Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
GOP Conservatives Were Loyal: To Principles
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Joe Cooper
Mar 29, 2017, 7:33:19 AM3/29/17
to
Of all the muscles in the human body, none are perhaps more toned and
strengthened than those in the index finger of moderate Republicans in
Congress; particularly following the defeat of their high profile, “too-
important-too-fail” health care legislation. There certainly was no
shortage of finger wagging and pointing this week, following Speaker Paul
Ryan’s decision to pull the GOP’s controversial “replacement” of
ObamaCare due to lack of support within the ranks.
Supporters of the American Health Care Act, including the White House
which demanded its passage “or else,” blamed everybody -- from the House
Freedom Caucus to the Cato Institute to Democrats -- for its failure;
except, of course, the moderates who cobbled together the faux repeal in
the first place.
However, another – and far more accurate – way to look at defeating the
AHCA by Republicans would be to say, “It’s about time!”
In national politics, on key issues especially, you rarely if ever, get
more than one chance to pass something meaningful. If you allow the
moderates/Establishment to convince you that you cannot let “the perfect
to be enemy to the good” (a phrase I grew to loathe during my time in
Congress after hearing it so many times from leadership), seldom does
another opportunity come around; much less one to actually “get it
right.”
Ever since George H. W. Bush pressed House Republicans to join in
breaking his infamous “read my lips” no-tax-increase pledge, these have
been the same empty promises force-fed to conservatives by moderates in
Congress to goad them into supporting dreadful bills. And, almost always,
conservatives are left holding the bag.
So, when it came time to line-up support on the AHCA, despite its
manifest shortcomings as genuine reform, finally enough was enough for
conservatives. Was this not the precise opportunity to “get it right”
that was promised to them for years when it came to replacing ObamaCare
with the conservative, free market reforms Republicans have claimed for
decades are the key to fixing healthcare in America? Members of the House
Freedom Caucus, Cato Institute, Freedom Works, Club for Growth and others
were asking nothing more than for the GOP to uphold its end of the
bargain, and not squander the opportunity with another permanent
“temporary fix.”
Yes, passing genuine repeal of ObamaCare and replacing it with a free
market based alternative would have been more difficult and time-
consuming than what was proposed by Ryan and his team. It would have
taken additional weeks, if not months, to draft, debate, and convince
both their colleagues in the Congress and the public that government does
not have a magic wand, and should instead give the private sector
broader latitude to come up with solutions for efficiency and
effectiveness. Yet, this is a fundamental duty of Republicans in Congress
– to get it right – rather than taking short cuts, that while perhaps
making things a little better is far from the true path needed to make
things much better.
In this respect, conservatives were saying “No” because they wanted to
stand up for what is right, rather than saying “Yes” just because House
moderates wanted reelection material, or because an optics-obsessed White
House could check off another campaign promise, regardless of what the
end-product looked like. They were finally demonstrating what
conservative voters have long wanted from Republicans in Congress – a
willingness to stay true to the principles of the Party and the
Constitution, even if it means going against Party leaders.
Standing up for these principles is not being anti-Republican, or not
“living in the real world” as White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon
suggests; it is simply refusing to be yet another rubber-stamp Congress
similar to that which gave us No Child Left Behind, the USA PATRIOT Act,
and the massively expensive prescription drug bill – just because a
Republican president wanted such legislation passed.
In doing what they did last week, the conservatives sent a message to the
Establishment that principles do actually mean something; and that at
least a significant number of Republican members will stand firm in that
regard.
The lack of “loyalty” by the Freedom Caucus that the President decried
immediately following Ryan’s pulling the vote last Friday was in fact a
welcome exhibition of “loyalty” to true Republican principles, and to the
Constitution-based responsibility of the House of Representatives that is
independent of the presidency even if the occupant of that office happens
to be of the same political Party as the majority.
Hopefully, congressional leaders and the White House will come to
understand this, and see it as an opportunity to begin actually reining
in government rather than expanding it. One can at least hope.
Source: http://bit.ly/2mPfE5K
--
"You will never understand today's rage on the left, or its real effort
to overthrow American constitutional government, if you do not understand
lynch mobs -- KKK, Leninist, Soros-sponsored, and Obama-controlled."--
James Lewis, "Lynch Mobs of the Left," http://bit.ly/2lwmH2y
strengthened than those in the index finger of moderate Republicans in
Congress; particularly following the defeat of their high profile, “too-
important-too-fail” health care legislation. There certainly was no
shortage of finger wagging and pointing this week, following Speaker Paul
Ryan’s decision to pull the GOP’s controversial “replacement” of
ObamaCare due to lack of support within the ranks.
