McConnell's Big Gamble
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is about to make a big legislative throw of the dice tomorrow, when he (finally) unveils the super-secret Senate Republican healthcare bill not only to the public, but also to the rest of his own caucus. It's a pretty big gamble for McConnell, since he has no way of knowing if he's got the votes to pass it or not. Either way -- whether successful or not -- McConnell says the effort will be over by the Independence Day holiday. Either they pass the bill, or the Senate will just move on to other agenda items.
McConnell has taken the drafting of the bill entirely upon himself, at this point. He hasn't yet gotten his own caucus to agree on any coherent plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. Please remember, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed a full seven years ago. In all that time, Republicans have never gotten behind a single replacement plan, so it's not all that surprising they can't manage to do so now. A group of 13 Republican senators was supposed to come up with a draft bill this year, but even this small a group could not agree on what to put in it. So McConnell just took over the process entirely. Senator Mike Lee -- one of those 13 senators -- just posted a video complaining that even he had no idea what will be in tomorrow's bill. So at this point, whatever is released tomorrow will have to logically be called "McConnellcare." His will be the only fingerprints on it, so it seems fitting.
Will McConnellcare be any better than Ryancare (the House bill that has been resoundingly rejected by the public at large)? Will it, in the words of Donald Trump, be less "mean"? We'll all find out, starting tomorrow.
Of course, McConnell may not see this as a particularly risky gamble. He knows that even if the Senate passes a bill, it will have to be reconciled with Ryancare in a House-Senate joint effort, which may prove to be impossible. And if it doesn't pass, McConnell will at least be able to say: "Hey, we tried," and push any blame for the bill's failure off on whichever individual Republicans vote against it. That's not exactly a political win/win situation for McConnell, but it's pretty close.
There are a handful of GOP senators that may well indeed vote against whatever McConnellcare bill emerges tomorrow. There's a real divide between those Republican senators who care that hundreds of thousands of their constituents got health insurance through Obamacare and don't want to see them tossed aside for purely ideological reasons, and those Republicans who have never even bought into the idea of the "replace" part in the first place -- people like Rand Paul, who just want a clean repeal of Obamacare with no other federal involvement in the health insurance industry whatsoever. This is the divide that so far has been impossible to bridge within the Republican caucus, and this is also one of the reasons McConnell is delaying the release of his bill's text as long as possible. Not everyone is going to be applauding the bill (no matter what's in it) even within his own party, and McConnell knows it.
The pressure on Republican senators is going to be intense, over the next week. On one side, there will be calls to pass anything, so they can go campaign on finally replacing Obamacare (which they've been promising their voters for the past seven years). On the other hand, senators represent entire states, not just cherry-picked Republican House districts, and many of them are already aware how unpopular Ryancare has proven to be. Paul Ryan did a masterful job of twisting arms in the House to get his bill passed, but that's going to be a lot harder in the Senate, for three basic reasons.
The first is that McConnell has already annoyed a large number of his Republicans by the secretive process he's attempting to use to jam a revision of one-sixth of the American economy through the Senate. One week from the public unveiling until they vote on it? That doesn't leave a lot of time for discussion or debate, and senators care about such things more than House members do.
The second big reason arm-twisting in the Senate is tougher is that only one-third of them are up for re-election next year. The others are either three or five years away from facing the voters (who have notoriously short attention spans as it is). So they feel less pressure, by design.
And the third big reason McConnell is going to have a tough time is the slim margin he's got for passing the bill. All it will take is three GOP senators deciding to vote no, and the bill will die. Rand Paul is probably already in this category. That means only two other Republicans have to review the McConnellcare bill and decide they simply cannot support it for one reason or another.
So the question will become whether the pressure from the party apparatus to "chalk up a victory -- any victory will do!" is greater than any three GOP senators' resolve not to vote for a bill that probably will have many of the House bill's shortcomings. This could mean Tea Party senators who decide McConnellcare is too generous as well as moderate senators who recoil from how many millions of people's lives would be negatively affected. Issues that have barely been talked about could become major roadblocks, such as whether McConnellcare defunds Planned Parenthood, or whether it includes money to address the opioid crisis. These are key sticking points for individual Republican senators, but there are also other Republicans on the other side of these issues as well. This is why this needle has been so hard to thread up until now -- it's not just how many people will lose insurance or how much Medicaid will be slashed. There are a whole host of issues that may become just as contentious.
McConnell is going to sound quite confident when he unveils the bill tomorrow, that's pretty much of a given. He's going to announce that he's successfully bridged the divide within his own party, and that McConnellcare is the best thing to come along since sliced bread. Beyond this posturing, though, I wonder whether this isn't all an exercise in futility for him.
If three or more Republicans stand firm against McConnellcare, then it will be voted down next week. The usual option in such a situation is that McConnell would quietly withdraw the vote from the schedule after getting a whipcount, in order to save both himself and the Republican Party some embarrassment. But it sure seems like McConnell is ruling this option out. If he personally pulls the bill and no vote is taken, then a whole lot of blame is going to be laid at his door. But if he holds the vote and the bill fails, then he can deflect the blame to the individuals who vote no. Politically, at this point, that's a safer option for McConnell.
