They've got to pass a continuing resolution (or a budget, but HAHAHAHA nope), in the next 10 days or there's a government shutdown. I don't know who in the administration thinks they've got the attention or time to do health care this week, but I think it'll destroy the caucus to try to do both at once. Representatives will be making their votes on the CR contingent upon provisions in the health care bill, and vice versa.
That's what I'm expecting: dump AHCA into the CR.
The Continuing Resolution needs 60 votes in the Senate. If they try to do that, it's shutdown time.
Nuke the filibuster..
then the continuing resolution needs 50 votes in the senate. if they tie the boat anchor that is ahca to it, good luck!
Yes, it was a bit buried with the house's complete fumbling of the ball, but the original issue with ACHA was that they didn't have 50 pub votes in the Senate, in the first place
Yup. Which is why I expect them to try- not to succeed. Though tying it to the budget might give the holdouts cover?
They've got to pass a continuing resolution (or a budget, but HAHAHAHA nope), in the next 10 days or there's a government shutdown. I don't know who in the administration thinks they've got the attention or time to do health care this week, but I think it'll destroy the caucus to try to do both at once. Representatives will be making their votes on the CR contingent upon provisions in the health care bill, and vice versa.
That's what I'm expecting: dump AHCA into the CR.
The Continuing Resolution needs 60 votes in the Senate. If they try to do that, it's shutdown time.
Nuke the filibuster..
then the continuing resolution needs 50 votes in the senate. if they tie the boat anchor that is ahca to it, good luck!
Yes, it was a bit buried with the house's complete fumbling of the ball, but the original issue with ACHA was that they didn't have 50 pub votes in the Senate, in the first place
Yup. Which is why I expect them to try- not to succeed. Though tying it to the budget might give the holdouts cover?
there is no cover deep enough to hide you from voting to remove 25 million people's healthcare. and a CR to avoid a shutdown is also barely any cover at all because people don't care about shutdowns for longer than 10 seconds after they are over.
They've got to pass a continuing resolution (or a budget, but HAHAHAHA nope), in the next 10 days or there's a government shutdown. I don't know who in the administration thinks they've got the attention or time to do health care this week, but I think it'll destroy the caucus to try to do both at once. Representatives will be making their votes on the CR contingent upon provisions in the health care bill, and vice versa.
That's what I'm expecting: dump AHCA into the CR.
The Continuing Resolution needs 60 votes in the Senate. If they try to do that, it's shutdown time.
Nuke the filibuster..
then the continuing resolution needs 50 votes in the senate. if they tie the boat anchor that is ahca to it, good luck!
Yup 50 votes from people who know that if they nuke the filibuster the own the whole deal and all after effects from it. Because as frustrating to the majority party the filibuster is it is also their fig leaf for not passing bills they REALLY don't want anything to do with.
I can imagine a terrible scenario where the ongoing collapse of obamacare and all of the tragedies that come with it, coupled with a left wave election in 2020, leads to an immediate medicare for everyone type expansion.
Is there any constitutional problem with that solution? It seems like the ACA decision would cover that type of expansion as well.
That depends on the Supreme Court.
So... fuck.
I believe that universal medicare is on much, much firmer Constitutional ground than the ACA ever was. From my recollection in the old thread arguing the Constitutionality of the ACA, most people agreed with this assessment.
they could let anyone who wants to opt out of it and get a massive bill when they use the hospital if they want
I don't think outlawing private health insurance is a winning move for America so as long as you preserve that, it should be good
They've got to pass a continuing resolution (or a budget, but HAHAHAHA nope), in the next 10 days or there's a government shutdown. I don't know who in the administration thinks they've got the attention or time to do health care this week, but I think it'll destroy the caucus to try to do both at once. Representatives will be making their votes on the CR contingent upon provisions in the health care bill, and vice versa.
That's what I'm expecting: dump AHCA into the CR.
The Continuing Resolution needs 60 votes in the Senate. If they try to do that, it's shutdown time.
