|
This was my favorite non-response of the day: https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/859474495173799936
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
AegisP posted:Meanwhile, Darrell Issa opts for his own brand of non-commitment: I hope he votes yes so his reelection is doomed.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/walshfreedom/status/859462346275782656 What if Jimmy Kimmel's family had wanted an abortion? Depending on the type of heart condition, the parents have the option of choosing not to intervene.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:No, that's wrong. Oh I see, thanks. Hey do you happen to understand why getting rid of the ACA taxes in 2017 lets them cut even more taxes in 2018 via reconciliation without the 10-year sunset. I don't get that part.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh I see, thanks. It's because they also gut the Medicaid expansion and no longer have to provide subsidies to the insurance markets.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh I see, thanks. They want to get rid of $1T in ACA taxes. If they can offset them with Medicaid cuts in the AHCA bill, that's $1T closer to revenue neutrality in the tax bill and then they can use reconciliation.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Lote posted:What if Jimmy Kimmel's family had wanted an abortion? Actually, it's quite simple: the state can force someone to take every precaution necessary to save that life because that life is important and every innocent baby deserves to live, even the ones not born yet. There is nothing more important than the life of a child. The state cannot force its citizens at large to pay for said baby's healthcare/insurance after the family is forced to save it's life via expensive methods because, well, that would be too coercive. There's nothing more important than freedom to choose not to spend money on the healthcare of those less fortunate, doesn't matter if that child has a horrible life, his parents clearly chose wrong somewhere along the line. I genuinely hope that Joe Walsh never has a child/grandchild who is born with a sickness that serious, because that's not something I'd wish on anyone, and also because I'm sure he wouldn't learn anything from it anyways because he's dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 10:05
|
|
|
Update for Wednesday: A fig leaf's been negotiated to bring on two of the 'nos' (Upton and Long) that doesn't seem like it will lose any Freedom Caucus votes. Specifically, 8 billion for high risk pools, which is something like four percent of what they'd need. Mike Turner, listed as a 'no' on some, but not all of the whip counts, has reportedly been really evasive today about how he'll vote. Amidst all that coming out in the news, Carlos Curbelo, a member of the whip team, tweeted this: https://twitter.com/carloslcurbelo/status/859784057210712065 Publicly, he was previously undecided. I think whether this passes probably depends on which way that tweet was read in the context of what the supposedly undecideds have been saying in private. Could be a signal from opposition that they've got the additional 'no' votes to push past 23, could be the whip team drawing attention to the amendment to try to give others cover for a yes vote. The tone of reporters that have been good to follow on this has shifted toward passage being distinctly possible, for example: https://twitter.com/byrdinator/status/859797363547938816 Gonna be close. I still hope it tanks. Regardless of whether it's more politically advantageous for those opposing the GOP to see a vote, things this dangerous need to die and stay dead. edit: Oh, and the House is set to go on recess after Thursday. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 17:19 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
so this poo poo's still Dead As Hell in the senate right?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Craig K posted:so this poo poo's still Dead As Hell in the senate right? Not exactly. They'll never approve the bill in its current form. They will probably make changes to it and kick it back to the house. And if/when that happens, house Republicans might get the cover they need to approve it. BlueberryCanary fucked around with this message at 17:59 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
so after the senate takes out the "mulch poor and sick people to use as fertilizer for their garden mazes" rider out the freedom caucus throws a hissy fit and votes it down and meanwhile everybody that voted "yes", despite the bills defeat, immediately deals with hearing "{x} voted to take away YOUR HEALTHCARE" and loses re election im down
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Craig K posted:so this poo poo's still Dead As Hell in the senate right? This is not passing the Senate. It is up in the air if anything can pass the Senate: they can only lose 3 votes and have the same problem of pleasing both sides. Anything that does, it's a question of if it can then pass the House. If it gets to the Senate there is a possibility some sort of repeal happens. Not this, but it'll be bad still.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Craig K posted:so after the senate takes out the "mulch poor and sick people to use as fertilizer for their garden mazes" rider out the freedom caucus throws a hissy fit and votes it down and meanwhile everybody that voted "yes", despite the bills defeat, immediately deals with hearing "{x} voted to take away YOUR HEALTHCARE" and loses re election Yep: quote:And while tweaks in the Senate—such as making tax credits for low-income patients more generous—could win over some nervous moderates, it would turn off the hardline conservatives currently on board with the bill.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
