In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 29 2017 05:28 Mohdoo wrote: What I don't understand is why Republicans have felt no incentive to make an actual ACA replacement. The AHCA felt more like it was intended to show an attempt at effort without actually trying to make a bill that would pass. But I don't understand why they wouldn't want to be the ones who actually did improve healthcare.
from what I can tell Obamacare is set up in a way that you can't really make that many tweaks. Most solutions are things that Republicans don't want to do, expand medicaid, increase funding, fix the coverage gap.
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
as Ted Lieu said the issue with the republican plan was math. you can't keep the good stuff while cutting funding which is what they tried to do.
as far as I can tell the Right kicked out all the policy experts to run on ideology. Their "policy expert" was Paul Ryan who way back in 2010 Krugman called "the flim-flam man". and he had nothing. plus they have more seats which means more factions which means harder to unite. they ran on Obamacare bad, but they never had a plan to replace it so constituents want different things.
Finally it's a lot easy to criticize Obamacare when there's nothing to compare it too.
On March 29 2017 05:28 Mohdoo wrote: What I don't understand is why Republicans have felt no incentive to make an actual ACA replacement. The AHCA felt more like it was intended to show an attempt at effort without actually trying to make a bill that would pass. But I don't understand why they wouldn't want to be the ones who actually did improve healthcare.
Republicans have felt no incentive because there hasn't been any incentive. In fact, they had strong incentives to do absolutely nothing. With Obama in office and insufficient votes to pass any repeal and/or replacement, actually doing the work of putting something together was both risky and unnecessary. Why do anything when you can just saber rattle for votes?
As for the risk, just look at the AHCA itself. It's precisely because the Republican version of the ACA was always going to look very much like the AHCA that they kicked the can down the road as far as they could. They knew they would be crucified by the media the moment they actually made anything concrete. As bad as this has been for them, odds are it was better for them to have put this off until now rather than attempt it ahead of any elections.
Also, look at how well being the ones who improved healthcare worked out for the Democrats.
Everyone basically said that replacing the ACA with another plan was DOA unless they were to push UHC which would have never happened. That's just how it actually went down.
On March 29 2017 05:52 LegalLord wrote: Everyone basically said that replacing the ACA with another plan was DOA unless they were to push UHC which would have never happened. That's just how it actually went down.
Basically. Rather then try to negotiate for more free market aspects of the ACA (something they probably could have gotten) Republicans became the party of no.
On March 29 2017 04:39 Danglars wrote: So let's proceed with accusations that Trump's not a citizen of the United States
Considering how hard Trump pushed this conspiracy theory about Obama, I'm not quite sure what's supposed to be ironic about this. You realize that your defense of Trump via this line of sarcasm is actually an unintended condemnation of his ignorance, right?
Surely you can see the problem with referring to "the Russia allegations" are a matter of subjective interpretations. There have been a litany of claims about what is improper, unethical, shady, quizzical, or otherwise. Yes, I do mock you for talking about the Russia allegations as if they were a uniform block and not this collection of shady assertions very much lacking in alleged criminality. Rep. Eric Swalwell alleged that we are witnessing the covering up of a crime ... What is the crime? If you fail to see anything problematic in structuring investigations in these gray areas almost totally detached from statute, I will mock the allegations until the cows come home. Next week it could be Lewandowski in the conference room with the Russian deputy vice chair on agricultural diversity and the undue influence he might exert in the USDA.
On March 29 2017 05:28 Mohdoo wrote: What I don't understand is why Republicans have felt no incentive to make an actual ACA replacement. The AHCA felt more like it was intended to show an attempt at effort without actually trying to make a bill that would pass. But I don't understand why they wouldn't want to be the ones who actually did improve healthcare.
since others have largely provided good answers already, i'll keep it short: because they don't have an actual plan that would improve healthcare, and they cannot make one. they've promised things that are unachievable, so now that they're called upon to fulfill their promises, they cannot.
