Tuesday, September 25, 2018

GOP Supporting ACA Protections?

From Laurie:

"GOP candidates need to lie about their positions on healthcare because if they are truthful they will lose too many votes.  A TV ad that crystallizes the biggest GOP lie about health care?"

62 comments:

Anonymous said...

Republicans like to criticize Democrats for not doing more of things they wouldn't do at all. But give them credit, Republicans are in favor of universal, affordable care. They just aren't in favor of making it happen.

--Hiram

Sean said...

The GOP playbook on health care, at this point, solely consists of lying.

John said...

I am not sure they aren't in favor or lying... However they sure seem to be happy leaving the costs, choices and consequences to the consumers...

Where of course the DEM plan is to force people to be insured and force other citizens to help pay for it...

Both views have definite challenges.

Sean said...

Sure they are lying, in many different ways. Some are lying about supporting pre-existing conditions when they don't. Some lie about their opponents -- saying that Democrats who don't support Medicare for All actually do support it is an increasingly common lie.

They don't have a plan -- the last decade tells you that. Lying is all they have.

John said...

Of course they have a plan...

Go back to 2008 policies and reduce even more government regulations regarding healthcare...

Whether that is better or worse depends on one's grading criteria.

Sean said...

If they have a plan, why didn't they pass it?

John said...

Too few votes...

John said...

This is a pretty interesting summary.

“I’ve stated time and time again that one of the major failures of Obamacare was that it was rammed through Congress by Democrats on a strict party-line basis without a single Republican vote,” McCain said in a statement after his stunning vote.

“We must now return to the correct way of legislating and send the bill back to committee, hold hearings, receive input from both sides of the aisle, heed the recommendations of nation’s governors, and produce a bill that finally delivers affordable health care for the American people,” he said. “We must do the hard work our citizens expect of us and deserve.”

John said...

Of course neither Tribe wanted to work the other... The rest is history...

Laurie said...

you really have poor understanding of the differences between the parties on healthcare. When Obamacare was passed there were many months spent in the senate trying to get even one GOP senator to support it. That's one reason it took over a year to pass.

The GOP lies about their views on preexisting conditions and other aspects that the public supports because they know the public does not support their views on healthcare. If they weren't afraid of losing votes and power they would go ahead and repeal Obamacare.

John said...

That was actually a quote from John McCain. I think he has a better idea of what happened than what you or I believe.

Laurie said...

I believe Norm Ornstein more than McCain:

The Real Story of Obamacare's Birth

John said...

It is an interesting piece, but I think McCain is a better source.

And apparently even Slate thinks Ornstein is a Liberal

Laurie said...

you clearly have trouble with reading comprehension at times, as Slate does not portray Ornstein as a liberal. I would consider him a moderate scholar.

So why did the senate waste so much time trying to get the gang of 6 to support Obamacare if they didn't want a few votes from the GOP.

John said...

I stand corrected, he is either a moderate or a liberal, I am not sure.

Now if you wanted to appear like a team player, you may call together this gang of six... That does not mean that you give the folks at the table equal voice.

And based on the comments from the GOP members, it sounds like they felt ignored...

Since Norm and I were not at the table, we can only hypothesize on if they were playing politics or if they were truly being ignored.

Whereas McCain may have had a more accurate perspective. I mean why would the DEM members be welcoming of more Conservative views... They knew they had the votes before any discussions even started.

Sean said...

It's a fact that Barack Obama told Nancy Pelosi to wait for months while the Gang of Six tried to come to a deal in the Senate. That can be independently confirmed using other sources than John McCain's biased description of events.

John said...

That is good that Obama called the team together and asked them to play nice. That was a good thing.

That does not mean that the team did. Again... Why would the DEMs negotiate in good faith when they had the votes?

Sean said...

There's all sorts of evidence that Dems were negotiating in good faith: hundreds of GOP amendments, the months of trying to reach an agreement, the use of a GOP plan as the source for the legislation, etc. If Democrats had the votes and just wanted to jam it through, they could have done so. But they didn't.

There's no evidence that Republicans engaged in good faith. In fact, they publicly admitted that they wouldn't sign on to any health care deal.

John said...

Something original called a source. :-)

"In the end, Obama and Reid were denied the one Republican who appeared attainable: Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine). The centrist voted for the healthcare bill approved by the Finance Committee in October and was in constant contact with the president, even within the last several days. Her influence is apparent in components of the legislation despite her vote in opposition — based, she explained, on her view that Democrats were moving too quickly to get the bill off the floor."

Apparently they felt some urgency since they...