The HFC is the gift that keeps on giving.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This is not passing the Senate. It is up in the air if anything can pass the Senate: they can only lose 3 votes and have the same problem of pleasing both sides. Anything that does, it's a question of if it can then pass the House. After the first failure, when they started writing AHCA 2.0: Extra Evil HFC Version, the Senate started talking about how some of the provisions (getting rid of essential health benefits, changing how coverage for preexisting conditions works) were way outside the scope of what is allowable in a reconciliation bill per the Byrd rule. That gives the Senate a plausible way to simply bury the bill and forget about it by saying it doesn't even qualify as a reconciliation bill. Then everyone gets to grumble about arcane Senate rules and how our legislative process is totally broken, which shifts a lot of blame away from individual senators. House reps who vote yes on it are still gonna get hosed in 2018 though.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:After the first failure, when they started writing AHCA 2.0: Extra Evil HFC Version, the Senate started talking about how some of the provisions (getting rid of essential health benefits, changing how coverage for preexisting conditions works) were way outside the scope of what is allowable in a reconciliation bill per the Byrd rule. That gives the Senate a plausible way to simply bury the bill and forget about it by saying it doesn't even qualify as a reconciliation bill. Then everyone gets to grumble about arcane Senate rules and how our legislative process is totally broken, which shifts a lot of blame away from individual senators. I think they are more likely to bury it in committee "working on it" and it never emerges because they can just take out Byrd violations. But I think they'll face a lot of pressure to try to pass something.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Zikan posted:Paul Ryan has convinced Trump that he needs to do obamacare repeal and replace before the "easier" goal of tax cuts and Trump is too stupid to realize that's complete bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Pizdec posted:This is from a while back, but could anyone elaborate on that? How is that bullshit and what is Trump too dumb to realize here? Does the POTUS have less power over taxes than the healthcare legislation? As a socialist Yuropean I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the American system, and it's an awful feeling being less educated than Trump on an issue. The answer relies on an arcane rule of the Senate that nobody really understands, either in this forum, the press, or most of the Senate. It is a special way legislation can be passed that bypasses the Senate filibuster, so it can be passed with a bare majority instead of 60 votes. The details of why and how are really not worth trying to understand because ultimately Ryan was wrong. Ryan was relying on making permanent tax cuts by introducing a border-adjusted tax that had to be revenue neutral and that required Obamacare first so they could lower the baseline of "revenue" - but the border adjusted is dead in the water and so they're just going to do a temporary tax cut that expires in 10 years (again, because of quirks of the senate rules).
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The answer relies on an arcane rule of the Senate that nobody really understands, either in this forum, the press, or most of the Senate. It is a special way legislation can be passed that bypasses the Senate filibuster, so it can be passed with a bare majority instead of 60 votes. The details of why and how are really not worth trying to understand because ultimately Ryan was wrong. Ryan was relying on making permanent tax cuts by introducing a border-adjusted tax that had to be revenue neutral and that required Obamacare first so they could lower the baseline of "revenue" - but the border adjusted is dead in the water and so they're just going to do a temporary tax cut that expires in 10 years (again, because of quirks of the senate rules). This may be a consequence of those arcane rules that nobody understands, but I don't understand how passing the Obamacare repeal influences whether later, unrelated legislation is revenue neutral.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:This may be a consequence of those arcane rules that nobody understands, but I don't understand how passing the Obamacare repeal influences whether later, unrelated legislation is revenue neutral. Whole idea was to save a ton of government money by axing ACA provisions, allowing them to return that money in the form of delicious delicious tax cuts.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Whole idea was to save a ton of government money by axing ACA provisions, allowing them to return that money in the form of delicious delicious tax cuts. But I thought the point was to repeal the Obamacare taxes while repealing the spending, so that they are already using that saved money for tax cuts. As has been pointed out in this thread, one of the real complaints about Obamacare is that it raised taxes on the wealthy. Is it that they're going to cut the spending so much that there's room for even more tax cuts beyond the Obamacare taxes?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:But I thought the point was to repeal the Obamacare taxes while repealing the spending, so that they are already using that saved money for tax cuts. As has been pointed out in this thread, one of the real complaints about Obamacare is that it raised taxes on the wealthy. Is it that they're going to cut the spending so much that there's room for even more tax cuts beyond the Obamacare taxes? Getting rid of the ACA is a big tax cut on the wealthy. What was it, a 3.8% tax on wealthy paychecks?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Sloober posted:Getting rid of the ACA is a big tax cut on the wealthy. What was it, a 3.8% tax on wealthy paychecks? Right, that's what I'm getting at. Trying to wrap my head around how Paul Ryan can use repealing Obamacare (which gets you a tax cut on the wealthy) to fund another tax cut on the wealthy beyond that.