Health care bill pulled from floor

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, ccneat said:

so they are more figurative Nazis and not literal Nazis?

maybe some quotes are called for?

 

[Póg mo 1,749]

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

oh my bad, that nazi bit wasn't really for you..

 

although the irony of all this is not lost on me. dems in lockstep, my sweet lord where have you been the past 8 years ?

 

 

? Facts or reality don't matter to some people. I guess if you can convince people that evolution is only a theory, and that some sky God came down from the heavens, and blew into a man's rib, to create the first woman, then fooling them about politics, should be child's play. The ones who don't buy the whole God thing,seem to gravitate towards an equally idiotic religion of right wing libertarianism. Mises and his rediculous notions about the road to serfdom, which claimes that once countries turn socialist, there is no going back. Russia anyone? 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 hours ago, smilesammich said:

maybe some quotes are called for?

 

I am not sure , the whole literal and figurative thing confuses me...

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

7 hours ago, SRVT said:

Ryan went through all the trouble of holding up a copy of the AHCA draft and saying some words. Give the man some credit.. that's almost as much effort as I put into this post.

You may have put in more

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

7 hours ago, SRVT said:

I'm not a libertarian, and I'm not registered to any party (registered in Cali as DTS which is synonymous with no party affiliation), but his philosophies I found most agreed with myself, and the fact that I thoroughly believed he would honestly apply his philosophies given his prior history as governor. I'd vote for someone who in politics is diametrically opposed to my views as long as I thought they were at least honest. Also, I'd be pretty skeptical of one's ability to think for themselves if they ever found a politician who literally agreed with every position they held. I've only been voting since I turned 18 in 2000, but even so, I've yet to find a single one.

 

Edit: So the things Gary and I likely disagreed on:

- He's for open borders, I'm not.. I thoroughly believe in the US as a nation of laws and customs that are to be followed

- He's for FTA's, I'm not - I depise globalism and view is as an oligarch-led usurper of a country's sovereignty

- He did not like the idea of universal healthcare.. having experience it in Canada, I am very much open to the idea (which for me ties into fiscal conservatism), but ppl suggesting it needs to come to the US overlook it's lack of feasibility

 

Main things he and I agreed on:

- Pro-rights (pro gay marriage, pro legalizing weed, pro choice)

- Fiscal conservative

- Worked tremendously to fulfill his promises (this I've admired of Trump thus far)

- Pissed off the Republican establishment (Trump does this too, I find this one priceless)

 

I can't think of any party or candidate that agrees 100% with me, can you?

 

 

Care to explain this lack as you perceive it ? Why does it work elsewhere but is not 'feasible' here ?
He worked tremendously to fulfill his promises ? Yes, his mouth worked hard to repeat the word 'tremendously', what's there to admire, what promises?
Pissing off the R establishment has consequences as we see now. You end up with inside chaos and a split party.
The candidate I voted for came pretty close to my ideal. Bernie, which brings me back to my first question.....

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

11 hours ago, smilesammich said:

if trump's name is on it perhaps he should invest some actual time and work into the project. not trump's mo, i know..

this isn't about trump, nothing is actually.

 

That's why I said a good negotiator understands what he negotiates. He can't invest work into it because he has no clue.

He is a brander. He sells his name. He wants to brand himself on healthcare but doesn't understand the intrinsic mechanism.
His 'worker bees' around him do not spit honey like he was used to in the business world.

A business person delegates and work gets done and he moves in as the deal closer.
A president is not a business mogul. A president LEADS and reaches out across party lines. Ryancare was hidden away and not even
transparent to their own until 5 min before the stroke of midnight. T -man took his toys and went home because bullying did not work

neither did the Ryan ambush. Meanwhile the insurances are laughing all the way to the bank and they are the winners.

I can't believe this mess.
 

[IAMX 3,055]

4 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

 

 

Care to explain this lack as you perceive it ? Why does it work elsewhere but is not 'feasible' here ?
He worked tremendously to fulfill his promises ? Yes, his mouth worked hard to repeat the word 'tremendously', what's there to admire, what promises?
Pissing off the R establishment has consequences as we see now. You end up with inside chaos and a split party.
The candidate I voted for came pretty close to my ideal. Bernie, which brings me back to my first question.....

Aside of DACA he fulfilled every one of his promises that could be fulfilled through EO within the first few weeks. I can understand if those on the left wish not to give him credit for it, but I don't have any party allegiances so I'm more than willing. 

