thephan wrote: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'.

jerseyhoya wrote:
It's not easy to pass landmark legislation in general

jerseyhoya wrote: and the bill that passed after a year of squabbling consisted of central features which Obama campaigned against in 2008.

pacino wrote:

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.

jerseyhoya wrote:Parties in America don't have plans for governing.

jerseyhoya wrote:

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.

NYTimes wrote:...Josh Holmes, Mr McConnell's former chief of staff, said "That the White House is asking people to take a tough vote and then running ads against members while we're still in negotiations [referencing an ad by a "friends of drumpf" PAC tearing into Heller] is so dumb it's amazing we even have to have the conversation."

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

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.

Yeah that would make sense if this just was sprung on them. They have had six years and their first, persumably best plan is what has transpired. Really great tactic crafting it in a few days behind closed doors. Must be hard to be so shitty at this, I do know that.

jerseyhoya wrote:What is the last piece of significant legislation that was crafted without input and guidance from a White House?

drsmooth wrote:

NYTimes wrote:...Josh Holmes, Mr McConnell's former chief of staff, said "That the White House is asking people to take a tough vote and then running ads against members while we're still in negotiations [referencing an ad by a "friends of drumpf" PAC tearing into Heller] is so dumb it's amazing we even have to have the conversation."

tell us how you really feel about Priebus & drumpf, Josh

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:What is the last piece of significant legislation that was crafted without input and guidance from a White House?

Excuse me, but I thought were were to understand the R plan went something like "yeah, of course he's a repulsive race-baiting misogynist pervert with the IQ of a clam, but we'll surf on his base votes and make all the real policy, because we're all really good at that stuff 'n shit, & just put a pen in his mitt, everything will be fine"

You're saying Rs actually expected the WH occupant to govern?

thephan wrote: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'.

Warszawa wrote:Until congress can get together and pass a healthcare bill with bipartisan support we could be going through this every 4-8 years