Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You can mandate for clarity without giving the EPA stronger teeth.

The issue is, is the EPA overtoothed? I deal with the EPA in a business capacity, my VP meets with them multiple times a month. The only people "in industry", at least in the HVAC world, that have a problem with EPA's "teeth" are generally those that are doing what the EPA was created (with good reason) to prevent, aside from issues of execution (e.g. not giving us enough notice on things). They really are usually very good about working with all sides.

The EPA is a massive department. Just like any other departments, there are good eggs and bad eggs.

This anti-private school is really weird and devoid of any concerns for children's access to better schools.

This sentiment is driven by the fact that private and home schooling is overwhelmingly driven by religious motives and pressures and very sketchy for profit organizations, and their effectiveness in providing quality education is generally no better than or often worse than public schools. It comes off either as tax support of religious education or scams or both.

And some public schools are fething gakholes and more money isn't going to do gak.

The idea is to create a society where there are multiple choices for students in the same region. Those choices ought to create incentives for both entities to compete for those kids.

Kill it with fire and start over.

This seems to be the common mantra but with no thinking beyond the "kill it with fire" part where the entire concept largely seems to begin and end, with the "start over" part being an open question mark with the potential to kill or economically ruin far more lives than the ACA's issues ever did. I know people who are alive today specifically because of ACA provisions, and without some clarity on such provisions being maintained and what replacement for health care provision will be put in place, "kill it with fire and start over" isnt particularly compelling.

Evidently the GOP has a bigger heart than me.... they just released their plans.

Good. Immigration is a federal issue and states can't willfully ignore the federal mandate. The state is free to continue practicing sanctuary policies... just know that some federal moola is at stake. The state need to determine the tradeoff...

Except what are states going to do about it? These are municipal and county governments being targeted, not States. Meanwhile, the Fed may have obligations to provide those services and courts are likely to strike this legislation down on those grounds.

If congress passes that... nope, court can't do gak. That's explicitly Congress' power. However, if they don't pass it, and Trump tries some shenannigans... that's a strong case because he can make up laws out of his ass, ala Obama.

People don't need a market economy for schools. They need good schools period. The private market doesn't market itself as "the alternative" it markets itself as "go here to have your kids learn about god" or "go here to have your kids get a good education on the back of the public schools we're mooching money from so your rich douches can get out the system we're sabotaging to make our own look better even as we set lower standards."

 LordofHats wrote:
People don't need a market economy for schools. They need good schools period. The private market doesn't market itself as "the alternative" it markets itself as "go here to have your kids learn about god" or "go here to have your kids get a good education on the back of the public schools we're mooching money from so your rich douches can get out the system we're sabotaging to make our own look better even as we set lower standards."

I think some people literally can't imagine a system that isn't driven by the bottom line.

 LordofHats wrote:
People don't need a market economy for schools. They need good schools period. The private market doesn't market itself as "the alternative" it markets itself as "go here to have your kids learn about god" or "go here to have your kids get a good education on the back of the public schools we're mooching money from so your rich douches can get out the system we're sabotaging to make our own look better even as we set lower standards."

Again, the bias against these schools is remarkable.

Heaven strike me down for having a bias against the theft of tax dollars for personal gain that is the private school con game. Truly it is the worst thing ever to have a bias. So bad that no attempt will be made to address the point, because why address the point when you can hypocritically accuse someone of remarkable bias while ignoring your own remarkable bias

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You can mandate for clarity without giving the EPA stronger teeth.

The issue is, is the EPA overtoothed? I deal with the EPA in a business capacity, my VP meets with them multiple times a month. The only people "in industry", at least in the HVAC world, that have a problem with EPA's "teeth" are generally those that are doing what the EPA was created (with good reason) to prevent, aside from issues of execution (e.g. not giving us enough notice on things). They really are usually very good about working with all sides.

This anti-private school is really weird and devoid of any concerns for children's access to better schools.

This sentiment is driven by the fact that private and home schooling is overwhelmingly driven by religious motives and pressures and very sketchy for profit organizations, and their effectiveness in providing quality education is generally no better than or often worse than public schools. It comes off either as tax support of religious education or scams or both.

This right here... I meant precisely as Vaktathi is saying there's ambiguity, that should be worked through and gotten rid of (better clarity). What I have issues with, is if you look online, Halliburton and companies that should be on the hook for things like Deepwater horizon were able to "settle" their debt. No. You fething screwed up big time, you pay the full fething price. No negotiating, no "well, you owe 4 billion, but we'll settle out of court for 2" BS going on.