Supporters of the American Health Care Act, including the White House
which demanded its passage “or else,” blamed everybody -- from the House
Freedom Caucus to the Cato Institute to Democrats -- for its failure;
except, of course, the moderates who cobbled together the faux repeal in
the first place.
However, another – and far more accurate – way to look at defeating the
AHCA by Republicans would be to say, “It’s about time!”
In national politics, on key issues especially, you rarely if ever, get
more than one chance to pass something meaningful. If you allow the
moderates/Establishment to convince you that you cannot let “the perfect
to be enemy to the good” (a phrase I grew to loathe during my time in
Congress after hearing it so many times from leadership), seldom does
another opportunity come around; much less one to actually “get it
right.”
Ever since George H. W. Bush pressed House Republicans to join in
breaking his infamous “read my lips” no-tax-increase pledge, these have
been the same empty promises force-fed to conservatives by moderates in
Congress to goad them into supporting dreadful bills. And, almost always,
conservatives are left holding the bag.
So, when it came time to line-up support on the AHCA, despite its
manifest shortcomings as genuine reform, finally enough was enough for
conservatives. Was this not the precise opportunity to “get it right”
that was promised to them for years when it came to replacing ObamaCare
with the conservative, free market reforms Republicans have claimed for
decades are the key to fixing healthcare in America? Members of the House
Freedom Caucus, Cato Institute, Freedom Works, Club for Growth and others
were asking nothing more than for the GOP to uphold its end of the
bargain, and not squander the opportunity with another permanent
“temporary fix.”
Yes, passing genuine repeal of ObamaCare and replacing it with a free
market based alternative would have been more difficult and time-
consuming than what was proposed by Ryan and his team. It would have
taken additional weeks, if not months, to draft, debate, and convince
both their colleagues in the Congress and the public that government does
not have a magic wand, and should instead give the private sector
broader latitude to come up with solutions for efficiency and
effectiveness. Yet, this is a fundamental duty of Republicans in Congress
– to get it right – rather than taking short cuts, that while perhaps
making things a little better is far from the true path needed to make
things much better.
In this respect, conservatives were saying “No” because they wanted to
stand up for what is right, rather than saying “Yes” just because House
moderates wanted reelection material, or because an optics-obsessed White
House could check off another campaign promise, regardless of what the
end-product looked like. They were finally demonstrating what
conservative voters have long wanted from Republicans in Congress – a
willingness to stay true to the principles of the Party and the
Constitution, even if it means going against Party leaders.
Standing up for these principles is not being anti-Republican, or not
“living in the real world” as White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon
suggests; it is simply refusing to be yet another rubber-stamp Congress
similar to that which gave us No Child Left Behind, the USA PATRIOT Act,
and the massively expensive prescription drug bill – just because a
Republican president wanted such legislation passed.
In doing what they did last week, the conservatives sent a message to the
Establishment that principles do actually mean something; and that at
least a significant number of Republican members will stand firm in that
regard.
The lack of “loyalty” by the Freedom Caucus that the President decried
immediately following Ryan’s pulling the vote last Friday was in fact a
welcome exhibition of “loyalty” to true Republican principles, and to the
Constitution-based responsibility of the House of Representatives that is
independent of the presidency even if the occupant of that office happens
to be of the same political Party as the majority.
Hopefully, congressional leaders and the White House will come to
understand this, and see it as an opportunity to begin actually reining
in government rather than expanding it. One can at least hope.
Source: http://bit.ly/2mPfE5K
--
"You will never understand today's rage on the left, or its real effort
to overthrow American constitutional government, if you do not understand
lynch mobs -- KKK, Leninist, Soros-sponsored, and Obama-controlled."--
James Lewis, "Lynch Mobs of the Left," http://bit.ly/2lwmH2y
Mr. B1ack
Mar 29, 2017, 9:20:55 AM3/29/17
to
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:30:19 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
<drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>Of all the muscles in the human body, none are perhaps more toned and
>strengthened than those in the index finger of moderate Republicans in
>Congress; particularly following the defeat of their high profile, “too-
>important-too-fail” health care legislation. There certainly was no
>shortage of finger wagging and pointing this week, following Speaker Paul
>Ryan’s decision to pull the GOP’s controversial “replacement” of
>ObamaCare due to lack of support within the ranks.
