Print

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

[sluissa]

... it's not a legitimate best anything, much less compromise. Just a half assed attempt at a goddamn terrible idea, stuffed full of its own bloody terrible ideas. Compromise usually tries to meet in the middle. This thing basically just gives the exact opposite of what anyone (outside the insurance companies and a portion of the wealthy, anyway) wanted.

Checkabouts have been suggesting it could actually manage to be worse than a straight up repeal, since at least under those conditions specific laws could be passed for the more desired stuff without being yoked to all the other shit trumpcare is trying to drag in. How the hell you manage that when the ACA has been being actively sabotaged by GOP efforts, I'm not entirely sure. It's almost impressive the GOP has spent the better part of the last decade trying to make this possible, and this pile of dung is what got crapped out.

If I wanted to give them undue credit... they might be pulling a Solomon

[MetalSlimeHunt]

A point to make is that though Orange Slice supports the bill, he isn't its greatest fan. That's Paul Ryan. It's his dark obsession.

[scriver]

That's really more white nationalism than Nazism, really. Still incredibly despicable, thorough.

I understand the need for precision in language, but is it *REALLY* necessary to split hairs over exactly what kind of scumbag goose-stepping skinhead ideology these things espouse?

I find it offensive when people appropriate German culture

[Max™]

Clever:

Not a perfect analogy, but I can see how someone could see the options right in front of them and come up with this and push it as the "best".

As you said, you haven't read it.

The AHCA literally amounts to a tax break for the wealthy, a gradual fucking over of medicaid and medicare, fucking over planned parenthood to sneak in an anti-abortion measure, fucking over risk pools by allowing people to opt out and penalizing them for returning which will lead to a death spiral, and is only remotely possible because they can slip it in as "budget neutral" under reconciliation.

"Hey, I've already got this knife in your gut, while I'm in there, want me to see if I can lop off your appendix? Oh, you already had it removed, well I'm trying anyways, but this isn't a stabbing, it's free surgery!"

[sluissa]

Not a perfect analogy, but I can see how someone could see the options right in front of them and come up with this and push it as the "best".

As you said, you haven't read it.

The AHCA literally amounts to a tax break for the wealthy, a gradual fucking over of medicaid and medicare, fucking over planned parenthood to sneak in an anti-abortion measure, fucking over risk pools by allowing people to opt out and penalizing them for returning which will lead to a death spiral, and is only remotely possible because they can slip it in as "budget neutral" under reconciliation.

"Hey, I've already got this knife in your gut, while I'm in there, want me to see if I can lop off your appendix? Oh, you already had it removed, well I'm trying anyways, but this isn't a stabbing, it's free surgery!"

You have to look at it from their POV though. Tax breaks are good. (In general publicly, but especially for the wealthy slightly less publicly) Fucking over medicaid is good, medicare is... well... they want to... but the old people who vote for them would never go for it, so they're sorta stuck with it, so they chip away at it and call it "trimming the fat" which is good. Fucking over planned parenthood is good. And punishing people for bad decisions is good.

Obviously you've made your view to be the opposite of that, but your world view is not the world view of everyone.

[Max™]

Well, no, tax breaks are anti-correlated with economic growth apparently, but they do increase inequality, so it's a fact that they're bad for most, and not really noticeable for the few they benefit.

There are numerous senators who are already leery of listening to the various governors in their states that were in favor of medicaid, and it's rather insane to think the party of old white people should consider cutting benefits to old white people a good idea.

It's a shit sandwich but nobody even bothered putting bread and garnish on it, they just left it on the street and are now trying to convince everyone it's a delicious BLT.

There is no real upside here except for the super wealthy who will get another percent or so added to their piles of cash that they can't even really interact with due to the scales involved.

There are no good outcomes here, it's just a pile of shit being rammed through under reconciliation so it has to fit the "revenue neutral" conditions, and since they want to suck off their wealthy funders they need to give a shocker to the rest of the country.

[sluissa]

Well, no, tax breaks are anti-correlated with economic growth apparently, but they do increase inequality, so it's a fact that they're bad for most, and not really noticeable for the few they benefit.

There are numerous senators who are already leery of listening to the various governors in their states that were in favor of medicaid, and it's rather insane to think the party of old white people should consider cutting benefits to old white people a good idea.

It's a shit sandwich but nobody even bothered putting bread and garnish on it, they just left it on the street and are now trying to convince everyone it's a delicious BLT.

There is no real upside here except for the super wealthy who will get another percent or so added to their piles of cash that they can't even really interact with due to the scales involved.

There are no good outcomes here, it's just a pile of shit being rammed through under reconciliation so it has to fit the "revenue neutral" conditions, and since they want to suck off their wealthy funders they need to give a shocker to the rest of the country.

Thanks for ramming your head against that wall. I love it when people refuse to admit that others might think differently. (I'm not denying facts. I generally agree with you, but not everyone does and you have to acknowledge that.)

