Not sure what is happening here, but it is grabbiing headlines. Thoughts?
CNN Conservatives Not Impressed
Politico Conservative Near Revolt
Slate TrumpCare on the March
NYT 45 Counties Could Have No Insurance Provider
Fox Combine Tax and Healthcare Changes
The Hill GOP Sabotages
CNN Conservatives Not Impressed
Politico Conservative Near Revolt
Slate TrumpCare on the March
NYT 45 Counties Could Have No Insurance Provider
Fox Combine Tax and Healthcare Changes
The Hill GOP Sabotages
56 comments:
What I am impressed with is the contrast with how Democrats handled health care. No secret meetings, no closed door sessions. All the bills are in the public domain so the public knows what is happening and so all members of Congress can have them in a timely fashion so they can read them and know what they are voting on.
This is what people were voting for when they decided to turn American health care policy over to the Republican Party.
--HIram
Personally I prefer this method... Let them work out a rough path and then we can argue it's merits when it is unveiled.
I mean why would they do it out in the open, it is not like any of the Democrats would be willing to participate in the process. They have made it pretty clear that they are now the party of obstruction and resistance.
Let them work out a rough path and then we can argue it's merits when it is unveiled.
The Republican argument when we tried that was that the real decisions were made when the rough parts were being worked on. They argued quite rightly and successfully that they were presented with a bill very late in the process which they had no role in crafting, which they didn't have time and opportunity to read, and which would be passed on a party line vote which excluded them from the process. Weren't they right?
--Hiram
"it is not like any of the Democrats would be willing to participate in the process"
This is a talking point not supported by any substance. Just last week, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) was begging in the Senate Finance Committee for Republicans to reach out and offer Democrats a chance to participate.
"Weren't they right?"
No.
I would prefer if the Democrats were involved, however they have made it very clear that their chosen path is that of resistance to all things Trump and GOP.
Not sure there is any reason for the GOP to talk to them unless that attitude changes.
I am not sure I count this as begging.
I mean it seems that the DEM's position is pretty fixed.
Keep the punitive taxes on medical companies and successful people so that many Americans can receive free or reduced cost health insurance.
I am not sure they can accept anything less or better than ACA.
Is there any Democratic politician who supports letting unsuccessful people deal with the negative consequences of their life choices? (ie suffer)
It is a harsh position, but I have no idea how to force people to learn, work, and stop having babies they can not afford without some serious tough love...
Just passing these expenses on to tax payers generation after generation is getting us no where fast.
"I am not sure I count this as begging."
I have watched her entire speech, and I would say this description from your link is accurate:
"The Missouri Democrat pleaded with Hatch to be given the same opportunities Republicans had during the process in which the ACA was written."
Democrats would be happy to work with Republicans on policies that don't reduce health care coverage. If there are ways to do that more efficiently, we'd be happy to listem.
Republicans want to kick people off of health insurance so they can give wealthy people a tax cut.
I am not sure it is a tax cut if it is just undoing a recent tax increase that was passed along party lines.
As I noted above, the Left's desire to tax successful people at high rates just so unsuccessful people get more free stuff and services is always a challenge.
Again, what do the DEMs want to do to force unsuccessful people to change their beliefs, behaviors, choices, efforts, etc?
If you're concerned about free-riders on the health care system, you should oppose the current Republican health care proposals.
I would prefer if the Democrats were involved, however they have made it very clear that their chosen path is that of resistance to all things Trump and GOP.
We will certainly be involved just as Republicans were. Even Donald Trump, a very experienced negotiator, reminds us of that when he talks bout how Democrats are capable of obstructing progress on these bills.
Politicians often want to tell us the can't do this or that. What is always true is that they can they just don't want to.
--Hiram
Sean,
As you know, I don't lose much sleep over the Healthcare topic...
I was ok before ACA and I'll be okay with whatever is passed now.
I am neither rich nor poor so the whole thing is pretty academic to me.
I think ACA probably costs me and my company ~$2,000 per year extra, so it is not a budget breaker. It has a much bigger impact on my potential inheritance since it is costing my Parents quite a bit each year.
That same old problem, folks like them studied, worked, scrimped, saved and invested to become wealthy... Then people say that they should pay a higher tax rate to care for folks who do not study, work, scrimp, save and invest.
I just find it an odd society that wants to take more from people who made good decisions so that it can be given to those who make poor decisions. It seems just so backwards...
To give you some perspective... Dad's backhoe looks something like this... He uses it to fix plugged tiles. You can imagine all the cursing I am doing as I am fixing another blown hose...
And his preferred utility tractor is a 656 that looks like this 856.
"As you know, I don't lose much sleep over the Healthcare topic..."
I'm well aware. That's why you say so many things that don't make sense about it. Because you -- like the President himself -- don't understand the policy, you just slap your "liberals bad" prism on it and spit out the word salad.
My point is that Mom and Dad have spent their lives living cheap and buying assets that appreciate. (ie land, stocks, etc) The idea that they should pay a much higher tax rate for doing so never makes sense to me.
