.” Millions of parasites will bring the ACA to that point faster than any previous program got there. Democrats are racing to reach the point of no return before the next presidential election. Call it funding on steroids.

Now let’s look at a few horrors that came with socialized medicine in just one hospital.

. . . the recent scandal at Stafford Hospital in Britain, where as many as 1,200 unnecessary deaths were blamed in a government report on the appalling state of care. Nurses put trays of food out of the reach of immobile patients and left people to relieve themselves in their own beds instead of helping them go to the bathroom. In some cases, patients even drank out of dirty flower vases in the hallways because they couldn’t get water anywhere else. Under the Liverpool Care Pathway – first developed in the late 1990s – thousands of families were uninformed when their loved ones were removed from life support, and in extreme cases relatives were scolded by nurses for trying to give water to their dying loved ones.

Examiner Editorial: Britain shows what Obamacare means for US
By Editorial Writer | OCTOBER 7, 2013 AT 5:32 AM

Examiner Editorial: Britain shows what Obamacare means for US

The inhuman treatment mentioned in the above excerpt were administered by the same personality types that will dominate the millions of parasites who will soon staff hospitals, clinics, and testing labs in every state. You can take this to the bank. Nobody in government will suffer at the hands of the cruel bums they are hiring for the rest of us. Elected officials and government employees will receive the best of care just as they do in every Communist country. Patient care in the nation’s capital will excel in every respect.

Great Britain’s wonderful socialized medicine is a road map to where Barack Taqiyya’s ACA is taking the country.

XXXXX

Oct. 16, 2007 -- It appears that more people in the U.S. now die from the mostly hospital-acquired staph infection MRSA than from AIDS, according to a new report from the CDC.

By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

More U.S. Deaths From MRSA Than AIDS

Before hundreds of billions more are sent into the healthcare system —— hospital deaths caused by hospitals should be reduced to zero.

Aside from the other horrors the number of patients that die each year in hospitals from infections they picked up in the hospital is tragic beyond words.

One of my heartfelt reforms focused on hospital deaths caused by staph infections that patients pick up in unsanitary hospitals. Conditions will worsen after millions of parasites get jobs with lifetime tenure attached. Unions will see to it that no dues-paying, filthy, lazy bum will ever be fired.

J. R. Dunn puts deaths from iatrogenic "superbug" infection at 30,000 a year in Great Britain. This excerpt is from the same article about Sarah Plain:

The British National Health Service, the mother of all nationalized health systems, has had what amounts to a "death panel" system since 2005. Under the terms of the Mental Capacity Act, patients unable to communicate with hospital personnel are considered to be "due to die" and are removed from all forms of life support, including food and water. In other words, given the same treatment meted out to Terry Schiavo.

The most notorious recent case involving this act occurred last year when Mrs. Ellen Westwood, an 88-year-old retiree, entered Birmingham's Selly Oak hospital for shoulder surgery. While recovering she caught the inevitable iatrogenic "superbug" infection, a daily occurrence in British hospitals, and one which costs up to 30,000 lives a year. Without further ado, the Selly Oak doctors declared Mrs. Westwood "due to die" and began the process of shutting her down.​

Based on populations alone, American hospitals are only slightly better than hospital-caused deaths in the UK. America’s population is over 300,000,000 while the UK has a population of 61,000,000. The number of deaths caused by hospitals is higher in Great Britain. That will change due to the aforementioned protections the ACA will provide.

Even if you cite the number of deaths caused by US hospitals the number of deaths from staph infections in the UK is a condemnation of socialized medicine everywhere. Hospital-caused deaths is a fair argument to use against those who point to socialized medicine in the UK as a model of compassion and efficiency.

Incidentally, the lower number of deaths in US hospitals has a lot to with lawsuits, and the fact that cruel indifference is yet to reach the levels found in UK hospitals.

