The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

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.

**whembly**

Well... finally... finally the Senate passed a bill that'll gut Obamacare (for the 1st time ever):
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/262071-senate-approves-bill-repealing-much-of-obamacare

Senate approves bill repealing much of ObamaCare
The Senate on Thursday passed legislation repealing the core pillars of ObamaCare, taking a major step toward sending such a bill to the president’s desk for the first time.

Republicans hailed it as a political messaging victory and a fulfillment of their promise from the 2014 midterm election to force President Obama to veto the landmark healthcare reform law named after him.

The measure passed 52-47 after the Senate voted to significantly strengthen the bill originally passed by the House and brought straight to the floor by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
The House will need to approve the amended legislation before it can be sent to the White House.

Thursday’s vote was a major event in the Senate, as Democrats never allowed a stand-alone vote on an ObamaCare repeal bill when they controlled the chamber.

Democrats were also unable to block the GOP measure, which was brought to the floor under budget reconciliation rules that prevented a filibuster.

“For too long, Democrats did everything to prevent Congress from passing the type of legislation necessary to help these Americans who are hurting,” McConnell said on the floor. “Today, that ends.”

The measure guts the law by repealing authority for the federal government to run healthcare exchanges, and scrapping subsidies to help people afford plans bought through those exchanges. It zeros out the penalties on individuals who do not buy insurance and employers who do not offer health insurance.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, missed the final vote.

The vote caps weeks of intense and at times acrimonious debate within the Senate GOP conference over how far the repeal should go.

Conservative Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who are running for president, and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) threatened to oppose a House-passed repeal bill for not going far enough.

Three moderates, Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), balked at it for including language defunding Planned Parenthood.

GOP leaders briefly floated the possibility of dropping the Planned Parenthood language but dropped the idea knowing it could spark a conservative backlash.

Instead, McConnell leaned on Cruz, Rubio and Lee to vote yes and sweetened the prospect by crafting an amendment that dramatically beefed up the Senate package. All three voted yes.

“This bill is a substantial improvement over the original House bill, and I’m grateful to Senate conservatives and Senate leadership for joining me in making it so,” Cruz said in a statement after the vote.

It repeals the expansion of Medicaid adopted by 30 states as well as many of the law’s tax increases, which the House bill left in place.

It cuts funding for the Prevention and Public Health Fund and eliminates risk adjustment programs from insurance companies that lose money because of the law.

The House bill eliminates the individual and employer mandates, the "Cadillac tax" on expensive insurance plans and the medical device tax.

The question of how to handle Medicaid was a thorny one for McConnell because it pitted conservatives, who demanded a repeal, against Republican colleagues from states that expanded the safety-net program.

“I am very concerned about the 160,000 people who had Medicaid expansion in my state. I have difficulty with that being included,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia, told The Hill earlier this month.

Vulnerable GOP incumbents face reelection next year in several states that have expanded Medicaid: Illinois, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

McConnell eased their concerns by phasing in the repeal over two years to give the federal government and states time to come up with a replacement program.

The Senate bill also repeals the over-the-counter medicine tax, the prescription drug tax, an annual fee on health insurers and the tax on indoor tanning services. It reduces the threshold of healthcare costs that can be deducted from 10 percent to 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income.

Cruz and Rubio signaled to GOP leaders earlier in the week that they would vote for the package but Cruz held out, keeping his colleagues guessing.

The GOP leadership braced itself for the possibility that Cruz might attempt to force the Senate to vote on a one-sentence provision repealing the entire bill, which the Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough had ruled out of order.

Cruz could have attempted to overturn the ruling of the presiding chair, who almost always follows the advice of the parliamentarian, with a simple-majority vote. But he decided not to, a pragmatic move since he colleagues were unlikely to back him.

Collins and Kirk voted against the repeal package after an amendment they offered earlier in the day to strike the language defunding Planned Parenthood failed by a vote of 48-52.