Holding a vote that fails would also allow McConnell to do what he really wants to do anyway, which is to put the whole fiasco in his rearview mirror and move the Senate on to other pressing business. This may be the whole point of the exercise, in fact. A week or so ago, the members of the GOP group trying to hammer out a bill were beginning to walk back expectations that the bill would get a vote by the end of June. If McConnell truly thought it was possible to achieve consensus by giving them a few more weeks, he probably would have done so. But he didn't. He kept to his artificial self-imposed schedule anyway. This may signify that, to McConnell, the Senate legislative calendar is more important than continuing on the wild goose chase of finding the perfect Republican healthcare bill. He seems to be saying: "If it's going to fail, then it's going to fail, so let's just get it over with and move on."
Whatever happens, tomorrow is going to kick off one of the most intense weeks in the Senate in a long time. The Congressional Budget Office score of the bill is expected early next week, which will only add fuel to this fiery debate. There won't be much time to cut any deals or hammer out any compromises within the Republican caucus. The situation is basically going to be McConnellcare -- take it or leave it. The pressure from all sides will be enormous on every Republican senator.
Buckle up, everyone, because it's going to be a wild ride, that's for sure.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Will McConnellcare be any better than Ryancare (the House bill that has been resoundingly rejected by the public at large)
Will McConnellcare be any better than Ryancare (the House bill that has been resoundingly rejected by LEFT WINGERS at large)?
There... Fixed it for you :D
Buckle up, everyone, because it's going to be a wild ride, that's for sure.
Troo dat... With hysterical Democrats, it's ALWAYS a wild ride.. :D
Michale [1]
(...rejected by LEFT WINGERS at large)?
(Please let me in on that neat italic trick, I am unapologetically technophobic.)
I only remember one poll, don't ask me which. If the 59% in that poll against Ryancare/Trumpcare/McConnellcare are left wingers, then the Democratic Party will do well in 2018, should Republicare ( There.....fixed it for YOU(:>)) be "jammed down the throats" of the American public without proper debate, expert input and compassion for the vulnerable in our society. My bet is that the bill will have to be pulled by the Senator from Kentucky.
Hey CW
So, a filibuster is off the table?
Dems have surrendered their power?
You seem to be counting on 3 Repubs to save the day... scary.
A
it's quite scary to see how this stuff is playing out in congress. donTcare really does seem an apt name, since it appears he genuinely doesn't.
A. McG [2],
(Please let me in on that neat italic trick, I am unapologetically technophobic.)
Right above the box where you enter your comment is the link to the "Commenting Tips". That's the place to visit!
-Russ
Al,
(Please let me in on that neat italic trick, I am unapologetically technophobic.)
Use greater than '' less then to begin the quote...
Makes sure you close it with greater than '' less then...
"You're welcome"
-Maui, MOANA
:D You can also do bold by using 'B' instead of I :D
I only remember one poll, don't ask me which. If the 59% in that poll against Ryancare/Trumpcare/McConnellcare are left wingers, then the Democratic Party will do well in 2018, should Republicare ( There.....fixed it for YOU(:>))
Touche' :D
be "jammed down the throats" of the American public without proper debate, expert input and compassion for the vulnerable in our society. My bet is that the bill will have to be pulled by the Senator from Kentucky.
Let me put it to you this way..
The Democrat Party has absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION to complain about crappy healthcare plans and shitty healthcare plans legislative process..
NONE... ZERO... ZILCH.... NADA.....
vit's quite scary to see how this stuff is playing out in congress. donTcare really does seem an apt name, since it appears he genuinely doesn't.
Just as CrapCare and TrainWreckCare were also very apt names...
My point that the Democrat Party (and the entirety of the Left Wing, incidentally) is not in any moral position to point fingers is a valid point...
I have always said that getting Rush Limbaugh to spout GOP talking points or getting Michael Moore to spout out Left Wing talking points is no big accomplishment...
But if Rush Limbaugh spouts off Left Wing talking points or Michael Moore spouts off Right Wing talking points...
THAT is the time to sit up and take notice...
"Dems have no message, no plan, no leaders"
-Michael Moore
The Democrat Party is in serious trouble...
Anyone wanna lay bets on how long Pelosi keeps her job??
Just as CrapCare and TrainWreckCare were also very apt names...
My point that the Democrat[sic] Party (and the entirety of the Left Wing, incidentally) is not in any moral position to point fingers is a valid point...
an appeal to hypocrisy is not a valid point, it's a logical fallacy. obamacare's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
JL
Use greater than '' less then to begin the quote...
Makes sure you close it with greater than '' less then...
Well, THAT didn't come out too well
I thought there was a way to actually display the symbols..
> <
OK There we go...
Al,
Use greater than less then to begin the quote...
Makes sure you close it with greater than less then...
'I' gives you ITALICS, 'B' gives you BOLD
Hope this works..
Oh frak.. Just read the commenting tips, like Russ suggested....
an appeal to hypocrisy is not a valid point,
It's a perfectly valid point..
obamacare's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
And the Republican's healthcare plan, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, will save lives..
While there may be a valid point to ya'all's complaints against the Republican healthcare plan, ya'all don't have the moral authority to make that point..
In short, making the possibly right point for the wrong reasons is being probably wrong..
Liz...
This one's for you...
A sniper with Canada's elite special forces in Iraq has shattered the world record for the longest confirmed kill shot in military history at a staggering distance of 3,450 metres.
Sources say a member of Joint Task Force 2 killed an Islamic State insurgent with a McMillan TAC-50 sniper rifle while firing from a high-rise during an operation that took place within the last month in Iraq. It took under 10 seconds to hit the target.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-elite-special-forces-sniper-sets-record-breaking-kill-shot-in-iraq/article35415651/
Hooooaaaaaaaaa!!
