|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 26 2020 04:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Just want to point out that only way you can believe the GOP genuinely wanted a pure ACA repeal with no replacement requires you to believe people with major positions in the party lied to their constituencies and the American public for multiple years about having a potential replacement good to go and wanting to put it in place.
Fortunately, this is easy given that this is 1) a documented lie and 2) pretty much no one should trust the GOP leadership when it comes to crafting policy-they're mind-bogglingly bad at it, their tax bill being a shining example of half-baked terrible ideas cobbled together at the 11th hour and only narrowly averted from being completely disastrous, complete with line edits in margins on the floor.
Remember when Paul Ryan was their policy wunderkind? The man inspired to go into politics by an author who considered politicians the scum of the earth? What a joke.
You’re missing the multitude of house and senate campaigns that promised a repeal “root and branch.” The replacement was never a policy agreement—only the repeal. And let me remind you, the campaigns on repealing that horrible act were vigorous and led to unbelievable Republican gains. It was always repeal first, and never contingent on some agreement on a replacement monster subsidy or whatever.
Nobody should trust the Republicans after a repeal-centered message that failed in the execution. We kinda agree on that point. I’ll let the Democrats try and spin why it failed to their own compatriots in the left, and they’ll be as far off reading the electorate as when they assumed a massive landslide for Biden including House and Senate. (As an aside, stuff like healthcare will pervert their messaging for another round of elections if they learn no lessons and call half the country racists and dummies for another round. Blue Texas, and 300+ million dollars on senate races we won by twenty points)
|
In general, I'm not particularly interested in rehashing why the Republicans couldn't repeal a law they in fact were not ready to replace, or why replacement is more critical than the repeal itself when you're talking about national healthcare, or in illuminating the obvious by describing a party that complains about "obstructionist Democrats" despite holding both majorities of Congress at the time. They didn't have shit, and this is a topic no Republican should be excited to bring up.
|
On November 26 2020 04:44 LegalLord wrote:
I'll give Trump credit that eliminating the individual mandate was definitely the right choice. It doesn't fix the system, but at least it eliminates a tax on poverty within a broken system.
Which is only a thing because of Republican states denying the Medicare expansion that was supposed to cover those people.
And the individual mandate is a requirement for any decent healthcare system to be able to cover pre-existing conditions else you can not have insurance, get sick, get insurance that then has to pay for your sickness and drop them as soon as your healthy.
And anyone unable to pay for healthcare insurance is also unable to pay for healthcare in the first place and just rolling the dice for complete financial ruination when they inevitably catch something serious.
|
On November 26 2020 04:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 04:44 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2020 04:10 Danglars wrote:
The spin on the ACA is ridiculous. 2017 we were within one vote of the skinny repeal (budget reconciliation process), but three republicans flipped in a senate majority of 2. But fuck all 49 other Republicans who voted for the repeal, because they were still “afraid” since some internet hotshots deem it so.
I would suggest not swallowing all the home team propaganda out there, if only to know what’s happening politically in this country. And how many of those 49 voted knowing the 3 would kill it? How many repeal votes were there under Obama when there was 0 chance of it succeeding? How many repeal votes were there the first 2 years of Trump when they controlled all 3 branches? Sure, some of them actually mean it and want to dismantle the healthcare system with nothing to replace it with and leaving tens of millions of Americans without healthcare but most just want to kick a rock and have their supporters see it, knowing the rock will not crumble. But hey, maybe I am wrong. Maybe 49 Republican Senators really did want America to turn into a 3e world country without healthcare. I wonder which is worse... They were on the floor late whipping votes because most people thought they finally had a package with majority support. It was literally covered in this thread at the time. McCain was a surprise. So let’s not rewrite history just because it would be nice to pretend nobody really tried to repeal instead of a narrow failure late in the game to repeal. Feel free to hold your opinion on what repeal would’ve meant to the country, I’ve spent enough time on the subject and won’t recapitulate those arguments.
There was considerable reporting at the time that privately, almost all of the Republican senators wanted the vote to fail because of how bad an idea they thought it would be to repeal with no replacement. That's part of why McCain's vote has frequently been described as saving them from themselves.
