I kinda want to talk about the current Republican health care plan ....
... given that there are enough republicans in the senate who consider the bill too conservative and enough who consider it too liberal to sink the bill, and there is very likely not much reconciling those two groups, chances of this actually passing are slim to none,
Smart Democrats would be all over this like a Mirror of Kalandra give away. This is a huge opportunity to constructively find solutions. The democrats could offer enough votes for passage - given that the new law does X Y and Z....
Compromise is the fuel that actually drive progress, not ideology. Congress could actually do some good for a change.
Congress could have done some good at literally any time in the last 6 years by addressing the known problems with Obamacare and taking steps to fix them. That didn't happen. Instead, the republicans had upwards of 60 protest votes to repeal Obamacare with no replacement, and any chance of actually fixing the problems with the law went out the window.
Now, your expectation is that democrats compromise with republicans to repeal the signature legislative achievement of the past administration and replace it with... What, this hot mess? Let's be clear, in order to make htis bill better than Obamacare, you'd pretty much have to start from scratch. There is virtually nothing actually worth salvaging here. Asking for bipartisanship at this point, and on this issue, is incredibly hypocritical, and I see absolutely no reason for it. Unless the republicans are going to further the democratic agenda with something like single payer or the public option (they aren't, they want to go even further to the right than a plan thought up in no small part by the Heritage foundation, which is a large part why their bill is such a mess), what do the democrats have to gain from this? At best, a marginal push in the right direction at a huge cost. I don't see that happening. It would be political suicide for the dems, and it wouldn't actually make anything better for the average American citizen.
The responsible way for bipartisanship to happen is for republicans to reform and improve on Obamacare, because what is there is fundamentally workable. It's not perfect, it's not even "almost as good as most of the UHC systems in the world", but it's as good as you're going to get without going further to the left and/or letting a lot of people die. But republicans have campaigned for 6 fucking years on the idea that Obamacare is this great evil which is destroying American health care. They have made it clear that no adjustments will be made to the bill. They have refused federal funding for the medicaid expansion at the state level, essentially refusing to take free money to give their constituents health care. Obamacare works, but needs help. This, by all estimations, doesn't work, and needs help in the same way Old Yeller needed help. Why in god's name is the bipartisan thing to do to try to fix this mess? Not even republicans like it.
"
I haven't seen final numbers on the new plan (and I'm not disputing what you've posted on the new plan). The amount actually subsidized under the existing ACA is significantly less than what that image shows. If you ever have to pay complete coverage on your own, vs a subsidy than you can see the actual difference. The ACA is factoring in "group discounts" which isn't honestly a subsidy, and even then the amounts aren't as much as listed.
I'm assuming your cite here is your insurance bill? I moved out of the USA before Obamacare, and get my healthcare from the AOK, a public option here in Germany. You guys fucked up in not having one or two or a dozen of those. ^_^ But anyways, I'm not sure where your information is coming from.
"
If they intend for universal coverage and don't deny because of pre-existing conditions, why are there even age brackets in the cost? Are there race brackets or sex brackets? Can people control their age?
Actually, insurance companies can charge more based on age (within a 3:1 margin). This makes some sense; the old are necessarily going to be a more high-risk group when it comes to healthcare.
"
We need experts providing potential solutions, and THEN have our elected leaders figure out how they can implement the best potential answers.
Well, Obamacare came in no small part from a famous Washington think tank known as the Heritage Foundation, and most of the adjustments were made at the recommendation of various other smart people, and not just politicians. This bill... I'm a lot less sure. In fact, I'm pretty sure this bill is exactly what you're maligning, because I have yet to see anyone one could consider an "expert" praise this bill. Even people like Avik Roy, who fucking hated the ACA, think this bill is awful.
Luna's Blackguards - a guild of bronies - is now recruiting! If you're a fan of our favourite chromatic marshmallow equines, hit me up with an add or whisper, and I'll invite you!
IGN: HopeYouAreFireProof
Last edited by Budget_player_cadet#3296 on Mar 9, 2017, 2:58:35 AM
Even fox news is slamming the Republican Insurance Plan(RIP to keep it short). I thought that everyone could agree that it is a shit healthcare plan.
