|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:No, FY19 would be in the middle of 2018. FY19 Starts October 1st 2018. Assume that nothing will be done until mid Nov due to the 2018 election. No clue how the Senate would be able to pass a budget and then pass budget reconciliation during the lame duck session.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
axeil posted:That's even stupider. What sane person thinks trying to pass a bill with ~20% approval right before elections is a good idea? they don't, but they think that pairing it with 2018 tax cuts is even dumber and they can't admit that it's dead if they just quietly put the instructions in the budget with the hope they'll pass it in the lame duck they can try to avoid it happening right before the election
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
karthun posted:FY19 Starts October 1st 2018. Assume that nothing will be done until mid Nov due to the 2018 election. No clue how the Senate would be able to pass a budget and then pass budget reconciliation during the lame duck session. by having lost the house in the election and everyone told to get in line for the last best chance to repeal obamacare before the door shuts closed forever also, not to put too fine a point on it, but waiting till the 2019 budget maximizes the chance mccain dies before the bill comes up and i assure you mark meadows is thinking about that evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
What are the chances of Schumer-Pelosi pulling another fast one on McConnell (after Trump's done fuming and the door finally slams shut on reconciliation) and directly approaching Trump with the outline of a Murray-Alexander Deal as something they can pass and he can "call whatever he wants"? It would give Trump a chance to steal control of the GOP away from McConnell, give him good ratings and a chance to declare victory over Obamacare. Democrats, meanwhile, can sacrifice copper plans, state flexibility and a few other things in order to cement the law with Republican fingerprints. The congressional GOP leadership may oppose any deal, but Trump seems to like being given chances to assert control over his party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Grammarchist posted:What are the chances of Schumer-Pelosi pulling another fast one on McConnell (after Trump's done fuming and the door finally slams shut on reconciliation) and directly approaching Trump with the outline of a Murray-Alexander Deal as something they can pass and he can "call whatever he wants"? They don't have time before the plan pricing is finalized to pass it anymore (also Sept 30th). So the impetus to get it done now that was giving some motivation to Republicans is gone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They don't have time before the plan pricing is finalized to pass it anymore (also Sept 30th). So the impetus to get it done now that was giving some motivation to Republicans is gone. It's also unclear (despite the hyperventilation of the usual suspects) if there was ever a there there with Murray/Alexander. After the fact remarks from Ernst and the WSJ indicate that Dems were unwilling to offer meaningful concessions in return for stability. What this means moving forward will be interesting. Dems appear to be banking on the polling that indicates the GOP will shoulder the blame for any Obamacare hiccups or premium spikes. Even the GOP estsblishment appears more concerned by primary challenges over strengthening Obamacare than electoral punishment for (passively) sabatoging it. Bipartisan reforms absolutely exist if the political will is there. But they're deeply unsexy and my guess is that the GOPe is correct that any action taken will be messaged as supporting Obamacare in the primaries without providing a meaningful impact in the general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:It's also unclear (despite the hyperventilation of the usual suspects) if there was ever a there there with Murray/Alexander. After the fact remarks from Ernst and the WSJ indicate that Dems were unwilling to offer meaningful concessions in return for stability. they were lying, because they needed to justify torpedoing the talks, and democrats have made public the concessions they were willing to make
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
It's finally official https://twitter.com/ap_politics/status/912740800110448640
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
It's a shame that Hamilton has joined Harry Potter as a symbol of ineffective centrism, because that "you don't have the votes A HA HA HA" riff feels very apropro right now
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:It's a shame that Hamilton has joined Harry Potter as a symbol of ineffective centrism, because that "you don't have the votes A HA HA HA" riff feels very apropro right now Not going to lie I looped this several times last night just because it is very apropos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb6F6kIqlxw
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:importing drugs is not about lower manufacturing costs abroad, it's about taking advantage of price controls in those countries They could do that and then lose the national patent that prevents domestic producers from manufacturing their own. I think India straight up ignores patents for a lot of medications.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:It's finally official  But yeah, this isn't officially dead until the Democrats take back the House.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
its worth pointing out that if strange loses, as expected today, then that's one less reliable vote mcconnell has moore will make paul look sane and already said he'd never vote for c-g because its not full repeal