It was a legitimate surprise that it was McCain that did it, but up until they were on the floor whipping the votes there was widespread skepticism as to them being serious about repealing it at all. The way he did it was also very dramatic and memorable, but it was kinda pointless: it was very unlikely that a pure skinny repeal was going to pass in the house. The initial bill that the senate voted on that got killed out of hand barely eked by on a 217-213 margin in the house. The skinny repeal was a desperate last gasp in a series of such by the GOP congress to justify their insane promises on the issue and the repeal attempt definitely wrecked their control of the house in the 2018 midterms.
It's pretty clear that, whatever their promises in 2010-2016, they had no intention or desire to actually follow through on a repeal. (Especially when going back to the previous system would have been the fastest way to cause a nationalized health care industry).
On November 26 2020 05:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 04:44 LegalLord wrote:
I'll give Trump credit that eliminating the individual mandate was definitely the right choice. It doesn't fix the system, but at least it eliminates a tax on poverty within a broken system. Which is only a thing because of Republican states denying the Medicare expansion that was supposed to cover those people. And the individual mandate is a requirement for any decent healthcare system to be able to cover pre-existing conditions else you can not have insurance, get sick, get insurance that then has to pay for your sickness and drop them as soon as your healthy.And anyone unable to pay for healthcare insurance is also unable to pay for healthcare in the first place and just rolling the dice for complete financial ruination when they inevitably catch something serious.
This isn't really a problem because you can only enroll during a two week period in the year unless it's for a life changing event like losing insurance due to losing a job.
Also, medicaid, not medicare, fyi.
|
On November 26 2020 05:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 04:44 LegalLord wrote:
I'll give Trump credit that eliminating the individual mandate was definitely the right choice. It doesn't fix the system, but at least it eliminates a tax on poverty within a broken system. Which is only a thing because of Republican states denying the Medicare expansion that was supposed to cover those people. And the individual mandate is a requirement for any decent healthcare system to be able to cover pre-existing conditions else you can not have insurance, get sick, get insurance that then has to pay for your sickness and drop them as soon as your healthy. And anyone unable to pay for healthcare insurance is also unable to pay for healthcare in the first place and just rolling the dice for complete financial ruination when they inevitably catch something serious.
Sounds like a lot of excuses for a system that just didn’t fundamentally work in the first place. Would’ve all worked, if not for that one guy that wasn’t cooperative.
Taxing the status of being uninsured simply raises the cost of insurance because you’re now mandated to have it, or else. Certainly makes it easy for insurance companies to raise the cost of coverage. It was never worth what it cost to try to keep that poverty tax going.
|
On November 26 2020 06:12 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 04:51 Danglars wrote:On November 26 2020 04:44 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2020 04:10 Danglars wrote:
The spin on the ACA is ridiculous. 2017 we were within one vote of the skinny repeal (budget reconciliation process), but three republicans flipped in a senate majority of 2. But fuck all 49 other Republicans who voted for the repeal, because they were still “afraid” since some internet hotshots deem it so.
I would suggest not swallowing all the home team propaganda out there, if only to know what’s happening politically in this country. And how many of those 49 voted knowing the 3 would kill it? How many repeal votes were there under Obama when there was 0 chance of it succeeding? How many repeal votes were there the first 2 years of Trump when they controlled all 3 branches? Sure, some of them actually mean it and want to dismantle the healthcare system with nothing to replace it with and leaving tens of millions of Americans without healthcare but most just want to kick a rock and have their supporters see it, knowing the rock will not crumble. But hey, maybe I am wrong. Maybe 49 Republican Senators really did want America to turn into a 3e world country without healthcare. I wonder which is worse... They were on the floor late whipping votes because most people thought they finally had a package with majority support. It was literally covered in this thread at the time. McCain was a surprise. So let’s not rewrite history just because it would be nice to pretend nobody really tried to repeal instead of a narrow failure late in the game to repeal. Feel free to hold your opinion on what repeal would’ve meant to the country, I’ve spent enough time on the subject and won’t recapitulate those arguments. There was considerable reporting at the time that privately, almost all of the Republican senators wanted the vote to fail because of how bad an idea they thought it would be to repeal with no replacement. That's part of why McCain's vote has frequently been described as saving them from themselves. It was a legitimate surprise that it was McCain that did it, but up until they were on the floor whipping the votes there was widespread skepticism as to them being serious about repealing it at all. The way he did it was also very dramatic and memorable, but it was kinda pointless: it was very unlikely that a pure skinny repeal was going to pass in the house. The initial bill that the senate voted on that got killed out of hand barely eked by on a 217-213 margin in the house. The skinny repeal was a desperate last gasp in a series of such by the GOP congress to justify their insane promises on the issue and the repeal attempt definitely wrecked their control of the house in the 2018 midterms. It's pretty clear that, whatever their promises in 2010-2016, they had no intention or desire to actually follow through on a repeal. (Especially when going back to the previous system would have been the fastest way to cause a nationalized health care industry)
I wouldn’t trust a single word of that reporting if nobody is willing to go on the record.