Murkowski, another sponsor of the amendment to protect Planned Parenthood funding, voted yes for the broader bill after declining to take a public position before the floor debate.

The Senate voted throughout the afternoon on a variety of amendments, many of them intended to send a political message.

Democrats sought to score political points by offering an amendment sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to bar suspected terrorists from buying guns. It failed by a vote of 45-54.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee blasted vulnerable Republicans who opposed it.

“It’s reprehensible that with everything going on in the world, these senators won’t stand up to the special interests and pass a commonsense measure like closing the terrorist gun loophole,” said Lauren Passalacqua, a spokeswoman for the committee.

An amendment sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), another presidential candidate, to loosen restrictions on concealed weapons permits fell six votes short of the 60 it needed as a nongermane proposal.

Senators passed by a vote of 90-10 an amendment sponsored by Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) to repeal the "Cadillac tax" on expensive health plans. The provision was included in the House bill but had to be sunset to pass parliamentary muster in the upper chamber. Heller’s amendment removed the time-limiting language.

Speaker Paul Ryan... your ball now...

**Co'tor Shas**

Oh look, a partisan feel-good measure that will simply get vetoed. Good to see that congess is still being as productive as ever.

**hotsauceman1**

My mother requires medicaid to live.
Good Job republicans, But I guess because she isnt working now she deserves it huh?

**whembly**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
My mother requires medicaid to live.
Good Job republicans, But I guess because she isnt working now she deserves it huh?

Don't you mean Medicare? (Medicare isn't what's being addressed here).

This bill would stop the current funding streams to the expanded part of Medicaid within 2 years. Those two years would give state/fed time adjust.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
Well... finally... finally the Senate passed a bill that'll gut Obamacare (for the 1st time ever):

And Obama will veto it, just like every republican in congress knows. Which means the party that claims to be all about financial responsibility and small government is blatantly wasting your tax dollars on a symbolic statement that accomplishes nothing more than being able to tell their supporters "see, we really hate Obamacare, keep voting for us". Pretty impressive hypocrisy, isn't it?

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Well... finally... finally the Senate passed a bill that'll gut Obamacare (for the 1st time ever):

And Obama will veto it, just like every republican in congress knows. Which means the party that claims to be all about financial responsibility and small government is blatantly wasting your tax dollars on a symbolic statement that accomplishes nothing more than being able to tell their supporters "see, we really hate Obamacare, keep voting for us". Pretty impressive hypocrisy, isn't it?

No.

It puts the opposition on record for the current election cycle.

At least the Republicans succeeded in keeping their promise to the voters that put them there....

Let President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and every other Democrat supporting Obamacare defend the dumpster fire legislation.

That's not "wasting tax dollars" as you put it... that's actually doing their job. If the veto cannot be overriden, then the Republicans can say, "don't vote for HRC or Bernie if you want to repeal Obamacare".

**lonestarr777**

At this point I'd respect the republican party more if they would actually look like the saturday morning cartoon villians they act like. Maybe take a page from Marvel and incorporate some green in their dress everyday or I dunno move the capital to an active volcano base where they could cackle about making things tougher for poor people as they sit on thrones of cash.

I live and work in an economically depressed area and I considered to be below the poverty line despite having one of the better jobs available in the area.

When my boss told me to my face he would pay the fine instead of provide insurance because it was cheaper for him. Medicaid became my best option.

So the fact these donkey caves want to do everything in their power to take that away is about as endearing as the fact that my boss took three vacations this year.

**Grey Templar**

Medicaid isn't going away, just the Obamacare messups are going away.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

This bill would stop the current funding streams to the expanded part of Medicaid within 2 years. Those two years would give state/fed time adjust.

