Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) said he expects there to be
somewhere close to 250 House members to vote for the plan to defund Obamacare in the Continuing Resolution (CR) on Friday, when House GOP leadership brings the plan up for a vote.
“I would predict that will we get closer to 250 votes,” Meadows said at a Conversations with Conservatives (CWC) press event that the Heritage Foundation’s Rob Bluey moderated on Thursday. “If you look at the Democrats, 25 of the most competitive Democratic races are outlined. Twenty-one of those people voted with us to delay the individual mandate. Now if that says that they aren’t paying attention to what the people say back home I don’t know what is. They’re having to vote so that they justify that.
Meadows added that “I’m hopeful that we get an overwhelming majority tomorrow, and I believe that we will.”
217 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 217 of 217AJ Lynch said...
And now I am also looking out for wealthy physicians? You must not have a pot to piss in Ritmo the way you are so interested in what doctors have and what company owners like Bago make.
To be fair, a lot of MDs are uncomfortable with the current system and feel that is open to abuse by 'medical entrepreneurs'.
Before I move on to the blue pom poms, I'd just like to say to ARM that you have been very reasonable, and argued well in this discussion. I think you are wrong about government's ability to remedy or even improve on the problems with health care. I don't even think that is the motivation for a lot of the efforts of the ACA, but I do agree with you about your framing of some of the key problems, and where we need to go. I just think the ACA is a terrible way to get there, and I don't believe it will.
I don't know how it's gonna happen, but I don't believe Obamacare can or will survive long as it's constituted now. Perhaps conservatives will gain enough seats to gut it eventually, or fixes will, but I don't see it workable as it is.
Regardless, I just wanted to give you props for the style and substance tonight. Thanks.
Now back to the tumblers - they're so flexible.
ARM-
Ritmo denied it was part of healthcare costs.
And you arbitrarily discount as being immaterial -but even 2% of 1/6 of the economy is $50 Billion per year. That is the same amount the Repubs want to cut from Food Stamps over TEN YEASR and the Dems are freaking out over that?
AJ Lynch said...
ARM-
And you arbitrarily discount as being immaterial -but even 2% of 1/6 of the economy is $50 Billion per year.
The numbers I quoted were:
"The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that such limits would reduce health spending by half a percent and save the federal government about $49 billion over ten years."
I am not dismissing this as not important but there does have to be a balance between patient's rights and medical costs. This number can never be zero.
Some MDs are incompetent and some have a bad day and patients have to be compensated for their failures. If you had your left ball removed when your right one was the one with cancer you would legitimately feel pretty pissed, since you would now have to have the right one removed as well.
I am not disputing your constitutional right to sue over your left nut or your right nut.
I am pointing out that lawyerly "encouragement" leads to real money and significant costs in our health care system. I am not disputing that some providers are butchers. And just recognize the number you quote of $49 billion is only a small portion of the legal component of health care costs.
And now I am also looking out for wealthy physicians? You must not have a pot to piss in Ritmo the way you are so interested in what doctors have and what company owners like Bago make. You show your envy and resentment in most every word you write.
What I resent is that you think well-off people are more important than uninsured people.
You think the "haves" deserve more attention from government than the "have nots". There's no envy to that, it's all about the imperative to excoriate this moral perversity of yours, where you'd prefer the government waste more resources on those who don't need the attention of the system so that the needier can starve and go with less. It's completely fucked up and pisses me off that your lack of any sensible moral priorities still can obstruct the better will of the people in their choices for the presidency, the senate and at least a million more votes in your gerrymandered house.
Your ilk are an annoying flea on the ass of progress and the ethics of both an entire nation and humanity at large.
I don't need anything from the government except for it to express the will of myself and millions more than the likes of people like you, who will reverse any moral order just so that you can have people to look down upon and proclaim as worse than your own sorry-ass, empty self.
Oh, and BTW, try to keep the vituperation to a minimum. These guys are a bit classier than your blonde friend from Wisconsin. I made an exception for you, A.J., since you seem especially thick. But don't expect that I'll do your bloated self the favor of spelling it out that bluntly again.
