Congressman Mark Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, is really naive.
You see, when all Republicans running for office ran incessant ads during the past four election cycles promising to fully repeal Obamacare, Meadows actually thought they meant it! What a fool.
When Mitch McConnell promised to repeal Obamacare “root and branch,” Meadows actually thought that he meant … well … root and branch.
And when Mr. Meadows read the fifth sentence of Speaker Paul Ryan’s “Better Way to Fix Health Care,” which declared, "Obamacare must be fully repealed so we can start over and take a new approach,” well, he though it meant full repeal, starting over, and a new approach.
Meadows, along with a few of his compatriots, didn’t seem to get the memo: that this was all a joke. Who do they think they are? Amelia Bedelia? Doesn’t he know they only meant to repeal the funding mechanism of Obamacare to make it more insolvent?
That’s not the only thing for which Mr. Meadows owes an apology.
Meadows seemed to bring to Congress some foreign idea that facts and details about a bill and a policy matter. Doesn’t he know that “something” is better than “nothing?”
He also seems to have this archaic belief that one should actually understand the policies of the issues they are dealing with. You know, kind of the way an accountant knows accounting and an engineer knowns engineering, Mr. Meadows oddly believed that his colleagues understood what Obamacare is and isn’t. Sure, Obamacare is the seminal domestic policy issue of our time, but was Meadows really naïve enough to think policy-makers should … you know … understand a modicum of policy about health care?
Meadows seemed to take to heart the GOP’s criticism of Pelosi’s declaration, “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it.” Silly country bumpkin from western North Carolina, this Meadows guy. As chief RINO Chris Collins said, “once we get it done, then we can really explain what’s in it.” Heck, if Dems can say that after spending 13 months on Obamacare, why can’t Republicans say the same thing after spending two weeks on a more insolvent version?
Where Meadows really went off the rails was when he expected his colleagues to understand the concept of adverse selection and that keeping the actuarially insolvent regulations but repealing the individual mandate would accelerate the death spiral. What does he think this is – an economics class? We’re talking about Republican politicians here.
Did he really think that patriots like Rep. Austin Scott would remember that such a plan was tried in the U.S. territories and it collapsed immediately? That was before his time. Well, it wasn’t … but still.
And why was Meadows so credulous to take Paul Ryan seriously when he said the better way to deal with pre-existing conditions was to fund state high-risk pools instead of mandating the destruction of the entire market? Did he actually think we were going to repeal the element of Obamacare that … er … made it Obamacare? I mean, you can’t get everything you want.
Also, Meadows is kind of gullible not to understand the simplicity of the GOP’s … well … not so simple narrative:
- “This is full repeal or close to it.”
- “Well, we can’t repeal the core of Obamacare because of reconciliation.”
- “Don’t worry, this is a three-phase process and in step two, Tom Price will repeal the regulations administratively.”
- “We don’t want to repeal the regulations because they “protect” consumers and help people!”
See, Meadows had the temerity to view the core elements of Obamacare … you know … the parts that actually drove up the premiums and drove out the competition, as a cancer that needed to be cut out. Didn’t he know his colleagues viewed them as “vital patient protections?” But he still should have understood that they wanted to repeal Obamacare … er … I mean the rest of it.
And doesn’t he know that the Parliamentarian is the presiding officer of the Senate, not the Vice President or his designee? And Ryan already checked with the Parliamentarian, and she said they can’t repeal Obamacare through reconciliation. Well, actually she didn’t say that. But still, is the price of hurting Elizabeth McDonough’s feelings or pressuring her really worth … you know … repealing Obamacare? Doesn’t Meadows have any feelings for the first female Parliamentarian? Don’t let one-fifth of the economy get in the way.
Also, thanks to Meadows now so many members won’t be able to spend more time with their families by losing their reelection after they owned the death spiral and precipitated single payer.
Most of all, Mark Meadows needs to apologize for not understanding what a Republican really is: a liberal who is not talented enough to run in a Democrat primary.
Editor’s Note: Don’t worry, Daniel hasn’t gone off the deep end. This piece is mostly satire.