Print

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

[Playergamer]

Yes. /pol/, where said other person got it from.

it's almost like /pol/ is a website with a notable following, and there should be an effort to counter its conspiracy theories.

er sorry wait: "fucking nerds"

ah that's better/

I'll be sure to set up a division of the Canadian government exclusively for debunking /pol/ conspiracies, then.

yeah that'd be good. thanks.

[Rolan7]

I think they'd be better off extracting meaning from /vr/, really.
Some of those old games really are art, to various extents.  Occasionally, art relevant to politics.

[Frumple]

yay

Wonderful. As if it wasn't already hard enough for a refugee to gain access to the US.

For what it's worth, for all trump's lot are crowing it as a success, the decision itself didn't actually change much. Precedence wise it reiterates (not makes for the first time) the point that the executive does have the power to refuse entry to individuals who have no particularly reason to be in the US... and that's more or less it. Which is a point that wasn't in really in question by anyone involved in the process, plaintiff or defendant. Anyone that does have a reason? Family, formal business connections, everything standard to immigration processes and quite possibly something refugee advocates are going to find ground to slip people through? Still can go through, and at the moment there's fuck all the executive can do about that. And the rest of the arguments against the EOs -- which is to say all the points that particularly mattered to a single sodden damn about the injunctions -- are going to be heard later.

The teeth of the EOs remain just as removed on most issues, and if whatever gets put back up by the WH in the next few days tries to get around that, this'll probably start right back up. Far as I'm aware, there's not really anything stopping a court from hitting whatever trump tries to pull next with another injunction framed just slightly different enough it avoids that specific issue and brings us back to step 1 post-ban, i.e. the administration can't do basically anything they were trying to do, round 2 (3? 4?).

[misko27]

It looks like the Senate bill is being delayed until July 4th. Too much open opposition it seems; four votes (two moderates, two conservatives) against even bringing it up to debate, let alone the bill itself. I don't know what they expect to achieve by letting it linger though; opposition tends to mount over time, not diminish.

[sluissa]

It looks like the Senate bill is being delayed until July 4th. Too much open opposition it seems; four votes (two moderates, two conservatives) against even bringing it up to debate, let alone the bill itself. I don't know what they expect to achieve by letting it linger though; opposition tends to mount over time, not diminish.

I assume they hope they can work out some back room deals in order to get those votes. July 4th is a good goal since it's the beginning of their break. Anything past that will make it much harder as you said, but a week isn't much time by D.C. standards and opposition has already blown most of their anger inducing evidence by now. Anything they come up with by July 4th will be either from revisions to the wording before the vote, or technical stuff that wasn't immediately obvious and won't likely be huge revelations on the same scale as "20+ million people losing insurance." It also gives conservative news sources time to soften the way those numbers are presented. Fox news has already tried that by throwing around different sets of numbers and confusing time scales. (Cost over a year vs 10 years and things like that.)

[redwallzyl]

I imagine their going to get an earful from their constituents about this new "health care" bill of theirs.

[misko27]

They also delayed the house bill, back before that passed.

Note that that wasn't delayed, but actually pulled, and significantly changed (it was passed before it's CBO report came out if you recall); It's why this is this the 3.0 version.

[Frumple]

And I guess what credit is due, the 3.0 version actually does look to largely be the least horrible of the three, so far. Still horrible, mind you. But of the three propositions, the arguably least worst.

... man, I wish I could get the CBO to do joke analysis. I want to see a professionally done report on the likely healthcare effects of actually beheading every insurance CEO and hospital senior administrator in the country. Is it not just a joke that our healthcare system is so royally screwed up it would be improved by that? Could it match the ACA? Do better on uninsured and dosh reduction than... whatever the hell this latest one's called if it's not still the AHCA? Inquiring minds want to know, is what I'm asking. On the subject of the american healthcare system, is murder the answer?

[smjjames]

They should spend at least a years worth (since crafting the ACA took over a year) of debate on it in a transparent way since the way they're trying to ram it through could have unintended consequences simply because flaws and problems that take time to weed out or discover, don't get weeded out.

Plus the whole thing as is, is just a tax cut for the rich, seriously.

edit: Also, this thread needs a new blurb in the title, any ideas?

[Frumple]

"103 Ways to Ruin Healthcare"

"Buttery Males meet Butt Apes edition"

"How to destroy a legal defense in 3 easy tweets"

[Bumber]

"Health Coverage to become Nothing-burger"

(I just really want that term to be used at some point.)

[Playergamer]

reminder that insurance is not healthcare.

the state telling people to buy insurance from their friends in the industry is not a solution.

bernie can still win.

[hector13]

Nah, Bernie's wife is being investigated for bank fraud.

Who knows, though; that might even make him more popular, his SO fucking over the banks.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I gotta admit, I cannot well up within me even a drop of outrage on behalf of the banking system, no matter how hard I try.

Maybe if she killed some of them.....and if they had children...who were going to donate the family fortune to NASA and the Peace Corps until it happened....I guess that would be enough?

I still don't see any good replacement for Bernie, though. If the Democrats don't remember that they're the left-wing party and he's in good health come 2020 I don't even really have to think about it.

[alway]

And I guess what credit is due, the 3.0 version actually does look to largely be the least horrible of the three, so far. Still horrible, mind you. But of the three propositions, the arguably least worst.

Not really though. It makes massive cuts to medicaid in the very long term beyond the CBO's 10 year study period and restructures it in a way that basically will destroy the system over the long term. Rather than the current system which pays as much as is necessary, the senate bill set a fixed cap on year over year payment growth which is lower than the current growth rate. Essentially decreasing the effectiveness and size of the program every year, and resulting in kicking people off medicaid as it is able to cover less and less of the necessary costs.