The first is removing a required minimum the second is providing a limit on the max that can be provided. It’s two separate things. It’s intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible but legally doable. If you mean the 'states rights' aspect that isn’t what they are arguing, they are just choosing to allow states to se their minimum.
But if Republicans are all for states rights, which is what they are claiming they are doing by giving states the right to charge more for health care, why are they denying another state the ability to do single-payer? That is what I don't get.
ETA: I think you added the last part as I was typing.
Basically what Biscoff said and add that States Rights were never about states rights and aren’t now. It’s about allowing certain states to pursue harmful policies due to racism/classicism/white privilege/etc
Oh look. Cassidy is circulating numbers on Capitol Hill that are misleading to try to make red state colleagues think that the cuts for their states won't be bad and they will end up with ample money., when in reality they are likely to get screwed. For example his numbers don't take into account the per capita cap on Medicaid.
seeyalater52 can we hope there are lobbyists or something on the Hill that Senators like Murkowski and Capito will take seriously who might point out that Cassidy is a lying liar who lies?
Yes, but unclear if that is going to be enough. The thing is that ON ONE likes Cassidy. He is just the chump who had the last bill standing when they were forced to go hard before the deadline. Which just makes all of this even more absurd.
I continue to be blown away by how little respect Alexander has for himself. What a pathetic little man he is for letting leadership bully him this way when he is a senior member of the party with an important chair-ship. The bipartisan process was going SO WELL.
Although honestly while I think Alexander should be mad because McConnell pulled the rug out from under him, at the end of the day maybe he is not that mad because he doesn't really want to save ACA.
Exactly. He's happy to give lip service and let it all go down in flames. Unsurprising, really. But what I don't get is that it makes him look like a pathetic doormat pushover, which I'd kind of think he would want to avoid? But what do I know.
More people need to use their platforms to appeal personally to people like Jimmy is doing. Most people were touched by his first monologue after his son was born because, well, you have to have a heart made of stone not to be touched by a newborn going into open heart surgery. There needs to be more targeting of messaging to drive home to people that their children, their loved ones, or they themselves, are going to be negatively impacted if this type of bill passes. Get people to look at their child with autism or DS or whatever health issue they may have and say "I can't support a bill that will hurt their healthcare." Right now they think they have it bad because of Obama and they don't all realize it will be SO MUCH WORSE under these GOP bills.
I will say it would help if the people who need to vote no on this actually cared one whit about hurting people by taking their health care away. I think the personal stories are VERY powerful and motivate others to take action. They even have some utility with the Senators in certain cases, and everyone who calls should share a personal story if they have one. But the reality is that the economic arguments about the cuts to federal funding for states (mostly coming from governors) are the real game-changer. One party seems to only care about money.
The first is removing a required minimum the second is providing a limit on the max that can be provided. It’s two separate things. It’s intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible but legally doable. If you mean the 'states rights' aspect that isn’t what they are arguing, they are just choosing to allow states to se their minimum.
But if Republicans are all for states rights, which is what they are claiming they are doing by giving states the right to charge more for health care, why are they denying another state the ability to do single-payer? That is what I don't get.
ETA: I think you added the last part as I was typing.
Because if more states offer single-payer, people might start liking it. And wanting it at the Federal level. And the GOP doesn't want that, because they want poor people to suffer.
If it passes what happens? Would it go into conference to sort out the differences between the house bill? Is there a time line on that?
If the House votes on this bill clean no conference is required. At the moment the House plans to vote this through as is
Do they have the votes? I'm not sure the tea party thinks this bill goes far enough and if they need to add sweeteners for moderate senators that might tank in house.
If it passes what happens? Would it go into conference to sort out the differences between the house bill? Is there a time line on that?
They do not have time to go to conference because the Senate only has until Sept. 30th. The House will have to pass as-is. No timeline, they are not operating with the same Sept. 30th reconciliation deadline. Right now there is some question about whether the House has the votes but it can't go back to the Senate so no matter how much they want to change it they won't be able to.
Fuck. He wouldn't say this if he didn't have the votes, right? This isn't a pressure tactic? Murkowski caved even though she is one of the ones I though cared about people and her state is going to get hosed.
Fuck. He wouldn't say this if he didn't have the votes, right? This isn't a pressure tactic? Murkowski caved even though she is one of the ones I though cared about people and her state is going to get hosed.
Fuck fuck fuck. I feel physically sick.
Or maybe he would because they're that desperate and trying to pretend they do have the votes. I'm clinging to that. Don't take it away from me. Lol
Fuck. He wouldn't say this if he didn't have the votes, right? This isn't a pressure tactic? Murkowski caved even though she is one of the ones I though cared about people and her state is going to get hosed.
Fuck fuck fuck. I feel physically sick.
It is absolutely a pressure tactic. Right now they don't have the votes, and Murkowski hasn't caved yet. Walker and their state HHS are very very concerned about the Medicaid pieces of the bill, it won't be all sun and roses from them AT ALL, and the CBO will be releasing a partial score, and that will be terrible too.
It is literally impossible for me to describe how absolutely infuriated I am to see this. Like, THIS is the first thing I have seen all day that makes me nauseous. How disgusting.
Post by biscoffcookies on Sept 20, 2017 18:03:36 GMT -5
Graham implores a Senate colleague, possibly McCain, to vote for GC on the phone at airport and is overheard by a passenger. "With all its imperfections I hope you can," he says (presumably vote for it).
Graham implores a Senate colleague, possibly McCain, to vote for GC on the phone at airport and is overheard by a passenger. "With all its imperfections I hope you can," he says (presumably vote for it).
Post by WanderingWinoZ on Sept 20, 2017 19:28:49 GMT -5
This seems to be a big sticking point right now..." coverage of pre-existing conditions. "
Dems say it doesn't (in reality/practice) & R's say it does (in theory).
I think if the GOP is able to tell themselves a lie & believe that they aren't changing the pre-existing conditions, and the general public buys into the bullshit htye are selling, we are SCREWED.
This seems to be a big sticking point right now..." coverage of pre-existing conditions. "
Dems say it doesn't (in reality/practice) & R's say it does (in theory).
I think if the GOP is able to tell themselves a lie & believe that they aren't changing the pre-existing conditions, and the general public buys into the bullshit htye are selling, we are SCREWED.
Our polling is showing that rather than fighting about whether people with pre-existing conditions are covered it is more effective to emphasize the huge cost increases in premiums for people with pre-ex and older adults. It's more believable to the average voter, is technically correct, and very sympathetic. It's one of the best polling talking points actually.
ETA: I should add that personally I think it's bogus to claim that you're covering people just because you're not prohibiting them from giving you money for an insurance plan. Having them pay you 5-7x as much as everyone else does for insurance and then you give them a plan that doesn't cover anything they actually need for health care is almost as raw a deal as excluding them all together. And that's essentially what gutting the essentially health benefits would do.