I actually thought they might pass it for a while there once the "Kodiak Kickback" and other "incentives" for wobbly Senators came to light. (Yes, I know the ACA had them too - part of the unseemly sausage making of major legislation.)

But in the end it was actually conservatives who killed it over fears it might not take away health care from enough people or give the rich a big enough tax cut. (And that McConnell was counting the same money multiple times. No wonder they didn't want to let the CBO score it.)

Having said that, there is bipartisan agreement on some things which need to be fixed with the ACA and certain markets need to be shored up. Is McConnell willing to work with Dems? I really doubt it, but we can hope.

(07-18-2017 07:35 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I actually thought they might pass it for a while there once the "Kodiak Kickback" and other "incentives" for wobbly Senators came to light. (Yes, I know the ACA had them too - part of the unseemly sausage making of major legislation.)

But in the end it was actually conservatives who killed it over fears it might not take away health care from enough people or give the rich a big enough tax cut. (And that McConnell was counting the same money multiple times. No wonder they didn't want to let the CBO score it.)

Having said that, there is bipartisan agreement on some things which need to be fixed with the ACA and certain markets need to be shored up. Is McConnell willing to work with Dems? I really doubt it, but we can hope.

It is tough to legislate against Santa Claus.

(07-18-2017 08:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 07:35 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I actually thought they might pass it for a while there once the "Kodiak Kickback" and other "incentives" for wobbly Senators came to light. (Yes, I know the ACA had them too - part of the unseemly sausage making of major legislation.)

But in the end it was actually conservatives who killed it over fears it might not take away health care from enough people or give the rich a big enough tax cut. (And that McConnell was counting the same money multiple times. No wonder they didn't want to let the CBO score it.)

Having said that, there is bipartisan agreement on some things which need to be fixed with the ACA and certain markets need to be shored up. Is McConnell willing to work with Dems? I really doubt it, but we can hope.

It is tough to legislate against Santa Claus.

I assume you mean Donald "You’re going to have such great health care, at a tiny fraction of the cost—and it’s going to be so easy" Trump....

Civics 101 -- Presidents dont legislate.

Additionally, what a President 'says' (any President) is immaterial as to the process of legislating. C'mon man, a Rice grad *should* know that....

(07-18-2017 08:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Civics 101 -- Presidents dont legislate.

Additionally, what a President 'says' (any President) is immaterial as to the process of legislating. C'mon man, a Rice grad *should* know that....

That's a naive statement.

POTUS's words can have a very material impact on the process based on what they lobby for or against.

(07-18-2017 07:35 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I actually thought they might pass it for a while there once the "Kodiak Kickback" and other "incentives" for wobbly Senators came to light. (Yes, I know the ACA had them too - part of the unseemly sausage making of major legislation.)

But in the end it was actually conservatives who killed it over fears it might not take away health care from enough people or give the rich a big enough tax cut. (And that McConnell was counting the same money multiple times. No wonder they didn't want to let the CBO score it.)

Having said that, there is bipartisan agreement on some things which need to be fixed with the ACA and certain markets need to be shored up. Is McConnell willing to work with Dems? I really doubt it, but we can hope.

This sort of framing is ubiquitous but disingenuous. If I stop making you buy something you never wanted in the first place, I haven't "taken it away" from you.

Back in the '90s the law firm I was working for at the time decided to officially require all attorneys to have cell phones. Most people already had them, of course, but there were still some holdouts at the time (associates who didn't want workaholic partners calling them at 8 am on Sundays, and partners who didn't want clients calling them at 5 pm on Fridays).

Had the firm rescinded its directive a couple years later, would we say they took people's phones away?

The vast majority of uninsured that were compelled to buy (not given) insurance under Obamacare were people who theretofore hadn't wanted it, for all sorts of reasons, not all of them irrational. If you stop making these people buy insurance, and thus it is projected that they will indeed stop buying it, you haven't taken their insurance away and you sure haven't taken their "health care" away.