Sean,
I don't think "liberals bad"... I just think they want to take money from one group of citizens so it can be given to another group of citizens irrespective of any personal effort, risk, responsibility, etc.
They just know that Peter has money and Paul doesn't...
So let's take from Peter and give to Paul, no matter what they have done during their lives to help America thrive.
You spout philosophy, but you don't have any policy.
That is an interesting concept.
Liberals seem to think that government needs to be involved in everything for it to function correctly and "fairly". (preferably the Feds) They want to protect everyone from nearly everything.
Is getting government out of certain areas of our lives a policy?
If we eliminated Medicaid, food stamps, etc for everyone except the truly disabled and old, and cut taxes. (ie let people reap what they sewed) Would relying on Private Charity be a policy?
Or do the Feds need to control things for it to be a policy?
"Would relying on Private Charity be a policy?"
Sure, it's a policy. Is that the position you wish to take?
My preferred position is to get the Feds out of collecting and redistributing... This wealth transfer business. I think the states should be caring for their citizens.
All the Feds should keep is social security and medicare. And that only because they are long term programs.
CNN: More on DEMs and GOP working together
And speaking of American Health...
Why should what state you live in determine if your pre-existing condition is covered or not?
Why Not?
State's would then create policies to attract citizens for the good of their State. And hopefully the good of our country.
As I have said many times before, I trust MN's to care of our fellow MN's. No need to pay for a national bureaucracy to do that.
Liberals seem to think that government needs to be involved in everything for it to function correctly and "fairly".
We may seem a certain way, but I wouldn't assume we are that way. My suggestion that an undue focus on the way things seem contains with it a risk of projection.
A lot depends on what we mean by government. I take my notion of the government from the first words of the constitution which defines the government as "We, the people". If that's the definition, logic which is so popular with so many people, would suggest that it is involved with everything, or at least many things. What if we narrow the definition of government? What if the founders got it wrong? Many people have told me that they don't feel they are under the authority of government. That may be because they didn't vote for the elected representative. Others feel that way because they feel the constitution is a form of contract, one they didn't enter into.
How does that affect the issues are raised here? If you assume that the founders got it right, that we are the government, we have the responsibility of making sure it operates "fairly" and "correctly" whatever it is we mean by those highly complex concepts. Can an alienated form of government, one which does not have authority over us act fairly and correctly? Should such a government act at all? Can such a form of government have any legal or moral authority? Can it be competent?
--Hiram
"Why Not?"
I would argue it's fundamentally unfair. One could even suggest it's a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Equal Protection Clause: "The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".
Maybe some day Liberals can get all the power and money taken away from the local governments and we can be a "National Democracy" that is ruled by the people who live on the coasts and big cities... Probably not anytime soon though.
Thanks Heavens.
OK. Well, what functions would you leave to the federal government, then? Should states be able to say, have different voting ages? Should they be able to set up laws that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or religion? Would it be OK if a state said it was OK for hospitals to deny medical care to someone who wasn't insured, even if it meant they died as a result?
Here is an interesting document.
I am fine with the Feds setting some baselines for policy. They should be the lowest acceptable common denominator and then the States should be free to go above them if they wish.
I am fine with the Feds sticking to national defense, interstate trade, interstate relations, medicare, social security, etc. Not sure how it got to the point that they are seizing ~20 percent of the GDP and using it to force the Federal will on everyone.
As for your specific questions:
- Voting ages: Fed votes set by Feds, State votes set by State
- Discriminate: No those are protected classes
- Discriminate: LGBT etc: Yes until science comes in.
- Deny care: Yes. That is why charities exist.
I never understand why you want to think the worse of the State level voters.
Continually you insist that they will fail their neighbors.
And you seem to forget that those who are treated poorly within their state are free to move to more Liberal enlightened States.
Instead you insist that the Liberals have the correct answers and that they should be free to force all ~320 million citizens to comply.
Remember all the wonderful things that the liberal agenda has brought us over the past 60 years.
Welfare Spending over the Years
"Remember all the wonderful things that the liberal agenda has brought us over the past 60 years."
By the time of our next Presidential election, Republicans will have controlled the Presidency for 32 of the last 52 years. By 2018, Republicans will have controlled the House of Representatives for 20 of the last 24 years, and the Senate for 20 of the last 38 years. 5 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. Republicans have an unprecedented-in-recent-history level of control of state governments in this country. If you're unhappy with the situation this country is in, it's pretty clear who's to blame, and it ain't liberals.
"I never understand why you want to think the worse of the State level voters."
Have you checked out some of the states lately?
"And you seem to forget that those who are treated poorly within their state are free to move to more Liberal enlightened States."
It's tough for cancer patients to move.
I think the Liberals have to own the War on Poverty and the huge increase in welfare and Medicaid.
Hopefully the dialing back since 1996 will continue and bear fruit.
And let me repeat again...
"Instead you insist that the Liberals have the correct answers and that they should be free to force all ~320 million citizens to comply." G2A
An interesting report though I assume peoples take away will vary.
"An interesting report though I assume peoples take away will vary."