It's still an incredibly stupid move which will put a number of GOP congressmen at risk now and in the future, especially if the states themselves don't actually move to replace that funding. Double points because the expansion of Mediaid was one of the few elements of PPACA which was undeniably good.

whembly wrote:

That's not "wasting tax dollars" as you put it... that's actually doing their job. If the veto cannot be overriden, then the Republicans can say, "don't vote for HRC or Bernie if you want to repeal Obamacare".

They've been saying that for a long time now. Hell, many of Cruz's online campaign ads have been featuring the phrase "Stop Obama" in white letters on a red, button shaped, background for almost a year.

**Dreadclaw69**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
My mother requires medicaid to live.
Good Job republicans, But I guess because she isnt working now she deserves it huh?

It was my understanding that this was completely separate from the ACA. Is that not the case?

**NinthMusketeer**

That's not "wasting tax dollars" as you put it...

Should I apply for a grant of taxpayer money to prove a point? I know I am not an elected official yet, but the point I am proving is to help me and my friends get elected so its OK.

[edit] To be clear, this is intended to be a bit tongue-in-cheek.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
It puts the opposition on record for the current election cycle.

IOW, wasting tax dollars to make a point. Everyone knows what the opposition's position is.

At least the Republicans succeeded in keeping their promise to the voters that put them there....

No they didn't. They haven't repealed Obamacare, they've just passed a symbolic statement that they know perfectly well is not going to accomplish anything. If you think that's "keeping a promise" then you have pretty low expectations for your representatives.

That's not "wasting tax dollars" as you put it... that's actually doing their job.

Their job is to pass laws and govern the country, not to turn congress into another campaign speech for the upcoming election. Every republican who voted for that bill knew it was going to be vetoed, and knew there was no hope of overturning the veto. They're getting paid by your tax dollars to represent you, not to defend their own jobs, but you're getting absolutely nothing out of the vote.

**Grey Templar**

If you've been elected to repeal Obamacare, among other things, then trying to repeal it is doing your job. Doesn't matter if it will succeed or not.

**NinthMusketeer**

Grey Templar wrote:
If you've been elected to repeal Obamacare, among other things, then trying to repeal it is doing your job. Doesn't matter if it will succeed or not.

It does matter, because there are other things that they could have spent that time and effort doing. Things that would benefit the people who elected them rather than serve as a poll boost for themselves in the next election. And this measure is unlikely to appeal beyond those who would have voted republican anyway, making it a wasteful expense even in that regard. Personally I think they will lose more support from voters than they will gain with this publicity stunt, which strikes me as appropriate considering the action.

**Grey Templar**

Given the unpopularity of Obamacare, i wouldn't be so sure.

**Co'tor Shas**

Grey Templar wrote:
Given the unpopularity of Obamacare, i wouldn't be so sure.

Actually, last I checked, it had higher popularity than unpopularity (like 43% vs 41%). It's a very divisive issue, and they will gain support with some and lose it with others. There really is not clear cut "this is unpopular" or "this is popular".

**Peregrine**

Grey Templar wrote:
If you've been elected to repeal Obamacare, among other things, then trying to repeal it is doing your job. Doesn't matter if it will succeed or not.

But they aren't trying to repeal it, they're trying to make a big show of why you should keep voting for them. If you know that your action is going to have no effect before you begin then it doesn't count as trying. This isn't a case where they started working on the bill and just fell a bit short of success, everyone involved knew before they even started that it was going to have no effect just like every previous attempt.

And really, this is just a distraction from really trying to repeal Obamacare. Making a big show of "WE HATE OBAMA JUST LIKE YOU" is easy. Actually repealing the law would be difficult and require granting concessions to the democrats in exchange. But that's too much work I guess, so all they're willing to do is talk.

**Grey Templar**

I'd say passing both the House and Senate only for it to get vetoed counts as falling just a bit short of success. If the president in the White House was on-board for repealing it it would be a done deal. This isn't whining about it in Congress, they actually passed a freaking bill to remove it.

**generalgrog**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Given the unpopularity of Obamacare, i wouldn't be so sure.