Stimulus for patients

The public is treated to a wonderful image of a successful industry saving lives. The public seldom hears about the filth that hospital patients are subjected to every day. I would not send another penny into the health care system until that industry cleans up its act from top to bottom —— and I mean a provable permanent housecleaning. Before hundreds of billions of tax dollars are added to the healthcare system —— hospital deaths caused by unsanitary conditions should be reduced to zero.

The unsanitary conditions in existing hospitals has long been one of my complaints. Conditions can only worsen after the parasites dominate hospital staffs. My contention has been that single-occupancy rooms would go a long way towards reducing infections acquired in hospitals, not to mention improving overall patient comfort and care.

I suggested that existing hospitals be given five or so years to convert to single occupancy rooms. Any hospital failing to comply after the grace period has elapsed would lose ALL government reimbursements —— federal and state. Such a move toward reform on behalf of patients instead of reform designed to enrich insurance companies and Wall Street would spark a wave of new, “healthier” hospitals once the cost of new construction is compared to the cost of conversion.

Since hospitals are profit-making enterprises the owners could be given tax breaks to make the transition. I would not give them a penny of taxpayer money directly whether they build new, or convert existing hospitals. There is also a built-in financial stimulus to an economy that everybody in Washington claims needs fixing; a stimulus that actually helps everyone rather than just enriching insurance company executives and Wall Street sharpshooters.

Anybody who wants to followup can find plenty of medical horror stories out there that have nothing to do with lack of coverage. Here are three articles that will give you a good handle on where socialized medicine ends up:

JANUARY 8, 2009
Hospital Scrubs Are a Germy, Deadly Mess
Bacteria on doctor uniforms can kill you.
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

Hospital Scrubs Are a Germy, Deadly Mess

XXXXX

John C. Goodman
How Safe is Your Hospital?

How Safe is Your Hospital?

XXXXX

Deaths caused by hospital mistakes 'up 60 per cent in two years'

By Jon Swaine
Last Updated: 10:58AM GMT 06 Jan 2009

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/4...tal-mistakes-up-60-per-cent-in-two-years.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...thcare/317159-villains-facts-and-reasons.html
 
Conservatives rip GOP health bill amid 'bloodbath' warning
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 03/08/2017 @ 9:27 pm

Conservatives rip GOP health bill amid ‘bloodbath’ warning

A bloodbath is a dead certainty IF ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS PASS SOCIALIZED-MEDICINE-LITE.

REPEAL OBAMACARE was the promise —— not CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE. Democrats would have done the same thing Ryan is doing had Hillary Clinton won the election in order to silence the outcry against Democrats.

I will go one step further. Trump will not get a second term if he signs the Ryan-McConnell betrayal.

On the plus side, doing the phoney-repeal kabuki dance in the next few weeks gives Americans time to find and nominate good candidates in the midterms. Not giving conservatives time to organize their forces for 2018 was the primary reason establishment Republicans wanted to drag out the process. They know damn-well that Americans will not go back to the Democrats, but Americans can elect Republicans a lot better than the Ryan-McConnell crowd.

Incidentally, I hear a lot of media talk that says Obamacare has to be fixed first so the economy can be tackled. I have not heard a word about first repealing any of the evil parts in Obamacare. Things like:




Not a peep out of Paul Ryan telling us that funding Obama’s goon squad is a reality:

Page 1312 of the now signed-into-law Senate version of ObamaCare provides for funding of Obama’s private militia referred to as “Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps” Sec. 5210.​

Obama's Private Militia, Student Loans, Nuclear Arsenals
Today’s New Atrocity: The Beginning of USA Disarmament
By Sher Zieve Friday, March 26, 2010

Today’s New Atrocity:  The Beginning of USA Disarmament

repeal_obamacare.jpg
http://www.wnd.com/files/2017/02/repeal_obamacare.jpg

And what happens to death panels in socialized-medicine-lite? You can bet your ass that Paul Ryan, “Doctor” Price, and everybody else in Congress know this:

Unless Obamacare is struck down in its entirety, IPAB will remain.

