|
FuturePastNow posted:commitment to ending their climate science research, yeah wrong thread 
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
Senators are leaking their fervent desire that the repeal fail in the House so it's Ryan's fault since it won't pass the Senate:quote:Support for the House legislation has “disintegrated” in the Senate, according one Republican senator who requested anonymity to discuss internal conference politics. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/senate-republicans-hope-house-health-care-bill-dies-already.html edit: lol the article from The Hill has some more brutal quotes: quote:“I’ve heard that maybe the best thing is that this doesn’t get out of the House so we’re not the ones who ditch it,” said a Republican senator who has publicly voiced concern about the bill but requested anonymity. “Right now this is disintegrating in the Senate, with everyone off on their own about what they don’t like about the bill.” http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/324220-nervous-gop-senators-rooting-for-ryan-to-fail evilweasel fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
there's no way that ryan bows down and faces the full wraith of trump. my bet is that he passes by making it more conservative to placate the HFC and dares the senate to take all of the blame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Zikan posted:there's no way that ryan bows down and faces the full wraith of trump. my bet is that he passes by making it more conservative to placate the HFC and dares the senate to take all of the blame. yeah apparently that's what the house wants to do this bill is dead and republicans are fighting over who to plant the gun on its not clear to me though that there are 218 (actually 216, given the 5 empty seats) to even pass the house though and the Democrats would love it to pass the house and die in the Senate for maximum damage to vulnerable House incumbents
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
quote:“It’s tough to vote for policy that hurts people,” the senator added. Hmm you don't say! Maybe there's an underlying lesson here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
HHS is also getting cut by about 20% with no indication of what's getting cut. I imagine the funding for addiction treatment from the Addiction bill last year is going to get cut before it even had a chance to get off the ground.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Lote posted:HHS is also getting cut by about 20% with no indication of what's getting cut. I imagine the funding for addiction treatment from the Addiction bill last year is going to get cut before it even had a chance to get off the ground. Yeah, I can see the logic going no deeper than "just say no".
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Lote posted:HHS is also getting cut by about 20% with no indication of what's getting cut. I imagine the funding for addiction treatment from the Addiction bill last year is going to get cut before it even had a chance to get off the ground. I don't expect that to happen. The opiod crisis is a red-state issue more than a blue-state issue. Senators aren't going to go along with that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't expect that to happen. The opiod crisis is a red-state issue more than a blue-state issue. Senators aren't going to go along with that. Walker has been openly espousing the idea that you only get drug treatment if you go into a job training program or work at the same time. Ideologues will still find a way to completely fail at saving their constituents from the white horse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't expect that to happen. The opiod crisis is a red-state issue more than a blue-state issue. Senators aren't going to go along with that. I'm just speculating on Trump's budget. Depends on what the Senate and the House allow to get through.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
I'm wondering if they'll be able to pass a budget at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:Walker has been openly espousing the idea that you only get drug treatment if you go into a job training program or work at the same time. Ideologues will still find a way to completely fail at saving their constituents from the white horse. Aren't these the same people who think you shouldn't be allowed to have a job if you use drugs? How is that supposed to work? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Aren't these the same people who think you shouldn't be allowed to have a job if you use drugs? How is that supposed to work? That's a perk of the program.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Forgive me for asking what might be a very simple question: why won't Republicans be able to pass this bill in both the House and the Senate when they have majorities in both? Are there really enough that would take a stand and vote it down? Why wouldn't they just take the party line and vote in favor of it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:Forgive me for asking what might be a very simple question: why won't Republicans be able to pass this bill in both the House and the Senate when they have majorities in both? Are there really enough that would take a stand and vote it down? Why wouldn't they just take the party line and vote in favor of it? Because it's going to take health care away from 24 million people, and there's an election next year?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:Forgive me for asking what might be a very simple question: why won't Republicans be able to pass this bill in both the House and the Senate when they have majorities in both? Are there really enough that would take a stand and vote it down? Why wouldn't they just take the party line and vote in favor of it? You need 60 votes in the Senate. The Republicans have 52.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Nothus posted:You need 60 votes in the Senate. The Republicans have 52. they plan to pass this one via reconciliation so it only needs 50 votes in the senate the bill is so bad that it can't get those 50 votes when the republicans have a majority
