Frankly, if what they really cared about was just the win against the Obamacare boogeyman, they'd slap together a bill with a grandiose title, repeal a few unpopular and visible provisions like the mandate and call it a day. It'd be easier and way more popular to pass
Seriously. I have to imagine that the committee that shat this bill out could have just as easily slapped a few minor changes in, and "repealed" the ACA by doing a full court press with the punditry, with the comfortable knowledge that as a party they just have to provide a mere scrap of proof and the water carriers downstream will totally build the narrative for them.
The GOP isn't and hasn't been a party or philosophy that relies on facts or reality for a very long time. In fact I would guess this is exactly what the party of Bush the lesser would have done in the same situation. And Trump would have happily signed off on it because he only cares about the word "repealed" and could give a shit about anything else.
I read it as him saying that he'll only support the bill if states can nope the fuck out of the whole thing and Romneycare their own path.
Does he realize Romneycare was essentially the ACA?
1: no it absolutely wasn't and repeating that doesn't make it so, no matter how often you do it.
2: you didn't read his statement.
This is the first time I've heard anyone, including Romney, say the two aren't similar. Explain?
It's a Michael Moore talking point.
I have been lazy in my reading though. So to clarify, The Mass state healthcare system shares a lot of details with the ACA in general. That is true.
Here is a takedown of the more narrow, and oft repeated, claim that the ACA was really a Republican program birthed in the Heritage think tank and originally passed as Romneycare. This is what I thought was being argued, and why I reacted forcefully. http://prospect.org/article/no-obamacare-wasnt-republican-proposal
Looking through that Prospect article, the first impression I get is that the guy is arguing that, although the ACA and the Heritage Foundation plan both have a mandate, they're tooootally different guys.
Wasn't the mandate the (capital letters) ONE MAJOR THING that republicans were complaining that Obama shoved down their throats? If that was the big GOP thing for all of the 2010 election cycle, then I'd say YES, the ACA was most definitely based on the Heritage Foundation plan and to pretend otherwise is just an anachronism created by the Tea Party madness.
DisruptedCapitalist on
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
The mandate is an obvious and basically required mechanism to make a system like the ACA work.
Yeah, and the number one thing attacked by Teapers in 2010, right? And also mentioned (at least according to that article) as necessary by the Heritage Foundation.
I guess the only reason I'm mentioning this is because as someone who used to vote exclusively Republican this bothers me that so many are lying to pretend the most prestigious GOP (whom I admired) didn't concede that this was necessary?
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
The mandate is an obvious and basically required mechanism to make a system like the ACA work.
Yeah, but the reasons why are complicated and most Americans get their politics from news bites. So it's also deeply unpopular regardless of political affiliation.
The mandate is an obvious and basically required mechanism to make a system like the ACA work.
Yeah, but the reasons why are complicated and most Americans get their politics from news bites. So it's also deeply unpopular regardless of political affiliation.
It's deeply unpopular because of the hatchet job and mindlessly repeated propganda spread about it. The ACA and "obamacare" polled differently
SCRIPT: Announcer: "Hillary Clinton's attacking, but what's she not telling you about her health care plan? It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don't. Barack Obama believes that it's not that people don't want health care, it's that they can't afford it. That's why the Obama plan reduces costs more than Hillary's, saving $2,500 for the typical family. For health care we can afford, vote for change we can believe in."
I'm still just amazed Republicans didn't have some bill on health care waiting in the wings. They've been talking about this for 8 years!
It is, small comfort, not a vote winner to say "we would like to take away your mother's health care in exchange for us getting a small amount of extra money".
Like that's always been the plan. They just never figured out a good way to convince people that destroying Medicaid and eventually Medicare would be a good idea.
I'm still just amazed Republicans didn't have some bill on health care waiting in the wings. They've been talking about this for 8 years!
I am not. The ACA is quite literally the least plausible improvement to health coverage in this country. It's flawed deeply in its achievement of its stated goals but it's still a baby step in the direction of both cost control and broad coverage. The criticisms republicans made--and CONTINUE to make, astonishingly--was that the ACA failed to do these things enough, while conveniently eliding the fact that anything that would do these things better conflicted with their other criticisms, that it is coercive and impinged on individual freedoms.
