It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AHCA Vote Postponed

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Its an assumption on my part but I think they would ask for a lot of concessions to tie break




posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   
So the "Freedom" Caucus is against it because this bill doesn't fck people over enough and Moderate Republicans are against it because they fear millions will be left without health insurance.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Why even have a military if the American people do not have healthcare or retirement security?


the whole point is for poor and infirmed people to die...the wealthy do not want to pay taxes that go to the peons....the wealthy want no taxes (except for military) and the rest of the people to serve them if they are healthy



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Why even have a military if the American people do not have healthcare or retirement security?


As in all things, follow the money.

America is in the business of war so the contractors can profit.

Taxpayers pay for it but their is only so much money to go around...thus a bogus health care system and use SS money to pay the war profiteers. Simple

Think we're done in the mid East? I don't...
edit on 23-3-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the Republican Health Care bill keeps pre-existing conditions and stops insurance companies from raising rates on you if you're in poor health, which is good. But from several sources I've read, most people will pay more in one way or another?



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Its an assumption on my part but I think they would ask for a lot of concessions to tie break

I think, given the political climate, that it is safe to assume that Pence would tie break in favor of the Republicans until better information is given.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
So the "Freedom" Caucus is against it because this bill doesn't fck people over enough and Moderate Republicans are against it because they fear millions will be left without health insurance.


I think any republican plan for healthcare, should automatically by law be the health plan for all republican lawmakers



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
So the "Freedom" Caucus is against it because this bill doesn't fck people over enough and Moderate Republicans are against it because they fear millions will be left without health insurance.

Yeah it's a death spiral Catch-22 that will prevent the bill from either leaving the House, the Senate, or both.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The bottom line is healthcare was better before Government got involved.

This is not a surprise.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

There are quite a few people who might take issue with that.

That's probably why the Reps are having fits over this.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
they're gonna keep screwing around trying to preserve their crazy ideologies and political agendas till the system completely collapses and the only alternative to not having a healthcare system is to completely socialize the thing under a single payer program.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I really don't know why they make such a big deal out of this.
No bill is ever close to the original when it leaves reconciliation.




It’s up to the parliamentarian, who will end up making a decision — although Politico notes that, according to Republican sources, “when Republicans wrote the blueprint for the repeal bill in 2015, the parliamentarian made clear that insurance regulations would not comply and the issue wasn’t put under significant scrutiny.” If that’s what happens this time, the Senate will need to remove the regulatory parts of the House bill and use reconciliation to pass only the budgetary parts. But maybe that’s okay from Trump’s and Ryan’s perspective: The first, largest hurdle is clearing the House, and if clearing the House requires convincing conservatives that a little procedural hocus pocus can be done in the Senate to repeal all of the ObamaCare regulations in one fell swoop, why not convince them and let them pass the bill? Then, if the bill comes back to the House having passed the Senate with the part about repealing the regulations having been stripped out, hopefully momentum will convince a majority of House Republicans to suck it up and pass the Senate bill anyway, knowing that Tom Price will be able to step in afterwards (in stage two) and get rid of many of those regulations on his own. Just get the bill through the House, plain and simple. Whatever happens in reconciliation is a problem for tomorrow.


hotair.com... t-them-repeal-more-of-obamacare/

Buck



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Like I keep saying if its a defense appropriation, they all vote unanimously without a hitch. If its something to help the people, they talk and talk...

and apparently (right again), even more talk is required.

rofl



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Phage

The bottom line is healthcare was better before Government got involved.

This is not a surprise.


No. It wasn't. At least if you needed it, it wasn't.

Seriously. Pre-existing conditions. Maternity riders if you were lucky (18 months paying in before you can get pregnant). Life-time payout caps.

I was denied insurance for 10 years after my cancer remission (I had cancer as a very young woman). I could have died. Or I could have given up and gone on Medicaid rather than be "responsible" and work...and insurance was not provided by my workplace, except for one time, and even then cancer care or follow up exams, etc. were not covered.

Frankly, I am lucky to be here at all.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I love how Republicans have no problem with Trump asking for $640 Billion for "Defense" spending but when it comes to American people and their own supporters receiving healthcare then all of a sudden they can't come together.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

depends on just how you interpret "before the gov't got involved". most of us don't remember what it was like before that....

I do remember when the doctor was likely to be living in the same neighborhood as some of the near poor. how he would have a basement full of drugs that he would hand out to his patients instead of writing prescriptions to be filled at the drugstore, and sometimes, he would provide free care to his less advantaged patients.

I was listening to one of the debates about this healthcare law they want to pass, one of the republicans (a male) asked: why should my insurance company have to have maternity care in it? that just made me sick...
one, no women gets pregnant alone, there is always a man involved..
two, quality maternity care is one healthcare service that helps every one, male, female, rich, or poor because it helps them get a good start at the very beginning of their life!
to read that it was one of the chips that they had on the table in their deal making is shameful! especially when you consider they also want to strip funding to planned parenthood, don't really like having insurance that covers birth control either, and want to strip the funding for many of the programs that helps poor kids. at this point, I kind of wish that the poor women who really can't afford to give birth to their babies would just go to the nearest republican congressman's office when they go into maternity... let their staffs deliver the danged babies!



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
Maybe he meant a loss for Trump, since Trump was pushing the bill's passage.... an error in my opinion.

I hope it is dead and they go back to the drawing board.


I got a chance to listen a bit more, with the added context he seems to be referring to postponing it as a loss for conservatives, since the delay will almost certainly get more votes. The victory would have been it going up for a vote and failing because it's not a conservative enough bill.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Well, here's what sank the deal.



"No deal," House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C., said after he and his group of more than two dozen rebellious conservatives met with Trump to try to get more concessions to reduce requirements on insurance companies.


The entire HFCC is in the pocket of insurance companies which are in-turn owned by major corporations.

www.zerohedge.com...
edit on 23-3-2017 by flatbush71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I think, given the political climate, that it is safe to assume that Pence would tie break in favor of the Republicans until better information is given.


I'm not so sure. The bill is pretty bad, I don't think Trump wants his name on something that will accelerate the rate of premium increases, and deny health care to millions.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

So, all the special meetings and calls to Representatives were just for show? He wasn't trying to get the votes?
I'll come after you
edit on 3/23/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join