|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm genuinely pretty ignorant of Senate rules at this point, but aren't the Republicans now in a position to undo that 60 vote "requirement"? They can if they're unified in doing so, but it's not at all clear that they have 50 votes, particularly not to shove through something as routinely unpopular as healthcare reform. There's plenty of senators who like being able to pass the buck across the aisle on legislation they don't like failing, or who plan to be in the Senate long enough to see the majority switch sides again, and all it takes is three.
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 22:14 |
|
|
call to action posted:defending PPACA purely on the basis that it creates jobs and that changing it will put people out of work is pretty silly It definitely would be if anybody did this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
call to action posted:It's happened in this thread. I'd love to see a quote of the post defending the PPACA purely on the basis that it creates jobs, rejecting all other defenses for the law, rather than a post that merely points out that the PPACA created jobs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:There are people who are seriously arguing that Ryan/Republicans don't really want to pass AHCA. When have Republicans never been serious about cutting taxes for the rich? I don't buy the argument, but there's easier ways to cut taxes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
call to action posted:Here it is, for whoever asked So, as predicted, you've decided to pretend that a post which mentions economic impact is excluding all other effects as unimportant. You can't think that's convincing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Reik posted:The state regulators aren't going to be happy if all of the insurance companies in their state try to use loopholes to avoid their regulation, and they'll start putting in stuff like "any policy issued to someone who is a legal resident of this state is subject to our state regulations regardless of where the plan originates" and then we're back to an even more complicated regulation system. Maybe I've misunderstood, and I'd be happy to be corrected, but my understanding is that the goal of the whole sell-insurance-across-state-lines thing would be to have the federal government forbid states from having these kinds of regulations.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Reik posted:I think that's what they would like to do, but I just don't see it happening. Most of these individual policies are on HMO plans now, and HMOs have their own set of regulations that are different than a traditional insurance policy. It would be a huge mess that accomplishes nothing. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a Republican healthcare proposal was a huge mess that accomplishes nothing, just wanted to clarify my understanding of what they were trying to propose.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
daydrinking is fun posted:The GOP never bothers to let reality get in the way of their drive to turn America into the Running Man Isn't reality getting in the way what's happening right now with members of the GOP worried about what will happen if they take healthcare away from their voters, hence Paul Ryan trying to thread a needle?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:The idolization of the free market as the answer to everything is so baffling to me. Establishing and expanding markets shifts power towards people with money, whether you're talking about healthcare in the United States or the spread of capitalism across the globe. This is appealing to people who have a lot of money.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Seriously, if insurance doesn't have to cover any of this, what do they have to cover? What am I missing here? The premium support will be too cheap to cover comprehensive health insurance, so let people buy limited insurance that at least gets them something of their choosing rather than have nothing at all. Let people be covered for a trip to the ER, or a pregnancy, or regular preventative care, but maybe not for all of them, and definitely not for a million dollars worth of cancer treatment. If you're going to be cheap enough that you let people die preventable deaths, you might as well allow people buy something rather than locking them out of the market.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Oh the EHB stuff applies to employer plans as well? It applies to individual plans and small group plans. Large group plans – for employers with more than fifty employees – are exempt. Most offer these benefits anyways, though, without being required to do so. The sort of things offered by large employers is part of where they looked to define the standard for the EHB.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Highbrow Slick posted:To remove essential health benefits immediately evaporates any way of enforcing a guaranteed issue for pre-existing conditions, except for one that would have insurance companies yelping wryly to please not throw them in that briar patch. How so? Haven't seen that conclusion before.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
Highbrow Slick posted:Because if all types of benefits are optional then insurance companies can charge whatever they want in an a-la-carte fashion that would force people to self-select in such a way that they would effectively not be able to obtain coverage for the conditions they need treated. I don't see how the situation you're describing would work. Like, I try to buy a plan that covers my existing condition, and they trick me into thinking it's covered, but it's not? What's the process where I try to select a plan that covers my condition but I fail to?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