While there may be a valid point to ya'all's complaints against the Republican healthcare plan, ya'all don't have the moral authority to make that point..
Something I believe was pointed out to me on more than one occasion.. :D
As far as the Handel/Ossif race goes..
President Trump said we would be winning so much that we would get tired of winning..
Well, he was half right.. :D
And the Republican's healthcare plan, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, will save lives..
based on the CBO score it will end up killing people, not saving them.
It's a perfectly valid point..
not according to the rules of logic.
tu quoque - You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
https://twitter.com/BecketAdams/status/877375505703596032/photo/1
Heh
based on the CBO score it will end up killing people, not saving them.
So, according to your interpretation of the CBO report, the GOP healthcare plan will kill every single American who enrolls in it and won't save a single solitary American..
Yet TrainWreckCare saved EVERY American who enrolled in it and didn't cause a SINGLE death...
:D
not according to the rules of logic.
not according to my rules of logic.
There.. Fixed it for you. :D
tu quoque - You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.
It's the way of the Weigantian... :D
Further, I am not avoiding having to engage the criticism..
I simply prefer to engage the criticism with someone who has standing to bring forth the criticism...
Put another way...
Do you have *ANYTHING* but the CBO report to support your criticism of the GOP healthcare plan???
Do you have ANY *objective* source that has a track record of being accurate when it comes to healthcare plan predictions??
No you do not..
Ergo, not only do ya'all not have standing to bring forth criticisms of the GOP healthcare plan, there is no factual evidence or objective evidence with a track record of correct predictions that supports your case against the GOP healthcare plan...
In short, I can only conclude that it's based on ideology, not on reality...
And further, the fact that the CBO has, for the most part, been wrong in favor of Democrats indicates their bias and their predictions are not to be trusted...
Michale
6
The Democrat Party has absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION to complain about crappy healthcare plans and shitty healthcare plans legislative process..
I am constrained to point out that if one required a "MORAL FOUNDATION to complain," your Orange Messiah would be a mute. :)
not according to my rules of logic.
There.. Fixed it for you. :D
logic doesn't have different rules for different people. logic has fixed rules, and is the basis for mathematics.
So, according to your interpretation of the CBO report, the GOP healthcare plan will kill every single American who enrolls in it and won't save a single solitary American.
uh, no. that's not what i wrote, it's a straw man argument.
Do you have ANY *objective* source that has a track record of being accurate when it comes to healthcare plan predictions??
that one is called an appeal to purity, known colloquially as "no true scotsman." are we going to go through the entire list of logical fallacies?
I simply prefer to engage the criticism with someone who has standing to bring forth the criticism...
logic does not recognize "standing." not engaging would mean not responding. you're engaging, just with the person and not the argument - which is why it qualifies as a fallacy.
JL
that one is called an appeal to purity, known colloquially as "no true scotsman." are we going to go through the entire list of logical fallacies?
We could do that..
OR...
You can just answer the question... :D
logic does not recognize "standing." not engaging would mean not responding. you're engaging, just with the person and not the argument - which is why it qualifies as a fallacy.
Which is why you qualify it as a fallacy because you have nothing with which to re-engage with.. :D
Now, if it were me...
I would start with the concession, "Yes, you are correct.. I have no moral foundation, no moral standing to make the argument.. But that doesn't change the veracity or factual nature of the argument itself."
But that would be me, I spose.. :D
Michale,
We are good shots, eh?
And, you know, that wasn't the first time ... :)
We are good shots, eh?
Apparently.. :D
And, you know, that wasn't the first time ... :)
Yep.. 3 of the top 5 longest sniper shots are held by Canadians...
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/files/graphics/0621_po_sniper/0621_po_sniper.png
Which is why you qualify it as a fallacy because you have nothing with which to re-engage with.. :D
that is correct, you have not yet made a valid argument, therefore i have nothing with which to engage.
here, let me help you. one valid argument you could make is that since obamacare has been implemented the overall death rate has not gone down.
in response, i would say that there are many non-medical factors contributing to the death rate, so it is not a good indicator of deaths that are medically preventable. further, specific diseases were prevented from killing people by removing financial barriers to diagnosis and treatment, like colon cancer.
JL
oh yes, here's a story on the colon cancer research.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/obamacare-saved-thousands-colon-cancer-death-report-finds-n710951
JL
that is correct, you have not yet made a valid argument, therefore i have nothing with which to engage.
Actually, I did make a valid argument.. You just CALL it invalid because it decimates yer position.. :D
There are no facts to support your claims against the Republican healthcare plan other than a prediction from an organization that has A> had many MANY false predictions with regards to healthcare and B> has a factual and proven Left Wing bias in their wrong predictions..
You see, I don't have to prove that the GOP healthcare is the greatest thing since frozen pizza..
I just have to show FACTS that indicate your claims against the GOP healthcare plan is based on ideological bias...
"Why are you putting tennis shows on!!??? You can't out run a bear!!!!"
"I don't have to out run a bear!! I just have to out run you!!"
-UP A CREEK
:D
The GOP HealthCare plan *MIGHT* be the deadly disaster you claim it will be..
It also MIGHT be the greatest thing since frozen pizza... :D
We *KNOW* that CrapCare was an unmitigated train wreck that broke under the strain of the lies and bullshit it was created from...
oh yes, here's a story on the colon cancer research.
Oh look!!
