Languish.org

QuoteSome Republicans appear to have convinced themselves they can muddle through the dilemma somehow. Congressional staffers tell Philip Klein, a staunch Obamacare critic, that they plan to repeal the law quickly, and then replace it not all at once but with a series of "legislative changes that could be enacted in a series of shorter bills ... for instance, one bill could theoretically be passed to address individuals with preexisting conditions." This plan is so laughably hopeless it's difficult to believe Republicans would attempt it. It's impossible to gauge the impact of one change to the health-care system without knowing what other changes will be enacted. None of the stakeholders in the health-care system is going to support any discrete changes that could dramatically alter their business models without knowing what other changes may or may not follow.

Preexisting conditions are an obvious example of this problem. If insurers will be required to provide below-cost plans to people with expensive medical needs, they need to know what other measures will be put in place to compensate them: Subsidies? Regulations on healthy customers? Hospitals need to know how many uninsured patients they should expect to show up in their emergency rooms. In particular, popular parts of health-care reform (like benefits people get) need to be attached to unpopular parts (like ways to pay for it). You can't address it in pieces. During the debate in Congress over health-care reform, Republicans ginned up a talking point about how reform should be done in small steps, but no serious person of any ideological perspective would construct a reform by passing

Blowing up Obamacare, and then bringing up a series of small bills in the hope that they add up to something decent is not a strategy. It's what Homer Simpson came up with when he faced a test he knew he couldn't pass. ("I've been working on a plan. During the exam, I'll hide under some coats, and hope that somehow everything will work out.")

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2017, 01:39:35 AM
Also, this article is written by a clown with no historical awarness.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2017, 01:39:35 AM
ridicolous.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2017, 01:57:20 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2017, 01:39:35 AM
Also, this article is written by a clown with no historical awarness.

:bleeding:

Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 05, 2017, 01:59:49 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2017, 01:39:35 AM
ridicolous.

Missed a spot.  :lol:

Quoteseperately.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2017, 02:00:18 AM
I missed a letter, big whoop, it's not the end of the world.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2017, 01:39:35 AM
This is exactly how Henry Clay passed the Compromise of 1850. He broke it down into five different bills and had them passed seperately. Now, Paul Ryan sure as hell isn't half the Speaker Henry Clay was, but that's the argument the author should be making, not this particular strategy is ridiculous.

Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2017, 10:49:22 AM
I predict that they will utterly fail in this area simply because they have no plan. Which is astounding since they have had seven years to come up with one.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2017, 10:54:39 AM
:lol: The plan was never to have a plan.  You know better than that.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2017, 10:58:13 AM
Do it early enough, and everybody will forget by the time the midterms roll around.  Or be dead. Either or.

Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2017, 10:59:26 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2017, 10:58:13 AM
Do it early enough, and everybody will forget by the time the midterms roll around.  Or be dead. Either or.

They will just talk about how much kids today suck. College Students are all out there doing stupid shit. So vote for us.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2017, 01:39:35 AM
Also, this article is written by a clown with no historical awareness.

(snip)

This is exactly how Henry Clay passed the Compromise of 1850. He broke it down into five different bills and had them passed seperately. Now, Paul Ryan sure as hell isn't half the Speaker Henry Clay was, but that's the argument the author should be making, not this particular strategy is ridiculous.

Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2017, 10:49:22 AM
I predict that they will utterly fail in this area simply because they have no plan. Which is astounding since they have had seven years to come up with one.

Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2017, 03:06:41 PM
I think that this is entirely correct.  the Republicans must repeal Obama care:  it was at the center of their platform.  However, they never promised to replace it with anything that would work, and so never planned any replacement.  They'll put a band-aid on like changing the requirements for medicare slightly, jump on an aircraft carrier, and declare Mission Accomplished.

Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2017, 10:47:59 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2017, 01:39:35 AM
This is exactly how Henry Clay passed the Compromise of 1850. He broke it down into five different bills and had them passed seperately. Now, Paul Ryan sure as hell isn't half the Speaker Henry Clay was, but that's the argument the author should be making, not this particular strategy is ridiculous.

That is how he passed it. It was originally designed as an entire package, each working together so it is not exactly like that at all.

And of course the Compromise of 1850 was a complete disaster.

Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2017, 03:07:41 PM
How does the current repeal vote that just passed the senate play into this?

Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2017, 05:44:14 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2017, 03:07:41 PM
How does the current repeal vote that just passed the senate play into this?

The Senate vote was procedural.  I don't think it tells us anything about how the House (which has to originate all spending bills) will act.

QuotePresident Obama made a very good political point about Obamacare on Wednesday. So did his successor.

Obama told Democrats at a closed-door meeting that they shouldn't ''rescue'' Republicans by helping them replace Obamacare after they've dismantled it. Trump, meanwhile, tweeted a few pointers himself: ''Massive increases of ObamaCare will take place this year and Dems are to blame for the mess. It will fall of its own weight — be careful!''

It's difficult to know exactly what Trump is arguing here, or whom his advice is directed at, but the operative phrase in there is: ''Be careful.''

That's because repealing Obamacare is a difficult and fraught exercise, for a whole host of policy and political reasons. Such is the case when you're trying to get rid of a massive piece of bureaucracy — and especially one with benefits people have already become accustomed to.

Which is why Obama is telling Democrats to force Republicans to replace the law themselves. Senator Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said it more bluntly: ''If they want to break this, they own it.'' They know repealing and replacing the law is a very difficult proposition for Republicans — hence the GOP's decision to delay full repeal for as many as three or even four years — and that the promise of Democratic cooperation would only embolden the GOP's repeal efforts. (Right now, the GOP is taking a piecemeal approach.)

They also know, as The Post's Paul Kane notes, that Republicans will own the result if things go sideways — just as they did for the past seven years. Better to let the GOP take their own crack and pay the price, the logic goes.

But why is this all so difficult for the GOP?


First, there are the mechanics of actually passing a repeal and a replacement. The Post's Mike DeBonis and Kelsey Snell tackled this a couple days ago. Here's the crux:

Democratic opposition and complex Senate rules mean that core pieces of the 2010 health-care overhaul are likely to remain, including the legal framework for the individual mandate and pieces of the state exchanges the law created. ...

The rush to immediately chip away at Obama's regulatory and domestic policies through the complex process known as budget reconciliation could create months of messy GOP infighting. The plan to vote now on repeal and work out the details later means Republican leaders will be slogging through the difficult process of writing a health-care replacement while simultaneously trying to scale back regulations in areas such as clean air and immigration, and possibly tackling a tax-code overhaul. It will be the first real test of how effective the GOP-controlled Congress will be.

Second is the challenge of getting the policy right and avoiding the pitfalls that come with deconstructing and then reconstructing such a big law over time. Gary Claxton, an analyst at the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, compares Obamacare to a stool, in which the unpopular parts of the law are helping prop up the more popular parts.

For example, if Republicans want to get rid of the individual mandate (and they do) while keeping the popular requirement that insurers cover pre-existing conditions, Claxton said, ''It would blow up the insurance market'' because insurers would be required to accept unhealthy people without also mandating healthy people sign up, as Obamacare does.

''The longer the period between repeal and replace is, the more the market unravels,'' Claxton said. ''And you've blown up the bridge behind you, and you're heading into battle, you can't go backwards. You've gotta figure it out, or else things get really bad.''

The third obstacle is the politics: specifically, the idea of taking benefits away from millions of Americans, whether deliberately or because the GOP fails to install an adequate replacement. Obamacare would have been much easier to repeal had it never been implemented in the first place. But today, 20 million Americans have signed up and many other Americans have come to enjoy parts of Obamacare such as the requirement for insurers to cover pre-existing conditions and the option of keeping children on their parents' health-care plan until they turn 26.

Republicans and Trump have said they'd like to keep these latter two legs of the stool, but it's not clear how they'll implement such requirements in ways that are solvent. And even if they can keep those things, you still have the prospect of millions of Americans losing a health-care option they've had for years. There may be plenty of Obamacare recipients who aren't enamored of their fast-rising premiums, sure, but for many it's a health-care option that didn't exist before and could be taken away with an indeterminate replacement.

And indeed, polling suggests even repeal advocates are worried about losing these things. In its November poll, the Kaiser Family Foundation found support for full repeal had declined to 26 percent overall — the lowest in two years. What's more, once you noted to repeal opponents that this could end coverage for pre-existing conditions, 38 percent of them changed their minds. And when it was explained that 20 million people could lose their coverage, 19 percent changed their minds.

Republicans insist they will replace these things, but it's completely unclear how or with what. And the law of unintended consequences certainly applies here. Democrats are banking on it, in fact.

This is the reason we so rarely see any entitlement reforms. Americans have come to rely on Medicare and Social Security and the specific benefits they have been afforded, and any political discussion about rolling back those benefits — even for future beneficiaries — is usually a nonstarter. Look back at President George W. Bush and the GOP's aborted effort to privatize Social Security last decade, which Democrats used as a cudgel for years afterward. Likewise, Republicans attacked Democrats for Obamacare cutting $500 billion from future Medicare spending.

Obamacare isn't technically an entitlement program, even as it has some features of entitlements in it; it's something people have to pay for under the individual mandate — not something the government gives them for free. But there are subsidies involved, and those subsidies would suddenly be off the table, pending a GOP replacement.

Obamacare was for years the GOP's go-to issue, and repeal was long their stated goal and promise to their voters. It was a great electoral strategy.

But nobody knows better than Obama what a hornet's nest the GOP is walking into. Now they're put in the position of actually delivering on that promise, and he wants them to bear the burden of the result just as he did.

It's a hell of a way to start an administration — one that could cost you votes rather quickly. And nobody knows that better than Obama.

Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2017, 05:51:33 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2017, 05:44:14 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2017, 03:07:41 PM
How does the current repeal vote that just passed the senate play into this?

The Senate vote was procedural.  I don't think it tells us anything about how the House (which has to originate all spending bills) will act.

Ah, so it was just a for show thing?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 05, 2017, 06:39:55 PM
That kinda makes the assumption that they were going to just pull the plug on it. I was under the impression they were going to do some sort of multi-stage alteration process like McConnell mentioned.

Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2017, 06:51:47 PM
It wasn't "for show" in that it was procedural; what it meant was that the Senate leadership could schedule a certain kind of debate.  It didn't change any law on health care at all; didn't even mention health care.

Quote from: merithyn on January 05, 2017, 06:12:13 PM
I thought this was a pretty good article. Link (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/01/05/analysis-republicans-are-about-feel-obama-pain-obamacare-and-knows/ejplEEufkvDq0QRuDMl3lN/story.html)

QuotePresident Obama made a very good political point about Obamacare on Wednesday. So did his successor.

Obama told Democrats at a closed-door meeting that they shouldn't ''rescue'' Republicans by helping them replace Obamacare after they've dismantled it. Trump, meanwhile, tweeted a few pointers himself: ''Massive increases of ObamaCare will take place this year and Dems are to blame for the mess. It will fall of its own weight — be careful!''

It's difficult to know exactly what Trump is arguing here, or whom his advice is directed at, but the operative phrase in there is: ''Be careful.''

That's because repealing Obamacare is a difficult and fraught exercise, for a whole host of policy and political reasons. Such is the case when you're trying to get rid of a massive piece of bureaucracy — and especially one with benefits people have already become accustomed to.

Which is why Obama is telling Democrats to force Republicans to replace the law themselves. Senator Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said it more bluntly: ''If they want to break this, they own it.'' They know repealing and replacing the law is a very difficult proposition for Republicans — hence the GOP's decision to delay full repeal for as many as three or even four years — and that the promise of Democratic cooperation would only embolden the GOP's repeal efforts. (Right now, the GOP is taking a piecemeal approach.)

They also know, as The Post's Paul Kane notes, that Republicans will own the result if things go sideways — just as they did for the past seven years. Better to let the GOP take their own crack and pay the price, the logic goes.

But why is this all so difficult for the GOP?


First, there are the mechanics of actually passing a repeal and a replacement. The Post's Mike DeBonis and Kelsey Snell tackled this a couple days ago. Here's the crux:

Democratic opposition and complex Senate rules mean that core pieces of the 2010 health-care overhaul are likely to remain, including the legal framework for the individual mandate and pieces of the state exchanges the law created. ...

The rush to immediately chip away at Obama's regulatory and domestic policies through the complex process known as budget reconciliation could create months of messy GOP infighting. The plan to vote now on repeal and work out the details later means Republican leaders will be slogging through the difficult process of writing a health-care replacement while simultaneously trying to scale back regulations in areas such as clean air and immigration, and possibly tackling a tax-code overhaul. It will be the first real test of how effective the GOP-controlled Congress will be.

Second is the challenge of getting the policy right and avoiding the pitfalls that come with deconstructing and then reconstructing such a big law over time. Gary Claxton, an analyst at the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, compares Obamacare to a stool, in which the unpopular parts of the law are helping prop up the more popular parts.

For example, if Republicans want to get rid of the individual mandate (and they do) while keeping the popular requirement that insurers cover pre-existing conditions, Claxton said, ''It would blow up the insurance market'' because insurers would be required to accept unhealthy people without also mandating healthy people sign up, as Obamacare does.

''The longer the period between repeal and replace is, the more the market unravels,'' Claxton said. ''And you've blown up the bridge behind you, and you're heading into battle, you can't go backwards. You've gotta figure it out, or else things get really bad.''

The third obstacle is the politics: specifically, the idea of taking benefits away from millions of Americans, whether deliberately or because the GOP fails to install an adequate replacement. Obamacare would have been much easier to repeal had it never been implemented in the first place. But today, 20 million Americans have signed up and many other Americans have come to enjoy parts of Obamacare such as the requirement for insurers to cover pre-existing conditions and the option of keeping children on their parents' health-care plan until they turn 26.

Republicans and Trump have said they'd like to keep these latter two legs of the stool, but it's not clear how they'll implement such requirements in ways that are solvent. And even if they can keep those things, you still have the prospect of millions of Americans losing a health-care option they've had for years. There may be plenty of Obamacare recipients who aren't enamored of their fast-rising premiums, sure, but for many it's a health-care option that didn't exist before and could be taken away with an indeterminate replacement.

And indeed, polling suggests even repeal advocates are worried about losing these things. In its November poll, the Kaiser Family Foundation found support for full repeal had declined to 26 percent overall — the lowest in two years. What's more, once you noted to repeal opponents that this could end coverage for pre-existing conditions, 38 percent of them changed their minds. And when it was explained that 20 million people could lose their coverage, 19 percent changed their minds.

Republicans insist they will replace these things, but it's completely unclear how or with what. And the law of unintended consequences certainly applies here. Democrats are banking on it, in fact.

This is the reason we so rarely see any entitlement reforms. Americans have come to rely on Medicare and Social Security and the specific benefits they have been afforded, and any political discussion about rolling back those benefits — even for future beneficiaries — is usually a nonstarter. Look back at President George W. Bush and the GOP's aborted effort to privatize Social Security last decade, which Democrats used as a cudgel for years afterward. Likewise, Republicans attacked Democrats for Obamacare cutting $500 billion from future Medicare spending.

Obamacare isn't technically an entitlement program, even as it has some features of entitlements in it; it's something people have to pay for under the individual mandate — not something the government gives them for free. But there are subsidies involved, and those subsidies would suddenly be off the table, pending a GOP replacement.

Obamacare was for years the GOP's go-to issue, and repeal was long their stated goal and promise to their voters. It was a great electoral strategy.

But nobody knows better than Obama what a hornet's nest the GOP is walking into. Now they're put in the position of actually delivering on that promise, and he wants them to bear the burden of the result just as he did.

It's a hell of a way to start an administration — one that could cost you votes rather quickly. And nobody knows that better than Obama.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2017, 07:16:38 PM
Is garbon being critical of others for being petulant?

Quote


''If they want to break this, they own it.''

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2017, 05:28:27 PM
The country held together another 10 years. You have different legislation in mind that could have done better?

Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2017, 07:05:16 PM
Okay, thanks - US legislative process is not my strong point :)

So if I understand it correctly, this is a necessary step towards repealing (and if it comes to pass, replacing) Obama care, but there are many points before then that the Senate itself could pull the breaks on the repeal, in addition to any hoops it needs to jump through in the House of Representatives as well.

Quote from: garbon on January 05, 2017, 07:12:19 PM

So it is now time for the Dems to act petulant like a political party that wants to win an election?

Quote from: Monoriu on January 05, 2017, 08:42:31 PM
I think it is likely that Obamacare will be renamed as Trumpcare, and we all have to get used to this new name  :D

Quote
Republican Obamacare fan hopes Trump's stance softens


West Palm Beach, Florida (CNN) — If it had been only about what was best for him, Bob Ruscoe would have cast his ballot for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But he's a staunch Republican, always has been, and that meant this Obamacare beneficiary struggled over his November vote in a way he never had before.

"I agonized over the decision," he said. "Part of me was saying, 'if she gets in, at least we won't have to worry about health care for four years.' "



Ruscoe, 57, of West Palm Beach, Florida, is self-employed and knows the insecurity of going uninsured. He took advantage of the Affordable Care Act the minute he could.

About 20 million people gained health care coverage through Obamacare. With more than 1.7 million Floridians enrolled as of February, the Sunshine State has the highest percentage of Obamacare recipients in the country. And yet Ruscoe was among the majority of Florida voters who checked the box for Donald Trump, the candidate who promised time and again to spike the program Ruscoe couldn't wait to have.

"We'll have to see what pans out," he said. "It may not be totally repealed. It may be something else. I hope something will remain in place."







He went with the candidate he thinks will make America stronger.

"I did what I thought was correct for the overall good of the country," he said. "Economic strength cures a lot of things."

A better economy, he hopes, will free him from needing subsidies.

Quote
The value of coverage was immediate. During wellness checks, something he and his wife had ditched in their time without insurance, she learned that she had high cholesterol. And though he'd worked hard to lose a significant amount of weight, he'd plateaued. Once a doctor offered nutritional counseling, he shed the last 40 pounds.



Transition tracker: Obamacare replacement rolls on a slow track


Related Article: Transition tracker: Obamacare rolls on a slow track

Irrespective of political persuasion, he says, having access to services that keep people healthy makes sense. He couldn't understand friends who didn't take advantage of the health care opportunity.

"It's made to be affordable for everyone. Why wouldn't you?" he asked.

Come February 1, he'll be paying about $338 a month for himself and his wife. Without Obamacare, he says, the same plan would cost them $1,150 a month -- or close to $14,000 a year. Rates like that would mean no more insurance for them.

They're not getting any younger, and Ruscoe knows that there are no guarantees when it comes to health. He thinks of his grandmother who died of colon cancer and talks about the importance of preventative medicine, including access to procedures like colonoscopy.

"I'll be bellying up to get my first one this year," he said.

Without insurance, he's not sure that would be possible for him and his wife.

Ruscoe doesn't pretend to know how cost-effective Obamacare is and assumes it requires tweaking. But he hopes the Trump administration will recognize and hold onto what's worked.



Join the conversation


See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.

He feels like it's his "civic duty" to speak up, he says. It's important to remind people that slashes to coverage may lead to "a segment of the population that'll be left swinging in the breeze."

His views will surprise some of his friends, he suspects.

"They'll freak out that I was strongly considering voting for Clinton," he said. "But I think she would have been very compassionate, and you need that."

Ruscoe's now banking on Trump showing some compassion, too.

Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2017, 05:01:39 PM
While I obviously disagree with that individual's choice to vote for Trump, he was right on the basic point - voting isn't, or shouldn't be, simply based on "what's in it for me".

