and yet I thought this Congress was allergic to actually voting on things like this (or SCOTUS noms), for pretty much exactly that reason (not wanting it to show up in campaign ads)?
God forbid they should do their jobs and represent the best interests of their constituents.
I believe it was Chris Hayes that said last night something along the lines of; "they keep trying to find safe ways to get closer to doing the thing without actually doing the thing. Eventually they're going to have to actually do the thing."
They want to be seen as having done something without actually doing the thing they are acting like they're gonna do because that thing is political poison.
and yet I thought this Congress was allergic to actually voting on things like this (or SCOTUS noms), for pretty much exactly that reason (not wanting it to show up in campaign ads)?
God forbid they should do their jobs and represent the best interests of their constituents.
I believe it was Chris Hayes that said last night something along the lines of; "they keep trying to find safe ways to get closer to doing the thing without actually doing the thing. Eventually they're going to have to actually do the thing."
They want to be seen as having done something without actually doing the thing they are acting like they're gonna do because that thing is political poison.
Hell, it's pretty much actual poison as far as the effect on people if it passes.
McCain was never, ever, in any universe, going to be one of the senators voting against this bill.
Being diagnosed with less than a year to live was the actual, Hollywood-esque "time to redeem myself" kind of permission to go against the grain and actually take a principled stand for once in his life.
You're assuming he had principles he wanted to stand for in the first place. His voting record over the years and in particular this year, says otherwise.
Yeah, his principles have consistently been "taxing the rich and providing benefits to the poor is terrible." His couple vaguely principled stances were on issues of not being personally racist while selecting an incredibly racist VP candidate.
The guy is supposedly the avatar of fidelity and honor when he left his model first wife who had been his political partner and asset after she got in a car accident that almost killed her so he could marry a rich beauty queen 20 years his junior, that was one of the women he was having an affair with, five weeks later. He just wisely chose the "completely above reproach(media)" Feat during character creation
If it starts looking like skinny repeal is going to be the thing, how is the healthcare industry not going to explode with protest? It's the worst of both worlds for them, here's all this extra stuff you have to do, but no insurance mandates.
If it starts looking like skinny repeal is going to be the thing, how is the healthcare industry not going to explode with protest? It's the worst of both worlds for them, here's all this extra stuff you have to do, but no insurance mandates.
Premiums would have to skyrocket.
They've already been protesting the whole repeal process.
+9
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
If it starts looking like skinny repeal is going to be the thing, how is the healthcare industry not going to explode with protest? It's the worst of both worlds for them, here's all this extra stuff you have to do, but no insurance mandates.
Premiums would have to skyrocket.
Seriously, though. I always understood the GOP to be in this on the side of the insurance companies and other wealthy cronies. Who actually benefits from the healthcare system collapsing? Nobody in the US.
If it starts looking like skinny repeal is going to be the thing, how is the healthcare industry not going to explode with protest? It's the worst of both worlds for them, here's all this extra stuff you have to do, but no insurance mandates.
Premiums would have to skyrocket.
Just remember remove the way to pay for something is apparently the fiscally conservative thing to do.
If it starts looking like skinny repeal is going to be the thing, how is the healthcare industry not going to explode with protest? It's the worst of both worlds for them, here's all this extra stuff you have to do, but no insurance mandates.
Premiums would have to skyrocket.
Seriously, though. I always understood the GOP to be in this on the side of the insurance companies and other wealthy cronies. Who actually benefits from the healthcare system collapsing? Nobody in the US.
If it starts looking like skinny repeal is going to be the thing, how is the healthcare industry not going to explode with protest? It's the worst of both worlds for them, here's all this extra stuff you have to do, but no insurance mandates.
Premiums would have to skyrocket.
Seriously, though. I always understood the GOP to be in this on the side of the insurance companies and other wealthy cronies. Who actually benefits from the healthcare system collapsing? Nobody in the US.
some of their richer donors and themselves
soooooo maybe .00002% of the country will benefit
The health insurance business will bring down the whole of the stock market and raise interest rates, both things that will hurt that top percent.
