Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Repeal of Obamacare

Repeal of Obamacare (Page 15)
Thread Tools
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2017, 06:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Here's the thing: The elephant in the room is that the GOP decided from day one that they would oppose Obama at every term. Maybe a deal could have been struck, but I'd be hard pressed to believe it would be a fair one.

Exactly. I seem to recall them even fussing over pretty minor appointments.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2017, 06:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Trump
If ObamaCare is hurting people, & it is, why shouldn't it hurt the insurance companies & why should Congress not be paying what public pays?
Nothing says you have faith that the ACA will fail like announcing you want to sabotage it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2017, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
There is a fundamental difference between allowing an opponent to participate and bipartisanship.
If you would like to make that distinction, alright.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
One of these differences is if so inclined, the opponent will attempt to flip the former when the winds change direction.
The party which wins the majority of seats has the right to set the agenda, that is what they have been elected for, and it is good polity and politics to involve the minority. The minority party has to accept that it has a minority, and perhaps that it received the minority of seats for a reason. That's how it works in the US now, but not how it used to nor how it works in other, functioning democracies. And this is destroying the US itself with this behavior.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My argument is this is a poor strategy for a policy which will directly affect the entire country. It's poor when Democrats do it. It's poor when Republicans do it. The difference in Flaming Asshole Quotient between them doesn't make the strategy any better.
By the same token it's equally poor strategy if the minority has this veto power even if there is an electoral majority for the other position. From that perspective, doing nothing can be exactly as bad as doing something. This whole “both sides are equally to blame” or I don't want to discuss the “flaming asshole quotient” is a false equivalency.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As for the Republican vision, at the time, they had a clear vision of keeping the system closer to the way it was pre-ACA.
That's not what vision means: the Democrats got elected also on the promise of revamping the health care system, they even had a 60 seat majority in the Senate. That's a very clear mandate from the voters for the Democrats, and therefore a rejection of the GOP's stance for a status quo. Since the ACA became law Republicans have promised for 7+ years to replace it with “something better” — the GOP ran on this. And half a year into the trifecta, they have nothing to show for it, not even committees that work out what the Republican position on health care actually is.

At that time the Democrats were 2/3rds done with the ACA. They got all parties (small p) involved in the health care business at a table, and involved those when they created the ACA. That doesn't mean everyone was (completely) happy or that there weren't people, organizations and such that opposed it. But they made sure they had buy in from health care providers, insurance companies, etc.

Likening the genesis of the ACA to the GOP's attempts to reform health care now is really a false equivalency.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2017, 08:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Taking away an existing benefit is much harder than arguing against it before it's been enacted.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of the voters were in favor of it. And it isn't a benefit if you (as in the democratically elected majority) decide to pay for it, it is a right (pay something, get something).
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The way we know it was substance and not politics is because the vast majority of the GOP oppose it on principle.
Are you talking about party officials or voters? Trump did not run (and win) on a promise to abolish the ACA and replace it with nothing. He promised to replace it with something better, something where everybody would be covered and all the other positive aspects of the ACA (most importantly the ban on pre-existing conditions) would be preserved while being “cheaper and better”. And one of the main reasons why Republican efforts to repeal the ACA were defeated, because Medicaid and its expansion is very popular with voters of all stripes.

In my opinion this was the GOP's last chance to stop the US from moving to a system that resembles what other comparable democracies have had for decades (or, in some cases, more than a century).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2017, 08:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Are you talking about party officials or voters? Trump did...
I'm talking about party officials 8 years ago. That was what the question was about.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2017, 09:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm talking about party officials 8 years ago. That was what the question was about.
The respect for the democratic process means the GOP should have accepted that voters had spoken in favor of significant changes to the US health care system.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2017, 10:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Didn't they do stimulus first?

I don't particularly care for Rahm, probably because he strikes me as the worst of liberal politics. It's somewhat amusing he keeps getting brought up.

Here's the thing: The elephant in the room is that the GOP decided from day one that they would oppose Obama at every term. Maybe a deal could have been struck, but I'd be hard pressed to believe it would be a fair one.
I don't care for Rahm either. I'm bringing him up because he's a dirty mother****er. When the designated dirty mother****er says a political maneuver is too out on a limb, it's too out on a limb.

As for the stimulus, when it comes to the list of things Republicans don't oppose on principle... redistribution of wealth is on there?

