The just-concluded Values Voter Summit in Washington D.C. was punctuated by standing ovations. Among them: a few for the President, who spoke decisively but without pugnacity; for Bannon and Gorka, the red-meat guys; for Alveda King, bringing the crowd to its feet to join her in song.

And then there was the one for Steve Scalise.

Months after a gunman’s savage and politically-motivated attack left him near death, Congressman Scalise made his way to the Values Voter podium last Friday to the sound of appreciative cheers. He moved with the aid of crutches, the only visible sign of his injuries. Once at the podium, he spoke in the strong and steady voice of a man eager to get to work.

As House Majority Whip, he has the unenviable task of herding the GOP cats when it’s time for votes on the House floor. HIs position is probably what earned him an invitation to speak at Values Voter. He understands first things first, though. Before he spoke about policy, he spoke about gratitude.

After he was shot, while he was in the hospital, he and his family received countless prayers and good wishes, including messages from people who are not in political harmony with him. That touched him deeply. He understood that the messages were not merely routine.

“You knew that this was an attack on the values of our country….I cannot thank you enough for those prayers and that love.” This from a man who spent three and a half months in a hospital.

He was candid in his speech about the tough times past and to come, as he and his family face long-term challenges arising from his injuries. His candor made his enthusiastic demeanor all the more meaningful. “We have a great and mighty God,” he declared, “and I am a living example of the miracles he can produce.”

Then, and only then, he addressed specific policy initiatives. He said, “I came back with an even sharper focus” on family, friends and America.

He Considers the Pain-Capable Act a victory. That’s the measure to restrict abortions after 20 weeks, the point in pregnancy when science indicates that unborn children can feel pain. Passage of the measure was a near thing. “As Majority Whip, I had to put that coalition together. But we did.” Now, the bill is in the Senate, its prospects uncertain in view of the particular batch of Republicans now serving. “Tell your Senators to pass it,” Scales urged. The President “wants to sign this bill into law.”

The bill includes cutting federal funding to the nations’s largest abortion provider. That gives me pause, as voter who questioned (and still questions) the depth of the President’s roots on the life issues. Scalise has no doubts. “He wants to sign this.”

He’s determined to support the President’s tax reform proposals. I don’t think I’ve heard anyone give a snappier summary and smile while doing it: reduce personal rates; reduce business rates to encourage families to bring jobs back to this country; repeal the death tax, double the child tax credit (now there’s a pro-life initiative).

He did not dwell on the unhappy fate thus far of efforts to repeal Obamacare, beyond saying “let’s not give up fights. President Trump wants these on his desk.”

All this was said in a tone that most other speakers at Values Voters didn’t approach. He was passionate and determined without breathing fire. He didn’t sound as though we were all under siege; in fact he radiated hope, both political and personal.

HIs final words to the crowd, coming after all he has experienced these past months, rang with truth that brought the audience to its feet yet again: “It’s great to be alive.”

Ellen is a New Hampshire writer and pro-life activist. Read more by and about her at ellenkolb.com.

Support independent journalism by making a donation to Da Tech Guy blog. Thank you!

Local ElectionsA quick reminder to all of those in the MSM, on the left, piling on Trump on twitter etc and declaring victory like this fool:

Thanks to you, the NFL and the media every Democrat running in a red state, especially those vulnerable Democrat senators, now gets to answer this question during election 2018.

“Do you support or oppose professional sports players kneeling for the national anthem in protest?”

I’m sure Manchin & McCaskill et/all and all the dem class of 2018 are dying to answer that question.

If they answer “support” in the primary it will doom them in the general

If they answer “oppose” it will certainly draw a primary challenge from the left that will either be too far left to win or force them to position even farther left to ensure primary voters still show.

Either way Trump wins.

Thanks NFL & Dems, because of you Trump will have to extra GOP votes to repeal Obamacare after 2018 and can tell McCain Collins et/al to pound sand.


If you like what you’ve seen here and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



(or you can buy one here)

This tweet via Instapundit is the understatement of the century:

The sudden about face of the GOP on this is yet another betrayal of their base that has the potential to blow everything wide open and put every single GOP member who votes on a collision course with tea party activists who will be running away from him as fast as their legs can carry them.

However there is a simple but I have a simple solution to this problem.

Simply attach the Obamacare repeal law to any DACA bill.