And for education, here's my "thing" with the proposal. See, I'm all for you wanting to send your kids to a fethed up school where they will learn that dinosaurs ate coconuts, ran around Eden with Adam and Eve or whatever. I am wholly against those fallacious schools getting ANY public money. Existing public schools are currently underfunded and generally understaffed (well, understaffed in most departments aside from administration).

Public schools account for around 75% of facilities, and just over 90% of the kids' in the country. And yet, we have people advocating that we remove funds from the bulk of our education system. I mean, I guess if you want a religious theocracy that thrives on BS, go ahead and advocate for vouchers and tax money for private schools

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
People don't need a market economy for schools. They need good schools period. The private market doesn't market itself as "the alternative" it markets itself as "go here to have your kids learn about god" or "go here to have your kids get a good education on the back of the public schools we're mooching money from so your rich douches can get out the system we're sabotaging to make our own look better even as we set lower standards."

Again, the bias against these schools is remarkable.

I have only been to private schools my entire life, and can attest to the fact that the difference in quality between the two is remarkably overstated.

The bias is only equivalent to the ones of pro-private schools thinking they drive the academic world.

Anyone see the new GOP health care plan? It looks pretty gakky and it won't cover most of the people that voted for trump

 whembly wrote:

And some public schools are fething gakholes and more money isn't going to do gak.

BS. I think you should read up on housing values, and the concerted efforts to create ghettos, which clearly short changes the schools within predominately minority neighborhoods.

That said, you won't see me arguing that school money isn't wasted, how much money goes to football pads, helmets and fields. I get that astroturf gets "cheaper" to maintain in the long run over grass.... but when you have school districts that are unable to buy books, I think the more pressing immediate concern should be books, not sports.

The idea is to create a society where there are multiple choices for students in the same region. Those choices ought to create incentives for both entities to compete for those kids.

And more BS. And I find the fact that you think "competing" for kids is a good thing...seriously fething appalling.

 Ustrello wrote:
Anyone see the new GOP health care plan? It looks pretty gakky and it won't cover most of the people that voted for trump

Here's the bill... still reading it:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4f82iy7d92u0c3a/AmericanHealthCareAct.pdf?dl=0

Keep in mind that the Senate gets a crack at it... (and presumably, the Trump admin).

Synopsis:

Dismantles the Obamacare taxes that have hurt job creators, increased premium costs, and limited options for patients and health care providers—including taxes on prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, health-insurance premiums, and medical devices.

Eliminate the individual and employer mandate penalties, which forced millions of workers, families, and job creators into expensive, inadequate Obamacare plans that they don’t want and cannot afford.

Prohibit health insurers from denying coverage or charging more money to patients based on pre-existing conditions.

Help young adults access health insurance and stabilize the marketplace by allowing dependents to continue staying on their parents’ plan until they are 26.

Establish a Patient and State Stability Fund, which provides states with $100 billion to design programs that meet the unique needs of their patient populations and help low-income Americans afford health care.

Modernize and strengthen Medicaid by transitioning to a “per capita allotment” so states can better serve the patients most in need.

Empower individuals and families to spend their health care dollars the way they want and need by enhancing and expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)—nearly doubling the amount of money people can contribute and broadening how people can use it.

Help Americans access affordable, quality health care by providing a monthly tax credit—between $2,000 and $14,000 a year—for low- and middle-income individuals and families who don’t receive insurance through work or a government program.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


And more BS. And I find the fact that you think "competing" for kids is a good thing...seriously fething appalling.

To expand on this absurdity, you don't compete for kids. You compete for parents, because kids have no voice in this scenario. Sure there are parents who care about their kids getting a good education where they can do advanced algebra and recite Pi to the 12th decimal, but there's an entire market for parents who don't give a gak about that stuff and only care that the History of Noah's Ark is center stage in science class. THe later really shouldn't have a say in education standards, and if they want o go make schools out of their churches that's up to them (should be a CPS callable offense though). The later can be served by actually getting public schools properly funded and end the political sabotage of education. There's really nothing for private schools to add here. The only support they derive is from the "public school sucks" and "public school doesn't teach my religion" lines of argument. The former is fixed by making public school not suck, which really comes down to funding and teachers at this point. The later has no place in school anyway. That's what church and parents are for.