I remember when people said (here in this topic even), that the ACA was bad because of the mandate, people went as far as calling unconstitutional. Now the new healthcare plan add 30% in price if you lapse your healthcare plan for 63 days (30% for a year), and that money doesn't even go to the government, it goes to insurance companies.
It also doesn't solve the problem. If your health insurance lapses for any reason for that length of time, all this does is make it so that you have even more incentives to stay off health insurance until you get sick. It is an astoundingly stupid piece of legislature that clearly was not crafted with any eye on what the incentives actually were.
"
Raycheetah wrote:
No, Credit Suisse isn't a new flavor...
"
Credit Suisse: Starbucks Stock Rating Drops 80% After Announcing Opposition to President Trump…
Back in January Starbucks announced they were going to stand in opposition to President Trump; and to display their virtuous immigration bona fides they announced their intention to hire 10,000 refugees as employees in lieu of current American applicants for employment.
An almost immediate backlash began as pro-USA consumers and President Trump supporters turned away from the Starbucks brand. As a consequence the Starbucks business model has been severely impacted.
Prior to their virtue-signaling announcement, Starbucks held a +80 position with Credit Suisse. Today that rating dropped to ZERO as analysts announced the latest brand rating against the back drop of significant drops in sales.
So, who holds the purse-strings in the US economy? I'll give ya a hint: We vote. =^[.]^=
Just so we're clear, we're seeing a shift from a major upward trend to a flat trend.
"
"Our work shows a sudden drop in brand sentiment following announcement of the refugee hiring initiative on Jan. 29th, to flattish from a run-rate of ~+80 (on an index of -100 to +100). Net sentiment has since recovered, but has seen significant volatility in recent weeks," equity analyst Jason West wrote in a research note.
[...]
Trump supporters threatened to boycott the coffee maker. Since the announcement was made, shares of Starbucks are flat.
And it's still volatile. And since then, it recovered.
Luna's Blackguards - a guild of bronies - is now recruiting! If you're a fan of our favourite chromatic marshmallow equines, hit me up with an add or whisper, and I'll invite you!
IGN: HopeYouAreFireProof
Now, your expectation is that democrats compromise with republicans to repeal the signature legislative achievement of the past administration and replace it with... What, this hot mess? Let's be clear, in order to make htis bill better than Obamacare, you'd pretty much have to start from scratch. There is virtually nothing actually worth salvaging here. Asking for bipartisanship at this point, and on this issue, is incredibly hypocritical, and I see absolutely no reason for it. Unless the republicans are going to further the democratic agenda with something like single payer or the public option (they aren't, they want to go even further to the right than a plan thought up in no small part by the Heritage foundation, which is a large part why their bill is such a mess), what do the democrats have to gain from this? At best, a marginal push in the right direction at a huge cost. I don't see that happening. It would be political suicide for the dems, and it wouldn't actually make anything better for the average American citizen.
If what he said is true, then they never wanted this new healthcare to pass anyway. If RIP is not approved, then afterwards ACA fail, they will be able to say: "See? We had something better to replace ACA, but because of democrats' obstruction we couldn't do it, now everyone is screwed!!". They could blame Obama and the Democratic party at the same time.
Man... I always thought that politics was about powerful people playing with common folk's lives, but I never thought it could be this blatant.
Smart Democrats would be all over this like a Mirror of Kalandra give away. This is a huge opportunity to constructively find solutions. The democrats could offer enough votes for passage - given that the new law does X Y and Z....
Compromise is the fuel that actually drive progress, not ideology. Congress could actually do some good for a change.
Didn't work out to good for Clinton. He compromised plenty with republicans and they praised him for it at first. Then they turned around and blamed him for their failures. Under Obama you had republicans shoot down their own bills because Obama might have taken credit if they succeeded. Then you have the highly partisan people that always show up to vote who would kill you for compromising.
The smarter political play is to let Republicans hang themselves with a shitty health care bill. Health Care has pretty much screwed who ever tries to touch it. The Republicans didn't compromise and got rewarded for 8 years of obstruction. Not sure the Democrats have the balls to do the same play though.
The only time you will see both parties compromise is when the American people are 100% getting screwed.
