Fake Senate ACA Replacement Already Blocked!

[task0778]

Wow! So what's the plan? Do we have minders that follow us around to make sure some people aren't speaking out more than their share? Do we force the introverts to talk more?

The plan is simple; all elections are publicly funded. All campaigns are publicly funded. Candidates no longer must raise money. That way, there's a level playing field where ideas can compete for votes instead of candidates competing for money. It works in every other western democracy, so why can't it work here? We all agree the system is broken, we just have to agree why it's broken. And the why is the money.

But money isn't the only form of expressing our political values. The fact is, some people - celebrities, influential academics, etc.... - have much more of a public venue for their opinions than others. Should government do something about that? Should the government ensure that the town drunk has as much of a voice as George Will?

Not in my view. That's what the Democrats want, is to regulate free speech.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There is apparently a lot to talk about(?). The 140-odd page "Discussion Draft" is heavily reliant on definitions of terms, for example. Anyone is reminded that in the closely contested South Carolina House District special election: Even the Republicans seemed to believe that the Carolinas had seceded, again. No one seems to have shown up from either major party(?).!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Some mental problems do in fact have to be seen to be believed!)

I read that twice and have no clue what you're trying to say.

That's nothing new. You rarely have a clue.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Can't win without votes! Three GOP or more vote, "Nyet(?)" or however that is said(?)!

Enough GOP senators to block Obamacare replacement will announce opposition: NBC News, citing source

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(At GOP, the "Nyet" votes have it. . . .speaking of Lands of Many Nations!)

Why are they going to block it? They haven't read it! It was just now posted!

Why are they going to block it?

Because it's not a healthcare bill. It's a tax cut.

 

[The Derp]

Not in my view. That's what the Democrats want, is to regulate free speech.

It's not free speech if you have to pay for it.

 

[2aguy]

Citizens United decided a speech issue, where only certain corporations were banned form political speech 30 or 60 days before an election. As usual it has been mischaracterized by regressives. And you folks claim to be for free speech. LMAO

The Citizens United decision's chief argument was that money doesn't give the appearance of corruption...which we can all admit is completely absurd, right?

No.....the chief argument is that just because people come together in a group, they don't lose their 1st Amendment Rights.

 

[rightwinger]

If money is speech, then that means some people have more speech than others. Which undermines the premise of one person, one vote. Also, if money is speech, then speech isn't free.

Some people do have more "speech" than others. Does that undermine the premise of one person, one vote, in your view? Should government ensure that everyone has the same amount of "speech"?

Some people have more vote than others also. We have never been one man, one vote

 

[The Derp]

No.....the chief argument is that just because people come together in a group, they don't lose their 1st Amendment Rights.

That's not what the decision said. The rhetoric at the heart of this decision was that money doesn't give the appearance of corruption. All you're saying above is the consequence of that faulty rhetoric.

 

[The Derp]

Some people have more vote than others also

No they don't. One person, one vote.

 

[2aguy]

Wow! So what's the plan? Do we have minders that follow us around to make sure some people aren't speaking out more than their share? Do we force the introverts to talk more?

The plan is simple; all elections are publicly funded. All campaigns are publicly funded. Candidates no longer must raise money. That way, there's a level playing field where ideas can compete for votes instead of candidates competing for money. It works in every other western democracy, so why can't it work here? We all agree the system is broken, we just have to agree why it's broken. And the why is the money.

That is just insane, and stupid......why should tax payers pay to help elect assholes who will have power over them. It also allows those already in office to have a massive advantage over any new comer......

The way you solve this.....get rid of all donation limits..that way, if someone is a good candidate, they can be financed by other people so that they stand a chance to be competitive...right now, the limits make it almost impossible for a poor person to get elected.......

 

[2aguy]

No.....the chief argument is that just because people come together in a group, they don't lose their 1st Amendment Rights.

That's not what the decision said. The rhetoric at the heart of this decision was that money doesn't give the appearance of corruption. All you're saying above is the consequence of that faulty rhetoric.

It isn't faulty logic......if you are driving around after midnight does that give the appearance of criminal activity?

 

[The Derp]

That is just insane, and stupid......why should tax payers pay to help elect assholes who will have power over them. It also allows those already in office to have a massive advantage over any new comer......

How so? If everyone is given the same amount to campaign with, how does an incumbent have a massive advantage? What gives an incumbent an advantage? The money. Take the money out, and what advantage does the incumbent then have? If they support policies the voters want, all the advantages in the world. But they don't get policies the voters want by listening only to the wealthiest among them, do they? Your interests and the interests of David Koch are not aligned, as much as you imagine they are.

The way you solve this.....get rid of all donation limits..that way, if someone is a good candidate, they can be financed by other people so that they stand a chance to be competitive...right now, the limits make it almost impossible for a poor person to get elected.......

That just leads to candidate buying and the will of the voters is even more diluted. In that scenario, how are ideas competing in a vacuum for votes?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So obiecare will be left to fail. Not a risky gamble, many will be hurt though.

Why isn't Obamacare help along to success, its easily done

Easily done my ass. ObamaCare was a POS from day one and is getting worse. It never had a hope in hell of working out, and most people were against it from the getgo.

