drsmooth wrote:Grassley whining that Al Franken "trapped" shitkicker Sessions with a "gotcha" question - about whether he'd ha any meetings with Russians. Jesus Christ, Senator Grassley, why are you even bothering with confirmation hearing?

Franken didn't even ask Sessions whether he'd had any meetings with Russians. Sessions volunteered an answer. Franken asked Sessions what he'd do if he found out there had been meetings between Trump surrogates and the Russians.

someone has to run a blood test on Carson. He's on something

JFLNYC wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Grassley whining that Al Franken "trapped" shitkicker Sessions with a "gotcha" question - about whether he'd ha any meetings with Russians. Jesus Christ, Senator Grassley, why are you even bothering with confirmation hearing?

Franken didn't even ask Sessions whether he'd had any meetings with Russians. Sessions volunteered an answer. Franken asked Sessions what he'd do if he found out there had been meetings between Trump surrogates and the Russians.

yes, thank you for clarifying

JFLNYC wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Grassley whining that Al Franken "trapped" #$!&@ Sessions with a "gotcha" question - about whether he'd ha any meetings with Russians. Jesus Christ, Senator Grassley, why are you even bothering with confirmation hearing?

Franken didn't even ask Sessions whether he'd had any meetings with Russians. Sessions volunteered an answer. Franken asked Sessions what he'd do if he found out there had been meetings between Trump surrogates and the Russians.

I never thought I would live in a time where asking about Russian interference to any US Government official, especially with credible that there was active interference and a flat out campaign to disrupt the election process, that any government official would claim objection over a 'gottcha' question. Entrapment? Really, entrapment? Grassley, wake up! This is the US and it sovereignty we are talking about.

pacino wrote:

Later a spokesman for Costello told the Guardian in a statement that the congressman had “offered to meet with the protesters but they declined. They do not wish to have an open and honest dialog. Their goal is to cause a scene and get it on camera.”

how dare they wish to have the "open dialog" with their "open and honest" representative documented via photography!

Quite the pile on, left/right/center.

In rushing to write the bill without it leaking, I guess they forgot to try to get buy in from key stakeholders or put together messaging/talking points to sell the thing. I've been busy with work, but haven't seen anyone who is sticking their neck out too far to defend this, or even like 3 simple bullet points about what this bill will fix or why it might help people like me (other than pacino's post about how it could help young single people making average money) or help families or whatever. The never satisfied part of the right is not satisfied, while the more pragmatic/knowledgeable conservatives on health care seem to hate the bill too. This was always going to be difficult to pull off, but I figured there'd be at least a little coordination in the roll out. Doesn't even seem like they're trying. Dunno if it's dead, but hard to see how they piece 218/50 votes together on something that's getting bashed from all sides of the caucus. Guess it's the Senate's turn. God forbid the White House put together a serious policy proposal on anything at all.

they didn't know what they wanted it to be, so they tried to throw a little in there for everyone, but there's no mechanism to pay for it, there's going to be less coverage, and yet there's also not going to be any actual savings down the road. this thing will explode a state budget if they try to keep up the Medicaid expansion while also shorting Medicare, etc.

it's like they took every talking point they used in 09/10 and decided to actually fulfill everything they alleged the ACA was going to do.


a positive for liberals here is it shows we've successfully entrenched certain things that people EXPECT from their government. They EXPECT a decent healthcare option for people that aren't just povery-stricken or elderly or disabled. people expect a little help if need be and some assurance that they'll have decent coverage when they need to use it. We've shifted the conversation! Well, with a little help from that guy in the White House.

jerseyhoya wrote:Quite the pile on, left/right/center.

In rushing to write the bill without it leaking, I guess they forgot to try to get buy in from key stakeholders or put together messaging/talking points to sell the thing. I've been busy with work, but haven't seen anyone who is sticking their neck out too far to defend this, or even like 3 simple bullet points about what this bill will fix or why it might help people like me (other than pacino's post about how it could help young single people making average money) or help families or whatever. The never satisfied part of the right is not satisfied, while the more pragmatic/knowledgeable conservatives on health care seem to hate the bill too. This was always going to be difficult to pull off, but I figured there'd be at least a little coordination in the roll out. Doesn't even seem like they're trying. Dunno if it's dead, but hard to see how they piece 218/50 votes together on something that's getting bashed from all sides of the caucus. Guess it's the Senate's turn. God forbid the White House put together a serious policy proposal on anything at all.

I could see Trump's team in the background demanding a policy announcement since he's been making promises of "soon" and "not long after" to announce a replacement to the ACA. The House slapped together what they could, without much thought, and here we are.

This was always an annoyance to me. They tried to repeal the ACA a million times, but they could never get a cohesive replacement plan. I guess they knew they could never get a veto-proof repeal while Obama was president, and did not expect Trump to win. If Trump was a normal GOP POTUS we would have either had repeal w/ no replace while a plan was worked on, or no empty promises and breathing room to work on a replacement plan to be announced on a normal timeline.

slugsrbad wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Quite the pile on, left/right/center.

In rushing to write the bill without it leaking, I guess they forgot to try to get buy in from key stakeholders or put together messaging/talking points to sell the thing. I've been busy with work, but haven't seen anyone who is sticking their neck out too far to defend this, or even like 3 simple bullet points about what this bill will fix or why it might help people like me (other than pacino's post about how it could help young single people making average money) or help families or whatever. The never satisfied part of the right is not satisfied, while the more pragmatic/knowledgeable conservatives on health care seem to hate the bill too. This was always going to be difficult to pull off, but I figured there'd be at least a little coordination in the roll out. Doesn't even seem like they're trying. Dunno if it's dead, but hard to see how they piece 218/50 votes together on something that's getting bashed from all sides of the caucus. Guess it's the Senate's turn. God forbid the White House put together a serious policy proposal on anything at all.

