I'm really enjoying watching the GOP implode on health care.
Obama made a shrewd politicial move (regardless of if that was his intention) to pass a right-wing healthcare bill with the ACA.
The GOP, determined to oppose him at all costs, have been making nonsensical ideological arguments against Bob Dole's healthcare plan for a decade. now that they're in power, they need to keep holding the principled stances they've made for a decade, while trying to harmonize the abject lack of integrity.
Spoiler!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vox's Sarah Kliff
On Apr 20, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Sarah Kliff, Vox.com <newsletter@vox.com> wrote:
The White House has a big incentive to make it look like something is happening. The AHCA's failure was a major embarrassment, and they are approaching the 100-day milestone with no legislative accomplishments. Plus, they aren't ready to move on a tax reform bill. So the appearance of activity on health care is better than nothing.
Lawmakers in the centrist and conservative cohorts also want to shift the blame, either to the other group or, if they somehow pass something out of the House, to the Senate.
"I think they are just trying to save face in the House and couldn't care less what happens to it in the Senate," one GOP lobbyist told me.
The bill seems stuck in a vicious cycle as lawmakers try to appease both extremes of the GOP.
Think of it as the Obamacare ouroboros. (That's the snake that eats its own tail, symbolizing eternity.)
Every new policy idea to satisfy the conservatives creates a new problem for the moderates, which leads to a new policy to satisfy them. Round and round again.
The latest tweak illustrates it perfectly:
-If the bill passed, the letter of the law would still prevent insurers from denying coverage based on a person's medical history, one of Obamacare's core reforms.
So moderates can claim they are protecting people with preexisting conditions.
But to appease the archconservatives, they want to allow states to opt out of two other insurance reforms, which prohibited plans from raising premiums because of preexisting conditions and which required plans to cover certain benefits. But without those policies, prohibiting outright discrimination doesn't matter. Plans will hike premiums or tweak their benefits to weed out costly patients. So people with conditions are at risk again.
To make up for that, they want to require states that waive those protections to set up a high-risk pool to offer coverage to sick people. So moderates can still claim they are protecting these people.
But because of the conservatives, they won’t provide the funding experts say is necessary to really make those high-risk pools work. So people are at risk again.
It's dizzying, I know. But this merry-go-round explains why House Republicans are struggling to find an equilibrium and pass a health care bill. It's not at all clear this latest plan solves that fundamental problem.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
The Following User Says Thank You to Gozer For This Useful Post:
"The plan gets better and better and better, and it's gotten really good and a lot of people are liking it a lot," Trump said at a news conference on Thursday. "We have a good chance of getting it soon. I'd like to say next week, but we will get it."
Hahahahahahaha
He has no clue what's in it or any of the details.
__________________
Pass the bacon.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DuffMan For This Useful Post:
God. Dammit. It is not fake news. I swear to Christ do we have to cover this every time? Once again for the cheap seats:
Fake news is "Hillary and Dem leadership run a child sex ring out of a pizza shop". It is not "Patriots and Trump disagree with a photograph".
Edit: sorry, I'm cranky. Bugs the crap out of me that the term fake news has morphed into "I disagree with this." It trivialises the term.
It is fake news. It's comparing the crowds using to different reference points to try to show that Trump isn't popular. It was poorly researched partisan crap designed to embarass Trump. We should stand up and complain about this when it occurs.
It is fake news. It's comparing the crowds using to different reference points to try to show that Trump isn't popular. It was poorly researched partisan crap designed to embarass Trump. We should stand up and complain about this when it occurs.
The Times misled its readers.
You're making a compelling argument for why the term "fake news" has lost all meaning. Editorial slant is not fake news. More players did not attend than last time, the reason for why they didn't attend is up for debate but the numbers are concrete.
Hahahahahahaha
He has no clue what's in it or any of the details.
He has no clue about anything. Health care, foreign policy, immigration, governing a country... he's completely clueless and ignorant on pretty much all of it. And yet 46% of the country voted for this assclown. Five months later and I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the fact that that we're living in this f---ed up reality. It truly is the movie Idiocracy come to life.
