Support NeoGAF

[TumblingHippo]

Today is definitely a "be mad" sort of day in the world of politics.

 

[eBay Huckster]

This added nothing. Post something useful or don't post.

i can think of about a thousand things that are more useful than constant chicken littling that, roughly half the time, isn't even about anything relevant to policy. posting-style callouts are one of those. the one-line post at the top of this page is one of those.

There's no reason to make PoliGAF even more of a clique than it already is by being a wanton dick to dissenting opinion.

and there's no reason to constantly bring up someone who's been essentially dead to The Clique since the beginning of the year like any handwringing posts in here are going to change their very existence being red meat to anyone still watching the failing FOX News, yet certain people can't seem to bring themselves to stop.

They are going to throw a massive celebration about how the "nightmare" of Obamacare is over, then blame the Dems when the insurance market collapses and rates go through the roof...

they're going to try, at least. but they're going to run into the simple fact that everyone blames the party with the presidency for everything that can possibly go wrong.

 

[jtb]

Not even close to true. The UK functionally a two-party system and populism doesn't have the same potential to be anywhere near as effective as it does for the Democrats right now, for all of the reasons I pointed out about party dynamics re: the Conservatives you seem to have ignored/not understood.



Right, and also 'cronyism', which Clinton rarely talked about and never with enthusiasm (but hey, it was on her website...). Stronger together, unless you're being fucked over by your boss.

So where does white supremacy fit into this equation? Why is the GOP looking out for the interests of white voters - oppressing and disenfranchising the opposition - different from the boomers/conservative party in your brilliant parallel example that went completely over my head?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Also there are other ways to do that? Like, you could create a jobs guarantee, and a health insurance employer mandate. Boom done.

This disproportionately pushes the weight of healthcare onto small business and away from larger corporations.

 

[LostMyNarbles]

Won't the skinny repeal just hurt them come midterms? I mean, their voters are either going to complain that they didn't repeal Obamacare like they promised they would or the low information voters are going to think they successfully repealed it (Especially if Trump starts bragging like that) then get bitchy when their healthcare gets worse. It really seems like a lose-lose scenario. I don't see Republican's being able to spin this and blame Obamacare if they pass new legislation because people aren't going to care about Obamacare they are going to care about what the GOP passed and why it didn't miraculously solve all their problems.

 

[Kusagari]

The skinny repeal just seems like an even dumber and more disastrous version of Trump just wanting to let Obamacare implode.

By passing something they unequivocally own the fallout.

 

[Plinko]

They are going to throw a massive celebration about how the "nightmare" of Obamacare is over, then blame the Dems when the insurance market collapses and rates go through the roof...

Good. Let them. People will blame them when they see their 2018 premiums skyrocketed.

Here's my worry, and I stated this earlier this year:

I really think that Republicans are going to offer Bush-style rebate checks to "make up" for the premium increase. It will basically be bribery. "Vote for us and you'll get a $1000 check in the mail!"

 

[Poodlestrike]

This disproportionately pushes the weight of healthcare onto small business and away from larger corporations.

It was a hypothetical.

The point was that if all you want to do is make sure everyone has healthcare, single payer is just one of the ways to do that. When you're weighing an option, it's important to poke around in all the seemingly unrelated secondary effects a policy will have.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So where does white supremacy fit into this equation? Why is the GOP looking out for the interests of white voters - oppressing and disenfranchising the opposition - different from the boomers/conservative party in your brilliant parallel example that went completely over my head?

It's not really in their interests. When I say the Conservatives benefit the elderly, I don't mean they just think that, I mean that in every sense the elderly really are better off under the Conservatives.

The average white voter is still going to be worse off under Trump than Clinton. Even if they marginally profit off a racial minority's exploitation, they're still losing out from worse healthcare, worse jobs, worse social security, worse drug addiction, a less safe country, you name it. The GOP don't look out for the interests of white people at all. If they were concerned with the interests of white people, they wouldn't be looking to repeal Obamacare, since the average white person is made better off by Obamacare's existence. Instead, they look out for the interests of the incredibly wealthy, and use racism as a sop to justify it. The Democrats need to point this out. Clinton failed to point this out. Who is better off under Trump? Not you, small town rural man. Trump ain't going to do shit.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

Repealing the mandate would undoubtedly collapse the market. Also, if this leaves the Medicaid expansion in place and the subsidies, what happens when Republicans try to tackle tax reform? Weren't their tax plans predicated on savings brought about by killing the expansion and the taxes and subsidies?