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:Forgive me for asking what might be a very simple question: why won't Republicans be able to pass this bill in both the House and the Senate when they have majorities in both? Are there really enough that would take a stand and vote it down? Why wouldn't they just take the party line and vote in favor of it? Take the Senate. They have 52 members, and need 50 for any bill. There are at least 3 senators who won't sign onto any bill that throws too many people off insurance (medicaid especially). There are at least 3 senators who won't sign onto any bill that doesn't throw enough people off insurance (medicaid especially, but also killing the subsidies). No Democrats will vote for any "repeal". Given all that, there's no way to 50 votes in the Senate: anything that pleases one group of 3+ means the other group of 3+ won't vote for it. That, in a nutshell, is why they can't pass it. A similar dynamic also applies in the House and between the House and the Senate. There is also the major issue that this bill will be stupendously unpopular and people who would love to vote for it are scared they'll lose their next election if they do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Nothus posted:You need 60 votes in the Senate. The Republicans have 52. So how will they be able to actually repeal the ACA even if they massively change the AHCA to make it more palatable to the public? It seems like a losing battle because the ACA is pretty popular. Again sorry for what may seem dumb questions. I feel like I have a decent understanding of the issues but I am terribly uninformed when it comes to basic civics. Edit: just saw the other responses. Are we confident that Republicans won't just vote in lockstep? I mean many of them denounced Trump when it came to pussygate but when it was all said and done how many came back and bent at the knee?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:So how will they be able to actually repeal the ACA even if they massively change the AHCA to make it more palatable to the public? It seems like a losing battle because the ACA is pretty popular. You only need 50 votes for a bill you pass via budget reconciliation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:Edit: just saw the other responses. Are we confident that Republicans won't just vote in lockstep? I mean many of them denounced Trump when it came to pussygate but when it was all said and done how many came back and bent at the knee? It's possible. But everything that's going on suggests that they're not willing to. And they become less willing to the more likely it is that the bill fails anyway even if they support it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:So how will they be able to actually repeal the ACA even if they massively change the AHCA to make it more palatable to the public? It seems like a losing battle because the ACA is pretty popular. In theory, the Republicans could pass just about any bill they want to pass, however the consequences of that will be felt in the 2018 midterm elections. In essence the Republicans have a mandate to fix health care, because after 8 years, everybody is still unhappy with health care in the US. However, fixing health care by dropping insurance coverage for millions of people and tripling the premiums on millions more in older demographics is not going to play well at the polls in 2018, and they are all aware of this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
To expand a bit on what evilweasel said, there are disparate interests here that are making it really hard for the GOP to maintain party discipline. Some of the Republicans really want the ACA totally gone, or gone but keeping the spending cuts it implemented. Some are aware of just how badly their states need things like the Medicaid expansion, and don't want to lose that. Some would like to see it gone, but understand just how ugly the consequences of the bill could be and don't want to be holding the bag. There's just no way to satisfy them all, but the GOP margins are slim enough (and the Dems are so far from breaking ranks) that they need every vote they can get. This is why the Republicans haven't had any actual ACA replacement proposal until now and the conservatives are in an uproar, they ran on 'repeal and replace' with the understanding they wouldn't ever have to actually agree to a replacement. Compounding this is the political gamesmanship. Nobody wants to be blamed for the bill failing, but House members also don't want to cast an unpopular vote that will be held against them for a bill they don't believe will clear the Senate. Conservatives are incentivized to break party discipline and dig in their heels, because running against something that still looks kinda like Obamacare is easier. And moderates, particularly those in the Senate, can hem and haw about how this is going too fast or needs changes they know won't fly with the House, making it ever more likely that it dies in the other chamber and Ryan or Trump takes the blame. Ryan's scrambling for leverage because none of the conservatives are going to be called a RINO for voting against this, and moderates are terrified of the price they'll pay if it actually does pass and they, not Obama, have to own all the voter frustration with an unpopular system that will get significantly worse. edit: A competent presidential administration could be a real asset in whipping the votes. Ryan doesn't have that. Trump still doesn't really have a grasp on how the levers of power actually work, and that's crippling his ability to be the dealmaker he thinks that he is. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Also the consequences of this legislation are so obviously terrible and politically toxic that there is no chance in hell of getting the most blue-dog democrat from a deep-red state to even consider signing onto this. Republicans held out hope they could force some Democrats facing tough 2018 elections to switch sides. Those senators are now seeing this idiot bill as a gift from god and running against it the perfect thing to get them another term in a state that voted for Trump by 20+ points.eviltastic posted:edit: A competent presidential administration could be a real asset in whipping the votes. Ryan doesn't have that. Trump still doesn't really have a grasp on how the levers of power actually work, and that's crippling his ability to be the dealmaker he thinks that he is. Yeah: what Ryan wants Trump to do is threaten everyone that he'll make them pay if they don't toe the line. What Trump is doing instead is making it clear he's going to make Ryan pay for this mess if Ryan doesn't pass the bill on his own so threats of white house displeasure are basically generating laughter. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
So, question: say this bill gets through the House but then dies in the Senate, even under reconciliation rules. I know reconciliation can only be used once per year, so does this mean they can't try again until next year, or can they keep trying until it passes? In other words, is it that they can only try to pass one bill per year under reconciliation, or is it that they can only actually pass one per year?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:So, question: say this bill gets through the House but then dies in the Senate, even under reconciliation rules. I know reconciliation can only be used once per year, so does this mean they can't try again until next year, or can they keep trying until it passes? They could gut the bill it completely with an amendment and send it back as essentially a new bill even if there was "only one reconciliation bill may be introduced per legislative year" rule, so as long as they're willing to admit defeat I'm pretty sure they could just use this one for tax cuts instead and then the 2018 one for something else (maybe even repealing obamacare!!!!).
