|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 July 28 2017 13:21 m4ini wrote:
Hm.. All i hear is "the democrats won't help". Multiple times.
Again, i'm baffled by that argumentation.
Coryn argues that Dems are bad, so the Reps and their bill must be good. That is the zero-sum argumentation of a 5-year old. There is no amount of shit you can correctly pile on top of Dems that makes repealing the ACA mandate and blowing open 8 year duration waivers of insurance quality requirements a good idea.
|
On July 28 2017 13:19 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:15 Adreme wrote:On July 28 2017 13:12 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 13:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 28 2017 12:58 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 12:49 Nevuk wrote:On July 28 2017 12:46 On_Slaught wrote:
Not the end of the world yet if it does. Gotta see what the house does. Going to definitely be defections if only bc if the CBO report.
Hard to believe, tho, that after all this the Senate are going to pass literally the worst and most destructive version of their bill. Nah, it's nowhere near as bad as the BCRA or original house bills were. Those medicaid cuts + tax cuts for the wealthy were insane proposals by almost any measure. This bill has moved massively to the left, and it's ironic that it's conservatives killing the conservative part of the AHCA (the individual mandate) That part is only conservative if think conservatism is just about balancing check books. I think he's more referring to its genesis within the Heritage Foundation. Kind of like how the employer mandate originated in (or at least was a key part of) the Nixonian healthcare plan. People are still pushing that Heritage line? lol And Nixon wasn't a conservative either. Honestly both of these interpretations are worse. Thats because the line for what is a conservative has been getting moved bit by bit over the years to the point where it is unrecognizable. Honestly Obamacare is the conservative approach to universal healthcare with it trusting the allmighty free market to help provide healthcare to the nation. The more liberal approach is the single payer "medicare for all" tactic that would use a government run health care system. I'll just note my disagreement with your first sentence. Of course "conservative" in your post is used in a different sense. Because moving the system to the left cannot be, by definition, a conservative approach (in the way I used it).
If you set a goal which is to ensure that everyone has access to healthcare and the benefits to society that come with both obvious and not then you have essentially 2 ways to go about doing it. You can either treat it like car insurance and require everyone have it and then allow the free market to sell it or you can have the government provide it to everyone. While Obamacare is not a pure conservative approach in that it created a marketplace for group rates and regulated the insurance industry it is certainly more to the former then the latter.
|
Graham and McCain voted in the negative. Sigh.
|
On July 28 2017 13:26 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:19 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 13:15 Adreme wrote:On July 28 2017 13:12 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 13:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 28 2017 12:58 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 12:49 Nevuk wrote:On July 28 2017 12:46 On_Slaught wrote:
Not the end of the world yet if it does. Gotta see what the house does. Going to definitely be defections if only bc if the CBO report.
Hard to believe, tho, that after all this the Senate are going to pass literally the worst and most destructive version of their bill. Nah, it's nowhere near as bad as the BCRA or original house bills were. Those medicaid cuts + tax cuts for the wealthy were insane proposals by almost any measure. This bill has moved massively to the left, and it's ironic that it's conservatives killing the conservative part of the AHCA (the individual mandate) That part is only conservative if think conservatism is just about balancing check books. I think he's more referring to its genesis within the Heritage Foundation. Kind of like how the employer mandate originated in (or at least was a key part of) the Nixonian healthcare plan. People are still pushing that Heritage line? lol And Nixon wasn't a conservative either. Honestly both of these interpretations are worse. Thats because the line for what is a conservative has been getting moved bit by bit over the years to the point where it is unrecognizable. Honestly Obamacare is the conservative approach to universal healthcare with it trusting the allmighty free market to help provide healthcare to the nation. The more liberal approach is the single payer "medicare for all" tactic that would use a government run health care system. I'll just note my disagreement with your first sentence. Of course "conservative" in your post is used in a different sense. Because moving the system to the left cannot be, by definition, a conservative approach (in the way I used it). If you set a goal which is to ensure that everyone has access to healthcare and the benefits to society that come with both obvious and not then you have essentially 2 ways to go about doing it. You can either treat it like car insurance and require everyone have it and then allow the free market to sell it or you can have the government provide it to everyone. While Obamacare is not a pure conservative approach in that it created a marketplace for group rates and regulated the insurance industry it is certainly more to the former then the latter.
Well if you are merely saying that Obamacare wasn't as government centered as it could have been then I would have to agree. But I wanted to distinguish those two uses of the word.
|
not confirming anything but...
|
On July 28 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 28 2017 13:12 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 13:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 28 2017 12:58 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 12:49 Nevuk wrote:On July 28 2017 12:46 On_Slaught wrote:
Not the end of the world yet if it does. Gotta see what the house does. Going to definitely be defections if only bc if the CBO report.