 

So lack of feasibility.. I think it's too complicated to adequately explain it in a single post but I'll give a shorter version. Going back through US history it's clear framers of the US Constitution wanted there to be a limited role for government, both the F's and AF's. The represented limited scope of government is part of the relationship US citizens have had with their government, and given how untrustworthy those running the country are, in many ways I understand completely why so many Americans are scared shitless of universal. I'm not against the idea whatsoever, it's just something that should be accepted first by an overwhelming majority of people, not simply forced on the masses. In other countries that adopted this, their relationship with their government was quite different.

 

In Canada's case, while there can be improvements to care, particularly outside the large cities (Vancouver metro, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Toronto metro, Windsor, Ottawa metro, Niagara, Montreal metro, Quebec City, Halifax, Moncton, Fredericton, etc.), they've addressed the "real" costs of care by having universal, and have controlled it. While there are a great many things I personally think are better about living in the US, healthcare is one where I greatly give Canada a better grade. In the US's case, there are multiple layers of government insurance that fall under various jurisdictions, federal medicare/VA, state medicare, county exchanges, etc. All in all, tens to a hundred million plus are covered already by government care. Because of the insurance industry, prices have never dropped, never reflected anything but the desire for profit maximization. In order to get people covered by all those government insurance programs, the government has to actually compete with the insurance industry. Taxpayers are screwed because of the insane cost of care, which still can only be estimated because of various levels of cooperativeness between different levels of government in sharing information. Can't even get states and local jurisdictions to enforce immigration law which is only for the federal government anyways. Get my point? I'm a huge proponent of capitalism, but healthcare in the US is not capitalism. The insurance industry sets the prices of care. That's not capitalism. The insurance industry has tons of mandates and regulations through legislation that only help force the prices up even more. That's not capitalism. Way too many hospitals are public hospitals. Taxpayers pay regardless if someone pays for the care they get. Insured or not, staff at those hospitals get paid. Not capitalism. So I don't delude myself into religiously believing that going universal is going to ruin capitalism.. it's already far from it. So I think sensibility of this situation can be achieved in only one of two ways. Either: 1) Get rid of the insurance industry so people can negotiate care directly between the providers of their care. Or 2) go to a single payer system where the government directly sets the prices of care much like it gets wages of police, teachers, public employees in general. Canada does the latter. For citizenship application in Canada (proving residency) I requested copies of my healthcare from each province I've lived in, showing an itemized list of what procedures were done, how much they cost, and who billed the government. I've compared these procedures side by side to US hospital bills I saved when I moved to Canada and it's insane how much cheaper care costs in Canada. Compared to the utter chaos that involves trying to understand the true cost of US healthcare as a whole (it's just a mess), Canada's system of simplicity makes it much easier to understand, or realize the costs of. With that, one can effectively budget for it and adjust the cost of things much the same that's done jurisdiction by jurisdiction for state education systems . As a fiscal conservative, understanding and doing something useful about the costs pleases me far more. On federal, state, and county/city budgets, healthcare is increasingly becoming something that will break the budget. So while I support the idea of universal healthcare as a vast improvement to this shoddy insurance industry, it's not feasible. The changes needed require way too much cooperation between various levels of government that won't happen. It's only fair that such an important vote go through the process of a US Constitutional Amendment.. I can't see Dems and Republicans agreeing on anything in the near future that would pass the supermajority required by the states and Congress. My only other hope is the insurance industry gets dismantled. With a corrupt government that has both parties candidates (and "independent" ones that caucus with one of those parties) federally and statewide taking funds in exchange for favorable insurance industry legislation, that difficulty only gets that much higher.

 

My wife is Canadian (and I'll be dual very soon, been eligible for German citizenship as well because of my mother being from Germany), she decided to leave it up to me on whether in 2011 I would move there or if I'd bring her to the US. This was one of several issues I had to look hard at and weigh whether or not I wanted to raise a family with these things the way they are. I can't see them changing for the better in my lifetime. So this sort of thing and the political environment was a huge deciding factor in my decision to reluctantly move to Canada. Of course, Canada isn't without it's issues. The job environment is a lot harsher, socially people are more to themselves (not in a rude way, but as someone who likes the sociability of countries like Denmark and Germany, people being to themselves will always be odd to me), and lately Trudeau seems intent on pulling an Angela Merkel. At one point several years back I was going to renounce my US citizenship thanks to laws like FATCA (Obama) that considers every American expat a tax evader, requiring the IRS to nose its way into your foreign finances, and scares foreign banks away from doing business with Americans. I also value safety quite highly so if Trudeau wants to turn Canada into Sharia heaven with blanket refugees after seeing the ####### happening in Europe (without friendly laws allowing law abiding citizens to openly arm themselves for protection), I will weigh this in asking myself if we really want to stay. If things stay the way they are, economically, and get worse with this Muslim issue, I may just find myself going the route of an I-130/K3 for my wife (our daughter is eligible for US citizenship even though I haven't got it yet for her) and move us to the states. But right now I'm in a wait-and-see how things play out mode rather than making any instant rash choices.

