The timing is an interesting coincidence on this piece from Ben Shapiro…
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449020/democrats-republicans-agree-health-care-principles-avoid-real-debate
.

“Democrats and Republicans apparently agree on health care’s central principles, they just argue over how best to implement them.

No wonder Americans are frustrated.”

In absence of that, the only thing the GOP could articulate was “repeal obamacare”, with nothing in their back pocket to sell on what the alternative is. All they had / coalesced around were the criticisms of obamacare.
.

So now, without having set a foundation for a bolder, more conservative solution, all the GOP can do (or think they can do) is tweak obamacare.

What is being proposed is fine, as far as “fixing” obamacare is concerned (i.e. mitigating the “death spiral”, and reducing some of its burdens / cost drivers / taxes / etc).

The long term problem is that this bill is still very much a government centered “solution”, and its inherent problems will be forever linked to the GOP (raising the question / doubt if the GOP even have any “better ideas” to begin with).

In the near-term (2018, 2020), it seems that it may well hurt many of the swing voters that trump won.
.

Seems to me, if one is going to be d*mned either way, might as well go for the solution you really want.

But, again, that takes selling the proposition, groundwork that hasn’t been done, and, with the timetable they are gunning for, no way to achieve.

http://www.kff.org/interactive/premiums-and-tax-credits-under-the-affordable-care-act-vs-the-senate-better-care-reconciliation-act-interactive-maps/

If one is 60 years old (and presumably as they near it in their 50’s too – the filter notches down to 40 only, though), at every income range, it looks like $1000s more net out of pocket.

At $20K it will be net (after credits) $1K more in western PA for a Bronze plan – 5% of income.

At $50K, it is $4K+ – 8% of income.

Looks like a good chunk of the mid-west where this demographic is more likely a trump supporter, the story is much the same.

Note: it says nothing specifically about deductibles, other than identify plans as Silver or Bronze.

Right. About all trump consistently said is “repeal and replace”.

Oh, and (per your #4), he did say the House version was “mean” (not sure if it was the first iteration or the latest one).

One thing is for sure, everyone will be selling it as a full repeal and replacement, even if it ends up being mostly a tweaked / modified obamacare.
.

That we finally have a GOP POTUS, with a GOP House and Senate, it surely seems that this may well be a lost opportunity to make the kinds of changes that will radically reduce the scope of government, the leviathan, that many here claim they want.

Ultimately, #3 should be at the top.

If we are not selling our ideas as superior, gathering support for the changes we think are important, and if we don’t expect more from our elected officials, holding them accountable, how can we expect even our “Royal Flush” win in 2016 to deliver?

Those kinds of changes to obamacare were doomed from well before Nov 2016.

Seems to be the case for this one part of “healthcare”.

It is a step in the right direction.

We’ll see with the rest.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/23/trump-signs-va-reform-bill-law/

The CNN report on problems at the VA is being released in the middle of the extremely contentious debate over repealing (or altering) of Obamacare. The VA is a completely socialized health care system, a step beyond single-payer, and it is an ongoing disaster. That ought to be part of the discussion about where our system is going, but for some reason, Democrats are never asked or expected to defend the VA even as they agitate for moving the entire nation in the direction of greater government control over health care.

I think this is one of those cases where the left is actually hampered, albeit indirectly, by having a national media that seems incapable of viewing some issues from multiple points of view. Franky, if we had a press that wasn’t so simpatico with Democratic goals on health reform, the country could have had a real discussion about the costs as well as the benefits of moving toward a more socialized system. Instead, we got a media that went along with every lie the Democrats told about Obamacare until it was too late to matter. And to this day, most of the media has never admitted that one of the goals of the effort was to slide the country toward single-payer without admitting that was their intent.

The American people may not have been up on all the details of various proposals but I think they had a good sense they were not being given the truth. That’s why we are where we are now, i.e. on the verge of another major change of direction in health care policy. It probably could have gone differently if the media had worked to keep Democrats honest about their goals and the potential downsides of their plans from the start, i.e. all the things they are now eagerly doing with the Republican plan.

“The response from the affluent winners to the poor loser boiled down to “too bad.”” Mac

She doesn’t belong to the right victim group. Liberal progressive’s ‘compassion’ rests upon the degree to which it provides self-validation to the liberal progressive. That’s why there is zero concern among liberals about jobless blue collar white Americans.
* *
Check out this article (and you are right on your other points also, I just don’t have a corroborating post readily at hand).