With the possible exception of the individual mandate, the most pernicious contrivance of Obamacare is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), the fifteen-member committee whose purpose is to ration health care to seniors by manipulating Medicare payment rates. Before the advent of Obamacare, only Congress had the power to make changes to Medicare's reimbursement scheme. Now, unless the Supreme Court strikes down the "reform" law in its entirety, that power will be transferred to the unaccountable political appointees of IPAB. The members of this death panel, as it has been appropriately dubbed, will be able to meddle with the fiscal machinery of Medicare without having to worry about the ire of the pesky electorate. IPAB is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to repeal.

As Clint Bolick of the Hoover Institution writes, "Under the statute, any bill to repeal IPAB must be introduced within the one-month period between January 1 and February 1, 2017. If introduced, it must be enacted by a three-fifths super-majority no later than August 15, 2017." These bizarre limits were obviously put in place by the Democrats to prevent any future Republican-controlled Congress from getting rid of IPAB. Thus, the fate of the death panel depends on how the Court rules on the constitutionality of Obamacare's individual mandate and whether the justices believe it is severable from the rest of the law. If the Court decides to invalidate the mandate and also rules that it is inseverable from the remaining provisions, IPAB will be struck down with the rest of Obamacare.​

Will the Supreme Court Let the Death Panel Stand?
By David Catron on 4.16.12 @ 6:09AM
Unless Obamacare is struck down in its entirety, IPAB will remain.

LF: Will the Supreme Court Let the Death Panel Stand?

The question is: Does Donald Trump know he will be signing death panel warrants?
 
It's unfortunate Obama gave the poor everything they wanted, so now when they don't get what they want, they protest like a bunch of bitches. Now the current congress has to fold to them which doesn't allow congress to make the healthcare proposal they truly want, which would void all regulations and allow a 100% free market to lower the prices for those who don't see the doctor every week.
 
O’Reilly is correct about national security but wrong about everything else:

VIDEO ▼

What we the people are entitled to receive from our gov't

The federal government has no constitutional authority to provide education, or socialized medicine, nor abortion. I think O’Reilly is against abortion; so he should spend less time promoting big government authority, and devote more time to defunding Planned Parenthood. More than 40 years passed and it still has not been done:

Planned Parenthood’s prohibited from using federal funds to provide abortions. The Hyde Amendment, which was signed into law in 1976, bars the use of taxpayer money to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, or danger to a pregnant women’s health.

Of course, that’s all a farce — a fact that was proven by Ms. Richards rejecting Mr. Trump’s proposal outright.​

Why Planned Parenthood must be defunded
By Kelly Riddell - The Washington Times - Thursday, March 9, 2017

Defunding Planned Parenthood must take precedence

I am guessing that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell will not repeal Obamacare. I am not guessing when I say they lack the stomach to stop tax dollars from killing babies.
 
Anybody who rolls over for Trump’s threat will be making a big mistake. Repealing the ACA got Republicans elected. Repealing the ACA will be a bigger issue in 2018 than it was last year. Voting against Trump’s socialized-medicine-lite will get them reelected in 2018. Voting for the Trump-Ryan-McConnell version of Obamacare is the road to defeat.

President Trump has told Republican leaders that he's prepared to play hardball with congressional conservatives to pass the GOP healthcare bill, including by supporting the 2018 primary challengers of any Republican who votes against the bill.​

Trump threatens GOP: Back health bill or get primaried
By David M. Drucker (@DavidMDrucker) • 3/10/17 4:46 PM

Trump threatens GOP: Back health bill or get primaried

Parenthetically, Trump must believe that everybody who voted for him in 2016 is a fool. In truth, he is the fool for thinking Americans will vote for broken promises in 2018 or in 2020. Apparently, that asshole does not know the difference between a promise and a broken promise.
 
“Don’t Let the Perfect Be Enemy of the Good,”
Clear away the fog of newspeak and you will see that Rep. Jim Jordan is right. KEEP THE CAMPAIGN PROMISE AND REPEAL THE DAMN THING.