To get more granular re: the current debate, if I stop making someone who previously hadn't wanted health insurance buy an Obamacare plan larded with all sorts of bells and whistles, and give them the option of buying a slimmed-down, less expensive plan more suited to their individual need, you can't say I've taken away their "health care" unless we've just decided that words don't mean anything anymore.

(07-18-2017 07:35 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  But in the end it was actually conservatives who killed it over fears it might not take away health care from enough people or give the rich a big enough tax cut.

Number one, the bill won't actually take health care away from anyone. It's about health INSURANCE not health CARE. And what is clear is that for every person who were added to the health insurance rolls under Obamacare, there were others that were priced out of the market by its provisions. For that matter, if I have a policy with a $3000 deductible and I don't have $3000 cash, what good is the insurance if I'm at the hospital needing $3000 worth of treatment. I'm probably better off with no insurance, since at least I haven't spent my cash on premium. Number two, what it will actually do is make people pay closer to the actual cost of providing them the health care they will need, instead of heavily subsidizing one sector by overcharging another.

If you really want to do something about providing health CARE, you need to have provisions making it more attractive for people to become health care providers. Obamacare made it less attractive, which over time will presumably reduce the number of people willing to be providers and therefore reduce health care--and the number of people that get it. That's what taking away health CARE looks like.

Sorry, but yes it would have taken health care away from people by repealing the medicaid expansion, by gutting the pre-existing conditions protections, and by gutting the rest of medicaid too, which would hit the disabled, the elderly, and kids with special needs disproportionately hard.

All around a horrible piece of legislation.

(07-18-2017 09:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Civics 101 -- Presidents dont legislate.

Additionally, what a President 'says' (any President) is immaterial as to the process of legislating. C'mon man, a Rice grad *should* know that....

That's a naive statement.

POTUS's words can have a very material impact on the process based on what they lobby for or against.

I think Tangtonic's overstating it, but I don't disagree with the point broadly. However, Trump's many statements on health care during the campaign and after the election were ridiculous even by politician standards.

And this bill directly contradicted some of his most explicit and central campaign promises, like not touching medicaid.

So, let's say we had President Sanders instead. He might not have been able to get single-payer through, but maybe he gets the public option, or expands medicaid more, or lowers the medicare eligibility age.

Or he's not able to get "free college" but makes financial aid much more generous.

In both cases he moved toward his promises, even if not completely fulfilling them.

What Trump did was more like Sanders getting in office and passing a bill to encourage colleges to raise tuition and gutting financial aid for lower and middle income families, while keeping it for the upper-middle class.

(07-18-2017 12:23 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 09:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Civics 101 -- Presidents dont legislate.

Additionally, what a President 'says' (any President) is immaterial as to the process of legislating. C'mon man, a Rice grad *should* know that....

That's a naive statement.

POTUS's words can have a very material impact on the process based on what they lobby for or against.

I think Tangtonic's overstating it, but I don't disagree with the point broadly. However, Trump's many statements on health care during the campaign and after the election were ridiculous even by politician standards.

And this bill directly contradicted some of his most explicit and central campaign promises, like not touching medicaid.

So, let's say we had President Sanders instead. He might not have been able to get single-payer through, but maybe he gets the public option, or expands medicaid more, or lowers the medicare eligibility age.

Or he's not able to get "free college" but makes financial aid much more generous.

In both cases he moved toward his promises, even if not completely fulfilling them.

What Trump did was more like Sanders getting in office and passing a bill to encourage colleges to raise tuition and gutting financial aid for lower and middle income families, while keeping it for the upper-middle class.

He's right in the sense that legislation is made and passed in Congress, but to say that what the POTUS says is immaterial is wrong. Carefully chosen words, public support or resistance, building consensus in swing areas with votes, those are all actions the POTUS can take to actually affect the process of legislating. They are indirect effects, but not immaterial ones.

(07-18-2017 08:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Civics 101 -- Presidents dont legislate.

