|
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 13:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:35 NewSunshine wrote: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.
That makes more sense.
|
|
|
But I think anything that moves to the left cannot be conservative by definition.
This is you proving my point. Consequences or policy be damned. What counts is reasoning by definition.
|
What's taking everyone so long? Didn't they just go through all the votes for the first round? Can't they just tally them and announce the verdict? I can only assume that some people haven't decided yet, or something, but I would assume that'd be against the rules if the vote was set for a certain time o.O
|
On July 28 2017 12:58 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +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.
No, really. It was the heritage foundation's alternative to Hillary care.
edit -
Well, I see this was addressed a few pages back while I was browsing obscure romhacks
|
On July 28 2017 13:43 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +But I think anything that moves to the left cannot be conservative by definition.
This is you proving my point. Consequences or policy be damned. What counts is reasoning by definition.
Look at what I contrasted with it. "moving to the left." I basically stated a truism. FFS. Also, the left starts by "everyone has a right to healthcare." That is an ethical/philosophical question.
|
On July 28 2017 13:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What's taking everyone so long? Didn't they just go through all the votes for the first round? Can't they just tally them and announce the verdict? I can only assume that some people haven't decided yet, or something, but I would assume that'd be against the rules if the vote was set for a certain time o.O
Last minute calls from AARP or lobbyists. That's my only guess. I'm going to sleep and will find out what happened in the morning. Cheers everyone.
|
On July 28 2017 13:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What's taking everyone so long? Didn't they just go through all the votes for the first round? Can't they just tally them and announce the verdict? I can only assume that some people haven't decided yet, or something, but I would assume that'd be against the rules if the vote was set for a certain time o.O
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. There's 100 votes, no?
C-Span says 48 yes, 52 no and a big red banner stating "MOTION FAILS"
Am i misunderstanding again?
|
On July 28 2017 13:47 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What's taking everyone so long? Didn't they just go through all the votes for the first round? Can't they just tally them and announce the verdict? I can only assume that some people haven't decided yet, or something, but I would assume that'd be against the rules if the vote was set for a certain time o.O I'm not entirely sure what you mean. There's 100 votes, no? C-Span says 48 yes, 52 no and a big red banner stating "MOTION FAILS" Am i misunderstanding again?
The motion fails to send it back to Committee. The bill now goes to the House.
|
On July 28 2017 13:47 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What's taking everyone so long? Didn't they just go through all the votes for the first round? Can't they just tally them and announce the verdict? I can only assume that some people haven't decided yet, or something, but I would assume that'd be against the rules if the vote was set for a certain time o.O I'm not entirely sure what you mean. There's 100 votes, no? C-Span says 48 yes, 52 no and a big red banner stating "MOTION FAILS" Am i misunderstanding again?
No the motion to send it back to committee fails now they're doing the set up for the final vote on if to pass the bill or not.
|
On July 28 2017 13:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:47 m4ini wrote:On July 28 2017 13:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What's taking everyone so long? Didn't they just go through all the votes for the first round? Can't they just tally them and announce the verdict? I can only assume that some people haven't decided yet, or something, but I would assume that'd be against the rules if the vote was set for a certain time o.O I'm not entirely sure what you mean. There's 100 votes, no? C-Span says 48 yes, 52 no and a big red banner stating "MOTION FAILS" Am i misunderstanding again? The motion fails to send it back to Committee. The bill now goes to the House.
I understand that, i am wondering what he meant by "what's taking everyone so long". It's decided already if i understand correctly.
No the motion to send it back to committee fails now they're doing the set up for the final vote on if to pass the bill or not.
Cheers, jesus. I should just watch, not root for anything and surprise myself by the outcome after it gets explained to me.
|
On July 28 2017 13:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:47 m4ini wrote:On July 28 2017 13:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What's taking everyone so long? Didn't they just go through all the votes for the first round? Can't they just tally them and announce the verdict? I can only assume that some people haven't decided yet, or something, but I would assume that'd be against the rules if the vote was set for a certain time o.O I'm not entirely sure what you mean. There's 100 votes, no? C-Span says 48 yes, 52 no and a big red banner stating "MOTION FAILS" Am i misunderstanding again? The motion fails to send it back to Committee. The bill now goes to the House.