The education is really a throwback question. Prior to educational reform, and the institution of standardized testing and teacher accountability, public schools were similar to the mostly unregulated private schools of today.

So either the tremendous push for standardization of education is good, or it isn't. If it isn't we should start by allowing public schools to diversify their instruction. At that point, you would have private school style teaching in the public schools.

If it is good, then private schools should be held to the same results as public schools- they must submit to the same testing that is oh so necessary to measure the worth and quality of a public school.

Without the standards, you'll have private schools all over the place. The ones that will not give your kid below a C, and the ones who will have your kid in mandatory tutoring if they even think of dropping down to a B. The issue is there isn't any reliable way to figure out if you're supporting a diploma mill like Trump University or a really good private institution.

Current public education in Florida goes like this- http://www.springboardonline.com/georgia/springBoard-english-language-arts-teachers-edition.html . the link is from GA, but we use the same textbook. This preview is clunky to operate, but it is a sample of a textbook. The teacher's given what topics to discuss, what material, discussion questions and a summative activity. The schedule of what unit and activity we should be on is given to us by the county, and our local department heads assure we are in compliance with the county's pace.So in theory, you should be able to walk into any classroom in the county on the same day and see a similar lesson being taught. Teachers will only vary as far as they wish to, with bell work or supplementary materials- but not too many, lest we fall behind pace. Robotic teachers are not far behind the factory jobs, if we stay on the path we're walking.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

So either the tremendous push for standardization of education is good, or it isn't. If it isn't we should start by allowing public schools to diversify their instruction. At that point, you would have private school style teaching in the public schools.

If it is good, then private schools should be held to the same results as public schools- they must submit to the same testing that is oh so necessary to measure the worth and quality of a public school.

Without the standards, you'll have private schools all over the place. The ones that will not give your kid below a C, and the ones who will have your kid in mandatory tutoring if they even think of dropping down to a B. The issue is there isn't any reliable way to figure out if you're supporting a diploma mill like Trump University or a really good private institution.

Current public education in Florida goes like this- http://www.springboardonline.com/georgia/springBoard-english-language-arts-teachers-edition.html . the link is from GA, but we use the same textbook. This preview is clunky to operate, but it is a sample of a textbook. The teacher's given what topics to discuss, what material, discussion questions and a summative activity. The schedule of what unit and activity we should be on is given to us by the county, and our local department heads assure we are in compliance with the county's pace.So in theory, you should be able to walk into any classroom in the county on the same day and see a similar lesson being taught. Teachers will only vary as far as they wish to, with bell work or supplementary materials- but not too many, lest we fall behind pace. Robotic teachers are not far behind the factory jobs, if we stay on the path we're walking.

There are a number of problems with "going back"... For many jurisdictions, "diversifying instruction," a la technical schools and the like, mean that various levels of government were able to categorically discriminate against neighborhoods. The "idea" behind a tech school is pretty good, especially considering today's highly specialized job market: focus the high school years toward a professional career, instead of college. The problem is, and I'm sure if you just take an "eye test" you'll see where the bulk of schools that still carry the "technical" name are located: in predominately poor, predominately black neighborhoods. This phenomena lead to further problems as time went on: districts allocated greater funding for the "college bound" schools (re: wealthier, whiter neighborhoods) and continually siphoned funding away from the technical schools.

There is a sort of watermark test for current private schools: accreditation. Public schools, based on talking with my daughter's teachers have to go through the same accreditation processes that the private schools in my area do. There are certain curriculum standards that need to be met, etc. and if a school doesnt meet them, well... the results differ. Obviously, you can't shut down either school, and in the case of a public school you can't really strip their accreditation, so they go on probation. But, the private school CAN lose accreditation, which can be fething huge for kids trying to get into a 4 year school, or really any sort of school that's more reputable than a Bible College. This is one area where Catholic Schools excel over their protestant counterparts, as the Jesuits have made education a big deal in their order for centuries now.

As for textbooks: I completely disagree, but only from the standpoint of who decides what the text book will be. There are a number of problems with the content of most high school level history books that I've come across. The high school history books that come from Texas, are fething ludicrous and often times outright wrong, choosing to favor patriotism over fact. But of course, heaven forbid we actually teach fact, because facts are clearly designed to raise a generation of people who hate the US.