Must be why millions have signed up for it. Lets be honest, you don't know the first thing about the ACA

Obviously more than you do. Millions signed up for it because they had pre-existing conditions or the gov't was paying some if not all of their medical costs. Millions more went on Medicaid and can't find a doctor, do you know how many counties there are in America were there is NO insurance company offering a plan under the ACA? I heard 70% this morning and it's getting worse. Have you seen the rise on premiums over the past few years since ObamaCare went into effect? And how much more the insurance companies are asking to raise premiums next year? Hells bells, most people can't afford to use the insurance they have, the co-pays and deductibles are too high.

do you know how many counties there are in America were there is NO insurance company offering a plan under the ACA?

Do you know why that is?
Where are most of those counties?
Is the decision by payers to pull out of these markets based on the ACA or market conditions in those counties?

 

[peach174]

If money is speech, then that means some people have more speech than others. Which undermines the premise of one person, one vote. Also, if money is speech, then speech isn't free.

Some people do have more "speech" than others. Does that undermine the premise of one person, one vote, in your view? Should government ensure that everyone has the same amount of "speech"?

Some people have more vote than others also. We have never been one man, one vote

How many people do you bring into your voting booth with you?

 

[The Derp]

It isn't faulty logic

So you don't think money corrupts? Then why are you screeching about union money going to Democrats?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Why isn't Obamacare help along to success, its easily done

Easily done my ass. ObamaCare was a POS from day one and is getting worse. It never had a hope in hell of working out, and most people were against it from the getgo.

Must be why millions have signed up for it. Lets be honest, you don't know the first thing about the ACA

Obviously more than you do. Millions signed up for it because they had pre-existing conditions or the gov't was paying some if not all of their medical costs. Millions more went on Medicaid and can't find a doctor, do you know how many counties there are in America were there is NO insurance company offering a plan under the ACA? I heard 70% this morning and it's getting worse. Have you seen the rise on premiums over the past few years since ObamaCare went into effect? And how much more the insurance companies are asking to raise premiums next year? Hells bells, most people can't afford to use the insurance they have, the co-pays and deductibles are too high.

Maybe you need to blame the insurance industry and not the ACA

Insurance companies are not in business to help failed gov't programs succeed, especially when they're losing money.

It was never a govt program. It was always populated with private insurers.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I am gonna say Murkowski and Collins are at least 2 I can think of....very moderate and usually I despise them but on this I agree 100%. GOP needs to learn that WE the people don't want our health care slashed and not just affordable for the rich who can go fuck themselves. Either let Obamacare collapse or get head OUT of their asses and give us something better.

The problem is there is no better system other than single-payer. The major problem with any insurance reform is that you cannot be profitable and guarantee universal coverage. The cognitive dissonance in the arguments about insurance give me a headache.

I agree I prefer single payer as well but I just don't understand WHY they don't put it in the bill where people can buy insurance across state lines....it would drive the price down so damn fast it would be beautiful to see.

You can in most states. The states control that.

 

[OKTexas]

If a legislative accomplishment has to violate both the text and intent of the Constitution, as our whole welfare state does, I wouldn't call it an accomplishment. I call it treason..

This is why we have a Supreme Court. They answer that ideological question, not you.

I guess you're stupid enough to think they have the authority to rewrite legislation also, when Article 1 says ALL LEGISLATIVE POWERS ARE RESERVED TO CONGRESS.


.

 

[dblack]

But money isn't the only form of expressing our political values. The fact is, some people - celebrities, influential academics, etc.... - have much more of a public venue for their opinions than others. Should government do something about that? Should the government ensure that the town drunk has as much of a voice as George Will?

The issue I have is that candidates spend their time raising money and not listening to citizens or devising legislation. If you're spending 80% of your time hanging around with rich people, don't you think that will shape your world view?

So, if you ban money as a means of expressing our political values, that would mean politicians would instead focus on those with the most access to media outlets. Is this just kicking the can?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So obiecare will be left to fail. Not a risky gamble, many will be hurt though.

The problem of bringing insurers to the table has back fired as they now are leaving for political points. I believe it was Aetna that was caught doing this even in markets where they were making money so as to win gop favor.

They are leaving because the bailouts are ending. It's not complicated.

Yep, the Republicans made sure the ACA remained less than fully implemented, caused turmoil and uncertainty within the markets with the hopes of making it fail.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

our insurance companies are not profitable? well they were until saddled with stupid things they had to now pay for.

You mean they were until they had to start paying claims for people they previously excluded because of pre-existing conditions. You can't have a profitable insurance company and guarantee universal coverage for specifically that reason. That's why subsidies are necessary to defray the cost of having to cover pre-existing conditions. This is the model Conservatives were in support of about 23 years ago, for 15 years. So it's confusing to see them oppose it today. Makes me think their opposition to it is wholly political and ideological. Not economic or fiscal. Because the realities of a for-profit insurance system is that it only is for-profit if it doesn't pay out claims. Which is in direct conflict with the guarantee Trump made of universal coverage.

when i was unemployed and didn't buy insurance (choosing to pay the fine) every time i needed something i got 50% off and paid in cash. care to tell me why i got 50% off? maybe that's insurance profits...

That 50% you didn't pay didn't just magically vanish. It was redistributed to providers and insurers. So that means a provider has to charge more for something like aspirin so the insurer can use that reimbursement and apply it to things like giving a 50% off to someone with no insurance. That means your premiums will increase too to cover those costs. It is grotesque entitlement to think you get a discount on health care and that discount isn't passed onto the provider and policyholders.

it's a grotesque entitlement to think i have to pay for someone elses coverage when you boil it down like that. you think only their rates are going to go up?

please.

You aren't paying for someone else.
The subsidies were tax credits. You have no idea what you're saying.