I could see Trump's team in the background demanding a policy announcement since he's been making promises of "soon" and "not long after" to announce a replacement to the ACA. The House slapped together what they could, without much thought, and here we are.

This was always an annoyance to me. They tried to repeal the ACA a million times, but they could never get a cohesive replacement plan. I guess they knew they could never get a veto-proof repeal while Obama was president, and did not expect Trump to win. If Trump was a normal GOP POTUS we would have either had repeal w/ no replace while a plan was worked on, or no empty promises and breathing room to work on a replacement plan to be announced on a normal timeline.

A normal Republican president would have at least sketched principles of a replacement during the campaign, and would have a competent WH policy staff who would be coordinating with Congress to piece together legislation getting the buy in needed.

But at the end of the day doing something other than tinkering around the edges was always going to be a longshot because of what pacino writes. A government benefit, once given, is extremely difficult to take away.

pacino wrote:a positive for liberals here is it shows we've successfully entrenched certain things that people EXPECT from their government. They EXPECT a decent healthcare option for people that aren't just povery-stricken or elderly or disabled. people expect a little help if need be and some assurance that they'll have decent coverage when they need to use it. We've shifted the conversation! Well, with a little help from that guy in the White House.

jerseyhoya wrote:haven't seen anyone who is sticking their neck out too far to defend this

in fairness, sometimes you can't easily tell where the head stops and the neck starts:

Doesn't even seem like they're trying.

yeah. seems like they're trying to be able to say with a straight-ish face that they - House Rs - "tried", again, like they "tried" to repeal ACA by voting to repeal it scores of times.

Rs - pretending is not actually trying

politicians love the idea of a program, but they don't want to pay for it...at least that's what people use to say about Democrats! Now, it's Republicans:

Senate File 274, which passed on a 49-0 vote and was sent to the House, was proposed by Gov. Terry Branstad in his annual Condition of the State address in January. The bill would provide incentives, but not a mandate, for schools to increase course offerings in computer science.

Sen. Mark Chelgren, R-Ottumwa, the bill's floor manager, said he isn't certain if lawmakers will authorize state funding for the program, which is why methods will be available to provide alternative funding sources. That prompted Senate Minority Leader Robert Hogg, D-Cedar Rapids, to remark, "I would certainly hope if the Senate believes, like I believe, that computer science education is important. I would certainly hope that the education budget process would provide funding."

Republicans in Iowa also oppose local municipalities attempting to raise the minimum wage, plus other stuff:

The bill would bar cities and counties from regulating paid family leave, sick-time pay and other labor issues. It also would ban municipalities from implementing plastic bag bans or soda taxes. The legislation was authored by Rep. Jake Highfill, R-Johnston, who argued that such regulations are the purview of state government, not city councils and county supervisors.

Yet, business interests continued to argue Monday that employers need uniformity in regulations across the state. The Iowa Association of Realtors, the Iowa Association of Business and Industry and the Iowa Grocery Industry Association are backing the bill. Opposing the effort are labor advocates, the Iowa Association of Counties, the Iowa League of Cities, the Linn County Board of Supervisors and the City of Des Moines.

state politics matter!

Price on to defend House's proposal. Not much grasp of facts. Counties..."one insurer is not a choice" . Doesn't offer how what House is proposing guarantees any choice.

Dwells on how this is about patients. No; no, it's not about patients. Most people most years, are not mostly, or even at all, patients in any economically burdensome way. It's about health coverage, and the cost of that, at present. Neither ACA, nor especially any of the House proposals, is much about health treatment costs.

He does have more neck than Brady though

Price is pretty slick for a Georgia shitkicker - but when all is said & done is a lying weasel. Defends House bill (apparently drumpf's bill, too) only in reference to ACA, making clear he & Rs would ONLY do ANYTHING once someone ELSE had taken action.

Pathetic

As a visual, Price has two stacks of paper. One is the House bill - about 2 inches of paper. The other is SUPPOSED to be ACA - about a FOOT of paper.

ACA is 906 pages. If printed, I suppose, 2 reams of paper. Four inches.

What is with Rs and their fetish for laws governing the most powerful & complex nation on the planet having to be gibberish slogans scribbled in crayon on 1 side of a page of foolscap?

Price reduced to stuttering on about the virtues of selling health insurance "across state lines", a meaningless, ridiculous slogan

why would you want to buy an insurance plan from South Dakota if you're in PA? Wouldn't their networks be a bit different?

Reporter q: "How is this new proposal economically sustainable?"

Price: "ACA was bad!"

pacino wrote:why would you want to buy an insurance plan from South Dakota if you're in PA? Wouldn't their networks be a bit different?

never mind, jake - it's drumpfcaretown

Price runs out of gas: "I gotta run - we got a guy right here who will carry on with the rest of your questions. Sean?"

ahahahaHAHAHAHAhahaha. Hahahaha. Haha.

Spicer points to the size of the two piles of paper and drones on about their page counts.

This is really being done by an adult human being.

OBCare was a special interest plan... tell me more Sean.

Later says 'collapsing insurance market...

If it was a special interest thing, would it not be defended as a winner by the people getting rich off it?