As for the elephant in the room... I opposed both the stimulus, and attempting health care reform so quickly. I patently reject the reasons for my opposition were to oppose Obama just because he was Obama, seeing how I voted for the guy.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2017, 10:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The respect for the democratic process means the GOP should have accepted that voters had spoken in favor of significant changes to the US health care system.
The respect for the democratic process means the Democrats should have accepted pissing off 40% of congress is a dangerous game.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 01:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
By the same token it's equally poor strategy if the minority has this veto power even if there is an electoral majority for the other position.
I don't understand this sentence. Is it supposed to be saying giving the minority veto power is a bad strategy?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 03:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The respect for the democratic process means the Democrats should have accepted pissing off 40% of congress is a dangerous game.
I wouldn't frame it like that: being “pissed off” is an emotional state of mind, and I don't think it is good to channel this energy against the other side. Especially since I believe that people such as Mitch McConnell never intended to be open to participating, they wanted to prioritize not giving Obama “wins” over what is good for the country.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't understand this sentence. Is it supposed to be saying giving the minority veto power is a bad strategy?
No, it means that the majority has been legitimized by the voters to chart the course and the role of the minority is to accept that they have not been tasked with choosing where to go, and their role is to suggest smaller course corrections and hold the majority accountable.

And if you then become the majority again, you can't carelessly dismantle agreements and laws made by prior administrations and Congresses.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 04:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
And if you then become the majority again, you can't carelessly dismantle agreements and laws made by prior administrations and Congresses.
But they can. That's my whole point. The Republicans were inches away from doing just that.

The only way this can be avoided is to get the opposition to buy in and vote for it. Then they're on the hook for it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 04:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I wouldn't frame it like that: being “pissed off” is an emotional state of mind, and I don't think it is good to channel this energy against the other side. Especially since I believe that people such as Mitch McConnell never intended to be open to participating, they wanted to prioritize not giving Obama “wins” over what is good for the country.
As I said, I disagreed with Obama's choice to begin on contentious issues like the stimulus package and health care reform.

As I also said, I voted for the guy. Hard to argue my opinion was motivated by the desire to deprive Obama of wins.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 11:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Clinton's first 4 years. He started at first base, bought the flowers, candy, then moved to second. He worked it slow over a span of years before splashing them with the goods.
What? Subego literally used Clinton as another example of this not happening.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Also note, I can't speak for Rahm, but the analysis I came to at the time wasn't some bit of political brilliance. It was quite simply being an adult during the Clinton administration.

He led with a bunch of shit the Republicans didn't want, and it ended up kind of a mess. I was blown away Obama seemed not to learn this obvious lesson from very recent history.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 02:03 PM
 
It's possible my memory is faulty.

I remember Clinton winning. Him swinging his dick around like he owned the place, which got him a big, fat Contract for America.

Clinton went "oh", and reeled it in.

Then came the candy and flowers, some heavy petting, and before we knew it, things were so good we couldn't help but bust a dot com all over the place.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 07:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't care for Rahm either. I'm bringing him up because he's a dirty mother****er. When the designated dirty mother****er says a political maneuver is too out on a limb, it's too out on a limb.
The read I get wasn't that it wasn't worth the effort. I disagree vehemently.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
As for the stimulus, when it comes to the list of things Republicans don't oppose on principle... redistribution of wealth is on there?
Stimulus is also tax cuts. It was also time sensitive. Can't put stimulus on the backburner when the economy has melted down.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
As for the elephant in the room... I opposed both the stimulus, and attempting health care reform so quickly. I patently reject the reasons for my opposition were to oppose Obama just because he was Obama, seeing how I voted for the guy.
Yeah, that's irrelevant. Jeff Flake's op ed spelled it out. The GOP was ungettable. That means if Obama conformed to your political strategy it still would have ended the same.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 07:17 PM
 