If it starts looking like skinny repeal is going to be the thing, how is the healthcare industry not going to explode with protest? It's the worst of both worlds for them, here's all this extra stuff you have to do, but no insurance mandates.
Premiums would have to skyrocket.
Aren't they delaying shit for 2 years with a "wink wink this won't happen (or it will after Democrats kick us out olol we so smart)"?
I think that's the justification in their mind, as if an insurance company doesn't project more than a month and won't look at this and be like nope fucking nope?
Or maybe that's some other version, it's hard to comment on the impact of Schrodinger's bill
If it starts looking like skinny repeal is going to be the thing, how is the healthcare industry not going to explode with protest? It's the worst of both worlds for them, here's all this extra stuff you have to do, but no insurance mandates.
Premiums would have to skyrocket.
Seriously, though. I always understood the GOP to be in this on the side of the insurance companies and other wealthy cronies. Who actually benefits from the healthcare system collapsing? Nobody in the US.
some of their richer donors and themselves
soooooo maybe .00002% of the country will benefit
The health insurance business will bring down the whole of the stock market and raise interest rates, both things that will hurt that top percent.
If it starts looking like skinny repeal is going to be the thing, how is the healthcare industry not going to explode with protest? It's the worst of both worlds for them, here's all this extra stuff you have to do, but no insurance mandates.
Premiums would have to skyrocket.
Seriously, though. I always understood the GOP to be in this on the side of the insurance companies and other wealthy cronies. Who actually benefits from the healthcare system collapsing? Nobody in the US.
some of their richer donors and themselves
soooooo maybe .00002% of the country will benefit
The health insurance business will bring down the whole of the stock market and raise interest rates, both things that will hurt that top percent.
ok, so just themselves (they get to keep their jarbs by sticking it to them libs)
If it starts looking like skinny repeal is going to be the thing, how is the healthcare industry not going to explode with protest? It's the worst of both worlds for them, here's all this extra stuff you have to do, but no insurance mandates.
Premiums would have to skyrocket.
Seriously, though. I always understood the GOP to be in this on the side of the insurance companies and other wealthy cronies. Who actually benefits from the healthcare system collapsing? Nobody in the US.
some of their richer donors and themselves
soooooo maybe .00002% of the country will benefit
The health insurance business will bring down the whole of the stock market and raise interest rates, both things that will hurt that top percent.
Anything but a stated absolute NO might as well be a yes. And even "absolute NOs" aren't always NOs.
+18
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
Isn't voting for skinny repeal just voting for a conference committee? There's no way they come out of conference committee with skinny repeal, right? I'd give AHCA or BRCA better odds of becoming law than skinny repeal
Isn't voting for skinny repeal just voting for a conference committee? There's no way they come out of conference committee with skinny repeal, right? I'd give AHCA or BRCA better odds of becoming law than skinny repeal
Skinny repeal might be a trojan horse for the House bill is a new thing Cornyn is saying.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
If it starts looking like skinny repeal is going to be the thing, how is the healthcare industry not going to explode with protest? It's the worst of both worlds for them, here's all this extra stuff you have to do, but no insurance mandates.
Premiums would have to skyrocket.
Seriously, though. I always understood the GOP to be in this on the side of the insurance companies and other wealthy cronies. Who actually benefits from the healthcare system collapsing? Nobody in the US.
some of their richer donors and themselves
soooooo maybe .00002% of the country will benefit
The health insurance business will bring down the whole of the stock market and raise interest rates, both things that will hurt that top percent.
Not really. These are people who have all kinds of hooks in all kinds of markets. It's not a revelation that the mortgage packages bet for and against their own products. That's pretty standard, as doing so is very cheap. Or was at the time. As it stands, dragging the legislative show out gives plenty of time for the very richest to discover and stake out positions that will pay no matter what happens.