>
>Supporters of the American Health Care Act, including the White House
>which demanded its passage “or else,” blamed everybody -- from the House
>Freedom Caucus to the Cato Institute to Democrats -- for its failure;
>except, of course, the moderates who cobbled together the faux repeal in
>the first place.
>
>However, another – and far more accurate – way to look at defeating the
>AHCA by Republicans would be to say, “It’s about time!”
I agree ... OCare *should* never have been - and frankly
<drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>Of all the muscles in the human body, none are perhaps more toned and
>strengthened than those in the index finger of moderate Republicans in
>Congress; particularly following the defeat of their high profile, “too-
>important-too-fail” health care legislation. There certainly was no
>shortage of finger wagging and pointing this week, following Speaker Paul
>Ryan’s decision to pull the GOP’s controversial “replacement” of
>ObamaCare due to lack of support within the ranks.
>
>Supporters of the American Health Care Act, including the White House
>which demanded its passage “or else,” blamed everybody -- from the House
>Freedom Caucus to the Cato Institute to Democrats -- for its failure;
>except, of course, the moderates who cobbled together the faux repeal in
>the first place.
>
>However, another – and far more accurate – way to look at defeating the
>AHCA by Republicans would be to say, “It’s about time!”
now it *has* to be replaced because of the fatal inflation
curve on the premiums/deductables plus the rapidly
diminishing availibility options. By next year ONLY "the
poor" - the subsidized - will be covered, nobody else
will be able to afford OCare.
But the replacement(s) have to be GOOD plans and
based on sensible conservative economic principles
that'll actually WORK long-term. GOPCare 1.0 was
not quite what was needed - "OCare Lite" was an
apt description, still too 'socialistic', still too Big
Brotherish, still too damned complicated to withstand
the inevitible real-world challenges.
Alas one of OCare's fatal flaws will also be something
economic conservatives may have trouble with ... and
that's "greed control", ways to keep profiteers from
gaming the system. Every time govt puts more coins
in the health-care pot, profiteers have found ways to
empty that pot. This has destroyed OCare in just a
relatively few years. "More competition" will HELP,
but more aggressive measures will also be needed.
Economic conservatives will see this as messing with
"market forces", intfering with capitalist principles. This
is true ... but let's get real here - "market forces" often
ride atop a unicorn ... their mythical powers will not
always solve every kind of problem.
We're not selling Caddies and Twinkies here, health-care
isn't a "luxury" item, isn't really an "optional" item, even
for the young and fit (who only *imagine* themselves
to be immortal). It's more of a food & water sort of
thing - a MUST-have, kind of like we MUST have an
army, MUST have cops.
"Market forces" work best for the "Would LIKE to haves"
where people can pick and choose or just skip it at will.
You won't die if you don't get that 70" 8K HDTV today,
but you WILL die today if some punk shoves a knife
in your liver.
So a health-plan counting on laissez-faire economics
is a health-plan that'll be profiteered out of existence in
just a few years. Even OCare didn't go far enough
towards controlling this inflationary factor. Conservative
legislators will just HAVE to "mess with the markets" to
achieve the necessary results in the case of health care.
If they don't ... the next congress is going be heavily Dem,
not GOP, and Trump will be effectively shut down and
replaced with some gawdawful pinko next election. Todays
political situation was unexpected - and probably
represents the LAST CHANCE for sensible conservatism
in the USA. The pinkos WILL rig things so they'll ALWAYS
win in the future if we blow this. Hey, nix the Electoral
College and all future presidents will be chosen by just
three, ultra-leftist, states. No future in that.
So Republicans need to do what must be done and how
it must BE done. Health-care is NOT "just another biz
sector". Get 'er done, get 'er done RIGHT - and as
"right" as possible without blowing it. When Trump
signs on the line it needs to be something he and
the GOP can be proud of, something that'll last,
something that shows Obama/Dems were morons.
Let some of Trumps old biz experts in on the
process - guys who've run complex corporations
and done THEM right, guys who KNOW what tricks
industry lobbyists will try so they can keep up with
all the profiteering.
So, it's glory, or doom. FIX the bill, make TCare 2.0
a good solid foundation that can be tweaked a bit
as needed later on ... not a termite-ridden shack
like OCare. TCare 2.0 won't be "perfect" ( what
*is* "perfect" anyway ?) but don't sweat the
small stuff, especially not just to look like "good
conservatives". The clock is ticking.
