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.
He backed away from that campaign promise as soon as they had to come up with something to replace it with. Just like he backs away from every promise that actually involves producing something that isn't a name someone told or paid him to appoint (infrastructure, wall paid by Mexico, birth certificate).
...and you use that to further an objective. You have a reason for doing something. "data" is not a reason(1).
I think "skinny repeal" sucks (2). The process sucks, the bill sucks, and the betrayal sucks. I don't know why you had the impression I was in favor of it, except perhaps that you don't actually read what people write in any sort of reasonable manner.
(1) Now we are getting somewhere. Liberal values aren't like Marxist or Conservative values in that you don't reason from them. It is more of an outlook. The data means a lot to me because I have known people with some nasty pre-existing conditions. I know what would happen to them if they couldn't get insurance or if their insurer decided to play games with their coverage. That a lot of people had to be mandated into buying insurance (27-34 y/o YOLOs) and others had to pay higher premiums is a worthy cost in order to protect the insurance of people with nasty pre-existing conditions. ACA is a three legged stool: (1) mandate, (2) community rating/coverage guarantees, (3) taxes/subsidies. You can't have (2) community rating without (1) mandate and (3) taxes/subsidies. I am not working from some kind of principle here beyond trying to mitigate suffering. It is a more utilitarian approach than a classical liberal approach.
(2) I didn't notice. My mistake. Are you sure? It gets rid of some of the mandates for varying time lengths, and even the medical device tax. I listened to Senator Coryn and Senator Enzi talk at length about freedoms and individual choice. Shouldn't that be enough to overcome all the process concerns and insurance market risks? What is tipping you over to NO here? I actually am curious.
(1) If I were zlefin I'd accuse you of trolling, but then again that first point reads a lot like a post of his. Somehow being "utilitarian" is a neutral or valueless viewpoint. This is akin to saying something ridiculous like "I don't have an ideology."
(2) I don't like the way it was done or the fact that it touched almost nothing, really. Republicans would have owned every bad thing then we'd even worse off next November. All the things they wanted to change are good things to change, but in isolation they are a disaster.
I mean it's hard, I really want those things gone. But for the future, they can't go this way. Still doesn't excuse the GOP's incredible ability to be feckless or fail to do ANYTHING.
I mean Ben Shapiro's short and sweet take really does sum it up.
On July 28 2017 15:16 mustaju wrote: Problem is, they'll likely try again, no? McCain's condition specifically makes the current no vote a highly unstable situation.
The reconciliation vehicle for passage is technically still alive, but you need 50 Senators to agree on something. This sorta looked like McConnell's last hurrah for that feat.
...and you use that to further an objective. You have a reason for doing something. "data" is not a reason(1).
I think "skinny repeal" sucks (2). The process sucks, the bill sucks, and the betrayal sucks. I don't know why you had the impression I was in favor of it, except perhaps that you don't actually read what people write in any sort of reasonable manner.
(1) Now we are getting somewhere. Liberal values aren't like Marxist or Conservative values in that you don't reason from them. It is more of an outlook. The data means a lot to me because I have known people with some nasty pre-existing conditions. I know what would happen to them if they couldn't get insurance or if their insurer decided to play games with their coverage. That a lot of people had to be mandated into buying insurance (27-34 y/o YOLOs) and others had to pay higher premiums is a worthy cost in order to protect the insurance of people with nasty pre-existing conditions. ACA is a three legged stool: (1) mandate, (2) community rating/coverage guarantees, (3) taxes/subsidies. You can't have (2) community rating without (1) mandate and (3) taxes/subsidies. I am not working from some kind of principle here beyond trying to mitigate suffering. It is a more utilitarian approach than a classical liberal approach.
(2) I didn't notice. My mistake. Are you sure? It gets rid of some of the mandates for varying time lengths, and even the medical device tax. I listened to Senator Coryn and Senator Enzi talk at length about freedoms and individual choice. Shouldn't that be enough to overcome all the process concerns and insurance market risks? What is tipping you over to NO here? I actually am curious.
