The passage of this legislation with zero Republican votes demonstrates the importance and necessity of having everyone in the Caucus in the Caucus. Because, again, there is zero margin for error. Having an expanded majority opens up even more possibilities, but for this specific Congress you can't throw out the bathwater without losing the baby.
All the "blue dog" Dems distanced themselves from ACA because they thought the Tea Party movement was genuine and not an astro-turf operation.
Whether the Tea Party was astro-turfed or not didn't matter. Especially in hindsight. They distanced themselves from their own party because the media narrative had turned on them and a lot of voters were all riled up and they thought running against their own party would give them the moderate cred they needed to win.
The obvious lesson is run on your accomplishments, not against them. Even if they aren't exactly what you wanted. Take the W. Run on it to get more and better people elected. Repeat.
Especially in left-wing politics where you want to convince people the government can accomplish good things for them.
Most of the media didn't realize the astro-turfing either so this is kind of a chicken v egg argument.
Still irrelevant. The Tea Party movement is very real and politically influential regardless of how it started. Whether it was astroturfed or genuine doesn't change anything.
It's not irrelevant that the Tea Party received huge amounts of funding from billionaire dark money PACs because they were seen as more friendly to corporate interests than the more moderate Republicans.
It's absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether they were politically influential. Votes whipped up by an astroturf campaign count the same as votes whipped up by a genuine right-wing populist movement.
It's not irrelevant when you are talking about how to get progressive left-wing candidates running a successful campaign against more moderate opponents, because you are ignoring that the Tea Party members had financial backing that allowed them to run campaigns with a lot of ad buy even without support from the party's official establishments. Where is the financial backing going to come from for these progressive candidates to counteract the campaign run against them?
The "marketplace of ideas" notion that the candidate with the most appealing platform policies will just naturally win the primary, is so divorced from reality that I do not believe you are seriously putting it forth.
Do you need me to quote the post where I point out that the absolute loonies that got elected last cycle did so with near-zero PAC money over better-funded candidates, or
No, because this argument has been made umpteenth times before and my response would be to quote my previous examinations of how conservative radicalization feedback loops are viewed and rewarded differently by the establishment than progressives.
It must be nice to be so confident in your positions that countervailing data can just be ignored
Edit: Removed old draft
That's not what it means when there are relevant factors to consider that you have not considered.
Ah, but you have reminded me that there are new factors in the more current races than the Tea Party.
You know, like incumbant Republicans who voted to impeach Trump getting ousted by extremist challengers who received boosts by Democratic-Party PACs literally spending more money than the candidate's actual campaign funds total on ad buys for the extremist.
"Immortan Joe turned on the water spigots for 15 seconds today, so what are you complaining about. Would you rather have no water at all?"
And with that simile you mean prevented my friend from dying of cancer.
Or my sister finally being able to afford the medicine for her thyroid
Or my ex wife finally being able to get health insurance after getting kicked off her old plan for having the nerve to get cancer.
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 do wonder what finally got Manchin to budge, and wonder if we'll ever find out.
Most of what I've read/heard is he got a lot of assurances about how this stuff would fight inflation. He seems to have been genuinely concerned about that. I believe he's said the way people were treating him upset him and made him get angry and lash out too. And I think he kinda got talked down from that.
In hindsight, throwing some bones to Manchin probably works a lot better than it generally seemed prior to this, and the White House was just catastrophically fucking it up.
I’m not sure I would agree with that. Manchin strung everyone along for a year and then killed BBB.
It seems just as likely to me, the huge backlash to that, and the complaints Manchin had about how much he was getting pilloried in public opinion made him more willing to coming back to the table. Manchin and Schumer having a relationship in the senate also made it easier for him to reach out, and them to strike out a deal.
+3
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Also, lest we forget, this Bill is also a Healthcare Law. The changes to Medicare are significant accomplishments in their own right and would be major legislative victories alone.
I've already been fucking barraged by Youtube ads for the last week about how allowing the government to negotiate with pharma will DESTROY ALL US INNOVATION.
I'm going to choose to read the "US" as "us" instead of "U.S." so I can imagine this is a continuation of a rant about us getting set up the bomb.
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.
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I care only to the extent it let's us know how to extract shit from him in the future.
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 do wonder what finally got Manchin to budge, and wonder if we'll ever find out.
Most of what I've read/heard is he got a lot of assurances about how this stuff would fight inflation. He seems to have been genuinely concerned about that. I believe he's said the way people were treating him upset him and made him get angry and lash out too. And I think he kinda got talked down from that.