Quote from: frunk on January 06, 2017, 04:56:36 PM
A Trump supporter is someone who thought that politicians were ignoring his particular situation, so they vote for the candidate who plans to scrap the one piece of legislation in the past 8 years that was targeted to help his particular situation (ACA).

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2017, 05:12:40 PM
Or does the GOP manage to muddle along in a way where they keep people covered? And if so, can they find a way where they don't look like they went back on their promise.

Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2017, 05:01:39 PM
While I obviously disagree with that individual's choice to vote for Trump, he was right on the basic point - voting isn't, or shouldn't be, simply based on "what's in it for me".

Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2017, 05:01:39 PM
While I obviously disagree with that individual's choice to vote for Trump, he was right on the basic point - voting isn't, or shouldn't be, simply based on "what's in it for me".

Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2017, 05:18:07 PM
If the new situation may ruin your financially or kill you, I think "what's in it for me" is a legitimate concern.

Quote from: HVC on January 06, 2017, 05:21:44 PM
They were stupid enough to vote for the guy who told them to their face what he would do, so they're stupid enough to vote for the next guy too.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 06, 2017, 05:15:27 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2017, 05:12:40 PM
Or does the GOP manage to muddle along in a way where they keep people covered? And if so, can they find a way where they don't look like they went back on their promise.

That's the optimistic one. Maybe the "replace" part of Repeal and Replace will keep them covered.

Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 05:29:00 PM
Without health insurance, they may not survive.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 06, 2017, 05:15:27 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2017, 05:12:40 PM
Or does the GOP manage to muddle along in a way where they keep people covered? And if so, can they find a way where they don't look like they went back on their promise.

That's the optimistic one. Maybe the "replace" part of Repeal and Replace will keep them covered.

Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2017, 05:01:39 PM
While I obviously disagree with that individual's choice to vote for Trump, he was right on the basic point - voting isn't, or shouldn't be, simply based on "what's in it for me".

Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2017, 06:14:31 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 05:29:00 PM
Without health insurance, they may not survive.

The problem is that they are killing non-stupid people as well.  That's why my sympathy for them is low and my empathy non-existent,

Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2017, 05:01:39 PM
While I obviously disagree with that individual's choice to vote for Trump, he was right on the basic point - voting isn't, or shouldn't be, simply based on "what's in it for me".

Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 05:29:00 PM

Quote from: HVC on January 06, 2017, 05:21:44 PM
They were stupid enough to vote for the guy who told them to their face what he would do, so they're stupid enough to vote for the next guy too.

Without health insurance, they may not survive.

Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2017, 05:01:39 PM
While I obviously disagree with that individual's choice to vote for Trump, he was right on the basic point - voting isn't, or shouldn't be, simply based on "what's in it for me".

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 06, 2017, 07:17:54 PM
<snip.

Quote

Trump's Call For 'Quick' Obamacare Replacement Complicates GOP Efforts

by Leigh Ann Caldwell and Alex Moe

President-elect Donald Trump said Tuesday that he wants to see Congress repeal the Affordable Care Act soon and pass a replacement "very quickly or simultaneously." His urging contradicts Republican leaders who have been cautioning that overhauling the massive health care law would take time.

Trump would like Obamacare repealed within days and contended that "the replace will be very quickly or simultaneously, very shortly thereafter," he told the New York Times in an interview Tuesday. "Long to me would be weeks," Trump added.

Trump's statements could be an effort at public persuasion but they are complicating efforts for congressional Republicans working to plot out plans to repeal and replace the ACA in a manner that would be politically and economically viable while maintaining the support of enough Republicans to pass the legislation.

While the repeal effort is scheduled to be complete by the end of January, if all goes according to plan, Republican leaders have said replacement could take much longer, possibly months or even years.

Republican leaders are feeling pressure from some rank-and-file members who are feeling jittery to speed up the multi-step process and replace the health care law at the same time it is repealed.

House Speaker Paul Ryan indicated Tuesday morning, before Trump's comments, that he is taking into consideration the concerns of some in his GOP conference about a long lag between repeal and replace.

"It is our goal to bring it all together concurrently," Ryan said for the first time. "We are going to use every tool at our disposal through legislation, through regulation, to bring replace concurrent along with repeal so we can save people from this mess."

The Senate and House are expected to vote on the first step of the repeal process this week as part of a budget resolution known as reconciliation. The legislation directs that the second part of the repeal process, which would actually start to dismantle the health care law, be complete by January 27.

But Trump's latest remarks have put him in front of the debate, putting even more pressure on Republican leaders to speed up the process.

Republican leaders Tuesday declined denounce - or support - Trump's timeline and insisted they are on the same page.

Trump's plans are "not any way inconsistent with the timeline we're aiming for," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said.

One member of leadership, Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, said that Trump's public pronouncements and apparent lack of understanding of the complexities of how Congress works - and the difficulty in passing legislation so quickly - are complicating their efforts.

"From a messaging standpoint, yes I worry," Thune said about Trump's comments.

Trump had been publicly cautioning Republicans for the past week, telling them via Twitter to "be careful" in their health care repeal efforts, which could be politically challenging.

Five Republican senators have proposed an amendment that would postpone the repeal deadline until March 3, giving legislators enough time to draw up a replacement plan to vote on simultaneously. There is division among Republicans about that idea and Republican leaders haven't committed to allowing a vote on it.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, is one of the members sponsoring that amendment. He said about Trump's accelerated timeline: "I'm looking forward to hearing how they would anticipate that occurring."

QuoteSen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, said that Trump's public pronouncements and apparent lack of understanding of the complexities of how Congress works - and the difficulty in passing legislation so quickly - are complicating their efforts.

Quote from: LaCroix on January 10, 2017, 07:56:18 PM

QuoteSen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, said that Trump's public pronouncements and apparent lack of understanding of the complexities of how Congress works - and the difficulty in passing legislation so quickly - are complicating their efforts.

:lol:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2017, 08:08:21 PMYou know, it's going to be the Republicans that eventually impeach Trump, because he's going to get in the way of their legislative agenda a little too often.  They're going to bounce him, his little shit son-in-law and the rest of the goofball crew, and let Pence and Ryan take care of business.

Quote from: Monoriu on January 10, 2017, 08:07:52 PM
I actually find Trump's position reasonable.  If a political party has called for a major piece of legislation to be replaced for 6, 7 years, one would imagine that they have a ready replacement that could be enacted as soon as they get into power.  It is puzzling that it isn't the case here.

Quote from: LaCroix on January 10, 2017, 08:33:23 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2017, 08:08:21 PMYou know, it's going to be the Republicans that eventually impeach Trump, because he's going to get in the way of their legislative agenda a little too often.  They're going to bounce him, his little shit son-in-law and the rest of the goofball crew, and let Pence and Ryan take care of business.

I'll laugh if within a year languish largely supports trump because of things like this

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2017, 08:40:07 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on January 10, 2017, 08:33:23 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2017, 08:08:21 PMYou know, it's going to be the Republicans that eventually impeach Trump, because he's going to get in the way of their legislative agenda a little too often.  They're going to bounce him, his little shit son-in-law and the rest of the goofball crew, and let Pence and Ryan take care of business.

I'll laugh if within a year languish largely supports trump because of things like this

Pence may be a fundie fruitcake woman hater straight out of Hawthorne, but I trust him with US foreign policy and the bomb more than I do Trump, Flynn and the Bond Villain.  Fuck, I'll root on the impeachment.

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 10, 2017, 08:41:10 PM
Plus he looks like Frank Drebin.

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 10, 2017, 08:49:14 PM
Such filth.  :mad:

Quote from: 11B4V on January 10, 2017, 08:38:30 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on January 10, 2017, 08:07:52 PM
I actually find Trump's position reasonable.  If a political party has called for a major piece of legislation to be replaced for 6, 7 years, one would imagine that they have a ready replacement that could be enacted as soon as they get into power.  It is puzzling that it isn't the case here.

Really. You haven't been paying attention. They been frothing at this chance since it came out. They don't have shit to replace it. And given a chance they would erase everything the darkie did. That's they're mindset.

Quote from: LaCroix on January 10, 2017, 08:33:23 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2017, 08:08:21 PMYou know, it's going to be the Republicans that eventually impeach Trump, because he's going to get in the way of their legislative agenda a little too often.  They're going to bounce him, his little shit son-in-law and the rest of the goofball crew, and let Pence and Ryan take care of business.

I'll laugh if within a year languish largely supports trump because of things like this

Quote from: Monoriu on January 10, 2017, 09:20:13 PM
I am just saying their behaviour has failed to enshrine the highest standards of wisdom and integrity  :sleep:

Quote from: LaCroix on January 10, 2017, 08:33:23 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2017, 08:08:21 PMYou know, it's going to be the Republicans that eventually impeach Trump, because he's going to get in the way of their legislative agenda a little too often.  They're going to bounce him, his little shit son-in-law and the rest of the goofball crew, and let Pence and Ryan take care of business.

I'll laugh if within a year languish largely supports trump because of things like this

QuoteSenate Takes Major Step Toward Repealing Health Care Law

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans took their first major step toward repealing the Affordable Care Act on Thursday, approving a budget blueprint that would allow them to gut the health care law without the threat of a Democratic filibuster.

The vote was 51 to 48. During the roll call, Democrats staged a highly unusual protest on the Senate floor to express their dismay and anger at the prospect that millions of Americans could lose health insurance coverage.

One by one, Democrats rose to voice their objections. Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington said that Republicans were "stealing health care from Americans." Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said he was voting no "because health care should not just be for the healthy and wealthy."

The presiding officer, Senator Cory Gardner, Republican of Colorado, repeatedly banged his gavel and said the Democrats were out of order because "debate is not allowed during a vote."

The final vote, which ended just before 1:30 a.m., followed a marathon session in which senators took back-to-back roll call votes on numerous amendments, an arduous exercise known as a vote-a-rama.

The approval of the budget blueprint, coming even before President-elect Donald J. Trump is inaugurated, shows the speed with which Republican leaders are moving to fulfill their promise to repeal President Obama's signature domestic policy achievement — a goal they believe can now be accomplished after Mr. Trump's election.

The action by the Senate is essentially procedural, setting the stage for a special kind of legislation called a reconciliation bill. Such a bill can be used to repeal significant parts of the health law and, critically, is immune from being filibustered. Congress appears to be at least weeks away from voting on legislation repealing the law.

Republicans say the 2016 elections gave them a mandate to roll back the health care law. "The Obamacare bridge is collapsing, and we're sending in a rescue team," said Senator Michael B. Enzi, Republican of Wyoming and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "Then we'll build new bridges to better health care, and finally, when these new bridges are finished, we'll close the old bridge."

Republican leaders say they will work closely with Mr. Trump developing legislation to repeal and replace the health care law, but it is unclear exactly how his team will participate in that effort.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump said he would offer his own plan to repeal and replace the law "essentially simultaneously." He said he would put forth the plan as soon as his nominee for secretary of health and human services, Representative Tom Price, Republican of Georgia, is confirmed.

The Affordable Care Act has become ingrained in the American health care system, and unwinding it will be a formidable challenge for Republicans. More than 20 million people have gained coverage under the law, though premiums have risen sharply in many states and some insurers have fled the law's health exchanges.

The budget blueprint instructs House and Senate committees to come up with repeal legislation by Jan. 27.

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, and four other Republicans had sought to extend that deadline by five weeks, to March 3. But late Wednesday night, Mr. Corker withdrew an amendment that would have changed the date.

"We understand that everyone here understands the importance of doing it right," he said. He described the Jan. 27 date in the budget blueprint as a placeholder.

Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, another Republican who sought to delay the deadline, said: "This date is not a date that is set in stone. In fact, it is the earliest we could do it. But it could take longer, and we believe that it might."

The House was planning to take up the budget blueprint once the Senate approved it, though some House Republicans have expressed discomfort with voting on the blueprint this week because of lingering questions over how and when the health care law would be replaced.

A vote on the measure in the House could come on Friday.

In its lengthy series of votes, the Senate rejected amendments proposed by Democrats that were intended to allow imports of prescription drugs from Canada, protect rural hospitals and ensure continued access to coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, among other causes.

In the parlance of Capitol Hill, many of the Democrats' proposals were "messaging amendments," intended to put Republicans on record as opposing popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The budget blueprint is for the guidance of Congress; it is not presented to the president for a signature or veto and does not become law.

As the Senate plowed through its work on Wednesday, Republicans explained why they were determined to dismantle the health care law, and they tried to assuage concerns about the future of coverage for millions of Americans.

"This is our opportunity to keep our campaign promise," said Senator Roger Wicker, Republican of Mississippi. "This is our opportunity to help the president-elect and the vice president-elect keep their campaign promises and show to the American people that elections have consequences."

Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, said that while working to repeal the health care law, "we must also talk about what we replace it with, because repealing it without a replacement is an unacceptable solution."

Republicans do not have an agreement even among themselves on the content of legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act, the timetable for votes on such legislation or its effective date.

Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said on Wednesday that she agreed with Mr. Trump that Congress should repeal the health law and adopt a replacement plan at about the same time.

"But I don't see any possibility of our being able to come up with a comprehensive reform bill that would replace Obamacare by the end of this month," she said. "I just don't see that as being feasible." (Ms. Collins also supported pushing back the deadline to come up with repeal legislation.)

As Republicans pursue repealing the law, Democrats contend that Republicans are trying to rip insurance away from millions of Americans with no idea of what to do next.

The Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, called the Republicans' repeal plan "irresponsible and rushed" and urged them to halt their push to unravel the law.

"Don't put chaos in place of affordable care," he said.

Quote from: Syt on January 12, 2017, 01:47:51 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/health-care-congress-vote-a-rama.html?_r=0

Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2017, 02:39:00 PM

Quote from: Syt on January 12, 2017, 01:47:51 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/health-care-congress-vote-a-rama.html?_r=0

I believe that this is the fourth time the Senate Republicans have taken "their first major step toward repealing the Affordable Care Act."  I wonder how many more times they will take that first step.

QuoteCongrats to the Senate for taking the first step to #RepealObamacare- now it's onto the House!

Quote from: Syt on January 12, 2017, 03:05:30 PM
Well, the Tweeter in Chief has made it official:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/819600124133474307

QuoteCongrats to the Senate for taking the first step to #RepealObamacare- now it's onto the House!

:P

Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2017, 02:39:00 PM

Quote from: Syt on January 12, 2017, 01:47:51 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/health-care-congress-vote-a-rama.html?_r=0

I believe that this is the fourth time the Senate Republicans have taken "their first major step toward repealing the Affordable Care Act."  I wonder how many more times they will take that first step.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2017, 03:56:45 PM
This will go down in history as one of the longest, most complex murder conspiracies of all time.  They'll never be able to pin this on derspiess, no matter how much evidence I leave behind for them.

Quote from: Tamas on January 12, 2017, 05:43:19 PM
Regardless of how feasible Obamacare is, it's frightening how a country's government can go ahead and, in effect, deny healthcare for the poorest of its own people, with the thunderous applause of many of their supporters, including plenty of the aforementioned poorest.

It is just not normal.

Quote from: Tamas on January 12, 2017, 05:43:19 PM
Regardless of how feasible Obamacare is, it's frightening how a country's government can go ahead and, in effect, deny healthcare for the poorest of its own people, with the thunderous applause of many of their supporters, including plenty of the aforementioned poorest.

It is just not normal.

Quote from: Tamas on January 12, 2017, 05:43:19 PM
Regardless of how feasible Obamacare is, it's frightening how a country's government can go ahead and, in effect, deny healthcare for the poorest of its own people, with the thunderous applause of many of their supporters, including plenty of the aforementioned poorest.

It is just not normal.

Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2017, 05:29:54 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2017, 03:56:45 PM
This will go down in history as one of the longest, most complex murder conspiracies of all time.  They'll never be able to pin this on derspiess, no matter how much evidence I leave behind for them.

:lol:  You know I mean you no harm, Seedz.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2017, 07:26:36 PM
Yeah...it's not personal, just business, right? Save it.

Quote from: Tamas on January 12, 2017, 05:43:19 PM
Regardless of how feasible Obamacare is, it's frightening how a country's government can go ahead and, in effect, deny healthcare for the poorest of its own people, with the thunderous applause of many of their supporters, including plenty of the aforementioned poorest.

It is just not normal.

Quote from: Monoriu on January 12, 2017, 11:11:14 PM

Quote from: Tamas on January 12, 2017, 05:43:19 PM
Regardless of how feasible Obamacare is, it's frightening how a country's government can go ahead and, in effect, deny healthcare for the poorest of its own people, with the thunderous applause of many of their supporters, including plenty of the aforementioned poorest.

It is just not normal.

:yes:

I mean, improving it is one thing and should be encouraged.  One can always do better.  But just repealing it without having anything ready to replace it seems risky.  It isn't anybody's choice to get cancer.

Quote from: KRonn on January 13, 2017, 08:58:34 PM
Healthcare won't be denied to the poorest. The poorest people qualify for Medicaid which is run by states with some Federal govt. reimbursement. It was pretty much that way prior to the ACA. As it is now health insurance premiums have gone way up for many people who don't qualify for subsidies, along with huge deductibles. That's made it unaffordable for so many people.

Those who are low income but don't qualify for Medicaid have been able to get subsidized insurance under the ACA, which is good for them. I think those persons will be continued in any new plan. Trump and republicans have said they don't plan on just cutting off people from insurance. It is going to be a tough slog to get things sorted out so we'll see what happens.

Both parties should be working on this. Important parts of it don't work very well now in it's current form and people want change, so if it's not fixed both parties are going to suffer for it. If democrats prevent it being fixed they'll suffer, and if republicans mess up a new health care plan then they'll suffer. Both parties would be smart to work on it together but right now they're often fighting each other.

Quote from: KRonn on January 13, 2017, 08:58:34 PM
Both parties should be working on this. Important parts of it don't work very well now in it's current form and people want change, so if it's not fixed both parties are going to suffer for it. If democrats prevent it being fixed they'll suffer, and if republicans mess up a new health care plan then they'll suffer. Both parties would be smart to work on it together but right now they're often fighting each other.

Quote from: KRonn on January 13, 2017, 08:58:34 PM
As it is now health insurance premiums have gone way up for many people who don't qualify for subsidies, along with huge deductibles. That's made it unaffordable for so many

Quote from: alfred russel on January 14, 2017, 12:37:35 PM
Even if it is not very effective, I'm going to be really stoked to get health care delivered by a unicorn of elephant parentage. That sounds awesome.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2017, 01:44:54 PM
My biweekly premium went up from $99.42 to $105.39.  Thanks Obama!  :mad:

Quote from: viper37 on January 14, 2017, 02:18:46 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2017, 01:44:54 PM
My biweekly premium went up from $99.42 to $105.39.  Thanks Obama!  :mad:

Isolated stats... you should know better :)

What was the rise of health care insurance costs for the last 25 years?  Has it accelerated under Obama or has it slowed a little?

Quote from: alfred russel on January 14, 2017, 12:37:35 PM
Even if it is not very effective, I'm going to be really stoked to get health care delivered by a unicorn of elephant parentage. That sounds awesome.

Quote from: KRonn on January 13, 2017, 08:58:34 PM
Healthcare won't be denied to the poorest. The poorest people qualify for Medicaid which is run by states with some Federal govt. reimbursement. It was pretty much that way prior to the ACA. As it is now health insurance premiums have gone way up for many people who don't qualify for subsidies, along with huge deductibles. That's made it unaffordable for so many people.