Citizens should demand politicians act on their campaign platform. It goes for Democrats too. You’re on the train for Medicare for all, but leak to reporters that you’re secretly hopeful it fails? You had better vote for that bill and not betray the people that sent you there. You better act as their advocate in Congress. None of this torpedo behind the scenes and try to dodge all the blame.
The House did right and Senate almost did right by the people that sent them there. A slim majority in the Senate cannot overcome the legislative filibuster, so an absolute reversal of every last thing that made the ACA terrible for America was not in the cards. That thing would sail through the House simply because that was the only thing the Senate would pass short of supermajority. The sucker was as good as signed and done with, had not Collins Murkowski and McCain pulled out of the Republican bill. (More hate for McCain because of how he campaigned mightily on repeal, but he’s dead and gone now)
|
On November 26 2020 06:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 06:12 Nevuk wrote:On November 26 2020 04:51 Danglars wrote:On November 26 2020 04:44 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2020 04:10 Danglars wrote:
The spin on the ACA is ridiculous. 2017 we were within one vote of the skinny repeal (budget reconciliation process), but three republicans flipped in a senate majority of 2. But fuck all 49 other Republicans who voted for the repeal, because they were still “afraid” since some internet hotshots deem it so.
I would suggest not swallowing all the home team propaganda out there, if only to know what’s happening politically in this country. And how many of those 49 voted knowing the 3 would kill it? How many repeal votes were there under Obama when there was 0 chance of it succeeding? How many repeal votes were there the first 2 years of Trump when they controlled all 3 branches? Sure, some of them actually mean it and want to dismantle the healthcare system with nothing to replace it with and leaving tens of millions of Americans without healthcare but most just want to kick a rock and have their supporters see it, knowing the rock will not crumble. But hey, maybe I am wrong. Maybe 49 Republican Senators really did want America to turn into a 3e world country without healthcare. I wonder which is worse... They were on the floor late whipping votes because most people thought they finally had a package with majority support. It was literally covered in this thread at the time. McCain was a surprise. So let’s not rewrite history just because it would be nice to pretend nobody really tried to repeal instead of a narrow failure late in the game to repeal. Feel free to hold your opinion on what repeal would’ve meant to the country, I’ve spent enough time on the subject and won’t recapitulate those arguments. There was considerable reporting at the time that privately, almost all of the Republican senators wanted the vote to fail because of how bad an idea they thought it would be to repeal with no replacement. That's part of why McCain's vote has frequently been described as saving them from themselves. It was a legitimate surprise that it was McCain that did it, but up until they were on the floor whipping the votes there was widespread skepticism as to them being serious about repealing it at all. The way he did it was also very dramatic and memorable, but it was kinda pointless: it was very unlikely that a pure skinny repeal was going to pass in the house. The initial bill that the senate voted on that got killed out of hand barely eked by on a 217-213 margin in the house. The skinny repeal was a desperate last gasp in a series of such by the GOP congress to justify their insane promises on the issue and the repeal attempt definitely wrecked their control of the house in the 2018 midterms. It's pretty clear that, whatever their promises in 2010-2016, they had no intention or desire to actually follow through on a repeal. (Especially when going back to the previous system would have been the fastest way to cause a nationalized health care industry) I wouldn’t trust a single word of that reporting if nobody is willing to go on the record.
I think we've started to see plenty of evidence that this sort of thing is generally true if it's being reported on as widely as it was. Bernstein naming names recently is only necessary because of how craven our senators have become. I will agree that it doesn't REALLY matter, in the sense that they would still have voted for it despite knowing it was a terribly idea because much of the senate is fundamentally cowards (on both sides).
