What Happens Now After Rejection of AHCA – C. Steven Tucker Talks With iOTWreport Reader – IOTW Report

What Happens Now After Rejection of AHCA – C. Steven Tucker Talks With iOTWreport Reader

Saturday, 25 March 2017, 19:32 BFH Uncategorized 45

45 Comments on What Happens Now After Rejection of AHCA – C. Steven Tucker Talks With iOTWreport Reader

  1. Would love to view it but it’s a dud.
    How about a contest instead? Like:

    Mad Maxine Waters is so dumb, she_________________________Fill in the blank.
    My contribution: Mad Maxine is so dumb she thinks Moby Dick as a venereal disease.

  2. Congress was exempted from provisions of Obamacare.
    The Office of Personnel Management designated Congress and their staff as a small business to get around negative elements of the law and receive preferential treatment.

    Mr. Tucker stated this move by OPM and Congress was against the law?

    Will the Law under the Trump Administration be equally applied and enforced for the elitists in Congress as it is with the rest of the country’s citizens?

    Will Congress, Unions and all other entities given preferential exemptions remain exempt or will DHHS under President Trump level the playing field and enforce the law equally?

  5. I guarantee you, if congress had to live under the rules of obamacare things would change in a hurry. The very best action President Trump could take right now is to propose regulations that would require congress to live under all the laws that they pass that affects us but not them. I wonder if he could do that by Executive Order.

  6. @WillyGoatsGruff as we have discussed many times, without health insurers we will be looking at a Single Payer system and for the MILLIONTH time, health insurance is NOT a “Ponzi Scheme” regardless of how much you hate paying premiums!

  7. C. Steven – A couple of things that I don’t understand.

    1) You and the politicians keep claiming that a full repeal of Obamacare isn’t a valid option because any changes have to be done under budget reconciliation rules (which implies that things that don’t impact the budget can’t be changed). The fact of the matter is that every word of the Obamacare law has a tremendous, direct impact on the budget whether the politicians want to admit that or not. If this is not the case, please provide some examples of things in the law that supposedly don’t impact the budget.

    Thus, Obamacare could be repealed in its entirety if the politicians told the truth (that repealing Obamacare truly has everything to do with the federal budget) and had the political will to do so. It is not the ignorance of us hayseeds concerning how the senate rules work as you state in the audio – it is that I and many others simply know that we are dealing with congenital liars in congress that have an extensive history of using the rules as an excuse not to do what is right.

    Funny how the rules can be changed or subverted when the senate really wants to do something that benefits themselves and flies in the face of the Constitution – the Constitution is supposed to be the ultimate “rule book”, but the govt. at every level violates is constantly with impunity.

    In my estimation, pretending that a completely illegitimate and unconstitutional law can only be changed by “following the rules” doesn’t show any honor, but rather cowardice and stupidity (or outright dishonesty). “Regular” Americans like me recognize that our own govt., by its own actions, has declared war by law-fare against us (the individuals that still believe in the Constitution). We realize you don’t win wars by playing nice with a vile, dishonest enemy – you “kill him” (figuratively in this case, at least for now) with extreme prejudice.

    2) You state in the video that it takes 67 votes in the senate to change the rules. I can find no evidence to support that notion. I know that Harry Reid didn’t get 67 votes in the senate in 2013 to change the filibuster rules for judges to allow a simple majority for approval rather than the 60 required under previous rules. Although I don’t generally consider wikipedia a valid source, it shows this statement that is backed up by a couple of references:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

    “The nuclear or constitutional option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the U.S. Senate to override a rule or precedent by a simple majority of 51 votes, instead of by a supermajority of 60 votes. The presiding officer of the United States Senate rules that the validity of a Senate rule or precedent is a constitutional question. They immediately put the issue to the full Senate, which decides by majority vote. The procedure thus allows the Senate to decide any issue by majority vote, even though the rules of the Senate specify that ending a filibuster requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) for legislation, 67 for amending a Senate rule. The name is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare.”

