Corrected title: Now the GOP has accomplished massive tax reform

[fskimospy]

Where does the article explicitly say that Schumer and Leahy were doing as you say? It doesn't, and I was pointing out that it makes little sense if that was the case. I just think it's more of the same spinelessness from the dirty Dems as usual. We already know the Dems were calculating on which parts to agree with. GOP takes taxes further right, and Democrats are OK with a compromise.

Considering I believe the sum total of democratic votes for these bills so far is zero it’s hard to see how they are compromising.

 

[Maxima1]

Considering I believe the sum total of democratic votes for these bills so far is zero it’s hard to see how they are compromising.

Schumer said he was willing to work with them on tax reform if they wanted to. Machin and Heitkamp in late November said they wouldn't be absolute no's even though it would be the full Republican agenda.

 

[bshole]

Single payer as the only option is not, and I would disagree there.

Let me ask you this, if single payer is so much better, why did France split it? Why would they need private?

The important metric is that they removed capitalists from the mix. It simply is not sustainable to have large corporations profit from denying or delaying care to their customers. At least you agree on this can't you?

There is reason to think that some of the cost-saving features of the French system could be incorporated in US reforms. Lower costs of administering the medical payment system are one example. France does not have a true single-payer system. Not-for-profit insurance funds closely supervised by the government pay most of the cost of care, but people also carry supplementary insurance, similar to Medigap plans, that cover deductibles and co-pays. Still, despite the involvement of multiple insurers, the French system spends less than half as much on administration and marketing than the 7% of health care costs reported for the United States.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-can-the-us-learn-from-the-french-health-care-system-2011-3

 

[fskimospy]

Schumer said he was willing to work with them on tax reform if they wanted to. Machin and Heitkamp in late November said they wouldn't be absolute no's even though it would be the full Republican agenda.

So Schumer said the good and rational thing. That’s great! Unilaterally saying they would refuse to compromise would have given Republicans an easy excuse for not compromising, which Schumer already knew they weren’t going to do. I’m glad he did the smart thing.

As for the others, they voted against the bill. Also a smart move by Manchin as it helps preserve his brand in a heavily republican state while still supplying a democratic vote.

I don’t think you thought this through. A bill with zero democratic votes for it is a bad example of democrats compromising.

 

[bshole]

Right wing billionaires will score, bigtime. They have the GOP by the tender bits, bet on that.

Left wing billionaires will score big time as well. Basically anybody in the stock market is going to do very well in the next year. Those in the 1% are going to experience possibly the greatest single year jump in their collective net worth in American history. Take note of the wealth gap today and what it is a year from now.

 

[Maxima1]

So Schumer said the good and rational thing. That’s great! Unilaterally saying they would refuse to compromise would have given Republicans an easy excuse for not compromising, which Schumer already knew they weren’t going to do. I’m glad he did the smart thing.

How? Tax bill compromise would undoubtedly shift further right and then it would be the new normal. We already knew they were okay with pass-through during Obama's time. Nevermind the draconian grand bargain attempt the Dems tried to make.

As for the others, they voted against the bill. Also a smart move by Manchin as it helps preserve his brand in a heavily republican state while still supplying a democratic vote.

I don’t think you thought this through. A bill with zero democratic votes for it is a bad example of democrats compromising.

You're just being obtuse. It's really bad when we have some in the Democrat party showing willingness to go with the FULL Republican agenda. That indicates the donors are getting through. I would argue the same for many other Dems, but it's too a lesser extent than people like Manchin.

Edit: Also, that's BS about his brand. Partisanship is sky high and people support liberals on a lot according to polls He's just losing votes. Manchin acts like a Republican because of the donors.

Edit: I just realized this was also your flowed argument about Democrats trying to lower the cost of education. Boy did that prove wrong! They all came out saying we need to do more for students on tuition, etc. when the GOP tried to tax the graduate students.

 

[Sunburn74]

So, if you knew that you had 2 weeks left to live, and you were up for a renewal, you are telling me that you would renew?

Again in theory there are people who face this type of decision. In practice they don't actually exist.

For the situation you're describe as proof that everyone doesn't need health insurance, you're saying there is a guy out there whose doctors have given him an exact date of death with absolute certainty and whose privately bought insurance (only private plans have this issue; Medicare medicaid etc do not) just happens to be expiring and is up for some sort of renewal and he is not a candidate for any hospice services based on city or state level social programs designed specifically for this issue (nor does he receive health insurance through a family member like his wife or son who has taken him in as a dependent). This poor fellow has to choose between having to pay for only private insurance for 2 weeks to help make his last 2 weeks comfortable and taken care of vs forgoing it all together to save on paying for excess coverage he doesn't need.

There are so many things wrong with the assumptions needed for this issue that I don't know where to start. Let's just begin with the statement that in general docs are very bad about predicting how long someone will live. Somewhere between 10-20% of people on hospice (which is supposed to be 6 months or less) outlive their hospice benefits an event that occurs when the person lives for more than a year. Also if you look at estimates for deaths whilst doctors are generally right about living and dying (ie this thing will definitely kill you) the estimates in time to death are inaccurate on the order of months. So just starting there your premise is pretty ridiculous.