Can't see how this is a win for them aside from them being able to say that they passed something. It's even worse than just not passing anything and sabotaging the exchanges through holding back the funds. There will now be a straight-line connection between the collapse of the market and Republican actions.

This is why I assume there will be a conference bill, and that it will look nothing like skinny repeal. It will eviscerate Medicaid, and it will violate reconciliation, and Pence will override the parliamentarian to get it through.

 

[watershed]

"Skinny Repeal" passing would be pretty sad on it's own.

 

[metalslimer]

Good. Let them. People will blame them when they see their 2018 premiums skyrocketed.

Here's my worry, and I stated this earlier this year:

I really think that Republicans are going to offer Bush-style rebate checks to "make up" for the premium increase. It will basically be bribery. "Vote for us and you'll get a $1000 check in the mail!"

That didn't work then and it certainly wouldn't work now.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

That was the purpose of having School Lands and College Lands set aside for public education in the Land Ordinances of the late 18th century, which is why the Great Lakes states historically resisted destructive forms of populism better than most regions. Modern administrations have severed that historical link.

Public education was once a form of populism. Distinctions have to be made.

Land grant universities are awesome, I go to one!

 

[pigeon]

It's not really in their interests. When I say the Conservatives benefit the elderly, I don't mean they just think that, I mean that in every sense the elderly really are better off under the Conservatives.

The average white voter is still going to be worse off under Trump than Clinton. Even if they marginally profit off a racial minority's exploitation, they're still losing out from worse healthcare, worse jobs, worse social security, worse drug addiction, a less safe country, you name it. The GOP don't look out for the interests of white people at all. If they were concerned with the interests of white people, they wouldn't be looking to repeal Obamacare, since the average white person is made better off by Obamacare's existence. Instead, they look out for the interests of the incredibly wealthy, and use racism as a sop to justify it. The Democrats need to point this out. Clinton failed to point this out. Who is better off under Trump? Not you, small town rural man. Trump ain't going to do shit.

I don't think the problem is that rural white Americans are too dumb to identify their own interests.

 

[jtb]

It's not really in their interests. When I say the Conservatives benefit the elderly, I don't mean they just think that, I mean that in every sense the elderly really are better off under the Conservatives.

The average white voter is still going to be worse off under Trump than Clinton. Even if they marginally profit off a racial minority's exploitation, they're still losing out from worse healthcare, worse jobs, worse social security, worse drug addiction, a less safe country, you name it. The GOP don't look out for the interests of white people at all. If they were concerned with the interests of white people, they wouldn't be looking to repeal Obamacare, since the average white person is made better off by Obamacare's existence. Instead, they look out for the interests of the incredibly wealthy, and use racism as a sop to justify it. The Democrats need to point this out. Clinton failed to point this out. Who is better off under Trump? Not you, small town rural man. Trump ain't going to do shit.

You don't think white supremacy offers tangible benefits - economic, social or otherwise - to white people? (i.e. more than 'marginal')

 

[eBay Huckster]

The Democrats need to point this out. Clinton failed to point this out.

in a parallel universe where this is in her stump speech and she's hitting the trail all over the rural midwest, the media still covers trump's empty podium for 30 minutes

Spoiler

because that's what rural whites want to see

 

[Poodlestrike]

Honestly, at this point, Skinny Repeal sounds so much less-awful than everything they've tried to do up to this point that I'm... almost relieved, honestly. No dramatic Medicaid cuts, no titanic tax cuts for the uber-wealthy. I'm still calling Portman, don't get me wrong; no action is better than a less-bad action. But the possibility isn't keeping me up nights wondering if my Mom is gonna be able to keep getting her cancer treatments, you know?

I don't think the problem is that rural white Americans are too dumb to identify their own interests.

I think you could fairly say that they're too dumb to weight their own interests. The tangible benefits of white supremacy for a family in West Virginia making less than the poverty line with both parents working are pretty small compared to how hard the Republicans screw them in every other area.

 

[Plinko]

That didn't work then and it certainly wouldn't work now.