Hard to believe, tho, that after all this the Senate are going to pass literally the worst and most destructive version of their bill. Nah, it's nowhere near as bad as the BCRA or original house bills were. Those medicaid cuts + tax cuts for the wealthy were insane proposals by almost any measure. This bill has moved massively to the left, and it's ironic that it's conservatives killing the conservative part of the AHCA (the individual mandate) That part is only conservative if think conservatism is just about balancing check books. I think he's more referring to its genesis within the Heritage Foundation. Kind of like how the employer mandate originated in (or at least was a key part of) the Nixonian healthcare plan. People are still pushing that Heritage line? lol And Nixon wasn't a conservative either. Honestly both of these interpretations are worse. I mean, they believed you could mandate purchasing insurance coverage along with tax relief (which is basically enshrined as subsidies in the ACA). Unless Stuart Butler (Director of Policy Innovation at Heritage) was lying in 1991 when he said: "We would include a mandate in our proposal--not a mandate on employers, but a mandate on heads of households--to obtain at least a basic package of health insurance for themselves and their families." The whole point of individual mandate + ACA regulation of minimal insurance is to mandate purchasing basic package of insurance. At least, Romney and Gingrich both believed as much. (As for Nixon being not a conservative, that seems like you're edging into "well of course a Republican who did something I didn't like isn't conservative territory, which I guess is your prerogative) + Show Spoiler +It's not worth the time right now, but suffice to say that the circumstance and seriousness surrounding the Heritage proposal is used mainly by Democrats for the smallest of figleaves, and should be recognized and treated as such. At the same time, just because Nixon was a Republican doesn't mean that you can claim everything he did (or even what he was) was conservative.
Hmm. Fair enough. Would you be more alright with calling them "the more conservative approaches to achieving total insurance coverage" than calling them conservative? Because the true conservative approach is just to ignore it/not view that as a problem.
|
On July 28 2017 13:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Graham and McCain voted in the negative. Sigh.
I'm behind on one of these streams. Layman's terms please?
|
It seems we're looking to hear ayes, not nays.
|
think their voting on sending it back to comittee right now.
|
On July 28 2017 13:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Graham and McCain voted in the negative. Sigh. I'm behind on one of these streams. Layman's terms please?
They're voting the first time, not yet the second time here:
"Here's what happens at midnight (and beyond)
There will be two votes:
The first is a vote to send the bill back to committee. This is expected to fail.
Next is the vote we will have our eyes on. It will tell us how everyone is leaning on skinny repeal. It's still up in the air how it will go."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/politics/trump-health-care-latest/index.html
We want more Yes's than No's for the first vote, to send it back to committee I think.
|
On July 28 2017 13:33 NewSunshine wrote:
It seems we're looking to hear ayes, not nays.
Huh, i thought it was the other way around? "No" = good, "Aye" = america on fire?
oops, must've misunderstood something
|
If the first vote actually affirms to send back to committee, our minds should be blown that they still don't have the vote to even get to the Skinny Repeal Vote.
|
On July 28 2017 13:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 13:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 28 2017 13:12 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 13:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 28 2017 12:58 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 12:49 Nevuk wrote:On July 28 2017 12:46 On_Slaught wrote:
Not the end of the world yet if it does. Gotta see what the house does. Going to definitely be defections if only bc if the CBO report.
Hard to believe, tho, that after all this the Senate are going to pass literally the worst and most destructive version of their bill. Nah, it's nowhere near as bad as the BCRA or original house bills were. Those medicaid cuts + tax cuts for the wealthy were insane proposals by almost any measure. This bill has moved massively to the left, and it's ironic that it's conservatives killing the conservative part of the AHCA (the individual mandate) That part is only conservative if think conservatism is just about balancing check books. I think he's more referring to its genesis within the Heritage Foundation. Kind of like how the employer mandate originated in (or at least was a key part of) the Nixonian healthcare plan. People are still pushing that Heritage line? lol And Nixon wasn't a conservative either. Honestly both of these interpretations are worse. I mean, they believed you could mandate purchasing insurance coverage along with tax relief (which is basically enshrined as subsidies in the ACA). Unless Stuart Butler (Director of Policy Innovation at Heritage) was lying in 1991 when he said: "We would include a mandate in our proposal--not a mandate on employers, but a mandate on heads of households--to obtain at least a basic package of health insurance for themselves and their families." The whole point of individual mandate + ACA regulation of minimal insurance is to mandate purchasing basic package of insurance. At least, Romney and Gingrich both believed as much. (As for Nixon being not a conservative, that seems like you're edging into "well of course a Republican who did something I didn't like isn't conservative territory, which I guess is your prerogative) + Show Spoiler +It's not worth the time right now, but suffice to say that the circumstance and seriousness surrounding the Heritage proposal is used mainly by Democrats for the smallest of figleaves, and should be recognized and treated as such. At the same time, just because Nixon was a Republican doesn't mean that you can claim everything he did (or even what he was) was conservative. Hmm. Fair enough. Would you be more alright with calling them "the more conservative approaches to achieving total insurance coverage" than calling them conservative? Because the true conservative approach is just to ignore it/not view that as a problem.