In short the prevailing critical attacks from the right have been disingenuous and contradictory for years which is why they have no plan and have dug deep into the garbage can of trusty old republican ideas to apply to a wholly unrelated problem--the groundbreaking notion that tax cuts for the rich and block grants for the states will be the solution to all America's problems*
*by justly rewarding the deserving (rich, white, male, ubermenschy) and judiciously punishing the undeserving (poor, brown, lazy, female and sinful probably)
45% of Nevadas say voting for AHCA would make them more likely to vote for the Democrat instead of Heller
49% of Alaskans say voting for AHCA would make them more likely to vote for the Democrat instead of Murkowski
36% of West Virginians say voting AHCA would make them more likely to vote for the Democrat instead of Capito
Pretty significant given that a sizable proportion of the vote anywhere is baked in to the vote for either side.
I think I may have participated in the Alaska poll.
Trump confirmed on Fox and Friends this morning that he called the House bill "mean", after his spokespeople refused to confirm.
What was that big ceremony for then?
Because it was a chance for a big ceremony?
That in itself was reason for it. He gets to look like he won. Regardless of the outcome. He got the photo op.
And now that it's not popular, he gets to sling shit at it. It was the same as AHCA v1.0. He pushed pretty heacily for the "win" without even caring what it did.
Hell, the "mean" thing brings up what I think might be the final possible protection of the ACA. It's politically one of the dumbest things I can imagine, so with Trump I give it a modest chance of happening.
Trump is quite unpopular. AHCA 2.0 is incredibly unpopular. If someone can convince Trump that signing this bill will lower his popularity, and that not signing it will be able to be spun as protecting his fanbase, I see a non-zero chance he vetoes it.
I don't know what the Republicans would do, as this is would be a big deal but they've been pretty spineless. And it's not something that a competent politician or staff would consider... but we're not talking competent here. We're talking Trump. Idiocy Incorporated.
Trump confirmed on Fox and Friends this morning that he called the House bill "mean", after his spokespeople refused to confirm.
What was that big ceremony for then?
Because it was a chance for a big ceremony?
That in itself was reason for it. He gets to look like he won. Regardless of the outcome. He got the photo op.
And now that it's not popular, he gets to sling shit at it. It was the same as AHCA v1.0. He pushed pretty heacily for the "win" without even caring what it did.
Hell, the "mean" thing brings up what I think might be the final possible protection of the ACA. It's politically one of the dumbest things I can imagine, so with Trump I give it a modest chance of happening.
Trump is quite unpopular. AHCA 2.0 is incredibly unpopular. If someone can convince Trump that signing this bill will lower his popularity, and that not signing it will be able to be spun as protecting his fanbase, I see a non-zero chance he vetoes it.
I don't know what the Republicans would do, as this is would be a big deal but they've been pretty spineless. And it's not something that a competent politician or staff would consider... but we're not talking competent here. We're talking Trump. Idiocy Incorporated.
Oh man if this thing passes and Trump vetoes it, well
It would be the scorpion stinging the frog and then stinging the river again and again as it goes down, and I'm not even sure who the frog and the river even are in this metaphor, just that anything in line-of-sight is probably getting stung
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
I think the poor graphic design on that page could lead you to read things as good. No tax, no abortions and no planned Parenthood would sound a ok to Republicans. Co pays 20% less than what they are now.
JoeUser's last post made me wonder: Those Republican bills that target Planned Parenthood, how are they phrased? Do they specifically target Planned Parenthood (and, if so, how is that defined), or Planned Parenthood-like organizations (and again, how are they defined)? Could PP get out of it by simply rebranding?
Every time I hear about it, everyone specifically mentions PP, but it would make more sense if it was more generally abortion-providers. (Solution: spinning off abortion services into a wholly owned subidiary?)
JoeUser's last post made me wonder: Those Republican bills that target Planned Parenthood, how are they phrased? Do they specifically target Planned Parenthood (and, if so, how is that defined), or Planned Parenthood-like organizations (and again, how are they defined)? Could PP get out of it by simply rebranding?
Every time I hear about it, everyone specifically mentions PP, but it would make more sense if it was more generally abortion-providers. (Solution: spinning off abortion services into a wholly owned subidiary?)
JoeUser's last post made me wonder: Those Republican bills that target Planned Parenthood, how are they phrased? Do they specifically target Planned Parenthood (and, if so, how is that defined), or Planned Parenthood-like organizations (and again, how are they defined)? Could PP get out of it by simply rebranding?
