|
evilweasel posted:Apparently that may not actually exist. The fiscal year ends on September 30th but the law doesn't specifically say that reconciliation bills expire once the fiscal year they are attached to ends, but in 2010 there was an article that said senate parliamentarians have generally thought the bill lasts until the end of congress. So right now my assumption is that the bill doesn't expire. plus the senate majority leader can always fire the parliamentarian until he gets the result he wants lol
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
Wow. So nothing is preventing them from voting again and again on healthcare Seriously this presidency has exposed many flaws in our country's systems and processes that have been hiding underneath the floorboards all along. I don't see how unlimited votes couldn't be exploited. If repeal fail is as devastating as it seems to GOP they might reanimate this thing, like its a zombie Mokelumne Trekka fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Jul 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
I mean, I wouldn't call "being able to vote for multiple bills/keep amending a single bill on a given subject multiple times" a flaw with the system, really. It's just that no system is going to operate very well when it's run by bad faith actors with no competent, non-evil plans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:I mean, I wouldn't call "being able to vote for multiple bills/keep amending a single bill on a given subject multiple times" a flaw with the system, really. It's just that no system is going to operate very well when it's run by bad faith actors with no competent, non-evil plans. Eh, I'd count being able to amend bills to be a huge flaw in the system that just allows for legal bribery. It's against the law here in MN and it makes for a far saner process, everything needs to stand on it's own merit. But yes, being able to force votes on the same thing over and over has always been a thing. Some judge decided he didn't like my city still having a mayor, so he set up a group to force referendums every 4 years for 5 voting cycles to get us to try and change the governing style. Most it ever got was about 14% when he finally killed it. Waste of everyone's time and money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:Wow. So nothing is preventing them from voting again and again on healthcare This has been the reality since Nov 8. All this Senate procedural Calvinball obscures the basic fact that Republicans have majorities in both houses and the presidency (sort of) and can pass anything if they really really want to. It was correct to conclude that Obamacare was doomed after the election, the stakes were that high. It's actually an unexpected reprieve and pretty incredible that the Republican party is so dysfunctional they haven't passed some sort of "reform" yet. I still think the Republicans eventually pass some sort of awful replacement when the public is distracted, they still have 3.5 years. If they hold the Senate in 2018 (they probably will) then I don't see how they don't try again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I still think the Republicans eventually pass some sort of awful replacement when the public is distracted, they still have 3.5 years. If they hold the Senate in 2018 (they probably will) then I don't see how they don't try again. If Dems take the House (highly likely), then it's loving dead no matter what happens with the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I still think the Republicans eventually pass some sort of awful replacement when the public is distracted, they still have 3.5 years. If they hold the Senate in 2018 (they probably will) then I don't see how they don't try again. The Senate is probably safe, but the Republicans are liable to lose the house or see their majority reduced to the narrowest of margins in 2018, and you need both chambers to pass legislation that the other party doesn't want, so the real timeline is probably more like 1.5 years. Then we can settle down for another 2 years of no governance save for Trump reluctantly signing veto-proof sanction bills against Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
SulphagneSocialist posted:Stealing from Matt Yglesias here: if the GOP blows up Obamacare instead of tooling around the edges, it's basically admitting to everyone that market-based solutions for healthcare are unworkable, because Obamacare is the only even theoretically feasible market-based solution What makes you say this? Depending on how you define "market based solution" and "feasible" there are tons of them. I also don't see what the republicans inability to reform ACA really says about the underlying concepts in the bill itself, it's not like people are running out of ideas about how to reform health care policy even if it's politically difficult to implement them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
What will it take to get that testicle-in-a-suit Mitch McConnell out of a loving job? I'm completely serious here. He might be a household name on how much of a general dickhead he is at this point. What will it take to get rid of just him? He is the festering cancer of our government, more so than Trump, and I'm so sick of seeing his smug face all over my news feed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:Trump is not going to be impeached by a Republican house. If he becomes that much of a drag they will work out a deal for him to resign, citing either health reasons or "the very failing, very biased media, which will not let me do my job." Yup. POTUS is a young man's game. Not something a loving 70 year old should get involved in unless you're just turning 70-71 after your 7th or 8th year in office.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:What will it take to get that testicle-in-a-suit Mitch McConnell out of a loving job? I'm completely serious here. In order of probability highest to lowest - the republican causus electing a new leader, him resigning, him dying, hell freezing over, him losing in a general election, him getting primaried out