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They could gut the bill it completely with an amendment and send it back as essentially a new bill even if there was "only one reconciliation bill may be introduced per legislative year" rule, so as long as they're willing to admit defeat I'm pretty sure they could just use this one for tax cuts instead and then the 2018 one for something else (maybe even repealing obamacare!!!!). Right, but if they were dumb enough to force a floor vote on it without knowing 100% that they had the votes and it failed, they couldn't use reconciliation again until next year?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
My personal theory is that there are some members of the White House who think they are playing 11th dimensional chess and that they can introduce a poo poo bill that is destined to fail so that later on they can easily pass the bill they really wanted because it'll seem more reasonable. My guess is they'll soon learn real life politics doesn't really work that way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Simplex posted:My personal theory is that there are some members of the White House who think they are playing 11th dimensional chess and that they can introduce a poo poo bill that is destined to fail so that later on they can easily pass the bill they really wanted because it'll seem more reasonable. My guess is they'll soon learn real life politics doesn't really work that way. We should keep this in mind. They need reconciliation to pass it. It won't pass they will pass some other horrid tax cut plan instead. You use your 1 year cool down once a year when it comes up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Simplex posted:My guess is they'll soon learn real life politics doesn't really work that way. After 2016, I'm done saying "It'll never happen".
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:Right, but if they were dumb enough to force a floor vote on it without knowing 100% that they had the votes and it failed, they couldn't use reconciliation again until next year? That's an interesting question. I'm dumb about this stuff but I think it works like this: Reconciliation begins with a budget measure passing directing committees in each chamber to come up with spending changes and submit them to their budget committee, by some date. That happened, the deadline was Jan 27, but was non binding. Neither chamber came up with anything. The House committees have since generated legislation and kicked it up to the House Budget Committee. Today, that Committee okayed the measure to go to the floor for a vote. Presumably it's that floor vote that we're talking about failing. Supposing it had succeeded, the Senate Committees would presumably suggest measures to adopt the something like the House bill to the Senate Budget Committee, which would kick it out to the Senate for a vote. I think (big grain of salt here) that it is that recommendation of the Senate Budget Committee involving spending/debt limit/revenues which is privileged and not subject to usual cloture debate, and limited to being taken up for consideration once per year. It's those requirements we're concerned with. So no, I don't think the House vote would completely kill things if it failed, as a technical matter, because the Senate could still act. As a practical matter, this thing doesn't get out of the House, it's dead, because the Senate will let it stay that way and let someone else take the blame. If it was the Senate vote we're talking about failing, I think (again, big grain of salt) they've blown their shot for the year. All that said, it would be fantastic political theater, but I'd be stunned if either chamber hosed up the whip count and let it go to a failed floor vote. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They could gut the bill it completely with an amendment and send it back as essentially a new bill even if there was "only one reconciliation bill may be introduced per legislative year" rule, so as long as they're willing to admit defeat I'm pretty sure they could just use this one for tax cuts instead and then the 2018 one for something else (maybe even repealing obamacare!!!!). The issue with using reconciliation for tax cuts is if a reconciliation bill increases the deficit then it must also sunset in 10 years. That's how they did the Bush tax cuts and it bit the rich in the rear end because if you don't keep control of both houses and the executive for a decade then any one of them can just sit back and let them expire like Obama did for the cuts on income above $400,000. And reconciliation can only deal with taxes or spending but not both so you can't cut spending to pay for your tax cut using the reconciliation process. That's why they need the $300 billion Medicaid cuts to pass in the 2017 reconciliation bill so the 2018 reconciliation bill (which they will do immediately) can give those $300 billion in cuts on health care for the poor directly to the rich. So technically yes they could use this one for tax cuts, but they don't want to because those cuts won't be permanent. They have to gut Medicaid first, and they have to pass both bills as soon as possible because they know this scheme will be hilariously unpopular and they need to have their consulting/lobbyist gigs lined up for when half of them get thrown out of office (and the other half stay and try to block Democrats from reversing the cuts forever). VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Ryan overplayed his hand, pure