The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[Magox]

 

I'll be honest , yes it was a start that needs a lot more work.

 

So bipartisanship for something this critical as you say isn't truly what's important to you.

 

Because the ACA like what Republicans are trying to do didn't have an inkling of bipartisanship.

[ALF]

 

So bipartisanship for something this critical as you say isn't truly what's important to you.

 

Because the ACA like what Republicans are trying to do didn't have an inkling of bipartisanship.

 

Only bipartisan healthcare will work long term

[Doc Brown]

 

So bipartisanship for something this critical as you say isn't truly what's important to you.

 

Because the ACA like what Republicans are trying to do didn't have an inkling of bipartisanship.

The problem with the Republicans in '09 is they refused to admit the system in place wasn't working and could be fixed. The Democrats are making that same mistake with the ACA now. That leads to a purely partisan bill. The difference is the Dems had the Supermajority.

[IDBillzFan]

I don't know, I've just kind of become kind of numb when it comes to politics. I have an interest in policy and like poking fun of the crazies from both wings of the parties but I sincerely don't really care about either party. And since both parties argue from an extremely shallow point devoid of any true substance, over the years I have lost more and more interest when it comes to the craven nature of politics. I really hate stupidity.

 

Fortunately we can take a break from this insane political stupidity and spend quality time at TBD talking about the Bills.

[Tiberius]

Health coverage is so critical it needs bipartisan support.

 

Republicans, by and large, are only interested in health care as a way to find ways to finance tax cuts.

[Magox]

 

Fortunately we can take a break from this insane political stupidity and spend quality time at TBD talking about the Bills.

 

Yes, what joy!

 

I get to listen to the same 10 posters who act as if they are the "experts" of the board that all have the same views which are:

 

They are defenders of Whaley

All believe Sammy Watkins is some sort of god of a WR and was worth the $16M a year he would have been asking

All straddle the fence of saying that TT isn't perfect yet defend him at every turn

All believe that the release of Jwill was some sort of heresy and somehow believe he is some sort of special talent

Hate McD/Beane because they are completely uprooting the stench of failure and are instilling their vision of how this organization should be.

 

The hysterics of how they reacted over Watkins finally having a good game yesterday was a sight to behold. I mean JHC, he had one ok game, one poor game and one good game and you would have thought that he just had a breakout season of 1400 yards and 14 TD's helping lead his team to the playoffs. It was one good game.

[grinreaper]

 

Yes, what joy!

 

I get to listen to the same 10 posters who act as if they are the "experts" of the board that all have the same views which are:

 

They are defenders of Whaley

All believe Sammy Watkins is some sort of god of a WR and was worth the $16M a year he would have been asking

All straddle the fence of saying that TT isn't perfect yet defend him at every turn

All believe that the release of Jwill was some sort of heresy and somehow believe he is some sort of special talent

Hate McD/Beane because they are completely uprooting the stench of failure and are instilling their vision of how this organization should be.

 

The hysterics of how they reacted over Watkins finally having a good game yesterday was a sight to behold. I mean JHC, he had one ok game, one poor game and one good game and you would have thought that he just had a breakout season of 1400 yards and 14 TD's helping lead his team to the playoffs. It was one good game.

Now you've gone and done it! We don't talk football here. This thread should be banished to TSW.

[IDBillzFan]

 

 

Yes, what joy!

 

I haave a couple of favorites:

 

- The people who can already tell McDermott is a failure, and they don't need to see any more of his work to believe otherwise, in part because he reminds them of Dick Jauron.

 

- The people who puke every time Tyrod Taylor throws a football, who mock anyone who wants to apply even the least amount of patience for the year to play out, or who are convinced that Peterman would have scored a couple of TDs against Carolina in spite of a ridiculously porous Oline.

 

Man, if only this anonymous basement dwellers could run the team. They'd turn it around immediately, dammit.

Edited September 22, 2017 by LABillzFan

[ExiledInIllinois]

Trump about 2/3 vote in Senate... Bet all you strict constructionist constitutional libertarians just love him. Go Donny go, you ain't Shillary!

 

"he railed against the Senate's "crazy" 60-vote threshold to pass legislation, complaining that -- with Republicans controlling only 52 seats -- it's impossible to pass bills. He said the GOP can pass bills under special budget reconciliation rules that require just 51 votes, "but that's a trick. That's just a trick."

[/dev/null]

Trump about 2/3 vote in Senate... Bet all you strict constructionist constitutional libertarians just love him. Go Donny go, you ain't Shillary!

 

 

No we don't

 

But I don't expect a dumbass with your head stuck up your ass to understand. Go root for your home team Donkeys to win over the hated rival Elephants or those low budget FCS Porcupines

Edited September 23, 2017 by /dev/null

[DC Tom]

Trump about 2/3 vote in Senate... Bet all you strict constructionist constitutional libertarians just love him. Go Donny go, you ain't Shillary!

 

"he railed against the Senate's "crazy" 60-vote threshold to pass legislation, complaining that -- with Republicans controlling only 52 seats -- it's impossible to pass bills. He said the GOP can pass bills under special budget reconciliation rules that require just 51 votes, "but that's a trick. That's just a trick."

 

There is no Constitutional requirement for a 2/3 vote, or a 60-vote threshold. That's entirely up to Senate rules...and since Harry Reid's nonsense, that threshold doesn't even exist anymore.

 

Thanks, Harry.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

There is no Constitutional requirement for a 2/3 vote, or a 60-vote threshold. That's entirely up to Senate rules...and since Harry Reid's nonsense, that threshold doesn't even exist anymore.