I mean Manchin can claim whatever the fuck he wants, but the man has always been self serving and any claim "oh man the white house fucked up" is insane because that's coming from Manchin himself to tutt tutt himself as some kind of master negotiator when he could have had this deal probably months ago
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I also likely wouldn’t have insurance if it wasn’t for Obamacare. American health care still sucks shit. “It’s the best they could do! It’s better than nothing! It saved my life!” Alright, but our healthcare system is still a monstrous injustice, and lots of people still die!
Over 30 million Americans are uninsured (link) and thousands likely die as a result.
I also likely wouldn’t have insurance if it wasn’t for Obamacare. American health care still sucks shit. “It’s the best they could do! It’s better than nothing! It saved my life!” Alright, but our healthcare system is still a monstrous injustice, and lots of people still die!
Over 30 million Americans are uninsured (link) and thousands likely die as a result.
Nobody’s arguing that.
I think what people are arguing is that these changes did nothing at all (or even that the American healthcare system was better/the same before it), and that we’re all 100% satisfied and subservient to the ACA and the people who pushed it through.
So it's looking possible, even likely, that we might finally get enough votes in the Senate to actually pass shit...
Just in time to lose the House, and with it the ability to generate any legislation that isn't (Republican-authored) shit.
Do I have that right?
+1
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
So it's looking possible, even likely, that we might finally get enough votes in the Senate to actually pass shit...
Just in time to lose the House, and with it the ability to generate any legislation that isn't (Republican-authored) shit.
Do I have that right?
There's still a bunch of positions unfilled/with nominations held up, so a functioning Senate is probably more important than a functioning House.
That said, Speaker of the House Donald J. Trump will surely shut the government down as soon as he assumes office.
0
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
I'm not *as* pessimistic as others about the House. We've had as high as a 23% chance a few weeks ago. Gas plummeting, big bill passing, Trump spontaneously combusting, a lot of stars are aligning.
I don't know that we've crossed the threshold to likely but it's very possible we keep, I think.
Should probably move further discussion to the actual midterm thread, though
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
I also likely wouldn’t have insurance if it wasn’t for Obamacare. American health care still sucks shit. “It’s the best they could do! It’s better than nothing! It saved my life!” Alright, but our healthcare system is still a monstrous injustice, and lots of people still die!
Over 30 million Americans are uninsured (link) and thousands likely die as a result.
Nobody’s arguing that.
I think what people are arguing is that these changes did nothing at all (or even that the American healthcare system was better/the same before it), and that we’re all 100% satisfied and subservient to the ACA and the people who pushed it through.
ACA was sold to us at the time as merely the first step towards more substantive healthcare reform.
Folks pointing out that the supposed incremental improvements have not continued, that the ACA is woefully inadequate by itself to address the systemic issues of healthcare in America - that is not the same as the strawmen of "ACA did nothing."
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Yup! And then we lost the House and spent the next eight years fending off Republican attempts to repeal the ACA soooooo
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.
Yup! And then we lost the House and spent the next eight years fending off Republican attempts to repeal the ACA soooooo
And hey, look what the latest bill included: some power for Medicare to negotiate on drug prices and a few other provisions related to drug prices.
And also extension of enhanced subsidies for another 3 years.
It's almost like things are hard, you can't get exactly what you want but you can still get gains and attempts to pretend like those gains aren't real are both wrong and politically counterproductive.
Yup! And then we lost the House and spent the next eight years fending off Republican attempts to repeal the ACA soooooo
The Republicans treat repealing the ACA like Dems treated enshrining Roe V Wade as law. It's far more valuable as a donation and vote driver than if it actually happened. They could have forced the issue when Trump was President and they had both the senate and house, but decided cutting taxes on the rich was more important.
0
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Yup! And then we lost the House and spent the next eight years fending off Republican attempts to repeal the ACA soooooo
The Republicans treat repealing the ACA like Dems treated enshrining Roe V Wade as law. It's far more valuable as a donation and vote driver than if it actually happened. They could have forced the issue when Trump was President and they had both the senate and house, but decided cutting taxes on the rich was more important.
I mean, yes, but also they tried and were one McCain thumbs down away from actually doin the damn thing.
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Yup! And then we lost the House and spent the next eight years fending off Republican attempts to repeal the ACA soooooo
The Republicans treat repealing the ACA like Dems treated enshrining Roe V Wade as law. It's far more valuable as a donation and vote driver than if it actually happened. They could have forced the issue when Trump was President and they had both the senate and house, but decided cutting taxes on the rich was more important.