I have an article too!!! :D
Running The Numbers On Mortality Rates Suggests Obamacare Could Be Killing People
Could Obamacare be behind the strange, unexplained increase in American mortality rates? It’s hard to know for sure, but some evidence suggests it.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/25/running-numbers-mortality-rates-suggests-obamacare-killing-people/
As factually valid as your's is :D
And look here!!!
Beware Of False Claims That Obamacare Repeal Will Kill Thousands Of Americans: Part I
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/01/30/beware-of-false-claims-that-obamacare-repeal-will-kill-thousands-of-americans-part-i/#fa46e7417f37
So, who am I to believe??
Your spin or their spin???
And another one!!!
Obama Lied, People Died: Mortality Rate INCREASES Under ObamaCare
http://www.dailywire.com/news/15801/obama-lied-people-died-mortality-rate-increases-john-nolte#
You see, I can find just as many "facts" as you can to support my position.. :D
But the fact is, we don't KNOW what's going to happen..
We *DO* "KNOW" that the Democrats had their chance to fix healthcare and they royally frak'ed it all up..
Now it's the GOP's turn.. Let's see how they handle it..
But to cry hysterically that 50,000 Americans are going to die every minute because of the GOP healthcare plan that is nothing but legislation being bandied about??
That's just pure fear-mongering to serve an ideological agenda...
What it all boils down to is your argument consists of the CBO report...
The CBO is neither objective nor competent and, as such is NOT a valid piece of evidence..
But I understand why you have to use it because that is all their is...
@m,
Conover's article in Forbes is thoughtful and well written. The other two you provided are fallacious and poorly argued, so I'll focus on that one. Conover challenges the statistics of the Harvard studies' estimated deaths, and on those grounds he has a point.
My point is, we KNOW how bad TrainWreckCare was..
We don't KNOW how bad the GOP version will be...
Doesn't it make more sense to WAIT because you start declaring it's a catastrophe??
Ya know?? To see if it really IS one??
However, studies of specific diagnoses have found dramatic increases in early detection and prevention, and studies of hospital patients have indicated fewer preventable deaths. In addition to which, medical bankruptcy has plummeted. while Conover is right to advise caution, his advocacy of don'tcare has no factual basis
while Conover is right to advise caution, his advocacy of don'tcare has no factual basis
And neither does yours!!
THAT's the point..
You have a report from a KNOWN biased and KNOWN incompetent agency and the ONLY reason you are using it is because it says what you ideologically want to hear...
There are no FACTS to support your claims. There is only conjecture and supposition..
Michale
36
What it all boils down to is your argument consists of the CBO report...
Utter nonsensical BS. Setting aside your noise, most of this is simply common sense.
Regardless of the CBO numbers:
(1) Lower income people will lose access to health care they currently have.
(2) Higher income people will get a tax cut.
This ain't exactly rocket science. The Senate bill was written with Wall Street and profits in mind, not Americans.
Block granting Medicaid back to the states with per capita caps is problematic, particularly for states with higher populations of poor and/or elderly that would face federal reductions and likely be required to cut programs by changing eligibility, amount of benefits, and reimbursement to providers. These forced cuts would put states and providers that disproportionately rely on Medicaid at higher risk.
Like the House bill, this bill simply amends Obamacare and doesn't repeal it whatsoever. It's largely a financial bill that focuses on tax cuts for the wealthy while primarily taking away medical coverage from poor children, the elderly, the disabled, nursing home and long-term care providers and safety-net hospitals and clinics.
You have a report from a KNOWN biased and KNOWN incompetent agency and the ONLY reason you are using it is because it says what you ideologically want to hear...
that fallacy is a cross between ad hominem and burden of proof (ad ignorantium). claims that the CBO's data are imperfect is neither here nor there; the data do exist, and are based in fact.
in order for your argument against them to hold water, it has to have some factual basis of its own. as yet, you've provided exactly nothing.
JL
just for some context, the CBO has been quite good at forecasting, and has shown no prior bias in any particular direction. that they overestimated obamacare's figures on enrollment is not evidence that the office as a whole has any inherent bias. because so many different variables are involved in healthcare, it is difficult to predict accurately. the CBO estimated 21 million new enrollees and the real number turned out to be 11.5 million. that may not be right on the nose, but it's not out in left field either. their forecast errors on more predictable phenomena like GDP and revenue are remarkably accurate.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50831-RevenueForecasting.pdf
JL
let us presume for the sake of argument that the CBO estimate is just as inaccurate as its initial obamacare prediction, and in the same direction. if so, that still leaves twelve million more people without coverage, at risk of getting sick, going broke and over ten thousand of them dying that would otherwise have lived. will that happen in ALL cases? of course not. is the estimate fallible? sure. but there's certainly NO evidence to suggest that the GOP bill might result in more care, better care, fewer bankruptcies or fewer deaths.
JL
Hi Kick!!! :D
(1) Lower income people will lose access to health care they currently have.
(2) Higher income people will get a tax cut.
Cite???
This ain't exactly rocket science. The Senate bill was written with Wall Street and profits in mind, not Americans.
And Odumbo's and Dumbocrat's TrainWreck bill was written with Insurance companies and drug companies and profits in mind, not Americans..
What's yer point? :D
that fallacy is a cross between ad hominem and burden of proof (ad ignorantium).
You ever notice how you argue my argument and don't argue the facts contained within the argument?? :D
claims that the CBO's data are imperfect is neither here nor there; the data do exist, and are based in fact.
No, they are not based in fact.. They are based in conjecture and supposition and the CBO has always been WRONG when it comes to healthcare predictions.