The best argument against the ACA was its god awful poll numbers. However, when you drilled down, it had very strong support within the democratic electorate, which is not something that can be said for the GOP plan(s) and their electorate.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
But they can. That's my whole point. The Republicans were inches away from doing just that.
Just because you can do something doesn't you should. Again, democratic norms which have eroded to the bare minimum in the US are not laws, you can stick to the letter of the laws and rules while violating the spirit.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The only way this can be avoided is to get the opposition to buy in and vote for it. Then they're on the hook for it.
No, that's not the only way, as I wrote if you stick to democratic norms (which are customs, not laws), you easily avoid this. It is interesting to see that you think that only if you had buy in from the GOP would they share responsibility for what happens to the US health care system. You are not the only one to see it this way, there were op eds against the GOP's health care bills as well as Trump himself that claimed that “letting the ACA fail” is the way to go, and that because they hadn't passed anything they were off the hook, responsibility-wise. However, as soon as the GOP took control of one of the chambers (and now both chambers and the Presidency) did they share responsibility — not for the laws that were passed in the past, but for sheparding the health care system to a safe future. Even if you plan a total revamp of the system, it is the GOP's responsibility to stabilize the markets until that reform bill has congealed (that were destabilized among other things by the uncertain future of the ACA and key changes as far as subsidies go).

Also internationally, the Trump administration threatens to not stick to deals that were agreed upon by past administrations (e. g. the US left the Paris Climate Accord and threatens not to certify that Iran is in compliance with the Iran deal). That sets a very dangerous precedence as it erodes trust in the US as a reliable partner. In Germany, trust in the US as a partner is at the same level as Russia, and in other countries the picture is similar.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Hard to argue my opinion was motivated by the desire to deprive Obama of wins.
I didn't claim you did, I specifically wrote Republicans like Mitch McConnell.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 07:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
But they can. That's my whole point. The Republicans were inches away from doing just that.
Would you say it makes political sense for the GOP to repeal the ACA?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 07:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The best argument against the ACA was its god awful poll numbers. However, when you drilled down, it had very strong support within the democratic electorate, which is not something that can be said for the GOP plan(s) and their electorate.
I think the GOP leadership has to formulate actual goals on what to improve about health care. Cutting spending (especially on Medicaid) to allow for tax cuts Is not a health care-related goal. The ACA set out to solve a few key issues such as insuring those who were at the time left out of the health insurance market — because they couldn't afford insurance or sufficient coverage (due to pre-existing conditions, for example). Decreasing costs wasn't one of the main goals. The GOP's bills haven't been about improving health care. Appealing to “market forces” as a deus ex machina doesn't work, we understand how the market operates and you have to explain how competition will decrease prices when it comes to that particular bill. Health care is complicated, and it is all about the details.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 07:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think the GOP leadership has to formulate actual goals on what to improve about health care. Cutting spending (especially on Medicaid) to allow for tax cuts Is not a health care-related goal. The ACA set out to solve a few key issues such as insuring those who were at the time left out of the health insurance market — because they couldn't afford insurance or sufficient coverage (due to pre-existing conditions, for example). Decreasing costs wasn't one of the main goals. The GOP's bills haven't been about improving health care. Appealing to “market forces” as a deus ex machina doesn't work, we understand how the market operates and you have to explain how competition will decrease prices when it comes to that particular bill. Health care is complicated, and it is all about the details.
The thing is, I'm not sure the amount of GOP members who were concerned with those tax cuts more than healthcare was a real majority. It read as the tail wagging the dog. Once the votes started failing, you saw both houses pivot to keeping some of taxes and throwing out half-assed solutions to trick those who support the expansion.

The message it sent, though, should be chilling to any GOP voter who wants real reform: When presented with the opportunity to make real change, their entire focus was on taxes on the rich.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The thing is, I'm not sure the amount of GOP members who were concerned with those tax cuts more than healthcare was a real majority. It read as the tail wagging the dog. Once the votes started failing, you saw both houses pivot to keeping some of taxes and throwing out half-assed solutions to trick those who support the expansion.

The message it sent, though, should be chilling to any GOP voter who wants real reform: When presented with the opportunity to make real change, their entire focus was on taxes on the rich.
Yes, I think you're right. But I'd add that even when it comes to tax reform, the GOP is in a similar situation with much less room to maneuver: the purpose of the Medicaid cuts was to allow for generous tax cuts. These are now off the table, unless the GOP wants to increase the deficit. Trump has about as much of a clue on the tax policy details as he does on health care, his one-page tax plan is a joke (not even the tax brackets are mentioned there). I think the GOP is up for another failure here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 09:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes, I think you're right. But I'd add that even when it comes to tax reform, the GOP is in a similar situation with much less room to maneuver: the purpose of the Medicaid cuts was to allow for generous tax cuts. These are now off the table, unless the GOP wants to increase the deficit. Trump has about as much of a clue on the tax policy details as he does on health care, his one-page tax plan is a joke (not even the tax brackets are mentioned there). I think the GOP is up for another failure here.
I won't hold my breath. Tax cuts are a much easier sell. I can't wait for these deficit hawks to tell me how revenue killing cuts are ok.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 10:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
It's not their job to fix ObamaCare.
https://twitter.com/LisaDNews/status/892456974482329600
Notable from .@PressSec Sanders on health care: "we know that inaction is not ok", when asked about market stabilization/hc in general.
I suppose this might be bad news for you, if anything the press secretary said was reliable.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
https://twitter.com/LisaDNews/status/892456974482329600

