I'm so over this. Can we move onto failing at tax reform?

slugsrbad wrote:Chuck Todd reporting that 3 GOP Senators will publicly announce their opposition

dog and pony show. they announce their opposition, get bullshit changes, then say they can vote yes when they would have all along.

hope i'm wrong!

JUburton wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:Chuck Todd reporting that 3 GOP Senators will publicly announce their opposition

dog and pony show. they announce their opposition, get bullshit changes, then say they can vote yes when they would have all along.

hope i'm wrong!

Probably not. I think Collins is a solid no regardless. Murkowski has long been a proponent of funding Planned Parenthood, so perhaps we can pick her off too. Then we need to get Flake or Heller, both up for re-election in 2018 and in states that expanded Medicaid.

lol the bill even repeals the tanning tax

JUburton wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:Chuck Todd reporting that 3 GOP Senators will publicly announce their opposition

dog and pony show. they announce their opposition, get #$!&@ changes, then say they can vote yes when they would have all along.

hope i'm wrong!

i hope you're wrong as well but i see this as a strategy...it's just a shortened version of what happened with the House bill.

slugsrbad wrote:

JUburton wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:Chuck Todd reporting that 3 GOP Senators will publicly announce their opposition

dog and pony show. they announce their opposition, get #$!&@ changes, then say they can vote yes when they would have all along.

hope i'm wrong!

Probably not. I think Collins is a solid no regardless. Murkowski has long been a proponent of funding Planned Parenthood, so perhaps we can pick her off too. Then we need to get Flake or Heller, both up for re-election in 2018 and in states that expanded Medicaid.

It is interesting that Nevada is pushing Democratic every year, the governor positions himself as one of the few moderate GOP left, and their legislature just passed medicaid buyin (vetoed by Gov Sandoval) and Heller may end up supporting this thing. it seems crazy, politically, for him to support it.

Here is one take (from Bob Bryan @ Business Insider):

Here's a rundown of what is in the bill (you can see the full legislation below):

Tax credits:
What's in the bill: To help people pay for insurance, the Senate bill proposes tax credits based on income level, a feature of Obamacare, rather than on age, as the House bill calls for. The bill would make anyone earning up to 350% of the poverty level eligible for credits; Obamacare caps that at 400%. It would, however, adjust the credits so they were less generous as a person aged. for instance, a person age 33 making 175% of the federal poverty limit would receive enough in credits so they were spending 5.3% of their income on premiums. For people over age 59, that would increase to 8.3% of their income. Additionally, the credits would be capped at a lower percentage of overall medical costs than those under Obamacare, making them less generous overall.

What it means: While the tax credits would be more generous for older Americans than the House bill, fewer middle-income people would get financial support to pay for coverage — and those who do would get less.

Medicaid expansion:
What's in the bill: Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, which extended the program to those making 100% to 138% of the federal poverty limit, would be phased out over four years. 90% of the current federal funding would be provided in 2020 and it would decrease by 5% each year until 2023, after which it would be eliminated. People would not be allowed to join the expansion from 2020 onwards. The tax credits will be available to people that fall off the expansion.

What it means: While this would save the federal government money, it also means the millions of people that have gained access to Medicaid would be rolled off. These people would be able to fall back on the less generous tax credit and access coverage through the individual insurance market.

Medicaid spending growth:
What's in the bill: The Senate bill retains the House's per capita cap for federal Medicaid spending. After 2025, however, growth in spending would shift from the consumer price index for medical care to the CPI for all goods, a lower level of growth.

What it means: States would receive less funding each year from the federal government to help cover low-income Americans, and after 2025 the rate of growth would decline, leading to even deeper potential cuts for the program.

States can institute Medicaid work requirements:
What's in the bill: This would allow states to create a provision under which people must maintain employment, as the state defines, for a period of time, also determined by the state, in order for a person to receive Medicaid.