Quote from: grumbler on January 14, 2017, 03:53:47 PM

Quote from: viper37 on January 14, 2017, 02:18:46 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2017, 01:44:54 PM
My biweekly premium went up from $99.42 to $105.39.  Thanks Obama!  :mad:

Isolated stats... you should know better :)

What was the rise of health care insurance costs for the last 25 years?  Has it accelerated under Obama or has it slowed a little?

This web page http://www.healthsystemtracker.org/interactive/health-spending-explorer/?display=Annual%2520%2525%2520Change%2520-%2520Inflation%2520Adjusted&service=All%2520Types%2520of%2520Services (http://www.healthsystemtracker.org/interactive/health-spending-explorer/?display=Annual%2520%2525%2520Change%2520-%2520Inflation%2520Adjusted&service=All%2520Types%2520of%2520Services) should answer a lot of your questions.

Bottom line of that data is that health care grew fastest under Bushcare (actually, Shrubcare) and slowed a bit in the first years of ACA, but that costs were rising pretty rapidly in 2015, and 2016 data isn't yet available (and might exceed Shrubcare).

Quote from: LaCroix on January 14, 2017, 05:20:23 PM
on the bright side, repealing obamacare will bring more couples together in matrimony

Quote from: LaCroix on January 14, 2017, 05:20:23 PM
on the bright side, repealing obamacare will bring more couples together in matrimony

Quote from: LaCroix on January 14, 2017, 05:20:23 PM
on the bright side, repealing obamacare will bring more couples together in matrimony

Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2017, 06:58:58 PMHow do you figure?

Quote from: LaCroix on January 14, 2017, 07:27:28 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2017, 06:58:58 PMHow do you figure?

one loses her health insurance, so the couple decides to get hitched  :P

Quote from: grumbler on January 14, 2017, 07:46:59 PMSounds like a recipe for lots of divorces.  I suppose some people like high divorce rates, though.  :P

Quote from: LaCroix on January 14, 2017, 05:20:23 PM
on the bright side, repealing obamacare will bring more couples together in matrimony

Quote from: LaCroix on February 19, 2017, 02:28:09 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on January 14, 2017, 05:20:23 PM
on the bright side, repealing obamacare will bring more couples together in matrimony

obamacare ended up being worthless, so couples were brought together in matrimony anyway :mad:

Quote from: LaCroix on February 19, 2017, 02:28:09 PM
obamacare ended up being worthless

Quote from: LaCroix on February 19, 2017, 03:03:38 PM
$180/month and $7000 deductible

there's a tool you can use to check whether your medications are covered. so you put in a bunch of medications, and the plan flashes and says covered. but wait! a few of your medications won't be covered until you pay your deductible, and nowhere does it say that. when you discover this and ofc attempt to change plans, they try to tell you, nope--you can't change your plan until the next election period, ten months from now! so you say fuck you I'm getting married

obamacare is worthless

Quote from: LaCroix on February 19, 2017, 03:19:11 PM
:huh:

not every post is a thesis statement

Quote from: LaCroix on February 19, 2017, 03:03:38 PM
$180/month and $7000 deductible

there's a tool you can use to check whether your medications are covered. so you put in a bunch of medications, and the plan flashes and says covered. but wait! a few of your medications won't be covered until you pay your deductible, and nowhere does it say that. when you discover this and ofc attempt to change plans, they try to tell you, nope--you can't change your plan until the next election period, ten months from now! so you say fuck you I'm getting married

obamacare is worthless

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2017, 03:33:57 PMWhat are the alternatives, and which did you pick?

Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2017, 03:44:43 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on February 19, 2017, 03:03:38 PM
$180/month and $7000 deductible

there's a tool you can use to check whether your medications are covered. so you put in a bunch of medications, and the plan flashes and says covered. but wait! a few of your medications won't be covered until you pay your deductible, and nowhere does it say that. when you discover this and ofc attempt to change plans, they try to tell you, nope--you can't change your plan until the next election period, ten months from now! so you say fuck you I'm getting married

obamacare is worthless

It isn't Obamacare now, it is Trumpcare that is screwing you over.   :punk:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2017, 03:15:41 PM
You're intellectually bankrupt.  I was the last poster here making any effort to respond, but I have to agree that everyone else is right.  Either you're a troll or you're a retard.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2017, 04:16:44 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2017, 03:15:41 PM
You're intellectually bankrupt.  I was the last poster here making any effort to respond, but I have to agree that everyone else is right.  Either you're a troll or you're a retard.

It was fun to watch, though.  Fun, and yet a little sad.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2017, 04:15:18 PM
It could be Palmolive Moistercare for all it matters, LaCroix can't be bothered to do his proper research.

Quote from: LaCroix on February 19, 2017, 04:05:34 PM
I don't know what you mean by alternatives.

Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2017, 04:35:15 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2017, 04:15:18 PM
It could be Palmolive Moistercare for all it matters, LaCroix can't be bothered to do his proper research.

A quick check using some bogus #s (female 25-30 non-smoker in Fargo) gives me the United Health One Plan for $66 per month with a $5000 deductible and 30% copay.

LaCrock may be marrying his female counterpart.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 19, 2017, 05:19:17 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2017, 04:35:15 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2017, 04:15:18 PM
It could be Palmolive Moistercare for all it matters, LaCroix can't be bothered to do his proper research.

A quick check using some bogus #s (female 25-30 non-smoker in Fargo) gives me the United Health One Plan for $66 per month with a $5000 deductible and 30% copay.

LaCrock may be marrying his female counterpart.

Why do you assume his girl is a nonsmoker? He's not.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2017, 04:42:18 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on February 19, 2017, 04:05:34 PM
I don't know what you mean by alternatives.

Alternatives to a thesis statement.  I.e. a claim you believe to be true and are willing to defend.

Perhaps it was a rant. "Fuck my squeeze's premiums are too high.  Obamacare is the Holocaust!"

Perhaps it was satire.  "Ha ha ha has those stupid Trump supporting hillbillies hate Obamacare and I'm going to imitate one."

Quote from: LaCroix on February 19, 2017, 05:44:20 PM
it was a weird post to pick to grind your axe

Quote from: LaCroix on February 19, 2017, 05:42:42 PM
the cheapest option re premiums on the marketplace was like $180/month or around there, with a $7000 deductible. $66 per month  :lol:

Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2017, 06:05:32 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on February 19, 2017, 05:42:42 PM
the cheapest option re premiums on the marketplace was like $180/month or around there, with a $7000 deductible. $66 per month  :lol:

You are obviously not looking very hard if I could find a plan less than half the cost with $2000 less deductible in about ten minutes!  :lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2017, 06:03:51 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on February 19, 2017, 05:44:20 PM
it was a weird post to pick to grind your axe

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess you were the star debater on your tiny rural North Dakota school's team, which is where you learned that when you have no position you should play offense and accuse your interlocutor of grinding axes, misconstruing, or talking around each other.

Quote from: LaCroix on February 19, 2017, 06:12:05 PM
I think any debate rules went out the window when you accused me of intellectual bankruptcy because you misinterpreted a non-serious post as a serious assertion

Quote from: LaCroix on February 19, 2017, 06:10:33 PM
that's not an available plan. I have no idea what you think you found

Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2017, 07:10:06 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on February 19, 2017, 06:10:33 PM
that's not an available plan. I have no idea what you think you found

Right!  :lol:  That's an available plan

I have enormous incentive to make up facts, you have none. 

https://www.agilehealthinsurance.com/?partners=1&utm_source=vantage&utm_medium=ppc&utm_term=ef1c47c3-0ce8-46cb-bc25-4292e2e8cfed&utm_campaign=H1T41EK2N9 (https://www.agilehealthinsurance.com/?partners=1&utm_source=vantage&utm_medium=ppc&utm_term=ef1c47c3-0ce8-46cb-bc25-4292e2e8cfed&utm_campaign=H1T41EK2N9)

Quote from: Agelastus on February 19, 2017, 07:22:18 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2017, 07:10:06 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on February 19, 2017, 06:10:33 PM
that's not an available plan. I have no idea what you think you found

Right!  :lol:  That's an available plan

I have enormous incentive to make up facts, you have none. 

https://www.agilehealthinsurance.com/?partners=1&utm_source=vantage&utm_medium=ppc&utm_term=ef1c47c3-0ce8-46cb-bc25-4292e2e8cfed&utm_campaign=H1T41EK2N9 (https://www.agilehealthinsurance.com/?partners=1&utm_source=vantage&utm_medium=ppc&utm_term=ef1c47c3-0ce8-46cb-bc25-4292e2e8cfed&utm_campaign=H1T41EK2N9)

I may be misunderstanding something here, but doesn't that site offer short term medical insurance (1-11 months) which is not "Obamacare" and which does not qualify you for an exemption from the affordable care tax?

In other words - is this a case of apples and oranges?

Quote
Boehner: Republicans won't repeal and replace Obamacare

'They're basically going to fix the flaws and put a more conservative box around it,' Boehner said.

By Darius Tahir
  | 02/23/17 11:04 AM EST
  |  Updated 02/23/17 06:06 PM EST


Former House Speaker John Boehner predicted on Thursday that a full repeal and replace of Obamacare is "not what's going to happen" and that Republicans will instead just make some fixes to the health care law.

Boehner, who retired in 2015 amid unrest among conservatives, said at an Orlando healthcare conference that GOP lawmakers were too optimistic in their talk of quickly repealing and then replacing Obamacare.

"They'll fix Obamacare, and I shouldn't have called it repeal and replace because that's not what's going to happen. They're basically going to fix the flaws and put a more conservative box around it," Boehner said.

The former speaker's frank comments capture the conundrum that many Republicans find themselves in as they try to deliver on pledges to axe Obamacare but struggle to coalesce around an alternative.

Republican lawmakers across the country this week are facing angry constituents at town halls worried that Obamacare will be yanked away without a suitable replacement.

President Donald Trump has said in recent days that he will release a plan by early to mid-March on how the administration plans to move forward on repeal-and-replace.

But so far, no clear path has emerged.

Earlier in the panel discussion, Boehner said he "started laughing" when Republicans started talking about moving lightning fast on repeal and then coming up with an alternative.

"In the 25 years that I served in the United States Congress, Republicans never, ever, one time agreed on what a health care proposal should look like. Not once," Boehner said. "And all this happy talk that went on in November and December and January about repeal, repeal, repeal—yeah, we'll do replace, replace—I started laughing, because if you pass repeal without replace, first, anything that happens is your fault. You broke it."

Boehner added that he has told Republican leaders that unless a repeal is packaged with a replacement, GOP lawmakers would not likely reach a consensus about an alternative to Obamacare.

"And secondly, as I told some of the Republican leaders when they asked, I said, if you pass repeal without replace you'll never pass replace, because they will never ever agree on what the bill should be. Perfect always becomes the enemy of the good," Boehner said.

Boehner said what Republicans ultimately come up with could share a lot of the same qualities with Obamacare.

"Most of the Affordable Care Act, in the framework, is going to stay there: coverage for kids up to age 26, covering those with preexisting conditions. All of that's going to be there. Subsidies for those who can't afford it, who aren't on Medicaid, who I call the working poor, subsidies for them will be there," Boehner said.

"What will be different is that CMS will not dictate to every single state how the plan's going to run. And if the state wants to run an exchange, the state can run an exchange. The states will control the policies that are offered like they control every other insurance product offered in their states," he added.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2017, 04:41:08 PM
They keep acting like the insurance companies don't have a say in this.  They are going to determine the ACA's life expectancy, not Congress.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2017, 06:05:13 PM
What I do in the privacy of a bathroom stall on my iProduct is my business.

Besides, it's Friday--all the GS monkeys are "working from home."

Quote
Conservative Hardliners Are Already Threatening the House GOP's Health Care Plan

By Jordan Weissmann
Jordan Weissmann is Slate's senior business and economics correspondent.

Late last week, a draft version of the House GOP's evolving Obamacare replacement leaked to the media, offering the most detailed peek yet at what Republicans might have in mind for health reform. But those still young, painstakingly laid plans already look like they might be in trouble, as North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows, who chairs the powerful and hardline House Freedom Caucus, has told CNN that he'd vote against the legislation were it to hit the floor of Congress tomorrow.

Meadows says he is concerned about the refundable tax credits the bill would offer to help Americans pay for insurance on the individual market. Unlike Obamacare's tax credits, which are only available to Americans who earn less than 400 percent of the poverty line and are more generous for lower-income families, the GOP's subsidies would be available to all Americans who lack employer-based coverage and would rise with age. Those under 30 would be eligible for $2,000 of assistance while those 60 and older would be eligible for $4,000. Meadows considers this system a nonstarter; ditto the taxes needed to pay for it.

"What is conservative about a new entitlement program and a new tax increase? And should that be the first thing that the president signs of significance, that we sent to the new president?" Meadows told CNN. "A new Republican president signs a new entitlement and a new tax increase as his first major piece of legislation? I don't know how you support that—do you?"

Interestingly, Meadows echoes some progressive complaints about the GOP's draft bill—namely, that it would benefit rich, older Americans more than the needy.

"So the headline is that the GOP is reducing subsidies to needy individuals when in fact, the growth of the taxpayer-subsidized reimbursements will actually increase. The total dollars that we spend on subsidies will be far greater," he said. "So you can be a millionaire and not have employer-based health care and you're going to get a check from the federal government—I've got a problem with that."

Meadows isn't the only Freedom Caucus member to express skepticism about the bill that's now circulating—Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan also has qualms, according to CNN, while Florida's Ted Yoho previously objected to some of its features. A primary concern seems to be that the tax credits are refundable, meaning that if they're worth more than an American owes in taxes, that person gets the difference back in cash (or, in this specific case, in payments toward their health insurance premiums). In the eyes of the Freedom Caucus, that makes them an entitlement rather than a tax break—and they're not really wrong. Refundability is really just a not-so-subtle way to hide government benefits in the tax code. The fact that far-right conservatives are wising up to that bodes poorly for the legislation's chances, given the Freedom Caucus' sway in the House.

All of this once again raises the question of whether any health reform proposal could placate enough Republicans to pass Congress. A plan lacking refundable tax credits would be of minimal help to lower-income families, who would be especially in danger of losing their insurance once Obamacare's Medicaid expansion was rolled back. With relatively moderate Republicans in the Senate (emphasis on relatively) already squeamish about the possibility of throwing millions of Americans from their coverage, it's hard to see how such a bare-bones plan like what the Freedom Caucus has in mind could get traction there—much less attract the Democratic votes necessary to overcome a filibuster and fully replace the ACA.

The Republican plan is still in its early stages, so perhaps there's still quietly room for some kind of compromise. And in the end, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan are reportedly betting that hardliners and moderates alike won't risk their necks by blocking a repeal-and-replace bill that the majority of their GOP colleagues support. But it seems equally plausible at this point that we'll discover that Republican health-care reform is just the oxymoron that so many suspect.

Quote

Republican Senators Just Rebelled Against the House Plan to Repeal Obamacare

They are fighting to protect Medicaid expansion.

Patrick CaldwellMar. 6, 2017 6:31 PM

After a week of keeping their bill under guard by Capitol Police, House Republicans introduced their plan to repeal Obamacare late Monday afternoon. But a band of four Republican senators had already begun revolting in public—even before the language of the new measure had seen the light of day. They sent a letter to their caucus leader Monday afternoon saying that they couldn't support the latest leaked version of the House plans because it doesn't protect people who gained Medicaid under Obamacare.

One of the Affordable Care Act's most effective ways of lowering the number of people who lack health insurance has been a provision that allows those who earn 138 percent or less of the federal poverty level to enroll in Medicaid. The Supreme Court added a level of uncertainty to this implementation by allowing states to decide whether or not they want to opt into that program, but 31 states have accepted Medicaid expansion to date, granting government-covered insurance to about 11 million additional people.

Republican Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio), Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia), Cory Gardner (Colorado), and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday voicing their concerns. "While we support efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act and make structural reforms to the Medicaid program," the letter says, "we are concerned that the February 10th draft proposal from the House of Representatives does not provide stability and certainty for individuals and families in Medicaid expansion programs or the necessary flexibility for states."

The four senators all hail from states that have accepted Medicaid expansion, and they made that necessary prerequisite for any plan they'd be willing to consider. "We will not support a plan that does not include stability for Medicaid expansion populations or flexibility for states," the letter explains.

This early warning spells serious trouble for Republican hopes of repealing Obamacare. Republicans plan to pass their repeal bill through a budget reconciliation process in which only a simple majority is necessary, so they don't have to worry about a Democratic filibuster. But with just 52 Republican senators (and few possible Democratic defections), Republicans probably can't pass a bill without these four senators. At the same time, the GOP leadership is having to fend off the Freedom Caucus in the House, as this group of tea-party-supported legislators threaten to withhold support because the bill doesn't go far enough in ditching policies—such as the government offsetting the cost for low-income individuals to buy health insurance—implemented by the ACA. While the four renegade senators sent their letter to McConnell, Sen. Rand Paul was complaining on Twitter that the House proposal wasn't conservative enough.

Quote
Senator Rand Paul
✔  ‎@RandPaul 

Still have not seen an official version of the House Obamacare replacement bill, but from media reports this sure looks like Obamacare Lite!

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2017, 11:52:38 AM
Chaffetz: Americans should forgo new iPhone to afford healthcare (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/jason-chaffetz-new-gop-health-care-plan-235762)

:lol:

Haven't heard the Welfare Queen card played for a while.  Bravo, Jason!

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2017, 11:52:38 AM
Chaffetz: Americans should forgo new iPhone to afford healthcare (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/jason-chaffetz-new-gop-health-care-plan-235762)

:lol:

Haven't heard the Welfare Queen card played for a while.  Bravo, Jason!

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2017, 12:51:28 PM
I'm trying to figure out how, if I am forced to buy on the open marketplace--which I couldn't afford prior to ACA--how am I expected to afford it and then apply tax credits when I do my taxes tge following year?

Oh, I forgot--it's about having "access" to healthcare. :lol:

Quote from: Habbaku on March 07, 2017, 08:15:51 PM
At least single payer would dramatically cut costs.  It isn't the ideal solution, but it's worlds better than what we've got.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2017, 08:20:30 PM
Hey derfetusfacefuckingniggerhater, now that you've almost got me at checkmate and I could be losing my healthcare soon, I need to know where to send you all my prescription bottles.   :)

Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2017, 09:59:25 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2017, 08:20:30 PM
Hey derfetusfacefuckingniggerhater, now that you've almost got me at checkmate and I could be losing my healthcare soon, I need to know where to send you all my prescription bottles.   :)

I want nothing but the best for you, Seedz :hug:

QuoteTrump to conservative leaders: If this plan fails, I'll blame Democrats

Washington (CNN)In an Oval Office meeting featuring several leaders of conservative groups already lining up against the House Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, President Donald Trump revealed his plan in the event the GOP effort fails: Allow Obamcare to fail and let Democrats take the blame, sources at the gathering told CNN.

During the hour-long meeting, sources said Trump chastised the groups -- including Club for Growth, the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Patriots -- for calling the House GOP proposal "Obamacare lite," warning the tea party activists, "you are helping the other side."

In true Trump fashion, the President jumped into salesman mode, sources at the meeting said.

"This is going to be great. You're going to make it even greater," the President told the group. "I'm going to work hard to get it done."

The meeting between Trump and the conservative leaders also included White House senior advisers Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Kellyanne Conway and Marc Short, as well as other top West Wing staff.