Additionally, what a President 'says' (any President) is immaterial as to the process of legislating. C'mon man, a Rice grad *should* know that....

They didn't call it "Obamacare" because POTUS sat on his butt in the Oval Office every day listening to Barry White. (1) He ran against Hillary in 2008 debating the differences in their specific proposals, so he knew his policy, and (2) he worked both houses of Congress fervently for a year to get a plan through.

However, I do agree that our current POTUS is immaterial to the process of legislating because (1) he doesn't know the basics of policy much less the process, and (2) doesn't want to know either of the above because it doesn't involve crowds of 10-20k cheering wildly at his pep rallies. Witness his comments today when he blamed the 'obstructionist Democrats' for failure of the party that controls all 3 'houses' to pass legislation it's been working on for 8 years! That's like the U-boat captain blaming the Lusitania for getting in the way of his torpedo! Ass-o-nine!!!!

(07-18-2017 08:05 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Civics 101 -- Presidents dont legislate.

Additionally, what a President 'says' (any President) is immaterial as to the process of legislating. C'mon man, a Rice grad *should* know that....

They didn't call it "Obamacare" because POTUS sat on his butt in the Oval Office every day listening to Barry White. (1) He ran against Hillary in 2008 debating the differences in their specific proposals, so he knew his policy, and (2) he worked both houses of Congress fervently for a year to get a plan through.

However, I do agree that our current POTUS is immaterial to the process of legislating because (1) he doesn't know the basics of policy much less the process, and (2) doesn't want to know either of the above because it doesn't involve crowds of 10-20k cheering wildly at his pep rallies. Witness his comments today when he blamed the 'obstructionist Democrats' for failure of the party that controls all 3 'houses' to pass legislation it's been working on for 8 years! That's like the U-boat captain blaming the Lusitania for getting in the way of his torpedo! Ass-o-nine!!!!

Republicans do not have control of the senate by a wide enough margin to pass meaningful reform without attracting democrat votes. Do you not understand how our system of government works?

(07-18-2017 08:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:05 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Civics 101 -- Presidents dont legislate.

Additionally, what a President 'says' (any President) is immaterial as to the process of legislating. C'mon man, a Rice grad *should* know that....

They didn't call it "Obamacare" because POTUS sat on his butt in the Oval Office every day listening to Barry White. (1) He ran against Hillary in 2008 debating the differences in their specific proposals, so he knew his policy, and (2) he worked both houses of Congress fervently for a year to get a plan through.

However, I do agree that our current POTUS is immaterial to the process of legislating because (1) he doesn't know the basics of policy much less the process, and (2) doesn't want to know either of the above because it doesn't involve crowds of 10-20k cheering wildly at his pep rallies. Witness his comments today when he blamed the 'obstructionist Democrats' for failure of the party that controls all 3 'houses' to pass legislation it's been working on for 8 years! That's like the U-boat captain blaming the Lusitania for getting in the way of his torpedo! Ass-o-nine!!!!

Republicans do not have control of the senate by a wide enough margin to pass meaningful reform without attracting democrat votes. Do you not understand how our system of government works?

Sure, but that is not the type of legislation that the Reps have been trying to pass...

The Reps have been trying to push through legislation that only requires 50 votes and they cannot get that.

Nice spin though.

(07-18-2017 10:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Republicans do not have control of the senate by a wide enough margin to pass meaningful reform without attracting democrat votes. Do you not understand how our system of government works?

Sure, but that is not the type of legislation that the Reps have been trying to pass...
The Reps have been trying to push through legislation that only requires 50 votes and they cannot get that.
Nice spin though.

True, but that is the problem. The reconciliation process is limited in its scope and use. They can't really do a comprehensive reform through reconciliation. And that limits them to piecemeal types of legislation that are not satisfactory.

