How is it that a political party has become so hateful and perhaps insane that it is perfectly willing to threaten the lives of 10% of the entire population of the country solely because a hated Democratic President (who happened to be black) instituted a health care program for that country?
Read some of the reasons some of this party’s Senators offer for doing this:
- Pat Roberts (R-Kansas):
… [Graham-Cassidy] is the last stage out of Dodge City. I’m from Dodge City. So it’s the last stage out to do anything. Restoring decision-making back to the states is always a good idea, but this is not the best possible bill — this is the best bill possible under the circumstances.
If we do nothing, I think it has a tremendous impact on the 2018 elections. And whether or not Republicans still maintain control and we have the gavel.
- Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma
I mean it’s more efficient when it’s done from the states, and so they can do it with less money.
Are you confident, and how do you know those savings will be close to enough to protect everyone?
Well, nothing protects everyone.
- John Kennedy (R-Louisiana)
My position has always been that, number one, I think Obamacare has been a failure.
Number two: First chance I get to vote for repeal it, I’ll do it.
And number three: If it’s replacement, if replacement is better than Obamacare, I will vote for it.
What are the policies that make you think that?
I think it spends scarce resources in a more rational manner. It will control costs. I like the idea that it encourages states to innovate.
How does it do that? Any of those things?
Well, you need to read the bill.
- Richard Shelby (R-Alabama)
But I’ll tell you what: Our states — our 50 states — are very flexible, very innovative. Much more so than we are here. I think it will work, and it will be a big step toward federalism.
The bill would cut federal funding to states by 34 percent over the next —
But it wouldn’t cut Alabama, though.
Well, do you think the other states should deal with —
Well, you see some of our states, four of our states, are getting a disproportionate amount of money from health care now. You know which ones.
- Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Let me give you a political answer, and then I’ll give you a substance answer.
The political answer is that Republicans have promised for seven years that we were going to correct all the things that were wrong with Obamacare, and we failed the first eight months. This is the last attempt to do what we promised in the election.
The substance answer is that Obamacare starts with the principle that all knowledge about health care, and all decisions on health care, ought to rest in Washington, DC. The complete opposite of that is Graham-Cassidy, that Washington doesn’t know best and we’ll let each of the 50 states [decide what’s best].
Look at those answers. Roberts says it’s a bad bill but it has to be passed because if not Republicans might lose the 2018 midterms. Inhofe hand-waves to the theory that states always do better than the Federal government, and if they screw up and don’t help their people, well, too bad. Kennedy, same thing. Let the states do it. (For both Inhofe and Kennedy it’s more like make the states do it so we don’t have to.) Shelby is the most nakedly honest: Alabama doesn’t get hurt and those big blue states like New York and California do, so it’s a win. Grassley’s like Roberts: it’s purely political.
Screw all those people who’ll lose coverage. Let the states sort ’em out. Statesmanship this is not.