Actually, last I checked, it had higher popularity than unpopularity (like 43% vs 41%). It's a very divisive issue, and they will gain support with some and lose it with others. There really is not clear cut "this is unpopular" or "this is popular".

last pollI saw on CNN today..was that Obamacare was at 49% disapproval and 43% approval.

GG

**Peregrine**

Grey Templar wrote:
I'd say passing both the House and Senate only for it to get vetoed counts as falling just a bit short of success.

That would be an illusion of falling just a bit short. It's not like they got the votes together, thought the president would sign the bill, and got surprised by a veto. Everyone involved knew this would be the outcome before they even started working on the bill. There was a 0% chance of success, and they fact that they wasted a bunch of time and effort on passing a doomed bill doesn't make their failure any less inevitable. IOW, it was a publicity stunt with no chance of being anything else, not an honest attempt that didn't quite work out the way they hoped.

**Grey Templar**

Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
I'd say passing both the House and Senate only for it to get vetoed counts as falling just a bit short of success.

That would be an illusion of falling just a bit short. It's not like they got the votes together, thought the president would sign the bill, and got surprised by a veto. Everyone involved knew this would be the outcome before they even started working on the bill. There was a 0% chance of success, and they fact that they wasted a bunch of time and effort on passing a doomed bill doesn't make their failure any less inevitable.

Ok, so just because you have no chance for success means you shouldn't do what you got voted into office to do? Pretty sure that isn't not how elected officials are supposed to act. They're supposed to do what their constituents want them to do, and if that means doing something which currently has very little or no chance of success it doesn't matter.

**Peregrine**

Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, so just because you have no chance for success means you shouldn't do what you got voted into office to do? Pretty sure that isn't not how elected officials are supposed to act. They're supposed to do what their constituents want them to do, and if that means doing something which currently has very little or no chance of success it doesn't matter.

Yes, when you KNOW that you have no chance of success with a particular approach you should either concede defeat and stop wasting time on your publicity stunts or try a different approach. The problem is that the republican party isn't willing to work to repeal Obamacare, they just want to do cheap publicity stunts to persuade people to keep voting for them. You don't get credit for "trying" when you know your "effort" is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

**Co'tor Shas**

generalgrog wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Given the unpopularity of Obamacare, i wouldn't be so sure.

Actually, last I checked, it had higher popularity than unpopularity (like 43% vs 41%). It's a very divisive issue, and they will gain support with some and lose it with others. There really is not clear cut "this is unpopular" or "this is popular".

last pollI saw on CNN today..was that Obamacare was at 49% disapproval and 43% approval.

GG

Ah, must of changed since last time I saw them (been a month or so). But, yes, a mere 6% difference. And it fluctuates quite a bit, although still remaining relatively even. It's not really something the R's can use to garner lots of new votes, it excites the base, and that's it.

**Grey Templar**

Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, so just because you have no chance for success means you shouldn't do what you got voted into office to do? Pretty sure that isn't not how elected officials are supposed to act. They're supposed to do what their constituents want them to do, and if that means doing something which currently has very little or no chance of success it doesn't matter.

Yes, when you KNOW that you have no chance of success with a particular approach you should either concede defeat and stop wasting time on your publicity stunts or try a different approach. The problem is that the republican party isn't willing to work to repeal Obamacare, they just want to do cheap publicity stunts to persuade people to keep voting for them. You don't get credit for "trying" when you know your "effort" is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

So going through the proper channels and passing actual fething legislation to repeal Obamacare is a cheap publicity stunt and not actually working to repeal Obamacare? Are they supposed to go burn down the White House, run around in "I hate Obamacare" T-shirts, or destroy every electronic and physical copy of the Obamacare bill so it doesn't exist anymore?

What would actually working to repeal Obamacare look like?