Every time I hear about it, everyone specifically mentions PP, but it would make more sense if it was more generally abortion-providers. (Solution: spinning off abortion services into a wholly owned subidiary?)
The language they use is to deny funds from any institutions that also perform abortions. They would have to form a completely separate abortion organization to avoid this.
I think the poor graphic design on that page could lead you to read things as good. No tax, no abortions and no planned Parenthood would sound a ok to Republicans. Co pays 20% less than what they are now.
That's 20% increase in rates on co-pay, and 15% less in subsidies.
President Trump on Sunday took credit for calling the GOP healthcare legislation “mean.”
“Well he used my term, mean,” Trump said of former President Obama, who last week slammed “the fundamental meanness at the core” of the Senate Republicans’ healthcare plan.
“That was my term because I want to see — and I speak from the heart, that’s what I want to see. I want to see a bill with heart,” Trump told Pete Hegseth during an interview with Fox News's "Fox & Friends."
[...]
On Sunday, Trump downgraded hopes for a bill that everyone can “love” to “like.”
“Honestly, nobody can be totally happy, even without the votes,” he told Fox News. “Forget about votes, this has nothing to do with votes. This has to do with picking a plan that everybody’s going to like. I’d like to say love, but like.”
He reaffirmed that he wants a plan with “heart.”
“We have a very good plan,” he said. “We have a few people that are — I think you could say modestly — they’re not standing on the rooftops and screaming, they want to get some points, I think they’ll get some points.”
Everybody, "mean" is now Trump's term. Don't use it without his permission.
Trump continues to obviously have no idea what the plan is, and he continues to only be interviewed by people who generally don't ask about specific provisions like the Medicaid cuts.
Trump is the guy who barges into your college dorm with the latest album by some band you've been listening to for a decade because he just heard about them and, a week later when he notices all their records on your shelf, assumes that's because of his "discovery" he shared with you.
I would still love for interviewers to ask him straight factual questions that he obviously doesn't even understand the meaning of. Just so he has to flounder and sound like an idiot.
"The Senate proposal shifts the subsidy growth peg from plans with a 70% actuarial value to plans with a 58% actuarial value, which obviously cover less. Why do you think that's more appropriate?"
I would still love for interviewers to ask him straight factual questions that he obviously doesn't even understand the meaning of. Just so he has to flounder and sound like an idiot.
"The Senate proposal shifts the subsidy growth peg from plans with a 70% actuarial value to plans with a 58% actuarial value, which obviously cover less. Why do you think that's more appropriate?"
Forget that, just ask him to explain Medicaid.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Cassidy is saying he will switch to a "yes" if it's changed to not hurt Louisiana. So if you're in Louisiana, call him too saying that's impossible with the Medicaid cuts.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Collins remains at "very serious concerns" so fucking thanks for that you spineless hack.
Collins often votes with the Republicans, even with "reservations". However, if she wants tp be governor of a state with a significan elderly population, she cannot vote for this bill. So I think (hope) in this case she is just playing close to the vest.
Collins remains at "very serious concerns" so fucking thanks for that you spineless hack.
Collins often votes with the Republicans, even with "reservations". However, if she wants tp be governor of a state with a significan elderly population, she cannot vote for this bill. So I think (hope) in this case she is just playing close to the vest.
It's a set of words Republicans use and then vote for shitty bills all the damn time. It's frustrating.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+8
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Posts
Seriously. I have to imagine that the committee that shat this bill out could have just as easily slapped a few minor changes in, and "repealed" the ACA by doing a full court press with the punditry, with the comfortable knowledge that as a party they just have to provide a mere scrap of proof and the water carriers downstream will totally build the narrative for them.
The GOP isn't and hasn't been a party or philosophy that relies on facts or reality for a very long time. In fact I would guess this is exactly what the party of Bush the lesser would have done in the same situation. And Trump would have happily signed off on it because he only cares about the word "repealed" and could give a shit about anything else.
Looking through that Prospect article, the first impression I get is that the guy is arguing that, although the ACA and the Heritage Foundation plan both have a mandate, they're tooootally different guys.
Wasn't the mandate the (capital letters) ONE MAJOR THING that republicans were complaining that Obama shoved down their throats? If that was the big GOP thing for all of the 2010 election cycle, then I'd say YES, the ACA was most definitely based on the Heritage Foundation plan and to pretend otherwise is just an anachronism created by the Tea Party madness.
