|
Taerkar posted:
I never said it wasn't bad. In fact, it'd be just swell if McCain killed it forever with his dying breath. He's still a fuckwad but that's irrelevant.
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
It's always amusing to see the living embodiment of "The perfect is the enemy of the good" in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Boon posted:Are you literally 12 years old? I just realized about eight months back that trying to be reasonable with you people was useless as you live too far up your own rear end for anything but negativity to break you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:see, for example, the democrats' recent brainwave re: "let's signal we no longer are firmly pro-choice" Look at this tactician who wants to win elections by running up the score in urban areas while not bothering to run anyone with half a chance in half the country. Maybe if we go all out in 2020 we can win 60% of the vote while we lose the White House and Congress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Mustached Demon posted:I never said it wasn't bad. In fact, it'd be just swell if McCain killed it forever with his dying breath. Agreed. I really hope that noone in this thread considers McCain to be anything close to decent. That he's done decent things before? Sure, but the balance is still heavily skewed against that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:But sure. While the GOP is again aiming to trade the lives of Americans for small tax cuts, save your rancor for the Dems who dared to discuss ways to reinforce our system. It's not telling in the slightest. didn't really address this in your post before, but i save my rancor for dems cause i believe they can be better, while i know republicans are heartless monsters who are beyond redemption. is there really a problem with that? for example, i wish mccain's glioblastoma was killing him faster and more painfully than it is considering how willing he is to doom the less fortunate to worse fates. do i really need to add that kind of stuff as a footnote to every post? Condiv fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
they can't be better, they're a party of and for the rich and both democrats and republicans deserve nothing but gunshots on the congress floor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Look at this tactician who wants to win elections by running up the score in urban areas while not bothering to run anyone with half a chance in half the country. Maybe if we go all out in 2020 we can win 60% of the vote while we lose the White House and Congress. who do you think you are going to pick up by going soft on reproductive choice, friend the theory "suburban republicans will vote for democrats if we just lean rightward enough" has been tried. it was not successful. why double down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Your Parents posted:they can't be better, they're a party of and for the rich and both democrats and republicans deserve nothing but gunshots on the congress floor. So you basically get your takes from South Park and dress them up with some keyboard warrior rhetoric, then
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Condiv posted:why do we need to compromise at all? republicans either have enough votes to shoot themselves in the foot and ruin healthcare for everyone, proving once and for all how monstrous they are, or they don't have enough votes to do it and a compromise only nets us losses like you surmise. Because the status quo, as you are fond of referencing any time healthcare comes up, is not good. The changes Dems are believed to be asking for would improve and secure coverage and care for some Americans. The changes the (nonTortillaCoast) GOP is seeking would degrade coverage and care for some Americans. It is entirely possible that there is a sweetspot where working on this compromise (not AHCA or GCHJ, which nobody has recommended) will be a benefit to Americans. Putting zero effort into an alternate solution (and coming after those who are) while allowing Trump and/or Congressional Rs to fuckup the healthcare of millions of Americans in order to prove a partisan point is some ghoulish, callous poo poo. Even if it's in support of some nebulous future "better" plan. Condiv posted:do i really need to add that kind of stuff as a footnote to every post?  views about guns and consent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
bipartisanship in its dictionary form does not exist among the public writ large, it's a stand in for "I want the other side to capitulate unconditionally to the program I support".
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:you people NO, YOU PEOPLE!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I just realized about eight months back that trying to be reasonable with you people was useless as you live too far up your own rear end for anything but negativity to break you. So is that a confirm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
apparently dems have been pushing copper plans before, so I don't know why people who are more politically in the know and smarter than me were pretending it's political theater or something schumer didn't actually want: https://www.vox.com/2014/10/28/7083343/obamacare-copper-plans-explainedquote:Copper plans cover 50 percent of expected health costs (or, as the health wonks put it, they have an "actuarial value" of 50 percent). That means premiums are cheaper than the platinum, gold, bronze or silver plans — the consulting group Avalere Health estimates that copper plan premiums would be 18 percent lower than bronze plan premiums. the $9,000 deductible for copper plans back in 2014 is higher than the current catastrophic plan maximum deductibles for 2017 of $7,150. that's really bad, and schumer should not be supporting it Condiv fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:bipartisanship in its dictionary form does not exist among the public writ large, it's a stand in for "I want the other side to capitulate unconditionally to the program I support". See also, "I am willing to ignore the demands of some portion of my constituents."