Hell, even if they did nuke the legislative filibuster, I doubt they have the 51 votes needed to get this through the Senate. Plus, I see causing a government shutdown to push forward a bill with like 14% support exploding spectacularly in the faces of the idiots that attempt it. The republican caucus int he house might be far gone, but there are enough in the Senate that realize some lines should not be crossed, if for nothing else, to ensure their well being (it's why I don't foresee them doing a fuck you repeal if they losing badly).
Some Republicans Think They May Have A Health Care Deal
The reality is they may be even further away from an Obamacare replacement than before.
The deal, brokered between House Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Tuesday Group co-chairman Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.), would allow states to get waivers eliminating the so-called community rating provision ― the rule that prohibits insurers from charging higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions. In order to obtain the waiver, states would have to participate in a federal high-risk pool or establish their own, and satisfy some other conditions.
In exchange for that conservative concession, the amendment would reinstate the Essential Health Benefits that were already taken out of the bill ― though, again, states could waive those provisions as well if they were able to show that doing so would lower premiums, increase the number of people insured, or “advance another benefit to the public interest in the state.”
That’s according to a white paper describing the amendment, which is the result of weeks of negotiation between Meadows and MacArthur. While they have both agreed to the amendment, supposedly representing a number of conservatives and moderates respectively, the amendment is still being reviewed by the Senate and House GOP leadership.
So it does not actually include EHBs in a meaningful way and screws over those with pre-existing conditions.
This is like when I-banks tried to get language about being able to break certain rules for "Customer service". Everyone knows it's effectively killing that rule. Congresspeople aren't dumb enough to believe in the good nature of corporations.
I think they just want to make the road to doing what they wanted to do before as convoluted as possible so that when its reported in the news the details won't be picked up on.
Just like how they actually created a much harsher penalty for not getting insurance, and then because the penalty didn't happen until after you'd actually gotten insurance it let them go on tv and lie saying "We got rid of the penalty for not having insurance." And basic news didn't bother looking into that any further and also reported it as true.
The proposals don't even make sense given their future plans. Trump and other members of the GOP want to pass a bill to require states to sell insurance across state lines. As soon as one state screws over EHBs, it would effectively screwed over everywhere under their phase two or three plans or whatever they are calling their pipe dreams.
It doesn't make sense to combine "let's empower the states!" with "let's make state level rules meaningless!"
I think they just want to make the road to doing what they wanted to do before as convoluted as possible so that when its reported in the news the details won't be picked up on.
Just like how they actually created a much harsher penalty for not getting insurance, and then because the penalty didn't happen until after you'd actually gotten insurance it let them go on tv and lie saying "We got rid of the penalty for not having insurance." And basic news didn't bother looking into that any further and also reported it as true.
Their penalty for not having insurance was much, much smaller though. A 30% surcharge is way lower than the ACA penalty unless you're comparing a single year of ACA penalty with starting on a high-premium plan.
I think they just want to make the road to doing what they wanted to do before as convoluted as possible so that when its reported in the news the details won't be picked up on.
Just like how they actually created a much harsher penalty for not getting insurance, and then because the penalty didn't happen until after you'd actually gotten insurance it let them go on tv and lie saying "We got rid of the penalty for not having insurance." And basic news didn't bother looking into that any further and also reported it as true.
Their penalty for not having insurance was much, much smaller though. A 30% surcharge is way lower than the ACA penalty unless you're comparing a single year of ACA penalty with starting on a high-premium plan.
Your premiums were increased by 30%, every month, for an entire year if you were without insurance for just 60 days. No exception.
The ACA tax had a multitude of exceptions and had a ceiling that it could not go over.
+2
Options
I ZimbraWorst song, played on ugliest guitarRegistered Userregular
...The fuck is the justification for charging 4x as much because you had s healthy pregnancy?
life is precious except for women who should be punished for not being able to afford the cost of a healthy pregnancy and if she did it the right way then she surely has a man who can provide the money for her to push out the little brat
...The fuck is the justification for charging 4x as much because you had s healthy pregnancy?
