|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:What are the odds Trump vetoes a Skinny Repeal because it doesnt go far enough? zero, he doesn't know or care about the policy and just wants anything he can characterize as a win
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
Elotana posted:Technically they could do a one-time (per fiscal year) nuclear option and have the VP overrule the Parliamentarian. But at this point they've contorted so much to get through reconciliation that I imagine McConnell didn't have the support for that route in his own caucus (some staunch conservatives like Enzi were against it when Cruz suggested it) Not the VP, but whoever is acting as the president (presiding officer) of the senate. Same procedure as the democrats used to remove the filibuster on appointments. You can actually change any rule of the senate the same way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Dear evilweasel, please give this thread the long, boring version of the Byrd Rule Story 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:zero, he doesn't know or care about the policy and just wants anything he can characterize as a win Agreed. He doesn't understand anything about healthcare. He doesn't understand what the ACA is, or what the Republicans are planning. The only things he has said on the subject are idiotic, like health insurance costing $12 a year under the Republican plan, or paying out like Whole Life insurance in old age. He just wants to sign whatever they pass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:zero, he doesn't know or care about the policy and just wants anything he can characterize as a win On the other hand, he might veto it based on what cable news says about the bill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:On the other hand, he might veto it based on what cable news says about the bill. That'd probably take Fox & Friends running an hour-long segment about just how bad the Republican mish-mash of a bill really is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:On the other hand, he might veto it based on what cable news says about the bill. He'll hear cable news say "victory for Republicans" and then immediately tune out before they get to "defeat for everyone else."
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
xeria posted:That'd probably take Fox & Friends running an hour-long segment about just how bad the Republican mish-mash of a bill really is. What Fox News is currently saying about the healthcare bill on their front page:
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:What Fox News is currently saying about the healthcare bill on their front page: There are two articles about it linked on the Fox News front page, both in a negative tone, and a link to a live stream of the debate. I'm not suggesting that's remotely what their coverage will look like if a bill passes, but they are covering the story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:There are two articles about it linked on the Fox News front page, both in a negative tone, and a link to a live stream of the debate. Oh, my bad, I just looked at the main articles. There is some stuff in the side bar. The big story is the military trans ban. If I had Fox News' website as my main source of news I might be vaguely aware that there was some healthcare debate going on, but not of the impact it might have on my family, or that they were in fact preparing to radically overhaul the US healthcare system today. I have this sneaking feeling that their coverage was more comprehensive when the ACA was being passed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Democrats want cover to continue being able to lie to us about what they support, this is good because
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted: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. Wouldn't the point be that they could bribe to 50 if their hands weren't tied by reconciliation rules?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Democrats want cover to continue being able to lie to us about what they support, this is good because "i, as a resolute liberal, agree with that republican simply trying to troll me and not, say, bernie sanders who is calling him out on it"
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Democrats need to embrace the Realpolitik that turned the Republican party into the monster it is today if they want to win elections. Any alternative involves reconsidering the party's leadership, messaging, and relationship with its donors, and that is obviously unacceptable. Not only would it almost certainly cost the Democrats elections to infighting and factionalism, it would disrupt the smooth ascension of those already in the party apparatus to the next higher rung of power when their patrons win elections or retire. Pretty much. evilweasel posted:"i, as a resolute liberal, agree with that republican simply trying to troll me and not, say, bernie sanders who is calling him out on it" Unironically yes. When Obama was president, Republicans had a unified message and they voted in lockstep to repeal Obamacare and didn't equivocate at all on whether that would be good to do. They weren't dumb enough to say "oh Obama is president and he'll veto it anyway, so let's not vote on Obamacare and keep it kind of ambiguous whether we support it or not", and it worked. The only difference is it's biting them in the rear end now because they were lying when they said repealing Obamacare is good, whereas we won't have that problem because single payer is actually good. (We would have a different problem, that many Democrats are on pharma and insurance company payrolls, and therefore do not want to pass single payer. Which is why we should get them on record now so the voters can have a debate about it in the primaries).