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Quorum posted:So you basically get your takes from South Park and dress them up with some keyboard warrior rhetoric, then I didn't know south park promoted armed protest and murder of oligarchs but if so i guess south park is pretty cool now
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Because the status quo, as you are fond of referencing any time healthcare comes up, is not good. copper plans are not that sweet spot more ppaca waivers aren't either quote:If you're genuinely asking my input on your posting, I'd be content if you stopped leaping to loving Outraged on crumbs of info/topics you're unfamiliar with and then spinning out gobs of white noise over it for pages at a time. But I understand that's your brand and difficult to change such things. I'll always be tedious, mcmagic will always have an unearned confidence in his political assessments and LeJackal will always have i'm asking why you're pretending i love republicans, much like taerkar was earlier it doesn't make a bit of sense at all
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Putting zero effort into an alternate solution (and coming after those who are) while allowing Trump and/or Congressional Rs to fuckup the healthcare of millions of Americans in order to prove a partisan point is some ghoulish, callous poo poo. Even if it's in support of some nebulous future "better" plan. you mean the alternate solution that keeps getting proposed that involves single payer that gets repeatedly shot down by fascists and fascist sympathizers for being too government or too taxpayer unfriendly and expensive
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
even though a majority of american citizens and majority of each of these worms' constituents support it
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
so i looked a bit more into what expanding waivers could entail and this is what i found:medicaid waivers posted:1. Individual Mandate: States can modify or eliminate the tax penalties imposed on individuals without coverage 2 and 3 are already p bad, and I'd hate to see what repubs would like added to that list. but to be eligible for these waivers, certain conditions have to be met and expanded waivers could entail weakening those conditions. so lets look at what they are: quote:Comprehensive Coverage: Must be as comprehensive as Marketplace Coverage yeah, nothing there we want the republicans getting their lovely hands on either. so expanding waivers to appease republicans is almost certainly a bad idea Condiv fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
willa rogers gave me some nice links, including this article that is almost certainly discussing the compromise bill schumer was boosting. here's the deets:quote:1.Committing to pay cost-sharing reduction subsidies to insurance companies for at least a year so, number 1 is something that's needed, that's what dems are compromising for. but the problem is that it's a very very short term bandaid and we'd be back at ppaca repeal in a year (after republicans get time freed up for their tax overhaul). this is a bad idea and a non-solution number 2 is the aforementioned copper plans. unheard of before deductibles and copays at lower premiums. with people barely able to use the mandated health insurance they can currently barely afford, this is also a bad idea number 3 is real bad though: quote:The last big thing to watch for next week is changes made to state innovation waivers. Depending on how the language is changed to the existing waiver, consumer protections could take a hit at the expense of state flexibility. again, not something the dems should be associating themselves with. these are bad compromises to be making in lieu of standing firm and acting as the last defense of people's healthcare against monstrous republicans who want them to die en masse. and the compromises only buy us a year, which i assume dems hope republicans won't try to repeal ppaca after. despite the fact the aforementioned copper plans and weakening of consumer protections would almost certainly be used in a way to weaken public support for ppaca! remember, one of republicans' favorite tactics for privatization is sabotaging federal programs to prove the US government can't do anything right™! Condiv fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Sep 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:bipartisanship in its dictionary form does not exist among the public writ large, it's a stand in for "I want the other side to capitulate unconditionally to the program I support". So this. My cousins idiot husband was saying the dems should be bipartisan with Trump, and when I asked him what he meant, he said. "They should let Trump have a bunch of his bills passed.Bipartisianship is a word used by those who practice team politics and think that the other side should just give up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
That is trash. If it was fund CSR in perpetuity then it'd still be a bad deal but like, at least I'd understand it a little bit. I cant imagine any Democrat really wants any of that to be law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:bipartisanship in its dictionary form does not exist among the public writ large, it's a stand in for "I want the other side to capitulate unconditionally to the program I support". Once upon a time I rather liked bipartisanship as a brake on excessively enthusiastic ill thought though ideas to force them to be more incrementalist, but have since concluded that at the best of times the Democratic Party does more than enough watering down and slowing down on its own.  The reason I support some effort for bipartisan work on obvious goods right now is that, uh, otherwise the job of the Dems consists entirely of screaming into the void and establishing messaging. If they judge they can crowbar something good through the only very evil establishment GOP because the establishment isn't in the mood for working with the howling death cultists that week, I'm open to seeing what they come up with (and whether they are willing to walk away if the final form of a deal is unacceptable).