On March 29 2017 05:28 Mohdoo wrote: What I don't understand is why Republicans have felt no incentive to make an actual ACA replacement. The AHCA felt more like it was intended to show an attempt at effort without actually trying to make a bill that would pass. But I don't understand why they wouldn't want to be the ones who actually did improve healthcare.
since others have largely provided good answers already, i'll keep it short: because they don't have an actual plan that would improve healthcare, and they cannot make one. they've promised things that are unachievable, so now that they're called upon to fulfill their promises, they cannot.
It also illustrate the problem of the Republican party. After all the bill was blocked partly by the freedom caucus because it was not extreme enough while at the same time being unacceptable for the moderates.
Those people are, excuse my French, fucking assholes. Sabotaging science because you don't like what it tells you. It's simply amazing that some actually smart people have voted that in power.
On March 29 2017 06:12 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: I hope Jerry Brown follows through on his promise for California to build the climate satellites and the like themselves.
It will happen to also be a great opportunity for Zuckerberg and others to make huge donations. SpaceX comes to mind.
Interestingly, Trump is making a great case for the conservative idea of "If you want to fund it so bad, do it yourself instead of through taxation". We cut abortion assistance, then suddenly all these Euro+Canada countries start paying the bill for us. Planned parenthood under fire? Enormous donation surge.
On March 29 2017 06:12 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: I hope Jerry Brown follows through on his promise for California to build the climate satellites and the like themselves.
It will happen to also be a great opportunity for Zuckerberg and others to make huge donations. SpaceX comes to mind.
Interestingly, Trump is making a great case for the conservative idea of "If you want to fund it so bad, do it yourself instead of through taxation". We cut abortion assistance, then suddenly all these Euro+Canada countries start paying the bill for us. Planned parenthood under fire? Enormous donation surge.
indeed; pity that such things don't actually work well in practice.
On March 29 2017 04:46 LightSpectra wrote: So you don't even acknowledge the possibility it's true, just the very idea of it is deigned for mockery.
We'll have to make sure it's a big hat.
On March 29 2017 04:39 Danglars wrote: So let's proceed with accusations that Trump's not a citizen of the United States
Considering how hard Trump pushed this conspiracy theory about Obama, I'm not quite sure what's supposed to be ironic about this. You realize that your defense of Trump via this line of sarcasm is actually an unintended condemnation of his ignorance, right?
Surely you can see the problem with referring to "the Russia allegations" are a matter of subjective interpretations. There have been a litany of claims about what is improper, unethical, shady, quizzical, or otherwise. Yes, I do mock you for talking about the Russia allegations as if they were a uniform block and not this collection of shady assertions very much lacking in alleged criminality. Rep. Eric Swalwell alleged that we are witnessing the covering up of a crime ... What is the crime? If you fail to see anything problematic in structuring investigations in these gray areas almost totally detached from statute, I will mock the allegations until the cows come home. Next week it could be Lewandowski in the conference room with the Russian deputy vice chair on agricultural diversity and the undue influence he might exert in the USDA.
There obviously is no crime proven but there's an FBI investigation ongoing. The core allegations of Russian influence over the Trump campaign/quid pro quo with the hacks/Trump's indebtedness are very much worthy of investigation. The Steele dossier, while not taken at face value by the intelligence community, is also not discounted by them. The FBI even was considering paying Steele to continue his work, until the story went public. This is no faux scandal.
So now that the decree is signed. Are Americans going to have to die in coal mines again? And if so, which supersmart business associate of Trump will put up the money to reopen the coal mines?
On March 29 2017 06:47 Philoctetes wrote: So now that the decree is signed. Are Americans going to have to die in coal mines again? And if so, which supersmart business associate of Trump will put up the money to reopen the coal mines?
Basically no coal mines will reopen, it just prevents a few from closing in the next decade. Also most miners have already lost their jobs to machines, and that trend will only increase.
EPT
