The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

by **slugsrbad** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 14:47:00

Sen. McConnell, when asked if Democrats would be involved on healthcare, responded "they don't want to be involved."

Go fuck yourself.

by **slugsrbad** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 14:50:41

I don't know the process, but I think the Democrats need to get a healthcare bill together and send it to the CBO that strengthens the ACA and lowers Medicaid buy-in age. It would never pass, but it would score better than AHCA/BCRA and gives a counter point when campaigning - of course there's a risk that it scores worse than current law which wouldn't look good.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 14:52:35

Rockinghorse wrote:I don't get that the delay hurts them because there's more time for public pressure. Hasn't the max pressure been applied the last few days? People tend to lose interest, and these dicks have already said there won't be town halls back home. I doubt we see mass rallies in the heat and distractions of summer.

Maybe this is more a logistical problem because insurers need to roll out 2018 plans asap?

There may not be town halls, but there will be local protests and rallies. They're gambling that people will lose interest, but when you're talking about losing health insurance, it only takes a few hundred angry people showing up at a local office to create a story.

by **Werthless** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 14:54:20

slugsrbad wrote:I don't know the process, but I think the Democrats need to get a healthcare bill together and send it to the CBO that strengthens the ACA and lowers Medicaid buy-in age. It would never pass, but it would score better than AHCA/BCRA and gives a counter point when campaigning - of course there's a risk that it scores worse than current law which wouldn't look good.

I disagree. Such a law would raise taxes, and right now, frame of reference matters. It matters because that's part of why the new proposals look bad... the media attention is being given to the number of insured. If the Democrats passed a law that expanded the ACA, it would either raise taxes or hurt deficits. That would allow the GOP to shift the narrative to cost. That would hurt Democrats, I would guess, and re-invigorate conservatives on the fence.

by **slugsrbad** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 14:57:15

Werthless wrote:
slugsrbad wrote:I don't know the process, but I think the Democrats need to get a healthcare bill together and send it to the CBO that strengthens the ACA and lowers Medicaid buy-in age. It would never pass, but it would score better than AHCA/BCRA and gives a counter point when campaigning - of course there's a risk that it scores worse than current law which wouldn't look good.

I disagree. Such a law would raise taxes, and right now, frame of reference matters. It matters because that's part of why the new proposals look bad... the media attention is being given to the number of insured. If the Democrats passed a law that expanded the ACA, it would either raise taxes or hurt deficits. That would allow the GOP to shift the narrative to cost. That would hurt Democrats, I would guess, and re-invigorate conservatives on the fence.

I don't think there are many conservatives on the fence (see GA-06), but I do take your overarching point. When you control the narrative, why give it away?

by **slugsrbad** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 14:58:50

I do, however, think they need to be working on a solution now, even if it's not graded/seen the light of day.

by **Werthless** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 15:00:04

They could send Hillary Clinton out onto the circuit to give interviews on why the proposal is bad for middle income Americans.

:dh:

by **drsmooth** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 15:05:29

Werthless wrote:I disagree. Such a law would raise taxes

pretty easy to draw up a piece of french pastry that smells good but is mostly air & keeps owl-eyed McConnell blinking in the bright spotlight of an issue he just wishes would go the fuck away. A Medicare buy in for people age 55-65 would be cake, popular, & could be crafted to be cost neutral/inexpensive

by **drsmooth** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 15:08:44

Also a good time for Dems to beat the musous-y piss out of Rs like Ryan and Cruz bleating about how ACA is collapsing, basically by underscoring that to the extent it's true it's because Rs have gutted funding of risk corridor protections - THEY have meddled in markets to erode confidence of free-market actors, blah blah bullshit blah. I'm incensed that an imbecile like Ryan is permitted to yammer on in that glassy-eyed ideological way when it is a crock filled ENTIRELY with his drizzly shit

by **CalvinBall** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 15:24:49

jerseyhoya wrote:
CalvinBall wrote:lol the gop is so fucking bad at this

Rand/Cruz/Lee won't vote for a bill that includes XYZ and won't vote for a bill that doesn't include ABC.

Heller/Collins/Murkowski won't vote for a bill that includes ABC and won't vote for a bill that doesn't include XYZ.

It is a difficult circle to square.

they are still bad at it though? just bc something is hard doesnt make much of an excuse

by **pacino** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 15:26:33

slugsrbad wrote:Sen. McConnell, when asked if Democrats would be involved on healthcare, responded "they don't want to be involved."

