|
https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/874816075522859008 beyond parody
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:48 |
|
|
Someone needs to lock McConnell (and preferably most other Republicans) in the congressional bathroom forever
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
To be fair to Obamacare's legislative strategy, it looks like regulations such as guaranteed issue, community rating, and essential health benefits can't be repealed without 60 votes in the Senate, which is a major impediment to GOP repeal efforts. I know some conservatives are harping on legislative mumbo-jumbo about Pence being able to waive away those rules, but if they abandon the 60-vote threshold for passing healthcare bills, Democrats are definitely pushing through the public option if not single payer next time they get a simple Senate majority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
JesusSinfulHands posted:To be fair to Obamacare's legislative strategy, it looks like regulations such as guaranteed issue, community rating, and essential health benefits can't be repealed without 60 votes in the Senate, which is a major impediment to GOP repeal efforts. I know some conservatives are harping on legislative mumbo-jumbo about Pence being able to waive away those rules, but if they abandon the 60-vote threshold for passing healthcare bills, Democrats are definitely pushing through the public option if not single payer next time they get a simple Senate majority. yeah, about that. ask Nancy Pelosi about if single payer is ever going to happen, the answer may surprise you. it is important we be rational, centrist, and reasonable about a Democratic health care bill, by which of course I mean "let Blue Cross/Blue Shield write the entire goddamned thing, what's the worst that could happen, we lose literally every level of government to a senile game show host running on a platform of gently caress The Mexicans?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Someone needs to lock McConnell (and preferably most other Republicans) in the congressional bathroom forever I am running out of space on my bar for all the bottles I'm going to open when a specific R politician dies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Someone needs to lock McConnell (and preferably most other Republicans) in
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
JesusSinfulHands posted:To be fair to Obamacare's legislative strategy, it looks like regulations such as guaranteed issue, community rating, and essential health benefits can't be repealed without 60 votes in the Senate, which is a major impediment to GOP repeal efforts. I know some conservatives are harping on legislative mumbo-jumbo about Pence being able to waive away those rules, but if they abandon the 60-vote threshold for passing healthcare bills, Democrats are definitely pushing through the public option if not single payer next time they get a simple Senate majority. Single payer is not Democrat policy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
Hastings posted:Hot drat, the American public is done and over with this nonsense. Good luck getting the Senate to okay this and killing their careers. It is amazing that the GOP ever thought they could get away with being so brazen. Even Satan is looking at them and saying, "Now come on, don't you think this is a little too evil?" Was May so long ago? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
Also it only "required" 60 votes because the senate still pretended its rules mattered. McConnel doesn't give a gently caress about norms and will change rules if dems try to block anything at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Also it only "required" 60 votes because the senate still pretended its rules mattered. McConnel doesn't give a gently caress about norms and will change rules if dems try to block anything at all. I think pretend is the operative word here. Next time Democrats control the Senate, no such pretense should be maintained.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Single payer is not Democrat policy. quote:In a sign of shifting sympathies, most House Democrats have now endorsed a single-payer proposal. Party strategists say they expect that the 2020 presidential nominee will embrace a broader version of public health coverage than any Democratic standard-bearer has in decades. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/democrats-universal-health-care-single-payer-party.html MooselanderII posted:I think pretend is the operative word here. Next time Democrats control the Senate, no such pretense should be maintained. Yup, that's what I was getting at. If Senate Republicans commit political seppuku by passing AHCA, and especially through questionable legislative maneuvers in order to do so, Democrats would just be able to pass whatever they want with 50 votes next time they have the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
It's very unlikely that Republicans abolish the filibuster, but Democrats absolutely should in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
They won't and Dean already poo-pooed on the idea that they ever even bothered to try getting Lieberman on board, it's a useful story at best. The centrists of both party need the legislative filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Dean already poo-pooed on the idea that they ever even bothered to try getting Lieberman on board, it's a useful story at best that's wrong and stupid
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's very unlikely that Republicans abolish the filibuster, but Democrats absolutely should in 2020. I have no doubt whatsoever that if they have 50 votes for the senate AHCA that they cannot pass via reconciliation that they will kill the filibuster over it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I have no doubt whatsoever that if they have 50 votes for the senate AHCA that they cannot pass via reconciliation that they will kill the filibuster over it. The filibuster is a structural advantage for conservative (big C/little c) politics, and you have enough people in the Senate who remember that. Democrats, broadly, want to pass new legislation, new programs, new benefits. The GOP, broadly, wants to roll those things back while passing tax Dems can expand government faster and more thoroughly than Rs can cut it. Same reason the GOP can force shutdowns but the incentives don't align for Dems to retaliate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
They don't need to abolish the filibuster, they can just have the presiding officer rule that whatever they want falls under reconciliation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:that's wrong and stupid werent you in here like a month ago saying that there was no way anything close to the house bill passed the senate? lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:They don't need to abolish the filibuster, they can just have the presiding officer rule that whatever they want falls under reconciliation. Only 1 such bill a year. But the entire point is that the rules can be changed in arbitrary ways by a simple majority of the senate. Going your route means the filibuster is dead but the rules are even more arcane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:that's wrong and stupid turn on your monitor
