|
Sloober posted:I am dead, for i never breathe You are now the perfect Republican voter!
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:47 |
|
|
skylined! posted:that wittes bomb finally dropped
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Dumb question I have: I know employers buy group plans for their employees and save costs by getting 30 or 40 people or whatever into one plan. Is there anything stopping groups of, say, 50 or 100 private random citizens banding together to purchase something similar? Yes, human nature. Group health plans only work when there are a lot of young, healthy people paying in. Employers can obviously make that happen, and the government can impose a mandate, but without that, young people will be dumb, think they are bulletproof, and save their money. Group health plans do not work when only older and sicker people are in the group.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
That's five, while four of the "moderates" (Cassidy, Murkowski, Capuito, and Portman) still haven't even spoken up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Did he lay out exactly how it was still supported? Because that would be nice to have at hand. CNN retracted the story because 1) it only has 1 anonymous source, and CNN standards require more before reporting 2) They didn't send the story to the fact checkers to fix errors before publication They still stand behind the content, but pulled it because they failed to follow multiple CNN procedures
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:That's five, while four of the "moderates" (Cassidy, Murkowski, Capuito, and Portman) still haven't even spoken up. I don't get the political calculus for Murkowski. Did she campaign against Obamacare in her write in campaign? Is Capito just coasting on voter apathy and tribalism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
Looks like the CNN retraction story + the O'Keefe video is getting pushed by the usual suspects - see e.g. these Hill stories: http://thehill.com/homenews/media/339632-new-okeefe-video-shows-cnn-producer-calling-russia-coverage-mostly-bullshit (O'Keefe video on the rando CNN producer) http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/339618-trump-blasts-several-publications-after-cnn-retraction-they-are-all (Loosely collected collection of POTUS tweets claiming vindication) Doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but I swear to loving christ allowing a conservative a platform is an act of violence against truth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Buffer posted:Looks like the CNN retraction story + the O'Keefe video is getting pushed by the usual suspects - see e.g. these Hill stories: Have you paid any attention to your girlfriend yet today? Your red text makes it seem like you should.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
So the bill is definitely dead for the week, and McConnell has the month of July to buy his way to 50 votes with his $200 billion savings?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Cornyn claims they're still moving forward this week: https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/879719698002305025 Possible interpretations: (a) their strategy is to just win or lose this week, either way they need to be done with it; (b) they're going to try to cut the deals by Wednesday they need, and think that a hard deadline will motivate people to get to yes; (c) stupid bluffing; (d) hoping enough people are bluffing but will cave when it comes to a vote; (e) two or more of the above
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Cornyn claims they're still moving forward this week: The House said their first attempt to pass it was the last chance too, so even if they say this week is absolutely the last word on the subject, there's no reason they can't try again later if it fails.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:I don't get the political calculus for Murkowski. Did she campaign against Obamacare in her write in campaign? Is Capito just coasting on voter apathy and tribalism? capito is scum who wants to be seen caring about her constituents but will vote for the bill if she can get away with it so yes, voter apathy and tribalism. she just is in a bad place because the bill will be devastating to her constituents but that is a political problem to her, not a moral one. murkowski, like most Alaskan senators, is all about the bottom line for Alaska: there's a pot of $200 billion that can buy her vote if needed (and there's already alaska-specific provisions in the bill) and that could potentially buy enough bribes for alaska to get her vote
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
I can't imagine that they'll even attempt to bring this up again if they have to head home for the 4th of July recess with it unfinished. Remember how intense the town halls were for the House version?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Crain posted:I can't imagine that they'll even attempt to bring this up again if they have to head home for the 4th of July recess with it unfinished. Pretty positive next to no republicans will hold town halls this recess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:The House said their first attempt to pass it was the last chance too, so even if they say this week is absolutely the last word on the subject, there's no reason they can't try again later if it fails. There actually is: they have a whole lot of poo poo they have to do in a very short timeframe including (a) not shutting the government down and (b) not defaulting on the debt and causing a worldwide financial meltdown and (c) managing to get a budget through the House and Senate that allows them to use reconciliation for 2018 and those sweet sweet tax cuts (somehow, even though they can pass something that's just [TBD] to trigger reconciliation this has become a huge mess and the HFC is being especially freedomy). Once you get to September something about that budget vote and/or the fiscal year ending means that the reconciliation bill is dead and can't be used again. I don't know precisely what triggers it, but both can - simply running out of time, or giving up and starting on the 2018 bill. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Jun 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
