Cugalabanza

The distraction of the Century...of the week.

This is a very good day for whackjobs.

yup

Nope, just a stroke of luck

Actually (as I understand it), jail time was not mandatory. 21 months was just the low end of what the prosecutor recommended. But, I agree that he got off very light. My amateur, half-assed, underinformed opinion is that he should have gotten about double that amount of time.

Sammy's a flat earther, sweet jesus. But does he believe in discoidal warming?

This should replace e pluribus unum on our money.

Ok, you can disregard Kimmell completely. It's not about Jimmy Kimmell--he just got some people riled up about it. The merits of the bill have zero to do with the sincerity/insincerity of a late night tv host. The issue remains, whether people with pre-existing conditions will be able to get insurance and whether they will be protected from price gouging. The best I've heard so far in defense of the bill is along the lines of "well, kind of, probably...in some states anyway..." That's still a problem. And Cassidy is being dishonest about it.

Sen. Chuck Grassley says about the new bill: “You know, I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill shouldn’t be considered. But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. That’s pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill.” http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2017/09/20/chuck-grassley-regardless-substance-republicans-must-support-health-bill/685674001/

I think it's disingenuous to play the "freedom" card in this case. Sure, there is some *technical* truth to what you are saying. However, allowing a slice of the population to bully the system and hijack democracy by choking out the interests of the vast majority with what amounts to large-scale bribery is not exactly the greatest example of the true *spirit* of freedom that our founders intended.

Why do you hate freedom? (I am of course kidding. I wholeheartedly agree with you on this.)

This bill is being fast-tracked and nobody seems to know what's in it. Or (I suspect), many are using this ambiguity to maintain plausible deniability so they can just get the thing passed. One key part of the plan is this condition where individual states could obtain waivers which would effectively allow discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. Every account I've read, from multiple sources, makes this same point, that protection from this would not be guaranteed. Are you aware of something that contradicts that?

Yeah, we all know which side your trench is dug on, but do you have anything to say about the content? Can you make a case that this new bill is any good or that it does, for example, guarantee coverage for pre-existing conditions?

According to Politico, Kimmell "has the better grasp of health policy" http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/20/jimmy-kimmel-bill-cassidy-obamacare-repeal-242932

Fine. I understand what you're implying, but I was not being ironic.

1. Ewww 2. Honestly, there are some good arguments for being anti-immigrant. I can see the validity. I can appreciate the concerns about security, about jobs, about cultural identity, etc... I happen to be pretty liberal on this issue and I tend to be tolerant of immigrants (including illegals)--there are good arguments for that side as well. I won't get into it here, but it's a topic that has a lot of room for good debate. I find it disappointing that often, instead of debate, this issue gets hot very quickly and tends to be partisan with stale, entrenched talking points from both sided. 3. Sure, all the time. A few examples: a) My doctor thinks I should eat better & drink less. b) Mrs. Banza advises against me spending money on a new guitar. c) Some other TBD members have said it's stupid to post in PPP, but I still do sometimes.

Jesus Christ man, what is your deal?

No, that's not it. There are people with positions different from mine that I respect. I'm surprised to see such a hot response to me saying I value independent thinking. It's not a "marker of status" (I don't know where that comes from). I happen to like talking to people who think for themselves and don't just parrot the statements of some group that they belong to. That's all.

Are you talking about politics or your own posting strategy?

Ok, alright, I jumped to a conclusion a bit. But, am I wrong. Is this new bill actually worth defending? Or is it just the expedient political play for right now, being pushed through as a hot rush, last ditch, under the wire hail mary pass?

Ok, fair enough. I think you're exaggerating the phenomenon, but I'm certainly not going to defend the democratic party. At this point, I can't believe anyone who isn't actually holding political office would maintain loyalty to either party. My naïve hope is that the general reaction over time to the current political chaos will be for people to tend more towards independent thought and somewhat walk away from their pre-packaged group-think ideals. I don't feel very confident about that though.

True, that article does not include details about the actual plan. And I don't have the language of the plan. I'm relying on things I'm reading about it, from multiple sources. There seems to be agreement that this plan (like the other recent versions) will reduce the amount of people covered by millions and it disproportionally targets low income families and people with pre-existing conditions. I apologize for not doing thorough research, providing links, etc... My intent was to open up for discussion. I'm curious if anyone is willing to defend this plan on merit. Is it significantly different than other proposals that have been made? I understand that this plan aims to convert funding to states via grants and that's a new twist. Other than that, is there any reason to consider this as a real option for real people and anything other than a political play to nominally honor the "repeal Obamacare" promise that conservatives expect to be honored?

No, I didn't say that. The fact that he's critical of players from both teams is merely evidence that he's not grinding an ideological axe. I thought that was clear.

Go Bannon yourself.