They just got done paying a 5 or 6 figure sum for the pregnancy and birth, so they're going to recoup some of their losses. At least it's better than them just outright cancelling the insurance policy when a woman gets pregnant like they did pre-ACA.
Fuck health insurance. Give us single payer and be done with this shit.
...The fuck is the justification for charging 4x as much because you had s healthy pregnancy?
The only thing that comes to mind is that once you've had one kid the chance of you having another kid the next year in way higher than if you didn't have a kid in the last few years.
CAP has projections on the premium increases for people with various conditions:
Fucking monsters.
If Lex Luthor looked at this chart he'd probably say they went too far.
This seems like some sort of frankenstein bill that is designed to get through the house by pretending to have things both sides of the GOP want via wavers removing them for states that ask. But I don't see it getting through the senate even straight up and down. I bet the republicans are hoping to get this into the senate, and have the democrats filibuster it even though it'd never pass anyway so they can use it as a cudgel.
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
I just hope people continue to contact their Rep and tell them what a bad idea this is.
CAP has projections on the premium increases for people with various conditions:
Fucking monsters.
If Lex Luthor looked at this chart he'd probably say they went too far.
This seems like some sort of frankenstein bill that is designed to get through the house by pretending to have things both sides of the GOP want via wavers removing them for states that ask. But I don't see it getting through the senate even straight up and down. I bet the republicans are hoping to get this into the senate, and have the democrats filibuster it even though it'd never pass anyway so they can use it as a cudgel.
Doctor Doom would just provide free universal healthcare (possibly requiring people to praise him before and/or after treatment).
CAP has projections on the premium increases for people with various conditions:
Fucking monsters.
This is literally the "Hope you don't get cancer, because the premiums will kill you before the cancer does!" plan.
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
+1
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Something I don't see talked about much is mental health. For a lot of people it's a lifelong thing that can start very early. That alone should point out the fallacy of health insurance due to both the prevalence and usually incurable nature of things like clinical depression.
Something I don't see talked about much is mental health. For a lot of people it's a lifelong thing that can start very early. That alone should point out the fallacy of health insurance due to both the prevalence and usually incurable nature of things like clinical depression.
Oh definitely, I got a good restock of my anxiety medications about a week before the AHCA died, just as a precaution in case those asshats actually got it passed.
If I recall correctly, there was going to be no guarantee that the AHCA had to cover anything relating to mental health.
I like the diabetes surcharge especially. Man, it's a good job that's a rare condition.
A friend I have brought up several times in the thread would absolutely be killed by that charge. He's unemployed, diabetic, and due to an injury from his last job, just lost his foot and most of his leg to infection. (complications due to the diabetes).
He's currently at a physical therapy hospital to get a prosthetic and learn to walk again. If this suggested bill was law already, he would just be sitting at home waiting for the infection to kill him.
Any congressperson advocating for this plan is proposing murder, in my book.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
CAP has projections on the premium increases for people with various conditions:
Fucking monsters.
If Lex Luthor looked at this chart he'd probably say they went too far.
This seems like some sort of frankenstein bill that is designed to get through the house by pretending to have things both sides of the GOP want via wavers removing them for states that ask. But I don't see it getting through the senate even straight up and down. I bet the republicans are hoping to get this into the senate, and have the democrats filibuster it even though it'd never pass anyway so they can use it as a cudgel.
The plan for a long time now, basically since it was obvious Ryan's tax-cuts-paid-for-by-fucking-the-poor wet dream was never gonna make it all the way, has been to craft something to pass the House so Ryan can wash his hands of the entire situation and claim he acted and then let it die in the Senate.
“Some people on Capitol Hill believe you can get one of two things next week, a vote on health care or a vote on a government funding bill,” Fabian told Trump, before asking which of the two the President prioritized.
“I want to get both. Are you shocked to hear that?” Trump responded. “And we’re doing very well on health care. We’ll see what happens. But this is a great bill. This is a great plan, and this will be great health care. It’s evolving.”