What it means: This is another long-time wish for Republicans, but it also gives a significant amount of leeway to states to define what counts as work and for how long someone has to hold a job. It does not apply to students, pregnant women, or the disabled.

Cost-sharing subsidies:
What's in the bill: The bill would allocate money for cost-sharing subsidies through 2019. These payments offset the costs for insurers to offer low-income Americans plans with smaller out-of-pocket costs. The uncertainty around these payments has led to instability in the individual insurance market.

What it means: This should reassure insurers desperate for guidance ahead of the 2018 plan year and could bring down premium increases for next year's individual insurance market.

State waivers for Obamacare regulations:
What's in the bill: The Senate bill would allow states to request a waiver to opt out of Obamacare's so-called essential health benefits, which mandate that all plans must cover 10 basic types of care. The ability to opt out of providing those benefits was a key sticking point in the House legislation, and its inclusion ultimately allowed it to pass. The Senate bill, however, would not allow states to repeal community rating, the provision mandating that all people of the same age in the same area be charged the same amount. That's a change from the House bill, which drew criticism from health-policy experts who said a repeal of community rating would allow insurers to charge people with preexisting conditions more.

What it means: If a state receives a waiver for the EHBs, this would allow skimpier coverage offerings on the state's insurance market, which would have cheaper premiums but higher out-of-pocket costs.

Repeal Obamacare's taxes:
What's in the bill: Much like the House version, the Senate would do away with things like Obamacare 3.8% tax on investment income on people earning an annual income above $200,000.

What it means: The taxes in Obamacare fall predominantly on a small percentage of wealthy Americans, who would see their tax bills fall. For instance, Republican megadonor and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson could have his 2017 tax bill cut by roughly $44 million.

A fund to provide grants to fight the opioid crisis:
What's in the bill: The bill would establish a $2 billion fund for states for programs to "support substance use disorder treatment and recovery support services for individuals with mental or substance use disorders."

What it means: This is a one-time fund for 2018, but will likely be favored by senators from states hit hard by the opioid crisis. This was a key ask from Ohio Sen. Rob Portman.

No funds can be used for abortions:
What's in the bill: No plans purchased using funding from the bill can cover abortions. Additionally, none of the funds allocated by the bill can be given to healthcare providers that are involved with abortion.

What it means: In addition to restricting anyone who uses the credits or other funds from getting plan that covers abortions, this would effectively defund Planned Parenthood. It is unclear if this will pass Senate rules.

http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-h ... ils-2017-6

SCOOP: There are no 'tapes' of Comey.

Well, there could be. President Mr. Trump just didn't make them and, if they do exist, he doesn't have them.

Seems like a really oddly timed "admission".

Who's to say that Comey wasn't taping Trump

pacino wrote:discrimination? what discrimination?

Only half (50%) of white Americans believe blacks face a lot of discrimination, while roughly as many (47%) say this is not the case. Majorities of black Americans (85%), Hispanics (66%), mixed-race Americans (64%), and Asian-Pacific Islander (API) Americans (55%) say blacks face significant levels of discrimination today.

However, there is considerable variation of opinion among white Americans by age. More than six in ten (63%) white young adults (age 18-29) agree blacks face a considerable amount of discrimination, while fewer than half (43%) of white seniors (age 65 or older) agree.

Republicans largely reject the idea that black Americans face a great deal of discrimination today. Fewer than one-third (32%) of Republicans believe blacks face a lot of discrimination in society, compared to roughly two-thirds (65%) who say they do not. In contrast, nearly six in ten (58%) political independents and more than three-quarters (77%) of Democrats agree blacks experience a great deal of discrimination.

there's a lot more data in that link

Imagine that discrimination goes down over time, but that there are still issues. In 30 years, when we're old people, will we answer a poll that there is "a lot" of discrimination? Or will our frame of reference be the past, a time when there was more discrimination? Or, will we always answer "a lot" as long as there is any evidence of discrimination?