RiggenBlaque posted:Pretty positive next to no republicans will hold town halls this recess. Too dangerous with these violent leftists out there!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Crain posted:I can't imagine that they'll even attempt to bring this up again if they have to head home for the 4th of July recess with it unfinished. They won't be doing town halls, c'mon man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:Georgia really is the biggest poo poo hole Iunno, banning overtly political messages on license plates seems fine to me  Though yeah it's a shithole for plenty of other reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:They won't be doing town halls, c'mon man. It would be wiser for them to do that than to have disabled people occupying their offices and getting dragged off on camera though. So...strap in, folks. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
AbsolutelySane posted:'Discusses why it just had to leave after years of neglect.' Please don't neglect the brain. The brain gotta poop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
RiggenBlaque posted:Pretty positive next to no republicans will hold town halls this recess. People who don't hold town meetings should be allowed to have recess. But that's just me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Crain posted:I can't imagine that they'll even attempt to bring this up again if they have to head home for the 4th of July recess with it unfinished. lol you think republican senators will be holding town halls right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
RiggenBlaque posted:Pretty positive next to no republicans will hold town halls this recess. That's why if you see one shopping or eating out or whatever you yell at them and make it a town hall right then and there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
A bit off topic, but its obvious that Trump's primary motivator at the moment is to de-assemble Obama's legacy no matter the cost. I also know that Trump is a deeply vengeful man, obsessed with revenge. Why does Trump hate Obama so much? I saw the press dinner thing where Seth Meyer just tore into Trump (god its a satisfying watch) and everyone, including Obama, was laughing at Trump. The birtherism stuff was before that, though. So what inspired the birtherism stuff? Is it just that Trump is such a deep-down racist that he couldn't stand seeing a black man as President? Or did Obama slight Trump directly somehow?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:That's why if you see one shopping or eating out or whatever you yell at them and make it a town hall right then and there. That's how you get shot for being a violent leftist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Can you elaborate on "red tape"? I don't see how it'd be any more complicated than what most poelpe already deal with health insurance wise. And I'm just wondering if it's allowable and doable in the strictest sense. Like, could a put up a Craigslist ad that says "Uninsured? Pool needed for group health insurance plan. The more people the lower the cost". One thing is that you're still going to have a group rating, so if you have a few very sick members it will bump up the premiums for everyone - significantly so if you have catastrophic claims. Also don't forget that a lot of the advantages that you think of with employer insurance - like premiums being subsidized and being paid with pre-tax dollars - are specific to employers. You also have to keep in mind that insurance for smaller groups (like, <5k-10k) is going to be more expensive than for larger groups; that's because a lot of larger groups will opt to take on the medical costs (and therefore the risk) themselves and only pay the insurance company administrative fees. It costs a LOT more to get a product that the insurance company is betting its own money on. BiggerBoat posted:Also, if the US were to move to single payer, have we factored in what happens to the millions of people who work in the health care field when we factor in economic impact. Isn't healthcare like 20% of our economy or something? Do we just move those people into the government system? A lot of jobs would be lost. Insurance companies have entire sales divisions that would get the axe immediately. The government would still need claims to be administered and at least at first would probably contract that out to insurance companies like they do for Medicaid, but there's a *lot* of redundancy that would appear when there's just one entity paying the bills. That 20% is the entire healthcare industry, not just health insurance, but it would be a pretty big upheaval.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
I get that they'll be avoiding town halls. But they're still going to be home and around their constituents. People are already protesting outside their offices at the Capitol and I don't see why they wouldn't be protesting around their homes/offices in their districts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Snuffman posted:A bit off topic, but its obvious that Trump's primary motivator at the moment is to de-assemble Obama's legacy no matter the cost. I also know that Trump is a deeply vengeful man, obsessed with revenge. More than likely Trump went after Obama because the Trumps and the Clintons were...friends(?) at the time, and Hillary ran against Obama.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Snuffman posted:A bit off topic, but its obvious that Trump's primary motivator at the moment is to de-assemble Obama's legacy no matter the cost. I also know that Trump is a deeply vengeful man, obsessed with revenge. obama is black, also obama mocked trump to his face at the white house correspondence dinner birtherism/etc i suspect was just a hey, i can get attention from this from a guy who loves attention
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
It's not paranoia for the GOP senators to avoid all public appearances if everyone wants to wring their god damned necks. Get them a popemobile to travel around in