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:its worth pointing out that if strange loses, as expected today, then that's one less reliable vote mcconnell has Moore is about as likely to go full Preston Brooks as he is to cast a vote, the man is certifiable
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
There is a greater than zero chance that Moore will literally challenge McConnell to pistols at dawn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:they were lying, because they needed to justify torpedoing the talks, and democrats have made public the concessions they were willing to make I spent my weekend mostly offline. Is there anything more than the Schumer spox and resulting theorycrafting? If not, being willing to discuss copper plans and loosened definitions isn't the same as discussing them in a way that's meaningful to the GOP. Limited rollouts of those ideas would lead to the sorts of reactions Ernst gave at her Town Hall while still being actual offers. CSR solidification is a policy win (and primary-messaging loss) for most of the GOP. Even by their standards, it seems odd to lie if they got Dems to commit to major concessions in return for a policy that the bulk of the caucus actually wants... in service of a bill that Ernst was calling doomed at her Town Hall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:There is a greater than zero chance that Moore will literally challenge McConnell to pistols at dawn. Is there any chance Moore loses in the general? I mean, it's Alabama, so I'm assuming no, but I haven't heard anything about the Democratic challenger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Yeah, Dems got someone they think has as good a chance as a non-republican can have. It's incredibly unlikely, but no longer impossible, that the seat could be flipped in an upset under the right conditions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Is there any chance Moore loses in the general? I mean, it's Alabama, so I'm assuming no, but I haven't heard anything about the Democratic challenger. Moore got kicked off the supreme court and then voted back on and kicked off again for the same reason. Barring unprecedented democratic midterm turnout, Moore will probably win if he wins the primary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Is there any chance Moore loses in the general? I mean, it's Alabama, so I'm assuming no, but I haven't heard anything about the Democratic challenger. The Democrats think there's a chance, that he'll be such a loving nutjob that business republicans could possibly be swayed to vote for the Dem. Basically, that he would be Todd Akin Jr.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Moore got kicked off the supreme court and then voted back on and kicked off again for the same reason. Barring unprecedented democratic midterm turnout, Moore will probably win if he wins the primary. The key word though is "probably" which is less definitive than it should be given this is an election in Alabama.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Is there any chance Moore loses in the general? I mean, it's Alabama, so I'm assuming no, but I haven't heard anything about the Democratic challenger. Doug Jones is the guy in that race, and he's running on a surprisingly good, broadly social democrat platform - green energy, livable wage, improving the k-12 education, that sort of thing. Putting aside whether there's a chance of winning Alabama on the merits of the state itself, I'm still somewhat worried if he'll receive the necessary funding from the national democratic organizations, and Perez fills me with the opposite of confidence in that regard. Beyond the fact it's a senate seat in play, Moore becoming a part of the senate feels like one of those watershed moments that should be avoided at all costs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
There was a poll that showed Democrat Doug Jones as vaguely competitive. That's mostly a factor of the Democrats mostly rallying around him and the GOP still being divided. It's a special election in a time where Democrats are more energized than normal, so there's a very small chance if Jones carries himself well and Moore runs afoul of a mattering of some sort. I'm skeptical that this "mattering" exists, but historians assure me it roamed free across the land in the pre-Trump era. A Democrat taking Alabama would be crazy enough for 2017 though, admittedly. http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2017/09/democrat_doug_jones_in_close_s.html Grammarchist fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Doug Jones is the guy in that race, and he's running on a surprisingly good, broadly social democrat platform - green energy, livable wage, improving the k-12 education, that sort of thing. Putting aside whether there's a chance of winning Alabama on the merits of the state itself, I'm still somewhat worried if he'll receive the necessary funding from the national democratic organizations, and Perez fills me with the opposite of confidence in that regard. Beyond the fact it's a senate seat in play, Moore becoming a part of the senate feels like one of those watershed moments that should be avoided at all costs. Everything I've read has basically supported that he will get funding if Moore wins and not if Strange wins. The DNC thinks it would be a waste of money challenging Strange, but there's a path to winning if it's Moore. That said, they have to spend carefully because they have 25 Senate seats up in 2018, a lot in red states.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
axeil posted:That's even stupider. What sane person thinks trying to pass a bill with ~20% approval right before elections is a good idea? Well drat. Today's my lucky day. https://twitter.com/justinjm1/status/912765879150170112