For the textbook issue the problem to me isn't standardization, but what we've chosen to standardize and how obsessively detail oriented that has become. We should be focusing less on regurgitation of content and more on development of methods. Content should be used to support the imparting of method onto students, rather than the sole goal of education. How to do that is actually a much less "robotic" exercise, though it would put more rigor on teachers because they have to find a way to teach kids how to think instead of just getting them to memorize a bunch of dates or grammar rules (that always have exceptions). At the same time though it gives teachers much more freedom in how to achieve their goal.

I am confused by this education debate. Whembly is saying that people need more choices, but everybody should want to put their kids in the very best school possible. How is making more choices going to do this?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
How is making more choices going to do this?

Much like the convoluted attempt at making the same argument for healthcare, it doesn't.

More choice does not actually make everything better, but that's kind of a moot point because choice isn't the thing at the heart of the push to privatize education at the end of the day. It's a false flag like "state's rights" or "pro-life." Like a lot of the divides in the US it solely comes down to a question of religion and cultural diversification.

So state sovereignty and pro-life are "false flags"? So basically anything you disagree with is a false flag, then. At least that's how it looks.

 Just Tony wrote:
So state sovereignty and pro-life are "false flags"? So basically anything you disagree with is a false flag, then. At least that's how it looks.

Actually read it, he is stating that people who care about those things only do so because of religion and the lack of respect for other cultures

 Ustrello wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
So state sovereignty and pro-life are "false flags"? So basically anything you disagree with is a false flag, then. At least that's how it looks.

Actually read it, he is stating that people who care about those things only do so because of religion and the lack of respect for other cultures

Well, on the other hand, they are also "false-flags", in the sense that the are Pavlov-esque word-triggers that do not denote any urgency in regards of the current political context.

 LordofHats wrote:
For the textbook issue the problem to me isn't standardization, but what we've chosen to standardize and how obsessively detail oriented that has become. We should be focusing less on regurgitation of content and more on development of methods. Content should be used to support the imparting of method onto students, rather than the sole goal of education. How to do that is actually a much less "robotic" exercise, though it would put more rigor on teachers because they have to find a way to teach kids how to think instead of just getting them to memorize a bunch of dates or grammar rules (that always have exceptions). At the same time though it gives teachers much more freedom in how to achieve their goal.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with introducing Historiography into high school level classes. I mean, just as the scientific method is absolutely fundamental to understanding the study of science, I think the same thing about history. I don't mean that high schoolers are necessarily ready to delve into the intricacies of marxist history compared to other schools of historical writing, but I absolutely do mean that reading actual excerpts from say, Ben Franklin's letters, or Tom Jefferson's writings and facilitating discussions, and beginning to form the foundation of what it is historians actually do would, IMO, help understanding history more better.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
So state sovereignty and pro-life are "false flags"? So basically anything you disagree with is a false flag, then. At least that's how it looks.

Actually read it, he is stating that people who care about those things only do so because of religion and the lack of respect for other cultures

To be on point, I'm saying that the reality of "states rights" as a political topic of relevance is most often brought up by people who don't give a gak about state's rights. State's rights is simply the excuse of the given topic, which is actually to exclude people from equal participation or treatment. Case and point; gay marriage and abortion. The "state's rights advocates" simultaneously declare that the Federal government should ban gay marriage via DOMA, and at the same time insist that abortion should be a state issue. The reality is that the advocate doesn't give a gak about what is or isn't a state issue. They give a gak about keeping marriage heterosexual and stopping abortions and they switch their stance on where government should and shouldn't be in people's lives based solely on what they think they can achieve practically. You see the same thing in debates about the BLM, federal environmental regulations, and the legalization of recreational drugs. To wit, I declare "State's rights" is a false flag. The people who invoke don't actually care. They're just repeating an argument they've heard ad naseum uncritically, or they know it's bs and don't care. There may be some people who care about state's rights. Truly care and have put a hell of a lot of thought into it. I've never met one, and I've been around this board going on a decade now so I feel pretty secure making that declaration.