Add Chris Wallace to list of RINO and Democrats opposing repeal. Notice how he set himself up as the point man for the crap that gives Democrats exactly what they want:


VIDEO ▼

Rep. Jim Jordan on fight over GOP's health care plan

Wallace is a classic media sneak. He will never ask questions whose answers prove that going back to pre-Obamacare healthcare is better for the country than is moving universal coverage forward.

Sad to say, the Freedom Caucus is in a tough spot. Should every conservative in both Chambers vote against socialized-medicine-lite —— Democrats will vote for it. Then you will hear Wallace and his ilk brag about the benefits of bipartisan legislation.

Put repeal in perspective by trying to repeal the XVII Amendment. Parasite Senators and media mouths are the only ones who will swear the XVII Amendment was good for the country. The best part is that Ryan Republicans cannot fight tooth and nail to preserve the ACA at the same time they openly say Obamacare has to be repealed.

Finally, should full repeal damage the economy as badly as scare tactics claim, Americans will recover from economic turmoil real fast after the parasite class gets out of the way.
 
I do not get this at all. Republicans won elections across the board after Democrats passed the ACA. They lost both Houses, governorships and state legislatures. So why did they take a victory lap?

House Democrats took a “victory” lap Friday after their Republican colleagues pulled the plug on their plan to scrap Obamacare.​

House Democrats celebrate the GOP’s failure on health care bill
By Seth McLaughlin - The Washington Times - Updated: 5:11 p.m. on Friday, March 24, 2017

House Democrats celebrate the GOP’s failure on health care bill

REPEAL OBAMACARE was the promise —— not CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE.
Conservative strategy going forward is as clear as a bell. Put total repeal on the back burner until the first week in October 2018 —— then send it up again. House and Senate Democrats will vote against it. Democrats up for reelection will suffer a worse fate than they suffered when they passed it. Nutso should be crying not smiling?

congress_health_overhaul_06047_c0-229-5472-3419_s885x516.jpg
http://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/med....jpg?c1d93beed655d999d21da6df656357387ea64660
 
Republicans won elections across the board after Democrats passed the ACA.
Democrats lost the White House, Congress, foreign policy, federal courts, governorships and state legislatures.

Bottom line: Upchuck is too clever by half. He is convinced he can talk Republicans into taking baths in the 2018 and 2020 elections:


Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) must be excited. The GOP Obamacare replacement bill failed, but he added that he knows the original Obamacare bill can be reformed. At the same time, he can only work with Republicans if they take repeal off the table.

“Can it be improved some? Of course, we’ve always said that. And once the Republicans take repeal off the table, we’re willing to work with them to improve it,” said Schumer to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.​

Schumer: We'll Work With Republicans On Health Care Once They Take Repeal Off The Table
Matt Vespa
Posted: Mar 26, 2017 12:00 PM

Schumer: We'll Work With Republicans On Health Care Once They Take Repeal Off The Table
 
I will go one step further. Trump will not get a second term if he signs the Ryan-McConnell betrayal.
I will go one giant leap ahead of Ann if Trump signs Obamacare-lite:

Coulter-1024x576.jpg

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter heavily criticized President Donald Trump on June 16, 2017, in a series of tweets and a message sent to a reporter at Mediaite, in which Coulter said Trump is a "Jack***." (2012 file photo/Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Ann Coulter’s fury with Trump growing daily — no punches pulled in latest rebuke
Justin Haskins 2 hours

Ann Coulter’s fury with Trump growing daily — no punches pulled in latest rebuke
 
Trump is in more trouble than Republicans in Congress.
Trump will not get a second term if he signs the Ryan-McConnell betrayal.
The pundits are running a scare tactic to save Obamacare-lite. Their tactic tells those Republicans up for reelection in 2018 they will lose if they vote against the ACA. And God forbid they lose one, or both, Houses.

The scare tactic hangs on Republicans believing they will lose all of those voters on Medicade. Not one pundit I read and heard ever says that those voters will never vote for a Republican under any circumstance. Regardless of anything Republicans might give to the parasite class the Democrats will get the credit. The only thing Republicans can count on is losing conservative Americans if they break their promise.