[Max™]

You're right, I refuse to accept that willful ignorance of reality is a valid position worth fair and equal consideration.

This isn't thinking differently, seeing this as a good idea involves being one of the tiny group who benefit from it, or plugging your ears and shouting about how you're right until everyone else stops talking. Thinking differently implies thinking in the first place.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's one thing to reach out to others, it's another to accept lies as truth. I'm willing to debate whether or not schools should be secular, because that is a subjective issue even if I think it has an obvious answer. I will not debate whether or not creationism is science. It's not, and that is a Fact.

Understanding the ignorance of those who believe creationism is science is acceptable, but it can never be given standing. To do so is only to break down even further the basis of knowledge we are all subjected to. Otherwise the world will gradually become more and more like Alex Jones', where you can just say whatever the fuck you want and become President to stop the gay frog plague.

[Dunamisdeos]

That link to business insider talks about how giving the rich tax breaks while not giving tax breaks to other people increases inequality.

I feel like that didn't require much research. If A is given more money, and B is not given more money, A does indeed now have more money.

It even goes as far to say that there are tax breaks that would decrease inequality, presumably tax breaks on the non-wealthy.

Also does anyone have any link to actual official documentation on the replacement plan? I have limited access and everything I try to find just leads to somebody's special opinion.

[Frumple]

Sure. If that link doesn't take you straight to the external links, it's at the bottom of the wiki page. Also at the top. Look for .pdf links.

And you'd think it doesn't require much research, but one of the persistent things the GOP harp on is that tax breaks for the wealthy improve conditions for everyone. Obviousness isn't sufficient when it comes to some things.

E: Here's another, though it's probably mildly outdated. Was from the initial proposition, and I don't think the amendments and whatnot mentioned on the stuff linked above are included.

[sluissa]

You're bringing up different topics though. I agree with you* on things which affect everyone. Environmental regulation is the big one, but there are plenty of others. Some things you just can't compromise on because otherwise a few bad apples will spoil the bunch.

On healthcare though, it is possible to do a reasonable job with an all private system that allows people to opt out. That's not my preferred choice, because the systems that we know work are generally publicly funded options. But there is a reasonable argument to be made that someone who wants to opt out of a health care system, by their own choice, for whatever reason, should be able to.

Once again, I don't agree... but you can't ignore them. Health care is one of the most intimate and invasive things a person has to go through in their life. (If they're lucky, perhaps THE most invasive thing.) I can understand some people not wanting the government's fingers in it.

Post-Frumple-Edit: * By you, I wasn't responding directly to Frumple, but he's as good as a representative as any of the stubbornly defiant left wing posters in here. That was directed mostly at Max and MetalSlimeHunt

[Frumple]

... it's possible in a conceptual sense. Maybe. I'd probably disagree fairly strongly, since that position implies market forces work properly on industries like healthcare, when they very much don't.

On the actual hand that exists, it clearly doesn't work in the US for millions upon millions of citizens, which makes a hypothetical working system more or less entirely irrelevant. Since it doesn't, here.

[Max™]

Forcing insurers to accept everyone only works if you force everyone to get insurance, and ultimately you're giving up an illusory freedom (the freedom to what, have higher medical costs when you end up needing them?) for a functioning system with overall lower costs by making sure the risk pool covers all, the healthy and sick alike. Opting out leads to higher costs and compromised effectiveness in favor of FREEDOM¹!

1._{Offer not valid outside of the following states²: Wyoming, Idaho, and Alaska.}

2._{Only applies during the FREEDOM coupon redemption period³.}

3._{9 am to 5 pm on the 5th Wednesday of months beginning with a J from 9/01/17 to 12/31/17.}

[alway]

On healthcare though, it is possible to do a reasonable job with an all private system that allows people to opt out. That's not my preferred choice, because the systems that we know work are generally publicly funded options. But there is a reasonable argument to be made that someone who wants to opt out of a health care system, by their own choice, for whatever reason, should be able to.

Once again, I don't agree... but you can't ignore them. Health care is one of the most intimate and invasive things a person has to go through in their life. (If they're lucky, perhaps THE most invasive thing.) I can understand some people not wanting the government's fingers in it.

The big problem with that rhetoric is that 'opting out' is being falsely equated to 'having no choice to opt in' as is the case for most people who are "opting out" of a private system. In a single payer system, you pretty much always have the right to opt out aside from cases where society believes your judgement impaired (which is its own, separate set of issues I won't get into here). So it's rather disingenuous to ascribe 'being able to opt out' to a trait only a private system has, when that really just means "being able to be so poor you're excluded from basic necessities that keep you alive." Along those lines, one of the amusingly cruel bits about the current GOP trainwreck of a 'plan' is that the CBO analysis suggests premiums would stabilize under that plan eventually because high-risk elderly and chronic illness patients would simply be priced out of the system entirely, in some cases because a plan would cost more than their *total* income.