|
eviltastic posted:Play it again, Sam The difference between this list and the NYT is that this one has Daniel Webster as a lean no, while NYT has him as a plain no. The difference between this list and the The Hill list is that The Hill also lists Michael Turner as a no. So that appears to be the fuzziness: how lists rank those two. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:01 on May 2, 2017 |
#
?
May 2, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
So if even two lean no's or undecideds switch to no's it's done? That doesn't sound good.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Because of course we have to have a story about the story, the NYT is also reporting on all the other reporting: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/01/upshot/health-care-vote-whip-count-comparison.html
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Because of course we have to have a story about the story, the NYT is also reporting on all the other reporting: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/01/upshot/health-care-vote-whip-count-comparison.html That's actually helpful comparing the whip lists. The chart is anyway, not gonna read whatever garbage they wrote for the article. So it's 23 then. Even if it passes barely by one vote I don't think that's gonna look to good for when it gets to the senate. Or am I wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Yug posted:That's actually helpful comparing the whip lists. The chart is anyway, not gonna read whatever garbage they wrote for the article. So it's 23 then. Even if it passes barely by one vote I don't think that's gonna look to good for when it gets to the senate. Or am I wrong. It is estimated to have about 25 votes in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It is estimated to have about 25 votes in the Senate. el oh el
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Yug posted:That's actually helpful comparing the whip lists. The chart is anyway, not gonna read whatever garbage they wrote for the article. So it's 23 then. Even if it passes barely by one vote I don't think that's gonna look to good for when it gets to the senate. Or am I wrong. Every sign from the Senate is that this is dead on arrival. They might make major changes to it and pass something very different while calling it the same thing, and kick it back to the House and hope to thread the needle again with more moderates and less Freedom Caucus guys then. The moderates in the House have been expressing a lot of frustration with this dynamic. But there's no guarantee the Senate even does anything with it. My guess is they don't have the votes in the House, and nobody wants to be outed as the straw that broke the camel's back. But there are some interesting differences this time around. Frelinghuysen (the Appropriations chairman, one of the most powerful people in the House) being a 'no' last time and making positive noises this time is a big shift, for one. So who knows.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Every sign from the Senate is that this is dead on arrival. They might make major changes to it and pass something very different while calling it the same thing, and kick it back to the House and hope to thread the needle again with more moderates and less Freedom Caucus guys then. The moderates in the House have been expressing a lot of frustration with this dynamic. But there's no guarantee the Senate even does anything with it. Frelinghuysen is a leadership ally and only came out against the bill the day of the vote, iirc, so he's more like a windvane: if he knows the bill is dead he's announcing no, otherwise he's going to stay on the sidelines until Ryan whips and finds the bill is dead, finds the bill will pass without him and he can still vote no, or badly needs his vote for it to pass. I saw a post somewhere yesterday that House leadership's only goal at this point is to dump this poo poo on the Senate so it's not their fault it failed in the hopes passing something will help in the 2018 elections. There is a lot of skepticism that passing a doomed bill with 17% is actually the helpful thing in 2018 though 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Will moderates really want to give support to something that seems to be doomed to fail? All of the negative attention for signing your approval of murder via denial of healthcare and then it can't actually pass anyway? Where's the upside there exactly other than proving your loyalty to the national-level GOP machinery? I have constructed a crude Paul Ryan voodoo doll and have lashed it to one of the subframe braces under my car; hope that decreases the chances of this passing the House
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:Will moderates really want to give support to something that seems to be doomed to fail? All of the negative attention for signing your approval of murder via denial of healthcare and then it can't actually pass anyway? Where's the upside there exactly other than proving your loyalty to the national-level GOP machinery? I read some politico article where a moderate republican basically said "So I'm supposed to tell my worried constituents 'don't worry, its bad and i voted for it but the senate will fix it' is this a bad joke?" So I think the answer is probably "no"
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:Will moderates really want to give support to something that seems to be doomed to fail? All of the negative attention for signing your approval of murder via denial of healthcare and then it can't actually pass anyway? Where's the upside there exactly other than proving your loyalty to the national-level GOP machinery? No, and they're furious that their leadership is busily shifting the blame from the Freedom Caucus to them despite the fact they're the ones at risk and who actually need the help.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
I see this is making the rounds today. Jimmy Kimmel's wife gave birth friday to a son with a heart defect. Very heartfelt monologue thanking all the doctors which basically turns into a plea for universal healthcare at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmWWoMcGmo0 And of course in searching for it I saw a video titled "Millionaire Jimmy Kimmel cries about new born son to protect OBAMACARE. shame" by user TRUMP MAFIA. davebo fucked around with this message at 18:14 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
