[The Final Dakar]

I don't see where we're disagreeing.

[subego]

I feel he deserves some accolades.

[The Final Dakar]

He voted against it. That deserves accolades. I just don't think it was any more impressive than what Murk and Collins did. I think they took the harder but braver road.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

He voted against it. That deserves accolades. I just don't think it was any more impressive than what Murk and Collins did. I think they took the harder but braver road.

I'm not sure I see the value of staging an Olympics, but if that's what we're doing I feel the need to point out he could have achieved the same result by staying home.

Instead, with a big hole in his head, the Republican's drag in his dottering corpse, only for him to whip out a gun and ventilate the party.

[andi*pandi]

Well some are saying that Murkowski and Collins have been standing up for a while, but McCain is getting the credit for standing up now. Some are saying it's a bit sexist. I think they all deserve credit, but it is notable for McCain to finally break away from the folks he's been surrounding himself with for 10 years.

Just like that glimmer of humanity that I recall from his presidential campaign, when he told the lady ranting about "Obama being a secret muslim" to shut up.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Two questions:

1. Why the rush now?
2. Why did the senate wait for the house to create their bill? Does the house have to pass a bill before the senate will work on an issue, procedurally speaking?

When taxes are involved, yes.

[Chongo]

One thing I have learned about McCain in his thirty plus years representing AZ, McCain does what's he thinks is best for McCain.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Well some are saying that Murkowski and Collins have been standing up for a while, but McCain is getting the credit for standing up now. Some are saying it's a bit sexist. I think they all deserve credit, but it is notable for McCain to finally break away from the folks he's been surrounding himself with for 10 years.

Just like that glimmer of humanity that I recall from his presidential campaign, when he told the lady ranting about "Obama being a secret muslim" to shut up.

The last thing I want to do is take anything away from Murkowski and Collins.

What I'm noting is whenever it started to appear McCain would vote with his party, his credit was not only yanked, he was made out to be human trash.

[andi*pandi]

I think this is the downside of being likeable, but having unlikeable friends. No one is surprised when Ryan or McConnell say/vote for unpleasant things, but there are some Republicans we kind of like, have liked, somewhat respect, etc.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not sure I see the value of staging an Olympics, but if that's what we're doing I feel the need to point out he could have achieved the same result by staying home.

Instead, with a big hole in his head, the Republican's drag in his dottering corpse, only for him to whip out a gun and ventilate the party.

To me that's an argument he made it about himself.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

To me that's an argument he made it about himself.

This is an unavoidable consequence of a decision to personally tell your colleagues they can go **** themselves, no?

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I think this is the downside of being likeable, but having unlikeable friends. No one is surprised when Ryan or McConnell say/vote for unpleasant things, but there are some Republicans we kind of like, have liked, somewhat respect, etc.

I don't necessarily want to cut him slack, either. In terms of raw disappointment, I can't think of anyone worse than the difference between 2000 McCain and 2017 McCain.

[The Final Dakar]

He could have done that by killing the motion to proceed in person as well. I

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

One thing I have learned about McCain in his thirty plus years representing AZ, McCain does what's he thinks is best for McCain.

I mean that's true of all of them most of the time. Particularly the career peeps

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I think this is the downside of being likeable, but having unlikeable friends. No one is surprised when Ryan or McConnell say/vote for unpleasant things, but there are some Republicans we kind of like, have liked, somewhat respect, etc.

Both by the requirements to get there and those of the position itself, party leadership are always douches. Their concerns go beyond their constituents and sometimes their colleagues.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

He could have done that by killing the motion to proceed in person as well. I

I'll admit to not following this super closely.

Which motion?

[reader50]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Two questions:

1. Why the rush now?
2. Why did the senate wait for the house to create their bill? Does the house have to pass a bill before the senate will work on an issue, procedurally speaking?

1. Not sure.
2. In theory, either house could create the bill first. But they need a bill that can pass with 50% + 1 vote, and for which they can shut down filibuster attempts with a majority vote. That pretty much means a budget bill. According to the US Constitution, Article 1:

Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

It's dubious to call a healthcare bill a tax bill. Even though it has tax elements. But the Dems used this trick to pass the ACA in the first place, so they can hardly complain now. So repeal attempts are called tax or budget bills, and have to originate in the House. After receiving it, the Senate can tear it up, er "amend" it to their hearts' content.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by reader50 

1. Not sure.
2. In theory, either house could create the bill first. But they need a bill that can pass with 50% + 1 vote, and for which they can shut down filibuster attempts with a majority vote. That pretty much means a budget bill. According to the US Constitution, Article 1:

It's dubious to call a healthcare bill a tax bill. Even though it has tax elements. But the Dems used this trick to pass the ACA in the first place, so they can hardly complain now. So repeal attempts are called tax or budget bills, and have to originate in the House. After receiving it, the Senate can tear it up, er "amend" it to their hearts' content.