Suddenly instead of DACA becoming a massive betrayal of the GOP voter, it becomes the means to finally keep their promise to the American people.

Personally I’d attach defunding Planned Parenthood as well but while it’s a big issue for me I’m not greedy I’ll settle for the Obamacare repeal. I’d even allow a line to keep the coverage for children up to age 25 to make things easier for people transitioning off of it.

If I was the freedom caucus or Ted Cruz or any other strong conservative I would make including the Obamacare repeal a sine non qua of even letting such a bill reach the floor. Hell If I’m Trump I’d make the passage of the failed Obamacare repeal bill the minimum price for even considering signing any DACA law.

It’s very clear the GOP won’t keep their promises to their voters without an incentive, let’s give them one.


My own American success story depends on the willingness of you dear reader to like what you see here and support it, so if you like what you’ve seen here and want to support independent journalism please consider hitting DaTipJar to help me secure a weekly paycheck.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



Remember your subscription pay our Magnificent Seven writers each month

RH (NG36B) (Saturday Afternoons):
Zilla of the Resistance (Friday Evenings):
Jerry Wilson (Thursday Evenings)
JD Rucker (Thursday afternoons and Sunday Evenings)
Fausta Wertz (Wednesday and Friday Afternoons)
Juliette Akinyi Ochineg (Baldilocks) (Tuesday and Saturday evenings):
Chris Harper (Tuesday afternoons):
Pat Austin: (Monday Afternoons)
John (Marathon Pundit) Rubbery: (Sunday Afternoons):

Your subscriptions and tip jar hits pay them each month

And Don’t miss our Part Time Riders either
Ellen Kolb (1st & 4th Wednesday Afternoons each month):
Jon Fournier: (3rd Wednesday Afternoon each month)
Michigan Mick: (1st & 3rd Monday Evenings each month)
Tech Knight (2nd Wednesday Each Month)

Don Surber notes a stark contrast in how government healthcare values different lives by contrasting Charlie Card and John McCain.

While Congress voted to give Charlie Gard a meaningless U.S. residency, they just voted to keep a system that will segue into the National Health Service, which is the British government’s way of deciding who lives and who dies.

To recap, the taxpayers just moved heaven on Earth to fund minor eye surgery/brain surgery/cranial transplant for John McCain, then spared no expense to fly him back to Washington so that Obamacare can live until it devolves into the National Health Service.

Little Charlie’s parents desires could not Trump the wishes of the Bureaucracy not even one final request:

CHARLIE GARD’S parents say they have been denied their wish to be allowed to take him home to die.

Chris Gard and Connie Yates, who said Great Ormond Street Hospital had turned down the request, also claimed they were being rushed into saying goodbye to their gravely ill baby.

They say the life-support machine sustaining the ten-month-old will be switched off today — after doctors said earlier this week there was no hurry.

Oh there was hurry, every day Charlie lived was a day people say NHS’ and it’s proposed US cousin Obamacare for what it is.

It’s a far cry from the days when Catholic Religious Orders founded everywhere (Why do you think so many are called St. This or St. That?) As it is the from the actual reason why governments got into the healthcare business in the first place:

Infectious disease was the raison d’etre for the field of public health. While winning that battle did present some sacrifice of personal liberty — not just vaccinations, but also bureaucrats deciding how your food had to be cooked and your water piped in and your waste disposed of and your abode ventilated — the immense collective gains in health and lifespan were well worth it. Taken together these public health measures were responsible for more improvement in human health than anything else human beings have ever done. No, I’m not talking about the vast government insurance schemes now found in every rich country, nor even antibiotics, just homely old measures like vaccines and water treatment.

But that brings us back to the sad case of Charlie Gard, because the definition of public health has changed quite a lot since its inception.

It funny because we haven’t heard any democrats making fun of Sarah Palin for her “Death Panels” remarks since the Charlie Card case became public, but then again we haven’t, as Instapundit noted heard much from Democrats about the case at all

“The silence from US Democrats on Charlie Gard will never stop being chilling,” Erielle Davidson of the Hoover Institute tweeted yesterday. “Reason Dems weren’t asked about Charlie Gard is because every single journalist out there knows how bad their answer is,” Stephen Miller adds.