They didn't have 60 in the senate for an ACA repeal.
Edit: though I suppose they could have argued for a reconciliation repeal. That's how we got it the first time!
Yup! And then we lost the House and spent the next eight years fending off Republican attempts to repeal the ACA soooooo
The Republicans treat repealing the ACA like Dems treated enshrining Roe V Wade as law. It's far more valuable as a donation and vote driver than if it actually happened. They could have forced the issue when Trump was President and they had both the senate and house, but decided cutting taxes on the rich was more important.
They didn't have 60 in the senate for an ACA repeal.
Edit: though I suppose they could have argued for a reconciliation repeal. That's how we got it the first time!
As we've seen, you don't need 60 votes unless you decide to tie yourself to that limit. McConnell could have killed the filibuster to repeal the ACA had he really wanted it accomplished.
Yeah the GOP will 100% repeal ACA if they can, like its roe v wade they dont' care how popular it is. If they can repeal it they will.
A big lesson from the last many years is that it doesn't matter how much any of these individual politicians actually believe in the bullshit they are spouting. Even if it's performative, they will take that performance all the way to full passage. The ACA repeal attempts, the coup attempt, the next coup attempt, etc. No matter how much some of them think it's all dumb bullshit or Trump being an idiot, they will ride that tiger all the way. Someone will put it to a vote and they will step into line no matter what they might personally believe.
As of right now though, even if they take both the senate and house, Biden is president for two more years and they do not have the votes to override a veto.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I also likely wouldn’t have insurance if it wasn’t for Obamacare. American health care still sucks shit. “It’s the best they could do! It’s better than nothing! It saved my life!” Alright, but our healthcare system is still a monstrous injustice, and lots of people still die!
Over 30 million Americans are uninsured (link) and thousands likely die as a result.
Nobody’s arguing that.
I think what people are arguing is that these changes did nothing at all (or even that the American healthcare system was better/the same before it), and that we’re all 100% satisfied and subservient to the ACA and the people who pushed it through.
ACA was sold to us at the time as merely the first step towards more substantive healthcare reform.
Folks pointing out that the supposed incremental improvements have not continued, that the ACA is woefully inadequate by itself to address the systemic issues of healthcare in America - that is not the same as the strawmen of "ACA did nothing."
The "ACA did nothing", if anything, was an anti-strawman in reference to the ideal put forward. I'm removing the posters name just for the sake of sticking to what was said as opposed to who said it:
Also Obamacare sucks and kills people in the name of insurance company profits.
Giving everyone the maximal benefit of the doubt, "kills people in the name of insurance company profits" has been the status quo for the past forever, so when this argument was made I'm assuming in the best faith possible that they also knew that before the ACA this was the norm, and it was kind of even worse with the pre-existing condition clauses (that had been so ridiculous that my sisters thryoid issue, a genetic one, was refused because it was a "pre-existing condition", i.e. she was born with the genetic makeup that causes it).
At the absolute worst end, this argument states that American healthcare was fine until Obamacare ruined it, which I refuse to believe anyone here actually thinks.
And as others have pointed out, when able to pass legislation, continued expansion of care is continuing. They just passed Medicare being able to do prescription bargaining, which resulted in the typical corporate "THE MEDICARE PRICE BARGAINING WILL STIFLE INNOVATION : (" ads that come along with proper medical legislation, in order to address your second point that nothing else has happened since.
And again, I also refuse to believe a single person here sees the American medical system and does the robertredfordsmilenod.gif. It's a horror show still and requires far more changes, but if each step forward improves the lives for some then I see no reason not to continue. The system wasn't built in a decade, it took hundreds of years, so dismantling it into something far more effective as healthcare and less profitable is going to be an uphill battle at the best of times, and what feels like a Sisyphean task during the rest. Unless we luck out and get a large enough progressive base in D.C., but I'm not holding my breath for that just yet.
jungleroomx on
+6
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
As of right now though, even if they take both the senate and house, Biden is president for two more years and they do not have the votes to override a veto.
Nope, but if they take the House and Senate, absolutely nothing gets done for two years, probably tanking Biden in 2024, then McConnell kills the filibuster and the GOP goes ham.
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.
As of right now though, even if they take both the senate and house, Biden is president for two more years and they do not have the votes to override a veto.
