Is there anyone here that supports the way Republicans are attempting Repeal and Replace?


Please, please, spare me the “but the other side does the same thing” arguments.

I concede before you remind me, that Dems, have, in the past, done the same thing when they were passing unpopular legislation. Even the ACA, which was ram-rodded in some respects, was a lot more open to debate and the amendment process than the process the Republicans have offered, but I agree that the boundaries of principled processes were crossed.

If the justification is that the ACA was accomplished in an unprincipled way and Republicans are just attempting to undo that wrong by any means necessary, then really what you’re saying is that principles don’t matter. Really what we have is a race to the bottom…

Now that we are past that, in principle, how should a process like this work?

Are you ok with the latest version of repeal, the Graham-Casidy bill?

If you are ok with this, can you see the Dems racing to the bottom to create laws that you vehemently oppose?

Imagine firearm legislation that makes the sale of pre-made bullets illegal on the justification that it does not prevent people from owing or even shooting firearms (everyone can but the supplies to amke bullets) and is pushed though using similar methods to those being used in healthcare?


Ahhhh; Mr Brown; The federal Government has absolutely NO BUSINESS in national healthcare or in national insurance.
I am not even liking repeal and replace. I am for repeal and get it back to state and local as well as private. Only healthcare should be between patient, doctor and family. Insurances did just fine when they were private with state regulatory agencies monitoring the activity, lets get back to the privatized insurances.
The “democrats” are no longer representative of their constituents but a socialism ideal for total control OF the people…


Fair enough, but setting aside the issue for a sec, imagine it was something that the government should be involved in, do you support the process?


Mr Brown; the point is moot, they should NOT BE involved. You want to make arguments on false assumptions.


The issue isn’t whether the “process” is proper or not. The issue is whether or not the federal government has one iota of reason to be involved in the peoples’ healthcare. The answer, of course, is that it DOESN’T. That said, the current efforts at “repeal and replace” are idiotic. Repeal? YES. “Replace”? Replace with what? MORE unconstitutional federal interference in our health care systems? No thanks.


you DON’T replace it, leave that up to the states and their insurance programs that have been in place until Obama screwed it up. and leave healthcare in the hands of the people involved and the medical profession.


Not that I really know what the current Republican plan is…(got a link explaining it?)

If it’s unprincipled in the first place, that’s a strong argument for simply ignoring the law. No need to repeal. But, wait, it was created within the rules (and still unprincipled)? Then as long as the response is within the rules, there is nothing unprincipled in repealing it. It is not a race to the bottom. It’s a proper response.


It has Lindsey Graham’s name on it so my initial gut reaction is negative. I agree with njc17 that the federal government has no justification for being involved but if it eliminates some of the mandates it is better than nothing. Graham probably wants something to ballyho his fantasy 2020 presidential campaign.


That really wasn’t the point I was making. I can agree to disagree on health care.

The question I was asking is, regardless of the law being considered, do you think it’s proper to refuse hearings and amendments, to deal in secret and ask members, even of your own party to vote on legislation they don’t have time to read?

And yes, I’m aware the Dems are guilty of this as well.


As I said, the post really isn’t about health care, but the way that the law is going though the Senate.




That they are attempting “repeal and replace” at all I don’t support. I support “throw in the dumpster with the rest of the socialist garbage.”


Again, not the question I was asking.

I was asking if you support the way it’s being done, not what is being done.

Seems a simple question everyone is ignoring.


Who cares HOW it is being done, as long as it is being done. What is it you really want?


No, not at all, to the contrary, generally how something is accomplished is more important than what’s being accomplished when we’re talking about a political process.

If you believe that repeal of the ACA is a good thing do you believe it matters how (the process) it’s repealed?

Can you see a situation where Dems do something you disagree with utilizing the same (or worse) process to do something you disagree with? Or is it ok to do it any way possible if you support it but hold other ideas you disagree with to a higher standard?

Principled positions allow for agreement (in theory) and disagreement (in principle) on the same issue.


OK, I understand you now and am 100% with you. Paul or Nancy, Mitch or Chuck, when they are in charge they run things like the Supreme Soviet when it comes to amendments, debates and what actually comes up for a vote. Both R’s and Ds are scared to vote on common sense amendments where their vote will inflame their base. For example, there are dozens of K-Street owned republicans who oppose the wall and common sense green card reform but do not want their recorded nay vote on these issues.

If any of you have the stomach for it, here are the arcane rules for the Senate and House on amendments:


No, I do not agree with the process, at all.
It needs to come from the American people. If 50 million citizens, went to the Capitol. and hand tossed every member refusing to give America back to the Citizens out on their collective “Ear”, we’d be better off. The members of Congress are turning out to be enemies, not friends.


My opinion. There are parts of ACA that are good and do not cost the taxpayer a dime that deserve to stay on the record books(staying on parents healthcare etc). The rest needs to be repealed. Want to replace it? Then find money without raising taxes to distribute to states that institute a statewide healthcare plan.


Why does the federal government have to have ANYTHING to do with something as private as health care?