I think what we're seeing here, though the conservative party is woefully inept at its attempt, is that good or bad, it is politically impossible to scale back benefits programs once they've been created.
On another note though, I'm curious what it would take to roll the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Government Healthcare, and Obamacare into one umbrella system. Probably a miracle, but it seems to me that there is a lot of waste to be trimmed simply by streamlining these 5 systems into one "Government Healthcare System." But that probably gets too close to "single payer" for conservatives to be comfortable with, despite still being leagues different.
On another note though, I'm curious what it would take to roll the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Government Healthcare, and Obamacare into one umbrella system.
Democratic majority in the House, a supermajority in the Senate, a Democrat in the White House, and possibly a 5/4 democratic lean in SCOTUS.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I mean, we had Obama and all of congress in 2009 and the best we got was the ACA.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
There is also a targeted change to Medicaid funding that’s specifically designed to garner support from New York’s delegation. It would attempt to transfer more Medicaid spending from counties to the state, by blocking New York from obtaining federal reimbursements for payments made by counties.
So part of the plan is to force the Senate to come up with a plan. And the other part of the plan is to please New York Republicans by fucking with states rights.
That sounds kind of stupid.
So what's the likelihood this would survive a court challenge? I'm pretty sure NY could make the argument that this is a violation of state rights. Also wondering if this would be yet another thing that could get the bill nixed for being eligible for reconciliation (hell, could be the biggest thing actually, since that might scare the person ruling on the rules shitless, if there is a good chance it would get nuked by the courts).
I mean, we had Obama and all of congress in 2009 and the best we got was the ACA.
My hope... my very slim hope... is that if they do bungle this and pass a horrible AHCA that screws people over, that the outrage and suffering it generates are finally enough to push us into single-payer.
I'd still prefer they not sentence the poor and elderly to death though.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
On another note though, I'm curious what it would take to roll the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Government Healthcare, and Obamacare into one umbrella system.
Democratic majority in the House, a supermajority in the Senate, a Democrat in the White House, and possibly a 5/4 democratic lean in SCOTUS.
I think what we're seeing here, though the conservative party is woefully inept at its attempt, is that good or bad, it is politically impossible to scale back benefits programs once they've been created.
On another note though, I'm curious what it would take to roll the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Government Healthcare, and Obamacare into one umbrella system. Probably a miracle, but it seems to me that there is a lot of waste to be trimmed simply by streamlining these 5 systems into one "Government Healthcare System." But that probably gets too close to "single payer" for conservatives to be comfortable with, despite still being leagues different.
It's also a problem because the VA does a lot more, with wider ranging programs, than just healthcare.
Multiple education programs as well as vocational rehab programs for vets with 20% disability, records management for vets, community programs, ect ect.
It would also be bad for the same reasons why a lot of vets don't want privatized VA healthcare. The VA provides medical professionals and medical research targeted at specific veterans issues.
There are some aspects of the VA that I think can be mirrored for the non-vet side, but there's going to be a lot of opposition if they try to fully merge both sides, because quite a bit if it is just not comparable to standard healthcare services.
I think what we're seeing here, though the conservative party is woefully inept at its attempt, is that good or bad, it is politically impossible to scale back benefits programs once they've been created.
On another note though, I'm curious what it would take to roll the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Government Healthcare, and Obamacare into one umbrella system. Probably a miracle, but it seems to me that there is a lot of waste to be trimmed simply by streamlining these 5 systems into one "Government Healthcare System." But that probably gets too close to "single payer" for conservatives to be comfortable with, despite still being leagues different.
It's also a problem because the VA does a lot more, with wider ranging programs, than just healthcare.
Multiple education programs as well as vocational rehab programs for vets with 20% disability, records management for vets, community programs, ect ect.
It would also be bad for the same reasons why a lot of vets don't want privatized VA healthcare. The VA provides medical professionals and medical research targeted at specific veterans issues.
There are some aspects of the VA that I think can be mirrored for the non-vet side, but there's going to be a lot of opposition if they try to fully merge both sides, because quite a bit if it is just not comparable to standard healthcare services.
Most single payer healthcare systems do all those things too. The NHS has community programs, runs health education systems, runs research to assist specific groups who are being ill served by private research etc. There's nothing really 'good' about the way the US does healthcare, including for vets.
I think what we're seeing here, though the conservative party is woefully inept at its attempt, is that good or bad, it is politically impossible to scale back benefits programs once they've been created.