THAT is the only relevant fact...
but there's certainly NO evidence to suggest that the GOP bill might result in more care, better care, fewer bankruptcies or fewer deaths.
And there is no factual evidence to suggest that it WON'T result in more care and better care and fewer blaa blaaa blaaa..
Basically, ya'all have become Republicans complaining about TrainWreckCare...
And LIKE Republicans complaining about TrainWreckCare, you *MAY* be right...
But you also MAY be wrong..
All I am saying is that Democrats had their chance and they blew it..
Now the American people are giving the GOP their shot..
Elections have consequences... I heard that somewhere before... :D
@CW (pay attention to this, it's your kind of geekery),
interesting polling issue: of the five major polls that have been completed in the last three days, three of the five have donald at exactly -21 and the other two at exactly -8. to me that divide screams out a difference in methodology. consider for a moment that rasmussen also provides a running count of the strength of support and opposition, as follows:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history
i don't think it's a coincidence that their strong minus weak index comes out to -13, which is exactly the difference between -8 and -21.
based on these measurements, my hypothesis is that rasmussen and yougov probably use two or four-point likert scales while the others use three or five-point scales. my guess is that about thirteen percent of respondents choose something to the effect of "neither approve nor disapprove" when the option is offered, but when that choice is removed and they are forced to choose one side of the fence, those same people tend to give donald the benefit of the doubt.
JL
7
"and the entirety of the Left Wing"
Liars gotta lie.
And you are lying again.
The real left fought against and condemned the right wing Obamacare corporate subsidies approach, and we never stopped.
What happened?
For a while, you were doing so well not making the false generalizations and doing the "ya'all" crap.
Please go back to striving for a modicum of integrity.
A
You ever notice how you argue my argument and don't argue the facts contained within the argument?? :D
in this case it's because there ARE none.
JL
Liars gotta lie.
And you are lying again.
Oh quit whining and grow a thicker skin... Jeeesh...
The real left fought against and condemned the right wing Obamacare corporate subsidies approach, and we never stopped.
Yea, and how good did that work out?? :D
What happened?
For a while, you were doing so well not making the false generalizations and doing the "ya'all" crap.
The exceptions know who they are..
If you ware one of the exceptions, then the entirety doesn't apply to you, now does it??
You ever notice how you argue my argument and don't argue the facts contained within the argument?? :D
in this case it's because there ARE none.
Well, except for the FACT that the CBO has *ALWAYS* been wrong with their healthcare related predictions and that their healthcare related predictions have ALWAYS had a Leftist bias..
But yea.. Other than those facts, there were none. :^/
based on these measurements, my hypothesis is that rasmussen and yougov probably use two or four-point likert scales while the others use three or five-point scales. my guess is that about thirteen percent of respondents choose something to the effect of "neither approve nor disapprove" when the option is offered, but when that choice is removed and they are forced to choose one side of the fence, those same people tend to give donald the benefit of the doubt.
And that just kills ya, doesn't it?? :D
But ya don't mind when the President is NOT given the benefit of the doubt, eh?? :D
nypoet
There is some evidence that the increase in mortality rates both here and in Canada are being driven by the opioid crisis.
And the sad reality about that is that the pharmaceuticals have become readily available due to the corruption in both parties by the pharma industry... specifically the lack of regulation.
Not sure if a link can be drawn to increased access due to increased numbers of insured, but that would be like blaming Bernie for the actions of the shooter the other day.
A
you *MAY* be right...
But you also MAY be wrong..
this is a tautology (yet another fallacy). sure i could be wrong, but the probability is much higher that i'm right. the CBO does base its predictions on known facts. that's why even though they were wrong on the extent of the change, they were right about its direction and scale. simply put, if you ONLY add eleven million insured and ONLY prevent ten thousand a year from dying, it's still a win.
JL
And that just kills ya, doesn't it?? :D
nope. people's optimism says a lot more about them than it does about him, and i rate that a good thing.
JL
50
Your feelings of entitlement to lie have been noted.
Your lack of ethics continues to astound.
"Yea, and how good did that work out??"
Lots of progress actually.
Ever increasing support, and Single Payer just passed the Senate in CA.
Claiming a blanket of exceptions have been noted, and you are thus free to lie through false generalizations is sociopathic.
A
JL,
sure i could be wrong, but the probability is much higher that i'm right.
That was the general consensus around 8 months ago... :D
the CBO does base its predictions on known facts.
Yea, that's the claim...
they were right about its direction and scale. simply put, if you ONLY add eleven million insured and ONLY prevent ten thousand a year from dying, it's still a win.
And it's STILL wrong...
Michale
45
Cite???
Can't you read?
(1) Common sense.
(2) The Senate bill.
And Odumbo's and Dumbocrat's TrainWreck bill was written with Insurance companies and drug companies and profits in mind, not Americans..
What's yer point? :D
Oh, excuse me... here let me dumb it down to idiot level:
(1) It doesn't repeal and replace Obamacare, which Republicans say it does. It doesn't because it's simply amendments that shift the costs from the rich to the poor.
(2) It raises premiums for those who need it most.
(3) It guts Medicaid and block grants it to the states, hitting poor and elderly states the hardest.
(4) Rich people get tax cuts and retroactive checks for investors.
If you want to fix rising health care costs for Americans, you don't accomplish that by shafting those who need it most by taking away tax credits and shifting the costs to them and effectively pricing them out of the market, causing them to lose their health care. There is a section in the Senate bill where they repeal the net investment tax. It is effectively a retroactive capital gains tax cut for the rich.