    This statement is based on a reference at the bottom of the page to this article noting why a 2/3 majority is not required:

    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf

    This is why all the arguments from the politicians about why they can’t do this or that to repeal this illegitimate law ring hollow with many of us.

    These are honest questions / observations that I hope you will take time to provide a thoughtful response to.

  8. Three or four weeks ago I was in the Repeal and Replace only camp. I read Stevens posts here and thought he was totally wrong. Well it took me about 30 minutes of research to figure out he was right. When it comes down to it, we don’t have the votes. We never did. The “Medicaid 4, Lisa Murkowski, Cory Gardner, Rob Portman, and Shelly Moore will not vote for a repeal. On top of that Reconciliation is up in May. Mike Lee was complaining about the Bill the other day and after a 2 minute rants explains what we need to do. It was the same frame work as this Bill. I have not read the Bill, but from what I’ve seen and read we really missed a good opportunity here.

  9. Great questions Page O Turner, the first one is what I have been thinking about. If Dr. Price can start rescinding some of the 1440 “shall” points in the bill that would be a good start.
    It might even save us some money? What do you think Steven.
    Thanks CSteven Tucker and Mr. Hat.

  10. @CStevenTucker….Not a Ponzi scheme?….every home, auto, life, health insurance policy comes out of basically the same fund, that is the insurance industry….If health is too expensive, they won’t fund it. If you live where it might be windy?….fuck you buddy…..Why Can’t I get Geico health insurance?….Because they won’t cover it and it seems unaffordable for them to cover it, but I have their home , auto and motorcycle….they don’t cover health because…..IT PROBABLY WILL COST THEM SOME MONEY. And that’s why they don’t fund health care…..It’s pure and simple Ponzi…..you’re paying me today for what I don’t ever want to pay you back for…..doesn’t work?…I’ll change the rules….

  13. One thing we are fortunate for is that csteventucker has spent as much time and effort as he has presenting his well reasoned opinion on obamacare and the effort to fix this mess. I don’t agree with everything he says but I damn sure appreciate his expertise and his willingness to share what he knows and even answer questions. Thanks Mr. Tucker..

  14. Maybe it’s not health INSURANCE we need but health CARE. I’m old enough to remember when it cost $5 for a doctor’s office visit and the only other person in his office was his nurse – not a room full of medical coders and insurance billers. I remember seeing the bill for my older sister’s delivery and my mother’s 3 day hospital stay. The phone was the most expensive line item. It think the total was $50.00

    Sean Hannity profiled a Witchita doctor who provides services for a monthly fee, no insurance: http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/news/2017/03/08/atlasmd-founder-featured-on-fox-news-program.html

    Then there’s also the hospital in Oklahoma that posts its prices online and doesn’t take insurance: http://kfor.com/2013/07/08/okc-hospital-posting-surgery-prices-online/

  15. @Bubba’s Bro, “we are dealing with congenital liars in congress that have an extensive history of using the rules as an excuse not to do what is right.”

    That is truth.

  16. That’s another thing I can’t understand. Why does anything have to be done before Tom Price can start doing away with the “the HHS secretary shall” provisions. It seems to me that a lot of good could be done immediately through that alone.

  17. Look, if I have to have this messed up O-care crap, or else be “fined” for not having it, then the goddamned politicians who forced this steaming pile of shit on us had damn well better rescind the law that excuses them from having to enroll in it. This bullshit attitude that they make laws for us peons that they can exempt themselves from has to stop.

    I also don’t give a shit what is said about not being able to fully repeal it. That’s pure undiluted bullshit and everyone with half a brain (exception: Democrats) understands. If they won’t repeal it, then let it implode on it’s own (and it will) and let the free market take over. The system we had before O-care was forced on us worked fine.

  20. JMV – it isn’t even a law that exempts them. It’s a ruling by the Office of Personnel Management that has NO authority under Obamacare to make that determination. Obamacare SPECIFICALLY STATES that Congress has to buy Obamacare just like individuals do. OPM just gave Obama and the Congress Critters the exemption they wanted with NO regard to it’s legality.