Now, that aside your question does require a real answer. It's the same question I've been asking for the past several weeks. The only thing I've been able to come up with is that this is another play for the Russians. Weaken the US economic position through this sort of chaos is favorable to them. Not least of all because oil and natural gas, both of which have been down for the past couple of years. The weakness in natural gas prices has, in particular, hurt Russian economic interests. Were that market to cool down due to a US dip it would be advantageous. This answer requires you to believe that Trump is well and truly a voiceless puppet of Putin, however.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
If it starts looking like skinny repeal is going to be the thing, how is the healthcare industry not going to explode with protest? It's the worst of both worlds for them, here's all this extra stuff you have to do, but no insurance mandates.
Premiums would have to skyrocket.
Seriously, though. I always understood the GOP to be in this on the side of the insurance companies and other wealthy cronies. Who actually benefits from the healthcare system collapsing? Nobody in the US.
some of their richer donors and themselves
soooooo maybe .00002% of the country will benefit
The health insurance business will bring down the whole of the stock market and raise interest rates, both things that will hurt that top percent.
Not really. These are people who have all kinds of hooks in all kinds of markets. It's not a revelation that the mortgage packages bet for and against their own products. That's pretty standard, as doing so is very cheap. Or was at the time. As it stands, dragging the legislative show out gives plenty of time for the very richest to discover and stake out positions that will pay no matter what happens.
Now, that aside your question does require a real answer. It's the same question I've been asking for the past several weeks. The only thing I've been able to come up with is that this is another play for the Russians. Weaken the US economic position through this sort of chaos is favorable to them. Not least of all because oil and natural gas, both of which have been down for the past couple of years. The weakness in natural gas prices has, in particular, hurt Russian economic interests. Were that market to cool down due to a US dip it would be advantageous. This answer requires you to believe that Trump is well and truly a voiceless puppet of Putin, however.
That's a far more complicated explanation than the likely truth: Trump and McConnell just want a win and stick it to Obama that much, damn the consequences.
+30
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
Isn't voting for skinny repeal just voting for a conference committee? There's no way they come out of conference committee with skinny repeal, right? I'd give AHCA or BRCA better odds of becoming law than skinny repeal
If skinny repeal passes the Senate, I'd give much better odds of skinny repeal becoming law than of no change at all. The House will just pass skinny repeal if they can't get anything else through conference committee.
Repealing the mandates would be seen as a big political win, even if it would be disastrous policy.
Fun story: in 1993, the state of Washington passed a ban on pre-existing conditions along with a mandate to purchase insurance. In 1995, Republicans repealed just the mandate. After that, premiums began going up by 20%+ a year, and by 1999, every single insurer had pulled out of the state's individual insurance market.
aren't telecoms and airlines are explicitly the least free market businesses in america? Like they're almost utilities and probably would be if it wasn't for greed and lobbying.
Does anybody who has dealt with either of those think that is a good idea?
As a seller of travel, I can emphatically state that airfare is dogshit SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE we have left these fuckers to their own devices and let them monopolize their routes.
Sounds like the full repeal is getting delayed a few hours because the planned parenthood passages may run afoul of the parliamentarian.
Senators were initially scheduled to vote on the proposal around mid-day, but that plan was unexpectedly delayed until later in the afternoon. According to a Democratic aide, the holdup was over language in the amendment about Planned Parenthood, and whether it passed the so-called "Byrd Rule," which determines what language is permissible under the budget reconciliation process.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn described the snafu to reporters as a "kerfuffle" and said that there was a need to make "arguments to the parliamentarian."
Does anybody who has dealt with either of those think that is a good idea?
You deal with them as a regular person. If you're rich things are different. Much like healthcare really.
Yeah, airlines are pretty much a perfect example of...
1) The big players all suck, and conspire to make your experience suck
2) Small players sometimes try to enter the market and improve it
3) Whenever they do so, the big players leverage their market cap to remove competition by lowering prices
4) Prices then go back up
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+18
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Sounds like the full repeal is getting delayed a few hours because the planned parenthood passages may run afoul of the parliamentarian.