I suppose this might be bad news for you, if anything the press secretary said was reliable.

And, of course, it was Obama's job to fix Bush's economy.

Chongo, your politics are such a mess.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 10:24 PM
 
The Christian thing to do is to let the ACA collapse and destroy the healthcare system. Never mind that type of dire situation is exactly the kind of thing that can get a radical idea like single-payer of universal healthcare passed.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 10:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I won't hold my breath. Tax cuts are a much easier sell. I can't wait for these deficit hawks to tell me how revenue killing cuts are ok.
Sure, but tax cuts ≠ comprehensive tax reform. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if simple tax cuts were sold as comprehensive tax reform.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 11:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The read I get wasn't that it wasn't worth the effort. I disagree vehemently.
Holy indefinite subjects!

What is "it"? Who and what are you disagreeing with?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 11:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yeah, that's irrelevant. Jeff Flake's op ed spelled it out. The GOP was ungettable. That means if Obama conformed to your political strategy it still would have ended the same.
Is this payback for me not linking enough? I have to hunt for an 8 year old op-ed I never read from someone who's on Google fire right now?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 11:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Would you say it makes political sense for the GOP to repeal the ACA?
I think the idea of repealing it makes political sense for them, but not actually repealing it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2017, 12:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Just because you can do something doesn't you should. Again, democratic norms which have eroded to the bare minimum in the US are not laws, you can stick to the letter of the laws and rules while violating the spirit.

No, that's not the only way, as I wrote if you stick to democratic norms (which are customs, not laws), you easily avoid this. It is interesting to see that you think that only if you had buy in from the GOP would they share responsibility for what happens to the US health care system. You are not the only one to see it this way, there were op eds against the GOP's health care bills as well as Trump himself that claimed that “letting the ACA fail” is the way to go, and that because they hadn't passed anything they were off the hook, responsibility-wise. However, as soon as the GOP took control of one of the chambers (and now both chambers and the Presidency) did they share responsibility — not for the laws that were passed in the past, but for sheparding the health care system to a safe future. Even if you plan a total revamp of the system, it is the GOP's responsibility to stabilize the markets until that reform bill has congealed (that were destabilized among other things by the uncertain future of the ACA and key changes as far as subsidies go).

Also internationally, the Trump administration threatens to not stick to deals that were agreed upon by past administrations (e. g. the US left the Paris Climate Accord and threatens not to certify that Iran is in compliance with the Iran deal). That sets a very dangerous precedence as it erodes trust in the US as a reliable partner. In Germany, trust in the US as a partner is at the same level as Russia, and in other countries the picture is similar.

I didn't claim you did, I specifically wrote Republicans like Mitch McConnell.
McConnell is to the right of me. If I objected on principle, surely he's going to.

No argument from me just because something can be done it should, but assuming the opponent won't "just because" is a poor strategy for this game.

Let's call a spade a spade. The Democrats' strategy to keep the ACA afloat was to win for long enough it became too entrenched to kill.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2017, 02:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
McConnell is to the right of me. If I objected on principle, surely he's going to.
McConnell has openly admitted that he doesn't want Obama to have any wins.
Originally Posted by Mitch McConnell
The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
He put party politics before country, and I think McConnell is one of the reasons the US is politically where it is now. With this attitude, the Democrats could have proposed a bill they took from a Republican. In fact, with the ACA, they have.