ARM, A.J. doesn't understand that 1/2 a percent isn't a significant number compared to the other savings that can be made.
Or, there's a chance that a little inkling of that ray of light might be seeping into that head of his (especially if the skull is as materially porous as I'm guessing), but he needs to fight that thought out with a distraction that means pennies. Penny-wise, pound foolish - A.J.'s your man if smaller numbers are more important than bigger numbers. He'd make a great accountant... in another dimension.
It's the Republican way: Focus on an insignificant cost so that you can ignore larger costs.
It's how they left $6 trillion in the Iraq War costs completely off the books.
Rhythm and Balls, after my rant at he who must not be named, I am doing my best to love everybody. I genuinely like this site and would like to see it continue and succeed.
When I read Althouse's posts now I find them insufferable without the ability to argue back. I realize now that I only went to the site to argue with her and the other posters. I am glad you and phx have hung in there with these guys.
I'm doing my best, and there's only one poster who, I think, gets excessively tedious in his spin. The commenters I try to be every bit as generous (if honest) with, but it does irk me when long-absent ideological redundancies like A.J. show up to confuse sensible moral priorities with more accusations, intended as insults, directed at the very people least deserving of it. He can be as ignorant as he wants to be, but I feel a need to draw a moral line when he loses any pretense of a sane discussion just so that he can compensate for that with insults of anyone getting in the way of his adulation for the affluent.
He is like the Beverley Hills 90210 of substance.
Perhaps he has no morality, and hence confuses his idolization of "awesome" people with the compassion that a normal person would have for people who truly deserve it. But it's distracting enough that I feel a need to call that out, and if there's a way to do that less stridently, I'm open to that as well.
But I don't think he's acting in a way that invites respectful treatment. Perhaps that's his way of lashing out and calling attention to how out-of-place he is in a non-TOP environment.
Everyone has blind spots. People seem incredulous that I find he who must not be named more irritating than Jay. The Pope has it right in emphasizing the fact that we are all sinners.
Mind reader extraordinaire and licensed healthcare provider. That is you Ritmo. And now you have a bosom buddy in ARM and his brilliant ideas to fix healthcare.
Here is a suggestion - you libruls should stop "reforming" things until you can first prove you have fixed something in the past.
Little Media Lies About ObamaCare
A lie here, a lie there... pretty soon you've got a big pile of lies.
No matter, it's all for the glory of one political party.
"In principle Obamacare deals with this problem."
That's a key part of the problem. The complexity and plain mess of the design undermines the principles, so that what ends up happening is bureaucratic shifting of responsibility rather than dealing with a problem.
My mom had polio and deals with the post-polio syndrome effects still, so I know the need for good health care. What's interesting is that ten years ago she had a major health crisis, my dad was unemployed at the time (CA teachers have had a hard run this decade), and her health care was covered. There were systems in place, not ideal.
Now, so many people are confused that the good-hearted are flummoxed and the bad-hearted maximize corruption even more.
There was certainly a need to fill in the gaps of health care coverage, but not in a way that puts more burden on the sick or already over-stressed.
Here is a suggestion - you libruls should stop "reforming" things until you can first prove you have fixed something in the past.
The fact that a majority of the beneficiaries, stakeholders and voting public approve of and appreciate the SSI, Medicare and Medicaid that you hide so stealthily your urge to do away with, should tell you how well they work. You try so well to proclaim your contempt for those programs in small whistles through little corners out of the sides of your mouth, because you know how easily you'll get slammed and lambasted at the polls the moment anybody catches wind of your contempt for them.
So you lie and twist instead.
QED.
Try standing for something meaningful, for a change. Finding tens of millions of Americans to hate is such a tired and pathetic motivation.
What was the rate of indigence among the elderly before SSI and how does it compare to now, Oh Wise Forgetter of the Past Lynch?
Post a Comment