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
The press conference basically confirmed the skinny bill will pass tonight. I don't think for a second that this will go to conference and will instead be passed by the house in the morning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
I still can't believe GOP senators are going to pass that, knowing it's going to be a disaster that will blow back on them. They don't even have a party man in charge of the presidency to give them cover, you know the instant premiums explode, Trump is going to throw them under the bus and rant about the Republicans selling us out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The press conference basically confirmed the skinny bill will pass tonight. I don't think for a second that this will go to conference and will instead be passed by the house in the morning. the thing is i'm not sure what paul ryan could really do to provide the assurances graham and mccain are demanding demanding i feel like what i watched was mccain and graham hope really, really hard someone else kills this and announce they don't have the courage to do it but they're really hoping someone else will provide the excuse, and if ryan doesn't provide the assurances they need they'll vote no but it will be his fault i don't know that ryan can politically provide assurances, and i don't know what assurances he could provide that would be worth a drat, it is such a bizarre and odd situation that i just don't know what to make of it, so i see a lot of ways that the bill dies and they claim it's ryan's fault, ryan claims it's their fault, etc etc etc. but i also see three spineless idiots who can't bear to have their fingerprints on the gun and who will desperately want to fold. so, I just don't know what to make of it. johnson just showed up there to get attention and irritate mcconnell of course
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
the only ironclad assurance ryan could give is not scheduling a vote but literally all of the blame would fall on him and he would lose his speakership
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I still can't believe GOP senators are going to pass that, knowing it's going to be a disaster that will blow back on them. Not really, they will just blame Obamacare and say they need full repeal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the thing is i'm not sure what paul ryan could really do to provide the assurances graham and mccain are demanding demanding It seems transparently obvious to me. "We don't want to be blamed for a bill this awful passing but far too cowardly to be blamed for it failing so we're just going go in front of a camera and demand someone else fix it so that we can say it's not our fault when a hideous law passes."
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I still can't believe GOP senators are going to pass that, knowing it's going to be a disaster that will blow back on them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:It seems transparently obvious to me. "We don't want to be blamed for a bill this awful passing but far too cowardly to be blamed for it failing so we're just going go in front of a camera and demand someone else fix it so that we can say it's not our fault when a hideous law passes." thing is, it also is lining up blaming paul ryan instead like I said in the other thread I think that what Ryan is going to do in response is promise to go to conference, but simply leave out Graham's real demand: that the skinny bill will never get voted on, and dare graham to vote no with what appears to be the guarantee he asked for
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i feel like what i watched was mccain and graham hope really, really hard someone else kills this and announce they don't have the courage to do it but they're really hoping someone else will provide the excuse, and if ryan doesn't provide the assurances they need they'll vote no but it will be his fault The passes it with "assurances" it will be fixed at the conference committee, the House just passes it, and they'll all blame each other because it was supposed to go to conference, no you would have used that as an excuse to kill it so we had to pass what you gave us
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Seems clear at this point they do not fear electoral consequences. Why might that be?? if they didn't fear electoral consequences full repeal would have passed idiot
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Seems clear at this point they do not fear electoral consequences. Why might that be?? They absolutely do fear electoral consequences. If they didn't they would have done a full-repeal and laughed about it afterwards. This is literally them trying to pass the blame for something they KNOW will hurt them onto someone, anyone, else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Procedure question: if the bill goes to conference, and then the senate rejects whatever comes out of that, can the house still take up the Senate's skinny bill afterwards and pass that anyway? Because if so, hoooooooly poo poo is this a dumb and irresponsible thing to do, even with "assurances" that it will go to conference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
When's the parliamentarian step in and say nah?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:thing is, it also is lining up blaming paul ryan instead Yeah that's exactly what I was saying. Skinny's going to come out of conference in one form or another and McCain and Graham will make a big performance out of going "well we HATED this bill but that fucker Ryan PROMISED us it would never get voted on and then STUNNED US by going back on his word, what more could we have done" to dodge the blame.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
