I still don’t understand how this would lower the deficit. The individual mandate is part of what pays for the ACA, albeit not directly. I realize it’s difficult to quantify how the theoretical cost curve of health care would be affected by the loss of the individual mandate, but how do they score the removal of the individual mandate that shows it lowering the deficit?
2 Likes
“an exercise in high-end failure theatre”
I’ll give Erick son of Erick this: he just described the 113th and 114th Congresses to a “t”
4 Likes
Boring. Veto followed by inability to overcome veto = waste of everybody’s time and money.
2 Likes
So if the GOP wins the WH in 16’ there promising to fuck taxpayers for the 353 BILLION dollar repeal of ACA calling it freedom.
Are republican voters really that fucking dumb …
6 Likes
To be fair, Heritage meant freedom FROM healthcare of any kind.
2 Likes
In October 2015, you still need more evidence?
11 Likes
Their bill isn’t meant to solve any of those problems.
The bill is meant to showboat how awesome they are and beef up their campaign coffers. When Obama vetoes it, they’ll just crow all the louder. Basically, they are silly charlatans that we can see right through but their fan base cannot. So, it’s a win-win ($$$$$) for Cruz and his partners in teabaggery.
6 Likes
Rhetorical question, I’m sure …
2 Likes
Are these numbers derived with or without dynamic scoring, TPM? After all, the GOP changed the math by adding pixie dust to it when they took over, didn’t they? Or am I mis-remembering this?
2 Likes
The awesomeness of this is incomprehensible. Proceed.
1 Like
If successful, their next step will be to outlaw all medical advancements since blood-letting was employed.
Of course this will not apply to wealthy people.
1 Like
Congressional Republicans couldn’t rename a water fountain at the moment. I wouldn’t fear Obamacare is in any real peril right now.
2 Likes
It is theater, not reality. Apparently it entertains the rubes (many getting govt-sponsored healthcare) at home.
3 Likes
it would be a dry-run for 2017, when a Republican President would presumably be sitting in the White House to sign it.
Sloppy use of “presumably”. Replace “would presumably be,” with “might be”.
1 Like
It doesn’t matter if it’s filibuster-proof. It is clearly not veto-proof.
Idiots and fiends, all of them.
4 Likes
Aunt Sue?
1 Like
You would think that after 65+ failed attempts to repeal or defund the ACA that these idiot gop/t-baggers would finally figure out that this will also fail. But no, they go on like this is the first time they’re going to do this and that it will pass. Delusional muddle minded morons in charge of Congress
2 Likes
It’s far beyond time to take away government benefits and place House members on a performance based pay plan. I know of no other group of people who are so richly compensated for delivering so little.
3 Likes
I’m not sure I care enough about this to seek clarification (since it will never happen anyway), but I don’t see how eliminating the taxation parts of the program (individual and employer mandate, etc.) would decrease the deficit, while eliminating the spending parts as well (exchange subsidies, Medicare expansion) would increase the deficit! Logically it seems like it would be precisely the opposite — at least on the face of things. But again, I don’t really care, since this is “high-end failure theatre” as Erik Erickson said.
"Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued a statement Thursday saying they would oppose the House bill unless it pretended to dismantle the law entirely.
“Each of us campaigned on a promise to pretend to fully repeal Obamacare and a reconciliation bill is the best way to send such pretend legislation to President Obama’s desk,” the statement said. “If this bill cannot be amended so that it pretends to fully repeal Obamacare pursuant to Senate rules, we cannot support this bill.”
FIFY.
3 Likes