“You know, there was never a give-up,” Trump continued, apparently referring to Republicans’ failed effort in late March to pass the American Health Care Act through the House.
“The press sort of reported there was like a give-up,” he said. “There’s no give-up. We started. Remember, it took Obamacare 17 months. I’ve really been negotiating this for two months, maybe even less than that, because we had a 30-day period where we did lots of other things, the first 30 days. But this has really been two months, and this is a continuation.”
“The plan gets better and better and better, and it’s gotten really, really good,” Trump continued. “And a lot of people are liking it a lot. We have a good chance of getting it soon, I’d like to say next week, but it will be — I believe we will get it, and whether it’s next week or shortly thereafter.”
Trump could be foolish enough to try that, but this is probably Trump BSing plus Trump is also weak willed and is likely to back down at the pressing of people under him.
Yea, I am now 100% convinced that they're just trying to squish something, anything through the house so they can blame a democratic filibuster for the lack of any major accomplishment in the first 100 days.
Yea, I am now 100% convinced that they're just trying to squish something, anything through the house so they can blame a democratic filibuster for the lack of any major accomplishment in the first 100 days.
They got Gorsuch, that will last far longer than any crappy law they out manage to squeeze out.
I know the house wasn't involved in that so I guess they might want to push a law out of their chamber just to say they did something, but still.
Yea, I am now 100% convinced that they're just trying to squish something, anything through the house so they can blame a democratic filibuster for the lack of any major accomplishment in the first 100 days.
and an "activist judge" on "an island in the middle of the ocean", for not letting them have their Muslim ban that totally wasn't really an attempted Muslim ban despite what Rudy said on national television.
(Yes, that was an EO (and a separate thread), but it's the only other *cough* 'accomplishment' I can think of for this administration as a whole. Unless you count having THE BIGGEST INAUGURATION CROWD EVER please look at these photos and not all those other lying fake ones.)
They're idiots if they think passing this turd through the house, will allow them to blame the democrats for practically getting fuck all done (bullshit they got Gorsuch through, but I'm wondering if some of them are starting to realize that could be a very hollow victory in the future). I mean the bill would have to be something a majority of their base and a decent chunk of "independents" want passed, the last one only garnered 14% support and this bill is even shittier than the last. I can see just how that plays out."
Pub: "We didn't get healthca . . " (get's interrupted)
constituent: "FUCK YOU! YOU TRIED TAKE AWAY INSURANCE ASSHOLE"
Constituent: "FUCK OFF! TELL ME ABOUT RESPECT, AFTER YOU STOP TRYING TO FUCK ME OVER!"
Pub: "NOW LOOK HERE! IF WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH A DEMOCRAT FILIBUSTER . . . (once again interrupted)
Constituent: "GOOD! AT LEAST SOMEONE IN WASHINGTON SAVE US FROM YOU BULLSHIT, FUCKER!"
Like I literally see this whole chain of events leading to the public largely viewing a democratic filibuster of the Republican shitty healthcare as a tremendous service to the nation. So not only would they be shooting themselves in the food, they'd be doing it in a way that results in crushing their balls at the same time.
CAP has projections on the premium increases for people with various conditions:
Fucking monsters.
If Lex Luthor looked at this chart he'd probably say they went too far.
This seems like some sort of frankenstein bill that is designed to get through the house by pretending to have things both sides of the GOP want via wavers removing them for states that ask. But I don't see it getting through the senate even straight up and down. I bet the republicans are hoping to get this into the senate, and have the democrats filibuster it even though it'd never pass anyway so they can use it as a cudgel.
Lex Luthor would pass single payer healthcare and position his company to get massive windfalls from the resulting contracts
Single payer fucks health insurance companies, it doesn't really need to fuck anything else, but somehow that one industry has more power than every hospital in America put tog...
oh right hospitals are all run by rich conservatives whos single political issue is tax rate
Yea, I am now 100% convinced that they're just trying to squish something, anything through the house so they can blame a democratic filibuster for the lack of any major accomplishment in the first 100 days.