Citizens should demand politicians act on their campaign platform. It goes for Democrats too. You’re on the train for Medicare for all, but leak to reporters that you’re secretly hopeful it fails? You had better vote for that bill and not betray the people that sent you there. You better act as their advocate in Congress. None of this torpedo behind the scenes and try to dodge all the blame.
The House did right and Senate almost did right by the people that sent them there. A slim majority in the Senate cannot overcome the legislative filibuster, so an absolute reversal of every last thing that made the ACA terrible for America was not in the cards. That thing would sail through the House simply because that was the only thing the Senate would pass short of supermajority. The sucker was as good as signed and done with, had not Collins Murkowski and McCain pulled out of the Republican bill. (More hate for McCain because of how he campaigned mightily on repeal, but he’s dead and gone now)
Part of the reason it eked through in the house was also for the opposite reason. Moderate republicans were afraid (rightly) because it wouldn't protect pre-existing conditions, while conservatives had to be placated with a cap on medicaid spending that failed in the senate by 17 votes. Most analysts were doubtful the original bill was even going to pass the house.
We've also essentially already had most of the skinny repeal happen now that the individual mandate is gone - the only other part of it was the employer mandate repeal, I think? There's a huge gulf between skinny repeal and what was promised (total repeal). Skinny repeal literally targeted the unpopular provisions only.
edit: Thinking on it more, you might be right. They could definitely have killed the individual mandate. The employer mandate is a much harder sell.
|
On November 26 2020 06:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 05:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2020 04:44 LegalLord wrote:
I'll give Trump credit that eliminating the individual mandate was definitely the right choice. It doesn't fix the system, but at least it eliminates a tax on poverty within a broken system. Which is only a thing because of Republican states denying the Medicare expansion that was supposed to cover those people. And the individual mandate is a requirement for any decent healthcare system to be able to cover pre-existing conditions else you can not have insurance, get sick, get insurance that then has to pay for your sickness and drop them as soon as your healthy. And anyone unable to pay for healthcare insurance is also unable to pay for healthcare in the first place and just rolling the dice for complete financial ruination when they inevitably catch something serious. Sounds like a lot of excuses for a system that just didn’t fundamentally work in the first place. Would’ve all worked, if not for that one guy that wasn’t cooperative. Taxing the status of being uninsured simply raises the cost of insurance because you’re now mandated to have it, or else. Certainly makes it easy for insurance companies to raise the cost of coverage. It was never worth what it cost to try to keep that poverty tax going.
I don't think there was any way that the Obama administration could foresee the Medicaid expansion being struck down. The mechanism by which they set it up was, at core, the same as the way the federal government had always expanded Medicaid and part and parcel with any number of other bits of federal legislation that had been used in the past (like, for example, the only reason we have a 21 year old national drinking age).
I don't think anyone was ready to believe that passing a Medicaid repeal and then immediately a new Medicaid (with a bundled vote on both bills) is perfectly constitutional but one bill that does both is not. It's a particularly odd bit of procedural inanity that is pretty thoroughly divorced from anything the founders thought about, and (at least in my opinion) ended up as an awkward power play by the judiciary that kind of nukes the legislative branch's ability to reform federal entitlements, except via completely eliminating them, at some unspecified margin SCOTUS will never define. Even sidegrades seem questionable as hell.
|
On November 26 2020 04:44 LegalLord wrote:
I'll give Trump credit that eliminating the individual mandate was definitely the right choice. It doesn't fix the system, but at least it eliminates a tax on poverty within a broken system.
I definitely agree with you on that aspect. It’s so nice to find bipartisanship in this forum here and there too!
|
On November 26 2020 02:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 02:46 Mohdoo wrote:
I think people are too worried about the senate. Trump proved you can do an incredible amount with executive orders. Biden will first suggest bills he know will go nowhere and then likely make executive orders instead. He can still do quite a bit (such as student loan relief) without the senate. The problem is that anything the President does with a pen the next President can undo even faster. If you want lasting change instead of clenching your butt cheeks every time the Republicans take office you need it made into law and that requires the legislative branch.