I've honestly never seen anything like this in any Western Democracy. Yes we know this bill is absolutely dreadful but we're gonna pass it as long as you don't even though we could kill it right here. Could you possibly be ANY more transparent about covering your rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Kale posted:I've honestly never seen anything like this in any Western Democracy. Yes we know this bill is absolutely dreadful but we're gonna pass it as long as you don't even though we could kill it right here. Could you possibly be ANY more transparent about covering your rear end. Dead Reckoning posted:(# of people who are upset about being told they have to buy insurance) > (# of people who understand why the individual mandate is necessary for community rating/preexisting condition coverage to work)
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:if they didn't fear electoral consequences full repeal would have passed idiot Perhaps the reason they don't want to own full repeal is because that would actually hurt the insurance industry as well and thus significant campaign donors. Not because they fear voter backlash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:then why are they doing a bunch of weird procedural poo poo to pass a bill with like 16% approval among the public? Because they believe that the electoral consequences of not passing the bill (ie, being primaried by their base before they can be eviscerated by the general public) are more immediate than the electoral consequences of passing a widely hated bill. A lot of them are probably right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:then why are they doing a bunch of weird procedural poo poo to pass a bill with like 16% approval among the public? because they're equally afraid of their hard base of that 16% primarying them. the mercers and steve wynn have basically said they're gonna kill heller due to saying bad things about the bill
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Graham's not wrong when he says skinny repeal is real fuckin' dumb. It basically does something the WH admin could already effectively do (getting rid of the individual mandate) and in return attaches all their names to a bill with 15% popularity. Great politickin' guys.VitalSigns posted:Procedure question: if the bill goes to conference, and then the senate rejects whatever comes out of that, can the house still take up the Senate's skinny bill afterwards and pass that anyway? Yes. The Senate would ideally attach some poison pill to the bill so the House wouldn't be able to do that, and would be forced into a joint conference to change the bill, but since that hasn't come to fruition it seems that the Senate has no ability to do this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Graham's not wrong when he says skinny repeal is real fuckin' dumb. It basically does something the WH admin could already effectively do (getting rid of the individual mandate) and in return attaches all their names to a bill with 15% popularity. Great politickin' guys. Ha yeah, that makes a lot more sense than just working with democrats in any capacity, lmao great government we got
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Then why are they doing a bunch of weird procedural poo poo to pass a bill with like 16% approval among the public? because they're trapped in a web of lies they've spun over eight years and see no good way out first, the party as a whole is doing this because the party has no good choices: they admit their lies, and they please 80% of the population, except that 20% is part of their base that they need to come out in 2018 and 2020 or they'll get killed; or they keep lying and pass something, and hope, uh, things work out the thing you're not getting is that not passing this is also bad for them now, each individual senator also has conflicting motives: they need that base so they do not want to be the person who kills it: they want to vote for it but have it die and hope that people forget about it by the time their election rolls around. that's also two bad options - but voting "no" doesn't get them nearly as much as you'd think because nobody's really going to give them that much credit, they are a republican and will be judged by the company they keep (but the base WILL notice and be outraged). so voting yes, but having it fail due to other people voting no is best for many of them, which is why this resembles a giant game of chicken basically, shut the gently caress up with your idiot conspiracy theory
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:The Senate would ideally attach some poison pill to the bill so the House wouldn't be able to do that, and would be forced into a joint conference to change the bill, but since that hasn't come to fruition it seems that the Senate has no ability to do this. oh they could easily do this like, eliminate PP defunding from the "skinny repeal" and the pro-life lobby won't let the House pass it, presto you have a byrd-compliant poison pill
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:oh they could easily do this So why don't they?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
it's a super obvious punt and other then Collins and murkowski you don't want to be branded as killing the repeal because it funded abortions
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So why don't they? because the plan is for the house to pass this and mcconnell is lying, and he is putting enough stuff in it to ensure it has a house majority what i don't understand is why graham and mccain can't figure that out but my guess is they are terrified of it leaking they demanded PP funding or the like - which is the main problem with most poison pills, you have to get the senate to vote for something they hate that could be used against them, which is exactly what they're doing and I realized that as i typed that and so i'm just back to i don't even know what the gently caress anymore
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 00:11
|
|