Sources at the meeting said White House aides showed some openness to one aspect of the House GOP plan that has become an irritant to tea party aligned groups: the provision that pushes back an overhaul of the expansion Obamacare Medicaid funding until 2020.

The conservative groups at the meeting asked that the date be moved up to January 1, 2018. White House aides said they were "open to discussing" it, sources said.

Concerns were also raised about the tax credits in the House GOP plan which allow lower-income Americans to buy health insurance, financial assistance that tea party groups see as subsidies.

"They counter-punched hard on that," a source at the meeting said of the White House response.

Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney, a former member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, gave an impassioned defense of the tax credits, a display that surprised attendees from the conservative groups.

"He was very defensive about it," one attendee said about Mulvaney.

Confident that the health care plan will pass the House, Trump laid out his strategy for winning passage in the Senate, telling the meeting he will campaign heavily in red states featuring vulnerable Democrats up for re-election.

"Trump said he will have football stadium events in states where he won by 10-12 points and he is going to dare people to vote against him," a source at the meeting said.
As for prominent Republican opponents of the health care plan, Trump sounded optimistic.

On Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, the President was effusive about his one-time primary rival.

"I love him. He's a friend. He's going to end up voting for it," the President told the group.

A source at the meeting was astonished as to how White House staff could have been so blindsided by the initial conservative opposition to the GOP plan.

"We telegraphed it for weeks," one tea party official at the meeting said.

A WH official at the meeting said: "It was a legit policy meeting -- real discussion about specifics."

"The president expressed that he was open to things that could improve the bill, but was also clear that this is the vehicle -- this is the chance to repeal and replace."

Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2017, 11:21:07 AM
His plan is to blame the Dems who are not in power? :hmm:

Quote from: derspiess on March 09, 2017, 11:23:21 AM
Works for me! :P

Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2017, 12:57:43 PM

Quote from: derspiess on March 09, 2017, 11:23:21 AM
Works for me! :P

Surprise surprise!

Quote from: derspiess on March 09, 2017, 03:27:26 PM
What a shock that Berkut does not have a sense of humor.

Quote

Btw, which groups do I hate?

Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2017, 12:57:43 PM

Quote from: derspiess on March 09, 2017, 11:23:21 AM
Works for me! :P

Surprise surprise!

Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2017, 04:58:50 PM
C'mon, he played that ball perfectly.  I lol'd.

Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2017, 05:58:10 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2017, 04:58:50 PM
C'mon, he played that ball perfectly.  I lol'd.

Sure he played the ball well. That doesn't mean the rest of us just have to leave it there afterwards.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 09, 2017, 04:17:45 PM
Donald's schtick had more amusement value when he didn't have the entire machinery of the US federal government at his disposal.  It's hard to find humor in a President openly boasting about his intention to dodge accountability.

We've had over a month of the man making a mockery of himself and our system of government.  All yuck-yucked out.

Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2017, 06:15:50 PM
True.  If you'd been wise, you'd have left it, but some people can't leave well enough alone.  When the ball has been slam-dunked, the play is over.

Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2017, 06:15:50 PM

Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2017, 05:58:10 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2017, 04:58:50 PM
C'mon, he played that ball perfectly.  I lol'd.

Sure he played the ball well. That doesn't mean the rest of us just have to leave it there afterwards.

True.  If you'd been wise, you'd have left it, but some people can't leave well enough alone.  When the ball has been slam-dunked, the play is over.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2017, 06:53:35 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 09, 2017, 04:17:45 PM
Donald's schtick had more amusement value when he didn't have the entire machinery of the US federal government at his disposal.  It's hard to find humor in a President openly boasting about his intention to dodge accountability.

We've had over a month of the man making a mockery of himself and our system of government.  All yuck-yucked out.

This is what the beginning of the end looks like, MM.

There's a fork in the road; one path leads to Venezuela, the other leads to Damnation Alley.

Quote from: Ed Anger on March 09, 2017, 09:53:18 PM
I'm ready for damnation alley.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 09, 2017, 08:09:40 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2017, 06:15:50 PM

Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2017, 05:58:10 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2017, 04:58:50 PM
C'mon, he played that ball perfectly.  I lol'd.

Sure he played the ball well. That doesn't mean the rest of us just have to leave it there afterwards.

True.  If you'd been wise, you'd have left it, but some people can't leave well enough alone.  When the ball has been slam-dunked, the play is over.

More like a layup with his toes barely off the ground.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 09, 2017, 04:17:45 PM
Donald's schtick had more amusement value when he didn't have the entire machinery of the US federal government at his disposal.  It's hard to find humor in a President openly boasting about his intention to dodge accountability.

We've had over a month of the man making a mockery of himself and our system of government.  All yuck-yucked out.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2017, 05:18:44 PM
Decrease in the deficit and more [sic] deficits?

Quote from: viper37 on March 13, 2017, 06:52:42 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2017, 05:18:44 PM
Decrease in the deficit and more [sic] deficits?

337 million$ more in the governmen budget, despite the tax cuts, because medicaid/medicare will be significantly defunded.

However, Fate is betting that this will not happen, because the Republicans will fear the public's retaliation, meaning, less votes, if they remove medical coverage from too many people.

So what he imagines is that people will still be covered through some form of medicaid expansion with Federal subsidies to the States, so the planned economies to be made will never materialize, hence, in reality, more deficits from this administration, since the medicaid cuts are essential to balancing the budget.

Quote
If the GOP plan is enacted, a 21-year-old making $68,200 would pay an average of $1,450 for a year's worth of insurance premiums after the new tax credits, compared with $5,100 under the current law.

On the other hand, the cost of a year's worth of premiums would stay about the same for a 64-year-old at the same income level. For a 64-year-old making $26,500, the cost would rise sharply, from $1,700 to $14,600.

Quote from: viper37 on March 14, 2017, 12:20:12 AM
Apparently, under this new administration, the cost of an iPhone will rise substantially.  From 600$ or so, it seems poised to increase by 14 000$ before 2026.

Since the Republicans have said that Americans will need to choose between their healthcare coverage and iPhone, it's the only logical conclusion I can arrive at.

Obamacare revision would reduce insured numbers by 24 M (https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/obamacare-revision-would-reduce-insured-numbers-by-24-million/2017/03/13/ea4c860a-0829-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_cbo-430pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ef166e467c33)

Quote
If the GOP plan is enacted, a 21-year-old making $68,200 would pay an average of $1,450 for a year’s worth of insurance premiums after the new tax credits, compared with $5,100 under the current law.

On the other hand, the cost of a year’s worth of premiums would stay about the same for a 64-year-old at the same income level. For a 64-year-old making $26,500, the cost would rise sharply, from $1,700 to $14,600.

QuoteHHS Secretary Price: CBO Report Numbers Are 'Not Believable'
ByMatt Shuham
Published March 13, 2017

The Secretary of Health and Human Services characterized as "not believable" a Congressional Budget Office report that estimated 14 million people would lose health coverage through 2018 under the House GOP's proposed health care bill.

HHS Secretary Tom Price said the CBO report "ignored completely the other legislative activities that we'll be putting into place that will make certain that we have an insurance market that actually works," in addition to the American Health Care Act, which Republicans have described as "phase one" of health care reform.

"So we disagree strenuously with the report that was put out. We believe that our plan will cover more individuals at a lower cost and give them the choices they want for the coverage that they want for themselves and their families, not that the government forces them to buy," he told reporters outside the White House.

One reporter asked if he was implying the CBO was wrong in their estimates. Price responded that, while he hadn't yet read the report, its estimates were "virtually impossible."

"The fact of the matter is, if you look at that, it's virtually impossible to have that number occur. We are not certain – again, we haven't been able to read the report –"

"The CBO is wrong?" the reporter asked again.

"Just look at the numbers," Price replied. "There are 8 million people, 8, 9 million people who are on the exchange currently. I'm not sure how they're going to get to 14 million people uninsured if that's what they say, with only 8 million people on the exchange. There are individuals I guess that they assume that are on Medicaid who aren't paying anything in the Medicaid system who are going to not take the Medicaid policy just because the mandate ended, or something happened. It's just not believable is what we would suggest. We'll look at the numbers and see."

In its report, the CBO estimates that, of the 14 million fewer people it estimates would have insurance by 2018, "[t]hat increase would consist of about 6 million fewer people with coverage obtained in the nongroup market, roughly 5 million fewer people with coverage under Medicaid, and about 2 million fewer people with employment-based coverage."

The CBO noted that some who are eligible for Medicaid still face penalties for not being covered by an insurance plan.

"Under current law, the penalties associated with the individual mandate apply to some Medicaid-eligible adults and children. (For example, the penalties apply to single individuals with income above about 90 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, also known as the federal poverty level, or FPL)," the report read. "CBO estimates that, without those penalties, fewer people would enroll in Medicaid, including some who are not subject to the penalties but might think they are."

"Some people might be uncertain about what circumstances trigger the penalty and others might be uncertain about their annual income," it continues. "The estimated lower enrollment would result in less spending for the program. Those effects on enrollment and spending would continue throughout the 2017-2026 period."

Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2017, 05:15:22 AM
I like the constant refrain of 'oh but you just aren't considering all the other things we're going to pass.' If you are going to pass them, why not pass them as part of this and have it all managed? Is it because they perhaps lack the political capital to pass those other aspects?

QuoteMulvaney on CBO: 'I don't believe the facts are correct'
By Louis Nelson
Politico
03/14/17
09:11 AM EDT

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said Tuesday that the Congressional Budget Office's assessment that millions would lose health insurance under the Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare is wrong and should be taken with a hefty grain of salt.

"I don't believe the facts are correct," Mulvaney said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" when asked for his take on the CBO report. "I'm not just saying that because it looks bad for my political position. I'm say that based upon a track record of the CBO being wrong before and we believe the CBO is wrong now."

The facts that Mulvaney said are wrong were released Monday afternoon by the CBO in the form of a report outlining the office's prediction that the GOP-backed American Health Care Act would cause 24 million Americans to lose their health insurance. That prediction added fuel to the legislation's already hefty opposition, which includes not only Democrats but also a handful Republicans concerned that about its cuts to Medicaid.

But the CBO report should not be trusted, Mulvaney said, in no small part because it has been wrong in the past on health care. With a snowy Washington backdrop behind him, Mulvaney joked at the top of his interview that he was "happy to be here on a beautiful, warm, sunny day according to the Congressional Budget Office."

As an example of the CBO's inability to forecast the insurance market, Mulvaney noted that it had missed badly on Obamacare enrollment predictions for this year, suggesting in a report released three years ago that 24 million people would use the law's exchanges to purchase healthcare. In reality, Mulvaney said, that number is closer to 11.5 million.

"It's really, really hard to do this. We don't even try to do this at the OMB. That's how difficult it is," Mulvaney said. "CBO: Good at counting money, in and out, numbers, taxes, policies and so forth. Not so sure that they're the best folks to count insurance coverage."

QuoteGOP Recommends Americans Set Aside Income From One Of Their Jobs To Pay For Healthcare Under New Bill


WASHINGTON—In an effort to address concerns about the affordability of coverage, Republican congressional officials advised Americans Monday to set aside the income from one of their jobs to pay for healthcare costs under the newly introduced American Health Care Act. "Under this bill, you would simply set up a separate savings account for the total earnings from one of your jobs, which will ensure that you can comfortably cover your healthcare expenses each month," said House Speaker Paul Ryan, adding that the GOP's proposed Affordable Care Act replacement would keep healthcare costs for the average American from exceeding the entire salary of one full-time job. "If you budget things correctly, you'll have plenty of money left over from your other job or jobs to spend on food, rent, and any other personal expenses. In some cases, healthcare will even be low-priced enough to afford using only the income from a part-time side job on the weekends. The important thing here is that this legislation will allow Americans—not the federal government—to decide for themselves what kind of healthcare they want and how many jobs they choose to have in order to pay for it." Ryan also recommended that in order to be prepared for the added costs of a sudden medical emergency, Americans should create a dedicated savings fund using the money from at least two of the mortgages on their homes.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2017, 09:14:11 AM
Americans have a right not to have health insurance.

Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2017, 05:15:22 AM
I like the constant refrain of 'oh but you just aren't considering all the other things we're going to pass.' If you are going to pass them, why not pass them as part of this and have it all managed? Is it because they perhaps lack the political capital to pass those other aspects?

Quote from: celedhring on March 14, 2017, 09:11:46 AM
Suppose that's from a parody site? Although GOP is running Poe's law very close as of late.

Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2017, 05:15:22 AM
I like the constant refrain of 'oh but you just aren't considering all the other things we're going to pass.' If you are going to pass them, why not pass them as part of this and have it all managed? Is it because they perhaps lack the political capital to pass those other aspects?

Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2017, 09:19:51 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2017, 09:14:11 AM
Americans have a right not to have health insurance.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.quotationof.com%2Fimages%2Fsalute-quotes-6.jpg&hash=877302d4e8897f43ded79a0070624048ddecb16e)

Quote from: Fate on March 14, 2017, 10:57:39 AM
The poll needs more options.

They will repeal and replace with something that decreases coverage and increases costs.

Quote from: Jacob on March 14, 2017, 01:19:46 PM
Did you all see how the CBO projected $3 Billion in Social Security savings from people dying earlier than previously projected due to lack of health care?

Quote from: Jacob on March 14, 2017, 01:19:46 PM
Did you all see how the CBO projected $3 Billion in Social Security savings from people dying earlier than previously projected due to lack of health care?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2017, 03:48:43 PM

Quote from: Jacob on March 14, 2017, 01:19:46 PM
Did you all see how the CBO projected $3 Billion in Social Security savings from people dying earlier than previously projected due to lack of health care?

Awesome!
But how much is that going to be offset by the increased birth rates in certain demographics by doing things like defunding Planned Parenthood and other pro-choicdz family programs?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2017, 03:48:43 PM
Awesome!
But how much is that going to be offset by the increased birth rates in certain demographics by doing things like defunding Planned Parenthood and other pro-choicdz family programs?

Quote from: Jacob on March 14, 2017, 01:19:46 PM
Did you all see how the CBO projected $3 Billion in Social Security savings from people dying earlier than previously projected due to lack of health care?

QuoteFewer Americans Would Be Insured With G.O.P. Plan Than With Simple Repeal

The Congressional Budget Office recently said that around 24 million fewer Americans would have health insurance in 2026 under the Republican repeal plan than if the current law stayed in place.

That loss was bigger than most experts anticipated, and led to a round of predictable laments from congressional Democrats — and less predictable ones from Republican senators, including Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and John Thune of South Dakota, who told reporters that the bill needed to be "more helpful" to low-income people who wanted insurance.

But one piece of context has gone little noticed: The Republican bill would actually result in more people being uninsured than if Obamacare were simply repealed. Getting rid of the major coverage provisions and regulations of Obamacare would cost 23 million Americans their health insurance, according to another recent C.B.O. report. In other words, 1 million more Americans would have health insurance with a clean repeal than with the Republican replacement plan, according to C.B.O. estimates.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 21, 2017, 02:18:45 PM
So they aren't able to get the cross-state thing in it.

Question: What is bad about being able to buy insurance across state lines?

Quote from: Zanza on March 21, 2017, 01:43:16 PM

QuoteFewer Americans Would Be Insured With G.O.P. Plan Than With Simple Repeal

The Congressional Budget Office recently said that around 24 million fewer Americans would have health insurance in 2026 under the Republican repeal plan than if the current law stayed in place.

That loss was bigger than most experts anticipated, and led to a round of predictable laments from congressional Democrats — and less predictable ones from Republican senators, including Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and John Thune of South Dakota, who told reporters that the bill needed to be "more helpful" to low-income people who wanted insurance.

But one piece of context has gone little noticed: The Republican bill would actually result in more people being uninsured than if Obamacare were simply repealed. Getting rid of the major coverage provisions and regulations of Obamacare would cost 23 million Americans their health insurance, according to another recent C.B.O. report. In other words, 1 million more Americans would have health insurance with a clean repeal than with the Republican replacement plan, according to C.B.O. estimates.

The best healthcare law in the world.  :P

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 21, 2017, 02:27:59 PM
That's a lot like banking then. We're preventing health insurance companies from becoming monoliths, but at the cost of some of them being effectively local monopolies.

I've been wondering why there is so little support for that in congress.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 21, 2017, 02:24:09 PM
Different states have different laws regarding the regulation of insurance;  it's an industry that is heavily regulated on the state level, not just health but all lines. Medicare is one thing, but for-profit carriers is another.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2017, 02:22:58 PM
There's nothing bad about it.  But it won't do much of anything anyways.  An insurer still has to set up a whole local network to get business.

Quote from: celedhring on March 21, 2017, 03:56:01 PM
In Spain the way it's ended up working is that nationwide healthcare providers offer the same prices everywhere, using their large customer pools to offset regional pricing differences. So rural customers end up subsidizing urban customers. Of course the US is so large that differentiated regional pricing might be sustainable, but I'm sure GOP voters would love to pay up for newyorker's healthcare :D

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2017, 04:02:06 PM

Quote from: celedhring on March 21, 2017, 03:56:01 PM
In Spain the way it's ended up working is that nationwide healthcare providers offer the same prices everywhere, using their large customer pools to offset regional pricing differences. So rural customers end up subsidizing urban customers. Of course the US is so large that differentiated regional pricing might be sustainable, but I'm sure GOP voters would love to pay up for newyorker's healthcare :D

What is there to stop a competitor from stepping in and undercutting prices in the low cost areas?

Quote from: celedhring on March 21, 2017, 04:05:08 PM
As I said, Spain is a much smaller market than the US. Regional providers do exist, but they're really small and can't leverage scale enough to compete in price.

That's why I think that regional pricing might survive even if state borders are abolished in the US market. You're so much larger.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2017, 04:12:48 PM

Quote from: celedhring on March 21, 2017, 04:05:08 PM
As I said, Spain is a much smaller market than the US. Regional providers do exist, but they're really small and can't leverage scale enough to compete in price.

That's why I think that regional pricing might survive even if state borders are abolished in the US market. You're so much larger.

OK, but that doesn't explain why one or more of the nationwide insurers doesn't differentiate to undercut the competition and gain market share.

Quote from: celedhring on March 21, 2017, 04:29:33 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2017, 04:12:48 PM

OK, but that doesn't explain why one or more of the nationwide insurers doesn't differentiate to undercut the competition and gain market share.

To do so, it would need to offset with higher pricing in urban areas. Margins are already razor-thin. It's not worth it.

The Spanish insurance market is fully commoditized, there's nearly zero differentiation. Of course since we have universal public health is probably hard to compare with the US. If you try to squeeze customers too much, they'll just drop you.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2017, 02:22:58 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 21, 2017, 02:18:45 PM
So they aren't able to get the cross-state thing in it.

Question: What is bad about being able to buy insurance across state lines?

There's nothing bad about it.  But it won't do much of anything anyways.  An insurer still has to set up a whole local network to get business.

Quote from: DGuller on March 21, 2017, 06:45:13 PM
It could be quite bad if we still have insurance regulation on a state level.  We may wind up with a situation where selling insurance across state lines really becomes selling insurance everywhere from the Delaware of health insurance.  I'm going to guess that the Delaware of health insurance will be a state chosen by insurers rather than insureds.

Quote from: DGuller on March 21, 2017, 06:39:11 PM

Quote from: celedhring on March 21, 2017, 04:29:33 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2017, 04:12:48 PM

OK, but that doesn't explain why one or more of the nationwide insurers doesn't differentiate to undercut the competition and gain market share.