"The Senate capped off a nearly month long floor debate with its near-record 25th consecutive day in session by holding a vote on Christmas Eve for the first time since debating the Vietnam War in 1963. The debate was marked by procedural gamesmanship and acrimonious partisan exchanges. Nevertheless, the outcome of Thursday’s vote, with Vice President Joe Biden presiding over the Senate, had been assured for days as Democrats put together 60 votes numerous times on procedural matters."

Sean said...

If the Democrats felt such urgency, they could have followed the McConnell method and brought the bill to a vote with minimal debate. Did the GOP tax bill or their ACA repeal bill get a month-long floor debate? You should just quit while you're behind.

Oh, and by the way, the December vote wasn't the final vote -- that didn't happen until March. Step off with your lame, unsupported partisan talking points.

John said...

I wouldn't know the talking points, I missed the GOP secret meeting...

I just look at a variety of news coverage and use some logic.

And yes the GOP was worse when they tried to repeal ACA.

But then again I am not sure any DEMS would have sat on that committee.

Sean said...

You're ignoring all the facts in favor of believing anecdotes from Republican Senators. You're a partisan idiot.

John said...

Partisan: "a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person"

Idiot: "a foolish or stupid person"


What party, cause or person am I strongly supporting?

I just said the GOP was worse... I am not sure they would consider that supportive...


Why is it so important to you that ACA is deemed a 2 Party Law?
It obviously was not since it got no GOP votes.

John said...

It seems to me that it was a compromise that all DEMs could swallow.

As you acknowledge: they go from Progressive to Moderate. Not to mention that a lot them are in bed with the healthcare lobbyists also. Those lobbyists don't just give to GOP politicians.

Sean said...

"Why is it so important to you that ACA is deemed a 2 Party Law?"

I never said it was. I said that Democrats spent months reaching out in good faith to try and pass a bipartisan bill, and only after repeated attempts were met with relentless bad faith by Republicans did they move forward with passing the ACA on a party-line vote.

You are parroting the GOP party line on this issue by claiming that Dems didn't engage in that good faith process to reach out. You have never criticized Republicans with proceeding on major pieces of legislation on a party-line basis. You are exactly as I described.

John said...

Actually you are incorrect as is often the case when you get emotional.

G2A Did GOP Have Their ACA Moment?


John said...

Though this is more to the point...

G2A Yes The GOP is STUPID

John said...

Or this one...
G2A Ostructionism vs Responsible Votes

Sean said...

"Actually you are incorrect as is often the case when you get emotional."

Uh, nope. The GOP process to pass the tax bill wasn't the same as the Dem process to pass the ACA. The GOP didn't run their bill through committee, didn't accept Dem amendments, and didn't have open floor deliberations.

The fact that you think this is a valid example again only proves my point.

John said...

Let me repeat more slowly...

"I just said the GOP was worse... "

Sean said...

You've still not told the truth regarding the process the Democrats followed when passing the ACA.

John said...

If your version of the truth is that the DEMs were GOP partners who:
- were willing to meet the GOP half way
- were not aware they could pass it along party lines
- did not push the bill through over the objections of all the GOP politicians

Then I think you will be waiting a long time...

I am happy that they did hold discussions, however if their mind was made up before it started... Those discussions were more for show than true collaboration.

Kind of like if the GOP passes Brett Kavanaugh after listening to the witness...

Sean said...

That's not the argument I made. I specifically laid out my argument above. Try again.

Laurie said...

so if the dems were not serious about trying to create a bipartisan health care bill why did they waste so many months trying to get GOP support?

you are showing your partisan side again, in how you are blind to the reality of what happened.

John said...

Laurie,
As I noted above... Maybe Obama wanted it for some reason...

That does not mean that Reid and Pelosi were on board.

Also, remember that there were likely some DEM moderates who would not have gone any further Left.


I just buy into your story that DEMs are angels and GOPs are devils. I accept that they are all human and working for what they believe is best for the country.

John said...

Sean,
Is this what you mean by the truth?

"I said that Democrats spent months reaching out in good faith to try and pass a bipartisan bill, and only after repeated attempts were met with relentless bad faith by Republicans did they move forward with passing the ACA on a party-line vote."

How does that vary from...

If your version of the truth is that the DEMs were GOP partners who:
- were willing to meet the GOP half way
- were not aware they could pass it along party lines
- did not push the bill through over the objections of all the GOP politicians

You are putting a lot of faith in your assumptions who was good and bad... But again when one sees angels/devils instead of people... :-)

John said...