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:More than likely Trump went after Obama because the Trumps and the Clintons were...friends(?) at the time, and Hillary ran against Obama. I've never heard this theory but holy poo poo that's probably exactly why. He started in defense of Clinton and just kept escalating (because he doesn't like stairs) to the point where now she was his enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Snuffman posted:A bit off topic, but its obvious that Trump's primary motivator at the moment is to de-assemble Obama's legacy no matter the cost. I also know that Trump is a deeply vengeful man, obsessed with revenge. Obama roasted Trump at a different correspondents dinner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:That's five, while four of the "moderates" (Cassidy, Murkowski, Capuito, and Portman) still haven't even spoken up. My read on this is that the moderates are more vulnerable to being primaried than the "this isn't really repeal/this bill isn't evil enough" crowd. (Collins is safe from a primary challenge, Maine Republicans are generally moderate and she is popular) The moderates might still be willing to vote no if they have to, but if Rand Paul, Lee, Cruz, etc are willing to kill it, they are happy to sit back and let them do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
prom candy posted:Obama roasted Trump at a different correspondents dinner. Literally this. Trump also would have probably not run for president if Obama hadn't publicly humiliated him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Snuffman posted:A bit off topic, but its obvious that Trump's primary motivator at the moment is to de-assemble Obama's legacy no matter the cost. I also know that Trump is a deeply vengeful man, obsessed with revenge. The birther poo poo was just opportunism. Trump's always been a self promoter, and it kept him in the news and made millions of people love him. Turns out that was a super good move on his part (unless he ends up in prison), because the Republican Party is cynical enough to reward someone almost all of them deep down have to know was lying the whole time with the presidency. The party establishment obviously didn't want him for president, but they still gave him a platform for years before he ran, so they made their bed too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:murkowski, like most Alaskan senators, is all about the bottom line for Alaska: there's a pot of $200 billion that can buy her vote if needed (and there's already alaska-specific provisions in the bill) and that could potentially buy enough bribes for alaska to get her vote She also was primaried not that long ago and pulled off the miraculous write-in candidacy. I think she genuinely cares about not cutting medicaid, planned parenthood, etc but she's not eager to set herself up for another primary challenge if she doesn't have to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Rigel posted:My read on this is that the moderates are more vulnerable to being primaried than the "this isn't really repeal/this bill isn't evil enough" crowd. The moderates might still be willing to vote no if they have to, but if Rand Paul, Lee, Cruz, etc are willing to kill it, they are happy to sit back and let them do it. I think you're right they don't want to take a position but I think it's actually simpler: no matter what happens, they don't want to be on the losing side. Portman is vulnerable on both sides: Ohio is back to being a red state but it's not that red and worsening the opioid crisis is the sort of thing that could cost him his seat. Cassidy is an odd duck: he is from a deep red state and has no real reason to worry about the effects of voting for this but has been acting as if he has a tiny bit of a soul crying out to him that he hasn't quite murdered. It might just be that he's very new and had managed to convince himself that the republican party wanted to do good and hadn't struck a bargain with the devil. I wouldn't rely on him but he is genuinely odd in that he doesn't seem to have a political reason to be a moderate. Capuito has issues because her base is both very red and very vulnerable to a repeal so she's sort of hosed either way and mostly needs to stay quiet and figure out what the least bad option is because WV will still, occasionally, vote for their own breed of democrat as long as that person can manage to convince the WV electorate they're basically unaffiliated with the national party. Again the opioid crisis is the sort of thing that can cause her real problems. Murkowski I don't have a good feel for but there is a lot of potential bribe money for Alaska on the table and she's going to figure out exactly what kind of a deal she can get before jumping. She has no fear of a primary because she lost her primary and won the seat anyway as an independent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:murkowski, like most Alaskan senators, is all about the bottom line for Alaska: there's a pot of $200 billion that can buy her vote if needed (and there's already alaska-specific provisions in the bill) and that could potentially buy enough bribes for alaska to get her vote My understanding is that people in Alaska would suffer massively if Medicaid got cut, too. Health care costs are insane there, and people need to get airlifted to hospitals all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Rigel posted:She also was primaried not that long ago and pulled off the miraculous write-in candidacy. I think she genuinely cares about not cutting medicaid, planned parenthood, etc but she's not eager to set herself up for another primary challenge if she doesn't have to. I'm pretty sure that the lunatic who primaried her is going to keep running for office until he wins something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:47 |
|
|
enraged_camel posted:"No no, you see, it's not that I couldn't afford it, but that I chose not to buy it. Somebody called it a few pages back. Ah yes, "pay either the mortgage, the rent, the light bill or my premium because I don't earn enough to pay them all" = "freedom of choice". USA! USA! God, I feel so free. I guess I'll just decide to "choose" never get sick and am "free" to hope that my 6 year old son never needs an operation. edit: Sloober posted:If it's a choice you can't afford to make it is not a choice oh. I was reveling in my freedom there for a second.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 17:08
|
|
"