A different GOP President and Obamacare...

[TPIG]

If a different and more politically-competent Republican, such as Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, had been elected in 2016, would they have been able to successfully lead the charge on Obamacare repeal?
 
Would there have been more pressure on reluctant GOP senators to repeal if the Republican President was hovering in the mid 50s in job approval, or would they have still tanked the chances of repeal?

Given Trump's considerable unpopularity, I feel that certainly made it easier for those reluctant GOP senators to defy his wishes for repeal without causing a huge backlash.

Thoughts?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If a different and more politically-competent Republican, such as Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, had been elected in 2016, would they have been able to successfully lead the charge on Obamacare repeal?
 
Would there have been more pressure on reluctant GOP senators to repeal if the Republican President was hovering in the mid 50s in job approval, or would they have still tanked the chances of repeal?

Given Trump's considerable unpopularity, I feel that certainly made it easier for those reluctant GOP senators to defy his wishes for repeal without causing a huge backlash.

Thoughts?

The biggest problem facing repeal was that they spent 7 years spouting talking points without ever coming up with anything concrete.

The reason for that is obvious. Because there was no way people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would come to an agreement with anything that people like Murkowski, Collins, Kirk and other moderate Senators over that period could also support.

I don't think that a different Republican would have fared much better, because you still have to deal with the intransigence of the Freedom Caucus, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, and the reality facing GOP moderates that makes it impossible for them to vote to dump 16 million people off medicaid.

[TPIG]

If a different and more politically-competent Republican, such as Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, had been elected in 2016, would they have been able to successfully lead the charge on Obamacare repeal?
 
Would there have been more pressure on reluctant GOP senators to repeal if the Republican President was hovering in the mid 50s in job approval, or would they have still tanked the chances of repeal?

Given Trump's considerable unpopularity, I feel that certainly made it easier for those reluctant GOP senators to defy his wishes for repeal without causing a huge backlash.

Thoughts?

The biggest problem facing repeal was that they spent 7 years spouting talking points without ever coming up with anything concrete.

The reason for that is obvious. Because there was no way people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would come to an agreement with anything that people like Murkowski, Collins, Kirk and other moderate Senators over that period could also support.

I don't think that a different Republican would have fared much better, because you still have to deal with the intransigence of the Freedom Caucus, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, and the reality facing GOP moderates that makes it impossible for them to vote to dump 16 million people off medicaid.

But don't you think that if the Republican President was a lot more popular and effective at using the bully pulpit to rally national support for the bill, there would be much more intense pressure for those disagreements between GOP senators to be worked out?

[Don Vito Corleone]

It would have been less of a s***-show but at the end of the day, once large numbers of people are on it, you really can't repeal an entitlement (or cut it deeply) without facing severe political backlash (and that's if you're able to get it through congress), and I really don't think any potential Republican President would be opposed to Obamacare enough on an ideological ground to risk a Democratic wave in 2018.

[Yank2133]

If a different and more politically-competent Republican, such as Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, had been elected in 2016, would they have been able to successfully lead the charge on Obamacare repeal?
 
Would there have been more pressure on reluctant GOP senators to repeal if the Republican President was hovering in the mid 50s in job approval, or would they have still tanked the chances of repeal?

Given Trump's considerable unpopularity, I feel that certainly made it easier for those reluctant GOP senators to defy his wishes for repeal without causing a huge backlash.

Thoughts?

The biggest problem facing repeal was that they spent 7 years spouting talking points without ever coming up with anything concrete.

The reason for that is obvious. Because there was no way people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would come to an agreement with anything that people like Murkowski, Collins, Kirk and other moderate Senators over that period could also support.

I don't think that a different Republican would have fared much better, because you still have to deal with the intransigence of the Freedom Caucus, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, and the reality facing GOP moderates that makes it impossible for them to vote to dump 16 million people off medicaid.

But don't you think that if the Republican President was a lot more popular and effective at using the bully pulpit to rally national support for the bill, there would be much more intense pressure for those disagreements between GOP senators to be worked out?

No, because at the end of the day the details of the bill still sucked.

[pbrower2a]

Would they have the Senate?



1. the abolition of Obamacare
2. a flat income tax and even a national poll tax
3. a national right-to-work (for much less) law
4. abolition of the federal minimum wage and hour law
5. privatization of Social Security
6. privatization of the Interstate Highway system
7. the Pledge of Allegiance amended to include "free enterprise" among objects of loyalty
8. an abortion ban

all in the name of economic growth.

We probably also get an economic meltdown as severe as the one that began in September 1929 because the people who do the real work are broke. We also get the largest Communist Party outside of China, Vietnam, Russia, and India.  

Of course, we no longer have a problem with  immigration. Emigration, yes. Drug use falls because nobody can afford to buy drugs anymore. 

[uti2]

If a different and more politically-competent Republican, such as Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, had been elected in 2016, would they have been able to successfully lead the charge on Obamacare repeal?
 
Would there have been more pressure on reluctant GOP senators to repeal if the Republican President was hovering in the mid 50s in job approval, or would they have still tanked the chances of repeal?