Medicaid is being gutted so rich people can get richer and investors can receive retroactive tax credits.
That's my point.
Kick,
Can't you read?
(1) Common sense.
(2) The Senate bill.
So, no cite??
That's my point.
So you concede that Odumbo's and Dumbocrat's TrainWreck bill was written with Insurance companies and drug companies and profits in mind, not Americans...
And that you didn't have a problem with that then...
So, why do you have a problem with it now??
Because it's coming from the GOP...
And that you didn't have a problem with that then...
because it still contained many specific provisions that made things better than the status quo at the time. marginally better is still better.
So, why do you have a problem with it now??
because the current bill contains specific provisions that promise to make things worse than the status quo. the evidence of that is in the text of the bill.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/22/politics/republican-health-care-bill-text/index.html
yes, both policies contain big giveaways to the rich and the insurance companies and drug companies. that point is conceded.
however, protecting people with pre-existing conditions is still better than allowing those protections to be removed by states. 11.5 million more people with insurance is still better than twenty-four million fewer or twelve million fewer. or two million fewer. no matter whether it's twenty million or two million, a little better is still better and a little worse would still be worse.
JL
Michale
59
So, no cite??
DYOFR. Read the Senate bill.
So you concede that Odumbo's and Dumbocrat's TrainWreck bill was written with Insurance companies and drug companies and profits in mind, not Americans...
So you concede you're an idiot.
And that you didn't have a problem with that then...
So you concede you're a liar and an idiot.
So, why do you have a problem with it now??
So you concede you're a liar, an idiot, and you can't read what I already wrote several times in my posts.
Because it's coming from the GOP...
I don't care who pulled it out of whose ass. Your standard argument about Party bigotry doesn't work with me. You seem to NOT be able to grasp the FACT that I'm not a Democrat. That same lame argument from you... your "Idiot Argument"... is overused, but it's obviously pretty much all you've got. Lying, asking to be spoon-fed links, and making up things about other posters is infinitely easier than actual discussion as long as you don't mind looking like an uneducated and easily conned minion of the GOP and the traitor Benedict Donald. Carry on! :)
because it still contained many specific provisions that made things better than the status quo at the time. marginally better is still better.
So, if it throws the peons a few scraps, it's perfectly acceptable to give huge profits to the Insurance Companies and the Drug Companies...
Is that it??
DYOFR. Read the Senate bill.
You made the claim.. YOU back it up..
This is just like your secret indictment that never was...
So you concede you're a liar and an idiot.
Awwwww you were doing SO well... :^/
Michale
[23, and all the others]
Do you have "ANYTHING" but the CBO report to support your criticism of the GOP healthcare plan???
The previous replies to your multiple posts have been on point; I would like to add a little more to them with a source more credible than engineer Brian Frankie ( your first and third cites, since #3 praises his analysis) and the Forbes article, which I was unable to bring up on my MacBook.
The CBO report does not address the question of mortality resulting from the AHCA. It addresses the economic question of how many Americans would lose health insurance coverage were the ACHA to be adopted. The CBO are experienced, non-partisan economists who estimate 17 million who are currently covered in the Obamacare era would lose coverage in the first year, up to 24 million who would lose coverage in a decade.
It is intuitively obvious that death rates would rise if fewer people had health insurance and thereby access to health care. How could this be measured?
Fortunately, this question has been addressed by comparison of death rates in Massachusetts before and after the institution of Romneycare, the model for Obamacare. From the "Annals of Internal Medicine", a highly respected, peer-reviewed medical journal, we see a study of 146,825 persons conclude:
"Reform in Massachusetts was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality compared with the control group (-2.9%, p=0.003, or an absolute decrease of 8.2 deaths per 100,000 adults). Deaths from causes amenable to health care also significantly decreased (-4.5%; p<.001). Changes were larger in counties with lower household incomes and higher pre-reform uninsured rates."
This translates to 1 death per year being prevented for each ~830 adults who gained health insurance. When that is applied to the 17,000,000 who would lose insurance one comes up with about 20,000 deaths within the period of the study, which was about 4 years.
Granted, in a study of this kind is difficult to compare cohorts sequentially because of multiple factors, including short-term discrepancies in disease prevalence,continual improvements in treatment modalities; and for the need for long-term follow-up on the effect of access to health care on chronic diseases and the statistical blip of increased ability to determine cause of death when insurance-covered patients can be diagnosed rather than assigned to "died of natural causes". (These last two, in case you missed my point, are probable sources of confusion for Engineer Frankie and the Forbes article, among others which have not been considered.)
So, while you are entitled to quibble about the exact numbers due to the inherent difficulties, in these analyses, it is not credible to deny that tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths will occur, especially among poorer Americans, as a result of taking away medical insurance, even the admittedly flawed Obamacare. Since the AHCA will remove the Medicaid safety net to our poorest over time, it will cause more deaths than if Obamacare remained the law of the land and was not undermined, as is now proposed under the Trump budget, by withholding the subsidies.
@kick,
So you concede you're a liar, an idiot, and you can't read what I already wrote several times in my posts.
michale himself has acknowledged on numerous occasions that he's not the sharpest tool in the shed, which in my view puts him head and shoulders above most people who tend to read the right wing talking points. name-calling is not productive, and does not help him see where his logic is flawed and his factual claims are inaccurate. play nice!
JL
Oh, sorry, I meant to include the citation:
Ann Intern Med.2014:160(9):585-593.
Michale
63
This is just like your secret indictment that never was...