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
CyclicalAberration posted:What makes you say this? Depending on how you define "market based solution" and "feasible" there are tons of them. I also don't see what the republicans inability to reform ACA really says about the underlying concepts in the bill itself, it's not like people are running out of ideas about how to reform health care policy even if it's politically difficult to implement them. The only significant and somehow workable alternatives to the Obamacare mechanisms that I've seen have been continuous coverage to dilute the risk in the markets instead of pre-ex protections or the mandate, and maybe a more regressive tax to fund the subsidies. Making everyone buy private insurance instead of the government insuring everybody is essentially the only way for the actuarial math to work (everyone needs to chip in, healthy and sick, young and old alike), and that's why it was the conservative plan until 2008 when it became a radical left-wing plan. If the GOP had a theoretically sound and workable, conservative, alternative system, surely they could've come up with it in seven years. Or you might see it being implemented in some other country. But at the end of the day, the countries that don't have single payer UHC still have strong government intervention in the healthcare market, e.g. heavy price controls, insurance mandates, subsidies, etc. That or they don't have any healthcare at all and they're like pre-PPACA America. On the left side of Obamacare, however, there are plenty of tools in the box for inching towards universal coverage. If the GOP keeps trying to shift Obamacare to the right, they'll make coverage worse. If they blow it up by withholding CSRs or repealing the mandate, they'll make coverage worse. They are going to lose the argument on why government intervention in healthcare is bad. If I were really committed long-term to the ideology of keeping the government out of as much as possible, I would have quietly surrendered on Obamacare and moved on to other sectors, because if you can cement Obamacare as the healthcare system, you're still going to have a massive and profitable private health insurance industry. But you couldn't just do that, because the President was a black guy, and winning midterms was more important than thinking long-term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
You aren't thinking creatively enough. You see all we have to do is repeal the individual mandate and essential health benefits. Then The General can enter the healthcare market and offer cut rate insurance to high risk individuals. Something about the invisible hand of the free market and there we go. Best health care system in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
SulphagneSocialist posted:. The Republicans don't seem to be willing to pay a political cost like the Democrats did to achieve ACA. Plus Republicans have to reconcile wild-wild-west free market types with ACA-with-any-other-name types, which seems harder than bridging the disagreements Democrats had when they passed ACA. Are the "high-risk pool" based systems where the government picks up the most expensive individuals to the left of ACA? I'd probably say it is, but it seems more popular on the right than an ACA based system these days. If you want the components of ACA-- market created cost sharing with pre-existing condition coverage and relying more on employer provided care with the primary goal of increasing insurance coverage. ACA like ideas are the only game in town I know of too. It's not obvious to me that in the absence of employer based plans and pre-existing coverage that the individual market would have much adverse selection. I'd be curious to see an example of free-market dominated health systems but they don't really exist afaik since people want to guarantee health care on moral grounds. In the United States right now more than a third of the people are on public insurance through medicaid, medicare, or public employment and that's before thinking about how you want to count the EMTALA-Chapter 7 plan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:If Dems take the House (highly likely), then it's loving dead no matter what happens with the Senate. Wait, this is considered likely now? The Man In The High Chair dragging their approval down or not, don't they need to pick up two dozen seats or something, facing heavily gerrymandered districts and unprecedented voter suppression the oversight of which performed by increasingly-conservative judges?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:If Dems take the House (highly likely), then it's loving dead no matter what happens with the Senate. They don't even need to take the house - just narrow the majority down to 8 or less seats and you'll have the same issues the senate is having right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Wait, this is considered likely now? The Man In The High Chair dragging their approval down or not, don't they need to pick up two dozen seats or something, facing heavily gerrymandered districts and unprecedented voter suppression the oversight of which performed by increasingly-conservative judges? Yeah the voter suppression stuff sucks and will be an issue going forward, but the gerrymandering is eight years old now and isn't as effective as it once was. A lot of people move around and die in that time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:Yeah the voter suppression stuff sucks and will be an issue going forward, but the