Here is the bottom line.  Does anyone doubt for one moment that if Charlie Card had been the son of an MP or a member of the British Government or nobility that he would have been in the US for experimental treatment months ago?  Contrariwise would John McCain have gotten the VIP treatment he did if he was the grandfather of the Cards and not a six term senator whose votes determine where billions of dollars are spent?


The Layoff bleg continues. with 9 days to go we’re $1840 away from the goal to make August dedicated to the blog, the new radio show (shows?) and events.

This blog is a venture in capitalism that depends primarily on readers. You can help finance this by picking up my new book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) prayer is now available at Amazon

A portion of every sale will go to WQPH 89.3 Catholic Radio) or show your approval by Hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

and if you really want to help for the long term consider subscribing and get my book as a premium


Choose a Subscription level



And as I’ve said before if you can’t spare the cash we will be happy to accept your prayers.

Who here trusts the GOP?” Not a single hand went up, but people over and over promised me that if the GOP spent like the democrats they would be back to throw them out too. No wonder the GOP is scared of the tea party.

What I asked at the Tea Party Sept 25th 2010

At CPAC 2017 I interviewed a lot of people about what they wanted to see and there were two things that were desired overall that I highlighted in my final post

The only thing that matters in the long run is this: Is Donald Trump going to deliver on these big issues (Obamacare and the Wall) that he highlighted during the campaign?

If this administration can’t answer yes, he is in danger of losing these folks and risks a primary, but if Donald Trump, in the end keeps his eyes on this prize, then these grass room activists are going to be with him when he needs them no matter what anyone in the media says.

As long as President Trump understand this fact, he’s going to do fine, and I have the distinct feeling that he does.

And so what did the GOP senate with a chance to pass the repeal of Obamacare do?

Broken Promise: GOP-Run Senate Votes Down Clean Repeal Of ObamaCare, 45/54

Allahpundit has it pegged:

The demise of the 7-year promise to repeal Obamacare is just the latest twist of the knife that Republicans have delivered to advocates of limited government. It’s a reminder that for all the shouting, the United States only really has one party: the party of big government. Democrats expand government when they’re in power, and Republicans cry foul when they’re in the opposition. But when Republicans gain power, they either expand government in their own way (as President Bush did with the Medicare prescription drug bill and No Child Left Behind federal education power grab) or merely preserve Democrats’ gains until Democrats can regain enough power to expand government some more.

It looks very much like the Tea Party was quite correct to distrust these dishonest and dishonorable leeches.

I think the time has come to start to start putting Mike Rogers’ of Granite Grok plan into effect:

The time to take over the GOP (state by state) or set up a real third party (let’s call it the conservative party, like NY state), is NOW, after a historic election that demonstrated the ineptness of the “Wizards of Smart”.

The time NOT to talk about and vote for a third part candidate, or stay home and pout about rules that work against you is DURING an historic election, when one of the evils is immeasurably worse than the guy you can’t quite warm to.

If we successfully set up a conservative party, and win some seats, we can choose to align with Republicans or even endorse their candidate as a tactical matter on a vote by vote basis.

I think the first step is to run pro-repeal candidates as primary opponents to sitting GOP senators and congressmen and if they are defeated or rejected by the GOP then the very moment that the 2018 midterms are done to start setting up those conservative parties.

Until the GOP sees consequences for this betrayal it will not change.

One irony, it will be the GOP party but not Donald Trump who will suffer for this betrayal, and deservedly so.


This blog is a venture in capitalism that depends primarily on readers. You can help finance this by picking up my new book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) prayer is now available at Amazon

A portion of every sale will go to WQPH 89.3 Catholic Radio) or show your approval by Hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

and if you really want to help for the long term consider subscribing and get my book as a premium


Choose a Subscription level



And as I’ve said before if you can’t spare the cash we will be happy to accept your prayers.

Uncertainties are never good for the insurance industry. The current debate surrounding the Affordable Care Act and the new American Health Care Act is creating uncertainties that may soon jeopardize the whole healthcare industry. The Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois is committed to a return to the Obamacare exchange next year, but the same can’t be said for other insurers.

This state of limbo is causing more problems than anticipated. In fact, health care uncertainties are starting to hurt millions of Americans, even before the new AHCA is signed.

Obamacare in Trouble.

The Affordable Care Act is clearly in trouble. The series of uncertainties that have been covering ACA now leave many counties with no health plans to sell in 2018. Insurance companies are pulling out of these counties, citing the uncertainty around the Republicans’ health care bill and the future of healthcare law in general as the reasons for the move.

