Freedom Caucus

[Rotobeast]

Given the recent defeat of RyanCare, what does everyone think of the Freedom Caucus ?

[Griever]

they only voted against it because the bill wouldnt remove the "children under 26 could stay on their parents plan" and pre-existing conditions

so basically they didnt vote because it didnt screw enough people over

[Belsnickel]

I've never been a fan of the Freedom Caucus, and I'm still not. I do respect that they have ideological positions and aren't just going to toe the party line because it is now a unified government, which is what the party leadership was expecting from them. But I just disagree with them ideologically.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-28-2017, 08:26 AM)Griever Wrote: they only voted against it because the bill wouldnt remove the "children under 26 could stay on their parents plan" and pre-existing conditions

so basically they didnt vote because it didnt screw enough people over

What about all the people between 26 and 40 that Obama screwed by not letting them stay on their parent's insurance?

[Benton]

(03-28-2017, 08:26 AM)Griever Wrote: they only voted against it because the bill wouldnt remove the "children under 26 could stay on their parents plan" and pre-existing conditions

so basically they didnt vote because it didnt screw enough people over

I disagree.

Rand Paul has put out some pretty basic ideas that could be built on to fix healthcare. It didn't even get considered by the bulk of the GOP, who were just looking to shift tax dollars from citizens to insurance companies. The GOP bill didn't lower much spending and would have increased costs by removing the parts of Obamacare that were starting to work on lowering expense.

Some of the Freedom Caucus is whacky, but there are some sound ideas and ways to cut spending that comes from there.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

The Freedom Caucus was right to sink RyanCare. I like Mo Brooks' bill he submitted yesterday. America needs socialized medicine like Anthony Weiner needs an unlimited data plan.

[Griever]

(03-28-2017, 10:22 AM)michaelsean Wrote: What about all the people between 26 and 40 that Obama screwed by not letting them stay on their parent's insurance?

(03-28-2017, 11:30 AM)Benton Wrote: I disagree.

Rand Paul has put out some pretty basic ideas that could be built on to fix healthcare. It didn't even get considered by the bulk of the GOP, who were just looking to shift tax dollars from citizens to insurance companies. The GOP bill didn't lower much spending and would have increased costs by removing the parts of Obamacare that were starting to work on lowering expense.

Some of the Freedom Caucus is whacky, but there are some sound ideas and ways to cut spending that comes from there.

sorry, forgot to post the link when i initially made my comment
http://www.businessinsider.com/freedom-caucus-trumpcare-ahca-pre-existing-conditions-obamacare-2017-3

[Belsnickel]

(03-28-2017, 11:41 AM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: The Freedom Caucus was right to sink RyanCare. I like Mo Brooks' bill he submitted yesterday. America needs socialized medicine like Anthony Weiner needs an unlimited data plan.

That dastardly idea that health care is a public good is just too much for you, eh?

[Fan_in_Kettering]

(03-28-2017, 12:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That dastardly idea that health care is a public good is just too much for you, eh?

At the state level, sure, maybe. There is nothing in accordance with the Tenth Amendment allowing a federal takeover and control of medical services. Medical insurance should be no more complex than auto or life insurance. These industries hold prices down and improve delivery by competition for business. Medical care should be no different.

Whenever you write the word "public," mentally replace it with the word "government." It's more accurate.

[Benton]

(03-28-2017, 11:41 AM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: The Freedom Caucus was right to sink RyanCare.  I like Mo Brooks' bill he submitted yesterday.  America needs socialized medicine like Anthony Weiner needs an unlimited data plan.

America has quasi-socialized medicine. We subsidize the crap out of it already, making it cheaper for top earners, lowest income earners, children, the elderly. All those groups get tax breaks or care through state and federal government.

Those in the middle (the ones paying for it) don't get as many breaks, and instead have to deal with unrestricted cost.

If we're going to have socialized medicine, we need to fully go in that direction. Or we need to start pulling back those tax benefits on upper earners and families and let the market correct itself as fewer people utilize services.

