|
It seems like the Republicans are really trying to slow-play this one, which makes me wonder if it's a deliberate strategy to set this bill up as an ultimatum, vote for this bill or there will be no repeal. Or, if they are just as tired of all of this as we are and are just trying to run out the clock, while still making it look like they are doing something.
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
....What has Alexander said about Cassidy-Graham anyway? He's heading up the stabilization effort, right? Not that I expect him to vote no, but is he at least bothering to spin it at all?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
The majority for people don't want these new bills. Its why getting the ACA passed was so important. Once people had even the most basic form of health care taking it away from them was going to be very divisive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/910219733252878336 this guy is rather high strung so if he thinks its good news, that's good news
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/910219733252878336 That's the "RED ALERT" guy right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
toher is the guy who operates at 12 even during the Obamacare repeal attempts that even republicans knew would fail before the last minute
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:That's the "RED ALERT" guy right? yeah, every time i read one of his tweets i feel my blood pressure rising and panic levels getting a little higher so it was quite the shock to read that instead
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/910219733252878336 Topher has a maddening obsession with the twitter siren. That said, even though I bashed him for the 'McCain flipped' thing (realistically media coverage post skinny is entirely to blame for the idea McCain defeated repeal) but to his credit he figured what was up a little earlier than a lot of people. Which was still pretty drat late.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
I had an epiphany about this bill. This bill is so terrible that the larger blue states would be forced to go to single payer to get the cost savings. Basically, the blue states that are large enough are California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, Washington, Ohio, and maybe Minnesota, and Massachusetts/CT for other reasons. If you allow states to cooperate to build risk pools, then the New England states become viable, Delaware. Blue states that are small and isolated like New Mexico are completely screwed. Red states that took the expansion are hosed. Red states that didn't remain hosed. This bill cuts so much in Medicaid funding that the states that took the Medicaid expanion are completely screwed. States, I believe, would be able to negotiate for medication costs. They would set prices for their single payer system. They can straight up tell the insurance companies to f off. This bill would force the issue of single payer because it would go back to an unsustainable system, AND it would demonstrate that a Federal government fix is not viable. Block grants to implement single payer would be the only solution that doesn't bankrupt hospitals and doctors and completely close off medical care to a large portion of the states population. That said, I'm in no way supporting this bill. I'm basically pointing out that if you dynamite the system, what do you have to lose by building another system?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
The bill prohibits using healthcare funds to set up single payer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:The bill prohibits using healthcare funds to set up single payer. I thought that's what Kennedy was trying to put in an amendment because it wasn't in there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I thought that's what Kennedy was trying to put in an amendment because it wasn't in there. Yeah, the Kennedy amendment is what would remove the ability for states to set up single-payer systems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Is there even any time to add amendments?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Is there even any time to add amendments? There's not really any time to do anything meaningful (by the book, anyway) if they want reconcilliation. That's why McCain's raising a stink over process. Spiritus Nox fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Is there even any time to add amendments? There's 11 days of behind-the-scenes negotiation, and 90 seconds of on-floor debate available. So, probably
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Is there even any time to add amendments? there are ninety whole seconds of debate time left on the reconciliation bill
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jstein_vox/status/910178040428335104 What an utter rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
For those in other countries wondering why we still don't have single payer, this is the moral and intellectual caliber of the people working to prevent it: https://twitter.com/johnjharwood/status/910231408563638272
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/jstein_vox/status/910178040428335104 Pretty sure the last time we did this, the Parliamentarian struck this down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Yeah, the Kennedy amendment is what would remove the ability for states to set up single-payer systems. I don't see how this stands up in court. Block grants mean that the states can use it however they want. Medicaid is by definition a single payer system for those below a certain income. They could just raise the Medicaid threshold to all incomes and tax people to pay into it. If the federal government sets income maximums that would be more federal control than what's going on currently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:For those in other countries wondering why we still don't have single payer, this is the moral and intellectual caliber of the people working to prevent it: This belief is antithetical to risk pools, caps on insurance rates, and the very concept of insurance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Lote posted:If the federal government sets income maximums that would be more federal control than what's going on currently. Kennedy is okay with that so long as it's telling states not to help people rather than the reverse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
You mean the whole state's rights thing was a bad faith argument? Someone pick me up off he floor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Posting it here, because why not: https://twitter.com/mikedebonis/status/910254629031641089 Bipartisan Healthcare fix is dead. This doesn't bode well, and makes me think Graham-Cassidy is passing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
DarkstarIV posted:Posting it here, because why not: Other way around, I think. It's being shot to increase the pressure to pass Graham-Cassidy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
DarkstarIV posted:Posting it here, because why not: I'm pretty sure it doesn't bode anything. There was never ever going to be some magic bipartisan solution since the Dems know that the Republicans will not act in good faith to actually fix anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I'm pretty sure it doesn't bode anything. There was never ever going to be some magic bipartisan solution since the Dems know that the Republicans will not act in good faith to actually fix anything. nah i think that the republicans on the panel actually wanted to do this, but the whole thing was premised on obamacare repeal being dead. now that its alive once again, they can't keep working on it and obamacare repeal won't die in time to get a fix in for next year's premiums