To do so, it would need to offset with higher pricing in urban areas. Margins are already razor-thin. It's not worth it.

The Spanish insurance market is fully commoditized, there's nearly zero differentiation. Of course since we have universal public health is probably hard to compare with the US. If you try to squeeze customers too much, they'll just drop you.

Okay, so charge higher prices in urban areas.  If everyone in urban areas goes to competitors, bad for your competitors.  The fact that the market is fully commoditized actually makes it much easier to compete on appropriate price differentials, that's when insurance markets are at their most efficient.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 21, 2017, 07:16:17 PM
Higher premiums for acting like medieval monkeyfucks and getting gored during bouts of animal abuse?

Quote from: celedhring on March 21, 2017, 07:22:03 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 21, 2017, 07:16:17 PM
Higher premiums for acting like medieval monkeyfucks and getting gored during bouts of animal abuse?

The ones that get gored are usually drunk foreigners. We know our animal abuse.

Quote from: DGuller on March 21, 2017, 06:45:13 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2017, 02:22:58 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 21, 2017, 02:18:45 PM
So they aren't able to get the cross-state thing in it.

Question: What is bad about being able to buy insurance across state lines?

There's nothing bad about it.  But it won't do much of anything anyways.  An insurer still has to set up a whole local network to get business.

It could be quite bad if we still have insurance regulation on a state level.  We may wind up with a situation where selling insurance across state lines really becomes selling insurance everywhere from the Delaware of health insurance.  I'm going to guess that the Delaware of health insurance will be a state chosen by insurers rather than insureds.

Quote from: DGuller on March 21, 2017, 06:45:13 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2017, 02:22:58 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 21, 2017, 02:18:45 PM
So they aren't able to get the cross-state thing in it.

Question: What is bad about being able to buy insurance across state lines?

There's nothing bad about it.  But it won't do much of anything anyways.  An insurer still has to set up a whole local network to get business.

It could be quite bad if we still have insurance regulation on a state level.  We may wind up with a situation where selling insurance across state lines really becomes selling insurance everywhere from the Delaware of health insurance.  I'm going to guess that the Delaware of health insurance will be a state chosen by insurers rather than insureds.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 21, 2017, 07:23:56 PM

Quote from: celedhring on March 21, 2017, 07:22:03 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 21, 2017, 07:16:17 PM
Higher premiums for acting like medieval monkeyfucks and getting gored during bouts of animal abuse?

The ones that get gored are usually drunk foreigners. We know our animal abuse.

I just bet you do.

Up in the sky--Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a fucking goat.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2017, 01:05:55 AM
I'm murky on the details, but a long time ago I read that the reason credit cross processing is located in North Dakota is it's the most remote location in the continental US mail-wise.  Something about making money off the float.

Quote from: The Larch on March 22, 2017, 05:09:12 AM
Just to make sure that you keep your material updated, it's been more than a decade since that particular "festivity" was forbidden.

Quote from: Fate on March 22, 2017, 06:23:45 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2017, 01:05:55 AM
I'm murky on the details, but a long time ago I read that the reason credit cross processing is located in North Dakota is it's the most remote location in the continental US mail-wise.  Something about making money off the float.

I was always told it's because the South Dakota legislature gave the credit card industry what they wanted with regards to interest rate caps.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2017, 06:29:53 AM

Quote from: The Larch on March 22, 2017, 05:09:12 AM
Just to make sure that you keep your material updated, it's been more than a decade since that particular "festivity" was forbidden.

I'm sure somewhere there's a llama with a mercury switch detonator up his ass waiting for the countdown to the Feast of St Eggplant's Day over there.  Plenty of greaseball fun to go around.

Quote from: The Larch on March 22, 2017, 09:59:44 AM
:secret:

Llamas are from South America.

Quote from: The Larch on March 22, 2017, 09:59:44 AM
:secret:

Llamas are from South America.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2017, 06:29:53 AM

Quote from: The Larch on March 22, 2017, 05:09:12 AM
Just to make sure that you keep your material updated, it's been more than a decade since that particular "festivity" was forbidden.

I'm sure somewhere there's a llama with a mercury switch detonator up his ass waiting for the countdown to the Feast of St Eggplant's Day over there.  Plenty of greaseball fun to go around.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2017, 01:31:47 PM

Quote from: The Larch on March 22, 2017, 09:59:44 AM
:secret:

Llamas are from South America.

That just adds imperialism and expropriation of native animal life to your nation's dastardly crimes.

QuoteFreedom Caucus, Trump reach 'agreement in principle' on healthcare

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said Wednesday night he and President Trump have come to an "agreement in principle" on a plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare, just one day before a historic House vote on the bill.

"The president and I came to an agreement in principle," Meadows said during an interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity, adding that he was still ironing out a few final details with the White House.

"I think what we're trying to do now is make sure that our agreement is actually something that can be executed in a way that passes the Senate," he added. "There's still work to be done, but I can tell you that the president is all engaged."

The round-the-clock negotiations between the White House, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and the ultraconservative Freedom Caucus have centered on adding to the bill a repeal of ObamaCare's "essential health benefits," as well as other insurance regulations in Title I of the existing health law.

But those changes have now alienated some centrist Republicans, who huddled with Ryan and his leadership team for more than two hours Wednesday night to discuss the impact of moving the bill to the right.

After the meeting, one of the leaders of the centrist Tuesday Group, Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), announced he was opposed to the legislation, warning that the bill would cause too many Americans to lose insurance coverage.

"I believe this bill, in its current form, will lead to the loss of coverage and make insurance unaffordable for too many Americans," Dent said, "particularly for low-to-moderate income and older individuals."

Meadows said President Trump has been the crucial factor in working toward a deal and even personally called him during a Freedom Caucus meeting Wednesday night.

The talks center on conservatives' request to repeal ObamaCare's "essential health benefits," as well as other insurance regulations in Title I of the health law.

A GOP source said the White House has offered to include repeal of the essential health benefits in the bill.

"Our request has been consistent about Title I and essential health benefits and so that's really what we're discussing," Meadows said earlier in the day as he left a meeting with Freedom Caucus colleagues.

"We're encouraged just based on the real willingness of not only the White House but our leadership to make this bill better," he added, noting he hopes to work around the clock to hopefully have a final deal by around noon Thursday. 

Meadows has changed his comments markedly since earlier in the day Wednesday, when he pledged that leaders lacked the votes to pass the bill and called on them to "start over."

Conservatives say repeal of the essential health benefits, which mandate what an insurance plan must cover, is necessary to bring down premiums. Republican leaders had been wary, though, given that it is in doubt whether repeal of those regulations would be allowed under Senate rules that are preventing a Democratic filibuster.

Sources said the House GOP has gotten new information that including repeal of the essential health benefits would not be fatal to the entire bill in the Senate, though the provision could still be challenged under Senate rules.   

But Democrats are warning that repeal of the essential health benefits will not be permitted.

"What the proponents aren't telling conservative House Republicans is that the plan to repeal essential health benefits will almost certainly not be permissible under Senate reconciliation rules," said Matt House, a spokesman for Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). "It will require 60 votes to repeal these protections, and the votes just aren't there in the Senate."
Some Freedom Caucus members are more skeptical a deal can happen.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) indicated that the White House is only offering repeal of the essential health benefits, and not other insurance regulations that conservatives say must be repealed.

"We've said many times that essential health benefits by themselves would not be enough," added Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.).

"There's no deal in the offing," Amash added. "We don't have any language on anything. We're not sure what kind of language we'll see."

Earlier in the day Trump won over conservative Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) by pledging a Senate vote on an amendment to add repeal of essential health benefits.

But Meadows said that a promised Senate vote is not good enough, and changes must be made in the House.

"There is no denying why he has made so many deals," Meadows said of Trump. "I thought I was a good dealmaker; I'm nothing compared to the president."

Quote"There is no denying why he has made so many deals," Meadows said of Trump. "I thought I was a good dealmaker; I'm nothing compared to the president."

Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2017, 07:38:24 AM

Quote"There is no denying why he has made so many deals," Meadows said of Trump. "I thought I was a good dealmaker; I'm nothing compared to the president."

He thinks he is a good deal maker? The Freedom Caucus doesn't make deals, they are ideologues.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2017, 12:09:23 PM

Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2017, 07:38:24 AM

Quote"There is no denying why he has made so many deals," Meadows said of Trump. "I thought I was a good dealmaker; I'm nothing compared to the president."

He thinks he is a good deal maker? The Freedom Caucus doesn't make deals, they are ideologues.

Apparently they want to roll back some base requirements, like coverage for emergency services.

Man, what assholes.

Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2017, 12:25:17 PM
Why do you hate freedom Seedy?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2017, 12:26:19 PM

Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2017, 12:25:17 PM
Why do you hate freedom Seedy?

What, the freedom not to call for an ambulance?  :lol:  Real Americans walk on their own dimes!

Quote from: garbon on March 23, 2017, 12:25:05 PM
I don't understand all of this. What is the appeal of their cartoon villainy? No wonder Hollywood has run out of stories.

Quote from: garbon on March 23, 2017, 12:29:18 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2017, 12:26:19 PM

Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2017, 12:25:17 PM
Why do you hate freedom Seedy?

What, the freedom not to call for an ambulance?  :lol:  Real Americans walk on their own dimes!

Phone a friend?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2017, 12:31:12 PM
And Ryan and Mulvaney are fucking Catholics, man.  You'd think a Jesuit Pope that can open the Church's heart to gays, would have the stones to excommunicate these two little assholes.

QuoteGOP lawmakers leave Trump White House with no deal

GOP lawmakers leaving the White House after a meeting with President Trump said they have not reached a deal that would allow them to support an ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill set for a vote Thursday.

Republicans appear short of the 215 votes they'd need to win the tally, leading several lawmakers to predict that the vote will have to be delayed until Friday.

The members streaming out of the White House just after 1 p.m. characterized the meeting positively but showed no signs of a shift toward more favorable ground for the White House.

"Nothing new was agreed upon," said Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.)

He added the group will "go back and consider our options."

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) told reporters on Capitol Hill that "there are not enough votes" to pass the bill.

Republicans need 215 votes to win passage, meaning they can afford 22 defections. A whip list kept by The Hill shows that five dozen members are either planning to vote no, leaning against the bill or uncertain of how they vote. A full 30 members on that list are no votes.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2017, 12:36:37 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2017, 12:31:12 PM
And Ryan and Mulvaney are fucking Catholics, man.  You'd think a Jesuit Pope that can open the Church's heart to gays, would have the stones to excommunicate these two little assholes.

At least Ryan pretends to care.  Mulvaney truly is a cartoon villain

Quote from: garbon on March 23, 2017, 12:25:05 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2017, 12:09:23 PM

Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2017, 07:38:24 AM

Quote"There is no denying why he has made so many deals," Meadows said of Trump. "I thought I was a good dealmaker; I'm nothing compared to the president."

He thinks he is a good deal maker? The Freedom Caucus doesn't make deals, they are ideologues.

Apparently they want to roll back some base requirements, like coverage for emergency services.

Man, what assholes.

I don't understand all of this.

QuoteMulvaney: Americans upset with changes to essential services should help 'change the state that you live in'
By LOUIS NELSON 03/24/17 09:54 AM EDT

Americans upset that the Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare would cut requirements for so-called essential services like maternity care and addiction treatment should "figure out a way to change the state that you live in" if the bill ends up becoming law, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said Friday morning.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/obamacare-repeal-essential-services-alterations-236461

Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2017, 11:19:33 AM
Of course there are many other quotes bout how if you do not help the poor the Babylonians will carry your nation off into exile. Careful how you read your Bible there Christians  :P

Quote from: Grey Fox on March 24, 2017, 01:41:52 PM
How many times will a AHCA bill be introduced until they get it thru?

5 more times?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2017, 02:12:06 PM
Someone upstream said if the vote fails then the blame shifts from Donald to Congress for failing to keep the campaign promise.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2017, 02:12:06 PM
Someone upstream said if the vote fails then the blame shifts from Donald to Congress for failing to keep the campaign promise.

Quote from: Barrister on March 24, 2017, 02:21:42 PM
Well sure.

But that's hardly a great strategy to publicly blame members of your own party when you'll need them to work with you next week for the tax cuts you're pushing for.  Any anything else on Trump's agenda.

Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2017, 03:02:33 PM
He's finished.  Administration will implode momentarily.

Quote from: FunkMonk on March 24, 2017, 03:24:46 PM
This Republican party is utterly incapable of governing, Jesus Christ  :lol:

2 months in and they have precious little to show for it.

Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2017, 03:02:33 PM
He's finished.  Administration will implode momentarily.

Quote from: Senator Bob Menendez‏ @SenatorMenendez
Hey Republicans, don't worry, that burn is covered under the Affordable Care Act

Quote from: Jacob on March 24, 2017, 03:45:04 PM

Quote from: Senator Bob Menendez‏ @SenatorMenendez
Hey Republicans, don't worry, that burn is covered under the Affordable Care Act

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2017, 03:48:21 PM
That's just retarded, sir.

Quote from: Jacob on March 24, 2017, 03:49:59 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2017, 03:48:21 PM
That's just retarded, sir.

I don't think retardation is covered under the ACA. Better hope someone fixes that.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2017, 03:48:21 PM

Quote from: Jacob on March 24, 2017, 03:45:04 PM

Quote from: Senator Bob Menendez‏ @SenatorMenendez
Hey Republicans, don't worry, that burn is covered under the Affordable Care Act

That's just retarded, sir.

Quote from: Monoriu on March 24, 2017, 04:29:45 PM
I don't understand.  What exactly were they planning to vote on anyway?  What's that new plan about?

Quote from: FunkMonk on March 24, 2017, 03:24:46 PM
This Republican party is utterly incapable of governing, Jesus Christ  :lol:

2 months in and they have precious little to show for it.

Quote from: Phillip V on March 24, 2017, 04:52:16 PM
So did the 3 people who voted poll option #1 win this round?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 24, 2017, 03:58:38 PM
Trump doesn't pull out victories, he simply declares them.  Because he's President, and you're not.

Quote from: DGuller on March 24, 2017, 05:13:26 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 24, 2017, 03:58:38 PM
Trump doesn't pull out victories, he simply declares them.  Because he's President, and you're not.

The stuff he pulled out on November 8 seemed pretty convincing to me.

Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2017, 03:02:33 PM
He's finished.  Administration will implode momentarily.

Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2017, 06:52:00 PM

Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2017, 03:02:33 PM
He's finished.  Administration will implode momentarily.

Your party can't do shit. But sure blame Trump.

Quote from: HVC on March 24, 2017, 06:55:26 PM
They've been on the obstructionist track so long they've forgotten how to do anything else.

Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2017, 07:07:42 PM
I could think of lots of ways this might be more fun. Like if the Republicans were not completely useless fucks. These guys make the 1990s Republicans look like the Founding Fathers.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 24, 2017, 07:03:38 PM

Quote from: HVC on March 24, 2017, 06:55:26 PM
They've been on the obstructionist track so long they've forgotten how to do anything else.

So true.  The only thing that would make this clown car more fun to watch would be if they went all Taiwan Parliament.

Quote from: HVC on March 24, 2017, 07:09:04 PM

Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2017, 07:07:42 PM
I could think of lots of ways this might be more fun. Like if the Republicans were not completely useless fucks. These guys make the 1990s Republicans look like the Founding Fathers.

You guys survived bad politicians before, you'll be fine. Lay back and think of England for a few years.

Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2017, 07:10:30 PM

Quote from: HVC on March 24, 2017, 07:09:04 PM

Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2017, 07:07:42 PM
I could think of lots of ways this might be more fun. Like if the Republicans were not completely useless fucks. These guys make the 1990s Republicans look like the Founding Fathers.

You guys survived bad politicians before, you'll be fine. Lay back and think of England for a few years.

I am doing my best to not pay attention.

But I guess  should point out the last time we had really bad politicians running things a civil war broke out.

Quote from: HVC on March 24, 2017, 07:21:20 PM
The pro-corporation, corruption, and overall buffoonery makes me think of Harding.

Quote from: HVC on March 24, 2017, 07:10:08 PM
It'd be funnier if you weren't such a large part of the world economy.

Quote from: HVC on March 24, 2017, 06:55:26 PM

Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2017, 06:52:00 PM

Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2017, 03:02:33 PM
He's finished.  Administration will implode momentarily.

Your party can't do shit. But sure blame Trump.

They've been on the obstructionist track so long they've forgotten how to do anything else.

Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 25, 2017, 01:32:21 AM
Did the axing of the coverage mandate go through?  If so, there's almost a guarantee that it will "explode".  I know it was debated and the process was at least started to eliminate it, but I don't know if the final effort was tied to the passage of Trumpcare.

QuoteSomebody said the quiet thing loud https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/trump-republicans-failure-obamacare/520788/ ...

QuoteI can't get over this quote from @RepJoeBarton (http://'https://twitter.com/RepJoeBarton') after the #AHCA (http://'https://twitter.com/hashtag/AHCA?src=hash') failed.

Quote from: HVC on March 24, 2017, 07:09:04 PM

Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2017, 07:07:42 PM
I could think of lots of ways this might be more fun. Like if the Republicans were not completely useless fucks. These guys make the 1990s Republicans look like the Founding Fathers.

You guys survived bad politicians before, you'll be fine. Lay back and think of England for a few years.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2017, 03:23:36 AM
I would love to see Donald try to spin this as Ryan's Failure, and Ryan step up and assfuck him with some hardball politics.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 25, 2017, 03:44:26 AM
Too bad about that Papa Roach story, given his taste in music it sounded plausible.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 25, 2017, 03:09:57 AM
:lol:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7tquN1VQAAJPgM.jpg)

Quote from: FunkMonk on March 24, 2017, 07:09:50 PM
The Trump Administration is likely going to have to administer Obamacare for the rest of its tenure :lol:

Congressional Republicans voted multiple times to repeal Obamacare under President Obama and have voted 0 times under Trump and they've already given up  :lol: :lol:

Who wrote this script?? Give him all the money, Hollywood.

Quote from: Tyr on March 25, 2017, 05:02:12 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 25, 2017, 03:09:57 AM
:lol:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7tquN1VQAAJPgM.jpg)

Isn't he the one who loves System of a Down?

So...believable

Quote from: The Larch on March 25, 2017, 08:00:54 AM

Quote from: Tyr on March 25, 2017, 05:02:12 AM
Isn't he the one who loves System of a Down?

So...believable

Rage Against The Machine, IIRC.

Quote@realDonaldTrump 
ObamaCare will explode and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan for THE PEOPLE. Do not worry!

Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2017, 10:52:24 AM
Why not just give us great healthcare now?

Quote from: Zanza on March 25, 2017, 10:44:12 AM

Quote@realDonaldTrump 
ObamaCare will explode and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan for THE PEOPLE. Do not worry!

He is cynical in letting it "explode" and delusional in that this would somehow make "all" get together and fix it.

Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2017, 10:52:24 AM
Why not just give us great healthcare now?

Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2017, 10:52:24 AM
Why not just give us great healthcare now?

Quote from: Grey Fox on March 25, 2017, 11:29:49 AM

Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2017, 10:52:24 AM
Why not just give us great healthcare now?

You could have it but you let the Dems fuck over Bernie.

Quote from: Grey Fox on March 25, 2017, 11:29:49 AM

Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2017, 10:52:24 AM
Why not just give us great healthcare now?