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:They don't need to abolish the filibuster, they can just have the presiding officer rule that whatever they want falls under reconciliation. Even that's not in their interests. Most Republican priorities can be done through reconciliation while following the rules. Most Democratic priorities can't. Plus, ignoring the reconciliation rules like that may not be exactly the same as abolishing the filibuster but it's basically the same thing. It'd be like when Democrats abolished the judicial filibuster, except for Supreme Court nominees. Everyone knew that, in practice, abolishing the filibuster for all other nominees meant Republicans would abolish it for any Supreme Court nominee. They probably would have anyway, but they would have had a more difficult time with it - but while some Republican senators might have considered keeping the judicial filibuster entirely they weren't going to keep it, but just for the important stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
So how long do we think it will be between the Senate passing their bill and the conference bill coming to a final vote? Once the Senate votes on their AHCA, I have to assume the media silence will end and it will dominate the news and finally get people angry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:So how long do we think it will be between the Senate passing their bill and the conference bill coming to a final vote? Once the Senate votes on their AHCA, I have to assume the media silence will end and it will dominate the news and finally get people angry. Depends on how quickly the two houses agree to the changes and if they have planned/negotiated beforehand. They could theoretically do it all in a day or the conference committee could kill the bill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
They also don't have to do a conference committee, the House could just pass the Senate bill. The only real deadline is that the bill has to be passed by sometime in September so they can line up the next reconciliation bill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
The problem with abolishing the filibuster is that republicans will just abolish whatever democrats do the next time they're in power and major sectors of the economy will change every four years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The problem with abolishing the filibuster is that republicans will just abolish whatever democrats do the next time they're in power and major sectors of the economy will change every four years. The country doesn't change from complete one-party control to complete other-party control that often.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They also don't have to do a conference committee, the House could just pass the Senate bill. The only real deadline is that the bill has to be passed by sometime in September so they can line up the next reconciliation bill. That slipped my mind, but there's also a chance that the Tortilla boys will demand some kind of change, forcing Republican Senators to take a vote with some public heat. Either way, though, the more time between the bill finally being released to the public and the final vote the better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The problem with abolishing the filibuster is that republicans will just abolish whatever democrats do the next time they're in power and major sectors of the economy will change every four years. Whereas if the filibuster remains in place, they'll do something different; for example,
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The country doesn't change from complete one-party control to complete other-party control that often. Not every four years, but more often than I'm comfortable with. We're already in the shitter because everything filibuster-proof that happened under Obama is being repealed, I don't see how it's to the Republicans' advantage that the filibuster prevents doing even more damage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:yeah, about that. ask Nancy Pelosi about if single payer is ever going to happen, the answer may surprise you. Don't blame insurance companies for how terribly ACA was written, it was all "public health policy" people. Not a single Actuary authored that thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Well, regardless of this thread's fight over the shutdown strategy, the Democrats are going for it. God willing the press starts paying some attention now.
Flip Yr Wig fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jun 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
PSA from 1949 describing the value of a Public Health Service. Costs all of $.03 a week for the average man! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ESmHv2h50s
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Reik posted:Don't blame insurance companies for how terribly ACA was written, it was all "public health policy" people. Not a single Actuary authored that thing. Well, to be fair, I don't think most large insurance companies are run by actuaries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Well, to be fair, I don't think most large insurance companies are run by actuaries. The previous CFO where I work was an Actuary. Not sure how many make it to CEO.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Reik posted:The previous CFO where I work was an Actuary. Not sure how many make it to CEO. CFO and CRO are probably actuaries half the time, but that's probably the limit. I don't know how much the CFO directly influences the company's public policy lobbyists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mhackman/status/876916947912343552 I mean... A little rushed, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/mhackman/status/876916947912343552 Well when you ripoff the band aid, you want it to be quick don't you? And by band aid I mean knife and by ripoff I mean stabbed repeatedly in the face.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/mhackman/status/876916947912343552 Probably not rushed enough. They only gave themselves a single news cycle and Trump will do at least one major fuckup during that time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Well, that timeline would at least give like four to six days for the public to review it which is at least like 50x longer than expected. Still, uh, monstrous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:48 |
|
|
Yeah I thought that they were trying to make it so the public only had a matter of hours to review things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 00:41
|
|