Republicans are just going to undo that too. Going to have to start writing laws now with the expectation that Republicans will do whatever they can to undo them. Maybe starting making anything they pass so costly to undo it will be like a poison pill to unwind it.
|
On November 26 2020 06:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 05:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2020 04:44 LegalLord wrote:
I'll give Trump credit that eliminating the individual mandate was definitely the right choice. It doesn't fix the system, but at least it eliminates a tax on poverty within a broken system. Which is only a thing because of Republican states denying the Medicare expansion that was supposed to cover those people. And the individual mandate is a requirement for any decent healthcare system to be able to cover pre-existing conditions else you can not have insurance, get sick, get insurance that then has to pay for your sickness and drop them as soon as your healthy. And anyone unable to pay for healthcare insurance is also unable to pay for healthcare in the first place and just rolling the dice for complete financial ruination when they inevitably catch something serious. Sounds like a lot of excuses for a system that just didn’t fundamentally work in the first place. Would’ve all worked, if not for that one guy that wasn’t cooperative. Taxing the status of being uninsured simply raises the cost of insurance because you’re now mandated to have it, or else. Certainly makes it easy for insurance companies to raise the cost of coverage. It was never worth what it cost to try to keep that poverty tax going. Except for the parts where this doesn't happen in the rest of the Western world...
Everyone being covered by health insurance lets them lower costs, because the healthy who are forced to be insured help pay for the sick who cost money.
Its how every form of 'universal healthcare' that I know of works.
|
United States24803 Posts
I think the better argument (maybe you were already implying this) is that everyone having easy access to healthcare keeps them healthier in a preventative sense. A lot of people don't like the idea of having to pay for someone else.
|
Trump just announced a full pardon of Michael Flynn. I expect more insane pardons to keep rolling in until Jan 19th at 11:59 PM when he pardons himself.
Note: if Flynn accepts the pardon, it means that he is admitting guilt.
|
On November 26 2020 08:23 micronesia wrote:
I think the better argument (maybe you were already implying this) is that everyone having easy access to healthcare keeps them healthier in a preventative sense. A lot of people don't like the idea of having to pay for someone else. It's even in the insurers best interest, they get X from you regardless. So they want you to cost as little money as possible and preventative care is generally cheaper then waiting for things to get bad before fixing them.
|
On November 26 2020 08:25 Nevuk wrote:Trump just announced a full pardon of Michael Flynn. I expect more insane pardons to keep rolling in until Jan 19th at 11:59 PM when he pardons himself. Note: if Flynn accepts the pardon, it means that he is admitting guilt. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331706255212228608 Flynn already admitted guilt in court as part of his plea bargain.
Twice.
|
On November 26 2020 08:28 Gorsameth wrote:Flynn already admitted guilt in court as part of his plea bargain. Twice.
Yes, true. However, he then tried to walk it back afterwards and withdraw his plea deal. So he would be flip flopping on the issue of his own guilt for uh... the fourth or fifth time, depending on how you count it. I also think if you're pardoned you can't plead the fifth, but I'm no lawyer.
|
United States44353 Posts
On November 26 2020 08:30 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 08:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2020 08:25 Nevuk wrote:Trump just announced a full pardon of Michael Flynn. I expect more insane pardons to keep rolling in until Jan 19th at 11:59 PM when he pardons himself. Note: if Flynn accepts the pardon, it means that he is admitting guilt. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331706255212228608 Flynn already admitted guilt in court as part of his plea bargain. Twice. Yes, true. However, he then tried to walk it back afterwards and withdraw his plea deal. So he would be flip flopping on the issue of his own guilt for uh... the fourth or fifth time, depending on how you count it. I also think if you're pardoned you can't plead the fifth, but I'm no lawyer.
What's weird is that Trump instructed the prosecutors to allow backsies on a confession but the judge wouldn't let them prosecutors throw out their own evidence for his guilt. It's all so unbelievably corrupt.
|
Didn't the plea deal for Flynn save him from getting convicted for him being a paid agent of Turkey while getting national security briefings? Now that the deal is broken can he still be prosecuted for that?
|
United States44353 Posts
On November 26 2020 08:50 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Didn't the plea deal for Flynn save him from getting convicted for him being a paid agent of Turkey while getting national security briefings? Now that the deal is broken can he still be prosecuted for that?
He's been pardoned so no, assuming he accepts it (and the implicit guilt).
|
So if Trump tries to pardon himself, doesn't he have to admit to a crime first?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