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Lote posted:I had an epiphany about this bill. This bill is so terrible that the larger blue states would be forced to go to single payer to get the cost savings. Basically, the blue states that are large enough are California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, Washington, Ohio, and maybe Minnesota, and Massachusetts/CT for other reasons. If Michigan is no where close to solidly blue enough to ever pass single payer
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
i mean three of those "blue" states voted for trump and have republican governors and legislatures so idk in what world they're blue states these days
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
clean ayers act posted:Michigan is no where close to solidly blue enough to ever pass single payer evilweasel posted:i mean three of those "blue" states voted for trump and have republican governors and legislatures so idk in what world they're blue states these days Then they go into the Super Screwed category. There is no way that they can get around the ability to stop states from developing a single payer system. If they block grant and say the state can't develop an additional non-Medicaid single payer system, they could set the threshold for Medicaid at all incomes then add to the pool of money. If the bill limits the threshold for income, that would be disaster and it will break the system even faster. If they can't add or take away from the pool of money, that means that it's not a block grant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Lote posted:Then they go into the Super Screwed category. you mean...republicans might be lying? no i can't believe that. those are good, honest, upstanding people who believe in block grants on principle and not just a way to shift the blame for cuts elsewhere
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:you mean...republicans might be lying? It's just a strategy that I don't think they've thought about the implications. Mandating block grants for everyone removes any incentive for states who expanded Medicaid to keep the current system AND it also forces them to build a mini single payer system for their poor. It also dynamites the current model of payment and irrepairably damages it. If they're forced into building a single payer system for the lowest and most costly 20-30% of their population already, why not make it for everyone? That said, states that actually care about their poor will have huge incentive to pass a single payer or universal healthcare system. States that just want to pillage Medicaid will get tax cuts and poo poo healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/chucktodd/status/910290176051519488 "Hey guys, please don't gently caress with this state I'm trying to win, thanks." -Eddy
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:https://twitter.com/chucktodd/status/910290176051519488 Stein has a dispatch from the Tautological Caucus https://twitter.com/JStein_Vox/status/910484217511006208 I'm unwilling to link the hack, but Chait has been diving in some on the GOP claims that this bill will kill Single Payer. In a broken clock moment, Chait's likely right that the opposite is true. Aside from the structural barriers to SP (The majority of Americans are insured through work and satisfied with that coverage, and at least part of the story of '94, '06, and '10 is of those people's loss aversion), one of the biggest roadblocks is that it looks like Obamacare is a hardwon, popular entitlement that survived despite GOP majorities who explicitly ran on tearing it down. A wide swath of the party would rather reach UHC through improving Obamacare (rewriting the expansion rules, making additions like the public option) than by abandoning it for Single Payer. Clearly, that group has a much weaker foundation if GCHJ passes. What Chait misses in his desire to punch left is that Dems pushing for Single Payer may create a fascinating dynamic if there's a '18 D wave and Dems regain the trifecta in 2020. Faced with potential extinction, the Healthcare Industry will be showering congress with money to save itself, likely alongside the Chamber and other orgs-to the point where we may see Republicans push for a bipartisan bill that's well to the left of the House's ACA. I'd consider a wellfunded, bipartisan bill that extends a Roberts-compliant Medicaid expansion beyond 2x FPL while establishing a Public Option and further tightening the MLR a gigantic win, but I'll also admit that the rhetoric and some of the state level issues I'm seeing has me concerned that a substantial portion will see it as capitulation and lead to another '10esque wave in '22.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Water wet, sky blue, national GOP fucks over local candidates by adhering to agenda. I'd argue that one of the easiest paths to universal health care is to expand eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid. If Medicaid gets torpedoed by Graham Cassidy the mechanics of that are a lot more difficult. There's no "just expand Medicaid" to point to any more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'd argue that one of the easiest paths to universal health care is to expand eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid. If Medicaid gets torpedoed by Graham Cassidy the mechanics of that are a lot more difficult. There's no "just expand Medicaid" to point to any more. It's absolutely one of the easier paths to UHC, but it's a very incremental path to single payer unless you're planning on That's kind of the point. If GCHJ knocks medciaid back to pre-ACA days (or worse), there aren't reasonable Dem alternatives to UHC beyond Single Payer. If the bill fails, there are a variety of other paths including the one you mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:For those in other countries wondering why we still don't have single payer, this is the moral and intellectual caliber of the people working to prevent it: You should be required to recite the definition of insurance on the record before submitting insurance legislation or commenting on the insurance success/failure/policy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Avelere Health, which contributed to BCRA planning, has a study on the new bill. It sucks hard for everyone, including Alaska and Arizona. That's probably the best we're going to get without a CBO score. Don't know if it will get Murkowski to stop giving Cassidy the benefit of the doubt. http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/health-reform-implementation/351514-analysis-shows-states-would-lose-billions
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Grammarchist posted:Avelere Health, which contributed to BCRA planning, has a study on the new bill. It sucks hard for everyone, including Alaska and Arizona. That's probably the best we're going to get without a CBO score. Don't know if it will get Murkowski to stop giving Cassidy the benefit of the doubt. Edit: nevermind, works now. ded redd fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
Paracaidas posted:The majority of Americans are insured through work and satisfied with that coverage This is pretty surprising, is that really true for most people?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 16:10
|
|