Senators were initially scheduled to vote on the proposal around mid-day, but that plan was unexpectedly delayed until later in the afternoon. According to a Democratic aide, the holdup was over language in the amendment about Planned Parenthood, and whether it passed the so-called "Byrd Rule," which determines what language is permissible under the budget reconciliation process.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn described the snafu to reporters as a "kerfuffle" and said that there was a need to make "arguments to the parliamentarian."
Not imposing an artificially tight time limit for passage to give you time to work through all the externalities associated with the language of the one single bill you actually want to pass into law
just a thought
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+24
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
Sounds like the full repeal is getting delayed a few hours because the planned parenthood passages may run afoul of the parliamentarian.
Senators were initially scheduled to vote on the proposal around mid-day, but that plan was unexpectedly delayed until later in the afternoon. According to a Democratic aide, the holdup was over language in the amendment about Planned Parenthood, and whether it passed the so-called "Byrd Rule," which determines what language is permissible under the budget reconciliation process.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn described the snafu to reporters as a "kerfuffle" and said that there was a need to make "arguments to the parliamentarian."
I've been wondering when this would come up. I believe I heard on NPR that she'd already assessed them as violating the Byrd Rule.
Of course, she merely "advises" the VP, who ultimately makes the decision. And can also be replaced (by McConnell) with anyone (including himself) at any time, for no reason.
I can't wait for the speech McCain will give about it.
Called my Senators. Murkowski took a minute to get through the lines (but only a minute) but I thanked her for voting against the motion to proceed. Sullivan's office I got through immediately, and I expressed my disappointment, why I was disappointed and additionally called on him to not vote for a single bill or amended bill that hasn't been vetting by experts and the CBO.
I know it can seem like pissing on the wind, but I know I'm going to cease to let my blatantly partisan Senator off the hook anymore.
Sounds like the full repeal is getting delayed a few hours because the planned parenthood passages may run afoul of the parliamentarian.
Senators were initially scheduled to vote on the proposal around mid-day, but that plan was unexpectedly delayed until later in the afternoon. According to a Democratic aide, the holdup was over language in the amendment about Planned Parenthood, and whether it passed the so-called "Byrd Rule," which determines what language is permissible under the budget reconciliation process.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn described the snafu to reporters as a "kerfuffle" and said that there was a need to make "arguments to the parliamentarian."
I've been wondering when this would come up. I believe I heard on NPR that she'd already assessed them as violating the Byrd Rule.
Of course, she merely "advises" the VP, who ultimately makes the decision. And can also be replaced (by McConnell) with anyone (including himself) at any time, for no reason.
I can't wait for the speech McCain will give about it.
But you could say the same thing of completely eliminating the filibuster. McConnell and the Republicans have the ability to do so at anytime.
They're not, primarily, to keep those procedural hurdles in place when(if?) Democrats take back the majority.
When people unite together, they become stronger than the sum of their parts.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
Posts
I believe it was Chris Hayes that said last night something along the lines of; "they keep trying to find safe ways to get closer to doing the thing without actually doing the thing. Eventually they're going to have to actually do the thing."
They want to be seen as having done something without actually doing the thing they are acting like they're gonna do because that thing is political poison.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Hell, it's pretty much actual poison as far as the effect on people if it passes.
Hill reporter
Reagan hated him for that so much
Better than a definite yes.
Don't.
She's just as much a shit as the rest of them. Alaska is just...weird up here.
Our reps and senators are garbage right now
Premiums would have to skyrocket.
They've already been protesting the whole repeal process.
Seriously, though. I always understood the GOP to be in this on the side of the insurance companies and other wealthy cronies. Who actually benefits from the healthcare system collapsing? Nobody in the US.
Just remember remove the way to pay for something is apparently the fiscally conservative thing to do.
some of their richer donors and themselves
soooooo maybe .00002% of the country will benefit
The health insurance business will bring down the whole of the stock market and raise interest rates, both things that will hurt that top percent.