You are correctly getting at how Conservatives think. A Conservative thinks in terms of ethical values first, and then makes policy decisions reasoning from those ethical values. Take a value like: libs and government and taxes are bad. From there, they leap to: ACA bad since it has libs, government, and taxes. Bringing up stuff like:
(1) this will cause a death spiral in the individual insurance market
(2) premiums will soar for people who pay for their insurance
(3) insurance quality will collapse in the Red waivered states
(4) literally every organization of experts says this is stupid (AMA, the insurance one, AARP, etc.)
But all those things mean nothing to the ethics of a Conservative. A true Conservative knows libs, taxes, government are bad. That is enough. You bringing up policy consequences is utilitarian reasoning that a Classical Liberal would reject out of hand. Even further, a good Conservative like Coryn would be clever and blame the millions of uninsured Texans on Governor Obama's refusal to expand medicaid in Texas. Obama doing that even caused the Texas individual market exchange to suffer.
|
On July 28 2017 13:34 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:33 NewSunshine wrote:
It seems we're looking to hear ayes, not nays. Huh, i thought it was the other way around? "No" = good, "Aye" = america on fire?
That's what I thought, but hearing the names behind each aye or nay makes it clear it's the other way round, for whatever reason. It's clearly a vote to turn the bill around and send it back.
|
On July 28 2017 13:34 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:33 NewSunshine wrote:
It seems we're looking to hear ayes, not nays. Huh, i thought it was the other way around? "No" = good, "Aye" = america on fire? oops, must've misunderstood something
Cruz and most other Republicans are voting No for the first round = must be the bad decision.
|
On July 28 2017 13:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 13:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 28 2017 13:12 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 13:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 28 2017 12:58 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 12:49 Nevuk wrote:On July 28 2017 12:46 On_Slaught wrote:
Not the end of the world yet if it does. Gotta see what the house does. Going to definitely be defections if only bc if the CBO report.
Hard to believe, tho, that after all this the Senate are going to pass literally the worst and most destructive version of their bill. Nah, it's nowhere near as bad as the BCRA or original house bills were. Those medicaid cuts + tax cuts for the wealthy were insane proposals by almost any measure. This bill has moved massively to the left, and it's ironic that it's conservatives killing the conservative part of the AHCA (the individual mandate) That part is only conservative if think conservatism is just about balancing check books. I think he's more referring to its genesis within the Heritage Foundation. Kind of like how the employer mandate originated in (or at least was a key part of) the Nixonian healthcare plan. People are still pushing that Heritage line? lol And Nixon wasn't a conservative either. Honestly both of these interpretations are worse. I mean, they believed you could mandate purchasing insurance coverage along with tax relief (which is basically enshrined as subsidies in the ACA). Unless Stuart Butler (Director of Policy Innovation at Heritage) was lying in 1991 when he said: "We would include a mandate in our proposal--not a mandate on employers, but a mandate on heads of households--to obtain at least a basic package of health insurance for themselves and their families." The whole point of individual mandate + ACA regulation of minimal insurance is to mandate purchasing basic package of insurance. At least, Romney and Gingrich both believed as much. (As for Nixon being not a conservative, that seems like you're edging into "well of course a Republican who did something I didn't like isn't conservative territory, which I guess is your prerogative) + Show Spoiler +It's not worth the time right now, but suffice to say that the circumstance and seriousness surrounding the Heritage proposal is used mainly by Democrats for the smallest of figleaves, and should be recognized and treated as such. At the same time, just because Nixon was a Republican doesn't mean that you can claim everything he did (or even what he was) was conservative. Hmm. Fair enough. Would you be more alright with calling them "the more conservative approaches to achieving total insurance coverage" than calling them conservative? Because the true conservative approach is just to ignore it/not view that as a problem.
I mean there comes a point when one shouldn't use the word "conservative," just the sake of being clear. I think it's arguable that a mandate at all is not conservative philosophically, but conservatives even now know why the mandate exists. Some conservatives had said "if we have to do government mandated insurance do something like the Swiss" which afaik is mandate based and not single payer ala the UK.