Nope, but if they take the House and Senate, absolutely nothing gets done for two years, probably tanking Biden in 2024, then McConnell kills the filibuster and the GOP goes ham.
Also infinite frivolous investigations and the dissolution of useful ones.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+21
Options
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
Some Sinema idiocy might lead to changes in the tax provisions. She may have fallen for the GOP's bellyaching over private equity because of fucking course she would.
The scuttle is exempting private equity from the 15% min corporate tax. John Thune proposed this amendment.
The 15% Corporate Minimum tax is meant to be (and was negotiated by Secretary Yellen to be) a global minimum rate to prevent all the stupid shell games, Double Irish, &c. shenanigans. So of course that's what they'd try to undermine.
Reading an article from PBS NewsHour that brings this back up.
Surprising no one, Sinema is very much in this for her own money/power:
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat who single-handedly thwarted her party’s longtime goal of raising taxes on wealthy investors, received nearly $1 million over the past year from private equity professionals, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists whose taxes would have increased under the plan.
So this is less, 'falling for GOP bellyaching' (e: from enlighted's OP) and more is full-on taking bribes to ensure we don't get meaningful tax reform on the private equity parasites.
Some Sinema idiocy might lead to changes in the tax provisions. She may have fallen for the GOP's bellyaching over private equity because of fucking course she would.
The scuttle is exempting private equity from the 15% min corporate tax. John Thune proposed this amendment.
The 15% Corporate Minimum tax is meant to be (and was negotiated by Secretary Yellen to be) a global minimum rate to prevent all the stupid shell games, Double Irish, &c. shenanigans. So of course that's what they'd try to undermine.
Reading an article from PBS NewsHour that brings this back up.
Surprising no one, Sinema is very much in this for her own money/power:
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat who single-handedly thwarted her party’s longtime goal of raising taxes on wealthy investors, received nearly $1 million over the past year from private equity professionals, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists whose taxes would have increased under the plan.
So this is less, 'falling for GOP bellyaching' (e: from enlighted's OP) and more is full-on taking bribes to ensure we don't get meaningful tax reform on the private equity parasites.
At the same time, 49 Democratic Senators stating on record that they are in favour of abolishing the carried interest loophole is pretty huge for the next time they have a governing majority unreliant on Sinema. Admittedly that only seems to happen once a decade, but still.
+14
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Some Sinema idiocy might lead to changes in the tax provisions. She may have fallen for the GOP's bellyaching over private equity because of fucking course she would.
The scuttle is exempting private equity from the 15% min corporate tax. John Thune proposed this amendment.
The 15% Corporate Minimum tax is meant to be (and was negotiated by Secretary Yellen to be) a global minimum rate to prevent all the stupid shell games, Double Irish, &c. shenanigans. So of course that's what they'd try to undermine.
Reading an article from PBS NewsHour that brings this back up.
Surprising no one, Sinema is very much in this for her own money/power:
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat who single-handedly thwarted her party’s longtime goal of raising taxes on wealthy investors, received nearly $1 million over the past year from private equity professionals, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists whose taxes would have increased under the plan.
So this is less, 'falling for GOP bellyaching' (e: from enlighted's OP) and more is full-on taking bribes to ensure we don't get meaningful tax reform on the private equity parasites.
At the same time, 49 Democratic Senators stating on record that they are in favour of abolishing the carried interest loophole is pretty huge for the next time they have a governing majority unreliant on Sinema. Admittedly that only seems to happen once a decade, but still.
Although, part of the deal may have been that they knew Sinema would kill that part.
Some Sinema idiocy might lead to changes in the tax provisions. She may have fallen for the GOP's bellyaching over private equity because of fucking course she would.
The scuttle is exempting private equity from the 15% min corporate tax. John Thune proposed this amendment.
The 15% Corporate Minimum tax is meant to be (and was negotiated by Secretary Yellen to be) a global minimum rate to prevent all the stupid shell games, Double Irish, &c. shenanigans. So of course that's what they'd try to undermine.
Reading an article from PBS NewsHour that brings this back up.
Surprising no one, Sinema is very much in this for her own money/power:
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat who single-handedly thwarted her party’s longtime goal of raising taxes on wealthy investors, received nearly $1 million over the past year from private equity professionals, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists whose taxes would have increased under the plan.
So this is less, 'falling for GOP bellyaching' (e: from enlighted's OP) and more is full-on taking bribes to ensure we don't get meaningful tax reform on the private equity parasites.