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448850/liberal-elite-privilege-noblesse-oblige

…
Despite Rosenfeld’s efforts, however, her novel makes clear that the liberal hypocrisy it depicts is no foible but reveals a serious defect: a facile, often brazen combination of self-righteousness and self-advancement.
…
Speaking of Orwell, his observation that all leftist political parties are “at bottom a sham, because they make it their business to fight against something which they do not really wish to destroy,” holds up impressively after 75 years.
…
Similarly, diversity in education, from preschool to postgraduate, and the resulting holy war on privilege, requires denouncing but not renouncing. Despite its stated intent to subvert unjust hierarchies, multiculturalism facilitates rather than impedes careerism. A degree from a selective college, one racially integrated in a carefully curated way, does wonders for those getting on in the world. “Checking your privilege” never involves transferring to Jerkwater A&M, diverse in ways selective colleges never will be, and thereby surrendering one’s spot in the Ivy League so that it can be filled by a cashier’s or opioid addict’s kid.
…
It turns out that “social justice” amounts to noblesse oblige, simultaneously strengthening the obligations and social status of our meritocracy’s credentialed gentry. Literary scholar William Deresiewicz, a self-described democratic socialist, says that the rise of political correctness means that privilege laundering pervades the entire college experience, not just the admissions process. The ultimate purpose of political correctness, he contends, is to “flatter” the elite rather than dismantle it. In effect, socioeconomically advantaged students, professors, and administrators use political correctness to “alibi or erase their privilege,” to “tell themselves that they are . . . part of the solution to our social ills, not an integral component of the problem.” The social-justice warriors’ stridency belies, even to themselves, the fact that their aims are so limited.
* * *
I love the phrase “privilege laundering” —

Given that the GOP has initiated and supported very progressive policies in the past concerning medical care (among other things), I still don’t understand why the Democrats totally refused to allow them any input and “buy in” on Obamacare, which would have led to both a better bill (circumventing some obvious problems) and more support for it later.

I’ve heard several theories, including that (a) the D’s didn’t want anyone to notice this was their single payer stalking horse; and (2) they didn’t want the GOP to get any credit for the success of the law. Was there anything else, or are these enough to explain the closed process and midnight vote?

(I remember reading Bono’s comments about Bush, and thinking that at least there was one honest progressive on the planet).
(Bush’s ranch in Texas also had a better environmental footprint than Gore’s mansion. Just sayin’.)

What I expected from a Republican Congress is to pass the same ObamaCare repeal bill that they sent to Obama’s desk last year. Let Trump veto it, if he does. THEN begin the negotiations.

What they’ve done now is conceded the loss without even trying.

“American citizens have become accustomed to subsidized medical insurance as a right, just as Obamacare proponents expected them to and planned that they would.”

1) Have they? Progressives keep asserting this over and over, but from what I can see, it’s just noise. I understand that this is some kind of holy grail for progressives, but here in flyover country, ObamaCare is the most hated law since the Volstead Act.

2) It doesn’t matter what most people want. ObamaCare is going to crash — is crashing — spectacularly. California may want single-payer healthcare, but it will crash even more spectacularly. The laws of economics are relentless. If we can’t negotiate a sensible repeal, the best thing to do would be to get out of the way and let it crash, lest we be blamed for it. Maybe then Congress will be more sensible.

“I generally think more federalism is a good thing” Bill

“Agree with Bill. Federalism = Flexibility” TommyJay

Thomas Jefferson: “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”

Jefferson disagreed rather vehemently with Hamilton on this issue. It seems to me that the trick is to achieve a proper balance. If government is too weak, that nation falls to the invader. Too strong and it will strangle liberty. Anyone who thinks that the Federal government did NOT long ago surpass that point of balance is either willfully blind or effectively supports the death of liberty.

“No one seems to care about the people like her who have been so adversely affected.” J.J.

There are millions like your daughter J.J. Which begs the rhetorical question, why isn’t the GOP highlighting this issue? Democrats and their MSM propaganda machine are screaming “that millions are going to die!” and the GOP response is silence…

“The response from the affluent winners to the poor loser boiled down to “too bad.”” Mac

She doesn’t belong to the right victim group. Liberal progressive’s ‘compassion’ rests upon the degree to which it provides self-validation to the liberal progressive. That’s why there is zero concern among liberals about jobless blue collar white Americans.