Go #$!&@ yourself.

Seriously

by **JFLNYC** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 15:32:30

McConnell's right though. Dems don't want to be involved in fucking over 22 million people.

by **Grotewold** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 15:32:38

slugsrbad wrote:Sen. McConnell, when asked if Democrats would be involved on healthcare, responded "they don't want to be involved."

Go fuck yourself.

Thanks for the visual

chin waddle wobblin'

by **pacino** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 15:41:57

slugsrbad wrote:
Werthless wrote:
slugsrbad wrote:I don't know the process, but I think the Democrats need to get a healthcare bill together and send it to the CBO that strengthens the ACA and lowers Medicaid buy-in age. It would never pass, but it would score better than AHCA/BCRA and gives a counter point when campaigning - of course there's a risk that it scores worse than current law which wouldn't look good.

I disagree. Such a law would raise taxes, and right now, frame of reference matters. It matters because that's part of why the new proposals look bad... the media attention is being given to the number of insured. If the Democrats passed a law that expanded the ACA, it would either raise taxes or hurt deficits. That would allow the GOP to shift the narrative to cost. That would hurt Democrats, I would guess, and re-invigorate conservatives on the fence.

I don't think there are many conservatives on the fence (see GA-06), but I do take your overarching point. When you control the narrative, why give it away?

I don't see how an early medicare buy-in would raise many taxes. Medicaid? Maybe, but if you are conservative and think state's rights and 'incubators of democracy' and all that you could allow those waivers...if you actually have convictions.

by **slugsrbad** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 15:43:24

So no one bluntly pointed out my mistaking medicaid and medicare for the buy-in, not like it's my job or anything. I expect more ruthless behavior from the internet.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 15:43:35

Grotewold wrote:Thanks for the visual

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 15:44:08

CalvinBall wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
CalvinBall wrote:lol the gop is so fucking bad at this

Rand/Cruz/Lee won't vote for a bill that includes XYZ and won't vote for a bill that doesn't include ABC.

Heller/Collins/Murkowski won't vote for a bill that includes ABC and won't vote for a bill that doesn't include XYZ.

It is a difficult circle to square.

they are still bad at it though? just bc something is hard doesnt make much of an excuse

I think things being hard is a pretty good excuse. If something is easy to do and you fail to do it, you're bad at it. If something is hard to do and you fail to do it, you might be bad at it or it might just be really hard. The GOP, encompassing the President of the United States, is unquestionably terrible at governing/enacting legislation. The GOP, meaning the Senate GOP Conference, may be good or may not be good at governing, but they're trying to pull off a difficult thing.

If any of the other GOP candidates had been elected president, I'd guess a health care reform bill would have already passed.They would have run on something that had at least vague details, they'd have had an actual transition team, and would be nominating people to subcabinet level positions at HHS and doing normal things. There would have been a draft bill to start from, buy-in from at least the GOP leaning interest groups, messaging, etc. There wouldn't be as much wavering because there'd be less of a headwind. It's not easy to pass landmark legislation in general, then when you add in almost no margin for error vote wise and person with the bully pulpit is disinterested or incapable of delivering support for it, it becomes a heavy lift. The House managed it after one false start (at which point there was lot of lol the GOP is bad at this), but the House had a lot more margin for error, and a vote could be seen as looking to continue the process rather than signing onto a particular final product. Senate's task is harder and can only lose two votes in a caucus where individuals have priorities in conflict with each other.

The two major contributions the WH seems to be making are talking shit on the bills off the record and going on the air against the most vulnerable Republican in the Senate. McConnell is trying to roll a boulder up the hill, while Trump is peeing on him. Maybe for the best.

by **slugsrbad** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 15:44:38

Collins, Cruz, Sasse, and Lankford seen getting on a bus to the WH. I know it's hard to rebuke an invite to the WH by the POTUS, but I was hoping Collins would. I guess her vote is still up for sale.

by **slugsrbad** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 15:55:46

Senator Moran (KS) has come out against the Senate bill after it was delayed. If there are no sizeable differences it will be interesting if he sticks to his words.

by **thephan** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 16:00:13

Why is it so easy for the republicans to deflect, then skate away from, the question about having no plan after 7 years. It is such a basic, easy question, and the answers are so bad, and sad, but they consistently get a free pass for a 'No Answer'.

Archived

The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics

Re: The Last Thread was a Pre-Existing Condition - Politics