At the same time, 49 Democratic Senators stating on record that they are in favour of abolishing the carried interest loophole is pretty huge for the next time they have a governing majority unreliant on Sinema. Admittedly that only seems to happen once a decade, but still.
Although, part of the deal may have been that they knew Sinema would kill that part.
Yeah, while I try to maintain positivity where I can, there are some things where politicians vote in favor of something (or against, in some cases) where they know their vote isn't going to change the outcome.
That's why replacing Sinema (and Manchin) isn't necessarily enough. Because while I think it might change some things and get some good things passed, it's still going to be a struggle to get what actually needs to be done through.
Some Sinema idiocy might lead to changes in the tax provisions. She may have fallen for the GOP's bellyaching over private equity because of fucking course she would.
The scuttle is exempting private equity from the 15% min corporate tax. John Thune proposed this amendment.
The 15% Corporate Minimum tax is meant to be (and was negotiated by Secretary Yellen to be) a global minimum rate to prevent all the stupid shell games, Double Irish, &c. shenanigans. So of course that's what they'd try to undermine.
Reading an article from PBS NewsHour that brings this back up.
Surprising no one, Sinema is very much in this for her own money/power:
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat who single-handedly thwarted her party’s longtime goal of raising taxes on wealthy investors, received nearly $1 million over the past year from private equity professionals, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists whose taxes would have increased under the plan.
So this is less, 'falling for GOP bellyaching' (e: from enlighted's OP) and more is full-on taking bribes to ensure we don't get meaningful tax reform on the private equity parasites.
At the same time, 49 Democratic Senators stating on record that they are in favour of abolishing the carried interest loophole is pretty huge for the next time they have a governing majority unreliant on Sinema. Admittedly that only seems to happen once a decade, but still.
Although, part of the deal may have been that they knew Sinema would kill that part.
That will still piss off the hedge fund manager donors compared to just not mentioning it in the first place. Which was always an option.
+6
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Posts
That's not what it means when there are relevant factors to consider that you have not considered.
Ah, but you have reminded me that there are new factors in the more current races than the Tea Party.
You know, like incumbant Republicans who voted to impeach Trump getting ousted by extremist challengers who received boosts by Democratic-Party PACs literally spending more money than the candidate's actual campaign funds total on ad buys for the extremist.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Or my ex wife finally being able to get health insurance after getting kicked off her old plan for having the nerve to get cancer.
Most of what I've read/heard is he got a lot of assurances about how this stuff would fight inflation. He seems to have been genuinely concerned about that. I believe he's said the way people were treating him upset him and made him get angry and lash out too. And I think he kinda got talked down from that.
I’m not sure I would agree with that. Manchin strung everyone along for a year and then killed BBB.
It seems just as likely to me, the huge backlash to that, and the complaints Manchin had about how much he was getting pilloried in public opinion made him more willing to coming back to the table. Manchin and Schumer having a relationship in the senate also made it easier for him to reach out, and them to strike out a deal.
I'm going to choose to read the "US" as "us" instead of "U.S." so I can imagine this is a continuation of a rant about us getting set up the bomb.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It was Larry Summers! Larry effing Summers
pleasepaypreacher.net
That sucks, dude. I'm glad both your ex and JRX's sister are getting the help they need.
Over 30 million Americans are uninsured (link) and thousands likely die as a result.
Nobody’s arguing that.
I think what people are arguing is that these changes did nothing at all (or even that the American healthcare system was better/the same before it), and that we’re all 100% satisfied and subservient to the ACA and the people who pushed it through.
Just in time to lose the House, and with it the ability to generate any legislation that isn't (Republican-authored) shit.
Do I have that right?
There's still a bunch of positions unfilled/with nominations held up, so a functioning Senate is probably more important than a functioning House.
That said, Speaker of the House Donald J. Trump will surely shut the government down as soon as he assumes office.
I don't know that we've crossed the threshold to likely but it's very possible we keep, I think.
Should probably move further discussion to the actual midterm thread, though
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
ACA was sold to us at the time as merely the first step towards more substantive healthcare reform.
Folks pointing out that the supposed incremental improvements have not continued, that the ACA is woefully inadequate by itself to address the systemic issues of healthcare in America - that is not the same as the strawmen of "ACA did nothing."
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
And hey, look what the latest bill included: some power for Medicare to negotiate on drug prices and a few other provisions related to drug prices.
And also extension of enhanced subsidies for another 3 years.