Aren't they delaying shit for 2 years with a "wink wink this won't happen (or it will after Democrats kick us out olol we so smart)"?
I think that's the justification in their mind, as if an insurance company doesn't project more than a month and won't look at this and be like nope fucking nope?
Or maybe that's some other version, it's hard to comment on the impact of Schrodinger's bill
It'll also spike the unemployment numbers.
ok, so just themselves (they get to keep their jarbs by sticking it to them libs)
.00000000001% will benefit
They'll bail them out
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Anything but a stated absolute NO might as well be a yes. And even "absolute NOs" aren't always NOs.
Just ask yourself "Would Trump keep going if a beauty contestant responded this way?"
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Skinny repeal might be a trojan horse for the House bill is a new thing Cornyn is saying.
Not really. These are people who have all kinds of hooks in all kinds of markets. It's not a revelation that the mortgage packages bet for and against their own products. That's pretty standard, as doing so is very cheap. Or was at the time. As it stands, dragging the legislative show out gives plenty of time for the very richest to discover and stake out positions that will pay no matter what happens.
Now, that aside your question does require a real answer. It's the same question I've been asking for the past several weeks. The only thing I've been able to come up with is that this is another play for the Russians. Weaken the US economic position through this sort of chaos is favorable to them. Not least of all because oil and natural gas, both of which have been down for the past couple of years. The weakness in natural gas prices has, in particular, hurt Russian economic interests. Were that market to cool down due to a US dip it would be advantageous. This answer requires you to believe that Trump is well and truly a voiceless puppet of Putin, however.
That's a far more complicated explanation than the likely truth: Trump and McConnell just want a win and stick it to Obama that much, damn the consequences.
If skinny repeal passes the Senate, I'd give much better odds of skinny repeal becoming law than of no change at all. The House will just pass skinny repeal if they can't get anything else through conference committee.
Repealing the mandates would be seen as a big political win, even if it would be disastrous policy.
Fun story: in 1993, the state of Washington passed a ban on pre-existing conditions along with a mandate to purchase insurance. In 1995, Republicans repealed just the mandate. After that, premiums began going up by 20%+ a year, and by 1999, every single insurer had pulled out of the state's individual insurance market.
Scaramucci: "trust the process of the free market like in telecom, like in airlines"
Does anybody who has dealt with either of those think that is a good idea?
What.
Why would anyone use airlines or telecoms as a shining example of the free market, especially after the recent events in the airline industry
I guess it works ok as analogy as they will be metaphorically dragging lots of people out of their doctors' offices
pleasepaypreacher.net
As a seller of travel, I can emphatically state that airfare is dogshit SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE we have left these fuckers to their own devices and let them monopolize their routes.
So, NO.
pleasepaypreacher.net
You deal with them as a regular person. If you're rich things are different. Much like healthcare really.
I'm pretty sure this wound up not being true. If it was obvious the vote was for Murkowski, it still counted.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/health-care-bill-wednesday/index.html
Yeah, airlines are pretty much a perfect example of...
1) The big players all suck, and conspire to make your experience suck
2) Small players sometimes try to enter the market and improve it
3) Whenever they do so, the big players leverage their market cap to remove competition by lowering prices
4) Prices then go back up
hm you know what might have helped you out there
Not imposing an artificially tight time limit for passage to give you time to work through all the externalities associated with the language of the one single bill you actually want to pass into law
just a thought
NNID: Hakkekage
Of course, she merely "advises" the VP, who ultimately makes the decision. And can also be replaced (by McConnell) with anyone (including himself) at any time, for no reason.
I can't wait for the speech McCain will give about it.
I know it can seem like pissing on the wind, but I know I'm going to cease to let my blatantly partisan Senator off the hook anymore.
But you could say the same thing of completely eliminating the filibuster. McConnell and the Republicans have the ability to do so at anytime.
They're not, primarily, to keep those procedural hurdles in place when(if?) Democrats take back the majority.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow