|
Pete Sessions was saying earlier today that a new CBO score would drop tonight. That's been confirmed by Kevin Brady, the chair of the House Ways and Means committee. http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/324861-new-cbo-score-coming-before-obamacare-vote-chairman-says
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
Paracaidas posted:I get where you're coming from and generally agree with you, but "not enough people want to do X thing" is a pretty healthy rebuttal to "Y thing was bad and the only course of action is to do X". I don't mind the exaggeration (and yes, comparing insufficient healthcare with the literal rape, murder, torture, and dehumanization of slavery is that exaggerated) of your analogy, the bigger problem to me is abolitionists were arguing on a binary level while healthcare exists on more of a spectrum. To torture the analogy a bit further, given the context of the conversation, it's an intra-abolitionist disagreement on if there's merit to trying to free slaves in a given state or if anything that fails to emancipate the entire nation immediately is a failure and hurts the cause. A less inflammatory analogy might be telling people who Fight for 15 to shut the gently caress up because all they're doing is propping up the capitalist system and the only solution worth working on is UBI. It depends upon the specific nature of the argument. If someone were arguing for instant nation-wide emancipation, you would in fact be wrong to tell them "no, you should instead argue for (insert intermediate step) because full emancipation isn't practical yet." You would be correct if the person in question chose not to vote for a politician supporting the intermediate improvement (which is sort of like leftists in the US either not voting or, god forbid, voting for Republicans/libertarians), but merely expressing the opinion that you would rather have a particular result is not a bad thing unless the result is bad (in which case your argument should focus on why it's bad). In the case of healthcare, I see little problem with people pushing for some sort of system that would ensure everyone's healthcare is always covered and never causes them financial stress, even if the actual ideal implementation might not be single payer or whatever. Most of these people would ultimately be happy with any sort of solution that accomplished the same goals, and they're just using "single payer" (for example) as the only example they may be familiar with that currently accomplishes that goal in other countries. Unless these people actually tell you that they're against something like (for example) a public option, it makes no sense to assume that their opinions are remotely harmful. I think the key potential disagreement here is that I agree with you when it comes to people who would actually take action against the better because they'd rather have the perfect (i.e. voting against an improvement because it isn't what you'd rather have), but I've also seen other posters (and maybe you but I'm too lazy to look through post history right now) attacking people for merely expressing the opinion that they'd rather have genuine universal healthcare (or whatever). I think that people are conflating an opinion that something more ambitious is more desirable with actually taking action against a more incremental improvement, and assuming that if someone says "I would rather have X" that they're actively fighting against "not X that is still an improvement." (Also, I don't think it's much of an exaggeration at all to compare two issues that both result in an immense loss of life and quality of life once the magnitude surpasses a certain point. And the magnitude in this case is irrelevant to the analogy to begin with. I just used emancipation because it's a good, obvious example of something that is transparently good but didn't enjoy enough popular support at an earlier point in time.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Pete Sessions was saying earlier today that a new CBO score would drop tonight. That's been confirmed by Kevin Brady, the chair of the House Ways and Means committee. What are the odds that it comes back worse?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:What are the odds that it comes back worse? The odds are pretty low; they'll be able to tweak it to get the specific measures they want. It will still be terrible, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
What changes did they make?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Is this the one where they pulled 75 billion out of an rear end and expect the Senate to figure out whose?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
I assume the CBO isn't going to score the $75 billion since there's no actual provision for how to spend it. Didn't the other changes make it more conservative? Also I just called my Republican congressman's office and told him to vote no because the AHCA doesn't repeal Obamacare hard enough. They asked for my name and ZIP, hopefully they don't look me up and realize I've never voted in a Republican primary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I assume the CBO isn't going to score the $75 billion since there's no actual provision for how to spend it. So it'll probably just affect the spending figure without changing the uninsured figure. Nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Here is the Brookings institute discussing what they expect from the CBO:Brookings posted:On net, CBO is likely to put the reduction in insurance coverage under the amended version of the AHCA at level similar to or even somewhat higher than its prior estimate that 24 million people would lose insurance coverage in 2026. HappyHippo posted:What changes did they make? -$75 billion handed to the Senate to figure out how to spend on young-olds, who really get screwed by this bill (not actually in there, but people are talking about it) -State option to block grant medicaid instead of a per capita cap -Imposing work requirements on medicaid -faster repeal of ACA taxes -expanded medical expense deduction (this may be a placeholder for the Senate deal) -increased growth rate (+1%) for medicaid caps for elderly and disabled -the tweak that New York fence-sitters wanted to reimbursement of funds raised by county governments -states blocked from expanding medicaid before the caps hit -"Cadillac tax" further delayed -excess refundable credits can't go into HSAs, because maybe a federal dollar somehow pays for an abortion -one billion appropriated for a fund created to implement the changes edit: The $75 billion thing is not actually in there, so can't be scored by the CBO. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
I dug up the press release on that $75 billion thing, and this is pretty funny:Energy & Commerce press release posted:To further ensure older Americans have the help they need to access the care that’s right for them, the amendment to AHCA would provide the financing for additional support for those with high health care costs before the bill goes to the Senate. Under current law, Americans can deduct from their taxes the cost of medical expenses that exceed 10 percent of their income. Our proposed amendment reduces this threshold to 5.8 percent of income. Pretty apparent what happened here, when they saw the impact to young-olds the not-crazy and vulnerable members poo poo a brick, but Ryan had no time to draft a fix that would gain them more votes than it lost. This way, moderates get to say they voted for it because of some deal that the Senate would fix costs for that group. Crazies don't have to explain being on board with an even bigger expansion of Obamacare-lite or whatever. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
The freedom caucus may be getting its way, which may mean the bill clears the House:quote:As Thursday's House vote on the bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act looms, the pressure is ramping up on GOP lawmakers who remain undecided or opposed to the legislation. Even after threats to their careers, invitations to the White House, special carve-outs for their states, amendments on their pet issues, and other tactics, critics of the bill still say enough members are holding strong to ensure the bill will fail on the House floor. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ehb-obamacare-repeal-vote Note that the guy saying this is working is a whip - it's his job to say it's working. But this is a big part of the ask from the Freedom Caucus so it may flip enough of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
If there's no EHB then what is the point of buying insurance?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:If there's no EHB then what is the point of buying insurance? something something skin in the game mumble grumble personal responsibility
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:If there's no EHB then what is the point of buying insurance? You don't understand, they're protecting people's FREEDOM to buy health insurance that doesn't cover anything more severe than a hangnail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Republicans continuing their dedication to loving children
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
CNN is reporting that Trump is now making personal phone calls to representatives pleading that they vote yes. I wouldn't imagine he'd be doing that if they weren't terribly desperate. Especially considering it's more likely to backfire on him and inspire more 'No' votes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:CNN is reporting that Trump is now making personal phone calls to representatives pleading that they vote yes. I wouldn't imagine he'd be doing that if they weren't terribly desperate. Especially considering it's more likely to backfire on him and inspire more 'No' votes. I'll have you know Donal Tronup is a grade a ++ policy maker that understands all the finer nuances of american politics and policy making
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
I'd be shocked if the bill doesn't pass tomorrow. The show being put on by the Freedom Caucus is not very convincing. It's hugely entertaining to see the GOP's first act of business when in full control of Washington be to commit political suicide. All the Koch money in the world will not be able to save their majorities if anything resembling the current bill passes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Can't be voted out of office if you kill your base first.
SardonicTyrant fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:I'd be shocked if the bill doesn't pass tomorrow. The show being put on by the Freedom Caucus is not very convincing. It's hugely entertaining to see the GOP's first act of business when in full control of Washington be to commit political suicide. All the Koch money in the world will not be able to save their majorities if anything resembling the current bill passes. I'm genuinely curious in an incredibly morbid way to see what will happen post whatever is about to happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jwpetersNYT/status/844702309301063681
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Wait.... votes against? Like, the Kochs want nay votes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
the kochs think it doesn't fully repeal every aspect of obamacare and leave us with a dystopian free market nightmare this is also rand paul's position
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The freedom caucus may be getting its way, which may mean the bill clears the House: Gonna be fun watching McConnell disregard the Parliamentarian's ruling that removing EHB's violates the rules of reconciliation. Not that it'll get that far but one can hope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
I am so ready for this poo poo. Remember, don't get your hopes up!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
lol https://twitter.com/kaysteiger/status/844700962048659456 In other words, "everything people use health insurance for." Seriously, if insurance doesn't have to cover any of this, what do they have to cover? What am I missing here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
"I just don't think this bill is sociopathic enough. Let's get our heads in the game and figure out how to make this more sociopathic."
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Might not have threaded the needle here. https://twitter.com/mikedebonis/status/844705010927767552 https://twitter.com/mikedebonis/status/844706367982223360 e:per NBC: quote:House Speaker Paul Ryan is spending a large portion of his evening meeting with undecided members or those who leadership think are persuadable. He's focusing on the more moderate members of the House and leaving the conservatives to the White House. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:What am I missing here? That the entire point of the healthcare industry is to take your money and give it to millionaire ceos, shareholders, and lawmakers, and whatever paltry sum is left occasionally give out as bonuses
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
lol looks like the freedom caucus isn't taking ryan and mcconnell's word for itquote:The White House officials had offered to ensure that the benefits language was added in the Senate, but that was not enough to win over the Freedom Caucus members, DesJarlais said. Now they are trying to add it to the bill in the House. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/white-house-health-care-bill-tweaks-236385
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Can you repeal EHB through reconciliation? I thought the whole point was that it at least tangentially had to be related to the federal budget, which EHB wouldn't fall under?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
GenJoe posted:Can you repeal EHB through reconciliation? I thought the whole point was that it at least tangentially had to be related to the federal budget, which EHB wouldn't fall under? Maybe, maybe not. Assumption has been no but the parlimentarian won't give a ruling to the House. Lee has suddenly said he asked and they said it was ok.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
GenJoe posted:Can you repeal EHB through reconciliation? I thought the whole point was that it at least tangentially had to be related to the federal budget, which EHB wouldn't fall under? Who cares? The whole thing is Calvinball anyway. You can do literally whatever you want if you have a big enough stick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:lol ...they're really going to make it like car insurance
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Moving out of reconciliation might give the Republicans cover in the form of united Democratic opposition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/fmanjoo/status/844737720953974785
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Seriously, if insurance doesn't have to cover any of this, what do they have to cover? What am I missing here? The premium support will be too cheap to cover comprehensive health insurance, so let people buy limited insurance that at least gets them something of their choosing rather than have nothing at all. Let people be covered for a trip to the ER, or a pregnancy, or regular preventative care, but maybe not for all of them, and definitely not for a million dollars worth of cancer treatment. If you're going to be cheap enough that you let people die preventable deaths, you might as well allow people buy something rather than locking them out of the market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Might not have threaded the needle here. quote:The leader of a centrist group of House Republicans said late Wednesday that he will oppose the GOP healthcare legislation. Looks like they may have offered the conservatives too much. The other co-chair of that bunch is a yes (Tom MacArthur), so this isn't a big moderate revolt. But Ryan badly needs every vote. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Prediction: the bill will pass the house tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
EugeneJ posted:...they're really going to make it like car insurance If health insurance were like car insurance, it would cover... eyeglasses and funerals. Health insurance that doesn't cover hospitalization or emergency services is just a scam. Just theft from whoever they can con into paying premiums. I'm not surprised Republicans came up with the idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:44
|
|