 

tl;dr that was my short version

[IAMX 3,055]

48 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

 

That's why I said a good negotiator understands what he negotiates. He can't invest work into it because he has no clue.

He is a brander. He sells his name. He wants to brand himself on healthcare but doesn't understand the intrinsic mechanism.
His 'worker bees' around him do not spit honey like he was used to in the business world.

A business person delegates and work gets done and he moves in as the deal closer.
A president is not a business mogul. A president LEADS and reaches out across party lines. Ryancare was hidden away and not even
transparent to their own until 5 min before the stroke of midnight. T -man took his toys and went home because bullying did not work

neither did the Ryan ambush. Meanwhile the insurances are laughing all the way to the bank and they are the winners.

I can't believe this mess.
 

Even with a cucked House (Boehner) and Senate (McConnell) that mostly gave Obama his way for much of the 8 years he was in office, Obama still refused to reach across party lines and readily went to his pen for EO's and signing statements.

 

Trump voters were getting fed up with empty promises by politicians, hence why they went with a much harsher Trump whose brazen lack of a filter clearly offended not only liberals but the establishment of the Republican party. Dems almost made me think they were the same, fed up with that establishment, by their support of Bernie Sanders, but then they fellated Hillary after a clearly rigged primary, and of course after Bernie likewise sold-out to Hillary to pay for his campaign. Hillary and her DNC partners have done well to keep liberals' ire directed at everything-Trump rather than at their own party's corruption that gets ever more revealed every leak. It's gonna be interesting how Dems in 2018 and 2020 mend these fences to try and bring in those they've clearly labeled as racists, bigots, etc., millions of whom voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Do libs hope they'll get millions of illegals to be able to vote to nullify alienating moderates and independents over not only for swaying toward Trump but even suggesting they calm the eff down and give the President a chance?

 

At the moment liberals adolescent tantrums (Russia this, Putin that, Wikileaks, Hitler, racist, bigot, misogynist, etc.) seem like an episode of Pee Wee's Playhouse where their actions are motivated primarily by revenge of criticism of Obama, plugging their ears and shouting the "I know you are but what am I' phrase. I've supported many of their social causes when it came to gay marriage and pro-choice views, but now they need to grow up.

Edited March 28, 2017 by SRVT

[Póg mo 1,749]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/the-right-wing-media-helped-obamacare-in-spite-of-itself/520851/

 

As the Republican Party struggled and then failed to repeal and replace Obamacare, pulling a wildly unpopular bill from the House without even taking a vote, a flurry of insightful articles helped the public understand what exactly just happened. Robert Draper explained the roles that Stephen Bannon, Paul Ryan, and others played in deciding what agenda items President Trump would pursue in what order. Politico reported on how and why the House Freedom Caucus insisted that the health care bill repeal even relatively popular parts of Obamacare. Lest anyone pin blame for the GOP’s failure on that faction, Reihan Salam argued persuasively that responsibility rests with poor leadership by House Speaker Paul Ryan and a GOP coalition with “policy goals that simply can’t be achieved.”

 

 

The article isn’t an attack on conservatives and libertarians.

 

Plenty of plausible alternatives to Obamacare have been set forth by people who are truthful about the tradeoffs involved. For instance, The Atlantic published a plan in 2009; Ezra Klein and Avik Roy usefully illuminated the disagreements between serious conservative and progressive health-care wonks; and Ross Douthat suggested reforms that borrow heavily from Singapore. Barro is aware of many smart right-leaning critiques of Obamacare and sympathetic to some.

What he points out in his column is that the GOP didn’t honestly acknowledge the hard tradeoffs inherent in health-care policy before making the case for a market-driven system.

 

More on link.

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by Póg mo

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

9 minutes ago, SRVT said:

Even with a cucked House (Boehner) and Senate (McConnell) that mostly gave Obama his way for much of the 8 years he was in office, Obama still refused to reach across party lines and readily went to his pen for EO's and signing statements.

Seriously?  On what issue did Republicans in congress give Obama his way?

Did Merrit get even a courtesy visit? 

Did overtures of improving healthcare get considered?

I count 15 vetoes by Obama, 13 in the last  two years..acutally only one ACA veto...what the hell were those guys doing for 6 years? Not a surprise:

 

NJ: What does this mean now?

McConnell: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”

NJ: What’s the job?

McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president

 

9 minutes ago, SRVT said:

 

Trump voters were getting fed up with empty promises by politicians, hence why they went with a much harsher Trump whose brazen lack of a filter clearly offended not only liberals but the establishment of the Republican party. Dems almost made me think they were the same, fed up with that establishment, by their support of Bernie Sanders, but then they fellated Hillary after a clearly rigged primary, and of course after Bernie likewise sold-out to Hillary to pay for his campaign. Hillary and her DNC partners have done well to keep liberals' ire directed at everything-Trump rather than at their own party's corruption that gets ever more revealed every leak. It's gonna be interesting how Dems in 2018 and 2020 mend these fences to try and bring in those they've clearly labeled as racists, bigots, etc., millions of whom voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Do libs hope they'll get millions of illegals to be able to vote to nullify alienating moderates and independents over not only for swaying toward Trump but even suggesting they calm the eff down and give the President a chance?

yeah yeah yeah thats the alt-right narrative...been hearing this for months:  "listen to us Bernie fans, we love liberalism, and gays, and people of color and righteousness  more than the Democrats"

9 minutes ago, SRVT said:

 

At the moment liberals adolescent tantrums (Russia this, Putin that, Wikileaks, Hitler, racist, bigot, misogynist, etc.) seem like an episode of Pee Wee's Playhouse where their actions are motivated primarily by revenge of criticism of Obama, plugging their ears and shouting the "I know you are but what am I' phrase. I've supported many of their social causes when it came to gay marriage and pro-choice views, but now they need to grow up.

The links to Russia are real...and yes Roger Stone eventually your luck will run out and there will be evidence of treason made public

[OriZ 3,157]

I think I don't write the most in one post anymore...

[IAMX 3,055]

6 minutes ago, ccneat said:

Seriously?  On what issue did Republicans in congress give Obama his way?

Did Merrit get even a courtesy visit? 

Did overtures of improving healthcare get considered?

I count 15 vetoes by Obama, 13 in the last  two years..acutally only one ACA veto...what the hell were those guys doing for 6 years? Not a surprise:

 

NJ: What does this mean now?

McConnell: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”

NJ: What’s the job?

McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president

 

yeah yeah yeah thats the alt-right narrative...been hearing this for months:  "listen to us Bernie fans, we love liberalism, and gays, and people of color and righteousness  more than the Democrats"

The links to Russia are real...and yes Roger Stone eventually your luck will run out and there will be evidence of treason made public

Why are you quoting things these politicians say in front of the camera? You can't be that naive..

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/258677-obama-to-boehner-man-im-gonna-miss-you

President Barack Obama placed a call to John Boehner on his penultimate day as Speaker, telling the Ohio Republican he was sorry to see him go.

“He said, ‘Boehner, man, I’m gonna miss you,' ” Boehner recalled in an interview broadcast Friday on Fox News.

 

http://www.golf.com/ap-news/obama-and-boehner-team-win-golf-match-against-biden-and-kasich

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner put partisanship aside, at least on the golf course, and teamed up to triumph on the final hole Saturday in their long-awaited links outing.

The match pitted the political rivals against Vice President Joe Biden and Ohio's Republican Gov. John Kasich. The match was won on the 18th hole, with the winning partners each pocketing a $2 prize.

 

And while McConnell wasn't so cozy with Obama, McConnell gave Obama his way far too often because both are part of a similar globalist establishment rife in both parties, especially in the Senate. If Republicans passed that many favorable bills to Obama it should be a red flag to your idea that they were simply obstructionists.

 

As for the Garland nomination, if Mitch caved in to Obama on that one, not only would he have been out as majority leader but he'd be tossed in his own state.

[IAMX 3,055]

12 minutes ago, OriZ said:

I think I don't write the most in one post anymore...

I gotta just start posting Facebook meme's like everyone else.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, SRVT said:

Why are you quoting things these politicians say in front of the camera? You can't be that naive..

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/258677-obama-to-boehner-man-im-gonna-miss-you

 

 

 

http://www.golf.com/ap-news/obama-and-boehner-team-win-golf-match-against-biden-and-kasich

 

 

 

And while McConnell wasn't so cozy with Obama, McConnell gave Obama his way far too often because both are part of a similar globalist establishment rife in both parties, especially in the Senate. If Republicans passed that many favorable bills to Obama it should be a red flag to your idea that they were simply obstructionists.

 

As for the Garland nomination, if Mitch caved in to Obama on that one, not only would he have been out as majority leader but he'd be tossed in his own state.

I am sorry..why did Congress not pass that many bills? Because they are global elites who all golf together?  

[IAMX 3,055]

4 minutes ago, ccneat said:

I am sorry..why did Congress not pass that many bills? Because they are global elites who all golf together?  

Ask Democrats.