Republicans’ efforts to drive Obamacare into collapse is becoming increasingly successful. Unfortunately, it is also causing millions of Americans to lose access to affordable health insurance in just a few months. This is a situation no one can afford to face, especially without a new health care bill to replace the ACA.

The latest statistics by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation reveal 47 counties with zero health insurance plan to sell. While Blue Cross and Blue Shield Illinois is committed to making a return next year, companies like Anthem and Blue Cross Blue Shield Kansas City are exiting their respective markets. Anthem is leaving Ohio with one fewer option, while Blue Cross Blue Shield Kansas City has pulled out already.

The Political Incentives

It is easy to see why Republicans don’t want to fix the problems with ACA. Republicans and the Health and Human Services Department of this administration are using the failing health insurance market as an excuse to repeal Obamacare. The approach is a smart one, at least from a political standpoint.

Without a clear replacement for Obamacare, however, this will only lead to more problems. The 23 million Americans that will lose health care under the House version of AHCA may even lose their healthcare before the new healthcare bill passes the Senate.

A Push for More Certainty

What the Trump administration and Congress need to do is create a climate of certainty. The health law and policy department of Hofstra Law recently compiled studies that suggest plugging the ACA while formulating a better, stronger AHCA are the things to do to reverse the damages being done today. Students who are studying for their health law degree are using the current healthcare debate as the perfect case study.

It is also unfortunate to note that such an ideal situation may never be implemented. As mentioned before, the political incentive of a failing Obamacare is too good for the Republicans to miss. We can only wait and see as Republicans try to formulate a better AHCA and get it passed as quickly as possible, regardless of the consequences that come with the new healthcare bill.

Following a good showing on his first overseas trip, President Trump returned to the states and called for something that has some on the right scratching their heads. He’s wanting more dollars put towards health care.

One of the things that got the AHCA passed in the House was the decrease in spending on health care. The conservative Freedom Caucus pushed for several additions before voting for it, including the ability for states to opt-out of some of the more liberal points such as pre-existing conditions. However, the reason some gave for finally backing the bill is that it reduces overall spending on health care. What is the President asking for now?

Regardless of whether this was just a Tweet that can be disregarded as rhetoric in 140-characters-or-less or if its a sign that he really wants more money put into health care, the overarching theme is the same. Many in the GOP (and pretty much every Democrat), including the President, are missing the fundamental point that health care can only truly be fixed if the federal government systematically removes itself from the equation.

Obamacare isn’t failing because of subtle details or nuances. It’s failing because the concept behind government-mandated health care is fatally flawed. The differences between the ACA and the AHCA are so small that their cores are essentially the same. Both insert DC into an area where it simply doesn’t belong. By doing so, either will fail whether it has the letter (R) or (D) on its stamp of approval.

We don’t need more money plugged into health care. We need the massive amounts of money that are already pumped into health care focused by a consumer-driven free market. Businesses operate based upon the demands of three forces: government, consumers, and market conditions. Today, government has primacy in the equation by forcing the other two factors to be secondary. Consumers have very little impact in the equation because of mandates in both Obamacare and the current Trumpcare replacement being worked on in the Senate. As for market conditions, they are artificial because of government intervention. They will continue to be artificial if Obamacare is repealed and replaced with a variation of the AHCA.

Nearly everyone on Capitol Hill fears a full repeal for the same basic reason. They know that if it’s done right, it will work in the long term. The Democrats don’t want that because it exposes the long-con they’ve been working in DC for decades, the concept that more government is better. The Republicans don’t want that because they fear it won’t work quickly enough for them to retain power in the midterm elections. The AHCA isn’t designed to fix health care. It’s designed to pretend to fix it while mitigating fallout until election day.

As I stated in a different post:

If we systematically repeal Obamacare, we can have privatized health care once again. A replacement plan that tries to predict what will happen is foolish. Instead, we should repeal, then monitor and analyze the market. Over time, we’ll find the holes that need to be plugged. States, charities, and other organizations can fill most of these holes. Whatever is left, if anything, can fall to the federal government. This way, DC becomes the final safety net instead of being the first line of defense. That’s the way it should be in health care and a plethora of other areas.