You could have it but you let the Dems fuck over Bernie.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 25, 2017, 12:01:16 PM
I also have to post the  :rolleyes:  Some staffer at the DNC didn't like Sanders, therefore it was stolen from him.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 25, 2017, 11:31:03 AM
Bernie :rolleyes:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 25, 2017, 12:03:56 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on March 25, 2017, 12:01:16 PM
I also have to post the  :rolleyes:  Some staffer at the DNC didn't like Sanders, therefore it was stolen from him.

Bernie Sanders is the kind of third party wingnut that party national committees are supposed to tap down.  Alas, the RNC doesn't do things that way.  And so here we are.


You know, for all the Bernie Love I keep coming across for somebody who was never a member of the Democratic Party, I have yet to come across anybody that can actually remember him saying something--anything--regarding foreign policy.  Ever.

Quote from: HVC on March 25, 2017, 12:42:39 PM
Whatever his policy were they would have been better then trumps :P

Quote from: Grey Fox on March 25, 2017, 11:29:49 AM

Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2017, 10:52:24 AM
Why not just give us great healthcare now?

You could have it but you let the Dems fuck over Bernie.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 25, 2017, 12:43:30 PM

Quote from: HVC on March 25, 2017, 12:42:39 PM
Whatever his policy were they would have been better then trumps :P

Just a different flavor of incompetence.

Quote from: HVC on March 25, 2017, 12:48:02 PM
I don't really know enough about Bernie to know why so many here seem to dislike him.  The picture I have of him, which admittedly could be very off, is that he's  eurotype socialist, but people here fear him as a South American type socialist.

The average American is dying with 62k in debt, it might be time for euro socialism.

Quote from: HVC on March 25, 2017, 12:48:02 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 25, 2017, 12:43:30 PM

Quote from: HVC on March 25, 2017, 12:42:39 PM
Whatever his policy were they would have been better then trumps :P

Just a different flavor of incompetence.

I don't really know enough about Bernie to know why so many here seem to dislike him.  The picture I have of him, which admittedly could be very off, is that he's  eurotype socialist, but people here fear him as a South American type socialist.

The average American is dying with 62k in debt, it might be time for euro socialism.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 25, 2017, 11:28:19 AM

Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2017, 10:52:24 AM
Why not just give us great healthcare now?

I really wish they would stop trying to kill me like they knew me.  If it was personal, that's one thing.  But I'm not even in the demographics they hate, for fuck's sake.

Quote from: DGuller, but you're in the demographic they love to fuck over.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 25, 2017, 01:29:54 PM
He sponsored quite a few amendments to bills though.

Quote from: celedhring on March 25, 2017, 08:51:38 AM
Doesn't Ryan listen to the lyrics?  :huh: Or is he one of those that only cares for cool guitar riffs?

Quote...

If new music from Rage was nowhere to be found, Rage's message continued to resonate, and often in the most unlikely eardrums. It was strange indeed to hear, in 2012, Paul Ryan, then Mitt Romney's vice-presidential nominee and soon-to-be House Speaker, confess in a campaign interview with the New York Post that Rage Against the Machine was one of his favorite bands.

Though Morello would denounce Ryan as the embodiment of everything that Rage opposed, Ryan's fondness for the band was nonetheless more than accidental. Rage's lyrics assailed the state from the far-left as the chief enforcer of a racist society and capitalist economy, but anti-statist ideology is central to American far-right ideology, which views the state as an enabler of non-white minorities and/or a threat to capitalist accumulation. America is an odd place. Most citizens rage in the name of their own individual goodness; few believe themselves to be a part of the evil, faceless machine raged against. Like many Rage fans sharing his race, Ryan had applied his talent for tuning out anything that contradicted his idea of what "race relations" really were. If this pathological gift enables one to bleach out Rage's verses and invert (as Ryan's idol Ayn Rand did) Rage's idea that labor creates and capital steals, the band sounds like a call-to-arms for reactionaries.

...

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 25, 2017, 06:21:16 PM
It bothers Ed that black people are on TV now.

Quote from: Ed Anger on March 25, 2017, 06:22:06 PM
I support Bill Cosby.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 25, 2017, 06:41:58 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on March 25, 2017, 06:22:06 PM
I support Bill Cosby.

Not on TV, you didn't.

Quote from: Ed Anger on March 25, 2017, 06:03:03 PM
Great, RTHM over analysis. :rolleyes:

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 25, 2017, 07:43:21 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on March 25, 2017, 06:03:03 PM
Great, RTHM over analysis. :rolleyes:

The best way to piss off a poet is to try to explain what his works mean.

Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2017, 05:04:27 PM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 25, 2017, 01:29:54 PM
He sponsored quite a few amendments to bills though.

Nothing meaningful, though.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 26, 2017, 03:29:33 PM
Bernie (or perhaps rather, Bernie's organization) is involved in grassroots movements.

Not that anyone on Languish would know.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 26, 2017, 03:29:33 PM
Bernie (or perhaps rather, Bernie's organization) is involved in grassroots movements.

Not that anyone on Languish would know.

Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2017, 03:54:31 PM
If they are accomplishing nothing, what difference does it make?

Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2017, 05:07:37 PM
Then Oex can sneer at us about Bernie's org's accomplishments when they happen.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 26, 2017, 05:33:57 PM
I'll leave the sneering to you, don't want to get on your schtick. My little aside was just that Languish is not a "grassroots"-friendly forum, and, to the extent that we have political activists, it's BarristerBoy, who is conservative, and Mihali, who rarely shows up now.  A lot prefers to sneer at any sort of political engagement or passion.  Sometimes, for good reason. But many times, for bad reasons too. 

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 26, 2017, 07:55:03 PM
Grumbler is active at trying to convince people on the internet their political opinions are all wrong.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 25, 2017, 12:03:56 PM
You know, for all the Bernie Love I keep coming across for somebody who was never a member of the Democratic Party, I have yet to come across anybody that can actually remember him saying something--anything--regarding foreign policy.  Ever.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 26, 2017, 08:06:04 PM
:lol:  Perhaps, in real life, most forum members are amazing grassroots activists, and it's just the general tone of the forum that hides it so well. I only have what we all have: more than fifteen years of collected interventions and judgment calls about activism, activists in general, political conviction, etc.  I would be thrilled to learn I am wrong about the political activism of forum members.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2017, 08:13:54 PM
I don't understand your adoration of grassroots activism.  What has it ever achieved?  To me it seems most suited to getting a bunch of like-minded people together who can tell each other how great they are.

Quote from: FunkMonk on March 26, 2017, 08:21:51 PM
You know who else were grassroots activists?

Nazis.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 26, 2017, 08:06:04 PM
:lol:  Perhaps, in real life, most forum members are amazing grassroots activists, and it's just the general tone of the forum that hides it so well. I only have what we all have: more than fifteen years of collected interventions and judgment calls about activism, activists in general, political conviction, etc.  I would be thrilled to learn I am wrong about the political activism of forum members.

Quote from: HVC on March 26, 2017, 08:23:44 PM

Quote from: FunkMonk on March 26, 2017, 08:21:51 PM
You know who else were grassroots activists?

Nazis.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2Ffc%2Ffc2fca5cc8833d35c92822a6af386914480a4e7c2411a6329d9742eb6bc89110.jpg&hash=65d265e38c1e3837947e34dbce9f5fcecf10f6bd)

Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2017, 08:28:28 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 26, 2017, 08:06:04 PM
:lol:  Perhaps, in real life, most forum members are amazing grassroots activists, and it's just the general tone of the forum that hides it so well. I only have what we all have: more than fifteen years of collected interventions and judgment calls about activism, activists in general, political conviction, etc.  I would be thrilled to learn I am wrong about the political activism of forum members.

Well, most of us don't work on college campuses and as such we have a lower tolerance for children with bullhorns. are bitter and blasé

Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2017, 12:54:39 PM
Bernie is a left-wing populist.  He says what his listeners want to hear.  He has basically done nothing since he took office except talk.  He has sponsored no bills, written no legislation, developed no plans, or openly weighed any options.  He just makes promises without regard to how they can be fulfilled.  If that's what Euro socialists are, then I don't think Eurosocialism is the answer.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 26, 2017, 08:06:04 PM
:lol:  Perhaps, in real life, most forum members are amazing grassroots activists, and it's just the general tone of the forum that hides it so well. I only have what we all have: more than fifteen years of collected interventions and judgment calls about activism, activists in general, political conviction, etc.  I would be thrilled to learn I am wrong about the political activism of forum members.

Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 26, 2017, 08:34:23 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2017, 12:54:39 PM
Bernie is a left-wing populist.  He says what his listeners want to hear.  He has basically done nothing since he took office except talk.  He has sponsored no bills, written no legislation, developed no plans, or openly weighed any options.  He just makes promises without regard to how they can be fulfilled.  If that's what Euro socialists are, then I don't think Eurosocialism is the answer.

For what it's worth, he has sponsored 367 bills as per govtrack.us.  https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=400357#_  Feel free to hate the man as much as you want, but at least go about it in an accurate manner.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 26, 2017, 08:51:51 PM
You don't have a very good eye for tone.

Quote from: grumbler on March 26, 2017, 08:56:23 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 26, 2017, 08:51:51 PM
You don't have a very good eye for tone.

But I have an excellent eye for rhetoric.

Quote from: grumbler on March 26, 2017, 08:55:27 PM
I don't hate the man at all, and concede that my information was faulty (though you'll note that a fair number of those bills were just re-introductions of previous bills and many others were amendments to bills, not bill per se).  He has sponsored bills.  He hasn't gotten many passed, but he's an independent, so that's to be expected. 

I still think he's a populist who doesn't care much about the practicality of many of his proposals.  "Just get the rich to pay for it" isn't a program.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 26, 2017, 08:23:08 PM

As for what it has achieved, historically, there are many, many things. It has achieved regulations for worker protection and health,

Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 26, 2017, 09:01:37 PM
I can agree with that.  I like some of his ideas and definitely like that he introduced some new and needed ideas to the arena.  His ability to cause some life and change within the Democratic establishment was also a welcome change.  Alas, too many people bought into a cult of personality around him and couldn't divorce the movement from the man or realize that sometimes you do need to compromise.  I think the Democrats did a disservice to their cause and their party as a whole with how they handled the crowning of Hillary before it even began.  I think Martin O'Malley would have been the best of the three "legitimate" candidates trotted out by the party.  Alas, it was not meant to be.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2017, 09:22:37 PM
Bernie is an antiqued model of the far left; he's straight from the '60s, and once Clinton Centrist Corporatism took hold of the party, his kind was cute but archaic--emblematic of all the losers over the years.  For decades, he stayed nice and ensconced up in his little Green Mountains ganja-and-granola redoubt, until he decided to do the third-party-insurgent thingy with the DNC. 

Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 26, 2017, 09:01:37 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 26, 2017, 08:55:27 PM
I don't hate the man at all, and concede that my information was faulty (though you'll note that a fair number of those bills were just re-introductions of previous bills and many others were amendments to bills, not bill per se).  He has sponsored bills.  He hasn't gotten many passed, but he's an independent, so that's to be expected. 

I still think he's a populist who doesn't care much about the practicality of many of his proposals.  "Just get the rich to pay for it" isn't a program.

I can agree with that.  I like some of his ideas and definitely like that he introduced some new and needed ideas to the arena.  His ability to cause some life and change within the Democratic establishment was also a welcome change.  Alas, too many people bought into a cult of personality around him and couldn't divorce the movement from the man or realize that sometimes you do need to compromise.  I think the Democrats did a disservice to their cause and their party as a whole with how they handled the crowning of Hillary before it even began.  I think Martin O'Malley would have been the best of the three "legitimate" candidates trotted out by the party.  Alas, it was not meant to be.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2017, 09:22:37 PM

Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 26, 2017, 09:01:37 PM
I can agree with that.  I like some of his ideas and definitely like that he introduced some new and needed ideas to the arena.  His ability to cause some life and change within the Democratic establishment was also a welcome change.  Alas, too many people bought into a cult of personality around him and couldn't divorce the movement from the man or realize that sometimes you do need to compromise.  I think the Democrats did a disservice to their cause and their party as a whole with how they handled the crowning of Hillary before it even began.  I think Martin O'Malley would have been the best of the three "legitimate" candidates trotted out by the party.  Alas, it was not meant to be.

Bernie is an antiqued model of the far left; he's straight from the '60s, and once Clinton Centrist Corporatism took hold of the party, his kind was cute but archaic--emblematic of all the losers over the years.  For decades, he stayed nice and ensconced up in his little Green Mountains ganja-and-granola redoubt, until he decided to do the third-party-insurgent thingy with the DNC. 

You know, for all the bitching about Bernie's "grassroots activism" bullshit, some people can't seem to wrap their fucking heads around the fact that Bernie Sanders was NEVER A MEMBER OF THE MOTHERFUCKING DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  He's only once been a Committee chair and that was for a year, never even been a member of an Administration; hell, he never really raised money for the local Democrats in Vermont, and that included Howard Dean.  Toss his little bombs here and there, and maintain his sense of moral superiority.  And people expected the DNC machine to hand it over to him?
To quote Ricky Watters, "For who? For what?"

Quote
The Washington Post detailed the House GOP's fight over the ObamaCare repeal and replacement plan this week, rounding up the dramatic details of leadership's fight to win support for the measure.

At one point, the paper said, House Speaker Paul Ryan (Wis.) got down on one knee to plead with Rep. Don Young of Alaska – the longest-serving Republican in Congress -- to support the bill.  (He was unsuccessful.)

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 26, 2017, 05:33:57 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2017, 05:07:37 PM
Then Oex can sneer at us about Bernie's org's accomplishments when they happen.

I'll leave the sneering to you, don't want to get on your schtick. My little aside was just that Languish is not a "grassroots"-friendly forum, and, to the extent that we have political activists, it's BarristerBoy, who is conservative, and Mihali, who rarely shows up now.  A lot prefers to sneer at any sort of political engagement or passion.  Sometimes, for good reason. But many times, for bad reasons too.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 26, 2017, 05:33:57 PMI don't know if they will accomplish anything. But accomplishing and doing are two different things. And when it comes to grassroots movement, it will take more than a few months to both change the internal dynamics of the Democrats, and give a voice to amorphous left wing constituencies the Democrats have retreated from in the last decades or so. 

Quote
GOP cave on Obamacare repeal is the biggest broken promise in political history

By PHILIP KLEIN (@PHILIPAKLEIN) • 3/24/17 6:55 PM

Broken promises are as old as politics itself, and there are many famous examples of them in modern history. President George H.W. Bush's "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge comes immediately to mind, as does President Bill Clinton reneging on his middle-class tax cut, and President Barack Obama never closing Guantanamo Bay. But in each of those cases, those were promises that were made in a given campaign by a given politician. The promise of Obamacare repeal is much different.

Republicans ran on repealing and replacing Obamacare for seven years, over the course of four election cycles. They won the House majority in 2010 in large part because of the backlash against the passage of Obamacare — and the vow to "repeal and replace" Obamacare was part of their "Pledge to America" campaign document that year. The botched rollout of Obamacare helped them win the Senate in 2014. House candidates, Senate candidates, gubernatorial candidates, and even state legislative candidates ran against Obamacare — and won.

Though President Trump was always an unorthodox candidate on healthcare (vacillating between praising single-payer and touting a free market plan), he consistently campaigned on repealing and replacing Obamacare, and exploited news of spiking premiums in the weeks leading up to the presidential election.

Republicans were always moving the goal posts on voters. That is, during campaign season, they made boasts about repeal, and then once in office, they talked about procedural complications. In 2010, they campaigned on repeal, but by 2011, they said they needed the Senate. In 2014, they won the Senate, but by 2015 they said as long as Obama was in office, nothing would become law. In 2016, they told conservative voters, even reluctant ones, that if they voted for Trump despite any reservations, they'd finally be able to repeal Obamacare. In November, voters gave them unified control of Washington. And yet after just two months on the job, they have thrown in the towel and said they're willing to abandon seven years of promises.

There are a lot of people who want to conveniently lay the blame for this stunning failure on recalcitrant members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus. If only these conservative hardliners were willing to give way, we'd be on the road to repeal, defenders of leadership would like to have us believe. This is convenient, both because there are always people in Washington eager to take aim at conservative purists, and also because it has the makings of a great ironic hot take for journalists: "How conservatives saved Obamacare."

Now, let me be clear, in past fights, I've never been reluctant to criticize hardliners when I thought that they were being unreasonable or irresponsible. For instance, I disagreed with the hard-line position on the debt ceiling, didn't think forcing a government shutdown to defund Obamacare would work, and supported the deal that made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent (as opposed to letting them all expire). But I don't think it's fair to scapegoat Freedom Caucusers here. They are being blamed for making the naive mistake of assuming that Republicans wanted to do what they were promising to do for seven years.

In this case, the hardliners were playing a productive role by pointing out the real policy consequences of the piecemeal approach being pursued by the House leadership. Though we'll never know for sure how the numbers might have looked if a vote had taken place, it's clear that many centrist members of the Republican caucus were also prepared to vote this bill down. House conservatives, if they could be blamed for anything, it's for having the audacity to urge leadership to actually honor seven years of pledges to voters to repeal Obamacare. If anybody was moving the goal posts, it wasn't Freedom Caucusers, it was those who were trying to sell a bill that kept much of Obamacare's regulatory architecture in place as a free market repeal and replace plan.

Sure, I know, Republicans had a narrow majority, and they could only pass something through the Senate by reconciliation, which imposes limitations. But the thing is, Republicans don't hide behind the vagaries of Senate procedure during campaign season. Trump did not win the Republican nomination telling rallies of thousands of people, "We're going to repeal and replace Obamacare — as long as it satisfies the Byrd rule in the judgment of the Senate parliamentarian!"

What's so utterly disgraceful, is not just that Republicans failed so miserably, but that they barely tried, raising questions about whether they ever actually wanted to repeal Obamacare in the first place.

Republicans for years have criticized the process that produced Obamacare, and things certainly got ugly. But after having just witnessed this debacle, I think Paul Ryan owes Nancy Pelosi an apology.

One has to admire the commitment that Democrats and Obama had to delivering something they campaigned on and truly believed in. They spent 13 months getting the bill from an initial concept to final passage, and pressed on during many points when everybody was predicting doom. They had public hearings, multiple drafts of different bills, they kept negotiating, even worked into Christmas. They made significant changes at times, but also never lost sight of their key goals. They didn't back down in the face of angry town halls and after losing their filibuster-proof majority, and many members cast votes that they knew risked their political careers. Obama himself was a leader, who consistently made it clear that he was not going to walk away. He did countless rallies, meetings, speeches — even a "summit" at the Blair House — to try to sell the bill, talking about details, responding to criticisms of the bill to the point that he was mocked by conservatives for talking so much about healthcare.

The contrast between Obama and Democrats on healthcare and what just happened is stunning. House Republicans slapped together a bill in a few weeks (months if we're being generous) behind closed doors with barely any debate. They moved the bill through committees at blazing speed, conducted closed-door negotiations that resulted in relatively minor tweaks to the bill, and within 17 days, Trump decided that he'd had enough, and was ready to walk away if members didn't accept the bill as is. It reminded me of the scene in "Duck Soup," (http://'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9zp1e4-K0E') in which Groucho Marx portrays Rufus T. Firefly, leader of the fictional Freedonia. Firefly conducts a cabinet meeting that he starts by saying he'll take up old business. One official says, "I wish to discuss the tariff." Firefly responds, "Sit down, that's new business." When nobody has any old business to discuss he decides to turn to new business. "About that tariff —" the same official interjects. "Too late," Firefly responds, "That's old business already."

