|
If it's really grim, Ryan might be trying to work out punting it to Monday or pull the vote. I can't see Trump going for it.
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
I think I was right, ryan wants delay/pulled vote, and Trump is having none of it: https://twitter.com/MajorCBS/status/845310870607548418
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Yuuuup. Ryan wants to run for the hills, Trump wants names. https://twitter.com/TimAlberta/status/845311572264275969
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
It's on. https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/845324014595850240 e: Unless this is yet another right hand left hand screwup, I guess. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:So a question I hadn't really considered. Assuming the bill fails, that's bad for Republicans. But this bill is a stupendously lovely bill and a lot of people will vote for it but don't want to, and are likely to defect once they know it's going to fail. What does a massive loss in the House (even if it doesn't really reflect how close it was) do to the Republican Party on this? All of the news is going to be about how they lost by like 50 votes, which is going to be a story in itself. The possible margin of failure is is why I was thinking Ryan himself might want it pulled. The plan was blame the HFC if it failed. If there's a whole lot of non-Freedom Caucus defections, they can't do that effectively. The news will be about Trump and Ryan and how big the defeat was, not the Freedom Caucus.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
It will be hilarious if Trump's poo poo list is half the Republicans in the House. I can't believe what an own goal they're shaping up to have scored, here. The infighting and paranoia might actually get worse.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:He says a lot but it's not his call. I mean from House leadership. May not be a lot more than the White House, but: Marketwatch Liveblog posted:2:06 pm
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Interesting to reread Bob Costa's "per a WH official" style tweets given this: https://twitter.com/costareports/status/845357678390104066
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
I don't think that's real.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/mikedebonis/status/847205235466625024
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Didn't really know what to expect either way, so I decided to take a crack at it without reference to other nations: In 2014, about 1.243 million taxable returns exceeded 500k in AGI less deficits, accounting for about 0.8% of returns filed, and about 1.925 trillion in AGI. Of that, they paid about 525 billion in taxes. The 5 mil or so in the 200-500k range made about 1.417 trillion and paid 276 billion in taxes. (source) Assuming the same effective tax rate of the 200-500k bracket on the first 500k of income of those 1.243 million households, that's 121 billion in taxes on that 622 billion in income. A 90% tax on income exceeding that would pull down 1.173 trillion, giving us 770 billion in new tax revenues. In 2014, the US spent 2.563 trillion on personal healthcare, 875 billion being private insurance and another 330 billion being out of pocket. (source) So at a (very) rough approximation, a 90% tax rate on incomes above 500k would leave us 435 billion that would have to come from somewhere else, if we were to change nothing other than who cuts the check and assume no other effects. That assumption is, to put it mildly, unreasonable, so it looks like this turns on what we believe about secondary effects of adopting single payer and that tax paying for it. I find it plausible given those numbers that we can pay for all this healthcare by eating the rich, particularly if we allow our definition of 'rich' to include the 200-500k bracket, corporations, etc., start accounting for program specifics, administrative savings, or look at the restructuring of deductions that would likely accompany such a massive change to the tax code. edit: I think the AGI vs actual pre-tax cash income is doing a lot of work there, those income numbers seem low. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Apr 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
OK, I was right with that edit. When talking about income, and not AGI, the numbers differ sharply. Per the Tax Policy Center, in 2015 earners above 500k took in 2.815 trillion. They paid, effective across all federal taxes (n.b., this includes imputed corporate income tax liability), 910 billion. (source). Per the same CMS spreadsheet I linked earlier, in 2015, 945 billion was spent via private health insurance on personal health care. Out of pocket costs were 338 billion. 1.9 trillion in untaxed income, 1.3 trillion in expenditures to cover. The money's there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Avalanche posted:The problem is, no individual patient can typically front the money for a prolonged legal battle with a massive corporate insurance company Why on earth would they be fronting costs? Bad faith claim denial is like the poster child for getting a plaintiff side firm salivating over a contingent fee contract. Insurers are one of few entities that regularly get dinged with hefty punitive damages even in states with really conservative or hostile juries. Is there something different about the medical context? eviltastic fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Yeah, I know all that. You see things like that in lots of individual insurance markets. It doesn't explain why a firm would refuse to handle it on a contingent fee contract. e: some quick googling is finding me plenty of firms scattered around that claim expertise in the area of health insurance coverage litigation and are advertising on a contingent fee basis. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This is assuming people realize they can go to a lawyer, do in fact manage to contact said lawyer, and explain themselves well enough to said lawyer that he or she takes their case.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Play it again, Sam https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/859424033162629121 https://twitter.com/costareports/status/859427645754310656
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Because of course we have to have a story about the story, the NYT is also reporting on all the other reporting: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/01/upshot/health-care-vote-whip-count-comparison.html
