|
https://mobile.twitter.com/daveweigel/status/909860987511164928?p=v Also, there are currently 90 seconds remaining for debate. The journalists and pundits mocking Slavitt when he started ringing this bell had better be public with their mea culpas. E: beaten, but keeping for the new page. The CBO analysis will apparently be focused solely on if it meets reconciliation requirements.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
What about the parliamentarian and byrdbath? That's a separate hurdle right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Grammarchist posted:What about the parliamentarian and byrdbath? That's a separate hurdle right? Yes, neither of which has occurred, but presumably the bill was written knowing the previous rulings to get around them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Grammarchist posted:What about the parliamentarian and byrdbath? That's a separate hurdle right? Correct. Given that Graham is involved in this one, I assuming it's been crafted to pass both. The Senate GOP would be happy to dump this back on Ryan's lap, so they're not going let it get bogged down at that step. Unfortunately, Graham likely has the competence to make a bill that conforms to the rules where others have been more open Qs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
McCain is now against the bill. Again. Reiterating the need for "regular order". He wants weeks of amendments/debates before he considers voting in favor of it. https://twitter.com/Alexruoff/status/909870994608836609 This ride will never end. We'll see what happens, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Hey look, someone has faith in the Democrats. https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/909882947217608704
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
farraday posted:Hey look, someone has faith in the Democrats. iirc part of the blocker for California enacting single payer is, specifically, the need to get the feds to agree to let them spend their medicaid money on it
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:iirc part of the blocker for California enacting single payer is, specifically, the need to get the feds to agree to let them spend their medicaid money on it Isn't that what the nakedly partisan formula for divvying up the block grants is supposed to do? Well, whatever. I'm all for inane purity tests blocking Republican nightmare legislation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
lol even if repeal replace dies (again) this time they'll keep bringing it up every month or two until Nov 2018 (and beyond if they keep a healthy margin in the house)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Rand Paul appears to be trying to make sure C-G never even gets a vote, just need Collins and Murkowski to publicly say they won't vote for it. After that point the rest of the "moderates" will defect, but none of them can be trusted to be the decisive vote. paul will cave
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Typo posted:lol even if repeal replace dies (again) this time they'll keep bringing it up every month or two until Nov 2018 (and beyond if they keep a healthy margin in the house) Reconciliation dude.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Reconciliation dude. yeah it expires for this year in 2 weeks but then 2018
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Typo posted:lol even if repeal replace dies (again) this time they'll keep bringing it up every month or two until Nov 2018 (and beyond if they keep a healthy margin in the house) if the senate doesn't pass it by september 30th it becomes filibusterable so no and if you think paul will cave you haven't been paying attention this whole time Typo posted:yeah it expires for this year in 2 weeks but then 2018 only if they want to give up their chance to cut taxes which seems...out of character
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
farraday posted:Hey look, someone has faith in the Democrats. I guess states' rights include the right to stop other states doing something, through their own decision making and within their own borders, that you don't like as a policy matter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Some Conservative commentators have pointed out that even with less money, the lack of restrictions that shifting medicaid funds to block grants could allow blue states to implement "Medicaid-like" public options a bit easier. I'm guessing Kennedy read something like this piece from Forbes and freaked out. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/09/17/take-two-inside-bill-cassidys-plan-to-replace-obamacare/