Laurie,
You have been with me as long as anyone. Do you really think that word applies?

Partisan: "a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person"

I may be partisan regarding helping unlucky kids... However I am pretty indifferent to most the topics we discuss.

Maybe calling me "Chief Fence Sitter" would be more accurate.

Laurie said...

you are definitely partisan on some issues or views of reality. I see it most frequently when you make false equivalencies. As no amount of explanation from me will persuade you of this I have nothing more to add.

Sean said...

Democrats:

* used a Republican bill (originally proposed in Congress in the 1990s, and a slightly different version of which was signed into law by a Republican governor a few years earlier) as the basis for their proposal

* literally spent months they didn't need to spend trying to seek a bipartisan agreement in the Senate

* took popular liberal items (like the public option or expanded Medicare) off the table in order to attract GOP votes

After Republicans refused to work with Democrats, they passed the bill on their own.

Sean said...

"Maybe calling me "Chief Fence Sitter" would be more accurate."

You vote almost exclusively for Republicans.

John said...

Laurie,
You are correct... I think your judgment of what is a true / false equivalency may be a bit biased.

Remember that whole angels and devils thing. Or are you ready to start saying good things about some Republicans.

Sean,
Again that is a lot of assumptions regarding intent.

In a 2 party system... Even a fence sitter has to make a choice of which is better/worse.

Here are some more ACA / Process links:
PolitiFact: Did Obamacare pass with Republican input?

WAPO Fact Check

To me it sure does not read like the DEMs were the angels you envision.

Sean said...

Nothing in your links disagrees with my description:

"Democrats:

* used a Republican bill (originally proposed in Congress in the 1990s, and a slightly different version of which was signed into law by a Republican governor a few years earlier) as the basis for their proposal

* literally spent months they didn't need to spend trying to seek a bipartisan agreement in the Senate

* took popular liberal items (like the public option or expanded Medicare) off the table in order to attract GOP votes

After Republicans refused to work with Democrats, they passed the bill on their own."

Sean said...

You're not a fence sitter. You don't know where you sit on your own diagram.

John said...

Really...

"Cannan says this activity suggests “a vigorous effort to alter the bill’s final form on the Senate floor. But this number is deceptive. In actuality, only a tiny fraction of these amendments has any significance” to the bill’s legislative history. Only a handful of amendments covered by a unanimous consent agreement (UCA) reached between the two sides had any relevance, he concluded. Meanwhile, “all of those amendments not covered by UCAs were ordered to lie on the table as soon as they were introduced and had no parliamentary standing at all.”

That’s because the real work was going on behind closed doors, back in Reid’s office, where he negotiated significant changes with a group of moderate Democrats.
Eventually, Republicans and Democrats would no longer agree to even keep debating the matter on the floor, and so the public spectacle ended on Dec. 16. The Senate turned to other matters, including passage of a Defense Department appropriations bill, while the private negotiations continued and the Senate remained in session.

During the private talks, Reid agreed to remove a public option in the bill, as well as drop a plan to allow people between the ages of 55 and 65 to buy into Medicare. There was also a significant change in abortion coverage, which The Washington Post reported required hours of Schumer’s and Reid’s shuttling back and forth in Reid’s offices between antiabortion Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and key supporters of abortion rights, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who never sat in the same room as Nelson. Some lawmakers, like the now-retired Nelson, cut special deals. Nelson negotiated enhanced Medicaid reimbursement for his state."

John said...

Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that neither side has clean hands?

They work in politics where gamesmanship, deception, power plays and deals abound.

John said...

Okay... That's it...

Now I have to subject my readers to another post about Nolan Diagrams and why I believe I am where I think I am... :-)

Well that's okay... It is one of my favorite topics. :-)

Sean said...

"Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that neither side has clean hands?

They work in politics where gamesmanship, deception, power plays and deals abound."

You obviously are too dense to understand my point. What happened in December was after *six months* of Gang of Six discussions. It was apparent at that point that Republicans were not acting in good faith and Democrats moved to pass what they could pass on their own.

John said...

Please provide a source for your belief that the "It was apparent at that point that Republicans were not acting in good faith"...

My WAPO fact checker sources state that the DEMs were taking amendment ideas and filing them in the trash can... That certainly is not a sign of good faith negotiation.

Sean said...

"Please provide a source for your belief that the "It was apparent at that point that Republicans were not acting in good faith"..."

"Mike Enzi, one of three Republicans ostensibly negotiating health care reform as part of the Senate’s “Gang of Six,” told a Wyoming town hall crowd that he had no plans to compromise with Democrats and was merely trying to extract concessions.