The last thing this nation needs is more dollars redirected into health care. Those of us watching our premiums rise despite higher deductibles and worse coverage (which is a vast majority) know that there’s already “more dollars” in health care. It needs to be allocated properly through competition and the push for innovation. We can’t have the best health care in the world as the President hopes unless DC is willing to remove itself from the equation. Until then, the math will continue to fail miserably.

My local Sunday paper had an above-the-fold headline the other day: “Obamacare rate could see big spike in NH next year.” This refers only to my state, where an unidentified government official leaked to the press a document projecting an average Obamacare-exchange premium rate increase of 44%.

The headline could easily have said “another spike.” Obamacare-linked price hikes are old news. Still, I’m glad this wound up on the front page. That indicates that at least one assignment editor doesn’t take big increases for granted.

The story said that the document was stamped Confidential and Draft Only and Not for Distribution. I wish I knew who leaked it so I could deliver my personal thanks. I don’t like being surprised during enrollment season. The principal factor in the projected increase, according to the news report (I haven’t read the actual document), is Medicaid expansion. Without that, the projected increase is closer to 17%.

I don’t want my neighbors covered by Medicaid expansion to get sicker or forgo mental health care or substance abuse treatment. What irks me is that anyone in government or media could be surprised or distressed that expansion actually leads to cost increases and distortions in how health care is provided.

I hope no one’s surprised when the resulting premium increases for my non-Medicaid neighbors leads to changes in their behavior, such as dropping insurance altogether.

Last year’s price spike finally pushed me over the edge and out of the market. In the government’s view, I am uninsured, having opted for a healthshare program that Obamacare benignly tolerates. My husband has retained a conventional policy, and we’re keeping records to see how our costs compare over time.

Ideal? No. My costs are pretty much under my control, right up to the time I’m badly injured or develop a serious medical condition. I would then be at the mercy of my fellow sharers and of the bean-counters in my healthcare providers’ offices. Further, I am waiting uneasily for the Obamacare fans to amend the law so that healthshare programs are no longer penalty-free. Frankly, I think that kind of amendment is likely to come much sooner than any Republican health-insurance reform.

Medicaid is permanently expanded. I believe that. So will there be any health insurance “fixes” this year that would head off a 44% average increase in premiums on my state’s exchange next year? I don’t see how, no matter who’s in the White House. I’m pessimistic about the financial aspect of government health insurance because I’ve seen over the past five years that elected officials can’t even get the little things right.

By “little,” I don’t mean unimportant. I’m thinking of Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate. That’s the government policy that treats being a woman as a pre-existing condition by calling women’s contraceptives “preventive” care. Business owners who offer health insurance to employees, and who have moral objections to coerced involvement in their employees’ birth control decisions, have had to go to court to escape the mandate.

President Trump’s recent religious-liberty order was tightly limited and it did not undo the mandate. The Little Sisters of the Poor will benefit from his order, because he’s taken a personal interest in their case. Dozens of other mandate challengers are still making their way through the courts, with only these words from the President’s order to comfort them along the way: [cabinet departments] “shall consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate.”

In five years, regardless of the party in power, Congress has failed to repeal the mandate. A Republican president has managed only to tell his people to “consider issuing amended regulations.” The Supreme Court has had the chance to throw out the mandate as a religious liberty violation, and it has not done so.

I can’t trust them to fix even one small but critical aspect of health care policy. I sure can’t trust them to fix the whole thing. Bring on the spikes.

Ellen Kolb blogs about New Hampshire life-issue policy at Leaven for the Loaf and looks farther afield in ellenkolb.com

The fist bumps coming from the GOP after passing the American Health Care Act in the House were plentiful. Republicans around the country were giving each other high-fives for having finally made the first real steps towards repealing Obamacare. Here’s the problem. We haven’t seen the beginning of the repeal of Obamacare. We’ve seen the seeds of Trumpcare being planted. Perhaps the better name for it would be “Obamacarelite.”

This a repeal in name only. Congressman Justin Amash revealed the truth about the AHCA in a Facebook post yesterday (emphases are mine):

This is not the bill we promised the American people. For the past seven years, Republicans have run for Congress on a commitment to repeal Obamacare. But it is increasingly clear that a bill to repeal Obamacare will not come to the floor in this Congress or in the foreseeable future.