If people are hurting from major premium increases, it may have an effect. Perhaps not enough to swing an election, but it could have an effect.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

Honestly, at this point, Skinny Repeal sounds so much less-awful than everything they've tried to do up to this point that I'm... almost relieved, honestly. No dramatic Medicaid cuts, no titanic tax cuts for the uber-wealthy. I'm still calling Portman, don't get me wrong; no action is better than a less-bad action. But the possibility isn't keeping me up nights wondering if my Mom is gonna be able to keep getting her cancer treatments, you know?

We got a couple of days at most to stop this bill.

 

[kirblar]

in a parallel universe where this is in her stump speech and she's hitting the trail all over the rural midwest, the media still covers trump's empty podium for 30 minutes

Spoiler

because that's what rural whites want to see

Followed by a talking heads discussion about Colin Kaepernick.

 

[Blader]

Would repealing the mandates cause premiums to increase a lot? Wouldn't it totally ruin the protections to cover patients with pre-existing conditions at no extra cost?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...health-bill-but-his-vote-was-still-weird.html


that, but it's pretty much bullshit because everyone knows it was essentially a proxy vote for the bill itself.

Didn't he vote for the bill itself though? He didn't just vote on MTP, he voted yes on BCRA too.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

Honestly, at this point, Skinny Repeal sounds so much less-awful than everything they've tried to do up to this point that I'm... almost relieved, honestly. No dramatic Medicaid cuts, no titanic tax cuts for the uber-wealthy. I'm still calling Portman, don't get me wrong; no action is better than a less-bad action. But the possibility isn't keeping me up nights wondering if my Mom is gonna be able to keep getting her cancer treatments, you know?

That's assuming skinny repeal wont transform into a totally different bill in the conference committee. But yeah, skinny repeal is less horrible than Medicaid being destroyed.

 

[eBay Huckster]

If people are hurting from major premium increases, it may have an effect. Perhaps not enough to swing an election, but it could have an effect.

not a 1:1 comparison, but they tried this with the bush stimulus in february 2008 (up to $1200 in tax rebates) and the net effect was a 2.4% increase in consumption in Q2 followed by the GOP still getting its shit pushed in

Followed by a talking heads discussion about Colin Kaepernick.

he just needs to cut his hair!!!

 

[Futurevoid]

Miriam Elder‏Verified account
@MiriamElder

Ret. army corporal who is trans woman married to serving trans man says they're being told there is no policy yet

Saw a tweet earlier stating they overheard folks in the Pentagon saying "We're taking orders via tweet, now?".

This entire transgender/military situation was handled with the same level of thought that the initial travel ban was. i.e. sow as much confusion and chaos as possible. A Steve Bannon/Stephen Miller special if there ever was one.

 

[Resident_UA]

Was Obama full of shit when he campaigned on it and passed Dodd Frank? Yeah we could do more but Idk I'm not really ready to equate the likely outcomes of adopted policies from elected democratic officials to the ramblings of a life time snake oil salesman

Nope, but he (+some democrats) had a very specific plan. Same thing about Obamacare. They had a plan. I never thought it was an amazing plan, but it existed. Pure slogans is what I call populism.

 

[Poodlestrike]

We got a couple of days at most to stop this bill.

I just wish Portman's office would answer their damn phone. I'm calling during office hours, not during lunch hours... fuck 'im.

That's assuming skinny repeal wont transform into a totally different bill in the conference committee. But yeah, skinny repeal is less horrible than Medicaid being destroyed.

Yeah, big "if." No doubt.

 

[Autodidact]

Saw a tweet earlier stating they overheard folks in the Pentagon saying "We're taking order via tweet, now?".

This entire transgender/military situation was handled with the same level of thought that the initial travel ban was. i.e. sow as much confusion and chaos as possible. A Steve Bannon/Stephen Miller special if there ever was one.

Yep.

Strange question, but has retiring Moderate Darling Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who has a transgender son, issued a statement?

 

[VendettaRed07]

in a parallel universe where this is in her stump speech and she's hitting the trail all over the rural midwest, the media still covers trump's empty podium for 30 minutes

Spoiler

because that's what rural whites want to see

It wouldn't have been about winning over areas she lost in a majority.. Its about lessening the margins of losses.

Losing some areas in rural Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by 60-40 instead of 75-25 would have been enough. Obama got this. Just because Trump did excite and turnout people in these areas it isn't an excuse to not try to turnout people who might also like you who live in these areas as well.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

Saw a tweet earlier stating they overheard folks in the Pentagon saying "We're taking order via tweet, now?".