and simple. He could have crafted a relatively moderate bill that kept the healthcare industry lobbyists happy, called it an Obamacare repeal, used those lobbyists to get some conservative Democrats on board, and told the far right to go gently caress itself. Instead Ryan thought he could use the electoral mandate to get everything he wanted, and he'll probably end up with nothing to show for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The issue with using reconciliation for tax cuts is if a reconciliation bill increases the deficit then it must also sunset in 10 years. That's how they did the Bush tax cuts and it bit the rich in the rear end because if you don't keep control of both houses and the executive for a decade then any one of them can just sit back and let them expire like Obama did for the cuts on income above $400,000. And reconciliation can only deal with taxes or spending but not both so you can't cut spending to pay for your tax cut using the reconciliation process. Yeah I get that (though I've never quite figured out how you use the $300b from 2017 to do more tax cuts in 2018 - wouldn't you still have to not increase the deficit compared to the new baseline?) but if this collapses I'm assuming they want to keep at least one reconciliation bill available for whatever madness they come up with to throw at the wall to try to survive 2018.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Ryan overplayed his hand, pure and simple. He could have crafted a relatively moderate bill that kept the healthcare industry lobbyists happy, called it an Obamacare repeal, used those lobbyists to get some conservative Democrats on board, and told the far right to go gently caress itself. Instead Ryan thought he could use the electoral mandate to get everything he wanted, and he'll probably end up with nothing to show for it. No he couldn't have. The current bill can't pass because too many conservatives oppose it as obamacare-lite. The only way out would be democratic votes who won't agree to anything that is a "repeal" and anything that's not a "repeal" doesn't get him off the hook. Plus there are basically no conservative Democrats left in the house. They all lost to conservative Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Some of the Republicans really want the ACA totally gone... Back in 2011 Obama offered a "Grand Bargain" for the budget. It included absolutely unconscionable cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in exchange for raising taxes slightly. Like if you weren't fully on board with Obama not being on the side of the working man, this pretty much set you straight. Still, Republicans would have gained a loving lot with those cuts and everything else Obama offered up. The hardcore Tea Party contingent was responsible for rejecting it on the basis of the tax increase. Like they would have gotten 95% of what they wanted (as was the norm in a typical Obama "negotiation") and they rejected it because they didn't get 100%. The same group is currently our potential saviors in rejecting the repeal-replace. They're only on board with repeal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
As long as Preserving Insurer Shareholder Value and Profitability is an immutable constant in the calculus of the American healthcare systems, the government will NEVER be able to administer or chaperone a robust and productive healthcare system to the American citizen. Period. Patients ≠ customers. Healthcare is not a loving business. Healthcare is not a consumer good. Healthcare is necessary for all human beings. All people become sick. All people die. Commoditizing and monetizing human suffering will ALWAYS result in increased human suffering. ALWAYS. gently caress the GOP. gently caress Capitalism. And gently caress this notion that illness is a profitable opportunity. Healthcare should be a noble public service.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Ryan overplayed his hand, pure and simple. He could have crafted a relatively moderate bill that kept the healthcare industry lobbyists happy, called it an Obamacare repeal, used those lobbyists to get some conservative Democrats on board, and told the far right to go gently caress itself. Instead Ryan thought he could use the electoral mandate to get everything he wanted, and he'll probably end up with nothing to show for it. Not a chance. Why would any Democrats participate in even the most minor gutting of Obamacare? The strategy has always been to sit on the sidelines and let the Republicans make asses of themselves as they can't even drum up a majority from their own party. Even trying to get involved in a "compromise" just makes it easier for the GOP to blame the plan's eventual failure on you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yeah I get that (though I've never quite figured out how you use the $300b from 2017 to do more tax cuts in 2018 - wouldn't you still have to not increase the deficit compared to the new baseline?) Yeah I actually don't understand that part either, I suppose the baseline must not change somehow because otherwise the plan wouldn't work (maybe they still get to use FY 2016's baseline because they're passing both bills in 2017?) but I haven't looked into the details.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
Why not just repeal the employer mandate and the token tanning bed tax and call it a day GOP? Give them an inch and they'll try and take a mile, the crazy bastards
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 04:28
|
|