On another note though, I'm curious what it would take to roll the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Government Healthcare, and Obamacare into one umbrella system. Probably a miracle, but it seems to me that there is a lot of waste to be trimmed simply by streamlining these 5 systems into one "Government Healthcare System." But that probably gets too close to "single payer" for conservatives to be comfortable with, despite still being leagues different.
It's also a problem because the VA does a lot more, with wider ranging programs, than just healthcare.
Multiple education programs as well as vocational rehab programs for vets with 20% disability, records management for vets, community programs, ect ect.
It would also be bad for the same reasons why a lot of vets don't want privatized VA healthcare. The VA provides medical professionals and medical research targeted at specific veterans issues.
There are some aspects of the VA that I think can be mirrored for the non-vet side, but there's going to be a lot of opposition if they try to fully merge both sides, because quite a bit if it is just not comparable to standard healthcare services.
Most single payer healthcare systems do all those things too. The NHS has community programs, runs health education systems, runs research to assist specific groups who are being ill served by private research etc. There's nothing really 'good' about the way the US does healthcare, including for vets.
Uhh..no, not health education programs, I meant Education Education programs. The VA runs chapter 30 (Montgomery) and 33 (Post 9/11) GI Bill education programs, Voc Rehab job education programs (chapter 31), dependant education (chapter 35), reserve an emergency recall education programs (chapter 1606/1607). Those programs pay for college education and training for vets and dependants.
The VA is not solely healthcare related. So when people talk about the VA like the only thing they do is healthcare, it's showing their ignorance.
Edit: Some other programs they do:
Project to end veteran homelessness
Guarantee veteran home loans
Military pensions
Survivor benefits
Life insurance
Disability compensation rating and pension
Nursing homes (not "pay for care", actual nursing homes)
Records of military service and identification
Legal aid
I think what we're seeing here, though the conservative party is woefully inept at its attempt, is that good or bad, it is politically impossible to scale back benefits programs once they've been created.
On another note though, I'm curious what it would take to roll the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Government Healthcare, and Obamacare into one umbrella system. Probably a miracle, but it seems to me that there is a lot of waste to be trimmed simply by streamlining these 5 systems into one "Government Healthcare System." But that probably gets too close to "single payer" for conservatives to be comfortable with, despite still being leagues different.
It's also a problem because the VA does a lot more, with wider ranging programs, than just healthcare.
Multiple education programs as well as vocational rehab programs for vets with 20% disability, records management for vets, community programs, ect ect.
It would also be bad for the same reasons why a lot of vets don't want privatized VA healthcare. The VA provides medical professionals and medical research targeted at specific veterans issues.
There are some aspects of the VA that I think can be mirrored for the non-vet side, but there's going to be a lot of opposition if they try to fully merge both sides, because quite a bit if it is just not comparable to standard healthcare services.
Most single payer healthcare systems do all those things too. The NHS has community programs, runs health education systems, runs research to assist specific groups who are being ill served by private research etc. There's nothing really 'good' about the way the US does healthcare, including for vets.
Uhh..no, not health education programs, I meant Education Education programs. The VA runs chapter 30 (Montgomery) and 33 (Post 9/11) GI Bill education programs, Voc Rehab job education programs (chapter 31), dependant education (chapter 35), reserve an emergency recall education programs (chapter 1606/1607). Those programs pay for college education and training for vets and dependants.
The VA is not solely healthcare related. So when people talk about the VA like the only thing they do is healthcare, it's showing their ignorance.
He's referring to the VA's healthcare, though? I mean 'government healthcare' includes Tri-Care but it's not like the Pentagon does nothing but run Walter Reed.
Washington (CNN)After a frenzy of closed-door meetings, intense lobbying and political posturing, conservative lawmakers threw up their hands Monday and declared: The negotiations surrounding the Republican health care bill are over.
Freedom Caucus is, predictably, not happy.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I think what we're seeing here, though the conservative party is woefully inept at its attempt, is that good or bad, it is politically impossible to scale back benefits programs once they've been created.
On another note though, I'm curious what it would take to roll the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Government Healthcare, and Obamacare into one umbrella system. Probably a miracle, but it seems to me that there is a lot of waste to be trimmed simply by streamlining these 5 systems into one "Government Healthcare System." But that probably gets too close to "single payer" for conservatives to be comfortable with, despite still being leagues different.
It's also a problem because the VA does a lot more, with wider ranging programs, than just healthcare.
Multiple education programs as well as vocational rehab programs for vets with 20% disability, records management for vets, community programs, ect ect.
It would also be bad for the same reasons why a lot of vets don't want privatized VA healthcare. The VA provides medical professionals and medical research targeted at specific veterans issues.