I'm aware the quote is from 2010, after the ACA had been passed. I cannot emphasize enough that the democratic process in other countries doesn't work this way. I'd be highly unusual to roll big changes back, especially without any sort of replacement. I can only think of one example in my home country in recent years, the extension of the operating permits of nuclear power plants, but that was revoked a year after the extension (at great cost to the German tax payer).
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let's call a spade a spade. The Democrats' strategy to keep the ACA afloat was to win for long enough it became too entrenched to kill.
I would put it differently: The Democrats' strategy was to keep the ACA afloat long enough for it to become popular with the people. Many Republican voters don't want to see the good aspects of the ACA to vanish (first and foremost the ban on pre-existing conditions and Medicaid expansion).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2017, 10:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I would put it differently: The Democrats' strategy was to keep the ACA afloat long enough for it to become popular with the people. Many Republican voters don't want to see the good aspects of the ACA to vanish (first and foremost the ban on pre-existing conditions and Medicaid expansion).
I'm willing to replace the idea of entrenchment with popularity.

I am unwilling to remove the Democrats' strategy to achieve this began and ended with staying in charge long enough.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2017, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The ACA set out to solve a few key issues such as insuring those who were at the time left out of the health insurance market — because they couldn't afford insurance or sufficient coverage (due to pre-existing conditions, for example). Decreasing costs wasn't one of the main goals.
Cost reduction was used as a campaign promise and a selling point.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...duce-cost-hea/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ance-premium-/

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
He put party politics before country, and I think McConnell is one of the reasons the US is politically where it is now. With this attitude, the Democrats could have proposed a bill they took from a Republican. In fact, with the ACA, they have.
RomneyCare was basically designed by Massachusetts's Democratic legislature and reluctantly signed by Romney after he vetoed 8 sections of it. It's not quite GOP designed.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2017, 01:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
cannot emphasize enough that the democratic process in other countries doesn't work this way. I'd be highly unusual to roll big changes back, especially without any sort of replacement. I can only think of one example in my home country in recent years, the extension of the operating permits of nuclear power plants, but that was revoked a year after the extension (at great cost to the German tax payer).
What's the metric for a big change?

Over the last 20 years, in America, the absolute largest was the ACA. Next is the PATRIOT Act.

That's about where I'd put the break point.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2017, 07:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Cost reduction was used as a campaign promise and a selling point.
Yes, you have a point here, you are correct that this was what was promised. I wanted to say that the ACA as it has actually been implemented has few cost control measures apart from attempting to have healthy people enroll in health insurances. This is a weak point that could be focused on iteratively.
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
RomneyCare was basically designed by Massachusetts's Democratic legislature and reluctantly signed by Romney after he vetoed 8 sections of it. It's not quite GOP designed.
I thought the basic idea of RomneyCare and the ACA came from the American Enterprise Institute, which is a conservative think tank?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2017, 07:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What's the metric for a big change?

Over the last 20 years, in America, the absolute largest was the ACA. Next is the PATRIOT Act.

That's about where I'd put the break point.
Well, given the costs, I would add the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to that list as well.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2017, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm willing to replace the idea of entrenchment with popularity.

I am unwilling to remove the Democrats' strategy to achieve this began and ended with staying in charge long enough.
The Democrats had a trifecta for two years, and 60 votes in the Senate for less than that (the GOP won the majority of seats in the 2010 House election). That seems as minimal as it gets. The loss of the Senate seat (so that the Democrats no longer had a filibuster proof majority) was the reason the ACA did not go into the reconcilliation phase and the House had to vote on the Senate bill exactly.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2017, 07:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Well, given the costs, I would add the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to that list as well.
Let's include them, too.


PATRIOT Act, support from opposition party:
House: 70%
Senate: 96%

AUMF Afghanistan, support from opposition party:
House: 97%
Senate: 100%

AUMF Iraq, support from opposition party:
House: 39%
Senate: 58%

ACA, support from opposition party:
House: 0%
Senate: 0%


To paraphrase Sesame Street, "one of these things is not like the other, one of these things is going to get flipped".
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2017, 09:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let's include them, too.


PATRIOT Act, support from opposition party:
House: 70%
Senate: 96%

AUMF Afghanistan, support from opposition party:
House: 97%
Senate: 100%

AUMF Iraq, support from opposition party:
House: 39%
Senate: 58%

ACA, support from opposition party:
House: 0%
Senate: 0%


To paraphrase Sesame Street, "one of these things is not like the other, one of these things is going to get flipped".
In view of our earlier discussion, I'm not sure what you want to say here. I've already said that participation of the minority isn't necessarily measured in votes, but is done through the process of creating bills. If you fundamentally disagree and claim that bipartisan participation in the process isn't what is important, ok, let's agree to disagree here and move on. And I would still maintain that this shallow fervor to repeal the ACA without having a clue what to put in its place, the willingness to let it fail, is quite unique amongst democracies.