Given Trump's considerable unpopularity, I feel that certainly made it easier for those reluctant GOP senators to defy his wishes for repeal without causing a huge backlash.

Thoughts?

The biggest problem facing repeal was that they spent 7 years spouting talking points without ever coming up with anything concrete.

The reason for that is obvious. Because there was no way people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would come to an agreement with anything that people like Murkowski, Collins, Kirk and other moderate Senators over that period could also support.

I don't think that a different Republican would have fared much better, because you still have to deal with the intransigence of the Freedom Caucus, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, and the reality facing GOP moderates that makes it impossible for them to vote to dump 16 million people off medicaid.

But don't you think that if the Republican President was a lot more popular and effective at using the bully pulpit to rally national support for the bill, there would be much more intense pressure for those disagreements between GOP senators to be worked out?

No, because at the end of the day the details of the bill still sucked.

For all the hype about Reagan, people need to remember that Reagan was only able to his agenda items passed because he had democrats supporting his proposals. E.G., the Tax Reform Act of 1986
was introduced in the form of bills written by Democrats.

In modern times, Dems are unanimously in favor of Obamacare at the bare minimum and are being urged to go more left, if anything.

[Tekken_Guy]

I agree that the anti-Trump backlash has been responsible for shifting attitudes on Obamacare. Left leaning people are seeing everything the Republicans do in a more negative light because of Trump.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Remember that John McCain didn't even vote for Trump in the GE. It's not impossible that a president he had actually voted for would have been able to persuade him to vote for the Skinny Repeal bill, and there's your 50th vote for that. It's an open question as to whether Skinny Repeal would have passed the house though.

Of course, this is assuming that the senate results stay the same. A Kasich type Candidate might have been able to pull Ayotte and/or Heck across the line, and a 53-47 or 54-46 republican majority would at least have been able to pass something like Graham-Cassidy, if not a BCRA-esque bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If a different and more politically-competent Republican, such as Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, had been elected in 2016, would they have been able to successfully lead the charge on Obamacare repeal?
 
Would there have been more pressure on reluctant GOP senators to repeal if the Republican President was hovering in the mid 50s in job approval, or would they have still tanked the chances of repeal?

Given Trump's considerable unpopularity, I feel that certainly made it easier for those reluctant GOP senators to defy his wishes for repeal without causing a huge backlash.

Thoughts?

The biggest problem facing repeal was that they spent 7 years spouting talking points without ever coming up with anything concrete.

The reason for that is obvious. Because there was no way people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would come to an agreement with anything that people like Murkowski, Collins, Kirk and other moderate Senators over that period could also support.

I don't think that a different Republican would have fared much better, because you still have to deal with the intransigence of the Freedom Caucus, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, and the reality facing GOP moderates that makes it impossible for them to vote to dump 16 million people off medicaid.

But don't you think that if the Republican President was a lot more popular and effective at using the bully pulpit to rally national support for the bill, there would be much more intense pressure for those disagreements between GOP senators to be worked out?

The other problem is that Republicans latched onto the "savings" (from repealing Obamacare) as the means to make the tax cuts look deficit neutral.

Most of the money in the Obamacare is in the Medicaid expansion and the subsidies. While premiums have indeed skyrocketed, no market based plan is going to make it possible for lower middle poor people to afford to buy insurance, at least not on its own. And denying access to care now, is basically saving money today at the cost of 10 times as much when they eventually end up on Medicare, as well as at the cost of adding to everyone else's premiums as hospitals have to spread the cost of uncovered care to everyone else.

So between 1) Medicare and 2) Unfunded Hospital Vists, we basically already have had national healthcare by the back door for decades, but administered in the dumbest and most expensive way possible, with horrible outcomes.

You have to make a choice as to how you want to cut costs. You can do so by reforming the system and pushing towards new developments, technology and innovation or through denied care. The extremists on both the left and the right agree (horseshoe theory at work) and opt for denied care, without ever acknowledging it and by taking completing different routes to get there.

What Republicans and what these geniuses should come to understand, is what Romney understood in 2004. That unfunded care is crippling the system and you to have to first acknowledge that it is a problem and acknowledge that you aren't going to let people die in the street. Once you have done that, you can then apply market principles within the construct of still helping those who need it, as opposed to having a top down gov't imposed entitlement. So you are still adhering to conservatism and conservative principles.

So for instance take the block grants. If you were able to to do that at a funding level that would give confidence to people that the piggy bank isn't being raided to fund other things on a short term basis, you could for instance abolish medicaid outright, provide everyone a sliding scale subsidy based on age and income or do block grants to the states, remove as many of the mandates as possible and even possibly let the states run the exchanges or give them flexibility to structure their market like Arkansas was allowed to but on a much broader basis.

You could have a very "New Federalist" and very conservative outcome in terms of regulations, in terms of state control and yes in terms of the long-term budget outlook by first acknowledging certain people need help. A point from which many Democrats like Manchin, Heitkamp, etc would be more the happy to hop on board with such a proposal.

[Kingpoleon]

I think Kasich could pass Cassidy-Collins or Wyden-Bennett.