Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

National Review are bleeding heart liberals. Cooke should limit his reading to LifeZette, InfoWars and Breitbart.

[Frumple]

The issue is that deer are not terribly useful as domesticated animals.  They're not predators and they're too frail to be effective pack animals or meat sources.  So even if the humans of the past could have befriended some deer, they had no reason to commit to the generations long affair of domestication.

The horn nubs on younger ones that are growing them in are one of the most amazing tactile experiences in the world. Probably not reason enough on its own, but...

[smjjames]

National Review are bleeding heart liberals. Cooke should limit his reading to LifeZette, InfoWars and Breitbart.

Neither conservatives or liberals like the draft bill anyway, which is probably why there isn't a positive review.

[Max™]

In more politically related discussion, I think real life is parodying itself now?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Seems like it's because the way it's set up currently, it's going to make nobody happy. This 538 article has a pretty good breakdown of the various groups. It's also coming down to the fact that the Republicans can't fully agree on it and theres the conservative wing vs the moderate wing.

The fact that they tried to do it secretly doesn't help things either.

Oh hell, I wasn't even getting into the big fustercluck there, just that she told the site editor for the online version of a magazine that gets namedropped 5 paragraphs into the "conservatism in the US" wiki page to basically be more openminded to conservative sources he would naturally dismiss, only way it could have been funnier is if she mentioned NRO directly!

[Reelya]

National Review are bleeding heart liberals. Cooke should limit his reading to LifeZette, InfoWars and Breitbart.

Neither conservatives or liberals like the draft bill anyway, which is probably why there isn't a positive review.

Well it's not like they've had much time at all to process this new "Obamacare" thing and come up with counter-proposals.

[Starver]

(5 New Replies...  Feel free to count back, if it's confusing...)

Seems to me it's the same issue as (to drag another subject in here just for the comparison) Brexit.  So, some people wanted Brexit, but some are going to be upset that it's too soft, others that it's too hard, others that it doesn't do thing that they want but it does do things they didn't want.  And, whatever their feelings about content, it'll be too slow and meandering for some, too fast and hasty for others, there was too much negotiation or not enough, the wrong people did it, it didn't work out some of the details enough with different parts of the country, it talked too much to different parts of the country, it just talked to the wrong bits of the country...

And so with ObamaCare->TrumpDon'tCare.

This is the era of the "we want it all to be different!" Table-Flippers.  But then the table gets flipped all wrong!

[Neonivek]

I get the idea that they don't like Obamacare... But they want what it does... just now how it does it?

But they don't know how to replace Obamacare...

[Lord Shonus]

It is more that much of the actual idea of Obamacare is pretty popular. In a sane political environment, all that would be needed to please most of the people is to plaster over most of the cracks in the law (more accurately, in a saner political environment most of the cracks wouldn't have been in the law in the first place, but that's another story), rework some sections that didn't work as planned, and expand the scope a little bit. The ACA is really a fairly conservative approach to health care reform, which makes sense because it was originally designed by Republicans before Obama and his allies decided to use it as a basis on the theory that it would be more likely to gain cross-aisle support than a more drastic plan.

The problem is that there's been an immense smear campaign against it from the beginning, but now that the power to repeal it actually exists, many GOP lawmakers are going through it and realizing "hey, if I cut this provision or that provision and my constituents figure it out, I'd probably lose reelection to Literal Hitler." Others want a full repeal because not doing so would cost them reelection after beating the "Obamacare kills babies and old people" drum for so long. Still others are more interested in the "replace" part of the campaign, and aren't happy because their efforts to do so are stymied.

[Puzzlemaker]

It is more that much of the actual idea of Obamacare is pretty popular. In a sane political environment, all that would be needed to please most of the people is to plaster over most of the cracks in the law (more accurately, in a saner political environment most of the cracks wouldn't have been in the law in the first place, but that's another story), rework some sections that didn't work as planned, and expand the scope a little bit. The ACA is really a fairly conservative approach to health care reform, which makes sense because it was originally designed by Republicans before Obama and his allies decided to use it as a basis on the theory that it would be more likely to gain cross-aisle support than a more drastic plan.

The problem is that there's been an immense smear campaign against it from the beginning, but now that the power to repeal it actually exists, many GOP lawmakers are going through it and realizing "hey, if I cut this provision or that provision and my constituents figure it out, I'd probably lose reelection to Literal Hitler." Others want a full repeal because not doing so would cost them reelection after beating the "Obamacare kills babies and old people" drum for so long. Still others are more interested in the "replace" part of the campaign, and aren't happy because their efforts to do so are stymied.

Yeah, from what I see, the "official" stance was it's evil bad.  Now, that stance by the republican party is coming back to bite them in the ass.

[Max™]

There are also some efforts to push through literally anything so they can get around to fucking over the tax codes during reconciliation for the 2018 budget, but I'm hopeful that people pushed to get the abortion/planned parenthood stuff in there because they don't want it to succeed and know how much of a poison pill that is.

Sadly I no longer have any shred of confidence that these assholes will ever try to do something which isn't a bad option if you put it up against "actually shooting yourself in the foot" or "throwing yourself off a tall building" but otherwise fails any and all sanity checks completely.

[EnigmaticHat]

Seems like it's because the way it's set up currently, it's going to make nobody happy. This 538 article has a pretty good breakdown of the various groups.

Wait... a house Republican bill proposal includes a flat tax credit for anyone under 30?  As in, it benefits the poor more than the rich?  That's certainly different.

[Max™]

Look closer: it raises the highest credit amount AND the income range significantly, was like 4000 or something for the 75k to 150k range, plus the planned parenthood thing disproportionately screws over poor communities.

More info: https://medium.com/@jasonmayland/that-makes-us-smart-trumpcare-only-makes-sense-as-a-tax-dodge-for-the-super-rich-8d09436227d6#.j77htedbg

[Frumple]

Also looks like it's an amount that would still fuck over the poor harder than others. Most insurance I've noticed runs more than 2k a year, particularly for any that's worth the least of shits, and someone with 12k income can deal with the remainder far less effectively than someone making notably more. Basically an issue where a flat credit isn't necessarily helping the poor. If the credit amount was, say, pegged to the average annual cost for health insurance, it'd be a different story. But it ain't.

[Max™]

Yup, and looking closer it's just a way to completely screw over medicaid, medicare, and meet the technical conditions for reconciliation of "budget neutral tax cuts" by defunding shit poor people need to pay for additional breaks and tax cuts to the people who need it the least, yay!

Also, bonus "Trump met Kislyak last year as a candidate" story: https://thinkprogress.org/trump-personally-met-with-russian-ambassador-during-campaign-cc59ae305032#.s0xs4j5wg

[smjjames]

Trump says that there will be an electoral 'bloodbath' if they don't get a repeal placed... and he's probably right. Maybe not to the extent of a 'bloodbath', but they've definetly gotten themselves into almost a no-win position where if they fail to fix/repeal ACA despite promising to repeal it, there will be electoral consequences from those consistuents that want it repealed, but if they repeal it and screw it up with less coverage, etc, they'll get a big electoral backlash from consistuents that don't want it repealed.

Of course, if it collapses for whatever reason, they're going to have a problem on their hands no matter what.