I'm surprised that the "at the end of the day, preventing healthcare access is basically murder" angle hasn't been played more. Maybe I haven;t been paying enough attention to the Democrats?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:Will moderates really want to give support to something that seems to be doomed to fail? All of the negative attention for signing your approval of murder via denial of healthcare and then it can't actually pass anyway? Where's the upside there exactly other than proving your loyalty to the national-level GOP machinery? I think the House right now desperately wants to pass the buck to the Senate, so that it's their fault. If they can pass this now and have it die in the Senate no one will remember the details by 2018 and they can say "we tried to repeal Obamacare but the Senate stopped us!" Of course the current plan is so unpopular that this could backfire, which is why they can't even get the votes to pass the house.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:I think the House right now desperately wants to pass the buck to the Senate, so that it's their fault. If they can pass this now and have it die in the Senate no one will remember the details by 2018 and they can say "we tried to repeal Obamacare but the Senate stopped us!" Of course the current plan is so unpopular that this could backfire, which is why they can't even get the votes to pass the house. Except Trump is leaning on the Senate to get rid of the legislative filibuster. Then all bets are off.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:I'm surprised that the "at the end of the day, preventing healthcare access is basically murder" angle hasn't been played more. Maybe I haven;t been paying enough attention to the Democrats? Doesn't play as well as "you, voter right there, they are going to take away your healthcare". They take the murder angle too and play up how many deaths that will cause, but those are faceless statistics to many people. Their personal heath care, their mom's, etc, that's not faceless.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Lote posted:Except Trump is leaning on the Senate to get rid of the legislative filibuster. Then all bets are off. This bill has maybe 25 votes in the Senate. The legislative filibuster is an excuse, not the actual problem.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I saw a post somewhere yesterday that House leadership's only goal at this point is to dump this poo poo on the Senate so it's not their fault it failed in the hopes passing something will help in the 2018 elections. There is a lot of skepticism that passing a doomed bill with 17% is actually the helpful thing in 2018 though Given that actors like Trump are seemingly incapable of shutting up about it, maybe it's the right play on the House leadership's part. If it's in the Senate, a bunch of them have a liability but at least have got something to hem and haw about needing to review before stating their current position, and they've got months to fill the air with something else. If it stays in the House, they get pestered for months about where they stand on the House bill, because the loudmouths won't shut up and let them move on.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It is estimated to have about 25 votes in the Senate. I'm surprised people are even commenting on it. Given the lose-lose nature of the bill's popularity, it seems like the kind of thing most Senators would be stoked not to offer an opinion on.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:I'm surprised people are even commenting on it. Given the lose-lose nature of the bill's popularity, it seems like the kind of thing most Senators would be stoked not to offer an opinion on. They're not, I think that's a Republican senator giving an estimate off the record from their internal conversations. But plenty of them are not shy about saying the bill is DOA in the Senate and it's garbage - because their goal is for the House not even to drop that mess on their lap in the first place and they're quite content for it to die there.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SpeakerRyan/status/859442620187193345 VERIFIED that if you live in an R-controlled state chances are you won't get coverage with your asthma/pregnancy/etc. quote:A state must explain how a waiver will reach the goals of lowering premiums, increasing enrollment, stabilizing the market/premiums, and/or increasing choice That's a big loving "/or" to throw on there. If the only provision is to meet one of those, then well this does nothing for people with pre-existing conditions, you imbecile. quote:And most importantly, states may only apply for a waiver if they have their own risk pool in place. Again, the coverage of people with pre-existing conditions will be protected. Ah yes, the "risk pools solve everything" approach. Sure, if you can afford entry into the pool (and you qualify), then yeah you get covered. VERIFIED (that it will be fraught with conditions)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Speaking of risk pools: https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/859466874844831744 https://twitter.com/BresPolitico/status/859467149630427136 Not completely  yet, but suddenly negotiating after you're done negotiating is...not a good sign.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
What kind of terrible politics reporting term is "plussing up"?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
