The Republicans Aren't Even Pretending This Is About Healthcare Anymore

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

21 September 17

They're too tired to lie.

ver the past few days, I have had to abandon one of my most deeply held political beliefs: that the reservoir of deceit, mutilated history, mutant arguments, threadbare metaphors, and pure unadulterated Grade-A American bullshit that conservatives can call upon in pursuit of their political goals is fathomless. Over the past few days, as all hands attempted to sell to the country and to their colleagues the planet-sized lemon that is the so-called Cassidy-Graham healthcare plan, I noticed that these folks had become so exhausted by the effort that they simply don’t have the energy even to lie well about it any more. The mask has dropped.

What we are hearing now from a number of people is the open admission that the goal of the Republican Party, a death-cult based on human suffering, is to strip healthcare from those people who do not vote for them, and from people the conservative mind has adjudged are unworthy of its benefits. Many of these arguments are toweringly stupid, as we shall see. But at least it’s out in the open now.

Take, for example, Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming. He went on TV with Katy Tur on Tuesday and let his personal kitty go screeching out of the burlap.

TUR: There are not essential health care benefits in this bill.

BARRASSO: And there shouldn’t be.

Or take, for example, Stephen Moore, one of the true nuisances in our political life, and a guy so dedicated to demonstrably bad economic theory that he one day likely will be buried in Arthur Laffer’s backyard, who is determined not to understand the simple facts of how any kind of insurance works. From CNN:

MOORE: Well, what you are going to have to do is have some kind of special fund so that people with pre-existing conditions are protected against price increases. But on the other hand, you don't want -- what happened in Obamacare, the disaster of Obamacare, is they put people with pre-existing conditions in the insurance pool with everyone else and that's what led to the big increases in costs. And that's why so many people who are healthy are basically saying, "Look, I don't want Obamacare. I'll pay the penalty. I can't afford the high costs of Obamacare because I'm relatively healthy and I don't want to pay for somebody who has got high health care costs." People want insurance for their own families, not for other people's families.

Or take, for example, the sudden enthusiasm of conservative Republicans for a kind of redistribution of health, as well as wealth. This comes from our old pal, Lindsey Graham, who is suddenly a healthcare savant because Bernie Sanders scared Graham’s contributors half to death. From HuffPost:

Graham’s claim is that almost every state, including Alaska, would make out under his bill. He acknowledges that some “big blue states,” like California and New York, would be hit with huge cuts. “I’m not out to hurt them,” Graham said Tuesday. “But I’m trying to make—you know, create parity here.”

Even if what Graham is saying were entirely true, which it is not, we would be edging very close to the law-school definition of “chutzpah” here. When the Affordable Care Act passed, it became a point of pride for various Republican governors to refuse to accept FREE MONEY! from Medicaid. That is why there wasn’t “parity.” Now, Graham is arguing with a straight face that he considers this refusal by those Republican governors as unfair to the states over which those governors presided. This is a theory of healthcare that only Doc Daneeka could love.

Or take, for example, Senator Ron (Shreds of Freedom) Johnson of Wisconsin, a big bag of hammers on his brightest day, who’s been out there pitching this thing in his own unique style. (Johnson is going to chair the very brief Kabuki hearing on the block-grant portion of this dog’s breakfast next week.) Johnson also waved off the importance of having the Congressional Budget Office score this latest dead fish. From Josh’s joint:

“The CBO scoring is just a detail,” bill co-sponsor Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) argued Tuesday, reviving the popular but inaccurate Republican talking point that the agency’s data cannot be trusted. “We’ve been highly disappointed in how CBO has conducted itself throughout this health care process. I have some real questions about CBO.”

Or take, for example, Johnson’s fellow cheesehead, Speaker Paul Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny starver from the state of Wisconsin, who took to the electric Twitter machine to say something so stupid that it’s amazing Ron Johnson didn’t get to it first.

First of all, you won’t ever have to make that choice since you’ve had government healthcare almost your entire life, especially when you were going to college with help from the money the rest of us put into the Social Security system. (You’re welcome.) Second, nothing in that tweet makes any sense in the context of the healthcare debate. And, third, that’s not “federalism,” at least not as any real Federalist would recognize it. That’s pure states rights—pure anti-Federalist.

And finally, and worst of all, the people at Vox did a little survey of Republican senators on this topic and revealed that you likely wouldn’t buy an apple from any of them. The results begin grim and stupid and get worse from there, and they will make you despair of the human intellect. To wit:

“They can do it with less money,” said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who was unable to explain how or why.

Or:

…some members of the upper chamber acknowledged that the spending changes might have a big impact, but argued their home states would not be negatively impacted. “Four of our states are getting a disproportionate amount of money from health care now,” Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) said. The bill, he added, “wouldn’t cut Alabama.” (Numbers from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggest Alabama would receive more than $1 billion in additional funding under the bill, but most states would see big cuts.)

Or, Part Deux:

Kennedy: I think it’s an improvement over Obamacare.

Jeff Stein: Why?

John Kennedy: 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.

Or, Part Trois:

Stein: So just a follow-up on that. It's one thing to say the bill gives the states power — that’s one thing. But it doesn't just do that. It also cuts the money they have — some estimates say around 16 percent of federal funding.

Johnny Isakson: I'm not going to confirm that statement one way or another. I don't know what the numbers are going to end up looking like.

Stein: Right, but if it does cut federal spending overall, would you support it?

Isakson: You know, those are dangerous questions.

Or, Part The Last, and how could this not be my favorite?

Stein: But why does this bill make things better for Americans? How does it help?

Pat Roberts: Pardon me?

Jeff Stein: Why does this make things better? What is this doing?

Pat Roberts: Look, we’re in the back seat of a convertible being driven by Thelma and Louise, and we’re headed toward the canyon. That’s a movie that you’ve probably never seen —

Stein: I do know Thelma & Louise, sir.

Or take, for example, this sadly inevitable announcement via The Hill:

McCain was one of three crucial Republican votes that killed the GOP repeal effort in July. He at the time called repeatedly for the Senate to return to "regular order," meaning a bill would go through a committee first. "If it's not through regular order then it's a mistake, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for it," McCain said when asked about his previous statements. In a statement later in the day on Wednesday, McCain took a step back from his earlier comments, saying he still needed to see the final bill and that committee hearings are in fact necessary.

Such a well-disciplined process.

These idiots are very close to having the votes.