I'd almost be tempted (almost) for 8 safe Democrat Senators to go "Screw it, you want it? You own it.".
I know the real cost is not worth it happening, but just having these wet fart Republicans not be able to hide behind that crutch.
Hell, have Chuck Schumer come out and publicly demand that the legislative filibuster be removed. Because you know if the Republicans put something forward that they really do want, it's gone anyways. Just completely strip away the cover that Democrats give them, because that's literally all the Republicans are wanting them for. Let's see how tough McConnell is when he and his cronies have to be accountable for their votes.
Because as we saw with the AHCA debate, the Republicans aren't as unified as they like to pretend they are.
But on Thursday, a senior GOP congressional aide dampened expectations for the bill, which a senior White House official told The Washington Post could receive a House vote as soon as the middle of next week.
“The question is whether it can get 216 votes in the House and the answer isn’t clear at this time,” the aide wrote me in an email. “There is no legislative text and therefore no agreement to do a whip count on.”
But while Ryan has made a public show of confidence, his office has been much more skeptical about the prospects for reviving the AHCA, having seen first-hand how narrow the path is for writing a policy that can win the votes of conservatives without sacrificing the support of Republicans closer to the political center. Conservative activists also sense that the speaker is fearful of being burned again on a bill for which he expended significant political capital and lost.
So really it sounds like the white house is trying to will something into existence before the first 100 days are up, but the house and Ryan are terrified to put anything on paper and bring it up after how badly they got lit on fire last go around. Trump's total inability to work toward goals with less than universal approval in his party is going to be a massive thorn in his side moving forward.
Posts
Yup. Which is why I expect them to try- not to succeed. Though tying it to the budget might give the holdouts cover?
there is no cover deep enough to hide you from voting to remove 25 million people's healthcare. and a CR to avoid a shutdown is also barely any cover at all because people don't care about shutdowns for longer than 10 seconds after they are over.
Yup 50 votes from people who know that if they nuke the filibuster the own the whole deal and all after effects from it. Because as frustrating to the majority party the filibuster is it is also their fig leaf for not passing bills they REALLY don't want anything to do with.
they could let anyone who wants to opt out of it and get a massive bill when they use the hospital if they want
I don't think outlawing private health insurance is a winning move for America so as long as you preserve that, it should be good
That needs 50 votes and they don't have them.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Why do they expect that to go over better?
Just like how they actually created a much harsher penalty for not getting insurance, and then because the penalty didn't happen until after you'd actually gotten insurance it let them go on tv and lie saying "We got rid of the penalty for not having insurance." And basic news didn't bother looking into that any further and also reported it as true.
It doesn't make sense to combine "let's empower the states!" with "let's make state level rules meaningless!"
Their penalty for not having insurance was much, much smaller though. A 30% surcharge is way lower than the ACA penalty unless you're comparing a single year of ACA penalty with starting on a high-premium plan.
Your premiums were increased by 30%, every month, for an entire year if you were without insurance for just 60 days. No exception.
The ACA tax had a multitude of exceptions and had a ceiling that it could not go over.
CAP has projections on the premium increases for people with various conditions:
Fucking monsters.
life is precious except for women who should be punished for not being able to afford the cost of a healthy pregnancy and if she did it the right way then she surely has a man who can provide the money for her to push out the little brat
NNID: Hakkekage
Is it? Is it really?
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
It's expensive and insurance companies need to make as much profit as possible. Same justification as the other premium surcharges.
They just got done paying a 5 or 6 figure sum for the pregnancy and birth, so they're going to recoup some of their losses. At least it's better than them just outright cancelling the insurance policy when a woman gets pregnant like they did pre-ACA.
Fuck health insurance. Give us single payer and be done with this shit.
The only thing that comes to mind is that once you've had one kid the chance of you having another kid the next year in way higher than if you didn't have a kid in the last few years.
If Lex Luthor looked at this chart he'd probably say they went too far.