(1) If I were zlefin I'd accuse you of trolling, but then again that first point reads a lot like a post of his. Somehow being "utilitarian" is a neutral or valueless viewpoint. This is akin to saying something ridiculous like "I don't have an ideology."
(2) I don't like the way it was done or the fact that it touched almost nothing, really. Republicans would have owned every bad thing then we'd even worse off next November. All the things they wanted to change are good things to change, but in isolation they are a disaster.
I mean it's hard, I really want those things gone. But for the future, they can't go this way. Still doesn't excuse the GOP's incredible ability to be feckless or fail to do ANYTHING.
I mean Ben Shapiro's short and sweet take really does sum it up.
Liberalism isn't value-less, but it is less-value based. It moves to new policies as we face new challenges in ways that Marxism/Conservatism don't. Take gay marriage. Liberals all said 'civil unions' back in the 90s, but we moved as progress moved along up to gay marriage. It is a mix of utilitarianism, a distrust of state violence, and a willingness to use state power to limit the power of local bullies over weaker individuals.
EDIT: listen to how Obama talks about healthcare reform. Yeah, he has some big biases on the matter. But if you listen to how he argues it is all policy with very little mention of values beyond affordability and fairness. This is how liberals reason and it is fundamentally different than conservatives. He isn't going from "government bad, thus healthcare reform bad". This is talk of solutions to practical problems. + Show Spoiler +
Mr. Scaramucci, who has so emulated Mr. Trump’s style that colleagues privately call him “Mini-Me,” made clear in his conversation with The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza that he is trying to push Mr. Priebus out. “Reince is a fucking paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac,” he said. Mr. Scaramucci complained that Mr. Priebus had prevented him from getting a job in the White House until now, saying he “blocked Scaramucci for six months.”
In the same telephone call, Mr. Scaramucci disparaged Mr. Bannon. “I’m not Steve Bannon. I’m not trying to suck my own cock,” he said. “I’m not trying to build my own brand” on the president’s coattails.
On July 28 2017 16:38 Plansix wrote: I fell asleep and woke up to McCain exceeding my expectations of him. I'm going to wonder if this was his plan all along.
Well the thing with John McCain is that you absolutely never know if he will be a hero or a complete d... I think Trump made a mandate changing mistake when he insulted him and his past as a POW in the most offensive and disgusting way imaginable. Every setback of his must taste like candy after what he said.
Lol, McCain's killing of the skinny bill is vintage McCain grandstanding at its finest, all at the expense of his republican colleagues. A last hurrah for an addled old man.
Some of the Republicans here can say they don't like the party and want something better but here we are, after another night of tension and another pure shit bill that would have made nothing better with 49 Republicans voting in favor.
Can someone who supported this bill at least explain why that bill was going to be good the average person. It was going to basically cause the insurance market to explode and prices to skyrocket and that is in the best case scenario.
no one supported the bill as is, they were intending for it to go to conference where they'd argue about it AGAIN for weeks and months and then churn out another turd sandwich
On July 28 2017 20:51 KOFgokuon wrote: no one supported the bill as is, they were intending for it to go to conference where they'd argue about it AGAIN for weeks and months and then churn out another turd sandwich
No one wanted it yet 49 people voted in favor, that's a very weird way to show your lack of support.
At some point you have to own up to what your voting for, both the politicians themselves aswell as the people who vote for them.
Super surprised and pleased with McCain. He did the best thing for both his country and his party, though he will get shit on for doing it. Now we'll see Trump go all in on the "in going the encourage the failing of 1/5th of the economy I'm responsible for, even though it will cost lives." Winning message. /s
I hope he vetos the sanction bill out of spite today. Ooh I can't wait to hear what the Mooch has to say about this too!
I'm not comfortable with praising people for doing things that are so obvious that I would expect a 12-year-old to be able to do them. I get that it's going against your party and that's hard but that's also how you develop low expectations as a population, and I'm growing less and less a fan of that.