USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The PPACA Thread Part IV - Repeal & Replace, or Something...
- Thread starter dxmnkd316
- Start date
- Status
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Hey if Mitch wants to hold on to the anchor as it gets thrown overboard I wont stop him
Me neither. At this point, there are some Republicans whom I wouldn't throw water on if they were on fire. Such is America in the 21st century. SAD.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part IV - Repeal & Replace, or Something...
are there ANY? I certainly wouldn't **** on any of the current republican members of congress if they were on fire. The last Republican I had any respect for was Jon Huntsman, and that went out the window when he endorsed Trump during the campaign.
are there ANY? I certainly wouldn't **** on any of the current republican members of congress if they were on fire. The last Republican I had any respect for was Jon Huntsman, and that went out the window when he endorsed Trump during the campaign.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Evan McMullin is a decent guy, though I know he's technically an "independent" since last year. I don't agree with most of his positions, but he's consistent and mature in his criticism of Trump.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: The PPACA Thread Part IV - Repeal & Replace, or Something...
I think I need to start asking, "Do I respect this Republican solely because he opposes Trump? Does this person do good (not well, good) besides his or her opposition?"
I think I need to start asking, "Do I respect this Republican solely because he opposes Trump? Does this person do good (not well, good) besides his or her opposition?"
Re: The PPACA Thread Part IV - Repeal & Replace, or Something...
maybe I'm remembering it wrong.
I think he gave a sort of reluctant endorsement e.g. "It's time to rally around the presumptive nominee", but now that I think about it more I think then he did say he should drop out of the race after grab em by the ***** gate.
maybe I'm remembering it wrong.
I think he gave a sort of reluctant endorsement e.g. "It's time to rally around the presumptive nominee", but now that I think about it more I think then he did say he should drop out of the race after grab em by the ***** gate.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part IV - Repeal & Replace, or Something...
So the House still hasn't sent their omnishambles health care bill over to the Senate yet, and may have to re-vote on it. Yes, please. Attach as many 'yea' votes onto the GOP for this disaster as possible. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...-to-vote-again-on-gop-s-obamacare-repeal-bill
So the House still hasn't sent their omnishambles health care bill over to the Senate yet, and may have to re-vote on it. Yes, please. Attach as many 'yea' votes onto the GOP for this disaster as possible. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...-to-vote-again-on-gop-s-obamacare-repeal-bill
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Thread Part IV - Repeal & Replace, or Something...
That whole article is interesting (although I would like to read a smart and comprehensive account of all the procedural issues at stake). It alludes to the Congressional procedural move I most despise:
If I understand, they are referring to the move where you take a bill that has moved out of committee and is scheduled for a vote, strip everything from it, literally, and copy-paste in a whole other bill. This isn't like attaching riders or the bad (good) old days of earmarks, this is gutting the turkey and pushing a duck inside it. The idea is not to obscure it but to short-circuit all the rules that allow the minority some procedural wiggle room.
99 times out of 100 this gets used to correct an actual, unplanned, bipartisan f-ck-up by Congress: like they literally don't have the time left to pass a full appropriation and the Grandma Program is going to be detached from life support in 5 hours, so they body snatch the next bill for a vote, the Cement Mixer Adjustment Act, and just shove Granny in the tauntaun carcass and pass it on voice vote.
But it's still a flagrant violation of the intent of, well, having any f-cking rules at all. Mix in partisanship and an important issue and it's a despicable tactic, whoever does it.
That whole article is interesting (although I would like to read a smart and comprehensive account of all the procedural issues at stake). It alludes to the Congressional procedural move I most despise:
If I understand, they are referring to the move where you take a bill that has moved out of committee and is scheduled for a vote, strip everything from it, literally, and copy-paste in a whole other bill. This isn't like attaching riders or the bad (good) old days of earmarks, this is gutting the turkey and pushing a duck inside it. The idea is not to obscure it but to short-circuit all the rules that allow the minority some procedural wiggle room.