GIT ER DONE!
|
An official with the Boy Scouts of America apologized to the Scouting community on Thursday for the political content of President Donald Trump's speech at the National Scout Jamboree.
"I want to extend my sincere apologies to those in our Scouting family who were offended by the political rhetoric that was inserted into the jamboree," said Chief Scout Executive Michael Surbaugh. "That was never our intent."
Speaking Monday before about 40,000 Scouts, Trump delivered a speech that would not have been out of place on his campaign or in his tweets.
Source
|
On July 28 2017 13:47 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What's taking everyone so long? Didn't they just go through all the votes for the first round? Can't they just tally them and announce the verdict? I can only assume that some people haven't decided yet, or something, but I would assume that'd be against the rules if the vote was set for a certain time o.O I'm not entirely sure what you mean. There's 100 votes, no? C-Span says 48 yes, 52 no and a big red banner stating "MOTION FAILS" Am i misunderstanding again?
No you're right; I was just watching it on CNN and there literally isn't a tally there -.-' C-Span's is better.
|
On July 28 2017 13:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 28 2017 13:47 m4ini wrote:On July 28 2017 13:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What's taking everyone so long? Didn't they just go through all the votes for the first round? Can't they just tally them and announce the verdict? I can only assume that some people haven't decided yet, or something, but I would assume that'd be against the rules if the vote was set for a certain time o.O I'm not entirely sure what you mean. There's 100 votes, no? C-Span says 48 yes, 52 no and a big red banner stating "MOTION FAILS" Am i misunderstanding again? The motion fails to send it back to Committee. The bill now goes to the House. GIT ER DONE!
No you're right; I was just watching it on CNN and there literally isn't a tally there -.-' C-Span's is better.
Well if by better you mean "watching roughly 10.000 years of combined lifespan in one picture" better, then yes. It's amazing.
|
Edit: Never mind. Round two vote in a few hours I guess 
|
Everyone seems confused right now
|
On July 28 2017 13:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:43 Wulfey_LA wrote:But I think anything that moves to the left cannot be conservative by definition.
This is you proving my point. Consequences or policy be damned. What counts is reasoning by definition. Look at what I contrasted with it. "moving to the left." I basically stated a truism. FFS. Also, the left starts by "everyone has a right to healthcare." That is an ethical/philosophical question.
ACA doesn't start from a 'right to healthcare'. Everyone that has any money has to pay in to get insurance. The deeply poor get subsidies or medicaid. Speaking as a Liberal, I have consistently pushed back against Single Payer when it comes up here as too disruptive and expensive in the USA. There exists a substantial gap between Left/Socialists and Liberals. Liberals are policy driven people who read data and work from the data. Take the SkinnyRepeal being voted on right now. It is a policy disaster. Big premium hikes, coverage quality drops, death spirals in individual markets. The bill is bad on the merits. I am not reasoning from some kind of Marxist doctrine.
But I think you could defend the SkinnyRepeal. It appeals to the "libs, taxes, government bad' ethic of Conservatism. If my read on Conservatism is right, then you won't care that SkinnyRepeal is going to be a disaster
Here is the SkinnyRepeal. I would like to hear what you think of it.
+ Show Spoiler +
For reference, here is the AMA on SkinnyRepeal.
+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/AmerMedicalAssn/status/890775681092681728 ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFyrwqTW0AARY2R.jpg:large)
"Eliminating the individual mandate will lead to adverse selection, triggering higher premiums and further destabilizing the individual market," AMA President David O. Barbe said in a statement.
"The stated goal was to advance policies to lower premiums, but the ‘skinny’ bill would do the exact opposite, harming patients across the country."
EDIT: to Danglars below. Have you ever listened to Donald Trump, John Coryn, Limbaugh, Hannity, Carlson, and/or the entire Murdoch/Sinclair axis? They push 'libs are bad' as a core Conservative value on a daily basis. That is simply observable reality.
|
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.
You're seriously putting ethical values and lising among them "libs are bad." This is a recipe for the most broken partisanship gamesmanship; along the lines of saying the core progressive truth is white people are bad.
|
Sidenote, that Steven Dennis guy comments the whole thing like a football match.
Quite amusing actually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