When Republican leaders first unveiled the American Health Care Act, a Democratic friend and colleague joked to me that the bill wasn’t a new health care proposal; it was plagiarism. He was right.

The AHCA repeals fewer than 10 percent of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act. It is an amendment to the ACA that deliberately maintains Obamacare’s framework. It reformulates but keeps tax credits to subsidize premiums. Instead of an individual mandate to purchase insurance, it mandates a premium surcharge of 30 percent for one year following a lapse of coverage. And the bill continues to preserve coverage for dependents up to age 26 and people with pre-existing conditions.

I want to emphasize that last point. The bill does not change the ACA’s federal requirements on guaranteed issue (prohibition on policy denial), essential health benefits (minimum coverage), or community rating (prohibition on pricing based on health status). In short, Obamacare’s pre-existing conditions provisions are retained.

The latest version of the AHCA does allow any state to seek a waiver from certain insurance mandates, but such waivers are limited in scope. Guaranteed issue cannot be waived. Nobody can be treated differently based on gender. And any person who has continuous coverage—no lapse for more than 62 days—cannot be charged more regardless of health status.

Consider what this means: Even in a state that waives as much as possible, a person with a pre-existing condition cannot be prevented from purchasing insurance at the same rate as a healthy person. The only requirement is that the person with the pre-existing condition get coverage—any insurer, any plan—within 62 days of losing any prior coverage.

If a person chooses not to get coverage within 62 days, then that person can be charged more (or less) based on health status for up to one year, but only (1) in lieu of the 30 percent penalty (see above), (2) if the person lives in a state that has established a program to assist individuals with pre-existing conditions, and (3) if that state has sought and obtained the relevant waiver. Here in Michigan, our Republican governor has already stated he won’t seek such a waiver, according to reports.

So why are both parties exaggerating the effects of this bill? For President Trump and congressional Republicans, the reason is obvious: They have long vowed to repeal (and replace) Obamacare, and their base expects them to get it done. For congressional Democrats, it’s an opportunity to scare and energize their base in anticipation of 2018. Neither side wants to present the AHCA for what it is—a more limited proposal to rework and reframe parts of the ACA, for better or for worse.

In March, when this bill was originally scheduled to come to the floor, it was certainly “for worse.” The previous version provided few clear advantages over the ACA, yet it haphazardly added provisions to modify essential health benefits without modifying community rating—placing the sickest and most vulnerable at greater risk.

Over the last month, several small but important changes were made to the bill. The current version abandons that fatally flawed approach to essential health benefits (though the new approach includes new flaws), incorporates an invisible risk sharing program, and permits limited state waivers. These changes may slightly bring down (or at least slow down the increase in) premiums for people who have seen rates go up. Even so, the AHCA becomes only marginally better than the ACA.

Many have questioned the process that led up to the vote on May 4. I have publicly expressed my disgust with it. The House again operated in top-down fashion rather than as a deliberative body that respects the diversity of its membership. But it’s important to acknowledge that the bulk of this bill (123 pages) was released on March 6. Only about 15 pages were added after late March. Members of Congress were given sufficient time to read and understand the entire bill.

While an earlier version of the AHCA included a CBO score, the types of changes made to the AHCA in more recent stages render an updated score highly speculative and practically meaningless. For that score to be useful, the Congressional Budget Office would have to effectively predict which states will seek waivers, which waivers they will seek, and when they will seek them. This complex analysis of the political processes and choices of every state is beyond anyone’s capability. I weighed the lack of an updated score accordingly.

When deciding whether to support a bill, I ask myself whether the bill improves upon existing law, not whether I would advocate for the policy or program if I were starting with a blank slate. In other words, the proper analysis is not whether it makes the law good but rather whether it makes the law better. In this case, I felt comfortable advancing the bill to the Senate as a marginal improvement to the ACA. The House has voted more than 30 times to amend (not just repeal) Obamacare since I’ve been in Congress, and I have supported much of that legislation, too, on the principle of incrementalism. If it advances liberty even a little (on net), then I’m a yes.

Nonetheless, the ACA will continue to drive up the cost of health insurance—while bolstering the largest insurance companies—and the modifications contained in the AHCA cannot save it. Many of the AHCA’s provisions are poorly conceived or improperly implemented. At best, it will make Obamacare less bad.