99 times out of 100 this gets used to correct an actual, unplanned, bipartisan f-ck-up by Congress: like they literally don't have the time left to pass a full appropriation and the Grandma Program is going to be detached from life support in 5 hours, so they body snatch the next bill for a vote, the Cement Mixer Adjustment Act, and just shove Granny in the tauntaun carcass and pass it on voice vote.
But it's still a flagrant violation of the intent of, well, having any f-cking rules at all. Mix in partisanship and an important issue and it's a despicable tactic, whoever does it.
Last edited:
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The PPACA Thread Part IV - Repeal & Replace, or Something...
Is it that difficult to do a straight repeal?
Is it that difficult to do a straight repeal?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Thread Part IV - Repeal & Replace, or Something...
Nobody's trying to just do a straight repeal, but it's a good question. Theoretically you can usually just back a law out. But health care is so freaking complicated (which "no one could have known...") that there are probably lots of little and even not so little corners you have to fill with something.
But that ignores the central political problem, which is that ACA brought a lot of issues to light that had been successfully obscured before. You can't put those genii (?) back in the bottle, you have to address them in some fashion now. That's where Republicans are getting destroyed at town halls. It's not so much "save my Obamacare!", it's "now that we know about how we were getting the shaft before you can't just send us back there."
One of the main reasons the Republicans fought so hard against Obamacare was they knew that the public debate would educate people and they wouldn't be able to just go back to letting the uncovered die naked and alone. Remember: Obamacare itself was the conservative solution, allowing the medical, pharma and insurance industries to bleed the government dry. It is a plute-friendly solution, unsurprising since it was designed by the plute-thralls at Heritage. The real solution, single payer financed exclusively by taxing the ultra rich, is what they are literally willing to kill millions in order to avoid.
Because, you know, Jesus would have wanted it that way.
Nobody's trying to just do a straight repeal, but it's a good question. Theoretically you can usually just back a law out. But health care is so freaking complicated (which "no one could have known...") that there are probably lots of little and even not so little corners you have to fill with something.
But that ignores the central political problem, which is that ACA brought a lot of issues to light that had been successfully obscured before. You can't put those genii (?) back in the bottle, you have to address them in some fashion now. That's where Republicans are getting destroyed at town halls. It's not so much "save my Obamacare!", it's "now that we know about how we were getting the shaft before you can't just send us back there."
One of the main reasons the Republicans fought so hard against Obamacare was they knew that the public debate would educate people and they wouldn't be able to just go back to letting the uncovered die naked and alone. Remember: Obamacare itself was the conservative solution, allowing the medical, pharma and insurance industries to bleed the government dry. It is a plute-friendly solution, unsurprising since it was designed by the plute-thralls at Heritage. The real solution, single payer financed exclusively by taxing the ultra rich, is what they are literally willing to kill millions in order to avoid.
Because, you know, Jesus would have wanted it that way.
Last edited:
Wisko McBadgerton
Teaching you how to Bucky.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part IV - Repeal & Replace, or Something...
Genii or genies is good. Or jinn.
Genii or genies is good. Or jinn.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part IV - Repeal & Replace, or Something...
You were doing so well until you got to this point. For all of the wanna see Sanders in the buff crowd, I can't say this enough. Obamacare is NOT conservative in any way, shape, form or function. Even if one portion of it, ironically the mandate to have coverage, was Heritage inspired that harkens back to the conservatism of 25+ years ago. Righties have gone a long way off the reservation since then.
So, to sum up: Tax hikes on the very rich isn't conservative. Restricting how much insurers can charge older people isn't conservative. Banning lifetime limits on coverage or discriminating against people with pre existing conditions is not conservative. Expanding Medicaid IS NOT CONSERVATIVE!!!!
All of these things are part of the bill, and they are all what conservatives (the modern day version, not the unicorns you see in your sleep from the 1970's) want to get rid of because its gumbint policy that actually delivered on what it said it would.