Thanks for this explanation, this makes sense.

Does the house get to vote on the final senate bill?

[reader50]

After introduction, budget bills behave like other bills. Other than Congress procedural rules allowing a majority to stop a filibuster. Once the Senate passes something:

a) if identical to the House bill, then it goes to the President.
b) if different, the House can defeat it (or fail to act on it). [bill is dead]
c) if different, the House can pass it. [bill goes to President]
d) if different, the House can refer it to conference committee before voting. [most common outcome]

--- A conference committee is made up of members of both houses. They're supposed to iron out or compromise differences between bills. In this case, they were expected to write a whole new bill. Basically kicking the can another step down the road.
d1) revised bill from conference, gets passed by both houses [bill goes to President]
d2) revised bill from conference, isn't passed by both houses [bill is dead]

--- A bill arrives with the President.
e) President signs it. [bill becomes law]
f) if President doesn't act on bill within 10 days (not counting Sundays) it passes. [bill becomes law]
g) if President sits on bill (no action) until Congress adjourns. Called a "pocket veto", the [bill is dead]. Only works within 9 days (or less) of adjournment (not counting Sundays)
h) if President vetoes it. [bill sent back to Congress]
h1) both houses re-pass the bill by at least 2/3 majority in each house. [bill becomes law]
h2) one or both houses fails to repass it by at least 2/3 majority. [veto stands, bill is dead]

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'll admit to not following this super closely.

Which motion?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

He could have done that by killing the motion to proceed in person as well. I

Another reminder: He voted for the BRCA. No dagger vote if that passes.

[The Final Dakar]

I guess we'll see if this was a veiled threat to elicit party unity or a practical conclusion. My money is on the former.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Another reminder: He voted for the BRCA. No dagger vote if that passes.

Proceed with what?

If I had followed particularly closely I'm sure I'd know what you're referring too, but I'd have to trawl through the entire timeline of the last few days to pin this down.

I'm willing to put in work, I'm just looking for a little more to anchor on. Like, what day did this happen? What was the major preceding or following event.

Is there perhaps an article describing McCain as sewage which refers to it?

[The Final Dakar]

Motion to proceed is what usually gets filibustered (i.e., the vote on whether to vote). However, since this was going through reconciliation, the motion only needed 50 votes instead of 60. This was the big vote that McCain cast upon returning. He gave his speech right afterward:

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

He voted to move the process along then gave a speech that they should reset and start from regular order. It was a world class demonstration of political hypocrisy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Motion to proceed is what usually gets filibustered (i.e., the vote on whether to vote). However, since this was going through reconciliation, the motion only needed 50 votes instead of 60. This was the big vote that McCain cast upon returning. He gave his speech right afterward:

Okay... I thought this might be what you're talking about, but I see it so differently I needed to be sure we were talking about the same thing.

He let it proceed to the floor to give them a chance to fix it. They didn't. He killed it. I don't see the problem.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

If they address his minor balk, it's in.

[besson3c]

So, taking a break from the usual Washington political games...

Trump says that Australia has better healthcare than the US. Is he right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqKoSqzWxs8

[subego]

The ACA was designed to pass without a single Republican needing to be on board.

This whole shitshow here was designed to pass without a single Democrat needing being on board.

Is it possible this is a poor model?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

The ACA was designed to pass without a single Republican needing to be on board.

This whole shitshow here was designed to pass without a single Democrat needing being on board.

Is it possible this is a poor model?

It is, but I also think it would be disingenuous to paint an equivalency here. The Democrats at least invited the Republicans to submit their amendments and accepted a number of them. The ACA itself was designed based off of a Republican derived model (Romneycare).

This conservative influence is debatable, as is the extent of which Republican amendments were welcome, but I don't think it is debatable that the effort to reach across the aisle was not zero. Can the same be said this time around?

This being said, I don't think we can make progress by looking back and pointing fingers this way, but we also can't with diatribes about Democratic obstructionism which I'm sure Chongo, Badkosh, and/or CTP will chime in with eventually.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

The ACA was designed to pass without a single Republican needing to be on board.