The Framers of the Constitution understood that federalism—the division of powers between the national and state governments—would maximize the happiness of Americans. As long as Washington dictates health insurance policy to the entire country, there will be massive tension and displeasure with the system. I’ve always said, and I will continue to say, we need to start over: Fully repeal Obamacare, let the people of each state choose their own approach, and work together in a nonpartisan manner.

The Congressman is correct when he says that it’s his duty to decide whether or not a bill is an improvement on existing law. However, one should also consider whether it’s possible for the law to be dramatically improved with more effort put towards bigger or smaller changes. In this case, I believe Amash would have voted against the bill if he believed there was a full repeal possible. He and the Freedom Caucus weighed the possibilities and decided that this was the best they were going to get. It was right move from a legislative perspective, but it also reinvigorates the necessity for the Federalist Party to rise.

It’s a shame that small-government-minded representatives are forced to pick between the lesser of two evils. Millions of voters can relate to this circumstance as we’re often faced with picking between Mr. Big Gov or his opponent, Mrs. Bigger Gov. As long as the two-party system holds primacy over all potential challengers, we will always be faced with this obtuse binary choice. The time for change is now.

Norman: This is largely as I predicted except the Silly Party won, this was mainly due to the number of votes cast.

Monty Python’s Flying Circus, Election Night Special 1969

Less that 24 hours after the GOP house passed it’s version of Obamacare repeal then ending their not so splende inaction a professional prognosticator forecast doom and gloom for house GOP members for doing so.

Republicans’ 217-213 passage of the American Health Care Act on Thursday guarantees Democrats will have at least one major on-the-record vote to exploit in the next elections. Although it’s the first of potentially many explosive votes, House Republicans’ willingness to spend political capital on a proposal that garnered the support of just 17 percent of the public in a March Quinnipiac poll is consistent with past scenarios that have generated a midterm wave.

Not only did dozens of Republicans in marginal districts just hitch their names to an unpopular piece of legislation, Democrats just received another valuable candidate recruitment tool. In fact, Democrats aren’t so much recruiting candidates as they are overwhelmed by a deluge of eager newcomers, including doctors and veterans in traditionally red seats who have no political record for the GOP to attack – almost a mirror image of 2010

Their conclusion (with a caviet):

In light of the vote, we are shifting our ratings in 20 districts, all reflecting enhanced opportunities for Democrats. The major caveat is that 18 months is an eternity in politics and that as always, we will continue to adjust our outlook as events unfold and the landscape develops.

Naturally the MSM jumped all over this

and Cook was not alone among the prognosticators, Nate Silver joined em:

There could easily be an overall partisan swing of 5 to 10 percentage points against Republicans, therefore. It’s not quite clear how this partisan swing would interact with the AHCA penalty — whether you’d add them together or whether that’s double-counting — but it should be enough to make a lot of Republican incumbents nervous. There are 58 Republicans who won by less than 20 points in 20162 and who voted for the AHCA.

Naturally the MSM jumped

A top nonpartisan election analyst says Thursday’s House GOP vote to repeal and replace ObamaCare hurts the reelection chances of a number of House Republicans next year.

The Cook Political Report on Friday shifted its forecast for 20 GOP-incumbent or open districts to categories less favorable for Republicans.

and Jumped hard into the “GOP DOOM” meme

The Atlantic: What the GOP’s Health-Care Gamble Means for 2018

Vox: “I’ve never seen anything like this”: progressives see huge donation spike after AHCA vote

NYT: What Democrats’ Losses in 2010 Can Tell Us About G.O.P.’s Chances in 2018

Talking Points Memo: Hey Hey Goodbye

Politico: Red-state Dems pounce on Obamacare repeal bill

Mother Jones: These 24 Republicans Were Already Vulnerable—and Now They Just Voted to Repeal Obamacare

and of course the Washington Post: Did Republicans just wave bye-bye to their House majority?

It’s almost as if there was a single coordinated script that they all were reading from.

Now there are likely those who might get worried about these predictions and the media’s rush to support and amplify them, but before you do let me show you a blast from Cook’s past namely Nov 7th 2016:

And Nate Silver on Election day with a couple of state highlights thrown in

And then ask the question: Do they really think the American people to fall for this grift again? Or are they only expecting the pols in DC and their foolish consultants to do so?


All of this is paid for by you. If you think this site and our writers are worthwhile goal consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.