gerrymandering is eight years old now and isn't as effective as it once was. A lot of people move around and die in that time. Gerrymandering isn't a magic wand, and when it breaks, it breaks hard. The mechanism for gerrymandering is spreading your advantage as thinly as possible over as many districts as possible, which works wonderfully in normal elections but causes you to lose everything in wave elections, since you no longer have as many safe seats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Azhais posted:Eh, I'd count being able to amend bills to be a huge flaw in the system that just allows for legal bribery. It's against the law here in MN and it makes for a far saner process, everything needs to stand on it's own merit. This is the same attitude that led to the removal of earmarks from bills, which is a large component of the paralysis that's been locking up the system for years. Turns out, if you can't do anything to help drag more votes to a bill, people tend to not play ball. It's shortsighted "reform" and has played into the conservative's hands since they don't want a functioning government. Being able to amend bills and pick up votes actually means you can get things done, and compromise is a cornerstone of functioning democracy. Our problem lies with our system, and the electoral college specifically, giving extra votes to acres of underpopulated land in flyover country and not much else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
America, on the whole, could stand to have slightly more corruption in their legislature, and massively less corruption in their executive branch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
It could also stand to have the legislature process much more transparent and not be able to have the ability for a bill introduced at literally the 11th hour if a party decides to shred all norms. In fact codifying some of the norms would probably be a good idea!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
A lot of Senators are coming out and saying that Obamacare repeal is dead, and that they're not interested in listening to what Trump's mousy-looking House backbencher that he installed at the OMB thinks about what they should do. I think that if a budget is passed to enable reconciliation for tax cuts, it is probably dead for good - but that "probably" won't disappear until the Dems retake the House.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
There's very little evidence that there's going to be a Dem majority in the House in 2018, especially since Dems seem completely tonedeaf and unable to come up with slogans that aren't related to pizza chains
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
call to action posted:There's very little evidence that there's going to be a Dem majority in the House in 2018, especially since Dems seem completely tonedeaf and unable to come up with slogans that aren't related to pizza chains given the failure of obamacare repeal, but the success of alerting everyone to exactly what the republican plan was, and that everyone who is aware of what a representative is contemplating running for the house it's a pretty reasonable shot but if they fail it's gonna be a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad four years
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:given the failure of obamacare repeal, but the success of alerting everyone to exactly what the republican plan was, and that everyone who is aware of what a representative is contemplating running for the house it's a pretty reasonable shot I may not agree with you on much but for the sake of every sick person in the US I hope you're right
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:Trump is not going to be impeached by a Republican house. If he becomes that much of a drag they will work out a deal for him to resign, citing either health reasons or "the very failing, very biased media, which will not let me do my job." Trump will never resign of his own free will. But a removal for incapacity is more likely than impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:given the failure of obamacare repeal, but the success of alerting everyone to exactly what the republican plan was, and that everyone who is aware of what a representative is contemplating running for the house it's a pretty reasonable shot The other big problem is they've managed to make Obamacare more popular among independents, because their failure to repeal it has forced them to justify themselves by explaining the good stuff about Obamacare that will go away if they just do a straight repeal. It was their signature issue for seven years and now they've been on the news for six months explaining that Obamacare isn't actually what they said it was, and there are a lot of good things in there that no one should want to repeal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
It's almost as if effectively letting Republicans define the discourse for decades has been a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
The generic ballot is something crazy like +12 Dem right now. It's obviously not a strong indicator, especially at this point, but you can't just off-hand dismiss the Democrats taking the House in 2018 like that. Based on the data we have right now, it's perfectly possible, even likely. Turnout and suppression are obviously a worry and and were not as big concerns in 2006. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Trump will never resign of his own free will. But a removal for incapacity is more likely than impeachment. I have been skeptical of the 25A gambit, if Trump really has dementia and is just going along with the last person he talked to, they can always use him as a puppet. That doesn't mean you are wrong, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