This entire transgender/military situation was handled with the same level of thought that the initial travel ban was. i.e. sow as much confusion and chaos as possible. A Steve Bannon/Stephen Miller special if there ever was one.

This is going to be a mess.

 

[dramatis]

While having nomenclature for various ideologies helps in discussion for people to get a common idea of what said ideologies mean, I feel in the current US environment, a lot of catchwords and terms are more or less useless, since they are often used in ways to mean "things I like" or "things I don't like".

This applies not only to 'neoliberal', but apparently now also to 'populism'.

 

[Aaron Strife]

This forces Democrats in Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, to take complete ownership of this issue. How will the blue collar voters in these states respond when senators up for re-election in 2018 like Debbie Stabenow are forced to make their opposition to this a key plank of their campaigns?

I've always said it, the problem with Republicans is they put too much of an emphasis on social issues. THIS IS WHY CLINTON WON!

 

[UberTag]

So what is going to be the effect of eliminating the employer mandate?

The individual market will invariably collapse.

So they're doing the exact same thing that a full blanket ACA repeal would have done... just delaying the blowback. Gotcha.

And Trump will say Obamacare is dead either way so big whoop.

It'll be up to Democrats to ensure the onus for rising premiums and Americans being thrown off health insurance falls on the Republicans.
Let's hope they're able to do it. Americans don't have the best memories.

 

[eBay Huckster]

It wouldn't have been about winning over areas she lost in a majority.. Its about lessening the margins of losses.

Losing some areas in rural Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by 60-40 instead of 75-25 would have been enough. Obama got this. Just because Trump did excite and turnout people in these areas it isn't an excuse to not try to turnout people who might also like you who live in these areas as well.

i mean, i'm not saying limiting the losses would be bad strategy, because it's not. i'm saying the media outside those areas would still pull the same shit, because that's what the lion's share of rural turnout actually did want.

 

[kess]

Trump doesn't have any knowledge of military protocol and will probably be railing against Mattis, et al. for not getting RID OF THEM RIGHT NOW. I WANT THEM GONE WAAAH by next week.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Honestly, at this point, Skinny Repeal sounds so much less-awful than everything they've tried to do up to this point that I'm... almost relieved, honestly. No dramatic Medicaid cuts, no titanic tax cuts for the uber-wealthy. I'm still calling Portman, don't get me wrong; no action is better than a less-bad action. But the possibility isn't keeping me up nights wondering if my Mom is gonna be able to keep getting her cancer treatments, you know?

Same here.

No longer have to worry if my mom will have to think about long term permanent care for my grandpa, since Medicaid and their home nurse program for the elderly keeps him able to live with my grandma.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Saw a tweet earlier stating they overheard folks in the Pentagon saying "We're taking order via tweet, now?".

This entire transgender/military situation was handled with the same level of thought that the initial travel ban was. i.e. sow as much confusion and chaos as possible. A Steve Bannon/Stephen Miller special if there ever was one.

Bannon even got a little outside help on this one.

@maggieNYT
Maggie Haberman Retweeted Michael Calderone
@jwpetersNYT and I heard from sources that Coulter was whisked in by Bannon to Oval Office to implore Trump

 

[Autodidact]

Ann Coulter continues to be a scourge on society.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

That's assuming skinny repeal wont transform into a totally different bill in the conference committee. But yeah, skinny repeal is less horrible than Medicaid being destroyed.

Would the committee's changes then have to go back through the House and Senate though?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

It's not really in their interests. When I say the Conservatives benefit the elderly, I don't mean they just think that, I mean that in every sense the elderly really are better off under the Conservatives.

The average white voter is still going to be worse off under Trump than Clinton. Even if they marginally profit off a racial minority's exploitation, they're still losing out from worse healthcare, worse jobs, worse social security, worse drug addiction, a less safe country, you name it. The GOP don't look out for the interests of white people at all. If they were concerned with the interests of white people, they wouldn't be looking to repeal Obamacare, since the average white person is made better off by Obamacare's existence. Instead, they look out for the interests of the incredibly wealthy, and use racism as a sop to justify it. The Democrats need to point this out. Clinton failed to point this out. Who is better off under Trump? Not you, small town rural man. Trump ain't going to do shit.