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:But I thought the point was to repeal the Obamacare taxes while repealing the spending, so that they are already using that saved money for tax cuts. As has been pointed out in this thread, one of the real complaints about Obamacare is that it raised taxes on the wealthy. Is it that they're going to cut the spending so much that there's room for even more tax cuts beyond the Obamacare taxes? Essentially! The details rapidly hit the point where it's difficult to separate the outright lies from the merely stretched truths.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Craig K posted:so after the senate takes out the "mulch poor and sick people to use as fertilizer for their garden mazes" rider out the freedom caucus throws a hissy fit and votes it down and meanwhile everybody that voted "yes", despite the bills defeat, immediately deals with hearing "{x} voted to take away YOUR HEALTHCARE" and loses re election The political dynamics of that seem really similar to that climate change bill that passed in 2009 but died in the Senate
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Right, that's what I'm getting at. Trying to wrap my head around how Paul Ryan can use repealing Obamacare (which gets you a tax cut on the wealthy) to fund another tax cut on the wealthy beyond that. As I understand it it's a shell game. Repeal Obamacare, but not obama care tax hikes, then shift the tax burden onto the middle class and lower class and off of the rich, and claim it's revenue neutral because you're generating the same total revenue as if obamacra had never been repealed, you're just using the revenu to discount rich people taxes instead of to pay for health care. I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
So, is there any chance there will be a vote today or tomorrow?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
BlueberryCanary posted:So, is there any chance there will be a vote today or tomorrow? It seems relatively likely at this point. The "no" Republicans are down to 16 with 8 "lean no", which means that they're very close. If they get enough they'll immediately hold a vote.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
House GOP leadership just met, and journalists are starting to confirm on Twitter that the vote is going to happen tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Journalists are starting to confirm on Twitter that the vote is going to happen tomorrow. Yup. https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/859907173505171456
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Last I heard was 20 hell nos. Who shifted?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Last I heard was 20 hell nos. Who shifted? Upton and Long, who got bought off by 8b that they can't even really explain for a problem that costs $200b. Current list: https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/859906178607919104 Webster I know isn't a very hard no, he keeps muttering that he wants some specific medicare bed thing that they can probably give him if they really need to.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Darrell Issa confused me at first-- how can he be undecided when this thing would absolutely tank him in his district-- and then I remembered he's probably already sunk, might as well gently caress the poor while he can!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Darrell Issa confused me at first-- how can he be undecided when this thing would absolutely tank him in his district-- and then I remembered he's probably already sunk, might as well gently caress the poor while he can! Undecided doesn't necessarily mean undecided. A lot of the "moderate" nos don't want to be on the record: they will tell Ryan they're a no but won't tell the press because it is better for them if the bill never gets a vote so they don't piss off either their base or sane people. Similarly, a lot of "yes" voters don't actually want to be on the record supporting this unless it is going to pass.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
So they're not voting now...I guess they're doing the same thing as last time? Setting it up for the floor before they're sure and hoping enough votes shake out? I can't imagine they'd wait if they thought they were there now.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Undecided doesn't necessarily mean undecided. A lot of the "moderate" nos don't want to be on the record: they will tell Ryan they're a no but won't tell the press because it is better for them if the bill never gets a vote so they don't piss off either their base or sane people. Similarly, a lot of "yes" voters don't actually want to be on the record supporting this unless it is going to pass. Is this just something you tell to comfort yourself or do you have a source?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
If I had to guess, they're still a handful of votes short but think that with the bill on the floor they can twist the final handful of arms needed. Same plan as before, but this time they know they're closer and only need to twist individual arms while last time they were hoping the entire HFC buckled.Fulchrum posted:Is this just something you tell to comfort yourself or do you have a source? Why would that be comforting? It's not saying they are going one way or another: it's saying that "undecided" doesn't mean undecided in many cases. That dynamic has been reported on right and left and is fairly obvious.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
The GOP is claiming they have the votes, not just that they're close. Grain of salt, and all: https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/859909560500465665 https://twitter.com/pkcapitol/status/859910374317072384 evilweasel fucked around with this message at 00:26 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
"Do we know what's actually in the bill? Um..." DaveWoo fucked around with this message at 00:27 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
I hope this presidency just destroys the Trump name. He is not going to please anyone and does not deserve the amount of money he makes off the brand.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:26
|
|