But I think anything that moves to the left cannot be conservative by definition.
On July 28 2017 13:35 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 28 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 13:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 28 2017 13:12 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 13:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 28 2017 12:58 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 12:49 Nevuk wrote:On July 28 2017 12:46 On_Slaught wrote:
Not the end of the world yet if it does. Gotta see what the house does. Going to definitely be defections if only bc if the CBO report.
Hard to believe, tho, that after all this the Senate are going to pass literally the worst and most destructive version of their bill. Nah, it's nowhere near as bad as the BCRA or original house bills were. Those medicaid cuts + tax cuts for the wealthy were insane proposals by almost any measure. This bill has moved massively to the left, and it's ironic that it's conservatives killing the conservative part of the AHCA (the individual mandate) That part is only conservative if think conservatism is just about balancing check books. I think he's more referring to its genesis within the Heritage Foundation. Kind of like how the employer mandate originated in (or at least was a key part of) the Nixonian healthcare plan. People are still pushing that Heritage line? lol And Nixon wasn't a conservative either. Honestly both of these interpretations are worse. I mean, they believed you could mandate purchasing insurance coverage along with tax relief (which is basically enshrined as subsidies in the ACA). Unless Stuart Butler (Director of Policy Innovation at Heritage) was lying in 1991 when he said: "We would include a mandate in our proposal--not a mandate on employers, but a mandate on heads of households--to obtain at least a basic package of health insurance for themselves and their families." The whole point of individual mandate + ACA regulation of minimal insurance is to mandate purchasing basic package of insurance. At least, Romney and Gingrich both believed as much. (As for Nixon being not a conservative, that seems like you're edging into "well of course a Republican who did something I didn't like isn't conservative territory, which I guess is your prerogative) + Show Spoiler +It's not worth the time right now, but suffice to say that the circumstance and seriousness surrounding the Heritage proposal is used mainly by Democrats for the smallest of figleaves, and should be recognized and treated as such. At the same time, just because Nixon was a Republican doesn't mean that you can claim everything he did (or even what he was) was conservative. Hmm. Fair enough. Would you be more alright with calling them "the more conservative approaches to achieving total insurance coverage" than calling them conservative? Because the true conservative approach is just to ignore it/not view that as a problem. You are correctly getting at how Conservatives think. A Conservative thinks in terms of ethical values first, and then makes policy decisions reasoning from those ethical values. Take a value like: libs and government and taxes are bad. From there, they leap to: ACA bad since it has libs, government, and taxes. Bringing up stuff like: (1) this will cause a death spiral in the individual insurance market (2) premiums will soar for people who pay for their insurance (3) insurance quality will collapse in the Red waivered states (4) literally every organization of experts says this is stupid (AMA, the insurance one, AARP, etc.) But all those things mean nothing to the ethics of a Conservative. A true Conservative knows libs, taxes, government are bad. That is enough. You bringing up policy consequences is utilitarian reasoning that a Classical Liberal would reject out of hand. Even further, a good Conservative like Coryn would be clever and blame the millions of uninsured Texans on Governor Obama's refusal to expand medicaid in Texas. Obama doing that even caused the Texas individual market exchange to suffer.
And this is why most of the right-leaning posters just skip on by your posts.
|
I heard Corker and Cruz. They would vote to move it forward. So I'm assuming it's to send it back to committee. Yes = Keep trying fuckers. No = Move it forward.
|
Hm, complicated. ELI5 the process briefly? They vote right now to decide if they send the bill to the committee. What are the outcomes if they vote for sending it back, or not sending it back?
|
On July 28 2017 13:35 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:34 m4ini wrote:On July 28 2017 13:33 NewSunshine wrote:
It seems we're looking to hear ayes, not nays. Huh, i thought it was the other way around? "No" = good, "Aye" = america on fire? That's what I thought, but hearing the names behind each aye or nay makes it clear it's the other way round, for whatever reason.
I think that this first vote, which is to send back to committee, is to basically push the idea of a skinny repeal/ other repeal off to another day... i.e., ACA lives on for a bit.
I think if the majority say No to this, then that means that No, there's no more pushing off and they will move to directly vote for the Skinny Repeal.
So more No's in the first vote and then more Yes's in the second vote = Skinny Repeal (bad).
More Yes's in the first vote = no second stage for the Skinny Repeal (good).
More No's and then more No's again = they got really close to repealing but didn't quite get there yet (still good-ish).
I think.
|
This is so stressful watching the live feed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