It is fake news. It's comparing the crowds using to different reference points to try to show that Trump isn't popular. It was poorly researched partisan crap designed to embarass Trump. We should stand up and complain about this when it occurs.
The Times misled its readers.
While the side by side photographic comparison was misleading, the actual facts of there being much less players than the Obama White House visit is true.
A Patriots spokesman, Stacey James, said Wednesday night that 34 players had attended, similar to the turnout when President George W. Bush hosted them in 2004 and 2005. He said that more than 45 players attended the ceremonies in 2002, after the franchise’s first Super Bowl, and that in 2015, when Barack Obama was president, the number of players approached 50.
not only that, a large number of patriots players have verbally gone on record and expressed the reason that they did not attend was because of Trump and his divisive politics.
An NFL roster is 68 players. Obama got 50... So while you call it "partisan crap", in terms of actual number of players is fact.
you go ahead an find me a single player for previous SuperBowl winning teams whose players stated on record that they didn't attend because they hated Clinton or even Bush for that matter.
Finally, they don't need "partisan crap designed to embarrass Trump".... Dear Leader and Spicey and KAC do a better job of doing that on their own thank you very much.
Last edited by oldschoolcalgary; 04-20-2017 at 11:37 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to oldschoolcalgary For This Useful Post:
you go ahead an find me a single player for previous SuperBowl winning teams whose players stated on record that they didn't attend because they hated Clinton or even Bush for that matter.
sure, and no one was suggesting it doesn't; during Obama's year 18 players didn't make it either.
the argument was a) Less players attended Trump's gathering than Obama's (34 vs 50) directly from the Patriots spokesperson and b) A number of those players didn't attend as a political statement. And a statement that they were willing to go on record with.
your link only one player, Tim Thomas, didn't attend due to publicly stated political motivations.
Just off the top of my head, i know McCourty, Branch and Bennett all spoke publicly about not attending the White House because of Trump's divisive style of politics and rhetoric
edit: Matt Birk didn't attend also due to his opposition to Obama's pro choice admin
Last edited by oldschoolcalgary; 04-20-2017 at 08:56 PM.
White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said Thursday that he hopes to use negotiations to keep the government open past April 28 in an effort to force Democrats to back some funding for creating a new wall along the U. S-Mexico border — a risky move that could provoke a spending showdown with congressional Democrats next week.
Mulvaney said the White House would be open to funding some of the Democrats’ priorities — such as paying insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act — if Democrats agree to fund some of the more controversial parts of President Trump’s agenda, notably the border wall.
Quote:
“Everything had been moving smoothly until the administration moved in with a heavy hand,” said Matt House, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). “Not only are Democrats opposed to the wall, there is significant Republican opposition as well.”
While the side by side photographic comparison was misleading, the actual facts of there being much less players than the Obama White House visit is true.
A Patriots spokesman, Stacey James, said Wednesday night that 34 players had attended, similar to the turnout when President George W. Bush hosted them in 2004 and 2005. He said that more than 45 players attended the ceremonies in 2002, after the franchise’s first Super Bowl, and that in 2015, when Barack Obama was president, the number of players approached 50.
not only that, a large number of patriots players have verbally gone on record and expressed the reason that they did not attend was because of Trump and his divisive politics.
An NFL roster is 68 players. Obama got 50... So while you call it "partisan crap", in terms of actual number of players its fact.
you go ahead an find me a single player for previous SuperBowl winning teams whose players stated on record that they didn't attend because they hated Clinton or even Bush for that matter.
Finally, they don't need "partisan crap designed to embarrass Trump".... Dear Leader and Spicey and KAC do a better job of doing that on their own thank you very much.
It is fake news. It's comparing the crowds using to different reference points to try to show that Trump isn't popular. It was poorly researched partisan crap designed to embarass Trump. We should stand up and complain about this when it occurs.
apparently the photo in 2015 had additional support staff, whereas the 2017 was players only...
so the discrepancy, and there was one, was magnified because not only was the 2017 photo missing 16 players, it also had a bunch of the football operations staff that were not in the photo
The fact remains, less players were at Trump's compared to Obama's White House.
Last edited by oldschoolcalgary; 04-20-2017 at 11:36 PM.