I think they need to go back to square one. Do what was not done for Obamacare, and hold comprehensive hearings that are intended to identify the best possible overall approach. Look at what works and what doesn't worldwide, the plusses and minuses of each approach, and identify the true best practices. Identify something that is by all criteria superior to Obamacare, then put that up for vote, and squeeze the democrats. Do they vote for something that is clearly better, or do they remain in lock step support of Obamacare? I think there are at least a dozen democrat senators who have to vote for something better for purposes other own political careers, and that's more than enough to get you to 60 votes.

Are the republican leaders smart enough to figure that out, or are they too blinded by partisanship? I fear the latter. Or maybe they just lack the stones to do it that way. And if they can't get something done, I fear that dooms us to democrat/socialist/communist income and wealth "redistribution" on a massive scale, along with the highly unsatisfactory single-payer health care.

At this point I am probably more pissed off at the republicans for being wusses than at the democrats for being socialists/communists.

(07-19-2017 02:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 10:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Republicans do not have control of the senate by a wide enough margin to pass meaningful reform without attracting democrat votes. Do you not understand how our system of government works?

Sure, but that is not the type of legislation that the Reps have been trying to pass...
The Reps have been trying to push through legislation that only requires 50 votes and they cannot get that.
Nice spin though.

True, but that is the problem. The reconciliation process is limited in its scope and use. They can't really do a comprehensive reform through reconciliation. And that limits them to piecemeal types of legislation that are not satisfactory.

I think they need to go back to square one. Do what was not done for Obamacare, and hold comprehensive hearings that are intended to identify the best possible overall approach. Look at what works and what doesn't worldwide, the plusses and minuses of each approach, and identify the true best practices. Identify something that is by all criteria superior to Obamacare, then put that up for vote, and squeeze the democrats. Do they vote for something that is clearly better, or do they remain in lock step support of Obamacare? I think there are at least a dozen democrat senators who have to vote for something better for purposes other own political careers, and that's more than enough to get you to 60 votes.

Are the republican leaders smart enough to figure that out, or are they too blinded by partisanship? I fear the latter. Or maybe they just lack the stones to do it that way. And if they can't get something done, I fear that dooms us to democrat/socialist/communist income and wealth "redistribution" on a massive scale, along with the highly unsatisfactory single-payer health care.

At this point I am probably more pissed off at the republicans for being wusses than at the democrats for being socialists/communists.

I agree with what you want to happen. I'm annoyed by Democrats for not stepping up and being vocal about being willing to work with Reps to accomplish X, Y, and Z. They will all admit in interviews that there are things about the ACA that could be improved, but yet you don't see them going on the offensive as a collective to try and force Reps to basically shoot down their improvement ideas or work together with them to achieve those goals. It seems like such an obvious way to grab the narrative AND get something accomplished, but alas, the party is currently rudderless.

I will still quibble though that the ACA was developed without hearings - there were numerous public hearings and communications of ideas prior to passing the ACA. The process for the ACA passage looked nothing like what the Reps have been trying to do.

(07-19-2017 02:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 10:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Republicans do not have control of the senate by a wide enough margin to pass meaningful reform without attracting democrat votes. Do you not understand how our system of government works?

Sure, but that is not the type of legislation that the Reps have been trying to pass...
The Reps have been trying to push through legislation that only requires 50 votes and they cannot get that.
Nice spin though.

True, but that is the problem. The reconciliation process is limited in its scope and use. They can't really do a comprehensive reform through reconciliation. And that limits them to piecemeal types of legislation that are not satisfactory.

I think they need to go back to square one. Do what was not done for Obamacare, and hold comprehensive hearings that are intended to identify the best possible overall approach. Look at what works and what doesn't worldwide, the plusses and minuses of each approach, and identify the true best practices. Identify something that is by all criteria superior to Obamacare, then put that up for vote, and squeeze the democrats. Do they vote for something that is clearly better, or do they remain in lock step support of Obamacare? I think there are at least a dozen democrat senators who have to vote for something better for purposes other own political careers, and that's more than enough to get you to 60 votes.