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Once upon a time I rather liked bipartisanship as a brake on excessively enthusiastic ill thought though ideas to force them to be more incrementalist, but have since concluded that at the best of times the Democratic Party does more than enough watering down and slowing down on its own. THe only thing saving America right now is that we have a senile man who is obsessed with twitter feuds as president.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Not THAT many years ago there were some things that both parties agreed on. That kind of bipartisanship is over because the GOP can't even decide it wants to fix dangerously out of date roads and bridges anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Yeah, (edit: re Condiv's summary) that's basically what I'd seen. I only dislike copper plans because they encourage what amounts to cost discrimination and that's bad. State waivers could range from acceptable to horrific, and the longer the funding the better. I'd totally be fine with four years, you know? One year is hopefully more about making this a midterm issue while preserving the ACA until then. Tldr: as discussion points I'm okay with the concept, and if the final version was bad on cost benefit it'd be time to walk away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:We need to brainstorm a scarier and more accurate name for what is currently called "Right to Work" and a better name for whatever the alternative is because I don't even know it. Fired without Cause State
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:We need to brainstorm a scarier and more accurate name for what is currently called "Right to Work" and a better name for whatever the alternative is because I don't even know it. Oooh, I know! The "You're Fired Econo..." ...wait, wait, no, we tried that already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Oooh, I know! Why don't we just call our thing "Right to Work" also? It's not like words have any meaning anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:We need to brainstorm a scarier and more accurate name for what is currently called "Right to Work" and a better name for whatever the alternative is because I don't even know it. right to die in the gutter
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Not THAT many years ago there were some things that both parties agreed on. That kind of bipartisanship is over because the GOP can't even decide it wants to fix dangerously out of date roads and bridges anymore. You're describing the symptoms more than the causes. The RWM bubble lasting decades is a big part of it, where we're getting a higher proportion of total lunatics who aren't just parroting proto Tea Party rationales to justify giving more money to the rich, but who actually believe em. Thirty years ago we were in the Age of Reagan, sure, but we had more Murkowskis and fewer Mike Lees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Sexual Aluminum posted:Fired without Cause State That's not what right to work means I like Freedom to Freeload myself, puts the moral defectiveness on the scabs
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:You're describing the symptoms more than the causes. The RWM bubble lasting decades is a big part of it, where we're getting a higher proportion of total lunatics who aren't just parroting proto Tea Party rationales to justify giving more money to the rich, but who actually believe em. It wasn't just the rwm media bubble. It was the liberal media bubble. The liberal media bubble told people that they no longer needed to have beliefs in any great cause, that people going to elite schools dominating government was good thing, because obviously that meant they were the most qualified. That instead of treating politics as a conflict of ideologies it was instead nothing more then a game between people far smarter then themselves and it could work itself all out. That we were living in a time of post racial politics and we had no reason to worry about people being gunned down unjustly by the police or all the open racism we were hearing. RWM and Liberal media went hand in hand. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Sep 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:That's not what right to work means you're too focused on being exact is the estate tax really a death tax? did ppaca have death panels? nah right to work and at will employment are frequently advanced together, so blurring the lines on them is ok, and makes the republicans waste their time fighting back and saying "no right to work just means scabs can scab all they want!" instead of pushing their own bullshit the more in depth republicans go on their lovely plans, the less people like them. so force them to detail their lovely plans instead of being able to repeat nice soundbites like patriot act, right to work, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:You're describing the symptoms more than the causes. The RWM bubble lasting decades is a big part of it, where we're getting a higher proportion of total lunatics who aren't just parroting proto Tea Party rationales to justify giving more money to the rich, but who actually believe em. I'm just saying that there was once a bipartisanship that wasn't just "dems giving up" because there were things that both sides thought were OK. So some oldy who wants "bipartisanship" is probably thinking about those days and not realize they are part of the problem when they call Obama a socialist for pushing the the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I'm just saying that there was once a bipartisanship that wasn't just "dems giving up" because there were things that both sides thought were OK. So some oldy who wants "bipartisanship" is probably thinking about those days and not realize they are part of the problem when they call Obama a socialist for pushing the the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan. It existed because there was enough of an activist left that the moneyed interest had to compromise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you're too focused on being exact You know what, I hate to say this, but good point Condiv.  Nuance makes for good policy but loses to moronic simplification in messaging.Haven't heard a good catchy rename for at will yet though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Condiv posted:willa rogers gave me some nice links  That sure is a terrifying ThinkProgressTM piece. It'd be comically inept for Schumer and the Dems to be giving all of that up for essentially nothing. I'd be right there on the ramparts with you, if it's actually happening or there was any meaningful indication it's what the Dems actually were offering to give away. Of course, there isn't (because it's not). But we go back to the theme of hyperventilation over your own hyperbole.Condiv posted:copper plans are not that sweet spot Condiv posted:i'm asking why you're pretending i love republicans, much like taerkar was earlier Your Parents posted:you mean the alternate solution that keeps getting proposed that involves single payer that gets repeatedly shot down by fascists and fascist sympathizers for being too government or too taxpayer unfriendly and expensive A nonbatshit compromise for funding the CSRs, expanding waivers (some version of which desired by leadership and unions in both D and R states), and weakening coverage requirements could begin helping people the moment it's signed. As you may recall, our healthcare system is terrible, so I would think that this is a priority. To be explicit (because evidently this is required): Recognizing the potential for noninsane compromises does not mean I support eliminating the mandate, flooding the market with tragically substandard plans, and/or allowing states to drastically reduce the level/quantity/quality of coverage provided
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Willa and Condiv, two people best known for their understanding of what Dems are actually doing mccaskill was boosting the copper plans just last month. dunno why you're still trying to play it off paracaidas. especially by claiming that the thinkprogress source is flawed and incorrect somehow without actuall stating any factual objection quote:The copper plans your Vox link describes from 3 years ago certainly aren't. With the right limitations and restrictions, they could be. Similarly, your nightmare scenario ACA waivers would be a disaster. So awful that I can't imagine why any Dem, much less the 8+ that they need, would be willing to give them to the GOP. It must because the Dems are literally unimaginably bad, and not that your worst cases aren't what's actually occurring. machin, tim kaine, and 5 other dems were pushing the copper plan in the vox link in 2014, so i dunno why you think this one in 2017 that has the exact same name would be any better? at the very least, it's an extension of catastrophic plans to the entire population instead of under 30s. most likely it's exactly what dems were pushing in 2014. at worst it's worse than even that. none of those are good. neither are changes to waivers quote:In which you prove the point of the post you quote. In your haste to get red, mad, and nude, you seem to have missed that neither Taerkar have claimed you love Republicans. I can see why such a charge wouldn't make sense to you, given that nobody made it.  oh please it was fairly obvious you two were implying that i think dems are worse than republicans Condiv fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Sep 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:45
|
|