I don't have a problem with single payer although I think its something you'd have to achieve incrementally starting with a Medicare buy in for those 50+. But the problem single payer advocates have, and its a huge one, is continually trashing the ACA has the effect of doing the Republicans bidding for them. If they want it gone, and a portion of our base keeps hearing its really a conservative plan, they won't fight for it and the effect will be that the Paul Ryans of the world will win. Somehow I don't see how that helps the cause of getting to single payer if depressed Dem turnout puts Ryan, McConnell, and Trump in complete control of the government.
You were doing so well until you got to this point. For all of the wanna see Sanders in the buff crowd, I can't say this enough. Obamacare is NOT conservative in any way, shape, form or function. Even if one portion of it, ironically the mandate to have coverage, was Heritage inspired that harkens back to the conservatism of 25+ years ago. Righties have gone a long way off the reservation since then.
So, to sum up: Tax hikes on the very rich isn't conservative. Restricting how much insurers can charge older people isn't conservative. Banning lifetime limits on coverage or discriminating against people with pre existing conditions is not conservative. Expanding Medicaid IS NOT CONSERVATIVE!!!!
All of these things are part of the bill, and they are all what conservatives (the modern day version, not the unicorns you see in your sleep from the 1970's) want to get rid of because its gumbint policy that actually delivered on what it said it would.
I don't have a problem with single payer although I think its something you'd have to achieve incrementally starting with a Medicare buy in for those 50+. But the problem single payer advocates have, and its a huge one, is continually trashing the ACA has the effect of doing the Republicans bidding for them. If they want it gone, and a portion of our base keeps hearing its really a conservative plan, they won't fight for it and the effect will be that the Paul Ryans of the world will win. Somehow I don't see how that helps the cause of getting to single payer if depressed Dem turnout puts Ryan, McConnell, and Trump in complete control of the government.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: The PPACA Thread Part IV - Repeal & Replace, or Something...
So you dont know the difference between something being conservative and a politician being Conservative? Really?
The plan itself is conservative (it is a baby step towards single payer) the people who oppose it gave up being conservative long ago.
So you dont know the difference between something being conservative and a politician being Conservative? Really?
The plan itself is conservative (it is a baby step towards single payer) the people who oppose it gave up being conservative long ago.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part IV - Repeal & Replace, or Something...
We really need to ditch the outdated view of conservatives. Mainstream conservatism is the House Freedom Caucus. Its Judge Roy Moore in Alabama. Its Paul Ryan. Its Scott Walker and Sam Brownback. Nothing conservative would be a baby step towards single payer. True conservatism is a full scale sprint AWAY from single payer. I'm not sure why people are having such a problem understanding that.
We really need to ditch the outdated view of conservatives. Mainstream conservatism is the House Freedom Caucus. Its Judge Roy Moore in Alabama. Its Paul Ryan. Its Scott Walker and Sam Brownback. Nothing conservative would be a baby step towards single payer. True conservatism is a full scale sprint AWAY from single payer. I'm not sure why people are having such a problem understanding that.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part IV - Repeal & Replace, or Something...
no, true conservatism would resist extreme movement in either direction, instead favoring a more measured approach (which, in theory, could include baby steps either towards or away from single payer)
no, true conservatism would resist extreme movement in either direction, instead favoring a more measured approach (which, in theory, could include baby steps either towards or away from single payer)
Re: The PPACA Thread Part IV - Repeal & Replace, or Something...
Um, again, the true conservatism you write about has been gone for 40 years. At some point, reached long ago, we need to redefine it by the terms to describe the vast majority of people who consider themselves conservative in the here and now. Arguing that real conservatism means an incremental approach to policy is like arguing that the world is flat. Maybe people believed that a long time ago, but its been long enough now that we should all know better.
Over time a definition can and does change.
Um, again, the true conservatism you write about has been gone for 40 years. At some point, reached long ago, we need to redefine it by the terms to describe the vast majority of people who consider themselves conservative in the here and now. Arguing that real conservatism means an incremental approach to policy is like arguing that the world is flat. Maybe people believed that a long time ago, but its been long enough now that we should all know better.
Over time a definition can and does change.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part IV - Repeal & Replace, or Something...
don't look now, but they are gaining on you!!!
don't look now, but they are gaining on you!!!
- Status