Moreover, I think over time the US health care system will become more like that of other, comparable countries. Democrats and moderate Republicans have created a working group on health care with the aim to stabilize the markets and improve the ACA. The ACA will not be overturned. Even if the straight “repeal bill” would have passed, the ACA's regulations would have been left untouched (the GOP doesn't have a 60+-seat majority nor buy-in from any Democratic senator) — therefore the core of the ACA would have still been intact. And Democrats are already thinking about the next steps, e. g. reviving the idea of a public option (which would solve the problem of the regions without health insurance providers in the markets) or a single payer system. The GOP still has bupkis, and IMO if they have any hopes of shaping the health care market in their image, they should accept the markets and move on from there.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2017, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
In view of our earlier discussion, I'm not sure what you want to say here. I've already said that participation of the minority isn't necessarily measured in votes, but is done through the process of creating bills. If you fundamentally disagree and claim that bipartisan participation in the process isn't what is important, ok, let's agree to disagree here and move on. And I would still maintain that this shallow fervor to repeal the ACA without having a clue what to put in its place, the willingness to let it fail, is quite unique amongst democracies.
I'm lost.

What bipartisan participation means in this country is a bill introduced with signatories from both parties, or a reconciled bill where the Senate and House versions were introduced by different parties.

The first three examples meet this definition, the fourth does not.

The relevance of the vote totals is an illustration of what a vote looks like on a bipartisan bill versus what it looks like for one which is not. Bipartisan participation is not the result of the votes, the votes are a result of bipartisan participation, or in the case of the ACA, a lack thereof.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2017, 11:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What bipartisan participation means in this country is a bill introduced with signatories from both parties, or a reconciled bill where the Senate and House versions were introduced by different parties.
No, not to me, bipartisan participation can also happen through means other than endorsement by votes. As I said, if you just have a different opinion, let's move on.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2017, 11:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, not to me, bipartisan participation can also happen through means other than endorsement by votes. As I said, if you just have a different opinion, let's move on.
Wait. What? That's not an "opinion", at least with regard to US politics, you're simply wrong. Here bipartisan participation means that it's supported by some members of both parties, in terms of a bill's development and votes. In fact, I've never even heard of what you're talking about.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2017, 01:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, not to me, bipartisan participation can also happen through means other than endorsement by votes. As I said, if you just have a different opinion, let's move on.
The amount the two parties can work together is on a continuum.

As outlined above, our legislative procedure quantifies a point on this continuum.

Because it does, we have a word for this amount of unity or greater. The word is irrelevant. The concept is there's an amount of participation from both sides which meets or exceeds this standard. We can call it whatever we want.

The parties can still work together and not meet the standard. Since both parties participated, one can call this bipartisan participation in a strict sense, but it will confuse Americans.

Both parties participated in all four bills. Only three bills involved participation of both parties to the extent they met the standard.


To bring this back to the initial point, a bill with implications as colossal as the ACA should have met the standard. It didn't because there wasn't enough support for it.

The reason it should have met the standard is making colossal changes without a level of support meeting the standard has a significant risk of damaging the country if it gets flipped.

As in, more damage than what was being caused by the problem the colossal changes attempted to fix.

The Democrats' plan to deal with the potential consequences of their bill doing more harm than good didn't go any farther than to keep winning.

I stand by my claim this was a poor and irresponsible strategy.

Just like some flaming assholes we all know (in scale, if not nature), only more protracted.




So far.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2017, 04:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The amount the two parties can work together is on a continuum.

As outlined above, our legislative procedure quantifies a point on this continuum.
I agree with this more nuanced take, and it is clear that a bill that receives votes from both parties has a stronger bipartisan basis than a bill that only incorporates suggestions from the minority party. I attempted to point to this distinction by writing “bipartisan participation” as opposed to “bipartisan support” (by which I mean also members from the minority end up voting for the bill).
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To bring this back to the initial point, a bill with implications as colossal as the ACA should have met the standard. It didn't because there wasn't enough support for it.
I would say it'd been better, but I don't think such a de facto minority veto is wise, it would lead to even more stagnation than the US now experiences. If in a fictitious US politicians were motivated solely by making the country a better place and not by back-alley politics, I think such a rule might work perhaps. But even in such a phantasy land, I think there will be issues where a compromise won't be reached. With a minority veto there would be situations where this would mean there would be no change in perpetuity, and the lack of change might actually bring harm.