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yes, neither of which has occurred, but presumably the bill was written knowing the previous rulings to get around them. The PP defunding uses the exact same language the parliamentarian wasn't happy with so I don't know about that. Just look at the text of GCHJ and BCRA and search for prohibited entity. Typo posted:yeah it expires for this year in 2 weeks but then 2018 You understand nothing about our government, hth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Grammarchist posted:Some Conservative commentators have pointed out that even with less money, the lack of restrictions that shifting medicaid funds to block grants could allow blue states to implement "Medicaid-like" public options a bit easier. I'm guessing Kennedy read something like this piece from Forbes and freaked out. my guess is less that he is actually flipping out and more floating some trial balloons for why the senate ultimately didn't vote on it if that's what winds up happening. to be clear i don't think floating those trial balloons means he thinks it won't get a vote (or that it will) but just that it's worth getting them out early in case they're needed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:if the senate doesn't pass it by september 30th it becomes filibusterable so no Why wouldn't Paul cave? He ended up voting for last round's set of bills, didn't he? I know that he was promised a straight repeal in exchange, but couldn't that happen again?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Why wouldn't Paul cave? He ended up voting for last round's set of bills, didn't he? I know that he was promised a straight repeal in exchange, but couldn't that happen again? Pretty sure he only voted for the Skinny.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Why wouldn't Paul cave? He ended up voting for last round's set of bills, didn't he? I know that he was promised a straight repeal in exchange, but couldn't that happen again? Specifically, he voted for the 2015 and Skinny repeal amendments while skipping out on the BCRA. His voting has a logic to it, albeit one that is not always very consistent and somewhat self-serving, and the BCRA was its own kind of monster even without the Cruz amendment that the case could be made that voting for it would be counter to the ultimate outcome of a repeal, fucky though it is in reality. It's also somewhat different this time, as he was up front and center with the 'Obamacare lite' like he was with the original AHCA, and has utilized that by loudly arguing in the Senate about the havoc Graham-Cassidy inflicts on the markets and utilizing the Republicans' state media in such a way as to propagate the narrative to an audience more critical to bringing about failure. Spiritus Nox posted:Pretty sure he only voted for the Skinny. Well that would throw a wrench into the above, though I still think he benefits from taking his current course of action in earnest. Grammarchist posted:He did get on board with Skinny Repeal on the understanding that it could be changed in conference, but after Sept. 30, the house would have to pass whatever goes through the Senate without changes. So it's less likely that he'll risk that given his apparent stance. That's my understanding anyway. And I think this might be sound, though I have no idea why he would have relied on the House to make any adjustments. ded redd fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Why wouldn't Paul cave? He ended up voting for last round's set of bills, didn't he? I know that he was promised a straight repeal in exchange, but couldn't that happen again? Paul voted for the motion to proceed, but against BCRA. It's a concern I share, but Paul got to sign his name on a clean repeal back in July so theoretically he could rest on his self-righteous laurels and keep railing against the ACA and the various -lites put forward by lesser men then he. That seems to be his comfort zone. He did get on board with Skinny Repeal on the understanding that it could be changed in conference, but after Sept. 30, the house would have to pass whatever goes through the Senate without changes. So it's less likely that he'll risk that given his apparent stance. That's my understanding anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Why wouldn't Paul cave? He ended up voting for last round's set of bills, didn't he? I know that he was promised a straight repeal in exchange, but couldn't that happen again? paul has studiously found reasons to oppose every single proposal except 2016 repeal (which he knew would not pass) and skinny repeal (which he couldn't really find an excuse not to vote for but he seems to have tried). when ryan wanted to do repeal first, then replace, paul insisted on doing them at the same time. once that became a thing, he was in favor of doing repeal, then replace. mcconnell reportedly wrote him off months before the failure of skinny repeal he doesn't want to vote for a repeal bill, and he has the conservative credibility to claim he's doing it because it's not pure. why he doesn't want to vote for any repeal bill is probably the knowledge that whatever the result is, it's going to be bad so better to have opposed it claiming that it wasn't ~conservative enough~ and that's why all those bad things are happening (or, even better, have it fail and have none of those bad things happen so republicans have a better chance to stay in power)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
So much for the idea that the Senate will be too busy with other stuff to vote healthcare again. I hear contradictory news on McCain's stance, but I guess the latest news is that he probably supports the new repeal? This doesn't align with his impassioned plea for transparency and bipartisan process this summer, given the CBO won't even have full analysis until next month and the general public doesn't know about this yet. The other No votes have been quiet. No promising rejection of this really. Rand Paul is just posturing, that's a no brainer IMO. One can only hope people get hosed hard enough by this madness in the future that they wake up. In the meantime I'll call some numbers...