**Peregrine**

Grey Templar wrote:
So going through the proper channels and passing actual fething legislation to repeal Obamacare is a cheap publicity stunt and not actually working to repeal Obamacare?

Yep, because they know that bill was going to fail. You aren't working to repeal something if you're wasting time on stuff that you know will not succeed, you're just wasting time.

What would actually working to repeal Obamacare look like?

It would probably start with offering democrats something in exchange, to either get Obama to sign the repeal or lure enough democrats in congress to cross party lines that the bill passes with a veto-proof majority behind it. But the republican party is not willing to do this, probably because it would involve making sacrifices instead of just cheap publicity stunts to campaign for the next election.

**Grey Templar**

Oh, so just because you know you are going to fail, or just think you might fail, means you should just abandon your ideals and doing what your constituents want. According to the "Peregrine school of Democracy".

And you should never pass a bill without a veto-proof majority behind it, because failing is unacceptable and wasting everyone's time so we shouldn't ever do that.

And its not like the Democrats aren't also being just as stubborn and obstinate about things too you know.

**Co'tor Shas**

Grey Templar wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, so just because you have no chance for success means you shouldn't do what you got voted into office to do? Pretty sure that isn't not how elected officials are supposed to act. They're supposed to do what their constituents want them to do, and if that means doing something which currently has very little or no chance of success it doesn't matter.

Yes, when you KNOW that you have no chance of success with a particular approach you should either concede defeat and stop wasting time on your publicity stunts or try a different approach. The problem is that the republican party isn't willing to work to repeal Obamacare, they just want to do cheap publicity stunts to persuade people to keep voting for them. You don't get credit for "trying" when you know your "effort" is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

So going through the proper channels and passing actual fething legislation to repeal Obamacare is a cheap publicity stunt and not actually working to repeal Obamacare? Are they supposed to go burn down the White House, run around in "I hate Obamacare" T-shirts, or destroy every electronic and physical copy of the Obamacare bill so it doesn't exist anymore?

What would actually working to repeal Obamacare look like?

I'd imagine working with the opposition (whether that be Obama or the congressional D's) to create either a compromise or a whole new law in order to either avoid a veto or get a veto-proof majority.
That or waiting for the election to comes around and campaigning on that, and repealing it if they win.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Peregrine wrote:

It would probably start with offering democrats something in exchange, to either get Obama to sign the repeal or lure enough democrats in congress to cross party lines that the bill passes with a veto-proof majority behind it. But the republican party is not willing to do this, probably because it would involve making sacrifices instead of just cheap publicity stunts to campaign for the next election.

IMO, it wouldn't even look like that.... What it would look like is both sides sitting down and saying, "this thing is a trainwreck" then saying, "healthcare is here. Now, how do we make it work better?"

I suspect that the reason ACA "disapproval" numbers are high, is because of the unchecked and ridiculous amounts of complexity. Not to mention the utterly ridiculous belief that the poor people are "mooching" off "the system".

**Peregrine**

Grey Templar wrote:
Oh, so just because you know you are going to fail, or just think you might fail, means you should just abandon your ideals and doing what your constituents want.

Yes, when you know beyond any doubt that you are going to fail you should not keep smashing your head against the wall thinking that this time will be different. You either stick to your ideas and try a new approach, or concede defeat and work on accomplishing some of the other things your constituents want.

And you should never pass a bill without a veto-proof majority behind it, because failing is unacceptable and wasting everyone's time so we shouldn't ever do that.

Do you understand the difference between passing a bill you're not sure about and passing a bill that you know will be vetoed?

**Ensis Ferrae**

Grey Templar wrote:

And you should never pass a bill without a veto-proof majority behind it, because failing is unacceptable and wasting everyone's time so we shouldn't ever do that.

And its not like the Democrats aren't also being just as stubborn and obstinate about things too you know.

No... you should pass bills. However, when you pass a bill that you already know, before ever voting on it, that it will fail is unacceptable and a waste of time.