This whole shitshow here was designed to pass without a single Democrat needing being on board.

Is it possible this is a poor model?

Likening how the ACA came to be with the GOP's recent efforts to repeal the ACA is a false equivalence. Not only weren't Democrats involved in the process, most Republicans were shut out, too. I think it is myopic to only consider this in terms of votes: there were tons of public hearings and Republicans did have a tangible influence on what the ACA looks like: the GOP proposed 210 amendments, of which 161 were incorporated and 49 rejected. The basic idea of the ACA , selling health insurance on regulated exchanges, were ideas that were first floated by conservative think tanks such as American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, and modeled after Romneycare. The fact that the GOP voted against the ACA despite its involvement in the genesis of the ACA doesn't mean it was a partisan bill.

Another hugely important difference is that Democrats had a clear vision for health care when they got to power while Republicans do not. Ultimately this is the GOP's problem: they don't know what their version of health care will look like, now is the time what a “market-based approach” looks like and that better includes logical arguments why their vision makes health care (≠ health insurance) better and cheaper for Americans. Making reference to markets as a magical deus ex machina doesn't cut it, you have to pour principles into law.

[subego]

Claims of quantity without reference to substance make me skeptical. The Salon article is mum. Politifact claims they weren't particularly substantive.

I guess one can more favorably gaze upon allowing the opponent to chip away insignificant bits versus simply telling them to go **** them themselves, but I argue there's much not much practical difference in policy they derive.

[subego]

Also... "my party has a clear vision of the way forward" is the literal opposite of bipartisanship.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Indeed. I always thought "reconciliation" did the exact opposite of what the name implies.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Claims of quantity without reference to substance make me skeptical. The Salon article is mum. Politifact claims they weren't particularly substantive.

Sure, quantity ≠ quality, but at that time the Democrats had a 60 seat majority in the Senate. Nevertheless, the characterization that what happened during the creation of the ACA is akin to what the GOP did with the repeal bills is a false equivalency is on point. The Democrats really tried to bring the GOP on board with the ACA.

Originally Posted by subego 

I guess one can more favorably gaze upon allowing the opponent to chip away insignificant bits versus simply telling them to go **** them themselves, but I argue there's much not much practical difference in policy they derive.

I disagree about this fundamentally: at that time, the Democrats didn't have to involve the GOP at all, but they did. Not because there is a stipulation in the Constitution, but simply because this is what democratic norms (as the Democrats saw them at the time) demanded. You try to work with the minority, and the GOP didn't want to play ball no matter what.

McConnel's choice to sacrifice polity and democratic norms for short-term gains is the culmination, and he used procedural trickery not just to freeze out the Democrats, but most Republicans on such a crucial piece of legislation.

Originally Posted by subego 

Also... "my party has a clear vision of the way forward" is the literal opposite of bipartisanship.

No, that has nothing to do with bipartisanship or its opposite. It's on each side to bring ideas to the table in order to hash out a compromise. If one side doesn't have ideas, then that's not the fault of the other. Right now the GOP has a trifecta and is not dependent on making compromises with the Democrats. But their utter lack of ideas with majority support hurts them now, they haven't passed a single piece of major legislation. I'd be surprised if for the first time in over a decade they manage to pass a regular budget. When the Democrats (with a vision on health care) came to power, that didn't matter as much because the majority party determines the broad strokes.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Trump Threatens To End Obamacare Payments And "Insurance Bailouts" Unless Repeal Passes

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...-repeal-passes

With the Senate having failed to repeal Obamacare, after a critical "Nay" vote by John McCain crushed Trump's biggest campaign promise shortly after midnight on Thursday, Trump has plans to kill Obamacare slowly, and this time he has vowed to take insurance companies and members of Congress down with it.

The president on Saturday threatened to end key payments to Obamacare insurance companies if a repeal and replace bill is not passed. "After seven years of 'talking' Repeal & Replace, the people of our great country are still being forced to live with imploding ObamaCare!" Trump tweeted, followed by: "If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!"

[besson3c]

I have to say, I do appreciate his "after seven years of talking repeal and replace" rhetoric. I was saying the same thing over these many years, although many on the right here were blowing me off

It's time to be constructive, guys! It's so much easier to just obstruct than it is to build stuff, but we need builders, and this is your chance with the political control you have. Get shit done! You are off to a terrible start, but there is still time.