Joe Cooper
Mar 30, 2017, 11:21:35 AM3/30/17
to
Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net> wrote in
news:usandc9hb2dvs5fmm...@4ax.com:
> I agree ... OCare *should* never have been - and frankly
> now it *has* to be replaced because of the fatal inflation
> curve on the premiums/deductables plus the rapidly
> diminishing availibility options. By next year ONLY "the
> poor" - the subsidized - will be covered, nobody else
> will be able to afford OCare.
Here's a thought: Why replace it? Just repeal it - all of it, and walk
away. The federal government has no business in the health insurance
racket.
news:usandc9hb2dvs5fmm...@4ax.com:
> I agree ... OCare *should* never have been - and frankly
> now it *has* to be replaced because of the fatal inflation
> curve on the premiums/deductables plus the rapidly
> diminishing availibility options. By next year ONLY "the
> poor" - the subsidized - will be covered, nobody else
> will be able to afford OCare.
away. The federal government has no business in the health insurance
racket.
Mr. B1ack
Mar 30, 2017, 9:52:21 PM3/30/17
to
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:18:34 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
<drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net> wrote in
>news:usandc9hb2dvs5fmm...@4ax.com:
>
>> I agree ... OCare *should* never have been - and frankly
>> now it *has* to be replaced because of the fatal inflation
>> curve on the premiums/deductables plus the rapidly
>> diminishing availibility options. By next year ONLY "the
>> poor" - the subsidized - will be covered, nobody else
>> will be able to afford OCare.
>
>Here's a thought: Why replace it? Just repeal it - all of it, and walk
>away. The federal government has no business in the health insurance
>racket.
Half a dozen TV networks covering dying poor children
<drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net> wrote in
>news:usandc9hb2dvs5fmm...@4ax.com:
>
>> I agree ... OCare *should* never have been - and frankly
>> now it *has* to be replaced because of the fatal inflation
>> curve on the premiums/deductables plus the rapidly
>> diminishing availibility options. By next year ONLY "the
>> poor" - the subsidized - will be covered, nobody else
>> will be able to afford OCare.
>
>Here's a thought: Why replace it? Just repeal it - all of it, and walk
>away. The federal government has no business in the health insurance
>racket.
who can't get med care, 24/7 ... THAT'S why you don't
just repeal it.
The old "Fuck 'em !" attitude ain't gonna play in the 21st
century. "The poor" have CLOUT these days ... and lots
of 'friends' with TV networks and a further-left agenda.
Presidents, senators and reps can be destroyed - so
you can't give 'em any ammo.
At least for "the poor", SOMETHING offering similar levels
of medical to OCare *has* to be ready and easy for all
parties involved to use. The end of OCare must be the
beginning of TCare without a minutes gap.
Now as for everyone else ... "NoCare" or something close
might actually be a viable option. You remember that ...
every got their own insurance or got it through their employers.
What a novel concept eh ?
Some work WOULD have to be done to put some pretty
harsh limits on medical profiteering however - plus to
improve competition between various providers. HMO
plans were getting kinda ridiculous in the run-up to
OCare after all. It's a major reason so many people
were willing to give OCare a chance even though
nobody knew what was actually in the law. IF private
can be made better, THEN it can replace govt-care.
One thing govt CAN offer for not much cost is
"catastrophic" ... for when nasty circumstances
make you run off the end of your regular policy
and/or beyond some point keyed to your income.
Most peoples ills never get that bad, ergo the
catastrophic converage need never be used.
Think of it as a fire extinguisher ... 99% of the
time it just sits there.
Joe Cooper
Mar 31, 2017, 8:39:20 AM3/31/17
to
Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net> wrote in
news:uhcrdc1s4jgblkfi9...@4ax.com:
> Half a dozen TV networks covering dying poor children
> who can't get med care, 24/7 ... THAT'S why you don't
> just repeal it.
Mr. B1ack
Apr 2, 2017, 2:32:59 AM4/2/17
to
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:36:19 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
<drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net> wrote in
>news:uhcrdc1s4jgblkfi9...@4ax.com:
>
>> Half a dozen TV networks covering dying poor children
>> who can't get med care, 24/7 ... THAT'S why you don't
>> just repeal it.
>
>
>Pure Alinsky bullshit.
Didn't I answer this already ?
<drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net> wrote in
>news:uhcrdc1s4jgblkfi9...@4ax.com:
>
>> Half a dozen TV networks covering dying poor children
>> who can't get med care, 24/7 ... THAT'S why you don't
>> just repeal it.
>
>
>Pure Alinsky bullshit.
"Alinsky bullshit" WORKS. Beware.
Gotta predict the Alinsky angle and block it first thing.
0 new messages