(03-28-2017, 11:45 AM)Griever Wrote: sorry, forgot to post the link when i initially made my comment
http://www.businessinsider.com/freedom-caucus-trumpcare-ahca-pre-existing-conditions-obamacare-2017-3

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/rand-paul-mark-sanford-obamacare/

Quote:It would protect those with pre-existing conditions as long as they had continuous coverage.

There's a better article out there that breaks down what Rand's bill would do, but busy day. I'll try and look later. I'm pretty sure if kept in the 18-26. But the main part I like about it is he's partly picking up something I've advocated for years.

Quote:The bill would also allow people and small business owners to band together through professional associations to purchase insurance, with the goal of decreasing the cost through greater numbers. And it would permit insurers to sell policies across state lines.

Creating co-op's to negotiate like private companies would go a long way in lowering cost without interfering with insurance company's rights.

[Belsnickel]

(03-28-2017, 12:12 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: At the state level, sure, maybe. There is nothing in accordance with the Tenth Amendment allowing a federal takeover and control of medical services. Medical insurance should be no more complex than auto or life insurance. These industries hold prices down and improve delivery by competition for business. Medical care should be no different.

Well, unfortunately, medical insurance is far more complicated right now than either of those two, and no plan that leaves it in the private market will make it less so.

There are also several arguments that can be made that Congress is granted the authority in Article 1, Section 8. I could even argue that there is a better argument for them to look at health care than there is for us to have a full-time, permanent army.

[xxlt]

(03-27-2017, 11:35 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Given the recent defeat of RyanCare, what does everyone think of the Freedom Caucus ?

Simple: they are emblematic of every thing that is wrong with America and has been wrong with it for the past 50 years. Sadly, their ilk keeps gaining in strength. It is really simple. Look at America from 1970 to today. Would you say it has tracked up or tracked down for middle class families?

[xxlt]

(03-28-2017, 12:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That dastardly idea that health care is a public good is just too much for you, eh?

Vielen dank. Take a couple beer barrels out of petty cash.

[Rotobeast]

(03-28-2017, 01:53 PM)xxlt Wrote: Simple: they are emblematic of every thing that is wrong with America and has been wrong with it for the past 50 years. Sadly, their ilk keeps gaining in strength. It is really simple. Look at America from 1970 to today. Would you say it has tracked up or tracked down for middle class families?

So... reduction of government spending/waste and reducing taxes will impact the middle class negatively ?

[Vas Deferens]

(03-28-2017, 03:22 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: So... reduction of government spending/waste and reducing taxes will impact the middle class negatively ?

Did they find that missing trillion at the pentagon without me hearing about it? Hot damnit pile. These guyses sure as shit are the freedomist.

[Rotobeast]

(03-29-2017, 10:36 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Did they find that missing trillion at the pentagon without me hearing about it? Hot damnit pile. These guyses sure as shit are the freedomist.

It was $6.75 Trillion and no, they didn't.
I wish someone would at least find an answer.
Somebody's ass should be in the fire.

[Vas Deferens]

(03-29-2017, 11:08 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: It was $6.75 Trillion and no, they didn't.
I wish someone would at least find an answer.
Somebody's ass should be in the fire.

30 crotchety old men sitting around a table making a stand against paying for contraceptives and prenatal care while blackwater and Raytheon leave skid marks in parking lot.

First rep that takes up that battle gets my support 100%. Until they're gunned down...

[xxlt]

(03-28-2017, 03:22 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: So... reduction of government spending/waste and reducing taxes will impact the middle class negatively ?

Yes, it will. It has for the last 50 years. Taxes are the cost of a civilization. Period. And good tax policy implements a progressive tax rate - those who benefit the most pay the most to sustain the system that is building their wealth, and all pay in proportion to their gains. I know, radical ideas - it's madness (that works in the world's most successful countries - look at Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Iceland, Canada, Germany, Japan etc. ...)

Tax hating, government hating conservatives should flee the living hell that is America and move to a haven like Somalia. There is virtually no government restricting your freedoms and taxes are virtually nil. It is a real paradise.

