The Trump Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
They got 20 no Republican votes, shows what the Democrats were able to do so that they couldn't keep party integrity. I'm actually surprised it got passed. But the ACA continues to lose allies within the system, AETNA is leaving the market-place in Virginia.

So what we'll be left with is crap, which pretty much shows that although the system we had was fucked up, it's better than it is now.

Also, the preamble to the Constitution states: "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare;" within that context, Defense you pay, healthcare you regulate the industry so that it is affordable. And the current law is making it unaffordable.

Pretty sure the Republican bill is not the solution, but and a repeal doesn't get us back the system we had. So it's just a jolly circle jerk.
 
Salt USMC said:
Rumor is that this is going to get smashed in the senate. The republicans can only allow 2 'No' votes before it dies. If it does, that sound you're going to hear is a million attack ads being spun up for the republicans who voted for the house version.
Click to expand...

I think the pain will be in committee. No way this version of the bill passes the Senate, and unlikely the Senate version will make it through the house. I think it's still a better outcome for Republicans and President Trump who can now say they passed something. They'll blame the fact it didn't become law on the generic set of villains - Washington, politics and usual, the media, the swamp, etc. - and just hope voters don't pay attention to what was actually in it (significant loss of benefits and coverage) or how it was passed (remember all the 'read the bill', 'passed on party lines,' 'done in secret,' and all the other criticisms - not to mention the lack of CBO score - the R's had during ACA passage). But, if the last 100 days have taught us anything I think the Republicans and the administration are likely right in their calculus. With Trump voters still at a 93% approval rating for him I can't imagine there's any shenanigans in the Trumpcare fight that are going to shake them out of those convictions.
 
@ThunderHorse I know this refrain is getting tired, but I'll throw another 4 bar hook your way- "Just because other people did it, that doesn't make it ok now and that has to stop being an excuse at some point."

Colbert isn't news, he's a late show. It's all opinion. 'News' is Pres Trump has taken more time pandering to religious groups that want influence in politics than he has budget and Russian airspace incursion recently. 'Opinion' is that he should stop getting into late night twitter wars and responding to everyone that hurts his feelings.

We are officially out of the first 100 days, and I'm cautiously optimistic for P Trump's first action (health care redux) that doesn't involve silly executive orders. The best part for me of his first 100 days is Bannon is more or less gone, Conway isn't on the news every day, and the P Trump apologists schtick has grown so tired people don't voice it as much. So that's cool.
 
amlove21 said:
We are officially out of the first 100 days, and I'm cautiously optimistic for P Trump's first action (health care redux) that doesn't involve silly executive orders.
Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time understanding why this new health care plan is a good thing. Physician Atul Gawande has been on Twitter, making some points against it that make sense to me. Can anyone explain to me the positive merits of the new plan?
 
Sendero said:
I'm having a hard time understanding why this new health care plan is a good thing. Physician Atul Gawande has been on Twitter, making some points against it that make sense to me. Can anyone explain to me the positive merits of the new plan?
Click to expand...

The NYTimes did a pretty decent quick rundown of winners and losers today: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/...-in-the-latest-gop-health-care-bill.html?_r=0

I think getting much more of a factual breakdown of costs/benefits will have to wait for the CBO scoring. Most of the opinion articles for/against the initial AHCA/Trumpcare bill a month ago are likely mostly still valid. This bill largely made tweaks to that one (increasingly funding to the high-risk pool, eliminating much of the pre-existing conditions clauses, and ending the Medicare expansion by 2020) but is otherwise the same. So, probably the CBO score will be similar - long-term government cost savings and massive increase in uninsured over the next 10 years. Still, will be interesting to see how the additional incentive changes will affect things - could make their projection on coverage, cost, and the viability of the market much worse.
 
Remember when everyone was so upset that democrats had to "pass the bill to see what's in it?" How is that any different at all with what just happened with the house bill?

Any answers are more than welcome.
 
TLDR20 said:
Remember when everyone was so upset that democrats had to "pass the bill to see what's in it?" How is that any different at all with what just happened with the house bill?

Any answers are more than welcome.
Click to expand...
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

There's a massive difference between the ACA and the AHCA. One is a bajillion pages. The other is a weekend read for lawyers.
https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1628/BILLS-115hr1628rh.pdf

The problem though, is that ACA fucked the system, and the AHCA doesn't remotely fix the system. It's basically a: hey we did something bill.
 
ThunderHorse said:
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

Well @TLDR20 , you did say:
TLDR20 said:
Any answers are more than welcome.
Click to expand...

