|
Pakistani Brad Pitt posted:What's the poison in this guy's single payer amendment where I shouldn't use it as a litmus test for Democrats from the left? If Republicans proposed it and Bernie's against it, that's a pretty good set of indicators. I don't need to check inside the wooden horse, it's a gift from the Greeks and that Cassandra lady says it's bad and she has a pretty good track record.
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If Republicans proposed it and Bernie's against it, that's a pretty good set of indicators. I don't need to check inside the wooden horse, it's a gift from the Greeks and that Cassandra lady says it's bad and she has a pretty good track record. Right culture wrong metaphor. Its a golden apple labeled "To the fairest".
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
Basically the republicans want to use it as a free attack on congress people in red states. So Dems in like Arizona, Kentucky, etc, etc. If they say "Yay single payer!" Republicans will run spooky ad's on them in black and white with "Do you want THIS COMMUNIST!!!! HERE!?!" and it may work and it may get them to lose their next round of elections, If they don't vote for it left wing dems will want them crucified and or primaried. So forcing the Democrats to vote either way will have consequences for them so Bern dawg is trying to give other Democrats cover by saying "Yo we see what you're doing and we're not voting for crap until we vote on your big plan". It's pretty much free as well because no republican is gonna vote it up and trump sure as hell isn't signing it. I would only use this as a litmus test of who to crucify if there was a Dem President and a comfortable majority in house and senate. Defenestrategy fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Pakistani Brad Pitt posted:What's the poison in this guy's single payer amendment where I shouldn't use it as a litmus test for Democrats from the left? We don't want any bill to pass. If a sungle payer bill passed the Senate then it will go to a conference committee for final markup. This new bill from from the conference committee is subject to an up or down vote with no amendments. Don't do the Republicans job for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If Republicans proposed it and Bernie's against it, that's a pretty good set of indicators. I don't need to check inside the wooden horse, it's a gift from the Greeks and that Cassandra lady says it's bad and she has a pretty good track record. C'mon dude, no one believes a word she says.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
KildarX posted:Basically the republicans want to use it as a free attack on congress people in red states. So Dems in like Arizona, Kentucky, etc, etc. If they say "Yay single payer!" Republicans will run spooky ad's on them in black and white with "Do you want THIS COMMUNIST!!!! HERE!?!" and it may work and it may get them to lose their next round of elections, If they don't vote for it left wing dems will want them crucified and or primaried. So forcing the Democrats to vote either way will have consequences for them so Bern dawg is trying to give other Democrats cover by saying "Yo we see what you're doing and we're not voting for crap until we vote on your big plan". I actually think Trump probably would sign a single-payer bill if it made it to his desk (not that it'd ever make it through a conference). He doesn't give a gently caress what's in the bill. He doesn't even know what's in the bill. He just wants to say he tore down the ACA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
Democrats want cover to continue being able to lie to us about what they support, this is good becausekarthun posted:We don't want any bill to pass. If a sungle payer bill passed the Senate then it will go to a conference committee for final markup. This new bill from from the conference committee is subject to an up or down vote with no amendments. Don't do the Republicans job for them. That makes no difference. If Republicans can come up with a theoretical bill that can get 50 Senators on board after the conference committee, then they could just pass that text through the Senate now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 10:07
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:I have no idea who gets what they want but Collins/Murkowski are not gettable on anything so there's no room to wiggle in what universe is murkowski not gettable? it seems more probable than not that she would've just voted Yes on the MTP if McCain wasn't able to show up in time
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
Arkane posted:in what universe is murkowski not gettable? Voting against the MTP was a pretty big sign. She's not up for reelection until 2022, and she's from Alaska. She didn't need a hall pass and there would be no reason to vote against the MTP purely for image reasons. If they wanted to give one freebie out it would have been to Heller most likely since he faces a hard race and clearly considers this a negative for that race and had to be beaten into submission.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
murkowski was primaried from the right in 2010 and mounted a write in campaign, which she won. she is by far the most popular politician in alaska and is incredibly difficult to pressure. she also voted against the MTP, which is a big deal
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
Skinny repeal is dead https://twitter.com/MarcGoldwein/status/890396857129725952
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
Piell posted:Skinny repeal is dead I'm not counting this chicken until it's plucked and roasted
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
it's not dead, they're just gonna find something else to trim
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Piell posted:Skinny repeal is dead I'll believe it when I see its corpse. Only the grim brooding desert gods know what really took place, etc., etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:I'll believe it when I see its corpse. Only the grim brooding desert gods know what really took place, etc., etc. That tweet was posted last night, it hasn't been confirmed, and if it was true then its likes/retweets would have skyrocketed by now. Probably wishful thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
The tweet is correct, but misleading. The Dems hurried in a CBO score to get bad headlines out before the bill was unveiled. McConnell already knows it's non-compliant, and will put something else into the bill so it fits into reconciliation. Interestingly, Vox also reported last night that they may put opioid funding into it. So this may be a bit more than just skinny repeal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:it's not dead, they're just gonna find something else to trim Well then its no longer "Skinny" on the repeal, which turns off a few votes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:murkowski was primaried from the right in 2010 and mounted a write in campaign, which she won. she is by far the most popular politician in alaska and is incredibly difficult to pressure. she also voted against the MTP, which is a big deal be that as it may, neither murkowski nor collins have flat out rejected voting for skinny repeal and in fact, murk's interview with her local paper after the MTP seemed to imply that she could very easily vote yes on the final product
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:That tweet was posted last night, it hasn't been confirmed, and if it was true then its likes/retweets would have skyrocketed by now. Probably wishful thinking. Probably for the best, I'm getting a little weary of the Monkey's Paw outcomes of granted wishes anyway. Too many goddamned people who are dead-set on killing a bunch of folks so the rich can take in a few more bucks, and other funding can be siphoned into local pork and such. loving give it up, you monsters, and maybe work on improving life in the grand ol' US instead of trying to gently caress the poor (but only in other districts!).