The only real place to target US government waste and spending is in the defense budget, and the freedom dufus, I mean caucus, will never take aim at that because, hey, they have portfolios that are heavily invested in the military industrial complex too.

Look at American standards of living, employment, and every other measure you want to from the 1950's and then note the highest tax rate was 90%. America was a near utopia (as long as you had a white face - but tax policy and government spending were not the foundations of racism, ignorance was). Since then we have lowered taxes (particularly and often exclusively on the wealthiest Americans) year after year and what do we have to show for it? Crumbling infrastructure, a shrinking middle class whose standard of living has tracked steadily downward, unemployment spikes... Their method has been tried and it has failed for 50 years and counting. It hasn't created jobs, it hasn't made America great, it has concentrated wealth and made the rich richer - and that is all it can EVER do. It is economic reality - not theory - that has been proven for 50 years.

[Rotobeast]

(03-29-2017, 12:16 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: 30 crotchety old men sitting around a table making a stand against paying for contraceptives and prenatal care while blackwater and Raytheon leave skid marks in parking lot.

First rep that takes up that battle gets my support 100%. Until they're gunned down...

(03-29-2017, 01:09 PM)xxlt Wrote: Yes, it will. It has for the last 50 years. Taxes are the cost of a civilization. Period. And good tax policy implements a progressive tax rate - those who benefit the most pay the most to sustain the system that is building their wealth, and all pay in proportion to their gains. I know, radical ideas - it's madness (that works in the world's most successful countries - look at Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Iceland, Canada, Germany, Japan etc. ...)

Tax hating, government hating conservatives should flee the living hell that is America and move to a haven like Somalia. There is virtually no government restricting your freedoms and taxes are virtually nil. It is a real paradise.

The only real place to target US government waste and spending is in the defense budget, and the freedom dufus, I mean caucus, will never take aim at that because, hey, they have portfolios that are heavily invested in the military industrial complex too.

Look at American standards of living, employment, and every other measure you want to from the 1950's and then note the highest tax rate was 90%. America was a near utopia (as long as you had a white face - but tax policy and government spending were not the foundations of racism, ignorance was). Since then we have lowered taxes (particularly and often exclusively on the wealthiest Americans) year after year and what do we have to show for it? Crumbling infrastructure, a shrinking middle class whose standard of living has tracked steadily downward, unemployment spikes... Their method has been tried and it has failed for 50 years and counting. It hasn't created jobs, it hasn't made America great, it has concentrated wealth and made the rich richer - and that is all it can EVER do. It is economic reality - not theory - that has been proven for 50 years.

I really don't disagree with either of you.
They should be looking into the loss/waste of money on defense.
To be honest, I thought the FC had been a bit more stingy on defense spending.
I will go back and check.
I've been wrong, more than once.
I'm not very happy with them regarding Net Neutrality, either.
We need a simplified tax code, where the big money guys can't take advantage of loopholes.
See, I didn't say abolish all taxes.
I'm a Minarchist.
We need a degree of taxation and government oversight.

[hollodero]

(03-27-2017, 11:35 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Given the recent defeat of RyanCare, what does everyone think of the Freedom Caucus ?

Oh, I guess they are your personal heroes, so I won't get too much into them shooting their own president in the foot and having made a political mistake. I'm happy they did. And I admire them, they are stubborn as hell, which the right might call principled.

At this point one has once more to question the whole political process. The Caucus behaves like a third party that sails under false flag. Now they either forgo their principles/get swallowed up by more conformist partisans - or stay principled and be an opposition party in a minority government. Both things arent ideal for a vital democracy.

Politically I think their ideas are flawed, outdated, proven harmful and/or ineffective. And I think (but that's just me) they are either blind to people suffering or honestly think poor lives are not as interesting or valuable and hence not worth that much consideration. How else could one be against emergency room visits, maternity leave and whatnot being covered by healthcare. Or against Hurricane Sandy relief, for that matter. And I probably disagree with them on every single social issue. But of course they are a legitimate political force I would like to not vote for if only I could.