I thought that House polling was notoriously inaccurate because it doesn't do a good job at projecting the effect that district maps have
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
call to action posted:I thought that House polling was notoriously inaccurate because it doesn't do a good job at projecting the effect that district maps have Yes and no. The generic ballot (not bothering to poll individual races, but nationally polling "for your house race would you rather vote for a republican or a democrat") absolutely does not tell you who is going to win the House on its own. D+4 doesn't mean Democrats will take the House, precisely because of gerrymandering - in that case Republicans almost certainly keep the House. However there has been a lot of work on what level of "generic ballot" polling means that Democrats will take the House, and it's generally estimated that about D+7 is the level where the Democrats taking the House becomes likely. So D+12 doesn't mean that it's in the bag. It means that they are polling, 1.5 years out, at well above the level they probably need - but that they've only got a buffer of like five points so it's far from a sure thing because they can easily lose that between now and then. This is, of course, an absolute outrage that Democrats need to win the national vote for the House by seven points just to have a 50-50 shot at winning the House, but that's the reality that we're in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yes and no. The generic ballot (not bothering to poll individual races, but nationally polling "for your house race would you rather vote for a republican or a democrat") absolutely does not tell you who is going to win the House on its own. D+4 doesn't mean Democrats will take the House, precisely because of gerrymandering - in that case Republicans almost certainly keep the House. However there has been a lot of work on what level of "generic ballot" polling means that Democrats will take the House, and it's generally estimated that about D+7 is the level where the Democrats taking the House becomes likely. So D+12 doesn't mean that it's in the bag. It means that they are polling, 1.5 years out, at well above the level they probably need - but that they've only got a buffer of like five points so it's far from a sure thing because they can easily lose that between now and then. Huh, I guess that explains why people are skeptical about Dems retaking the House. You have to start with a landslide and then work from there!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
call to action posted:Huh, I guess that explains why people are skeptical about Dems retaking the House. You have to start with a landslide and then work from there! Yep. The only other things that might help are that the gerrymandering may have become less effective. It was done eight years ago, and demographic shifts will tend to weaken it over time - but those demographic shifts are probably relatively expected and planned for in the gerrymandering. Also, the Trump effect of changing the electorate somewhat - driving poorer whites into the Republican Party and richer whites out (except the ultra-rich) - may weaken the gerrymander by undercutting the assumptions made. But those may also be overblown and may not seriously affect the gerrymander. The one thing that is clear though is that when a gerrymander breaks, it breaks hard: you gerrymander by winning all your seats by a narrow margin, so if the wave comes that can crest over that gerrymander you face the loss of a whole lot of seats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:It's almost as if effectively letting Republicans define the discourse for decades has been a bad thing. To be fair to the Democrats, there's nothing on the left even remotely akin to the widespread influence and incestuous relationship between the Republican Party and right-wing media. It's difficult to create and maintain a message when the other side doesn't even have to pretend to respond to it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
i agree with this: https://twitter.com/NoamLevey/status/892461536874307586 once you've got republicans on record for small things they can do to stabilize exchanges it becomes really loving difficult to explain why those things are not being done - and once you do those things, suddenly it turns out obamacare works and you were lying for eight years?!?!?!?!?!?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i agree with this: No, then you call it Trumpcare.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:No, then you call it Trumpcare. That's not gonna loving happen they spent the last 8 years branding it for the dems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:No, then you call it Trumpcare. They can call it "The Aristocrats" for all I care, just so long as they stop trying to loving touch it
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:They can call it "The Aristocrats" for all I care, just so long as they stop trying to loving touch it Agreed. They can call it 'Donny's Bigliest Best Health Care Winning Constant Winning Trump Rules #magacare', and I'd be OK with it. Just stop trying to mess with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
SulphagneSocialist posted:The generic ballot is something crazy like +12 Dem right now. It's obviously not a strong indicator, especially at this point, but you can't just off-hand dismiss the Democrats taking the House in 2018 like that. Based on the data we have right now, it's perfectly possible, even likely. Turnout and suppression are obviously a worry and and were not as big concerns in 2006. Which is why I have been saying for 6 months that Bernie should try and meet with him and get single-payer into his head. Take advantage of his broke brain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 03:56
|
|