Conservatives rip GOP health bill amid 'bloodbath' warning
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 03/08/2017 @ 9:27 pm

Conservatives rip GOP health bill amid ‘bloodbath’ warning

Bottom line: Obamacare-lite is a classic Lose-Lose proposition for Republicans.

Question: In order to sell the ACA how many times did the lying sack of shit say?:


"If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold."​

Surprise, surprise! The government choosing your doctor is still in Paul Ryan’s bill, and everybody knows how far costs went up rather than go down.

Trump administration won't guarantee Americans can keep their doctors under Obamacare replacement
by Gabby Morrongiello | Mar 7, 2017, 2:10 PM

Trump administration won't guarantee Americans can keep their doctors under Obamacare replacement

XXXXX

Pence’s assurance bears a striking resemblance to soon-to-be former President Obama’s repeated promise to Americans that “if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance” on the way to passing Obamacare.​

Mike Pence says if you like your Obamacare insurance, you can keep your insurance
Carlos Garcia Jan 18, 2017 9:42 pm

Mike Pence says if you like your Obamacare insurance, you can keep your insurance

Nobody, and I mean nobody, in the government wants Obamacare repealed. Republicans are more afraid of losing the insurance industry and Wall Street than they fear losing Democrat voters if that monstrosity is repealed. As far as Republicans are concerned, fixing the healthcare system problems one bill at a time is worse than repealing the whole damned thing.

Here is a sample of the standard crap panel pundits are putting out:


HUME: Well, you heard now Nevada Republican Senator Dean Heller there announcing he is not supporting this, in its current form at least, this Senate health care plan, and President Trump, of course, is saying, optimistically, that they’ll get the votes, but will they?

Now it's time for our Sunday group. The head of Heritage Action for America, Michael Needham, Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, Fox News national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin, and Josh Holmes, Mitch McConnell’s former chief of staff and a Republican strategist.

Let's start with his question. They’re down five. They can't afford to lose more than two. There may be others waiting in the wings who -- who -- who may oppose this measure. What are the chances, Michael?

MICHAEL NEEDHAM, CEO, HERITAGE ACTION FOR AMERICA: Well, it’s going to be very tight, as you mentioned. There’s five -- probably more like seven or nine -- senators who have concerns. I'm optimistic because I think those different camps are looking at different parts of the bill. The conservatives are looking at what's going on with the regulations, the ability to bring down premiums. Some of the moderates are looking at the Medicaid expansion. In a negotiating situation, when people want different things changed, there is pareto optimal, there is an outcome where people can, as the president said this morning, maybe not love the bill but like it. And I think -- I'm optimistic that they’ll get there.

HUME: Jen.

JENNIFER GRIFFIN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: I thought it was notable that the president reached out to Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a Democrat. It’s clearly that they’re very concerned about the five and they don't believe that they can change Senator Rand Paul's mind or Senator Mike Lee's mind. That’s two. They can't also -- they can only afford to lose two. So they are looking at Democrats that they can sway. But Senator Manchin has said that he will vote against the bill.

HUME: Well, Josh, you've been in the leadership operation over there on the Republican side. Do you there’s a hope in Hades that any Democrat will come over? Senator Durbin said he couldn’t identify one to vote for this bill.

JOSH HOLMES, FOUNDER, CAVALRY: No, I -- I think this Democratic Party is not your grandfather's Democratic Party. I think they’re going to oppose Donald Trump at every possible corner no matter what. And -- and basically no matter what the policy outcome is.

But I -- I share Michael’s optimism. I think they’re going to get there next week. I really do. If you look at the statements that the senators have made, they've had every -- every opportunity to draw a hard line and -- and say no. And they’re leaving themselves some -- some wiggle room. And I think they’re having conversations over the weekend that hopefully will send that in the right direction.

HUME: Bob, your thoughts?

BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST: I -- I think it's kind of a fantasy-based debate on all sides here and I don't see how you put it together. I mean people talk abstractly about Medicaid. That is the health insurance program for the poor.

HUME: Right.

WOODWARD: Or the people who can't afford health insurance. And you now have a system where they’re -- at least a proposal in the Senate of saying, hey, let’s -- we’ll take them off Medicaid and then they can buy insurance, but they don't have the money to do it. There’s an absurdity in this.

NEEDHAM: It’s kind of incredible, both in Senator Durbin’s comments and Bobs. If the Democrat Party wants to become the party of Medicaid, I don’t think it’s going to have a lot of success in the 21st century. Medicaid was a program designed in the middle of the last century where health outcomes between people on Medicaid and be completely uninsured are exactly the same. Actually, on some procedures, you're more likely to die if you’re on Medicaid than if you’re uninsured.

What’s happened was that Medicaid was originally a very targeted program for certain vulnerable populations, people like the disabled, that Barack Obama then poured millions of able-bodied poor people onto the problem, the able-bodied. What will happen at the end of this process, if you compare where was this country eight years ago to where would this country be if this bill passed, is we’ll be more compassionate, we’ll be spending more money on venerable populations while not propping up a failing program from the middle of the last century. That's what a modern 21st century policy agenda looks like. If Bob and the Democrats want to be the party of Medicaid, let’s -- let’s take it (INAUDIBLE) --

WOODWARD: Now, wait -- wait a minute, I mean that's unfair. I’m -- I’m saying, I’m looking -- there’s a critique of Medicaid that can be made, and you made it, but to fix it this way when you’ve got, you know, tens of millions of people on it and say, let’s -- oh, now you can buy health insurance, well, that doesn’t -- but it doesn’t --

NEEDHAM: (INAUDIBLE).

HUME: But isn’t it -- well, wait a minute. Hold on. Let me -- let me interject. Isn’t this the age-old story with entitlement programs, which is to say, that once you put an entitlement program in place, people then turn to it and become dependent on it in a way they might not otherwise have done and then you end up in the situation you're always in where you’ve got this exploding costs and people worried about losing it. And -- and the -- and the result is you have the national debt through the roof and you can never seem to take it away.

HOLMES: That’s -- that's absolutely right. I mean if you look at the way that health care has developed over the last 50 years in this country, and has taken a significant lurch to the left. And the reason it has is exactly what you just outlined, is that Democrats have an incremental way of getting to their ultimate goal, which is socialized, nationalized, single-payer system. So you create an entitlement program for the elderly, an entitlement program for the young, an entitlement program for the poor and then ever expand eligibility for all three. And that's what we’ve got here today.

HUME: Jen.

GRIFFIN: Look at the numbers. There are 11 million more people on Medicaid since ObamaCare was introduced. It's been a 30 percent rise in terms of those on Medicaid. If you look at the cost, last year the federal government spent $389 billion on Medicaid. In the next ten years, that will go up to $650 billion. These numbers are staggering.

HUME: Beyond sustainable perhaps.

GRIFFIN: The -- the -- it’s perhaps unsustainable. But look at where the greatest pushback in terms of the Senate bill is coming from. And it's coming from Republican senators or governors who are up for re-election this year or next because they know that they have hundreds of thousands of new Medicaid voters on the roles who are going to lose that coverage and they are very scared of that population.

HUME: But that -- all right, that raises this question, Michael. Let’s address the politics of this. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that they cobble together a bill along the lines of some -- somewhere between the House and Senate bills that do these things. Both -- both do similar things with Medicaid. What are the political consequences in the 2018 midterms?

NEEDHAM: Well, I think that it depends on what the party is capable of making the compassionate case for what's going on. I mean when you look at this, there was a cruel element of Barack Obama's Medicaid expansion that said the federal government is going to give more money to states for the able-bodied populations that they pass (ph), versus the populations that are more vulnerable, which cause many states to start ignoring or shifting their programs to -- to care more about the abled bodied than the venerable. That’s not compassionate, that’s cruel. And I think that needs to be pulled back.