This is not too far off from the process we just witnessed. Healthcare is incredibly complicated stuff, with each provision of legislation being interconnected with others. It can't be negotiated like a spending bill in which two people have a different spending target, and somehow you manage to split the difference. We know what the market is like under Obamacare and have a decent idea of what it would be like if it were repealed. But the random, piecemeal combination of changes being made to win over votes, presents everybody with completely new policy challenges that experts were scrambling to assess in real time, yet lawmakers were being asked to vote on them within hours of being adopted. And House Freedom Caucus members are the ones who don't understand how serious governing works? Give me a break.

Here's the bottom line: Republicans didn't want to repeal Obamacare that badly. Obamacare was a useful tool for them. For years, they could use it to score short-term messaging victories. People are steamed about high premiums? We'll message on that today. People are angry about losing insurance coverage? We'll put out a devastating YouTube video about that. Seniors are angry about the Medicare cuts? Let's tweet about it. High deductibles are unpopular? We'll issue an email fact sheet. Or maybe a gif. At no point were they willing to do the hard work of hashing out their intraparty policy differences and developing a coherent health agenda or of challenging the central liberal case for universal coverage. Sure, if the U.S. Supreme Court (http://'http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/section/supreme-court') did the job for them, they were okay with Obamacare going away. But when push came to shove, they weren't willing to put in the elbow grease.

There was a big debate over the course of the election about how out of step Trump was with the Republican Party on many issues. But if anything, this episode shows that Trump and the GOP are perfect together — limited in attention span, all about big talk and identity politics, but uninterested in substance.

Failing to get the votes on one particular bill is one thing. But failing and then walking away on seven years of promises is a pathetic abdication of duty. The Republican Party is a party without a purpose.

Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 26, 2017, 09:01:37 PM
I can agree with that.  I like some of his ideas and definitely like that he introduced some new and needed ideas to the arena.  His ability to cause some life and change within the Democratic establishment was also a welcome change.  Alas, too many people bought into a cult of personality around him and couldn't divorce the movement from the man or realize that sometimes you do need to compromise.  I think the Democrats did a disservice to their cause and their party as a whole with how they handled the crowning of Hillary before it even began.  I think Martin O'Malley would have been the best of the three "legitimate" candidates trotted out by the party.  Alas, it was not meant to be.

Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2017, 05:18:27 AM
There's no question he would have been a better president than either of the two actual nominees.

Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2017, 05:49:23 AM

Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2017, 05:18:27 AM
There's no question he would have been a better president than either of the two actual nominees.

Is that because no one has asked the question here? :unsure:

Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2017, 08:10:36 AM

Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2017, 05:49:23 AM

Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2017, 05:18:27 AM
There's no question he would have been a better president than either of the two actual nominees.

Is that because no one has asked the question here? :unsure:

Has no one addressed that question here? :unsure:

Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2017, 08:48:01 AM
I'm just trying to parse out how there is 'no question.' O'Malley seemed woefully unprepared for the national spotlight.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 27, 2017, 07:19:13 AM
I don't recall hearing the phrase "repeal and replace" until the 2016 campaign. The Freedom Caucus folks aren't team players and haven't gotten on board with the idea. I don't know why the Examiner gives them a pass. Their intransigence is what killed this bill (though I don't think it would have passed the Senate).

Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2017, 09:30:45 AM
The Freedom Caucus/Tea Party is, IMO, fundamentally broken from a governance perspective. They are basically incapable of actually representing any kind of rational approach to governance. They are basically anarchists in government.

Quote from: Monoriu on March 27, 2017, 10:26:55 AM
Am I right?

Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2017, 11:20:16 AM
Can't wait to see what kind of nightmare they cook up over a weekend for Tax reform.

"people making over 600k will be exempt from both taxation and prosecution.  The tax burden will be shifted to Radical Islamic terrorists and Germany".

Quote from: Monoriu on March 27, 2017, 10:26:55 AM
As an outsider, I find this whole episode unbelievable.  From what I have read, Obamacare isn't perfect, and there is room for improvement.  But Trumpcare isn't an improvement at all.  Making sure that 20, 24 million people won't get healthcare anymore?  Hello?  The United States of America, the richest, strongest nation on Earth, democracy and all that, wants to deny essential healthcare to 20 million of its own people? 

And then there is the way the whole thing is played out.  They had seven years to figure out a replacement plan.  What they came up with doesn't sound right at all.  Then they tried to ram something this complex through in a matter of weeks.  One would have assumed that they must be able to unite behind the party banners and pass it.  But no, the party failed to deliver the votes even though they control the House.  Because a certain wing of the party think the bill went too far.  That sounds right.  Wait, no, actually they think the bill didn't screw their base enough.  Now that doesn't sound right, but that seems to be what really happened. 

Am I right?  Did I miss anything important?  One would have assumed that US congressmen would be reasonable, smart and honourable enough to ensure that something along the lines of what I have just described would never happen.  Even if they are merely average people, they wouldn't have done something like this.  One almost have to think they are stupid, deluded, or worse to be capable of doing this.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2017, 11:20:16 AM
Can't wait to see what kind of nightmare they cook up over a weekend for Tax reform.

"people making over 600k will be exempt from both taxation and prosecution.  The tax burden will be shifted to Radical Islamic terrorists and Germany".

Quote from: Zanza on March 27, 2017, 01:19:33 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on March 27, 2017, 10:26:55 AM
As an outsider, I find this whole episode unbelievable.  From what I have read, Obamacare isn't perfect, and there is room for improvement.  But Trumpcare isn't an improvement at all.  Making sure that 20, 24 million people won't get healthcare anymore?  Hello?  The United States of America, the richest, strongest nation on Earth, democracy and all that, wants to deny essential healthcare to 20 million of its own people? 

And then there is the way the whole thing is played out.  They had seven years to figure out a replacement plan.  What they came up with doesn't sound right at all.  Then they tried to ram something this complex through in a matter of weeks.  One would have assumed that they must be able to unite behind the party banners and pass it.  But no, the party failed to deliver the votes even though they control the House.  Because a certain wing of the party think the bill went too far.  That sounds right.  Wait, no, actually they think the bill didn't screw their base enough.  Now that doesn't sound right, but that seems to be what really happened. 

Am I right?  Did I miss anything important?  One would have assumed that US congressmen would be reasonable, smart and honourable enough to ensure that something along the lines of what I have just described would never happen.  Even if they are merely average people, they wouldn't have done something like this.  One almost have to think they are stupid, deluded, or worse to be capable of doing this.

The extreme polarization of American politics is astounding to me as an outside observer. That questions like universal health care or say climate change are even partisan issues at all is hard to understand. Our own politics seem to be much less polarized and there seems to be a much bigger consensus on general policies and the political competition between the establishment parties is mainly about minor details. We do have our lunatics, but they are in their own fringe parties and have little effect on actual policy.

Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2017, 11:28:37 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2017, 11:20:16 AM
Can't wait to see what kind of nightmare they cook up over a weekend for Tax reform.

"people making over 600k will be exempt from both taxation and prosecution.  The tax burden will be shifted to Radical Islamic terrorists and Germany".

No, no. It always shifts to the poor with Repubs. :contract:

Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2017, 01:26:08 PMI think you're a little blase about polarization going on in your own country.  AfD is growing, and at times the successor to the former East German communist party has grown.  Both of those parties have positions well outside the "consensus" of most of the other parties.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2017, 01:36:16 PM
Yup, take from those who have the least to give or ability to do anything about it.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2017, 01:36:16 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2017, 11:28:37 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2017, 11:20:16 AM
Can't wait to see what kind of nightmare they cook up over a weekend for Tax reform.

"people making over 600k will be exempt from both taxation and prosecution.  The tax burden will be shifted to Radical Islamic terrorists and Germany".

No, no. It always shifts to the poor with Repubs. :contract:

Yup, take from those who have the least to give or ability to do anything about it.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2017, 01:49:35 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2017, 01:36:16 PM
Yup, take from those who have the least to give or ability to do anything about it.

It would be more accurate to say "not give as much to" rather than "take from."

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2017, 03:18:48 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2017, 01:49:35 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2017, 01:36:16 PM
Yup, take from those who have the least to give or ability to do anything about it.

It would be more accurate to say "not give as much to" rather than "take from."

No, assfuck.  They take.

Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2017, 03:21:18 PM
:yes:

Yi is caught up on those damn welfare queens.

Quote from: Zanza on March 27, 2017, 01:19:33 PMThe extreme polarization of American politics is astounding to me as an outside observer. That questions like universal health care or say climate change are even partisan issues at all is hard to understand. Our own politics seem to be much less polarized and there seems to be a much bigger consensus on general policies and the political competition between the establishment parties is mainly about minor details.

QuoteRich Americans live up to 15 years longer than poor peers, studies find

Health insurance system – the most expensive in the world – is worsening situation, researchers find, arguing healthcare should be treated as human right

You can't buy time – except, it seems, in America.

Increasing inequality means wealthy Americans can now expect to live up to 15 years longer than their poor counterparts, reports in the British medical journal the Lancet have found.

Researchers said these disparities appear to be worsened by the American health system itself, which relies on for-profit insurance companies, and is the most expensive in the world.

Their conclusion? Treat healthcare as a human right.

"Healthcare is not a commodity," wrote US Senator Bernie Sanders in an opinion article introducing the issue of the journal, which is devoted to inequality in American healthcare. "The goal of a healthcare system should be to keep people well, not to make stockholders rich. The USA has the most expensive, bureaucratic, wasteful, and ineffective healthcare system in the world."

Sanders, like authors of the lead report, called for single-payer health insurance or what Americans might know as "Medicare for all", a reference to an existing public health program for older Americans.

"Making sure that every citizen has the right to childcare, healthcare, a college education, and secure retirement is not a radical idea. It is as American as apple pie," he said.

The Lancet studies looked at how the American health system affects inequality and structural racism, and how mass incarceration and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, have changed public health.

Among the studies' key findings: the richest 1% live up to 15 years longer than the poorest 1%; the same gap in life expectancy widened in recent decades, making poverty a powerful indicator for death; more than one-third of low-income Americans avoid medical care because of costs (compared to 7% in Canada and 1% in the UK); the poorest fifth of Americans pay twice as much for healthcare as a share of income (6% for the poor, versus 3.2% for the rich); and life expectancy would have grown 51.1% more from 1983 to 2005 had mass incarceration not accelerated in the mid-1980s.

The poorest Americans have suffered in particular, with life expectancies falling in some groups even while medicine has advanced. For example, researchers reported that the poorest fifth of women born between 1930 and 1960 statistically lived four years less than Americans in the top fifth of the socioeconomic spectrum.

All of these health outcomes arrive in the context of widening general inequality. The share of total income going to the top 1% of earners has more than doubled since 1970, making the US more unequal than all but three developed countries: Chile, Mexico and Turkey.

At the same time, the ACA brought relief to many. The number of Americans without insurance dropped from 48.6 million in 2010 to 28.6 million in 2015. The number of Americans who struggle with medical bills dropped from 41% to 35% in 2014.

Further, accounting for current public health insurance programs, military healthcare, the portion of local and state budgets used to purchase private health insurance for workers, and subsidies to employers to buy workers health insurance, researchers believe as much as 65% of health insurance nationally is already paid for by taxpayers.

The conclusions come at a tumultuous time for American healthcare.

Donald Trump's election threw his predecessor's market-based health laws into question. Trump promised multiple times on the campaign trail to repeal the ACA and replace it with "something terrific".

Though Barack Obama's signature health law insured more Americans than ever before, problems remain.

Insurance companies have increasingly passed costs on to consumers through "cost-sharing", or asking Americans to pay more for doctor's visits, prescription drugs and procedures before insurance kicks in. Sky-high prescription drug prices have prompted public outrage. And a requirement that Americans purchase insurance, even with government subsidies, was politically toxic.

Though Republicans promised for more than seven years to repeal the ACA – if they could only gain control of the federal government – once Trump took office, they offered a plan not conservative enough for conservatives, and not moderate enough for moderates. With an abysmal public approval rating of just 17%, the plan combusted weeks after it was introduced. Failure to pass the bill became a major loss for the Trump administration.

That has left a vacuum of ideas. Republicans tried and failed to resurrect a version of the hated plan this week. Progressives have expressed hope that single-payer reform could move into the forefront.

"I, like many others, was deeply concerned with Republican proposals that went down in flames," said Dr David Himmelstein, a New York City doctor and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, a group that lobbies for single-payer health reform. Himmelstein was also the author of one Lancet report, America: Equity and Equality in Health.

"It would have been tremendously damaging to large numbers of people in our country. So the defeat of that proposal was encouraging," he said.

"It's opened up much more room for debate about what there should be, so in that way, I think it's an encouraging time that has perils but also opportunities."

However, single-payer healthcare remains unpopular with American conservatives, who still control the government.

Robert Moffit, a researcher at the conservative thinktank the Heritage Foundation, argued that Americans would use healthcare willy-nilly if it were provided by the government.

"I mean look – you can save money with a single-payer system, don't misunderstand me, but the quality and supply of medical services is going to be determined by government officials," he said.

"You're going to have inequalities in any state," he said, calling it it "naive" to believe a "government-run system that is going to ultimately be highly politicized" would be better than a private one.

Quote from: Syt on April 07, 2017, 03:51:42 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/06/us-healthcare-wealth-income-inequality-lifespan

QuoteRich Americans live up to 15 years longer than poor peers, studies find

Health insurance system – the most expensive in the world – is worsening situation, researchers find, arguing healthcare should be treated as human right

You can't buy time – except, it seems, in America.

Increasing inequality means wealthy Americans can now expect to live up to 15 years longer than their poor counterparts, reports in the British medical journal the Lancet have found.

Researchers said these disparities appear to be worsened by the American health system itself, which relies on for-profit insurance companies, and is the most expensive in the world.

Their conclusion? Treat healthcare as a human right.

"Healthcare is not a commodity," wrote US Senator Bernie Sanders in an opinion article introducing the issue of the journal, which is devoted to inequality in American healthcare. "The goal of a healthcare system should be to keep people well, not to make stockholders rich. The USA has the most expensive, bureaucratic, wasteful, and ineffective healthcare system in the world."

Sanders, like authors of the lead report, called for single-payer health insurance or what Americans might know as "Medicare for all", a reference to an existing public health program for older Americans.

"Making sure that every citizen has the right to childcare, healthcare, a college education, and secure retirement is not a radical idea. It is as American as apple pie," he said.

The Lancet studies looked at how the American health system affects inequality and structural racism, and how mass incarceration and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, have changed public health.

Among the studies' key findings: the richest 1% live up to 15 years longer than the poorest 1%; the same gap in life expectancy widened in recent decades, making poverty a powerful indicator for death; more than one-third of low-income Americans avoid medical care because of costs (compared to 7% in Canada and 1% in the UK); the poorest fifth of Americans pay twice as much for healthcare as a share of income (6% for the poor, versus 3.2% for the rich); and life expectancy would have grown 51.1% more from 1983 to 2005 had mass incarceration not accelerated in the mid-1980s.

The poorest Americans have suffered in particular, with life expectancies falling in some groups even while medicine has advanced. For example, researchers reported that the poorest fifth of women born between 1930 and 1960 statistically lived four years less than Americans in the top fifth of the socioeconomic spectrum.

All of these health outcomes arrive in the context of widening general inequality. The share of total income going to the top 1% of earners has more than doubled since 1970, making the US more unequal than all but three developed countries: Chile, Mexico and Turkey.

At the same time, the ACA brought relief to many. The number of Americans without insurance dropped from 48.6 million in 2010 to 28.6 million in 2015. The number of Americans who struggle with medical bills dropped from 41% to 35% in 2014.

Further, accounting for current public health insurance programs, military healthcare, the portion of local and state budgets used to purchase private health insurance for workers, and subsidies to employers to buy workers health insurance, researchers believe as much as 65% of health insurance nationally is already paid for by taxpayers.

The conclusions come at a tumultuous time for American healthcare.

Donald Trump's election threw his predecessor's market-based health laws into question. Trump promised multiple times on the campaign trail to repeal the ACA and replace it with "something terrific".

Though Barack Obama's signature health law insured more Americans than ever before, problems remain.

Insurance companies have increasingly passed costs on to consumers through "cost-sharing", or asking Americans to pay more for doctor's visits, prescription drugs and procedures before insurance kicks in. Sky-high prescription drug prices have prompted public outrage. And a requirement that Americans purchase insurance, even with government subsidies, was politically toxic.

Though Republicans promised for more than seven years to repeal the ACA – if they could only gain control of the federal government – once Trump took office, they offered a plan not conservative enough for conservatives, and not moderate enough for moderates. With an abysmal public approval rating of just 17%, the plan combusted weeks after it was introduced. Failure to pass the bill became a major loss for the Trump administration.

That has left a vacuum of ideas. Republicans tried and failed to resurrect a version of the hated plan this week. Progressives have expressed hope that single-payer reform could move into the forefront.

"I, like many others, was deeply concerned with Republican proposals that went down in flames," said Dr David Himmelstein, a New York City doctor and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, a group that lobbies for single-payer health reform. Himmelstein was also the author of one Lancet report, America: Equity and Equality in Health.

"It would have been tremendously damaging to large numbers of people in our country. So the defeat of that proposal was encouraging," he said.

"It's opened up much more room for debate about what there should be, so in that way, I think it's an encouraging time that has perils but also opportunities."

However, single-payer healthcare remains unpopular with American conservatives, who still control the government.

Robert Moffit, a researcher at the conservative thinktank the Heritage Foundation, argued that Americans would use healthcare willy-nilly if it were provided by the government.

"I mean look – you can save money with a single-payer system, don't misunderstand me, but the quality and supply of medical services is going to be determined by government officials," he said.

"You're going to have inequalities in any state," he said, calling it it "naive" to believe a "government-run system that is going to ultimately be highly politicized" would be better than a private one.

Quote from: Fate on April 08, 2017, 04:41:01 AM
A big part of the gap could be narrowed if we could get poor people to take their Walmart brand $5/mo hypertension medicine as prescribed and to lay off the high caloric diet. It's not all just about money.

Quote from: FunkMonk on April 08, 2017, 09:30:35 AM

Quote from: Fate on April 08, 2017, 04:41:01 AM
A big part of the gap could be narrowed if we could get poor people to take their Walmart brand $5/mo hypertension medicine as prescribed and to lay off the high caloric diet. It's not all just about money.

But freedom

QuoteHouse to Vote on Health Bill: Will Republicans Be Able to Repeal Obamacare?

- The House will vote early Thursday afternoon on legislation to repeal and replace major parts of the Affordable Care Act.
- Republican lawmakers emerged from a G.O.P. conference meeting convinced they had the votes to pass the American Health Care Act.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2017, 01:51:08 PM
How do you roll a case of beer? :nerd:

Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2017, 02:07:44 PM
Apparently it passed extremely narrowly: 217-213.  If just two more Republicans would have voted No it would not have passed.

Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 04, 2017, 02:54:53 PM
They probably will get rid of the Senate filibuster to push this through, won't they?  :lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2017, 04:02:43 PM
Are they just repealing Obamacare or is there a replacement?

Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2017, 04:44:58 PM
They're replacing it, but from what I understand people with pre-existing conditions get thrown under the bus as there's insufficient funding for the risk pools.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2017, 04:48:21 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2017, 04:44:58 PM
They're replacing it, but from what I understand people with pre-existing conditions get thrown under the bus as there's insufficient funding for the risk pools.