That makes sense, thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:But Ryan has been flailing ever since his original plan - repeal, replace later - got torpedoed. He's been trying to recover ever since and has never found a way. Just so crazy to see this happen to the best policy thinker of his generation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i would pay good money to watch this meeting: I'd seriously worry about my finances if there were a pay per view for congressional negotiations.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Ryan is getting ready to speak, for people who like to watch those sorts of things.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Craig K posted:donald trump, out of spite, switches party affiliation from republican to democrat Trump is supposed to be speaking relatively soon (I don't have a link to this either, thanks to AugustusLove for posting the other one).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
"At least anything bad that happens with healthcare in the future is still the Democrat's fault" seems to be the lifeline they're clinging to, which makes sense. Will be interesting to see what happens administratively, given the seeming incentive to quietly make things even worse.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:No one will buy it, not even their base. They had the chance to "fix" heathcare and they passed on it, anything that happens is their fault. Hopefully. Seems like they're going to try, though. edit: Yeah, Trump is shoving this on the Democrats as hard as possible in his statement. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
quote:I kept hearing informed voters, who had watched the election closely, say they did hear the promise of repeal but simply felt Trump couldn’t repeal a law that had done so much good for them. And, hey, so far it's looking like he can't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Hastings posted:I do not know how the GOP could even market this. They don't seem to know how to market it either, judging by their unwillingness to hold a vote.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The answer relies on an arcane rule of the Senate that nobody really understands, either in this forum, the press, or most of the Senate. It is a special way legislation can be passed that bypasses the Senate filibuster, so it can be passed with a bare majority instead of 60 votes. The details of why and how are really not worth trying to understand because ultimately Ryan was wrong. Ryan was relying on making permanent tax cuts by introducing a border-adjusted tax that had to be revenue neutral and that required Obamacare first so they could lower the baseline of "revenue" - but the border adjusted is dead in the water and so they're just going to do a temporary tax cut that expires in 10 years (again, because of quirks of the senate rules). This may be a consequence of those arcane rules that nobody understands, but I don't understand how passing the Obamacare repeal influences whether later, unrelated legislation is revenue neutral.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Whole idea was to save a ton of government money by axing ACA provisions, allowing them to return that money in the form of delicious delicious tax cuts. But I thought the point was to repeal the Obamacare taxes while repealing the spending, so that they are already using that saved money for tax cuts. As has been pointed out in this thread, one of the real complaints about Obamacare is that it raised taxes on the wealthy. Is it that they're going to cut the spending so much that there's room for even more tax cuts beyond the Obamacare taxes?
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Sloober posted:Getting rid of the ACA is a big tax cut on the wealthy. What was it, a 3.8% tax on wealthy paychecks? Right, that's what I'm getting at. Trying to wrap my head around how Paul Ryan can use repealing Obamacare (which gets you a tax cut on the wealthy) to fund another tax cut on the wealthy beyond that.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
What's the long-term plan with rushing a bill through like this? If it's as awful and unpopular as we all assume it will be, then even if they get it through the Senate before anyone finds out what's in it, there's still the House again. Or is that good enough, and this is just to get the hot potato back in Paul Ryan's lap? Can they really get this thing all the way to being signed like this?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:It's to murder minorities and poor people for a buck and then to use gerrymandering, a police state, and voter suppression to make sure anyone who might give a poo poo is too disenfranchised to do anything about it. How does this worldview explain them hiding the bill like this? No need to act in secret if the voters are powerless.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:They're hiding their constituent reactions from senators who are too dumb to realize the severity of the beating they're going to take at the polls. So I take it you disagree with the guy who said they would use "gerrymandering, a police state, and voter suppression to make sure anyone who might give a poo poo is too disenfranchised to do anything about it", which is what I was asking about? In your scenario, what's their plan for dealing with the vote in the House?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They have (correctly) determined that: So the assumption is that we'll get a quick vote in the House on this bill after the Senate vote.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