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
If not for the devastating effects on all the innocent people, it would be hilarious to watch this pass and dick over the insurance companies good and hard. For eight years they've been cynically blaming every lovely thing they do on Obamacare, even stuff they would do anyway or stuff they were already doing before it passed, figuring they'd get away with it by deflecting customer anger onto Obama. And then those customers went and elected a bunch of idiot true believers who don't understand insurance markets to wreck their business model.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Imagine the dilemma of health insurance company bosses: They want the sweet, sweet tax cuts that the Republicans are offering. But they don't want the Republican's idiotic healthcare plans torpedoing their profits. What to do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If not for the devastating effects on all the innocent people, it would be hilarious to watch this pass and dick over the insurance companies good and hard. "Please, Brer Turtle, don't throw us into a market where we'll have to have one insanely expensive plan that conforms and a dozen comparatively cheaper empty plans that don't need to cover anything expensive!" They're literally too big to fail, and they're faced with Dems who are insisting on CSR permanence vs the GOP who are seeking to make them less constrained than Comcast and credit cards. The only bad option is being forced to continue performing under ACA constraints while not receiving any of the ACA's subsidies. Dunno how familar you are with the GOP, but they're not big on making corporations take massive hits to protect the public.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Imagine the dilemma of health insurance company bosses: They want the sweet, sweet tax cuts that the Republicans are offering. But they don't want the Republican's idiotic healthcare plans torpedoing their profits. What to do? Nah, their investments have to be worth so much more than their taxable salaries. Plus, they have to keep those profits up so they can keep their sweet gigs! I probably shouldn't look at how Vanguard's Healthcare mutual fund is doing until all of this shakes out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:"Please, Brer Turtle, don't throw us into a market where we'll have to have one insanely expensive plan that conforms and a dozen comparatively cheaper empty plans that don't need to cover anything expensive!" The skinny repeal doesn't permit the lovely empty plans, that's why the insurance companies hate it so much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AmandaBecker/status/890567841300328449 How did this wind up even more of a farce than I thought?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The skinny repeal doesn't permit the lovely empty plans, that's why the insurance companies hate it so much. insurance companies don't actually want the lovely empty plans: you can make a lot more profit off of a market where everyone's able to get comprehensive health insurance and you can take 10% off the top than a market where a good chunk is uninsurable and you're selling a worthless product in a market that only competes on price: you'll get most of your profit squeezed out even though virtually all of the revenue is pure profit the situation where everyone is part of the same risk pool and has comprehensive insurance is much better for everyone - insurers and the public at large - than allowing lovely empty plans. it is only shortsighted idiots who believe (wrongly) that the lovely empty plans are in their interest because they have the foresight of a sack of potatoes insurance companies hate skinny repeal more than the lovely empty plans, but that's because skinny repeal basically just kills the market entirely meaning no profits and no insurance for anyone, but they hate the lovely empty plans a lot more than the status quo
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:https://twitter.com/AmandaBecker/status/890567841300328449 Our lives will depend on a bill that a bunch of morons wrote over lunch. Hope they don't get ketchup over the important parts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
Makes sense. I wish we could duplicate the Earth and send all the Trump voters and the insurance companies to Earth-2 where Trump is president of only them so we can pass single payer here and then sit back and laugh at the chaos without anyone of worth suffering from it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Our lives will depend on a bill that a bunch of morons wrote over lunch. Hope they don't get ketchup over the important parts. "Essential health benefits are as follows: emergency services, ambulances, hospitalization, neonatal care, two French fries and a half-eaten roll."
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
it's happening! https://twitter.com/chadderr/status/890571434485063681
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
if you're planning on watching this live, the vote-a-rama is going to last until (as a guess) 5am tomorrow morning
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
All the mentions of Murkowski the past few days have just made me miss Barbara Mikulski. She represented me my entire life and even though it's not like she got replaced with a Republican it's still weird that she's not there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Bernie's on the floor. https://www.c-span.org/video/?431873-1/us-senate-set-begin-health-care-votearama-today&live
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Arkane posted:be that as it may, neither murkowski nor collins have flat out rejected voting for skinny repeal they are trying to put PP funding cuts in the skinny which is a pretty clear sign that they view murkowski and Collins as ungettable
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Can someone more knowledgeable explain what this means? https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/890609463203217408
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
it means that they can't include a provision that lets states axe PEC or EHB protections (pre existing conditions and essential health benefits aka the things insurance has to cover)
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Do they actually have to obey the parliamentarian? Serious question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Do they actually have to obey the parliamentarian? Serious question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Do they actually have to obey the parliamentarian? Serious question. Not without effectively destroying the filibuster, which there's not really much reason to do when you can't even cobble together 50 votes. But yes, they can do it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
What are the odds Trump vetoes a Skinny Repeal because it doesnt go far enough?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:03
|
|