It's almost like things are hard, you can't get exactly what you want but you can still get gains and attempts to pretend like those gains aren't real are both wrong and politically counterproductive.
The Republicans treat repealing the ACA like Dems treated enshrining Roe V Wade as law. It's far more valuable as a donation and vote driver than if it actually happened. They could have forced the issue when Trump was President and they had both the senate and house, but decided cutting taxes on the rich was more important.
I mean, yes, but also they tried and were one McCain thumbs down away from actually doin the damn thing.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
pleasepaypreacher.net
They didn't have 60 in the senate for an ACA repeal.
Edit: though I suppose they could have argued for a reconciliation repeal. That's how we got it the first time!
As we've seen, you don't need 60 votes unless you decide to tie yourself to that limit. McConnell could have killed the filibuster to repeal the ACA had he really wanted it accomplished.
They didn't IIRC? They already did away with the filibuster to try and remove it. The vote was 51-49 with McCain's unexpected vote against repeal.
A big lesson from the last many years is that it doesn't matter how much any of these individual politicians actually believe in the bullshit they are spouting. Even if it's performative, they will take that performance all the way to full passage. The ACA repeal attempts, the coup attempt, the next coup attempt, etc. No matter how much some of them think it's all dumb bullshit or Trump being an idiot, they will ride that tiger all the way. Someone will put it to a vote and they will step into line no matter what they might personally believe.
It was a reconciliation bill.
And there were three defections. McCain, Collins, and Murkowski
Collins and Murkowski were expected but McCains was not.
The "ACA did nothing", if anything, was an anti-strawman in reference to the ideal put forward. I'm removing the posters name just for the sake of sticking to what was said as opposed to who said it:
Giving everyone the maximal benefit of the doubt, "kills people in the name of insurance company profits" has been the status quo for the past forever, so when this argument was made I'm assuming in the best faith possible that they also knew that before the ACA this was the norm, and it was kind of even worse with the pre-existing condition clauses (that had been so ridiculous that my sisters thryoid issue, a genetic one, was refused because it was a "pre-existing condition", i.e. she was born with the genetic makeup that causes it).
At the absolute worst end, this argument states that American healthcare was fine until Obamacare ruined it, which I refuse to believe anyone here actually thinks.
And as others have pointed out, when able to pass legislation, continued expansion of care is continuing. They just passed Medicare being able to do prescription bargaining, which resulted in the typical corporate "THE MEDICARE PRICE BARGAINING WILL STIFLE INNOVATION : (" ads that come along with proper medical legislation, in order to address your second point that nothing else has happened since.
And again, I also refuse to believe a single person here sees the American medical system and does the robertredfordsmilenod.gif. It's a horror show still and requires far more changes, but if each step forward improves the lives for some then I see no reason not to continue. The system wasn't built in a decade, it took hundreds of years, so dismantling it into something far more effective as healthcare and less profitable is going to be an uphill battle at the best of times, and what feels like a Sisyphean task during the rest. Unless we luck out and get a large enough progressive base in D.C., but I'm not holding my breath for that just yet.
Nope, but if they take the House and Senate, absolutely nothing gets done for two years, probably tanking Biden in 2024, then McConnell kills the filibuster and the GOP goes ham.
Also infinite frivolous investigations and the dissolution of useful ones.
Reading an article from PBS NewsHour that brings this back up.
Surprising no one, Sinema is very much in this for her own money/power:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sinema-received-nearly-1-million-from-wall-street-while-killing-tax-hike-on-investors
So this is less, 'falling for GOP bellyaching' (e: from enlighted's OP) and more is full-on taking bribes to ensure we don't get meaningful tax reform on the private equity parasites.
At the same time, 49 Democratic Senators stating on record that they are in favour of abolishing the carried interest loophole is pretty huge for the next time they have a governing majority unreliant on Sinema. Admittedly that only seems to happen once a decade, but still.
Although, part of the deal may have been that they knew Sinema would kill that part.
Yeah, while I try to maintain positivity where I can, there are some things where politicians vote in favor of something (or against, in some cases) where they know their vote isn't going to change the outcome.
That's why replacing Sinema (and Manchin) isn't necessarily enough. Because while I think it might change some things and get some good things passed, it's still going to be a struggle to get what actually needs to be done through.
That will still piss off the hedge fund manager donors compared to just not mentioning it in the first place. Which was always an option.
And you don’t think he’s going to give you a go fuck yourself.
I mean it shouldn’t have been unexpected.