There are some aspects of the VA that I think can be mirrored for the non-vet side, but there's going to be a lot of opposition if they try to fully merge both sides, because quite a bit if it is just not comparable to standard healthcare services.
Most single payer healthcare systems do all those things too. The NHS has community programs, runs health education systems, runs research to assist specific groups who are being ill served by private research etc. There's nothing really 'good' about the way the US does healthcare, including for vets.
Uhh..no, not health education programs, I meant Education Education programs. The VA runs chapter 30 (Montgomery) and 33 (Post 9/11) GI Bill education programs, Voc Rehab job education programs (chapter 31), dependant education (chapter 35), reserve an emergency recall education programs (chapter 1606/1607). Those programs pay for college education and training for vets and dependants.
The VA is not solely healthcare related. So when people talk about the VA like the only thing they do is healthcare, it's showing their ignorance.
He's referring to the VA's healthcare, though? I mean 'government healthcare' includes Tri-Care but it's not like the Pentagon does nothing but run Walter Reed.
Then you're trying to carve off a small slice of a larger pie, at a bad angle, while blindfolded.
The appropriate example would be if the Pentagon was based out of Walter Reed, with the stated purpose of administrating the affairs of the military hospital system and tuition assistance programs, and they did the rest of the budgeting for military programs with what time and money they had left.
The VA systems are all interconnected. Some VA education benefits work off of the disability rating of the vet, some are based off of the type of separation or legal status, and all of them rely on the VA records department. Most programs are housed out of the VA regional hospitals and offices. In many cases personnel are shared between the different systems. My old roommate worked in the legal aid department and would go help the medical clinics when they were swamped.
Trying to slice off the healthcare part is not the easy process you seem to be imagining, nor is it likely to end up with better care for vets. The VA healthcare system has problems, but those problems are caused by congress slowly defunding programs while increasing the number of vets.
Trump's going around threatening various congresspersons. Told the Senate GOP they'll gain 10 seats if they vote for AHCA, lose their majority if they don't. Has said similar things to the House.
Considering how bad the AHCA proposal is, a full repeal may be preferable in some ways. It would illustrate clearly what Obamacare did and didn't do. And it would open the doors to the next health care reform not being tied to the current structure. Let's face it, we could wholesale steal any other advanced economy's system (British NHS, French single payer, German hybrid, Swiss private) and have something that's better than the US system with or without Obamacare.
On the flip side, I'd want to see impacts on people beyond the coverage numbers for such a gambit. Yes, one million more are estimated to have coverage under a full repeal. But would the coverage be worth anything?
Considering how bad the AHCA proposal is, a full repeal may be preferable in some ways. It would illustrate clearly what Obamacare did and didn't do. And it would open the doors to the next health care reform not being tied to the current structure. Let's face it, we could wholesale steal any other advanced economy's system (British NHS, French single payer, German hybrid, Swiss private) and have something that's better than the US system with or without Obamacare.
On the flip side, I'd want to see impacts on people beyond the coverage numbers for such a gambit. Yes, one million more are estimated to have coverage under a full repeal. But would the coverage be worth anything?
Also, maybe they could wait to repeal it until they have 'any other advanced economy's system' in place so millions of people don't have to lose health insurance while they hash out the details of how to pass that system
I have a weird sinking feeling all of a sudden. I worry they'll just... do that.
I have the same feeling, but at the same time a pure repeal isn't going to go over well with their voters that actually like and need the ACA.
Also, I think the pressure needed to not get three defections in the Senate, would be of a level we've not seen before. Assuming a flat out repeal qualifies for Budget Reconciliation (don't see how, but it's the Republicans, and if they can find a way, they will), or this is something they'd want to blow up the filibuster for.
Because while most Republicans will put party before country, not many of them will put party before themselves. A flat out repeal is just not going to fly for the general public, and any Senator that votes for it, will have to answer at a state level. Only two would get a free pass, and I think there are more than that that would all but be commiting political suicide if they voted Yes on RepealAGFYS.
A full repeal with no alternative in place would ensure that huge numbers of people have no health insurance until at least 2020. The GOP absolutely will not pass anything viable while they're in power.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Trump's going around threatening various congresspersons. Told the Senate GOP they'll gain 10 seats if they vote for AHCA, lose their majority if they don't. Has said similar things to the House.
I doubt Trump can name 10 senators he didn't run against in the primary, much less identify 10 vulnerable seats that would be won by a vote for AHCA.
I have a weird sinking feeling all of a sudden. I worry they'll just... do that.
I have the same feeling, but at the same time a pure repeal isn't going to go over well with their voters that actually like and need the ACA.
Also, I think the pressure needed to not get three defections in the Senate, would be of a level we've not seen before. Assuming a flat out repeal qualifies for Budget Reconciliation (don't see how, but it's the Republicans, and if they can find a way, they will), or this is something they'd want to blow up the filibuster for.
Because while most Republicans will put party before country, not many of them will put party before themselves. A flat out repeal is just not going to fly for the general public, and any Senator that votes for it, will have to answer at a state level. Only two would get a free pass, and I think there are more than that that would all but be commiting political suicide if they voted Yes on RepealAGFYS.
A full repeal would remove the government subsidy and would also cut the taxes that were raised to pay for the subsidy. It seems like it wouldn't be too hard to find a way to make that budget neutral and pass it during reconciliation. Did raising taxes fully pay for the subsidy, or was it a further drain on the budget. If it was a further drain on the budget they can just shift that money to more tax cuts for the rich, or defense spending, or something.
I have a weird sinking feeling all of a sudden. I worry they'll just... do that.
I have the same feeling, but at the same time a pure repeal isn't going to go over well with their voters that actually like and need the ACA.
Also, I think the pressure needed to not get three defections in the Senate, would be of a level we've not seen before. Assuming a flat out repeal qualifies for Budget Reconciliation (don't see how, but it's the Republicans, and if they can find a way, they will), or this is something they'd want to blow up the filibuster for.
Because while most Republicans will put party before country, not many of them will put party before themselves. A flat out repeal is just not going to fly for the general public, and any Senator that votes for it, will have to answer at a state level. Only two would get a free pass, and I think there are more than that that would all but be commiting political suicide if they voted Yes on RepealAGFYS.
A full repeal would remove the government subsidy and would also cut the taxes that were raised to pay for the subsidy. It seems like it wouldn't be too hard to find a way to make that budget neutral and pass it during reconciliation. Did raising taxes fully pay for the subsidy, or was it a further drain on the budget. If it was a further drain on the budget they can just shift that money to more tax cuts for the rich, or defense spending, or something.
Fair enough. I just heard/read talk that it would be arguably ineligible for reconciliation due to factors to arcane for me to understand. I'm relatively cluey, but unravelling congressional/senatorial minutia is beyond me.
Doesn't change the other argument. 3 Republican defections, and it goes down in the Senate. And I'd honestly be surprised, even in this political environment, if the number of Senators that would want to vote on a straight repeal exceeded 30. You might wrangle some of the remaining 22, but I doubt more than a handful. Because I do think they know it'd be political suicide.
Hell, given the way political theatre works, I would expect McConnell or some other committee chair to adjust the RepealAGFYS legislation so that it COULDN'T be passed in reconciliation. That way "Welp, the Democrats wouldn't let it pass, so we pulled it from the docket.", so noone has to vote for it if they think it'd hurt them politically. It's a similar tactic for what they did with Merrick Garland. McConnell had the votes to reject him, but that would have put several Senators in the position of having it on record as doing so. No vote meant not having to be on record as voting against him.
Trump's going around threatening various congresspersons. Told the Senate GOP they'll gain 10 seats if they vote for AHCA, lose their majority if they don't. Has said similar things to the House.
Even if true, one has to assume the +10 wouldn't be McConnell's people. I don't think that sounds as attractive to them as he thinks it does.
Because while most Republicans will put party before country, not many of them will put party before themselves. A flat out repeal is just not going to fly for the general public, and any Senator that votes for it, will have to answer at a state level. Only two would get a free pass, and I think there are more than that that would all but be commiting political suicide if they voted Yes on RepealAGFYS.
Incumbent senators had a 87% reelection rate in 2016 despite an 18% approval rating. I don't think they're spending too many sleepless nights worrying about answering to the general public.
+6
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Because while most Republicans will put party before country, not many of them will put party before themselves. A flat out repeal is just not going to fly for the general public, and any Senator that votes for it, will have to answer at a state level. Only two would get a free pass, and I think there are more than that that would all but be commiting political suicide if they voted Yes on RepealAGFYS.
Incumbent senators had a 87% reelection rate in 2016 despite an 18% approval rating. I don't think they're spending too many sleepless nights worrying about answering to the general public.
Voting on a repeal without replacement would drastically alter the calculation
Because while most Republicans will put party before country, not many of them will put party before themselves. A flat out repeal is just not going to fly for the general public, and any Senator that votes for it, will have to answer at a state level. Only two would get a free pass, and I think there are more than that that would all but be commiting political suicide if they voted Yes on RepealAGFYS.
Incumbent senators had a 87% reelection rate in 2016 despite an 18% approval rating. I don't think they're spending too many sleepless nights worrying about answering to the general public.
If I recall correctly, senators as a whole have an 18% approval ration nationally. But individual states love their senators.
Because while most Republicans will put party before country, not many of them will put party before themselves. A flat out repeal is just not going to fly for the general public, and any Senator that votes for it, will have to answer at a state level. Only two would get a free pass, and I think there are more than that that would all but be commiting political suicide if they voted Yes on RepealAGFYS.
Incumbent senators had a 87% reelection rate in 2016 despite an 18% approval rating. I don't think they're spending too many sleepless nights worrying about answering to the general public.
Voting on a repeal without replacement would drastically alter the calculation
No, it wouldn't. Only 9 Republican senate seats are up for reelection in 2018, and from the latest polls only 1 is even at risk. By 2020, people will have forgotten about this and there will be a presidential election going on to distract them.
+2
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
So I heard a good idea from a conservative college, but it was in a list of bad ideas so I didn't want to give them the satisfaction of acknowledgment.
Bad idea
bad idea
Expand HSA's so everyone has and can use them, and use tax credits that directly deposit into the HSA account.
bad idea
bad idea
I guess a broken watch is right twice a day? I rather like that idea. Now I like that idea in combination with the exchanges and ACA, so I guess that's where I differ.
Because while most Republicans will put party before country, not many of them will put party before themselves. A flat out repeal is just not going to fly for the general public, and any Senator that votes for it, will have to answer at a state level. Only two would get a free pass, and I think there are more than that that would all but be commiting political suicide if they voted Yes on RepealAGFYS.
Incumbent senators had a 87% reelection rate in 2016 despite an 18% approval rating. I don't think they're spending too many sleepless nights worrying about answering to the general public.
The nation doesn't elect individual senators so I don't see what the relevance of the Senate approval rating is. A decent number of Republican Senators are in places where they can lose if they strangle a kitten, and it doesn't take many of them voting no to kill the bill.
Because while most Republicans will put party before country, not many of them will put party before themselves. A flat out repeal is just not going to fly for the general public, and any Senator that votes for it, will have to answer at a state level. Only two would get a free pass, and I think there are more than that that would all but be commiting political suicide if they voted Yes on RepealAGFYS.
Incumbent senators had a 87% reelection rate in 2016 despite an 18% approval rating. I don't think they're spending too many sleepless nights worrying about answering to the general public.
Voting on a repeal without replacement would drastically alter the calculation
No, it wouldn't. Only 9 Republican senate seats are up for reelection in 2018, and from the latest polls only 1 is even at risk. By 2020, people will have forgotten about this and there will be a presidential election going on to distract them.
I doubt voters would forget the thing that killed grandpa or keeps them in constant pain because they can't afford a simple surgery to fix a chronic pain problem.
+4
Options
Mx. QuillI now prefer "Myr. Quill", actually...{They/Them}Registered Userregular
Because while most Republicans will put party before country, not many of them will put party before themselves. A flat out repeal is just not going to fly for the general public, and any Senator that votes for it, will have to answer at a state level. Only two would get a free pass, and I think there are more than that that would all but be commiting political suicide if they voted Yes on RepealAGFYS.
Incumbent senators had a 87% reelection rate in 2016 despite an 18% approval rating. I don't think they're spending too many sleepless nights worrying about answering to the general public.
Voting on a repeal without replacement would drastically alter the calculation
No, it wouldn't. Only 9 Republican senate seats are up for reelection in 2018, and from the latest polls only 1 is even at risk. By 2020, people will have forgotten about this and there will be a presidential election going on to distract them.
I doubt voters would forget the thing that killed grandpa or keeps them in constant pain because they can't afford a simple surgery to fix a chronic pain problem.
And it's up to us to make sure that those who didn't lose health coverage nor loved ones to these monsters know exactly what did happen to countless others.
Because while most Republicans will put party before country, not many of them will put party before themselves. A flat out repeal is just not going to fly for the general public, and any Senator that votes for it, will have to answer at a state level. Only two would get a free pass, and I think there are more than that that would all but be commiting political suicide if they voted Yes on RepealAGFYS.
Incumbent senators had a 87% reelection rate in 2016 despite an 18% approval rating. I don't think they're spending too many sleepless nights worrying about answering to the general public.
Voting on a repeal without replacement would drastically alter the calculation
No, it wouldn't. Only 9 Republican senate seats are up for reelection in 2018, and from the latest polls only 1 is even at risk. By 2020, people will have forgotten about this and there will be a presidential election going on to distract them.
I doubt voters would forget the thing that killed grandpa or keeps them in constant pain because they can't afford a simple surgery to fix a chronic pain problem.
I guarantee I know at least one person who will definitely still vote pub in this situation.
Because while most Republicans will put party before country, not many of them will put party before themselves. A flat out repeal is just not going to fly for the general public, and any Senator that votes for it, will have to answer at a state level. Only two would get a free pass, and I think there are more than that that would all but be commiting political suicide if they voted Yes on RepealAGFYS.
Incumbent senators had a 87% reelection rate in 2016 despite an 18% approval rating. I don't think they're spending too many sleepless nights worrying about answering to the general public.
Voting on a repeal without replacement would drastically alter the calculation
No, it wouldn't. Only 9 Republican senate seats are up for reelection in 2018, and from the latest polls only 1 is even at risk. By 2020, people will have forgotten about this and there will be a presidential election going on to distract them.
I doubt voters would forget the thing that killed grandpa or keeps them in constant pain because they can't afford a simple surgery to fix a chronic pain problem.
Funny, since voters whose grandpas were saved and whose constant pain was fixed by a simple surgery made affordable thanks to the ACA voted Trump.
Voters don't have much of a memory, and four years is an eternity in politics. Four months would be pushing it.
That is, unless the GOP and MSM keep reminding them every day for the next four years that their grandpas died and their pain is not being fixed because Obama and the Democrats fucked up healthcare with the ACA so much that Trump hasn't finished fixing it yet. Which is also quite possible, and which would guarantee a strong Trump reelection and GOP domination in 2020.
So I heard a good idea from a conservative college, but it was in a list of bad ideas so I didn't want to give them the satisfaction of acknowledgment.
Bad idea
bad idea
Expand HSA's so everyone has and can use them, and use tax credits that directly deposit into the HSA account.
bad idea
bad idea
I guess a broken watch is right twice a day? I rather like that idea. Now I like that idea in combination with the exchanges and ACA, so I guess that's where I differ.
HSA's are useless. Its like saying to someone in a flood zone that rather than building dykes and encouraging them to build in a more sustainable area, you will instead be providing them a tax free bucket. Sure, a bucket can move water. Perhaps 10 gallons a minute. But you've got 10 billion gallons incoming and nowhere to put the water.
HSA's are just a way for rich people to stash away more cash for themselves for retirement. Zero help to those in real need.
So I heard a good idea from a conservative college, but it was in a list of bad ideas so I didn't want to give them the satisfaction of acknowledgment.
Bad idea
bad idea
Expand HSA's so everyone has and can use them, and use tax credits that directly deposit into the HSA account.
bad idea
bad idea
I guess a broken watch is right twice a day? I rather like that idea. Now I like that idea in combination with the exchanges and ACA, so I guess that's where I differ.
HSA's are useless. Its like saying to someone in a flood zone that rather than building dykes and encouraging them to build in a more sustainable area, you will instead be providing them a tax free bucket. Sure, a bucket can move water. Perhaps 10 gallons a minute. But you've got 10 billion gallons incoming and nowhere to put the water.
HSA's are just a way for rich people to stash away more cash for themselves for retirement. Zero help to those in real need.
Also Wall Street gets to take some fees for managing the money.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I have a weird sinking feeling all of a sudden. I worry they'll just... do that.
I have the same feeling, but at the same time a pure repeal isn't going to go over well with their voters that actually like and need the ACA.
Also, I think the pressure needed to not get three defections in the Senate, would be of a level we've not seen before. Assuming a flat out repeal qualifies for Budget Reconciliation (don't see how, but it's the Republicans, and if they can find a way, they will), or this is something they'd want to blow up the filibuster for.
Because while most Republicans will put party before country, not many of them will put party before themselves. A flat out repeal is just not going to fly for the general public, and any Senator that votes for it, will have to answer at a state level. Only two would get a free pass, and I think there are more than that that would all but be commiting political suicide if they voted Yes on RepealAGFYS.
This reminds me of something funny I was listening to recently on The Weeds where one of them pointed out that the GOP Senators from Kentucky seem to be actively hostile to the people of Kentucky and that this has never actually seemed to be a problem for them getting elected. I think you'd be surprised how many Senators could get away with voting for this bill.
Posts
On another note though, I'm curious what it would take to roll the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Government Healthcare, and Obamacare into one umbrella system. Probably a miracle, but it seems to me that there is a lot of waste to be trimmed simply by streamlining these 5 systems into one "Government Healthcare System." But that probably gets too close to "single payer" for conservatives to be comfortable with, despite still being leagues different.
Democratic majority in the House, a supermajority in the Senate, a Democrat in the White House, and possibly a 5/4 democratic lean in SCOTUS.
I mean, we had Obama and all of congress in 2009 and the best we got was the ACA.
So what's the likelihood this would survive a court challenge? I'm pretty sure NY could make the argument that this is a violation of state rights. Also wondering if this would be yet another thing that could get the bill nixed for being eligible for reconciliation (hell, could be the biggest thing actually, since that might scare the person ruling on the rules shitless, if there is a good chance it would get nuked by the courts).
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
My hope... my very slim hope... is that if they do bungle this and pass a horrible AHCA that screws people over, that the outrage and suffering it generates are finally enough to push us into single-payer.
I'd still prefer they not sentence the poor and elderly to death though.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
And honestly probably 3/4 of state government.
It's also a problem because the VA does a lot more, with wider ranging programs, than just healthcare.
Multiple education programs as well as vocational rehab programs for vets with 20% disability, records management for vets, community programs, ect ect.
It would also be bad for the same reasons why a lot of vets don't want privatized VA healthcare. The VA provides medical professionals and medical research targeted at specific veterans issues.
There are some aspects of the VA that I think can be mirrored for the non-vet side, but there's going to be a lot of opposition if they try to fully merge both sides, because quite a bit if it is just not comparable to standard healthcare services.
Most single payer healthcare systems do all those things too. The NHS has community programs, runs health education systems, runs research to assist specific groups who are being ill served by private research etc. There's nothing really 'good' about the way the US does healthcare, including for vets.
Uhh..no, not health education programs, I meant Education Education programs. The VA runs chapter 30 (Montgomery) and 33 (Post 9/11) GI Bill education programs, Voc Rehab job education programs (chapter 31), dependant education (chapter 35), reserve an emergency recall education programs (chapter 1606/1607). Those programs pay for college education and training for vets and dependants.
The VA is not solely healthcare related. So when people talk about the VA like the only thing they do is healthcare, it's showing their ignorance.
Edit: Some other programs they do:
Project to end veteran homelessness
Guarantee veteran home loans
Military pensions
Survivor benefits
Life insurance
Disability compensation rating and pension
Nursing homes (not "pay for care", actual nursing homes)
Records of military service and identification
Legal aid
He's referring to the VA's healthcare, though? I mean 'government healthcare' includes Tri-Care but it's not like the Pentagon does nothing but run Walter Reed.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/politics/republicans-count-votes-health-care/
Freedom Caucus is, predictably, not happy.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Then you're trying to carve off a small slice of a larger pie, at a bad angle, while blindfolded.
The appropriate example would be if the Pentagon was based out of Walter Reed, with the stated purpose of administrating the affairs of the military hospital system and tuition assistance programs, and they did the rest of the budgeting for military programs with what time and money they had left.
The VA systems are all interconnected. Some VA education benefits work off of the disability rating of the vet, some are based off of the type of separation or legal status, and all of them rely on the VA records department. Most programs are housed out of the VA regional hospitals and offices. In many cases personnel are shared between the different systems. My old roommate worked in the legal aid department and would go help the medical clinics when they were swamped.
Trying to slice off the healthcare part is not the easy process you seem to be imagining, nor is it likely to end up with better care for vets. The VA healthcare system has problems, but those problems are caused by congress slowly defunding programs while increasing the number of vets.
It is not working very well (Westwood is a Washington Examiner reporter).
Tweet for possible embed-fail: (emphasis added)
Edit: Meanwhile, CBO numbers continue to roll out. Per NYT, they've indicated that Repeal-and-fuck-off would be BETTER for the rate of insured Americans than AHCA.
Oddly making the Freedom Caucus right (or at least less-wrong than Ryan and congressional leadership)
I have a weird sinking feeling all of a sudden. I worry they'll just... do that.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I have the same feeling, but at the same time a pure repeal isn't going to go over well with their voters that actually like and need the ACA.
On the flip side, I'd want to see impacts on people beyond the coverage numbers for such a gambit. Yes, one million more are estimated to have coverage under a full repeal. But would the coverage be worth anything?
Also, maybe they could wait to repeal it until they have 'any other advanced economy's system' in place so millions of people don't have to lose health insurance while they hash out the details of how to pass that system
Because while most Republicans will put party before country, not many of them will put party before themselves. A flat out repeal is just not going to fly for the general public, and any Senator that votes for it, will have to answer at a state level. Only two would get a free pass, and I think there are more than that that would all but be commiting political suicide if they voted Yes on RepealAGFYS.
I doubt Trump can name 10 senators he didn't run against in the primary, much less identify 10 vulnerable seats that would be won by a vote for AHCA.
A full repeal would remove the government subsidy and would also cut the taxes that were raised to pay for the subsidy. It seems like it wouldn't be too hard to find a way to make that budget neutral and pass it during reconciliation. Did raising taxes fully pay for the subsidy, or was it a further drain on the budget. If it was a further drain on the budget they can just shift that money to more tax cuts for the rich, or defense spending, or something.
Doesn't change the other argument. 3 Republican defections, and it goes down in the Senate. And I'd honestly be surprised, even in this political environment, if the number of Senators that would want to vote on a straight repeal exceeded 30. You might wrangle some of the remaining 22, but I doubt more than a handful. Because I do think they know it'd be political suicide.
Hell, given the way political theatre works, I would expect McConnell or some other committee chair to adjust the RepealAGFYS legislation so that it COULDN'T be passed in reconciliation. That way "Welp, the Democrats wouldn't let it pass, so we pulled it from the docket.", so noone has to vote for it if they think it'd hurt them politically. It's a similar tactic for what they did with Merrick Garland. McConnell had the votes to reject him, but that would have put several Senators in the position of having it on record as doing so. No vote meant not having to be on record as voting against him.
It's only a difference of 1 million people (from the 24m figure); I would hope that's not going to tip the outrage scales.
Incumbent senators had a 87% reelection rate in 2016 despite an 18% approval rating. I don't think they're spending too many sleepless nights worrying about answering to the general public.
Voting on a repeal without replacement would drastically alter the calculation
If I recall correctly, senators as a whole have an 18% approval ration nationally. But individual states love their senators.
People are stupid.
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/11/24/voters-like-their-own-senators-even-though-they-hate-congress
No, it wouldn't. Only 9 Republican senate seats are up for reelection in 2018, and from the latest polls only 1 is even at risk. By 2020, people will have forgotten about this and there will be a presidential election going on to distract them.
Bad idea
bad idea
Expand HSA's so everyone has and can use them, and use tax credits that directly deposit into the HSA account.
bad idea
bad idea
I guess a broken watch is right twice a day? I rather like that idea. Now I like that idea in combination with the exchanges and ACA, so I guess that's where I differ.
The nation doesn't elect individual senators so I don't see what the relevance of the Senate approval rating is. A decent number of Republican Senators are in places where they can lose if they strangle a kitten, and it doesn't take many of them voting no to kill the bill.
I doubt voters would forget the thing that killed grandpa or keeps them in constant pain because they can't afford a simple surgery to fix a chronic pain problem.
And it's up to us to make sure that those who didn't lose health coverage nor loved ones to these monsters know exactly what did happen to countless others.
I guarantee I know at least one person who will definitely still vote pub in this situation.
If not more than that.
Funny, since voters whose grandpas were saved and whose constant pain was fixed by a simple surgery made affordable thanks to the ACA voted Trump.
Voters don't have much of a memory, and four years is an eternity in politics. Four months would be pushing it.
That is, unless the GOP and MSM keep reminding them every day for the next four years that their grandpas died and their pain is not being fixed because Obama and the Democrats fucked up healthcare with the ACA so much that Trump hasn't finished fixing it yet. Which is also quite possible, and which would guarantee a strong Trump reelection and GOP domination in 2020.
HSA's are useless. Its like saying to someone in a flood zone that rather than building dykes and encouraging them to build in a more sustainable area, you will instead be providing them a tax free bucket. Sure, a bucket can move water. Perhaps 10 gallons a minute. But you've got 10 billion gallons incoming and nowhere to put the water.
HSA's are just a way for rich people to stash away more cash for themselves for retirement. Zero help to those in real need.
Also Wall Street gets to take some fees for managing the money.
a bunch of red states expanded medicaid, I'm not so sure
This reminds me of something funny I was listening to recently on The Weeds where one of them pointed out that the GOP Senators from Kentucky seem to be actively hostile to the people of Kentucky and that this has never actually seemed to be a problem for them getting elected. I think you'd be surprised how many Senators could get away with voting for this bill.