  21. Geoff C The Saltine and Bubba’s Brother, Dr. Price stated earlier this week that he is “already reviewing what he can roll back as our new H.H.S. Secretary”. I suspect he will do as much as he can as quickly as he can even without the passage of the A.H.C.A.

  22. csteventucker, out of spite, hard headedness and disgust with government in general I’m still in the let it fail camp. Of course that will cause more problems but at this point what difference does it make? Sorry I couldn’t resist a Hilary quote. Anyway, I will continue to look forward to what you have to say.

  25. Bubba’sBrother, I don’t rely upon Wikipedia either as a reliable source. That stated, they are correct as am I that it takes 67 votes to change Senate rules. To find the accurate rules that the U.S. Senate must abide by and the number of votes to change rules etc. visit the U.S. Senate web site here > https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Rules_and_Procedure_vrd.htm

    As far as non budgetary items in the PPACA (Obamacare) there are many that are considered non Budgetary, the EMRs, IPAB, the THREE Rs’s, the implementation of ‘meaningful use’ the ACO’s and much more. That stated, it’s really a damned shame that Senator Cruz’s idea to replace Elizabeth McDonough (the Senate Parliamentarian) with Mike Pence never got a chance to be tried because the “Freedom Caucus” blocked passage of the AHCA in the House. I would have LOVED to have seen how much that Pence could have gotten through the Senate on a 51 vote basis. For example, Cruz made a good argument that the implementation of the EHB’s – Essential Health Benefits – resulted in higher premiums for everyone and thus affected everyone’s BUDGET. I’ll bet he could have gotten that through with Pence at the helm but now, we’ll never know.

  26. There was indeed Jerry Manderin but what we initially thought were “Firetrucks” were actually police vehicles. It’s a long story that both he and I are sworn to secrecy on. That stated, he did drop the soap and I’ll never forget that moment.

  27. At 3:50, CST says we were promised full repeal.

    True. Who promised full repeal? How often was it promised, how far back? If those promised could NEVER have been delivered on, and not just because of Obama’s absolutely certain veto, what was the point?

  28. Very informative conversation thank you. I was for the AHCA and was surprised so many were against it.
    What shocked me is the email I received from the healthcare facility I work at saying to go against the bill. I would think that hospitals are hating Obamacare and would like some relief. At that point I was even more for the AHCA. Anywho, now we are here….which is neither here nor there….or something.
    Thanks again for taping the phone conversation.

  32. @C. Steven – thanks for your response. The first link in the wiki article was to the senate rules but the link gave me an error message (page moved) and I didn’t spend the time to search the site for it. My point of disagreement lies in how you phrased “accurate rules that the U.S. Senate MUST abide by”. Apparently, the “MUST” is just a suggestion or we could toss out every judge approved after Harry Reid changed the filibuster rules because the senate did not obey the rules. The fact that he changed them at all proves that the rules are, in effect, no more than a suggestion and there is no real way to enforce the “MUST obey the rules” idea.

    You also stated regarding budget items that “there are many that are CONSIDERED non Budgetary”. That is my point – just because they are CONSIDERED non-budgetary by the current crop of idiots (aka congress people) doesn’t mean that they actually are “non-budgetary”. Why can’t the republicans properly CONSIDER the entire Obamacare law / regulations as being a critical part of the budget (because it is).

    In the real world (as I’m sure you know), anything that affects spending and/or revenue in a business (which pretty much everything one does in a business creates at minimum an opportunity cost that affects how the business operates) has to be considered as part of the budget process or you’ll go broke in a hurry. Every part of Obamacare affects federal spending or “revenue” to at least some degree.

    I think the republicans in the house should just pronounce that the Obamacare in its entirety is subject to the budget reconciliation process and tell the CBO or whoever else has anything to say about it to go pound sand. The people that would suffer immediate affects (like your clients) could still be taken care of in very short order after repeal (probably taken better care of for less money if common sense were used).