This seems like some sort of frankenstein bill that is designed to get through the house by pretending to have things both sides of the GOP want via wavers removing them for states that ask. But I don't see it getting through the senate even straight up and down. I bet the republicans are hoping to get this into the senate, and have the democrats filibuster it even though it'd never pass anyway so they can use it as a cudgel.
Doctor Doom would just provide free universal healthcare (possibly requiring people to praise him before and/or after treatment).
This is literally the "Hope you don't get cancer, because the premiums will kill you before the cancer does!" plan.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Oh definitely, I got a good restock of my anxiety medications about a week before the AHCA died, just as a precaution in case those asshats actually got it passed.
If I recall correctly, there was going to be no guarantee that the AHCA had to cover anything relating to mental health.
A friend I have brought up several times in the thread would absolutely be killed by that charge. He's unemployed, diabetic, and due to an injury from his last job, just lost his foot and most of his leg to infection. (complications due to the diabetes).
He's currently at a physical therapy hospital to get a prosthetic and learn to walk again. If this suggested bill was law already, he would just be sitting at home waiting for the infection to kill him.
Any congressperson advocating for this plan is proposing murder, in my book.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
The plan for a long time now, basically since it was obvious Ryan's tax-cuts-paid-for-by-fucking-the-poor wet dream was never gonna make it all the way, has been to craft something to pass the House so Ryan can wash his hands of the entire situation and claim he acted and then let it die in the Senate.
Please just write the 2018 campaign ads themselves.
They got Gorsuch, that will last far longer than any crappy law they out manage to squeeze out.
I know the house wasn't involved in that so I guess they might want to push a law out of their chamber just to say they did something, but still.
and an "activist judge" on "an island in the middle of the ocean", for not letting them have their Muslim ban that totally wasn't really an attempted Muslim ban despite what Rudy said on national television.
(Yes, that was an EO (and a separate thread), but it's the only other *cough* 'accomplishment' I can think of for this administration as a whole. Unless you count having THE BIGGEST INAUGURATION CROWD EVER please look at these photos and not all those other lying fake ones.)
The party of responsible government! :P
EDIT: Okay, yeah, Gorsuch counts.
Pub: "We didn't get healthca . . " (get's interrupted)
constituent: "FUCK YOU! YOU TRIED TAKE AWAY INSURANCE ASSHOLE"
Pub: "Now listen here, that . . . " (interrupted again)
Constituent: "FUCK OFF! TELL ME ABOUT RESPECT, AFTER YOU STOP TRYING TO FUCK ME OVER!"
Pub: "NOW LOOK HERE! IF WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH A DEMOCRAT FILIBUSTER . . . (once again interrupted)
Constituent: "GOOD! AT LEAST SOMEONE IN WASHINGTON SAVE US FROM YOU BULLSHIT, FUCKER!"
Like I literally see this whole chain of events leading to the public largely viewing a democratic filibuster of the Republican shitty healthcare as a tremendous service to the nation. So not only would they be shooting themselves in the food, they'd be doing it in a way that results in crushing their balls at the same time.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Lex Luthor would pass single payer healthcare and position his company to get massive windfalls from the resulting contracts
Single payer fucks health insurance companies, it doesn't really need to fuck anything else, but somehow that one industry has more power than every hospital in America put tog...
oh right hospitals are all run by rich conservatives whos single political issue is tax rate
I know the real cost is not worth it happening, but just having these wet fart Republicans not be able to hide behind that crutch.
Hell, have Chuck Schumer come out and publicly demand that the legislative filibuster be removed. Because you know if the Republicans put something forward that they really do want, it's gone anyways. Just completely strip away the cover that Democrats give them, because that's literally all the Republicans are wanting them for. Let's see how tough McConnell is when he and his cronies have to be accountable for their votes.
Because as we saw with the AHCA debate, the Republicans aren't as unified as they like to pretend they are.
My favorite parts
So really it sounds like the white house is trying to will something into existence before the first 100 days are up, but the house and Ryan are terrified to put anything on paper and bring it up after how badly they got lit on fire last go around. Trump's total inability to work toward goals with less than universal approval in his party is going to be a massive thorn in his side moving forward.