I guess I would repeat my previous comment of "have you checked out some of the states lately?"
"have you checked out some of the states lately?"
The states are like NFL football teams. Some are viable and successful. Others are shoestring operations incapable of doing much more than cashing their TV checks. The great merit of Thursday night NFL broadcasts is to remind us how truly awful most NFL teams are. But on television this isn't immediately apparent. Even the worst teams manage to put 11 players on the field most of the time, all of them wearing both helmets and uniforms. The illusion is that compete under conditions of rough equality, the level playing field of which legend speaks which couldn't be further from the truth.
Only a few states really matter. The rest are fairly hopeless mom and pop operations involving huge amounts of space where hardly anyone lives or works. To pretend that a state like Wyoming, for example, one largely comprised of tumbleweeds, is comparable in any meaningful way to California or Texas is simply absurd.
--Hiram
Sean,
Different isn't necessarily bad. What in particular do you want me to look at?
Hiram,
I find it humorous and ironic when a liberal says something like this.
"Only a few states really matter. The rest are fairly hopeless mom and pop operations involving huge amounts of space where hardly anyone lives or works. To pretend that a state like Wyoming, for example, one largely comprised of tumbleweeds, is comparable in any meaningful way to California or Texas is simply absurd."
Somehow implying that some states matter more than others because they are "lucky enough to be born" with good ports, good land, good weather, etc. You are starting to sound like someone on the far right...
"What in particular do you want me to look at?"
Maybe read the link you posted, for starters. The comparison of California and Texas in there is illuminating. The data about some states are siphoning this money to plug holes in their state budget instead of caring poor people ought to sound some alarm bells. The fact that no states have been able to demonstrate via waiver that they have innovative strategies that do better at moving people off of welfare and into work ought to scare the bejeezus out of you (since that's your model for everything!).
Sean,
Let's remember that I want stupid irresponsible people to be in poverty to the point that they get desperate enough to seriously reconsider their belief systems and they become happy to voluntarily change and improve.
Remember that old saying, "You can bring a horse to water but you can not make them drink." Well that is certainly true with horses and dependent people. However if you let the horse get real thirsty they are more likely to drink when water is presented.
So I do not know how I would judge success in that report, without taking a great deal of time.
Liberals seem to want to make sure the dependent folks are never "thirsty". Which of course keeps them dependent.
TANF benefits are time-limited and have work requirements.
What programs, specifically, do you believe are sufficiently generous and non-demanding that they breed dependence?
Somehow implying that some states matter more than others because they are "lucky enough to be born" with good ports, good land, good weather, etc. You are starting to sound like someone on the far right.
It isn't a question of lucky enough to be born, it's question of being born. When Congress is in session, the state of Wyoming closes down, because all the residents have gone to Washington. It's much more a fiction than than a state.
I have to tell you, a few states matter, but most do not. As a rule of thumb, for a state to matter, people actually have to live within it's borders.
--Hiram
The reason why it's easy to goof on Wyoming is that since no one lives there, no one will be offended.
In the aftermath of the recent election, I heard a number of eloquent explanations why the votes of people who live in nearly unpopulated states should count more than mine. They had a special wisdom, I was told, unique insights into our politics which were the result of living their lives in nearly total isolation, which gave them time they could reading both the constitution and De Toqueville. The ingenuity and cleverness of these arguments was awe inspiring.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Please remember that even Wyoming has a half million people living there...
I do agree that the people who live in rural areas of the country are often more grounded and understand Lifes Greatest Lessons much better.
But that is not why their votes are weighted heavier. It is because we want the minority groups to have a voice and we want the USA to keep all of it's states. We do not want the urban people being dictators to everyone else in America.
Please note that it works well. Wyoming is still in the USA and there has been no talk of secession, even though their State has little power.
"Wyoming is still in the USA and there has been no talk of secession, even though their State has little power."
That's because they actually wield greater electoral power than any other State.
Moose
Sean,
As long as there are people like this writer lobbying for unlimited benefits, I am happy to push on the other side of the equation.
And here is an interesting Fact Check Article.
Moose,
Now don't be silly... They still only have 3 votes...
Now each individual citizen has more power, but it is still just a pittance compared to the urban States.
So yes the system is working great. And I am thankful because Wyoming is beautiful.
I am always amazed when urban Liberals want to rule the whole country with an iron fist... So much for that tolerance of different beliefs and peoples.
Here is an interesting take on TANF work reqts from our friends at Heritage.
Not sure if they are spinning or fact based.
Voting Power
You were saying...?
Moose
Excellent source...
And I believe I was saying...
"Now each individual citizen has more power, but it is still just a pittance compared to the urban States."
This is a trade off we make to keep America whole and stable. And to ensure the dominant majority of City/Coastal Americans do not run rough shod over everyone else.
Imagine how much better off and stable Iraq would be if the Shiites could not run rough shod over the Sunnis and Kurds as they can with their form of government.
"...but it is still just a pittance compared to the urban States."
Not according to my previous source.
Moose
Post a Comment