 

[realibrad]

The important metric is that they removed capitalists from the mix. It simply is not sustainable to have large corporations profit from denying or delaying care to their customers. At least you agree on this can't you?



http://www.businessinsider.com/what-can-the-us-learn-from-the-french-health-care-system-2011-3

Except they did not remove the capitalists. Also, I think you have a twisted view of what capitalism is and what it is not.

 

[realibrad]

Again in theory there are people who face this type of decision. In practice they don't actually exist.

For the situation you're describe as proof that everyone doesn't need health insurance, you're saying there is a guy out there whose doctors have given him an exact date of death with absolute certainty and whose privately bought insurance (only private plans have this issue; Medicare medicaide etc do not) just happens to be expiring and is up for some sort of renewal and he is not a candidate for any hospice services based on city or state level social programs designed specifically for this issue. This poor fellow has to choose between having to pay for only private insurance for 2 weeks to help make his last 2 weeks comfortable and taken care of vs forgoing it all together to save on paying for excess coverage he doesn't need.

There are so many things wrong with the assumptions needed for this issue that I don't know where to start. Let's just begin with the statement that in general docs are very bad stuff predicting how long someone will live. Somewhere between 10-20% of people on hospice (which is supposed to be 6 months or less) outlive their hospice benefits an event that occurs when the person lives for more than a year. Also if you look at estimates for deaths whilst doctors are generally right about living and dying (ie this thing will definitely kill you) the estimates in time to death are inaccurate on the order of months. So just starting there your premise is pretty ridiculous.

Then it seems we disagree. I will not take an absolute stance that literally nobody could forgo insurance.

 

[Sunburn74]

Then it seems we disagree. I will not take an absolute stance that literally nobody could forgo insurance.

Again in theory there is a guy out there who doesn't need health insurance. In practice these guys don't actually exist and it's not reasonable to legislate around things that are not real. There is a huge difference between theory and practice. Lots of things sound great and make sense in theory and look great when written down on paper but in practice are complete hogwash. This is one of those examples.

I guess you could argue that a perfectly healthy 50 year old who drops dead at work doesn't need health insurance but some would say hey if he had health insurance that heart condition would have been picked up and then he wouldn't have dropped dead.

 

[Maxima1]

So Schumer said the good and rational thing. That’s great! Unilaterally saying they would refuse to compromise would have given Republicans an easy excuse for not compromising, which Schumer already knew they weren’t going to do. I’m glad he did the smart thing.

I take Chuckie at his word. He's OK with a right-wing compromise.


"Tonight, I feel mostly regret at what could have been. Tax reform is an issue that is ripe for bipartisan compromise. There is a sincere desire on this side of the aisle to work with the GOP, particularly on tax reform, but we have been rebuffed, time & time again"

 

[bshole]

I take Chuckie at his word. He's OK with a right-wing compromise.


"Tonight, I feel mostly regret at what could have been. Tax reform is an issue that is ripe for bipartisan compromise. There is a sincere desire on this side of the aisle to work with the GOP, particularly on tax reform, but we have been rebuffed, time & time again"

What in the holy hell was there in this garbage truck of a bill to compromise on? Do you think there was ever a shred of a chance that this bill was going to be anything other than a complete grifting of the middle and working classes and our collective future?

 

[Sunburn74]

Schumer said he was willing to work with them on tax reform if they wanted to. Machin and Heitkamp in late November said they wouldn't be absolute no's even though it would be the full Republican agenda.

I believe at this time the GOP isn't even letting democrats look at drafts so it's a bit odd to see how the Democratic party can help when they can't even see what they are supposed to be helping on.

 

[Maxima1]

What in the holy hell was there in this garbage truck of a bill to compromise on? Do you think there was ever a shred of a chance that this bill was going to be anything other than a complete grifting of the middle and working classes and our collective future?

Fski is saying that it's the right move politically to just feign that he's willing to compromise. I don't think that will give Schumer or others more votes to act like they would try to compromise on bad legislation. If you think it's so far-fetched for Dems to go for something bad, look no further than the grand bargain attempt. It died because Dem base was furious and the Tea Party Republicans were against it. Boehner is annoyed at the Teahadists because he was gong to get a good scheme going for them, but the Teahadists ironically helped kill it.

 

[fskimospy]

I take Chuckie at his word. He's OK with a right-wing compromise.

"Tonight, I feel mostly regret at what could have been. Tax reform is an issue that is ripe for bipartisan compromise. There is a sincere desire on this side of the aisle to work with the GOP, particularly on tax reform, but we have been rebuffed, time & time again"

You should take him at his word! Nothing in his words said he was okay with a right-wing compromise though.

Again it seems pretty silly to be arguing that Democrats are attempting to make a right wing compromise on something that A) they have not compromised on and B) have not been asked by the Republicans to compromise on. Gotta stay in reality here.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, as a general rule private industry is more efficient than the government, but there are a number of large and important exceptions to this.

Yes, it's the capitalist lust for profit that has created the efficiency of offshoring, automation & scaling up enterprise to reduce duplication of effort. They just need for people to consume. If we end up doing less of that because we've been largely cut out of the cash flow they'll be fine. They ride the waves of the business cycle the way a nuclear carrier cuts through ocean waves.