Are the republican leaders smart enough to figure that out, or are they too blinded by partisanship? I fear the latter. Or maybe they just lack the stones to do it that way. And if they can't get something done, I fear that dooms us to democrat/socialist/communist income and wealth "redistribution" on a massive scale, along with the highly unsatisfactory single-payer health care.

At this point I am probably more pissed off at the republicans for being wusses than at the democrats for being socialists/communists.

This is all well and good, but I think your error is assuming that the current incarnation of the Republican party actually wants to pass healthcare reform, as opposed to tax and entitlement cuts masquerading as healthcare reform.

I also heard an interesting aside on a radio show the other day positing that some of the Republicans' problem is that people don't run for national office as Republicans because they're jazzed about revamping healthcare. Instead, they're jazzed about balanced budgets, or immigration, or foreign policy, and that's what they focus their time and develop expertise on. Consequently, most of the current Republican reps either don't know or don't care about what it would take to do the kind of healthcare sausage-making necessary to reach a universally lauded compromise. In short, the party more or less sees healthcare reform as a obstacle to be avoided or overcome as quickly as possible, rather than a crucial problem to be solved. If it were otherwise - if they demonstrated to me that they were actually interested in expanding/maintaining coverage, lowering costs, ensuring that everyone could afford quality insurance - I'd be on board, regardless of whether they wanted to frame it as a repeal of the ACA or a modification, or whatever. But they haven't, so I'm not.

(07-19-2017 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I will still quibble though that the ACA was developed without hearings - there were numerous public hearings and communications of ideas prior to passing the ACA. The process for the ACA passage looked nothing like what the Reps have been trying to do.

There were hearings, but they were kabuki charades. What went on in those hearings and all the preliminary discussions had nothing to do with the bill that was passed. The bill was compiled in back rooms and based strictly on what they could get the votes for.

(07-19-2017 08:47 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  This is all well and good, but I think your error is assuming that the current incarnation of the Republican party actually wants to pass healthcare reform, as opposed to tax and entitlement cuts masquerading as healthcare reform.

The exaltation of symbolism over solutions has been the hallmark of American government for decades. Obama was a master of it (but only one).

(07-19-2017 08:47 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 02:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 10:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Republicans do not have control of the senate by a wide enough margin to pass meaningful reform without attracting democrat votes. Do you not understand how our system of government works?

Sure, but that is not the type of legislation that the Reps have been trying to pass...
The Reps have been trying to push through legislation that only requires 50 votes and they cannot get that.
Nice spin though.

True, but that is the problem. The reconciliation process is limited in its scope and use. They can't really do a comprehensive reform through reconciliation. And that limits them to piecemeal types of legislation that are not satisfactory.
I think they need to go back to square one. Do what was not done for Obamacare, and hold comprehensive hearings that are intended to identify the best possible overall approach. Look at what works and what doesn't worldwide, the plusses and minuses of each approach, and identify the true best practices. Identify something that is by all criteria superior to Obamacare, then put that up for vote, and squeeze the democrats. Do they vote for something that is clearly better, or do they remain in lock step support of Obamacare? I think there are at least a dozen democrat senators who have to vote for something better for purposes other own political careers, and that's more than enough to get you to 60 votes.
Are the republican leaders smart enough to figure that out, or are they too blinded by partisanship? I fear the latter. Or maybe they just lack the stones to do it that way. And if they can't get something done, I fear that dooms us to democrat/socialist/communist income and wealth "redistribution" on a massive scale, along with the highly unsatisfactory single-payer health care.
At this point I am probably more pissed off at the republicans for being wusses than at the democrats for being socialists/communists.

This is all well and good, but I think your error is assuming that the current incarnation of the Republican party actually wants to pass healthcare reform, as opposed to tax and entitlement cuts masquerading as healthcare reform.
I also heard an interesting aside on a radio show the other day positing that some of the Republicans' problem is that people don't run for national office as Republicans because they're jazzed about revamping healthcare. Instead, they're jazzed about balanced budgets, or immigration, or foreign policy, and that's what they focus their time and develop expertise on. Consequently, most of the current Republican reps either don't know or don't care about what it would take to do the kind of healthcare sausage-making necessary to reach a universally lauded compromise. In short, the party more or less sees healthcare reform as a obstacle to be avoided or overcome as quickly as possible, rather than a crucial problem to be solved. If it were otherwise - if they demonstrated to me that they were actually interested in expanding/maintaining coverage, lowering costs, ensuring that everyone could afford quality insurance - I'd be on board, regardless of whether they wanted to frame it as a repeal of the ACA or a modification, or whatever. But they haven't, so I'm not.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying what needs to be done. I have no illusions that they will do it.

Face it, what 90% of congress from both parties are jazzed up about are the perks and the privileges and staying on the gravy train. That's not conducive to taking on big issues. Democrats took one on--however wrongly--in passing Obamacare, and that resulted in losing the vast majority of truly contested seats in the next election. That message is not lost on anyone in DC.

(07-19-2017 09:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 08:47 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 02:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 10:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Republicans do not have control of the senate by a wide enough margin to pass meaningful reform without attracting democrat votes. Do you not understand how our system of government works?

Sure, but that is not the type of legislation that the Reps have been trying to pass...
The Reps have been trying to push through legislation that only requires 50 votes and they cannot get that.
Nice spin though.

True, but that is the problem. The reconciliation process is limited in its scope and use. They can't really do a comprehensive reform through reconciliation. And that limits them to piecemeal types of legislation that are not satisfactory.
I think they need to go back to square one. Do what was not done for Obamacare, and hold comprehensive hearings that are intended to identify the best possible overall approach. Look at what works and what doesn't worldwide, the plusses and minuses of each approach, and identify the true best practices. Identify something that is by all criteria superior to Obamacare, then put that up for vote, and squeeze the democrats. Do they vote for something that is clearly better, or do they remain in lock step support of Obamacare? I think there are at least a dozen democrat senators who have to vote for something better for purposes other own political careers, and that's more than enough to get you to 60 votes.
Are the republican leaders smart enough to figure that out, or are they too blinded by partisanship? I fear the latter. Or maybe they just lack the stones to do it that way. And if they can't get something done, I fear that dooms us to democrat/socialist/communist income and wealth "redistribution" on a massive scale, along with the highly unsatisfactory single-payer health care.
At this point I am probably more pissed off at the republicans for being wusses than at the democrats for being socialists/communists.

This is all well and good, but I think your error is assuming that the current incarnation of the Republican party actually wants to pass healthcare reform, as opposed to tax and entitlement cuts masquerading as healthcare reform.
I also heard an interesting aside on a radio show the other day positing that some of the Republicans' problem is that people don't run for national office as Republicans because they're jazzed about revamping healthcare. Instead, they're jazzed about balanced budgets, or immigration, or foreign policy, and that's what they focus their time and develop expertise on. Consequently, most of the current Republican reps either don't know or don't care about what it would take to do the kind of healthcare sausage-making necessary to reach a universally lauded compromise. In short, the party more or less sees healthcare reform as a obstacle to be avoided or overcome as quickly as possible, rather than a crucial problem to be solved. If it were otherwise - if they demonstrated to me that they were actually interested in expanding/maintaining coverage, lowering costs, ensuring that everyone could afford quality insurance - I'd be on board, regardless of whether they wanted to frame it as a repeal of the ACA or a modification, or whatever. But they haven't, so I'm not.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying what needs to be done. I have no illusions that they will do it.

Face it, what 90% of congress from both parties are jazzed up about are the perks and the privileges and staying on the gravy train. That's not conducive to taking on big issues. Democrats took one on--however wrongly--in passing Obamacare, and that resulted in losing the vast majority of truly contested seats in the next election. That message is not lost on anyone in DC.

I'm all for an enlightened dictator if you are . . .