“It’s not where I get them to compromise, it’s what I get them to leave out,” Enzi said Monday, according to the Billings Gazette."

HuffPo: Mike Enzi, Gang Of Six Republican, Admits He’s Simply Blocking Health Care Reform

"As the Gang of Six negotiated, Iowa conservatives began threatening to back a primary challenge if Grassley ever voted for health reform. By August, Grassley was parroting Sarah Palin’s agitprop about death panels. “You have every right to fear,” he told some constituents. “We should not have a government program that determines if you’re going to pull the plug on grandma.”"

New Republic: How They Did It

"The answer to that question was provided at a later point by Mitch McConnell, who made clear that the unified opposition was a ruthlessly pragmatic political tactic. He said, “It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out.”"

Atlantic: The Real Story of Obamacare's Birth

I can go on if you like, but I think this is sufficient.

John said...

Okay... I'll rephrase that.

Do you have any non-Liberal sources?

I give you WAPO Political Fact Check excellence... And you give me Left and Far "reporting".

The Ornstein link we saw before... I like this quote.

"Obama could have moved earlier to blow the whistle on the faux negotiations; he did not, as he held out hope that a plan that was fundamentally built on Republican ideas would still, in the end, garner at least some Republican support. He and Senate Democratic leaders held their fire even as Grassley and Enzi, in the negotiations, fought for some serious changes in a plan that neither would ever consider supporting in the end."

To me it sounds like the DEMs already knew what they were going to insist on... And then just ignored the GOPers.

Kind of like when a parent "negotiates with their child"... You can have the brussel sprouts or spinach...

Sean said...

Your notion of "bipartisanship" in this case means that Democrats should have passed a Republican plan. Please start holding your Republicans to the same standard.

Sean said...

All your links show that Obama was in fact incredibly flexible about taking things out of the ACA to try to earn support. He did the same to get the stimulus passed earlier in 2009. You can keep spinning furiously, but all it goes to prove is that instead of being an centrist fence-sitter, you're an ill-informed partisan hack.

John said...

I must have missed the part where they gave in on pretty much anything except wording...

"He and Senate Democratic leaders held their fire even as Grassley and Enzi, in the negotiations, fought for some serious changes in a plan that neither would ever consider supporting in the end."

"Cannan says this activity suggests “a vigorous effort to alter the bill’s final form on the Senate floor. But this number is deceptive. In actuality, only a tiny fraction of these amendments has any significance” to the bill’s legislative history."

Please feel free to believe that the DEMs were Angels and the GOPs were Devils... The records just don't support it. And I really am indifferent to who did what.

Pumba Says It Best

Sean said...

I've already listed some things that were taken out of the bill. The mere fact that it was a Republican proposal that was used as the basis for the bill was a major compromise. The Dems didn't start with single-payer or an employer-based mandate like in the Clinton years or some other liberal model.

John said...

My guess is they knew even the moderate DEMs would not swallow single payer. It sounded like Reid was challenged enough by red state DEMs as is.

I will look back and see if can find which concessions of any significance won by the GOP.

Sean said...

Here's another idea for you: how about you look at all the things Republicans claimed to support (like the individual mandate or government-run insurance exchanges) until Democrats decided to support them?

John said...

Well... Back to our friends at Politifact

Or this one from Prospect

Sean said...

You're making a semantic argument at this point. The ACA was built on Republican blueprint, not a Democratic one. Sure, not all Republicans backed that original view and yes there are some significant differences, but many of the core ideas (individual mandate, exchanges, etc.) originated on that side of the aisle.

When was the last time Republicans adopted a Democratic-inspired proposal as one of their central policy goals?

John said...

I'll let you argue that with Politifact and Prospect...

Per these reports it seems ACA was not a Republican idea...

It was an idea that some moderate politicians proposed, and the GOP said no way... Therefore it died until the Democrats resurrected it so their diverse group would have something that may pass it's ranks.

John said...

I'll have to give your last question some thought...

What GOP policy was pursued after a moderate Democrat proposed it?

Sean said...

"It was an idea that some moderate politicians proposed, and the GOP said no way."

Those so-called "moderate politicians" were Republicans! The ACA shares much of the infrastructure of the Chafee bill (what party was Chafee?), and was backed by the 1996 GOP nominee for President. The same architecture was then used as the basis for the Massachusetts health care bill signed into law by the guy who would go on to become the 2012 GOP nominee for President.

John said...

Per Govtrack Chafee should have been a Democrat

It looks like Romney vetoed some parts

I wonder if those made it into ACA?