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Yug posted:That's actually helpful comparing the whip lists. The chart is anyway, not gonna read whatever garbage they wrote for the article. So it's 23 then. Even if it passes barely by one vote I don't think that's gonna look to good for when it gets to the senate. Or am I wrong. Every sign from the Senate is that this is dead on arrival. They might make major changes to it and pass something very different while calling it the same thing, and kick it back to the House and hope to thread the needle again with more moderates and less Freedom Caucus guys then. The moderates in the House have been expressing a lot of frustration with this dynamic. But there's no guarantee the Senate even does anything with it. My guess is they don't have the votes in the House, and nobody wants to be outed as the straw that broke the camel's back. But there are some interesting differences this time around. Frelinghuysen (the Appropriations chairman, one of the most powerful people in the House) being a 'no' last time and making positive noises this time is a big shift, for one. So who knows.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I saw a post somewhere yesterday that House leadership's only goal at this point is to dump this poo poo on the Senate so it's not their fault it failed in the hopes passing something will help in the 2018 elections. There is a lot of skepticism that passing a doomed bill with 17% is actually the helpful thing in 2018 though Given that actors like Trump are seemingly incapable of shutting up about it, maybe it's the right play on the House leadership's part. If it's in the Senate, a bunch of them have a liability but at least have got something to hem and haw about needing to review before stating their current position, and they've got months to fill the air with something else. If it stays in the House, they get pestered for months about where they stand on the House bill, because the loudmouths won't shut up and let them move on.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Speaking of risk pools: https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/859466874844831744 https://twitter.com/BresPolitico/status/859467149630427136 Not completely  yet, but suddenly negotiating after you're done negotiating is...not a good sign.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:What kind of terrible politics reporting term is "plussing up"? Ehhh ... Politico. HappyHippo posted:They give a concession to the HFC and they lose the moderates. They go back and give the moderates something and they lose the HFC. They've been doing this for a few months now. When are they going to realize this game of ping pong is getting them nowhere? Yeeeeepppp....Meadows is now saying he hasn't heard anything about the proposed change.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
This was my favorite non-response of the day: https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/859474495173799936
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Update for Wednesday: A fig leaf's been negotiated to bring on two of the 'nos' (Upton and Long) that doesn't seem like it will lose any Freedom Caucus votes. Specifically, 8 billion for high risk pools, which is something like four percent of what they'd need. Mike Turner, listed as a 'no' on some, but not all of the whip counts, has reportedly been really evasive today about how he'll vote. Amidst all that coming out in the news, Carlos Curbelo, a member of the whip team, tweeted this: https://twitter.com/carloslcurbelo/status/859784057210712065 Publicly, he was previously undecided. I think whether this passes probably depends on which way that tweet was read in the context of what the supposedly undecideds have been saying in private. Could be a signal from opposition that they've got the additional 'no' votes to push past 23, could be the whip team drawing attention to the amendment to try to give others cover for a yes vote. The tone of reporters that have been good to follow on this has shifted toward passage being distinctly possible, for example: https://twitter.com/byrdinator/status/859797363547938816 Gonna be close. I still hope it tanks. Regardless of whether it's more politically advantageous for those opposing the GOP to see a vote, things this dangerous need to die and stay dead. edit: Oh, and the House is set to go on recess after Thursday. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 17:19 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
House GOP leadership just met, and journalists are starting to confirm on Twitter that the vote is going to happen tomorrow.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
So they're not voting now...I guess they're doing the same thing as last time? Setting it up for the floor before they're sure and hoping enough votes shake out? I can't imagine they'd wait if they thought they were there now.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
All the reporters on this beat worth following seem pretty confident that it will pass. The crazies are gonna be pretty emboldened moving forward.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
This dropped within minutes of that other story we're all paying attention to right now, so in case you missed it: Interesting new Bob Costa/Sean Sullivan WaPo column up identifying that the group of 13 is actually the brainchild of Ted Cruz. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...m=.bfc15dcb9e45
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
I dunno that I'd consider Topher Spiro a hugely reliable source, here. Like, I'm not saying he's lying, and it's good news that they don't have the votes atm, but he's definitely one inclined to slant things his way. Pretty cautious about how hard those "no" commitments are.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:And many of them go to trial that shouldn't - for the overwhelming majority of lawsuits, if it goes to trial it's a coinflip because the only cases that go to trial (instead of settling early or getting dismissed) are the hard ones. Medical cases go 66-33 for the doctor, meaning that about 1/3rd of the cases shouldn't have gone to trial, but usually they do because the patient either has a strong belief someone hosed up even if they didn't, or our lovely safety net means that they need to win to financially survive. I don't disagree with your assessment, but l'll quibble with this part - the numbers I'm familiar with are significantly worse for plaintiffs, and adjusters know that. The defense side will frequently push things to trial on facts that in another context you'd expect to result in settlement/mediation/what have you. It's a weird area.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
What I'm getting from that quote isn't just that Trump has no idea what things cost, it's that he doesn't understand the difference between health insurance and life insurance.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:Don't steal from Evilweasel Reading every page of USPOL is bad for you. (Also figuring out what you were talking about was a pain because that post isn't showing up in his post history for some weird reason.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AmandaBecker/status/890567841300328449 How did this wind up even more of a farce than I thought?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:What Fox News is currently saying about the healthcare bill on their front page: There are two articles about it linked on the Fox News front page, both in a negative tone, and a link to a live stream of the debate. I'm not suggesting that's remotely what their coverage will look like if a bill passes, but they are covering the story.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
I've been living under a rock, but I vaguely recall someone saying that moderates were starting to reach out again on the cost sharing subsidies. Anyone got a link/update on that?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2017 19:17
|
|