 

Thanks, Harry.

This is lost to most people. No one really understands how the Constitution was designed to work anymore.

 

They don't realize that the Constitution largely spells out what the branches of government are permitted to do, and what it must do, but don't usually speak to how they must do it, outside of being told ways they cannot do it.

Edited September 23, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

This is lost to most people. No one really understands how the Constitution was designed to work anymore.

 

They don't realize that the Constitution largely spells out what the branches of government are permitted to do, and what it must do, but don't usually speak to how they must do it, outside of being told ways they cannot do it.

 

They also don't realize how much Congress does is determined by the rules determined by each chamber at the start of each Congress. (Although they usually just copy the rules from the last session.)

 

People don't even know the difference between Congress and parliamentary procedure. This country is doomed.

[ALF]

The latest analysis, from the nonpartisan Brookings Institution, finds that Cassidy-Graham would reduce the number of Americans with insurance by about 21 million through 2026. But after that, another 11 million would lose coverage, for a total of 32 million additional uninsured.

Why? Because the bill includes some funding for people no longer covered under the Affordable Care Act through 2026, but no funding at all after that. Meanwhile, it would impose new limits on the maximum amount states can spend on Medicaid, the health program from the poor. That would cut enrollment in Medicaid over the long run, despite population growth.

https://www.aol.com/article/finance/2017/09/22/the-fatal-flaw-in-the-new-obamacare-repeal-bill/23219757/

[B-Man]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/09/the-worst-republican-senator-2.php

FTA:

 

Instead, the senator I am most disgusted with is: Rand Paul. He is much worse than McCain.

Rand Paul is typical of purist libertarians who cannot absorb the wisdom that the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Does Rand Paul really think that there are ever going to be enough votes to deliver a libertarian health care policy? He voted for the darn skinny repeal bill a few months ago.

I’m sure the Graham-Cassidy bill has lots of defects. I don’t need to read it: anything with Lindsay Graham’s name on it is going to be defective. It does, though, at least seem to have the virtue of reversing the centralization of health regulation under Obamacare by devolving money and control the states (and possibly sunsetting some of the money in a decade), and that alone should garner the support of any federalist. But no: Rand Paul has to preen about his purism, and very likely cement Obamacare in place forever, because it is unlikely that Republicans will be much stronger than they are in Congress right now for many election cycles.

[Magox]

There is no way that the CBO, Brookings institute or any organization that could possibly come close to even approaching the effects of the bill.

 

Why?

 

Because every single state would have the option to craft their own healthcare system which would include the distribution of assistance to help pay for the plans, forms of pre ex coverage, regulations, plan type limitations etc etc.

 

Meaning if California or any other state still wanted to impose a statewide mandate to have coverage they could do so. If they still wanted all the paternalistic essential minimum benefits they could do so. If states love most of the ACA regulations and main tenets of the law they have the choice to do so.

 

The only thing that would change is the funding. Some states would lose funding others would gain. Under the ACA funding for Medicaid is open ended. Meaning that there are no limitations to how many people you can enroll as long as they financially qualify. Under this proposal, they cap it. Their formulary begins above the baseline of pre ACA plus the continues to rise based off an inflationary gauge they would implement.

 

Overall there would be approximately a 6-7% reduction over the next decade. Take out California, MA and NY and funding levels for the rest of the state's in its totality would remain the same.

 

So for all those states that want to lower or maintain the income threshold of ACA for medicaid they Could do so, just that they would have to foot the bill for part of the expansion of their Medicaid program.

 

No one knows **** about this and they are making all these assumptions without any knowledge.

 

Ignorance

[Boatdrinks]

The latest analysis, from the nonpartisan Brookings Institution, finds that Cassidy-Graham would reduce the number of Americans with insurance by about 21 million through 2026. But after that, another 11 million would lose coverage, for a total of 32 million additional uninsured.

 

Why? Because the bill includes some funding for people no longer covered under the Affordable Care Act through 2026, but no funding at all after that. Meanwhile, it would impose new limits on the maximum amount states can spend on Medicaid, the health program from the poor. That would cut enrollment in Medicaid over the long run, despite population growth.

 

https://www.aol.com/article/finance/2017/09/22/the-fatal-flaw-in-the-new-obamacare-repeal-bill/23219757/

The Brookings institution is a liberal " think tank" . To call it non partisan is a stretch.

[Doc Brown]

Collins came out as a No on the Graham-Cassidy bill making it likely it won't pass with Paul, McCain, and Collins all as a No right now. They tweaked the bill over the weekend giving more funding to Maine, Alaska, Kentucky, and Arizona to try and win over Collins and Murkowski. They also added deeper deregulation of the insurance market adding even more concern that states can price out people with preexisting conditions to appease Cruz and Lee who were both against the bill in its current form according to Cruz on Sunday. It's highly unlikely to pass at this point, but you never know as those opposed have to wait until Oct. 1st to breathe easy.

 

I always thought the factions in the Republican Party would find some way to come together repeal and replace the ACA as it's been their main campaign promise over the last four election cycles. I'm not so sure anymore as you have Collins and Paul on opposite sides of the Republican spectrum who both came out against the bill. I don't know how you bridge that gap. It looks like they're going to take a bipartisan approach going forward. Either that or they try again next year.

[Tiberius]

Dead? Or on life support

 

Can the Republicans still take health insurance/care away from tens of millions of Americans?

[BringBackOrton]

Dead? Or on life support

 

Can the Republicans still take health insurance/care away from tens of millions of Americans?

These aren't the same thing.