I am actually looking forward to some articulate conversation around this topic as I will be seeing my sister-in-law this weekend and she will be asking the same question ad nauseum.


ETA -
Thunderhorse, are you saying the difference between the two bills is simply the number of pages, and that the house and senate don't have an excuse not to read it because of the reduced number of pages?
 
Last edited:
ThunderHorse said:
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

There's a massive difference between the ACA and the AHCA. One is a bajillion pages. The other is a weekend read for lawyers.
https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1628/BILLS-115hr1628rh.pdf

The problem though, is that ACA fucked the system, and the AHCA doesn't remotely fix the system. It's basically a: hey we did something bill.
Click to expand...

So, the fact that a bill has less words... makes it better? More usable? More authoritative?

Just trying to figure out the point made here.
 
Ooh-Rah said:
ETA -
Thunderhorse, are you saying the difference between the two bills is simply the number of pages, and that the house and senate don't have an excuse not to read it because of the reduced number of pages?
Click to expand...

You can make healthcare regulations succinct. I understand there's a lot that goes into it. But if it's to the point where you don't know what's in it until you pass it, that's a problem and that's an actual statement from when PUBLIC LAW 111–148 was being written.
I also stated that the AHCA is just something being done for the sake of getting something done. The only thing I like about it are that you can no longer face a tax penalty and that the wealthy aren't getting over-taxed.

@DocIllinois I don't think the AHCA solves the problems of the ACA, just like the ACA has failed to solve the problems of previous healthcare regulations. I think this garbage, just like the ACA was garbage. I was an advocate of Hybrid system that had a Single-Payer option. But that's not what happened as we all know.

ETA-Different subject, I would state I don't agree with the premise of this article and that a lot of things have gotten under control with McMaster as NSA and we're on a path: Washington Loves General McMaster. Trump Doesn't.

However, if McMaster is guiding us on a path towards nation-building in three states he's got to be out of his skull.
 
Last edited:
Unless something changed while I wasn't looking, Washington only loves McMaster because Trump put him in his position. As far as whether the CinC has faith in him, I can't say with certainty. However, I will say "That's what you get when you put a modern day officer in a position of authority like that." If what is said in the oped is true, and the presidential briefs with the NSA are really just a half-simplex affair, that just tells me that for all of his intellect and writing capabilities, McMaster leads like 85% of the other officers in the Army. In other words, "Shut the fuck up and color, you fucking Cheeto."

That may be what was needed to get the intel community together, and it damned sure worked for 3ACR, but that doesn't work with everyone, especially someone from the civilian world where people are allowed to ask questions and actually expect an answer. I didn't expect a second Mattis, but I had expected different (better) from McMaster. That's what I get for getting my hopes up.
 
ThunderHorse said:
You can make healthcare regulations succinct. I understand there's a lot that goes into it. But if it's to the point where you don't know what's in it until you pass it, that's a problem and that's an actual statement from when PUBLIC LAW 111–148 was being written.
I also stated that the AHCA is just something being done for the sake of getting something done. The only thing I like about it are that you can no longer face a tax penalty and that the wealthy aren't getting over-taxed.

@DocIllinois I don't think the AHCA solves the problems of the ACA, just like the ACA has failed to solve the problems of previous healthcare regulations. I think this garbage, just like the ACA was garbage. I was an advocate of Hybrid system that had a Single-Payer option. But that's not what happened as we all know.
Click to expand...

Already being addressed.

S.1571: Read the Bills Act

"A Member of Congress, before voting in favor of final passage of any measure (except a private bill), must sign an affidavit, executed under penalty of perjury, that the Member either: (1) was present throughout the entire reading of each such measure, and listened attentively to the reading in its entirety; or (2) before such vote, read attentively each such measure in its entirety."
 
Well I think the president is just channeling his inner Nixon. Except, instead of firing the special prosecutor, he's firing the head of the FBI.

I do not believe for a second that this is related to the Clinton investigation. If it was, then the Trump administration would have let him go shortly after inauguration, not more than three months afterward.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marauder06
It's OK That You Didn't Go To War
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Devildoc
Devildoc
AWP
HAPPY MONDAY FROM THE BOOK SUPPOSITORY BUILDING!!!!
Replies
13
Views
749
Muppet
Muppet
CQB
Kyiv supplied Intel to Tuareg rebels.
Replies
4
Views
646
CQB
CQB
Devildoc
Imminent national security threat?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
Marauder06
Marauder06
AWP
Your Weekend Safety Brief
Replies
7
Views
1K
Mad boomer
Mad boomer
Back
Top