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
McConnell's officially pulled the plug. Eat poo poo, Randian fuckboys!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:McConnell's officially pulled the plug. Eat poo poo, Randian fuckboys! Well technically it was a Randian fuckboy who helped kill the bill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/912776406731575296
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
ehh. sounds like santorum talking out his rear end. she probably said if it wasn't terrible loving poo poo. and asscumshit forgot that part.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Who the hell is Santorum working for right now? He's been out of government for over a decade yet somehow he's managed to insert himself into this poo poo as if he's never left.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
She was just being polite. Santorum worked heavily on GCHJ (even before AHCA passed the House) and sees it as his little baby. He's been stumping hard for it behind the scenes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:It's finally official Graham: "I do declare we're gonna have us a vote and if it fails then so be it!"  McConnell: "What health care proposal?" 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:ehh. sounds like santorum talking out his rear end. she probably said if it wasn't terrible loving poo poo. and asscumshit forgot that part. I really don't see Murkowski or Collins coming around to any GOP plan that carves out either preexisting conditions OR places any kinds of limits on women's health / obgyn access / contraceptive access. I mean most people don't necessarily think about it, but it's pretty astounding that because of the ACA a woman in America went from having to scrounge up a couple thousand dollars every 3 years to get a Nexplanon implant to being able to just call her ob/gyn, schedule it, write down the insurance information, getting the little rod stuck in her arm, and walk out...without spending a penny. Business Republicans should *love* women's access to conception at no cost because if there's one thing businesses hate it's pregnant employees, which is hosed up, but it's the way things are right now. I think Murkowski and Collins are both smart enough to see how critical that is to the women, they've got the backing of some moderate country club business Republicans on the topic to keep their campaign funding, and that's enough to lock in two votes. Simultaneously without cutting women's health access the frothing-at-the-mouth Republicans won't vote for it. ----- Separately I'm really hoping the DNCC stays ON MESSAGE and points out have the pre-existing conditions being moved to the states is actually a VERY big deal. Republicans keep saying that the pre-existing conditions would have been covered because every state would have done so. If so...why change the law? Just leave that bit in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:I'm really hoping the DNCC stays ON MESSAGE and points out have the pre-existing conditions being moved to the states is actually a VERY big deal. Republicans keep saying that the pre-existing conditions would have been covered because every state would have done so. If so...why change the law? Just leave that bit in. I think it's more important to make people realize that if they elect shitlords to their state government, guess what might happen, and use it as a cudgel to retake governorships and state legislatures.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Murkowski has voted against every single version of BCRA. I'd guess that she said that she was open to the possibility of doing something on healthcare in 2018 and Rick Santorum heard what it was advantageous for him to hear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:I'm really hoping the DNCC stays ON MESSAGE and points out have the pre-existing conditions being moved to the states is actually a VERY big deal. Republicans keep saying that the pre-existing conditions would have been covered because every state would have done so. If so...why change the law? Just leave that bit in. Bernie owned Graham and Cassidy hard on this at the debate. They were all "why these Democrats make it sound like your governor is just scheming to hike premiums on people with preexisting conditions, a governor would never do that, why here in South Carolina we take care of each other" and Bernie pointed out their states were happy to give sick people the finger before ACA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Be joyful they failed, but angry they tried. And stay angry...
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:It's also unclear (despite the hyperventilation of the usual suspects) if there was ever a there there with Murray/Alexander. After the fact remarks from Ernst and the WSJ indicate that Dems were unwilling to offer meaningful concessions in return for stability. Thank god. Giving away things Republicans want in exchange for something Republicans also want would be insane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The Democrats think there's a chance, that he'll be such a loving nutjob that business republicans could possibly be swayed to vote for the Dem. Basically, that he would be Todd Akin Jr. The concept of a Republican politician losing an election because of the stupid things he said seems so old-fashioned nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:She was just being polite. Santorum worked heavily on GCHJ (even before AHCA passed the House) and sees it as his little baby. He's been stumping hard for it behind the scenes. so did he take it home last night to sleep with it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 02:18
|
|