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
I called Rand Paul's office and told him that I supported his stance. Now I just have to take 10 showers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:I hear contradictory news on McCain's stance, but I guess the latest news is that he probably supports the new repeal? This doesn't align with his impassioned plea for transparency and bipartisan process this summer, given the CBO won't even have full analysis until next month and the general public doesn't know about this yet. It hasn't been that straightforward. He took that stance earlier today, yes, with the "I'd prefer a bipartisan, but..." line. It was later that he came out against the bill, citing the need to go through normal procedures while emphasizing the 'process'. If he's asking for a rewrite, that's effectively taking a bludgeon to the bill in this particular instance. Mokelumne Trekka posted:The other No votes have been quiet. No promising rejection of this really. Rand Paul is just posturing, that's a no brainer IMO. He's posturing in his own, more conservative than thou way, certainly, but there's some legitimate effort going into this time that diverges from his behavior on previous bills. Mokelumne Trekka posted:In the meantime I'll call some numbers... It's appreciated, regardless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
The Democratic Senate Leadership appears to have conceded some "state flexibility" to close that bipartisan deal that was sidelined by Graham-Cassidy. This could give Collins, Murkowski, and possibly McCain an opening to flip to solid no on the latter, as they've all touted these talks as productive. Downside is that GOP-led states will have a lot more tools at their disposal to kill poor people. The upside is that it gives Murkowski something she wants (state flexibility) without everything she doesn't (everything else). I guess we'll see if it works. This was the deal Schumer told Trump he could "call whatever he wants" for reference, so there's a small chance Trump embraces this as a win if it gets off the ground and gives the GOP cover to call repeal done outright, apart from the hardliners. https://www.axios.com/murray-makes-big-concession-in-bipartisan-health-talks-2486922713.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Grammarchist posted:The Democratic Senate Leadership appears to have conceded some "state flexibility" to close that bipartisan deal that was sidelined by Graham-Cassidy. This could give Collins, Murkowski, and possibly McCain an opening to flip to solid no on the latter, as they've all touted these talks as productive. Downside is that GOP-led states will have a lot more tools at their disposal to kill poor people. The upside is that it gives Murkowski something she wants (state flexibility) without everything she doesn't (everything else). I... really don't know how to feel about this. And I mean that in all sincerity, because I am exhausting myself on this debacle all by itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:I... really don't know how to feel about this. And I mean that in all sincerity, because I am exhausting myself on this debacle all by itself. I mean, Medicaid is essentially state waivers, so we have to see what the Dems will get in return.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Grammarchist posted:I guess we'll see if it works. This was the deal Schumer told Trump he could "call whatever he wants" for reference, so there's a small chance Trump embraces this as a win if it gets off the ground and gives the GOP cover to call repeal done outright, apart from the hardliners. Won't work. The reason why should be fairly obvious: it'll need votes from Democratic senators to pass (since Paul/Cruz/Lee/Johnson would all be firm no votes) and nobody from the GOP is going to be caught dead working with the Dems. What Trump wants or what he can call a win is irrelevant since he's already burned all his goodwill with the GOP legislators. They don't trust him and they certainly aren't loyal to him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
I look forward to not voting for Patty Murray in 2022 as she has been absolute poo poo. While I'm waiting I'll have to settle for not voting for Cantwell next year, as she is also garbage. I sent them both a stern email regarding their failure to back M4A. Of course they don't give a poo poo but I'll do my part to make sure they return to the private sector ASAFP. Neither has any business representing the people of Washington.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:gently caress I can't do this again JFC a thousand times this. I have gained approximately seventeen years of anger and cynicism in the not-quite-eight months since Trump took office.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
I feel like we're in a horror movie and just waiting for sunrise when all the zombies/vampires/etc go away but now we just heard there's going to be an all-day eclipse. We just need to make it to October 1st...just 11 more days...
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
axeil posted:I feel like we're in a horror movie and just waiting for sunrise when all the zombies/vampires/etc go away but now we just heard there's going to be an all-day eclipse. Funny how these slapdash repeal bills have zero grassroots support and receive 1000:1 constituent calls against yet they keep trying anyway. It was made pretty drat clear during the last two attempts that nobody wants this poo poo. It really exposes who their constituents actually are. https://twitter.com/elongreen/status/910112370931961856
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/910142039286796293 FWIW, doesn't sound like Murkowski has much pressure on her from back home.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Funny how these slapdash repeal bills have zero grassroots support and receive 1000:1 constituent calls against yet they keep trying anyway. It was made pretty drat clear during the last two attempts that nobody wants this poo poo. Republican voters still want this poo poo. Even if they are on Medicaid/Obamacare. Lunacy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Republican voters still want this poo poo. Even if they are on Medicaid/Obamacare. Lunacy. actually, they don't, which is why these bills all have like 20% approval ratings
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Republican voters still want this poo poo. Even if they are on Medicaid/Obamacare. Lunacy. This isn't really true: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.8d66a2b8f9d0 There is a large minority of Republican support but it's still not even half of Republicans who support this poo poo (this for for the AHCA, I assume polling for G-C will be similar).
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Republican voters still want this poo poo. Even if they are on Medicaid/Obamacare. Lunacy. Not really. The urgency to "repeal Obamacare" over the past seven years among the base was really just about "repealing" Obama himself. Now that he's no longer in office and his racist right-wing inverse is finally in charge they aren't as keen about cutting their own nose off to spite their face.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Collins is probably a no https://twitter.com/mj_lee/status/910189261873405953
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
No surprise, but good to get it on the record. Just need Murkowski to take a stance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 19:25
|
|