Your ignorance of the sealed indictments proves only your ignorance.
Awwwww you were doing SO well... :^/
Awwwww... you never were. Your tired one-size-fits-all "Idiot Argument" doesn't work in every situation so you've literally got no argument other than making up lies. :)
Al,
We'll just have to agree to disagree..
The CBO has a rotten track record for correctly predicting healthcare related outcomes..
I am also constrained to point out that what we have seen in the House and Senate bears little resemblance to what will likely be the law of the land..
As I said to JL, maybe it's better to WAIT and see if there will be a catastrophe, eh??
I mean, it's not as if the Left can do anything to stop it...
The Right made many MANY SKY IS FALLING predictions about TrainWreckCare...
Now the Left is making many MANY SKY IS FALLING predictions about the GOP care...
Hoo hum.. Another day in the life... :D
JL,
Thank you...
I think you're right, CW. I think McConnell slapped this together just to get rid of it.
I think he thinks it's a third rail issue, and wants to get it off the table well before the midterms, but also realizes that having NO vote would also be held against the Republicans by the their own base. So this.
That doesn't mean, of course, that he won't make a show of trying to pass it, so I expect we'll see Yurtle make the rounds on all the Sunday shows. Maybe he'll even do a 'Full Ginsberg'. heh.
I mean, it's not as if the Left can do anything to stop it...
That's right, M. It's all on the heads of the Pubs if they pass it.
"Why, the better to see you, my dear."
- Big Bad Wolf
16 (michale) -
longest confirmed kill shot in military history at a staggering distance of 3,450 metres. ... It took under 10 seconds to hit the target.
That is plumb amazing.
I'm sure you know how such time and distance allows random events to disrupt one's aim.
It's all wrapped up in two words which we can find in a movie quote. You're an authoritative source for movie quotes, but I don't recall the name of the film in which John Wayne's character reminds his love interest, who has taken up a rifle to help in a defense: "Windage and elevation, Mrs [???]. Windage and elevation."
What it all boils down to is this...
The Democrats will have "facts" that "prove" that they are right and the Republicans are wrong..
The Republicans will have "facts" that "prove" that they are right and the Democrats are wrong..
And the REAL facts are somewhere in the middle of that...
And so it goes and so it goes...
Aloysius McG [64]:
Here is a similar article in the New England Journal of Medicine:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1202099
Net net: for every 455 people who gained medical coverage one life was saved per year. Thus removing coverage for 20 million (a low estimate) results in 43,956 additional American lives lost per year.
50% more than all gun violence.
These was a good podcast on 1A about the opioid crisis - the numbers are staggering. Removing Medicaid is going to cause a significant rise in deaths unless programs are put in place.
There is an L.A. Times article on this as well:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-obamacare-repeal-opioids-20170621-story.html
That is plumb amazing.
If ya like that, check this out..
Police Officer in TX Shoots Suspect At 104yds, Holding Horses, With Handgun
AUSTIN (KXAN) – The gunman who attacked the federal courthouse, the Mexican consulate and the Austin Police Department headquarters was killed by a single shot taken from 312 feet away by mounted patrol Sgt. Adam Johnson who also held the reigns of two horses.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/12/08/police-officer-tx-shoots-suspect-104yds-holding-horses-handgun/
THAT's a cop who will never have to buy a beer in ANY cop bar in the country...
"Windage and elevation, Mrs. Langdon; windage and elevation."
-Colonel John Henry Thomas (John Wayne), THE UNDEFEATED
:D
What it all boils down to is this...
there are people who can change their minds when well researched facts run counter to their current understanding, and there are those that can't.
After straining for a minute to defend the distinctive off-topic nature of the above comment, I thought of one.
It is just that I'm in an expansive mood, just as I was Tuesday night, and for the same reason.
Tuesday, a calcified party and their mega-donors shot themselves in the foot trying again to foist off their self image, this time with a candidate and message cut from the same cloth as Macron, only using knock-off blueprints, along with instructions which translated badly.
The Senate bill is so bad that now we know that nothing will see the light of day any time soon. And, in the meantime, this will be TrumpCare. The Democrats, the media, and the special interest groups were ready for it. Those winds will carry the message to those needing to touch and feel it.
Just for example: soon the the elderly, and the adult children who might otherwise need to somehow provide the care, will be lead to understand that this threatens part of the arc of their care, provided through Medicaid and not through Medicare.
Whether it would or not, or whether it should, or not: who cares? "The genius of the left is the fact an entitlement once granted can never be rescinded." That's attributable at least as far back as Pat Buchanan.
For a public at large, whether that is any longer "fact" is open to debate. For the generation now on Medicare, urban and rural alike, however, it's as much a fact as the need for the right windage and elevation.
Yea, Yea, Yea..
Gloom and doom.. The Sky Is Falling...
Everyone is going to die and it's ALL because of the evil Republicans.. :^/
I am sure glad ya'all would NEVER stoop to hysterical fear-mongering... :^/
For a public at large, whether that is any longer "fact" is open to debate. For the generation now on Medicare, urban and rural alike, however, it's as much a fact as the need for the right windage and elevation.
"You tap dance better than anyone I know!!"
Captain Galandon, OCS Class Of 1990
:D
there are people who can change their minds when well researched facts run counter to their current understanding, and there are those that can't.
Come talk to me when you have "well researched facts" that are free from political bigotry... :D
there are people who can change their minds when well researched facts run counter to their current understanding, and there are those that can't.
Democrats can always send a scumbag Bernie Bro amongst a bunch of unarmed Republicans...