Pro-life is a false flag, not because I doubt that people believe abortion is wrong and that they have reason to think such. I call it a false flag because the same people who proclaim the need to protect the unborn elect politicians who want to pollute the environment, limit the economic choices available to future generations, and dictate to all of us whether we like it or not, and to hell with the consequences of being born unwanted, based solely their religious convictions (because 7/10 by my reckoning arguments against legal abortion come down to religion). To wit I declare "pro-life" is a false flag. The more apt label is "pro-God creates and knows us all before we are born, that's my religion and I believe abortion is wrong." Unfortunately for those people (and fortunate for the rest of us) this is not a theocracy we live in and arguments from religion and solely religion have no meaning here, especially in the lives of those outside it. Don't like kosher food? Don't eat it. Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

It's bull gak is my point. Like smokeless tobacco or clean coal. It's bull gak and the people who created the terms know it's bull gak.

That's a whole lotta assumptions and projections lordy.

But, hey, 'tis okay to have opinions.

I wonder if they will rewrite the school books after the education department with comments like these

https://mobile.twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/838840835445833728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:



I see absolutely nothing wrong with introducing Historiography into high school level classes. I mean, just as the scientific method is absolutely fundamental to understanding the study of science, I think the same thing about history. I don't mean that high schoolers are necessarily ready to delve into the intricacies of marxist history compared to other schools of historical writing, but I absolutely do mean that reading actual excerpts from say, Ben Franklin's letters, or Tom Jefferson's writings and facilitating discussions, and beginning to form the foundation of what it is historians actually do would, IMO, help understanding history more better.

Oh I agree. But it's the focus I think that matters. Instead of teaching kids to repeat the contents of Federalist Paper #54, make them read it, the 3/5ths compromise, and some other relevant documents and teach them how those things come together to form the narrative construct we call "history." History does not exist on it's own. it's not something that just is. It's the product of thinking minds taking the evidence left to us by the past to create an explanation for how and why we got to where we are now

See if we actually did that, I wouldn't have to spend a decade explaining how "state's rights" is a bunch of bull gak 3-4 times a year because everyone would already have figured out that "States Rights" was invented first to defend slavery, and second to rehabilitate the Confederacy, systematic racism, and Jim Crow discrimination. People should have already learned that in high school cause it's really basic stuff. The only guy who still really makes arguments against it is a Marxist (historically and politically, a rare double whammy combo!). To which comes my second point; that these things only exist as an argument on behalf of modern American Nativism, namely Anglo-Christian White Protestant Americana to which some people interpret any deviation a "corruption" of our culture.

Ben Carson wrote:That's what America is about. A land of dreams and opportunity. There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder, for less.

But they too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land.

Those brave migrants.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I wonder if they will rewrite the school books after the education department with comments like these

https://mobile.twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/838840835445833728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Actually not that strange a concept to be honest... Lots of historians have included "slaves" as both slaves and immigrants. Not all immigration is voluntary after all, and contextually if you are looking at the history of incoming people to the United States you are going to talk about the arrival of slaves. Now this is Ben Carson, so I won't be surprised if he said something really stupid (audio quality in that link is poor), but that comment in itself is a pretty familiar one to me


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

Ben Carson wrote:That's what America is about. A land of dreams and opportunity. There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder, for less.

But they too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land.

Those brave migrants.

If this is what he said, it doesn't really strike me as very bizarre honestly. It's a pretty decent summation that "there are people who came here and didn't really want to, got the rawest of deals, but they were people and like us they dreamed." There's been a lot of exploration of slaves in the past two decades and you'd be surprised how inventive many of them became under their circumstances! There was one story that I distinctly remember about a slave woman in South Carolina who sold fried chicken while her husband and son's were in the field. The white masters and their white employees were some of her best customers, and they actually paid her for the chicken! Go back to an earlier period in American slavery circa 1780 or so and you'll see a number of slaves who actually ran businesses while in a state of slavery and if that's sounds weird welcome to the club!

The past. Weird gak happens there

The "sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughter" of those "immigrants" seem less than enthused by Carson's imagined version of their ancestors.

Honestly I think it really just comes down to the messenger. The guy is pretty much the new shill, cause Crosby's kind of been worn out (and he's probably going to jail). Somehow though he manages to be even less articulate which is some kind of feat.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You can mandate for clarity without giving the EPA stronger teeth.

The issue is, is the EPA overtoothed? I deal with the EPA in a business capacity, my VP meets with them multiple times a month. The only people "in industry", at least in the HVAC world, that have a problem with EPA's "teeth" are generally those that are doing what the EPA was created (with good reason) to prevent, aside from issues of execution (e.g. not giving us enough notice on things). They really are usually very good about working with all sides.