HUME: I understand. So what you’re basically saying, though, is, if they can make the right argument, they can avoid the political damage, is that it?

NEEDHAM: I think they can. I mean I think the biggest threat that they have is that this is not a repeal bill.

HUME: Right.

NEEDHAM: And so they’ve spent eight years telling people that they’re going to repeal ObamaCare. It doesn't. And they’re going to have problems on their right flank about that.

HUME: So -- so they’re going to -- if I have this right, you got people on the right who think it doesn't do enough to repeal and replace ObamaCare and -- and centrist Republicans who have centrist constituencies who think it’s going to hurt too many people. How do you deal with that, Bob, politically?

WOODWARD: In -- but the resolution here is Senator McConnell, who can be the magician when it comes to putting something together to make a picture where the pieces in the puzzle don't fit. So maybe he's going to make it work.

HUME: Josh, your thoughts on that?

HOLMES: No, I think that's right. I mean this -- this is a delicate balance. It is an extremely delicate balance to get the right and the left of the party on the same page with no margin of error. But I think we’re -- I think that this bill is there. And the alternative, just so we’re clear, the alternative to 51 votes is ObamaCare.

HUME: Yes, I get that now. So -- so what would be the consequences? So we -- so we’ve discussed the consequences of the bill passing, which looked like -- looked difficult, right, politically. What about the -- what about the consequences of not passing a bill?

GRIFFIN: Well, if they don't pass it, they’re going to have to go back to their constituents in 2018 and explain -- the Republicans are going to have to explain why they didn't do what they said they were going to do, repeal and replace. But I would point out that the Senate bill is rather clever because the Medicaid cuts come in 2021. That's after not only 2018 elections, but also the 2020.

HUME: So they won’t kick in. (INAUDIBLE). OK, let’s -- let’s -- let’s -- let's boil this down to a simple question, which is that -- just in raw political terms, not -- I mean, you know, without getting into the substance, what’s -- in political terms, which is worse, passing the bill politically or not passing it? Michael?

NEEDHAM: I think that politically and from a policy standpoint the world is a better place if this bill passes than if it doesn’t.

HUME: Jen.

NEEDHAM: There’s still to be a lot of work to be done.

GRIFFIN: I think that the Republicans will be better off if it doesn't pass than they can say that obstruction -- the Democrats were obstructionists and Washington doesn’t work and they tried.

HUME: Josh.

HOLMES: They’re going to have to pass it. I mean this is a core campaign promise that has been made for the last seven years. I think every Republican senator ought to look hard at that and (INAUDIBLE) passed.

HUME: Bob.

WOODWARD: Yes, but, again, this fantasy, there is a House bill that’s passed that is different. And you’ve got to put --

HUME: It’s not that different though.

WOODWARD: Yes. Well, but it's enough that it's something that has to be reconciled. And that’s not --

HUME: OK, let’s assume they get that done.

WOODWARD: You know, the -- there’s not a magic wand that fix --

HUME: So they better pass something or not?

WOODWARD: Well, I mean, who know the future. We’re a detective --

HUME: Yes, but what you’re knowing at --

WOODWARD: (INAUDIBLE).

HUME: (INAUDIBLE) A courageous member of our panel who is willing to admit what we journalists hate to admit, is that we don’t know.​

Sec. Tom Price breaks down the Senate health care bill
 
Trump will not get a second term if he signs the Ryan-McConnell betrayal.
The Donald got the message:

President Donald Trump urged U.S. Republican senators on Friday to repeal Obamacare immediately if they cannot agree on a new healthcare plan to take its place.

XXXXX

"If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!" Trump wrote in an early morning Twitter post.​

Fri Jun 30, 2017 | 9:04am EDT
Trump to Senate Republicans: kill Obamacare now, replace later
By Doina Chiacu

Trump to Senate Republicans: kill Obamacare now, replace later
 

Forum List

Back
Top