To me bringing in elements of bipartisanship into the process is not necessarily about convincing people who can't or don't want to be convinced. It is about showing respect to the voters, the democratic process and the other parties (small p) in the political process. It gives people who disagree with you the political platform they deserve. On the other hand, respect for the democratic process and taking responsibility for your country doesn't mean you uproot laws and treaties without replacing them, or consciously letting parts of government fail to score political points. The latter part really disgusts me. Don't tell me the engine is garbage if you consciously make the decision not to change the oil.

Accepting that you have lost certain (electoral) battles is part and parcel of the respect and love for the system — life doesn't always work out the way you want to. The GOP wasted 7 years with “repealing the ACA for show” instead of working within their means (that includes the fact that the President is a member of the different party) to improve the system and work towards changing it to fit a more Republican vision.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The Democrats' plan to deal with the potential consequences of their bill doing more harm than good didn't go any farther than to keep winning.
But did the ACA do more harm than good? Overall, I think that the data bears out that the ACA was a net positive, but I understand that this is a nuanced discussion where we'd probably get lost in details and lots of if statements (if it had been implemented as originally intended …). I don't want to hash out this point with you, that'd be a different thread, but you'd at the very least agree that it would be a point worth a longer discussion.

And as far as I can tell, it wasn't their plan “to keep winning”, quite the contrary. I had the impression that some members of Congress believed in health care reform so strongly that they were willing to lose their seats over this. They felt it was the chance of a generation to overhaul the health care system, and they were not about to chicken out. Just like the GOP has their chance of a generation to implement whatever they actually mean when they say a “market-based approach”.


By the way, I think you should also add the bailout and economic stimulus bills to your list of major legislation. Money-wise they are right up there, although I don't remember which bill had how much bipartisan support. Do you?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2017, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes, you have a point here, you are correct that this was what was promised. I wanted to say that the ACA as it has actually been implemented has few cost control measures apart from attempting to have healthy people enroll in health insurances. This is a weak point that could be focused on iteratively.
https://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-control-costs/
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2017, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let's include them, too.


PATRIOT Act, support from opposition party:
House: 70%
Senate: 96%

AUMF Afghanistan, support from opposition party:
House: 97%
Senate: 100%

AUMF Iraq, support from opposition party:
House: 39%
Senate: 58%

ACA, support from opposition party:
House: 0%
Senate: 0%


To paraphrase Sesame Street, "one of these things is not like the other, one of these things is going to get flipped".
I'll respond to older posts when I'm on a keyboard but I'd say it's harder to vote against war in this country than for the poor.

Also, all you examples are from a three year period after the worst terror attack on American soil. It both unified the country and crippled good judgment. IMO.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2017, 01:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'll respond to older posts when I'm on a keyboard but I'd say it's harder to vote against war in this country than for the poor.

Also, all you examples are from a three year period after the worst terror attack on American soil. It both unified the country and crippled good judgment. IMO.
I'm not sure what the point is.

Unity leads to bipartisan legislation, whether from good judgement or not.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2017, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
But did the ACA do more harm than good?
My argument was the ACA will have (future tense) done more harm than good if it gets flipped.

The responsible way to have dealt with this possibility was to have secured opposition support.

The irresponsible way was to hope a numerical edge could be held over the opposition for long enough it becomes too difficult for the opposition to flip should the opposition gain the numerical edge.

The Democrats chose the latter.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2017, 01:31 PM
 
My point is their staying power isn't the bipartisan part. Its the politics of being seen as weak on security.

As for AUMFs have we ever repealed one?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2017, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
My point is their staying power isn't the bipartisan part. Its the politics of being seen as weak on security.

As for AUMFs have we ever repealed one?
We can take this in a different direction. I didn't originally include them because they don't get repealed.

My claim is legislation on the scale of the ACA should be bipartisan.

The only thing which I feel meets that bar over the last 20 years is the PATRIOT Act. I am in full agreement the political realities of the time influenced the unity between the parties.

What are the next choices? Medicare/aid? Social Security?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:23 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,