There is no cute trick to convincing people who are okay with tens of thousands of people dying a year of preventable illnesses and injuries that actually it's a bad thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:How does this get anyone's vote? Presumably the savings from reduced subsidies and gutting Medicaid are directed into tax cuts.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:Ok lets invite some of the people from UKMT in here and ask them about how good of an idea it is to hand the government control of health care when the country just elected a literal fascist dictator and one of the parties like punishing poor people for fun. I've heard the NHS has some problems, but is it really worse than the AHCA/BCRA for the poor? That would be pretty interesting. Also, what's the UKMT? Google says the United Kingdom Mathematics Trust, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Ormi posted:
He's not wrong. But his proposed solution, in which you'd only buy a real Obamacare policy if you were sick and actually planned to use your coverage, is the same basic solution as high risk pools, and is unworkable for the same reason: you'd need to dump a ton of money into them, and he's not going to be willing to do it. So all you're left with is the stripping of the Obamacare regulations. It's just an attempt at an alternative fig leaf for moderates that actually makes the bill even worse. Fortunately it's being pushed by the worst salesman in the world.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Ormi posted:The claim, is, in fact, that they will dump a ton of money into them. Whether that's believable is another story entirely, and it certainly makes healthcare for high-risk individuals much easier to gently caress with. But, really, rub your eyes and read over the proposal again, I know I had to, because it's literally unbelievable that this is coming from the mouth of Ted loving Cruz. Yeah, I don't disagree. It's only comprehensible at all as a strategy because I consider Cruz entirely untrustworthy when it comes to adequate funding for the program.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Looks like McConnell isn't particularly interested in Ted Cruz's end run around Obamacare regulations: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...bf47_story.html quote:McConnell is expected to place greater responsibility on Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) to pitch his controversial amendment that would allow insurers to offer plans that don’t meet ACA requirements — provided they also offer some that do. McConnell could ask Cruz to speak to Republican senators as soon as Tuesday, according to a person familiar with his strategy. Cruz has often talked about his amendment in the senators’ regular Tuesday lunches, but the burden of building support for the bill could be left to the firebrand conservative.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:I figure they'll eventually come around to putting a gun to the entire country's head and basically saying "if you don't let us cut your legs off, we'll blow your brains out" by threatening to totally repeal obamacare without replacing it if they don't let them get what they want. Hopefully the democrats just say "do it then bitch" but who knows. I'm sure they'll keep trying and they will get more and more desperate and threaten to kill more and more people if they don't get their tax cuts. Just making this threat requires relative moderates, who have already bucked at less severe plans, to suddenly come out in support of a total repeal. You don't need the Democrats to have guts, just an ability to count.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:I was pretty sure it shouldn't pass reconciliation either, but they did already send a repeal bill to Obama's desk, so I guess it must. They didn't quite send a full repeal. HR 3762, the one Obama actually had to veto, was an extensive but only partial repeal. Tom Price, at the time, said only that it "goes a long way toward lifting the burden of Obamacare." Presumably they'd do a similar repeal-as-much-as-possible bill again.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Jagged Jim posted:I'm a bit confused here, does "take up the house bill" mean the taking up the ACHA and scribbling "Obamacare is repealed in two years" in the margins or what? Yeah. Procedurally, a reconciliation bill has to originate in the House. The Senate can throw away everything that's in it. But its vote must technically be on a bill that first passed the House, even if the text of the bill isn't what passed the House.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Believe it or not Germany lets people who opt out of statutory insurance for private insurance purchase loosely regulated plans that are often richer in benefits than government insurance. There is a time and place for purely private insurance but for most people they shouldn't be subject to the whims of profit in health insurance. I'm sure you know this, but it's worth noting that Germany avoided the death spiral from letting people opt out of the standard system by only letting predefined categories of people do it, like those that meet a minimum income threshold. This keeps a stable base of people, healthy and sick, in the statutory health insurance pools.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 22:14 |
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:So hey Hieronymous Alloy if you want to see what happens when you run on vague platitudes while trying to crunch policy details live, look at the GOP losing their reconciliation bill this year. The GOP didn't run on vague platitudes, they ran on outright lies. Having to sort out the details of Medicare-for-All is not equivalent to figuring out how you're going to cut taxes and spending when you promised to also increase coverage and reduce premiums and deductibles.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2017 19:55
|
|