[The Final Dakar]

Question: How do we know that the ACA didn't get GOP votes because of substance and not politics? While I agree the vast majority of the GOP would oppose it on principle, if this year is any indication, moderates like Collins may have been gettable.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Sure, quantity ≠ quality, but at that time the Democrats had a 60 seat majority in the Senate. Nevertheless, the characterization that what happened during the creation of the ACA is akin to what the GOP did with the repeal bills is a false equivalency is on point. The Democrats really tried to bring the GOP on board with the ACA.

I disagree about this fundamentally: at that time, the Democrats didn't have to involve the GOP at all, but they did. Not because there is a stipulation in the Constitution, but simply because this is what democratic norms (as the Democrats saw them at the time) demanded. You try to work with the minority, and the GOP didn't want to play ball no matter what.

McConnel's choice to sacrifice polity and democratic norms for short-term gains is the culmination, and he used procedural trickery not just to freeze out the Democrats, but most Republicans on such a crucial piece of legislation.

No, that has nothing to do with bipartisanship or its opposite. It's on each side to bring ideas to the table in order to hash out a compromise. If one side doesn't have ideas, then that's not the fault of the other. Right now the GOP has a trifecta and is not dependent on making compromises with the Democrats. But their utter lack of ideas with majority support hurts them now, they haven't passed a single piece of major legislation. I'd be surprised if for the first time in over a decade they manage to pass a regular budget. When the Democrats (with a vision on health care) came to power, that didn't matter as much because the majority party determines the broad strokes.

There is a fundamental difference between allowing an opponent to participate and bipartisanship.

One of these differences is if so inclined, the opponent will attempt to flip the former when the winds change direction.

The Democrats chose the former, the winds have changed, and the opponent is trying to flip it.

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.

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.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Question: How do we know that the ACA didn't get GOP votes because of substance and not politics? While I agree the vast majority of the GOP would oppose it on principle, if this year is any indication, moderates like Collins may have been gettable.

Taking away an existing benefit is much harder than arguing against it before it's been enacted.

The way we know it was substance and not politics is because the vast majority of the GOP oppose it on principle.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Taking away an existing benefit is much harder than arguing against it before it's been enacted.

The way we know it was substance and not politics is because the vast majority of the GOP oppose it on principle.

If that's the case, doesn't that point to a bipartisan process being impossible?

[andi*pandi]

But as we've seen, people vote when they need to. Absence of votes does not mean belief.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If that's the case, doesn't that point to a bipartisan process being impossible?

Yes.

The Democratic plan of "ram this through regardless, and keep it alive by maintaining a majority long enough it hurts too much to kill it" got things off on a bad foot.

Which I noted at the time, and so did Rahm.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yes.

The Democratic plan of "ram this through regardless, and keep it alive by maintaining a majority long enough it hurts too much to kill it" got things off on a bad foot.

Which I noted at the time, and so did Rahm.

How is it possible to pass legislation the other side is opposed to out of principle 'on the right foot'? I feel like the end conclusion you're getting to is 'they shouldn't have passed it.'

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How is it possible to pass legislation the other side is opposed to out of principle 'on the right foot'? I feel like the end conclusion you're getting to is 'they shouldn't have passed it.'

It's a long process, but here is how it begins.

1) Find a subject the opponent is not opposed to on principle.
2) Lead with that.
3) Build a rapport with the opponent.

Again, this is what Rahm told Obama to do.

[The Final Dakar]

So, don't work on healthcare?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So, don't work on healthcare?

Not right off the bat, no.

Which is what Rahm suggested.

I keep on bringing him up because no one is going to argue his advice to wait was some secret plot to spike health care reform.

[subego]

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.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

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.

Do you have examples of this working?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's a long process, but here is how it begins.

1) Find a subject the opponent is not opposed to on principle.
2) Lead with that.
3) Build a rapport with the opponent.

Again, this is what Rahm told Obama to do.

I don't know about this. A certain percentage of Republicans seemed intent on plotting for Obama's failure no matter what he said and did. Do you think there was any possible healthcare proposal they would have supported?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Do you have examples of this working?

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.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not right off the bat, no.

Which is what Rahm suggested.

I keep on bringing him up because no one is going to argue his advice to wait was some secret plot to spike health care reform.

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.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

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.

Obama mistakenly thought that his huge electoral win, along with the democrats win in congress might signal to the GOP that the American people endorsed his platform and rejected theirs.