That makes it sound like they're killing the mandate too.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2017, 04:48:21 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2017, 04:44:58 PM
They're replacing it, but from what I understand people with pre-existing conditions get thrown under the bus as there's insufficient funding for the risk pools.

That makes it sound like they're killing the mandate too.

Quote from: from the link I postedThe tax penalty for not having health insurance would be dropped. But consumers would face a different sort of penalty: Anyone who goes without insurance for more than two months would face a 30% premium surcharge when they try to buy a new plan

Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2017, 04:44:58 PM
but from what I understand people with pre-existing conditions get thrown under the bus as there's insufficient funding for the risk pools.

Quote from: derspiess on May 04, 2017, 04:55:48 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2017, 04:44:58 PM
but from what I understand people with pre-existing conditions get thrown under the bus as there's insufficient funding for the risk pools.

Are you just taking Pelosi's word for it? :lol:

Quote from: derspiess on May 04, 2017, 04:55:48 PMAre you just taking Pelosi's word for it? :lol:

QuoteStates would also be able to allow insurers to charge sick people more, potentially making coverage unaffordable for some.

QuoteTurner was a health insurance agent who asked insurance underwriters she worked with whether rape survivors would get coverage. She said the underwriters told her no. Medical treatment associated with rape made the person too high a risk.

...

The Affordable Care Act changed that. And it ensured that tests for HIV and sexually transmitted diseases, plus domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling, would be completely covered by insurance companies.
That may not be the case in the future. Under the current bill, states could seek waivers that would let insurers sell plans that don't include all the essential health benefits mandated by the ACA.

Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2017, 06:22:35 PM
Looks like rape may be on the table as another pre-existing condition that can justify denial of coverage or higher premiums: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/04/health/pre-existing-condition-rape-domestic-violence-insurance/

QuoteTurner was a health insurance agent who asked insurance underwriters she worked with whether rape survivors would get coverage. She said the underwriters told her no. Medical treatment associated with rape made the person too high a risk.

...

The Affordable Care Act changed that. And it ensured that tests for HIV and sexually transmitted diseases, plus domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling, would be completely covered by insurance companies.
That may not be the case in the future. Under the current bill, states could seek waivers that would let insurers sell plans that don't include all the essential health benefits mandated by the ACA.

Quote from: derspiess on May 04, 2017, 04:55:48 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2017, 04:44:58 PM
but from what I understand people with pre-existing conditions get thrown under the bus as there's insufficient funding for the risk pools.

Are you just taking Pelosi's word for it? :lol:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2017, 06:57:35 PM
I really really want to believe that GOPtards are just folks with different philosophical ideas and not a pack of vindictive cretins, but these kind of comments don't really help.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2017, 07:06:07 PM
They're only vindictive cretins when niggers and cunts are involved.  Duh.

Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2017, 07:12:26 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2017, 07:06:07 PM
They're only vindictive cretins when niggers and cunts are involved.  Duh.

... and insufficiently wealthy white people. Some of them are going to get hit by this too.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2017, 07:20:20 PM
Kind of hoping the tax cut goes through.  So I can dedicate a piece of it to the next Democrat that runs in NJ-3.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 04, 2017, 08:29:16 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2017, 07:20:20 PM
Kind of hoping the tax cut goes through.  So I can dedicate a piece of it to the next Democrat that runs in NJ-3.

Should be stock index fund or treasury bonds  <_<

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2017, 08:19:45 PM
Hell no that's Eagles country.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 04, 2017, 11:27:01 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2017, 08:19:45 PM
Hell no that's Eagles country.

This response doesn't reassure me that you are a Manhattanite.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 05, 2017, 10:11:11 AM
Not even with your Global Cabal membership card?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 05, 2017, 10:11:11 AM
Not even with your Global Cabal membership card?

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 08, 2017, 10:04:45 PM
It's weird but my wife and most of her colleagues that I know personally are bleeding hearts when it comes to the medical system. I've basically told them--specialist pay, surgeon pay particularly are like 200% of what's seen in many OECD countries. A true socialized system some of these people are going to have to trade down from Bentley's to BMWs and drop down to a country club with a $50,000 initiation fee instead of $100,000.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2017, 10:02:26 PM
Go fuck yourself, Otto.  Stop reading the wife's trade magazines on the shitter.

Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2017, 11:11:22 PM
Yeah, both suck.

Quote from: Zanza on May 08, 2017, 10:39:17 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 08, 2017, 10:04:45 PM
It's weird but my wife and most of her colleagues that I know personally are bleeding hearts when it comes to the medical system. I've basically told them--specialist pay, surgeon pay particularly are like 200% of what's seen in many OECD countries. A true socialized system some of these people are going to have to trade down from Bentley's to BMWs and drop down to a country club with a $50,000 initiation fee instead of $100,000.

I always wondered about the cost side of the American health care debate. A lot of the providers, be it doctors or pharma  companies (and probably insurance and hospitals too?) seem to earn very well. If America wants a market to regulate this, is there enough competition on the supply side?

Poor cost control seems one of the deficiencies of most health care systems.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 08, 2017, 10:04:45 PM
It's weird but my wife and most of her colleagues that I know personally are bleeding hearts when it comes to the medical system. I've basically told them--specialist pay, surgeon pay particularly are like 200% of what's seen in many OECD countries. A true socialized system some of these people are going to have to trade down from Bentley's to BMWs and drop down to a country club with a $50,000 initiation fee instead of $100,000.

Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2017, 08:54:01 AM
Wow, average compensation for a specialist in Canada is $161K? That seems very low to me. I assume it is lower compensation in the smaller provinces bringing the average down.

Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2017, 08:54:01 AM
Wow, average compensation for a specialist in Canada is $161K? That seems very low to me. I assume it is lower compensation in the smaller provinces bringing the average down.

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2017, 08:58:08 AM

Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2017, 08:54:01 AM
Wow, average compensation for a specialist in Canada is $161K? That seems very low to me. I assume it is lower compensation in the smaller provinces bringing the average down.

There is something wrong with that number.  My guess is it is not tracking all the streams of compensation paid to specialists here.

Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2017, 11:49:21 PM
Really? Because I thought the best doctors tended to refuse Medicare and Medicaid patients.

But that is probably a question for Fate.

Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2017, 09:52:23 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2017, 08:58:08 AM

Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2017, 08:54:01 AM
Wow, average compensation for a specialist in Canada is $161K? That seems very low to me. I assume it is lower compensation in the smaller provinces bringing the average down.

There is something wrong with that number.  My guess is it is not tracking all the streams of compensation paid to specialists here.

Do they get bribes & stuff like in Cuba?

Quote from: HVC on May 09, 2017, 10:01:55 AM

Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2017, 09:52:23 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2017, 08:58:08 AM

Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2017, 08:54:01 AM
Wow, average compensation for a specialist in Canada is $161K? That seems very low to me. I assume it is lower compensation in the smaller provinces bringing the average down.

There is something wrong with that number.  My guess is it is not tracking all the streams of compensation paid to specialists here.

Do they get bribes & stuff like in Cuba?

Don't Us doc's get "gifts" from pharma companies to hawk their wares? I don't think Canadian ones do, but I could be wrong.

Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2017, 08:54:01 AM
Wow, average compensation for a specialist in Canada is $161K? That seems very low to me. I assume it is lower compensation in the smaller provinces bringing the average down.

Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2017, 04:04:05 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2017, 08:54:01 AM
Wow, average compensation for a specialist in Canada is $161K? That seems very low to me. I assume it is lower compensation in the smaller provinces bringing the average down.

161$K in US$, with PPP.  Meaning what you can purchase with 1$ here and 1$ in the US.
It's not the raw data.  Specialists in Quebec started at around 230k$ CAN$ at this time, much more today.  Also, it's what they make from their 1st to their last year.  Presumably, a doctor's wage increase with the number of years in practice?  Also, they may have bonuses to work outside of metro areas, plus various expenses paid.

Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2017, 04:30:10 PM

Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2017, 04:04:05 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2017, 08:54:01 AM
Wow, average compensation for a specialist in Canada is $161K? That seems very low to me. I assume it is lower compensation in the smaller provinces bringing the average down.

161$K in US$, with PPP.  Meaning what you can purchase with 1$ here and 1$ in the US.
It's not the raw data.  Specialists in Quebec started at around 230k$ CAN$ at this time, much more today.  Also, it's what they make from their 1st to their last year.  Presumably, a doctor's wage increase with the number of years in practice?  Also, they may have bonuses to work outside of metro areas, plus various expenses paid.

It is just so out of wack with other stats I have seen.

https://www.cma.ca/En/Pages/canadian-physician-statistics.aspx

For 2014-2015, total average for Canadian specialists earning at least $60K from fees (i.e., not retired or mostly doing something other than medicine) was CAN $384,000. This only includes fees for medical services, not any other form of payment.

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SNA_TABLE4

Convert to US dollars based on PPP for 2014-15 would = US $309,677. Which is almost double. Seems hard to believe fees nearly doubled in the five or six years from 2009 to 2014-15.

Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2017, 04:30:10 PM

Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2017, 04:04:05 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2017, 08:54:01 AM
Wow, average compensation for a specialist in Canada is $161K? That seems very low to me. I assume it is lower compensation in the smaller provinces bringing the average down.

161$K in US$, with PPP.  Meaning what you can purchase with 1$ here and 1$ in the US.
It's not the raw data.  Specialists in Quebec started at around 230k$ CAN$ at this time, much more today.  Also, it's what they make from their 1st to their last year.  Presumably, a doctor's wage increase with the number of years in practice?  Also, they may have bonuses to work outside of metro areas, plus various expenses paid.

It is just so out of wack with other stats I have seen.

https://www.cma.ca/En/Pages/canadian-physician-statistics.aspx

For 2014-2015, total average for Canadian specialists earning at least $60K from fees (i.e., not retired or mostly doing something other than medicine) was CAN $384,000. This only includes fees for medical services, not any other form of payment.

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SNA_TABLE4

Convert to US dollars based on PPP for 2014-15 would = US $309,677. Which is almost double. Seems hard to believe fees nearly doubled in the five or six years from 2009 to 2014-15. 

Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2017, 10:57:02 AM
So what is Andorra's health care system?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 19, 2017, 11:00:02 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2017, 10:57:02 AM
So what is Andorra's health care system?

They immediately deport anyone about to die from one of 32 treatable non-chronic diseases.

Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2017, 11:01:09 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 19, 2017, 11:00:02 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2017, 10:57:02 AM
So what is Andorra's health care system?

They immediately deport anyone about to die from one of 32 treatable non-chronic diseases.

I think we should implement this :hmm:

Quote from: alfred russel on May 24, 2017, 10:03:38 AM
"Czechia", Lancet? Really?

Quote from: alfred russel on May 24, 2017, 10:03:38 AM
"Czechia", Lancet? Really?

Also, I imagine that Slowenia can still outrun half of the Big 10.

Quote from: Fate on May 24, 2017, 11:06:37 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on May 24, 2017, 10:03:38 AM
"Czechia", Lancet? Really?

What's wrong with Czechia? That's what they want to go by these days.

Quote from: derspiess on May 24, 2017, 02:23:38 PM

Quote from: Fate on May 24, 2017, 11:06:37 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on May 24, 2017, 10:03:38 AM
"Czechia", Lancet? Really?

What's wrong with Czechia? That's what they want to go by these days.

I think I read somewhere recently that they decided to give up on that, due to the potential confusion with Chechnia.

QuoteCzechia Has Won The Czech Republic Name Debate

Quick: Paris is the capital of which country?

You probably said, "France."

However, technically, it's "the French Republic." But who says that? Only a petulant Frenchman.

Now try this: what's the name of the country that drinks more beer per capita than any other country?

If you're feeling petulant, it's the Czech Republic. If you want to be cool, it's Czechia.

Peruse the CIA's Factbook and you'll find that most countries have a long form name and a short form name. The People's Republic of China is the long form name, while China is its short form name. The United States of America is also a mouthful, which is why there are popular alternatives: America (which many Latin Americans object to), the USA, the US, the States or Gringoland.

For the last 100 years, the Czechs have been unable to come up with an easy name for English speakers to call their country. In 1921, when they first formed their country, the Czechs called their country Czechoslovakia. That tongue-twister was ridiculed by National Geographic, which called the new country's name "awful" and an "unfair handicap for the young state."

In 1993, following Slovakia's Velvet Divorce with Czechoslovakia, the Czech bureaucrats once again failed to promote a catchy English name for their new country. The Czech Republic is all they could come up with. It became both the long form and short form name of their new country. Why couldn't they come up with a short-form name? They were obviously too busy doing more important activities, like drinking their legendary beer.

You can't fault the Czechs for being unable to realize that what their nation's name is a mouthful for English speakers. These are the same guys who have phrases like "Prd krt skrz drn, zprv zhlt hrst zrn."

I asked a Czech how you're supposed to say that, he said, in complete seriousness, "Just like it's written."

After I tried and comically failed, I asked him what it meant. He said, "A mole farted through grass, having swallowed a handful of grains."

Suddenly, calling their country "the Czech Republic" didn't feel so cumbersome anymore.

The Czech Republic was one of the few countries that insisted on having a definite article in front of their country's name: the Netherlands and the Gambia also annoyingly demand that. Sensing the frustration of English speakers who have to say "the Netherlands," the Dutch offer the informal "Holland" alternative.

It's a bit easier to say, "I'm going to Holland," instead of, "I'm going to the Netherlands." It sounds weird to say, "I'm going to Netherlands."

Strangely, it doesn't sound weird to say, "I'm going to Gambia." Perhaps the Netherlands has been simply better than Gambia at demanding that we put a definite article before their name. Insisting on saying the Gambia implies that there are many Gambias. "Hey buddy, I'm not going to just any Gambia, I'm going to the Gambia."

In an effort to improve the linguistic lives of all English speakers, the Czech Republic registered its short form name, Czechia, on July 5, 2016. How's it catching on nearly a year later?

On the one hand, there's been little change. Some official Czech government websites still refer to "the Czech Republic." Because they're official government sites, it's not that surprising that they use the formal name, just like the United States government websites often spell out the long-form name of the USA.

A few months after Czechia was officially registered in the United Nations databases and Czech leaders started to encourage English-speaking governments to use it, some quickly declared that Czechia was dead on arrival. Part of the "proof" that Czechia wasn't catching on was an unscientific survey of people in Prague's Wenceslas Square. However, most Prague pedestrians aren't native English speakers. Although some must have passionate opinions on the matter (and they'll surely comment on this article), most Czechs probably don't care that much what English speakers call their country, as long as we don't come up with an insulting name. The Czechs call their country Česko.

Imagine asking New Yorkers what they think of Les États-Unis? Most New Yorkers aren't fluent French speakers and are way too busy to worry about what the baguette eaters call their country.

Consider the Finns. Nearly every language calls their country something that sounds like "Finland." But what do the Finns call their own country? Suomi.

Albanians do the same thing. Almost everyone calls their country something that sounds like "Albania." Meanwhile, Albanians call their own land Shqipëria.

Neither the Finns nor the Albanians are trying to change what the world calls their country nor do they seem that concerned about what people call their motherland.

The Czechs, on the other hand, want to make life easier for English speakers, which is why they're encouraging us to say Czechia.

It takes years for new names to catch on. As anyone who has changed their name knows, getting your friends to adopt it is difficult. Ten years ago, my wife changed her name from Binta to Rejoice. Her old friends and family still call her Binta.

Similarly, when Burma became Myanmar, Leningrad became St. Petersburg and Peking became Beijing, the world took years to adapt.

It would have saved cartographers and the rest of us English speakers plenty of trouble if China had just called their capital Beijing from the beginning. For whatever reason, they asked English speakers to start calling their big city Beijing. We complied.

Czechia is an old name. The name Czechia first appeared in Latin about 400 years ago. The first English text to mention it was in 1841.

Czechia's party poopers say that it's a lousy name because it sounds like Chechnya. However, it's hard to avoid naming confusion. When I was writing my book about Eastern Europe, I discovered that most people confuse Slovakia and Slovenia (it doesn't help that their flags are similar too). The poor folks who live in Seattle must spend their lives clarifying that they live in Washington state, not Washington, DC. And what were the people in Paris, Kansas thinking when they came up with their city's name? Compared to these cases, Czechia is clear as a watered-downed ale.

Also, Czechia doesn't ignite a vicious name debate like the one regarding Macedonia. The Greeks stir like a Poseidon-powered tidal wave whenever they hear the northern neighbor call themselves Macedonia. Chechnya has yet to declare war on Czechia.

Speaking of war, it appears that Czechia has won the war against the Czech Republic . The October 2016 reports of Czechia's death recall a famous quotation:

The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Mark Twain

More and more people are using the word Czechia. The CIA World Factbook uses Czechia. Similarly, the US State Department refers to Czechia. In addition, Google Maps now uses Czechia. As usual, the British are slower to change than the Americans: the UK government still clings to the long-form name. No wonder the Yanks wanted independence.

Had you Googled "Czechia" in February 2016, you would have gotten 460,000 hits. Today, you'll get 12.5 million hits.

Instagram had 10,000 #Czechia mentions in 2015, but now it's over 80,000. In 2015, Twitter and Pinterest had negligible hits when you searched for #Czechia. In 2017, Twitter (56,000 hits) and Pinterest (134,000 hits) have seen a surge of #Czechia usage.

Czechia is encouraging English speakers to use its new short-form name. Try it out next time you fly to Europe's two most beautiful cities: Prague, Czechia, and Paris, the French Republic.

QuoteFor the last 100 years, the Czechs have been unable to come up with an easy name for English speakers to call their country. In 1921, when they first formed their country, the Czechs called their country Czechoslovakia. That tongue-twister was ridiculed by National Geographic, which called the new country's name "awful" and an "unfair handicap for the young state

QuoteWASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged Monday night that he lacked the votes to pass the Senate health care bill after two more Republican senators came out against it, leaving the party short of a majority.

Instead, he said the Senate would vote on a full repeal of Obamacare, with two years before the repeal goes into effect to allow time to create a new system. The new plan may appear to fulfill a seven-year GOP promise, but it faces extremely difficult odds after many moderate Republican senators have already come out against repeal without an immediate replacement

QuoteSean Sullivan explains that the wily Kentuckian's announcement amounts to a dare: "McConnell practically challenged conservative critics of the bill to vote against moving the process ahead. ... If hard-right conservative senators vote no on proceeding with the bill and it collapses, McConnell can come back at them and say, 'Well, you had your chance at the 'clean repeal' you demanded. And you decided not to take it.' He will have shifted some of the blame onto others and given himself a new talking point to counter the 'clean repeal' crowd — which includes President Trump. If they vote yes — hey, they're suddenly back on track, at the table debating legislation with at least some chance of passing."

What's less clear at this point is McConnell's end game. "If this doesn't work out," Sean wonders, "will he move on to other matters? Follow through on his threats to work with Democrats and narrower reforms, which were seen as ways to try to pressure conservatives not to let this fail? ... There are no longer any good outcomes for McConnell — politically speaking. There are bad ones and less bad ones. And putting the onus on other senators means there will be more blame to go around when this all ends."

QuoteDonald J. Trump‏
@realDonaldTrump

We were let down by all of the Democrats and a few Republicans. Most Republicans were loyal, terrific & worked really hard. We will return!

Quote from: Grey Fox on July 19, 2017, 07:06:23 AM
but Obamacare failure doesn't lead where he thinks and wants it to lead to. Federal Single Payer shouldn't be something the right wingers like.