The EPA is a massive department. Just like any other departments, there are good eggs and bad eggs.

While true, I can't come up with any sort of consistent issue on which the EPA is guilty of widespread and continuous or singularly outstanding malfeasance that would necessitate a major overhaul or dismemberment of the department.

Now the DEA, CIA, FBI, NSA or ATF? I can come up with all sorts of gratuitous incidents and behavior patterns as good reasons to cut back their fangs and footprint, but nobody ever wants to look into that.

And some public schools are fething gakholes and more money isn't going to do gak.

Sure, but that's also a situation where oversight is supposed to step in and make organizational changes (and throw people the hell out). Does that always happen? No. Is that a super common occurrence? No. Will it happen from time to time when dealing with large numbers of people and organizations, no matter how well managed? Sure.

The idea is to create a society where there are multiple choices for students in the same region. Those choices ought to create incentives for both entities to compete for those kids.

In theory I understand the principle. I get it and in many ways sympathize with it.

The problem is that in practical reality this has frequently been coopted to push kids into either poorly performing for-profit institutions milking the system and fail to teach to better standards or that end up in programs built around religious beliefs which has its own set of awkward implications, or some combination of both of these things, which is even more awkward. And it's exceedingly awkward when the Secretary of Education has been pushing institutions that fall into the above categories and seems in a position to personally profit

They also generally have a higher cost to educate each child even if everything is otherwise identical simply because public school systems have larger scale advantages they can leverage. In addition, the way these voucher programs typically work they could end up crippling the public school's ability to operate. If suddenly half the kids go to private school (taking their public school funds with them), the schools have excess capacity, capacity that isn't easy to shed even if they want to, and that's all capacity they might be have to retains as they would likely be required to be able to accommodate *all* the children again if they had to (say the private schools go out of business for whatever reason or people just decide they don't like the drive or program a few years down the road).

Evidently the GOP has a bigger heart than me.... they just released their plans.

So they did, and it's looking about as bad as many were fearing, and goes out of it's way to ensure the insurance market will collapse instead of attempting to fix or replace it. It's also got it's own set of abortion bellwhistles and other issues that will turn it into yet another megashitstorm. It also looks like it drops coverage requirements,including hospitalization, that absolutely will cause issues, though they at least had the decency to keep the coverage age at 26. It'll also have a cool tax break for the rich.

Not seeing where anyone is supposed to be excited for this except a post-facto "**** Obama" moment for its own sake really.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Evidently the GOP has a bigger heart than me.... they just released their plans.

So they did, and it's looking about as bad as many were fearing, and goes out of it's way to ensure the insurance market will collapse instead of attempting to fix or replace it. It's also got it's own set of abortion bellwhistles and other issues that will turn it into yet another megashitstorm. It also looks like it drops coverage requirements,including hospitalization, that absolutely will cause issues, though they at least had the decency to keep the coverage age at 26. It'll also have a cool tax break for the rich.

Not seeing where anyone is supposed to be excited for this except a post-facto "**** Obama" moment for its own sake really.

I'm not real happy with it. Because I want a full repeal and a do-over.

The problem with that, is that they won't be able to overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate for a full repeal.

So... we're were stuck.

Here's a good summary:
In:

Pre-existing condition coverage

Continuous coverage — 30 percent penalty if people don't keep themselves insured

Special fund to help states set up "high-risk" pools, fix their insurance markets, or help low-income patients

Enrollment in expanded Medicaid will be frozen

Current enrollees can stay until 2020, and keep getting extra federal funds, until they leave the program on their own

Medicaid will change to "per capita caps" (funding limits for each person) in fiscal year 2020

A new, refundable tax credit will be available in 2020 to help people buy health insurance

Covers five age groups — starts at $2,000 for people in their 20s, increases to $4,000 for people in their 60s

It's not means tested, but phased out for upper-income people (starting at $75,000 for individuals, $150,000 for families)

Insurers can charge older customers five times as much as young adults

Out:

All Obamacare taxes

All Obamacare subsidies, including its premium tax credit

Individual, employer mandate penalties

"Cadillac tax" (until 2025)

No longer will limit the tax break for employer-sponsored health coverage

No payments to insurers for cost-sharing reductions

Selling insurance across state lines (can't be done in the "reconciliation" bill)

Medical malpractice reform (can't be done in the "reconciliation" bill)

I think there's a good chance that the many GOPers are going to revolt against Ryan.