THAT'LL change some minds.. :^/
Rural Medicare recipients are going to feel the pinch. Rural hospitals are far more expensive per patient than urban ones and removing more patients from the pool will result in hospital closures and poorer services. Also, specialists find it very difficult to make money in sparsely populated areas.
The rural divide has just gotten worse, and since the 45-istas are predominantly rural and old, they are going to feel the pain of their own stupidity.
It is just a shame that sane people are going to get hurt at the same time.
Come talk to me when you have "well researched facts" that are free from political bigotry... :D
All you see is political bigotry, so I don't bother trying any longer. You live in your "facts have to be politically correct or I'll ignore them" world my friend.
I love being wrong - it means I'm still learning.
Hey gang
I don't think anybody here likes Jimmy Dore, but in this segment he shows a video that someone else put together about the corporate media that is well worth watching.
Funny, sad, disturbing... but not political in any partisan way.
There is a brief commentary before, and he stops it twice for a little more, but I think everyone can tolerate it... this is not a trick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVQH-dYIzgg
I did try to find the video without his commentary, but no luck.
You have to feel bad for the people who still watch these outlets for news.
You won't be sorry.
A
Al,
You must understand that people who have a muscular set of critical thinking skills can watch any news they wish - to glean whatever they wish to glean - and you don't need to feel sorry for them.
Now, as for those "consumers of news" who do not have the luxury of being able to intelligently process the news they consume because they do not possess critical thinking skills ... go ahead and feel sorry for them but, that seems to me to be a wasted emotion.
You have to feel bad for the people who still watch these outlets for news.
You won't be sorry.
You are right - both times.
This is just the Entertainment Division's complete takeover of TV News, as far as Im concerned.
Here are my reliable news services:
1. BBC
2. The Economist
3. NY Times
4. Washington Post
5. The Guardian
I'm open to the opinion that there is a left wing bias in these, however the BBC is pretty independent and facts oriented. The Economist, if anything, leans right, certainly Libertarian. The others are just some of the remaining quality newspapers that try to check their facts and clearly identify opinion from news.
Hi Liz
I'm not sure if anyone who still watches those outlets can match or even approximate your skills... and I think the same is probably true of those who make and present it.
But I do feel sorry for them.
Most of them are probably victims of habituation rather than genetically challenged.
A
neil
87
I don't know if you made it to the end, but one of the off camera cohosts mentioned how that process has decimated the number of journalists being employed and created a vacuum in local news (actual journalism even if not up to national or international standards).
There are a lot fewer dogs watching the local hen houses these days. And those stories, like the type which may have covered fire code violations at the Grenfell Towers (I don't know if the same process is occurring in the UK) used to play an important role in our society.
A
All you see is political bigotry, so I don't bother trying any longer. You live in your "facts have to be politically correct or I'll ignore them" world my friend.
No, my facts have to be free from politics, period..
Because if they are not, they are not facts. They are spin..
It's THAT simple.. :D
Rural Medicare recipients are going to feel the pinch. Rural hospitals are far more expensive per patient than urban ones and removing more patients from the pool will result in hospital closures and poorer services. Also, specialists find it very difficult to make money in sparsely populated areas.
The rural divide has just gotten worse, and since the 45-istas are predominantly rural and old, they are going to feel the pain of their own stupidity.
It is just a shame that sane people are going to get hurt at the same time.
Yea, that's the claim..
Yet it is ONLY supported by political spin and not factual reality...
You MAY turn out to be right..
But what ya'all (for the most part) can't concede is that ya'all MAY turn out to be wrong...
SANDERS LAWYERED UP IN FEDERAL PROBE OF BURLINGTON COLLEGE
https://vtdigger.org/2017/06/22/sanders-lawyered-up-in-federal-probe-of-burlington-college/
According to ya'all's standards, Bernie's wife is GUILTY because she lawyered up...
Oh wait.. I forgot... Ya'all have different standards..
When a Left Winger lawyers up, it's perfectly acceptable..
It's only when a RIGHT Winger laywers up does that indicate guilt..
I keep forgetting the whole double standards thing..
The FBI’s Briefing On The GOP Baseball Shooting Couldn’t Have Been More Bizarre
The FBI tried to claim that the shooting at the baseball field was spontaneous and had no target, despite all evidence to the contrary.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/22/the-fbis-briefing-on-the-gop-baseball-shooting-couldnt-be-more-bizarre/
The Left Wingery's hold on the FBI is still highly effective.... :^/
GOP Bill Will Transform American Health Care - For the Better
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/06/23/the-new-senate-republican-bill-will-transform-american-health-care/#313a1d7a4318
As I said.. Ya'all have your "facts"...
And the Right has their "facts"....
And the REAL facts are somewhere in the middle..
Oregon Study: Medicaid 'Had No Significant Effect' On Health Outcomes vs. Being Uninsured
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/02/oregon-study-medicaid-had-no-significant-effect-on-health-outcomes-vs-being-uninsured/#64c0c0316043
OUCH...
Government run health insurance offers NOTHING better over being uninsured..
That's GOTTA hurt!! :D
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/23/senate-announced-probe-loretta-lynch-behavior-2016/
HA!!!!!! :D
JL,
Oregon Study: Medicaid 'Had No Significant Effect' On Health Outcomes vs. Being Uninsured
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/02/oregon-study-medicaid-had-no-significant-effect-on-health-outcomes-vs-being-uninsured/#64c0c0316043
Was that one of those "facts" you were talking about?? :D