    America could have created some arrangement for a pool of people with pre-existing conditions and similar issues to cover directly in some way for far less than Obamacare cost to implement (even if the feds just cut the insurance companies a check for the care needed – hundreds of thousands of more govt. and private bureaucrats wouldn’t have been created needlessly and non-affected customer’s premiums / deductibles wouldn’t have to be jacked up excessively to cover it).

    Hopefully a better bill will be the result at some point in the near future. Then we could see how Cruz’ idea about the parliamentarian would work out (which I agree is a sharp idea – it would be very legal even though it might seem a little abstract to some – fight fire with fire).

    Cruz is correct about the EHBs and it would apply to the federal budget as well as those of everyone else because for every EHB in the bill and for every instance of medical service of any kind under Obamacare, there is a govt. bureaucrat being paid for things like verifying compliance, payments made to insurance companies by the govt. (subsidies, medicaid, etc.) which requires billing / collections people, people being paid to work on electronic databases, etc. – that’s why it’s so obvious to any thinking person that all of Obamacare is a critical budgetary component that should be subject to reconciliation rules.

  34. Which brings me to summarize my points more succinctly LOL.

    It’s not that the republican house CAN’T do it – it’s that they WON’T do it.

    Thanks for your insights though.

  36. Tell me csteventucker….if health care and the insurance industry were to support themselves with minimum management and minimum sales ?….would you have a job that pays you well?….

  37. They already do. The PPACA wiped out most health insurance brokers when they cut our commissions from 24% to 6% and replaced most of us with unlicensed, inexperienced Obamacare “Navigators”. It also wiped out 19 insurers and 18 co-op insurers. How much more of the health insurance industry and it’s knowledgeable representatives would you like Obamacare to wipe out and replace with government?

  39. They already do. The PPACA wiped out most health insurance brokers when they cut our commissions from 24% to 6% and replaced most of us with unlicensed, inexperienced Obamacare “Navigators”. CStevenTucker
    yes we should listen to Steven the HS Graduate. Seems to me he just cares about his commission not the American People.

  40. CStevenTucker u really are an arrogant elitist.
    It’s RyanCare or nothing. BS. Let the American people suffer another year to see what Obama and the Democrats did to us.
    You are the Healthcare Pro for the IOTWREPORT big deal you are an insurance salesman with a high school degree. I’m going with the Freedom Caucus. S. Alinsky

  43. JTucker,

    You’re crossing the line and getting into oddball character assassination territory.

    I give great latitude in comments, especially with fights and dust ups, because we’re all on an even playing field. But this playing field is uneven.
    C. Steven has his name out there. He’s accessible.

    If you would prefer that no high school graduate insurance salesmen (???) exist in this country, or throughout the world, just say so.
    Sounds like you want government healthcare the way you sneer at salesmen.

    The comments that imply C. Steven’s opinions are self-serving to his business are strange given that we want to be able to contact a salesman in the future in hopes we are actually SHOPPING for healthcare.

    For the record, I have no idea what C. Steven’s educational background is, nor do I care. I’ve seen him debate politicians on this topic and it sounds like he went to Harvard Business School – Insurance Division.

  44. Oh, also, JTucker.
    We don’t have a designated ‘Healthcare Pro’ on the site.
    You are free to bring one in and I’d be happy to highlight them.

    I assume this other pro isn’t you, correct?
    If it is, why don’t we have a debate between you and the high school salesman?

    I can set it up.

  45. @ J Tucker -Obama and Mochelle went to Columbia, Princeton and Harvard. Who would have given them the grades they really earned and flunked them out?

    Educational pedigree means nothing stacked next to accomplishment. I’ll take a doer over a talker any day. C Steven Tucker has demonstrated his expertise.

    So what if he has a dog in this fight? He doesn’t hide it and he knows his material. It’s up to you to weigh it in your evaluation. Not to denigrate everything he says because of your prejudice.

Comments are closed.

iOTWreport.com ©2024 ----- iOTWreport is not responsible for the content of comments. All opinions in comments are solely the commenter's.