Eh, interests are weighted. Most Mississippians aren't well-off economically but they don't care because they weight economic success against their culture war against minorities. For a lot of voters (more than you believe exist, I guess), there are no economic messages that will break through their social beliefs.

Take LA Governor Bel Edwards. He won entirely because his opponent was more socially shameful compared to his opponent.

 

[benicillin]

Would the committee's changes then have to go back through the House and Senate though?

The committee would come up with a bill that they think can pass both but yes they would both have to vote on the bill again.

 

[Paches]

Coulter giving military advice.

End times.

 

[Aaron Strife]

So they're doing the exact same thing that a full blanket ACA repeal would have done... just delaying the blowback. Gotcha.

And Trump will say Obamacare is dead either way so big whoop.

It'll be up to Democrats to ensure the onus for rising premiums and Americans being thrown off health insurance falls on the Republicans.
Let's hope they're able to do it. Americans don't have the best memories.

"Obamacare is dead, the only part we killed was the part Obama originally campaigned against, WOOOOOOOO~"

 

[Poodlestrike]

Same here.

No longer have to worry if my mom will have to think about long term permanent care for my grandpa, since Medicaid and their home nurse program for the elderly keeps him able to live with my grandma.

I would honestly call it a win. They have every branch of government. If they weren't feeling real pressure, they'd still be cutting the hell out of Medicaid, they'd still be fucking with the subsidies, they'd still be fucking with Planned Parenthood...

It's not gonna feel good, but calling, emailing, protesting, that stuff mattered.

Assuming we can keep them to skinny repeal or less, anyway.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

The committee would come up with a bill that they think can pass both but yes they would both have to vote on the bill again.

Well then what's to worry about (aside from the usual shitshow)?

 

[skullmuffins]

Didn't he vote for the bill itself though? He didn't just vote on MTP, he voted yes on BCRA too.

Nah, the vote last night on BCRA was also technically a procedural vote, separate from the MTP.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I would honestly call it a win. They have every branch of government. If they weren't feeling real pressure, they'd still be cutting the hell out of Medicaid, they'd still be fucking with the subsidies, they'd still be fucking with Planned Parenthood...

It's not gonna feel good, but calling, emailing, protesting, that stuff mattered.

Assuming we can keep them to skinny repeal or less, anyway.

Can you imagine if they get to a point where they just repeal the medical device tax or something.

I honestly thought that was repealed a long time ago, Franken and Klobuchar are both against it (medical device manufacturing is MN's biggest industry).

 

[Ogodei]

If people are hurting from major premium increases, it may have an effect. Perhaps not enough to swing an election, but it could have an effect.

Premium increases will be such that the GOP would have to offer everyone $10,000 to really make up for it.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Nope, but he (+some democrats) had a very specific plan. Same thing about Obamacare. They had a plan. I never thought it was an amazing plan, but it existed. Pure slogans is what I call populism.

Obama had concrete plans but people weren't trying to discredit him just because he was "Yes we can"ing, or saying "Don't Boo, Vote!", half the time, or plastered the "HOPE" paintings everywhere. It isn't like everyone who get turned on by what he was doing and communicated fully understood the minutiae of all his plans

Yes I intend to vote for people who actually have a basic understanding of the issues that they are talking about. But it isn't the worst idea to make some complex issues more palatable for some people by using simplistic language at rallies sometimes. Just tell the tech nerds to turn off the TV and "Visit my website!", if they require a constant injections of wonky policy

 

[skullmuffins]

Yep.

Strange question, but has retiring Moderate Darling Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who has a transgender son, issued a statement?

yeah she tweeted about it (which I guess are statements in this modern political era)

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen‏ @RosLehtinen 3h3 hours ago
No American, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity, should be prohibited from honor + privilege of serving our nation #LGBT

 

[TumblingHippo]

(T)he one-line post at the top of this page is one of those.

Eh, that's a fair criticism. I'm sure it does no good, but when you're stuck in a highly conservative office, sometimes you just feel like screaming into the void even if you know it won't scream back.

Plus I mean, it could lead to some constructive stuff. "Hey I know you're frustrated about politics but here's some stuff to read" or even "hey yeah stuff sucked but here's what can be done."

I guess the action item on me is to know what I can bring but honestly, I don't. I have no clue what I can even add to politics outside of keeping informed and voting. And stuff sucks today, too.