They give a concession to the HFC and they lose the moderates. They go back and give the moderates something and they lose the HFC. They've been doing this for a few months now. When are they going to realize this game of ping pong is getting them nowhere?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:What kind of terrible politics reporting term is "plussing up"? Ehhh ... Politico. HappyHippo posted:They give a concession to the HFC and they lose the moderates. They go back and give the moderates something and they lose the HFC. They've been doing this for a few months now. When are they going to realize this game of ping pong is getting them nowhere? Yeeeeepppp....Meadows is now saying he hasn't heard anything about the proposed change.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:They give a concession to the HFC and they lose the moderates. They go back and give the moderates something and they lose the HFC. They've been doing this for a few months now. When are they going to realize this game of ping pong is getting them nowhere? I mean maybe some day they'll realize that ACA is the most conservative UHC you can get while not having people dying on the streets and work to improve it? poo poo, if McCain had won and passed the exact same bill the GOP would be falling all over themselves to talk about how awesome it is.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Doesn't play as well as "you, voter right there, they are going to take away your healthcare". They take the murder angle too and play up how many deaths that will cause, but those are faceless statistics to many people. Their personal heath care, their mom's, etc, that's not faceless. Yeah I guess that's true. Frustrating, but true. *gasp* "I... I never thought Leopards would Eat My Face!" axeil posted:I mean maybe some day they'll realize that ACA is the most conservative UHC you can get while not having people dying on the streets and work to improve it? This is a really annoying component of the almost-decade-long conservative wankfest surrounding the ACA. It's the Heritage Foundation plan from the 90's. It's RomneyCare. It is also a COUNTRY-DESTROYING SOCIALIST NIGHTMARE! FROM HELL! *rending shirt in twain* OBAMAAAAAAAAA Monkey Fracas fucked around with this message at 20:14 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
axeil posted:I mean maybe some day they'll realize that ACA is the most conservative UHC you can get while not having people dying on the streets and work to improve it? They would rather go back to the status quo without any sort of UHC. UHC takes money from rich people to give healthcare to poor people, they don't like even a conservative version of it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
axeil posted:I mean maybe some day they'll realize that ACA is the most conservative UHC you can get while not having people dying on the streets and work to improve it? Yeah pretty much. Their problem stems from the fact that the various parts of the law depend on other parts to work, which means you can just pick and choose. They hate the mandate, but without it you can't have the preexisting conditions part. And they don't like medicaid, but if you have a mandate you've got to have a way for people that can't afford private insurance to get covered. The only true "more conservative" option is full repeal. But they've been on "repeal and replace" for a while now because even they know full repeal is toxic. HappyHippo fucked around with this message at 20:16 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Yeah pretty much. Their problem stems from the fact that the various parts of the law depend on other parts to work, which means you can just pick and choose. They hate the mandate, but without it you can't have the preexisting conditions part. And they don't like medicaid, but if you have a mandate you've got to have a way for people that can't afford private insurance to get covered. They don't hate the mandate, they know the mandate is politically unpopular so they pretend to hate the mandate. They actually hate the taxes.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Alan Grayson's quip that the GOP Healthcare plan was to "Die Quickly" is looking more and more accurate every year.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
davebo posted:I see this is making the rounds today. Jimmy Kimmel's wife gave birth friday to a son with a heart defect. Very heartfelt monologue thanking all the doctors which basically turns into a plea for universal healthcare at the end. https://twitter.com/walshfreedom/status/859462346275782656 Washington Times: "Jimmy Kimmel -- An Elitist Creep Who Needs To Shut Up" These people have always been selfish and heartless but it's really shocking how open and proud of that fact they've been lately.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/walshfreedom/status/859462346275782656 still a fundamental misunderstanding of what insurance is, too.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:I'm surprised that the "at the end of the day, preventing healthcare access is basically murder" angle hasn't been played more. Maybe I haven;t been paying enough attention to the Democrats? It's not considered murder if it's a poor person that dies.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Sloober posted:still a fundamental misunderstanding of what insurance is, too. Look, some infants with heart conditions just weren't meant to receive medical care. Coincidentally, it's the poor ones.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Devor posted:Look, some infants with heart conditions just weren't meant to receive medical care. Coincidentally, it's the poor ones. Those infants should really look into getting a job in an industry with better healthcare options. And their parents shouldn't live such bad lives to curse their offspring like that.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:From what I understand they can't. Reconciliation can contain changes to spending or revenue but not both, and only one reconciliation bill is allowed per fiscal year. No, that's wrong. Basically there are three areas up for grabs when you pass something via reconciliation: revenues, spending and a debt ceiling increase, all limited to being done once each for a certain fiscal year. You can write three bills: one that decreases revenue, one that decreases spending, and one that increases the debt ceiling and pass them all via reconciliation. Or you could write one bill that does them all and pass it via reconciliation, but in either case after that you are done with reconciliation for the year because you have exhausted your allowed changes.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/c_milneil/status/859493052095885312 He "leans yes" on a bill he'd rather flee into the wrong bathroom than talk to a reporter about. What kabuki bullshit this whole ordeal is. It's all about saving face by trying to pass a bill without actually passing it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/walshfreedom/status/859462346275782656 I wish someone would smash this guy's teeth in with a loving bat holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
Meanwhile, Darrell Issa opts for his own brand of non-commitment: https://twitter.com/cimarcos/status/859521236359053313
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 23:47
|
|