Yeah, and the number one thing attacked by Teapers in 2010, right? And also mentioned (at least according to that article) as necessary by the Heritage Foundation.
I guess the only reason I'm mentioning this is because as someone who used to vote exclusively Republican this bothers me that so many are lying to pretend the most prestigious GOP (whom I admired) didn't concede that this was necessary?
Yeah, but the reasons why are complicated and most Americans get their politics from news bites. So it's also deeply unpopular regardless of political affiliation.
It's deeply unpopular because of the hatchet job and mindlessly repeated propganda spread about it. The ACA and "obamacare" polled differently
There was even an ad during the primary attacking Clinton for the mandate.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-04-19-2958318786_x.htm
It is, small comfort, not a vote winner to say "we would like to take away your mother's health care in exchange for us getting a small amount of extra money".
Like that's always been the plan. They just never figured out a good way to convince people that destroying Medicaid and eventually Medicare would be a good idea.
I am not. The ACA is quite literally the least plausible improvement to health coverage in this country. It's flawed deeply in its achievement of its stated goals but it's still a baby step in the direction of both cost control and broad coverage. The criticisms republicans made--and CONTINUE to make, astonishingly--was that the ACA failed to do these things enough, while conveniently eliding the fact that anything that would do these things better conflicted with their other criticisms, that it is coercive and impinged on individual freedoms.
In short the prevailing critical attacks from the right have been disingenuous and contradictory for years which is why they have no plan and have dug deep into the garbage can of trusty old republican ideas to apply to a wholly unrelated problem--the groundbreaking notion that tax cuts for the rich and block grants for the states will be the solution to all America's problems*
*by justly rewarding the deserving (rich, white, male, ubermenschy) and judiciously punishing the undeserving (poor, brown, lazy, female and sinful probably)
NNID: Hakkekage
I think I may have participated in the Alaska poll.
I got a sticky not on my monitor to do so on Monday.
What was that big ceremony for then?
That in itself was reason for it. He gets to look like he won. Regardless of the outcome. He got the photo op.
And now that it's not popular, he gets to sling shit at it. It was the same as AHCA v1.0. He pushed pretty heacily for the "win" without even caring what it did.
Hell, the "mean" thing brings up what I think might be the final possible protection of the ACA. It's politically one of the dumbest things I can imagine, so with Trump I give it a modest chance of happening.
Trump is quite unpopular. AHCA 2.0 is incredibly unpopular. If someone can convince Trump that signing this bill will lower his popularity, and that not signing it will be able to be spun as protecting his fanbase, I see a non-zero chance he vetoes it.
I don't know what the Republicans would do, as this is would be a big deal but they've been pretty spineless. And it's not something that a competent politician or staff would consider... but we're not talking competent here. We're talking Trump. Idiocy Incorporated.
Oh man if this thing passes and Trump vetoes it, well
It would be the scorpion stinging the frog and then stinging the river again and again as it goes down, and I'm not even sure who the frog and the river even are in this metaphor, just that anything in line-of-sight is probably getting stung
But realistically, I'll cry for days because my 6yo needs healthcare
Every time I hear about it, everyone specifically mentions PP, but it would make more sense if it was more generally abortion-providers. (Solution: spinning off abortion services into a wholly owned subidiary?)
It already is.
The language they use is to deny funds from any institutions that also perform abortions. They would have to form a completely separate abortion organization to avoid this.
Objectively false!
That's 20% increase in rates on co-pay, and 15% less in subsidies.
Trump continues to obviously have no idea what the plan is, and he continues to only be interviewed by people who generally don't ask about specific provisions like the Medicaid cuts.
"The Senate proposal shifts the subsidy growth peg from plans with a 70% actuarial value to plans with a 58% actuarial value, which obviously cover less. Why do you think that's more appropriate?"
Forget that, just ask him to explain Medicaid.
Collins often votes with the Republicans, even with "reservations". However, if she wants tp be governor of a state with a significan elderly population, she cannot vote for this bill. So I think (hope) in this case she is just playing close to the vest.
I don't know, it's nothing special, just pretty average
It's a set of words Republicans use and then vote for shitty bills all the damn time. It's frustrating.
i mean, it is noted every single time the point is made, but that's no reason to acknowledge it, i guess
It just "gives governors more control" because they know what's best for their states.