My sentiments exactly. What you see is what you get. You want Democrats to Save Healthcare and give Republicans the credit? Republicans could do something sensible and not repeal Obamacare and replace it with something more horrible. It apparently too hard to do. Let's Destroy Your Health Care to Save the GOP.
Meanwhile, Slate's coverage of the AHCA is downright gleeful. They're treating it like Christmas came early. Which, to be fair, for democrats is pretty accurate. This bill is an absolute clusterfuck, the kind of legislative push that can rightfully and justifiably be used to tar and feather a party for years, and you don't even have to lie about it to make it look bad.
The most vocal resistance, though, has been from conservatives: The Freedom Caucus in the House and the conservative triumvirate of Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz in the Senate. Each of these blocs is large enough to deprive their party a majority vote in their respective chambers, and the cavalry of outside conservative groups—Heritage Action, the Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity (the Koch brothers), FreedomWorks—have backed them up with swift expressions of disgust at the bill.
Those minds that see the American Health Care Act as Obamacare Lite believe that the federal government should have little, if any, role in spending dollars to provide poor and lower-income people with access to medical care. If your baseline is that the Medicaid expansion should be undone and what remains of Medicaid should be slashed and block granted off to the states, that no federal dollars should be spent to help lower-middle income individuals obtain health coverage, that few federal regulations should govern the financing of and delivery of health services, and that no taxes should exist, then sure, this proposal would come across as “Obamacare Lite.”
Both liberal and conservative health care experts have condemned the AHCA as a potential disaster that could throw health markets into chaos while tossing millions from their insurance. The Congressional Budget Office has yet to “score” the bill, but an early analysis from Standard & Poor’s found that 6 million to 10 million people will lose their insurance under the AHCA, including 2 million to 4 million currently enrolled in the individual market, and 4 million to 6 million on Medicaid. The facts of these changes are in sharp contrast to House Speaker Paul Ryan’s rosy rhetoric in support of the proposal. “It means more choices and competition so that you can buy the plan that you need and that you can afford,” he said at a Tuesday news conference, arguing that the plan creates “a better, patient-centered system” and “gives people the freedom to buy the plan they want and can afford.”
"
House Republicans worked on the American Health Care Act for less than two months. It took more than a year, from President Obama’s announcement that he would pursue health reform in February 2009 to its signing in March 2010—for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to become a reality—a “big f***ing deal,” in the words of then–Vice President Joe Biden. If you include the time before Obama’s election—when interest groups, lawmakers, and liberal wonks worked toward consensus on health care reform—then Obamacare took years to bring from conception to fruition.
"
Republicans had years to build an actual coalition for repeal and replace. But they never did the work. Now, they face of the pressure of their promises and an angry base, revved up on endless (and often baseless) attacks on the law. That absence of allies is why the AHCA faces opposition on all sides, from Democrats and industry stakeholders to conservative activists, right-wing lawmakers, and nervous Republicans unwilling to back a package that throws their constituents to the winds.
Fun stuff. ^_^
Luna's Blackguards - a guild of bronies - is now recruiting! If you're a fan of our favourite chromatic marshmallow equines, hit me up with an add or whisper, and I'll invite you!
IGN: HopeYouAreFireProof
Turns out that most voters are actually against almost all of Trump's agenda. Fancy that.
Luna's Blackguards - a guild of bronies - is now recruiting! If you're a fan of our favourite chromatic marshmallow equines, hit me up with an add or whisper, and I'll invite you!
IGN: HopeYouAreFireProof
Turns out that most voters are actually against almost all of Trump's agenda. Fancy that.
Trump supporters claim all polls are wrong...
Not all. But let's consider a few things about that one...
1. That survey was conducted via random phone dialing March 2-6 — that is, partially on weekdays last week. The documentation does not indicate times, but I would suspect during normal business hours.
2. When that survey participants for their party affiliation, Democrats outnumbered Republicans at a 3:2 ratio (32% to 24%).
3. It is not likely that recent changes have been so drastic that the real ratio between Dems and Reps is 3:2; more sophisticated polling puts the two pretty even, perhaps a slight (10:9) Democrat advantage. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states
So in this case, I think the very survey methodology is biased. You can't just call random numbers during weekday business hours and expect proportional numbers of Republicans to respond — they're at work and can't answer the phone.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Mar 9, 2017, 12:08:03 PM
