|
does anything stop them bringing it up again this year
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
Peel posted:does anything stop them bringing it up again this year nope, and president t-dog millionaire is pushing for another round in the next week or two
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
i think this is the third or fourth time it's been 'killed' so i guess the next one is direct to video and involves time travel or some poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Peel posted:i think this is the third or fourth time it's been 'killed' so i guess the next one is direct to video and involves time travel or some poo poo McConnell's attempt to use a legislative time machine to return America to the gilded age ends in disaster when an agricultural subsidy enters the teleportation chamber unnoticed, resulting in the enactment of single payer horsecare
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
obamacare is an enemy so evil it can survive all republican attempts to destroy it i think that's the narrative now
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Rushi posted:nope, and president pee-dog millionaire is pushing for another round in the next week or two
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
Peel posted:i think this is the third or fourth time it's been 'killed' so i guess the next one is direct to video and involves time travel or some poo poo Between them and the Democrats it's hard not to think that any trace of merit has left our government. They can't even be evil right
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:It's kinda amazing how even though with such a massive advantage the Republicans still can't repeal the ACA hooray for big tent parties
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Peel posted:does anything stop them bringing it up again this year Rushi posted:nope, and president t-dog millionaire is pushing for another round in the next week or two IIRC they were trying to do some budgetary tomfoolery this time so they'd only need 50 votes to pass. So if they do bring it back up again they'd have to have 60 votes anyway until next year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:IIRC they were trying to do some budgetary tomfoolery this time so they'd only need 50 votes to pass. So if they do bring it back up again they'd have to have 60 votes anyway until next year. They could just go nuclear, too. At this point, legislation is the only process left where the 60-vote rule has not been abandoned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
i wish his glioblastoma would go nuclear like Akira
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:i wish his glioblastoma would go nuclear like Akira 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:IIRC they were trying to do some budgetary tomfoolery this time so they'd only need 50 votes to pass. So if they do bring it back up again they'd have to have 60 votes anyway until next year. It's my understanding that while there was that one reddit post that was asserting that the GOP can't try again this year because they can only bring one budget reconciliation bill to the floor per year, the actual rule is they can only pass one budget reconciliation bill per year. Absurd Alhazred posted:They could just go nuclear, too. At this point, legislation is the only process left where the 60-vote rule has not been abandoned. It's ... possible, but it's highly unlikely that the GOP would want to do this, because of what could happen should the Democrats ever retake Congress. I mean, 2017 and all and lol nothing matters and everything, but I think that if they do decide to do this, it should be warning sign that they feel confident enough about their electoral chances that they've completely destroyed any chance of the Democrate ever winning back the House and Senate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:It's my understanding that while there was that one reddit post that was asserting that the GOP can't try again this year because they can only bring one budget reconciliation bill to the floor per year, the actual rule is they can only pass one budget reconciliation bill per year. Do you mean this? https://twitter.com/s5/status/891017513995182080 quote:It's ... possible, but it's highly unlikely that the GOP would want to do this, because of what could happen should the Democrats ever retake Congress. They already did this for Supreme Court, and that's a huge gamble in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:It's my understanding that while there was that one reddit post that was asserting that the GOP can't try again this year because they can only bring one budget reconciliation bill to the floor per year, the actual rule is they can only pass one budget reconciliation bill per year. LOL
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Do you mean this? Yes, that one. I'm not 100% on how needing to pass an actual budget fucks with the ability to pass budget reconciliation, but I'm sure that getting a budget reconciliation bill to the floor, only to have it fail, does not prevent bringing another budget reconciliation bill to the floor and voting on that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yes, that one. I'm not 100% on how needing to pass an actual budget fucks with the ability to pass budget reconciliation, but I'm sure that getting a budget reconciliation bill to the floor, only to have it fail, does not prevent bringing another budget reconciliation bill to the floor and voting on that. I find that hard to believe. I mean, usually having bills actually fail has consequences. That's why legislatures are reluctant to let these things proceed unless they know they have the votes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Okay, I tried to answer my own question, and I might be wrong, but I'm still not entirely sure either way: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/introduction-to-budget-reconciliation quote:How Many Reconciliation Bills May Congress Consider Each Year? This statement, which is leaned on by both the wikipedia article on reconciliation and Vox's explainer on reconciliation, suggests the interpretation that the repeal bill can't be "considered" again because they already tried and failed. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/reconciliation-obamacare-repeal-gop-strategy/513059/ quote:Republicans have created a quandary. If they follow through with a reconciliation-based repeal before a replacement comes along, there are serious potential effects for health markets, jobs, and health care that might not be fixable with a follow-up plan. But they need to get the job done this year if they want to push through a major tax-reform reconciliation plan sometime in early 2018, as only one reconciliation bill can be passed per year. The increasing disunion among Republicans on what shape a replacement bill might take could drag the process, and each day that passes is one in which people gain more coverage and supporters of Obamacare can mobilize more opposition. The pressure is on. But this one suggests that the limit only applies if bills are passed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Okay, I tried to answer my own question, and I might be wrong, but I'm still not entirely sure either way: Well, they not only contradict on whether it needs to be passed or considered; the first also refers to three aspects of reconciliation. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
I tried digging through the rebuttals to that tweet referencing the reddit post: https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/891095468373159937 https://twitter.com/jrovner/status/890809161407021056 https://twitter.com/KDbyProxy/status/891147989313622016 The "skinny repeal" was an amendment to the bill, Amendment 667. The vote failing to pass meant that the amendment to the bill was not adopted, but the Senate wasn't voting on the bill (HR 1628), they were voting on an amendment, and McConnell "just" sent the bill back to the legislative calendar to be taken up again at a later date. The "limit" that they're going to run against is that they can't/don't want to work on tax reform until they get this thing done, and if they can't get this done, it's going to run against the next year's fiscal year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
Which is why I said that people who have been pulling for McCain to go full Scanners now need to hope he holds on for the next few months, because if he passes, so will the amendment and your chances of ever getting health care without declaring bankruptcy first. So wait for the Jets to be mathematically eliminated from the playoffs before you start jamming more pins into the face of your McCain voodoo dolls.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:Which is why I said that people who have been pulling for McCain to go full Scanners now need to hope he holds on for the next few months, because if he passes, so will the amendment and your chances of ever getting health care without declaring bankruptcy first. the interesting thing is that McCain is from Arizona, which like most states replaces senators who die or resign mid-term by gubernatorial appointment. so if he passed you'd get a new senator appointed by AZ's republican, but anti-straight repeal governor. AZ is a Medicaid expansion state, so it's unlikely that their gov would pick a candidate who wouldn't promise to protect the Medicaid expansion. that's a massive problem for McConnell because much of republican legislative thinking around Obamacare repeal involves shredding Medicaid to fund tax cuts for their donors
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:the interesting thing is that McCain is from Arizona, which like most states replaces senators who die or resign mid-term by gubernatorial appointment. so if he passed you'd get a new senator appointed by AZ's republican, but anti-straight repeal governor. AZ is a Medicaid expansion state, so it's unlikely that their gov would pick a candidate who wouldn't promise to protect the Medicaid expansion. that's a massive problem for McConnell because much of republican legislative thinking around Obamacare repeal involves shredding Medicaid to fund tax cuts for their donors isn't every republican governor in a state that expanded medicaid except bevin anti repeal though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
Gringostar posted:isn't every republican governor in a state that expanded medicaid except bevin anti repeal though? they way more republican governors than you thinkin id bet 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 07:35
|
|