 

[K1052]

Lol. It seems the GOP is actually looking at sunsetting the individual tax cuts sooner to pay for a bunch of stuff. Way to sell to 70% of the country that is skeptical about this bill.

Also Rubio appears to have rediscovered his testicles and now is a "no" unless the child tax credit is boosted. Would be about 1% more on the corporate rate to pay for it.

 

[JSt0rm]

this thing is a massive cash grab. So stupid. Its like trump isnt setting boundaries for what he wants and so its all ram rodded with special interests with no interest in the general public.

 

[theeedude]

Lol. It seems the GOP is actually looking at sunsetting the individual tax cuts sooner to pay for a bunch of stuff. Way to sell to 70% of the country that is skeptical about this bill.
Also Rubio appears to have rediscovered his testicles and now is a "no" unless the child tax credit is boosted. Would be about 1% more on the corporate rate to pay for it.

I think it's starting to dawn on him that he is young and will be around when time comes for Republicans to pay for what they are doing to America.

 

[mect]

So, if you knew that you had 2 weeks left to live, and you were up for a renewal, you are telling me that you would renew?

The individual should still renew. Suddenly the next day your pain medication is causing terrible nausea and you need to get it switched out. Two months later you're still alive. Its crazy you seem to think a terminally ill individual near death shouldn't have insurance. They are one of the most expensive groups around. We don't just go around putting bullets in the heads of the terminally ill. We try to give people a comfortable and dignified death to the extent possible, and this is expensive. The day you are declared dead is the day its smart to go off insurance.

 

[glenn1]

ACA coverage mandate was done exactly BECAUSE it was good for the consumer as it prevents massive adverse selection and price spirals. I mean this is simply how insurance works. Sure we could have simply had universal health care or something instead but if we were going to go with a privately purchased insurance model with community rating and guaranteed issue a mandate is the only way it works. There's no way around it.

You know better than to pretend that. If it were about helping the customer then ACA would have expanded high deductible plans for the young and healthy. Or expanded local free care clinics. Or provided everyone catastrophic plan vouchers outright.

Instead they basically got forced into “bronze plans” that covered services almost certainly not to be used and requirements like “community rating” for the express purpose of cross subsidizing the poor and elderly at expense of the young and those not in employer subsidized plans. A more honest person than you would simply admit this as fact while arguing that the “expansion in coverage” was worth screwing them over. But instead you act like you did them a favor.

 

[fskimospy]

You know better than to pretend that. If it were about helping the customer then ACA would have expanded high deductible plans for the young and healthy. Or expanded local free care clinics. Or provided everyone catastrophic plan vouchers outright.

1) The ACA DOES have high deductible plans for the young and healthy. lol.

https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/health-plans/catastrophic-insurance

2) The ACA vastly expanded care for those who most frequently patronized free clinics by expanding Medicaid.

3) So in other words the ACA would have provided essentially universal, government paid health care? How was that politically possible?

I have no idea why you hold strong opinions about a law that you clearly don't understand. What a bunch of bullshit.

Instead they basically got forced into “bronze plans” that covered services almost certainly not to be used and requirements like “community rating” for the express purpose of cross subsidizing the poor and elderly at expense of the young and those not in employer subsidized plans. A more honest person than you would simply admit this as fact while arguing that the “expansion in coverage” was worth screwing them over. But instead you act like you did them a favor.

You seem very angry about this law you made up in your head, haha. More amusingly, you think I'm a dishonest person because I tried to teach you about the law you clearly don't understand. If a law has guaranteed issue and community rating, an individual mandate is required to avoid a death spiral. This is just basic public policy. Your other options are removing guaranteed issue and community rating (ie: the bad old days) or destroying your insurance market through adverse selection. Your pick!

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...ealth-reform-faltered-after-loss-of-mandates/

As for subsidizing the poor and elderly, of course it does that. The subsidies for the poor are one of the main parts of the law, how was there any confusion on that? I imagine you more meant subsidizing the old and sick, which of course is what the mandate is all about too. I mean everyone who understands the first thing about this law (ie: not you) knows that. Guess what though, everyone gets old one day and is then subsidized in turn.

Glenn, you really need to stop assuming that other people are dishonest and start accepting you might be ignorant.

 

[Bitek]

More importantly, if subsidizing medical development is what we want to do then we should just directly subsidize it instead of throwing money at the companies and hoping they make something useful instead of more dick pills.

The NIH and other major sources that drive primary research have been severely defunded. Getting research grants is very difficult and is slowing innovation.

This R budget and tax plan will hurt it worse.
We'll be crushing the early pipeline the majors use to buy up and build their drug pipelines.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Marco Rubio now opposes the tax bill so there's some hope that it will not pass.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...gainst-gop-tax-bill-passage-uncertain-n829836

 

[ivwshane]

Marco Rubio now opposes the tax bill so there's some hope that it will not pass.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...gainst-gop-tax-bill-passage-uncertain-n829836

If you are hanging your hopes on the likes marco rubio, you will surely be disappointed.