Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 6     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   Next
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 5,402
Reply with quote  #121 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDad
Zinke may regret threatening Murkowski since she has sway over his department.

She denied any suggestion that she had used her power as chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over Zinke's department, to hit back by postponing a committee meeting that would have included votes on three Interior nominees.

In addition to her energy panel gavel, Murkowski chairs the Senate Appropriations subcommittee in charge of deciding how much money Interior has to spend each year.

The Senate has proven to be largely useless.  Them threatening to be even more useless is a lot of meh. 

__________________
 
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,628
Reply with quote  #122 
Skinny repeal was a complete dodge of their duty. When Ryan agreed it would go to conference, he wisely stipulated the Senate would have to act first on the conference bill since the Senate punted it there.

Fifteen minutes before voting started, McCain crossed over to yuk it up with top Dems. Just before voting, he told someone to "watch this" and then made a spectacle of voting against it. 
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 5,402
Reply with quote  #123 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDad
Skinny repeal was a complete dodge of their duty. When Ryan agreed it would go to conference, he wisely stipulated the Senate would have to act first on the conference bill since the Senate punted it there.

Fifteen minutes before voting started, McCain crossed over to yuk it up with top Dems. Just before voting, he told someone to "watch this" and then made a spectacle of voting against it. 

I am actually very happy skinny failed.  That was as big a turd as they could muster. 

Good point on Ryan making a smart move stipulating that they had to act on conference bill first.  That is what likely kept mccain from voting for it.  

It is also probably why Lee and some of the HFC guys allowed themselves to vote for it, they knew it would not pass, and if it did, the conference action would take precedence. 
 

__________________
 
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 4,462
Reply with quote  #124 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNarrator
Ocare passed with every democratic senator voting for it.  

Every GOP senator ran on "repeal and replace".

Who brokered the deals on Ocare?  I am sure not every dem senator was happy with it, but they got it done.

GOP showing their current structure is WEAK.

THIS++

Many Repubs are too busy virtue signaling to their friends across the isle to just shut up and toe the line.
Sometimes you need to do what's best for the cause.
Dems get this
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,628
Reply with quote  #125 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uwApoligist
I am actually very happy skinny failed.  That was as big a turd as they could muster. 

Good point on Ryan making a smart move stipulating that they had to act on conference bill first.  That is what likely kept mccain from voting for it.  

It is also probably why Lee and some of the HFC guys allowed themselves to vote for it, they knew it would not pass, and if it did, the conference action would take precedence. 

Skinny was a fuster cluck. It was originally just a few of least popular Ocare provisions (i.e. repeal individual and employer mandates; medical device tax) just to pass something to get it to conference. HFC's Meadows came out against it like it was a serious bill. Someone clued him in and he went along with the conference plan.

Evidently some clueless senators insisted on fattening it up to get their vote (e.g. bigger HSA). They even added increased funding for community health centers to entice Murkowski. The additions backfired because they made the bill more plausible as something the House would take up instead of going to conference. 

The extremely poor communication within the GOP the past few months caused many problems as members spouted off before they understood what was going on. That was okay when they were opposing Dems, however it's extremely counterproductive when they're trying to pass something. Hopefully they learned their lessons from this so they don't repeat the same mistakes with tax reform.
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 5,402
Reply with quote  #126 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDad

Skinny was a fuster cluck. It was originally just a few of least popular Ocare provisions (i.e. repeal individual and employer mandates; medical device tax) just to pass something to get it to conference. HFC's Meadows came out against it like it was a serious bill. Someone clued him in and he went along with the conference plan.

Evidently some clueless senators insisted on fattening it up to get their vote (e.g. bigger HSA). They even added increased funding for community health centers to entice Murkowski. The additions backfired because they made the bill more plausible as something the House would take up instead of going to conference. 

The extremely poor communication within the GOP the past few months caused many problems as members spouted off before they understood what was going on. That was okay when they were opposing Dems, however it's extremely counterproductive when they're trying to pass something. Hopefully they learned their lessons from this so they don't repeat the same mistakes with tax reform.

I just don't get the fat laddening from the republicans.  It is jaw dropping to see them demand on 100's of Billions like it is nothing.  The opiate addiction, the this, the that.  Then that HSA run up at the end.  Murkowski is a solid joke.  Collins and McCain too.  Better passing nothing, hopefully some voters figure it out and screw those guys over.

Agree on the extremely poor communications within the GOP.  Trump owns his part of this for sure.  I still think if you had someone savvy, like gingridge was back in the day, They would realize that Trump is a pretty functional mouth piece.  Feed him a few lines, let him go take the shots from the MSM and dems.   

Reagan had Trent Lott and Howard Baker, and they did a great job of giving him talking points and coordinating to achieve action. 

__________________
 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,942
Reply with quote  #127 
Good post
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 3,831
Reply with quote  #128 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
Good post


Yep. Won't stop the nevertrump brothers from their 'pompoms' and 'worship' insults. They angry.

__________________
"It was a well worn path that has found a new wanderer."
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,942
Reply with quote  #129 

Seven Republican senators voted against Obamacare repeal this week after previously pledging to support it. Here's a list of the seven senators along with their previous quotes supporting repeal.

Please help us replace them with true conservative leaders by making a contribution to the Senate Conservatives Fund.
 
[d502488c-741e-4965-92bc-a016fe779894]
LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK)
THEN“This law is not affordable for anyone in Alaska. That is why I will support the bill that repeals the ACA and wipes out its harmful impacts."
NOW: Voted Against Repeal
[85176399-5af0-4d3b-a954-6e18d6422960]
DEAN HELLER (R-NV)
THEN"The repeal of this law will not only reduce federal spending, but it will also allow Congress to address problems within the current health care system.”
NOW: Voted Against Repeal
[b0cbe930-5b25-4034-82b7-884670db54e6]
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO (R-WV)
THEN"I have consistently voted to repeal and replace this disastrous health care law, and I am glad that a repeal bill will finally reach the president’s desk."
NOW: Voted Against Repeal
[c9744f45-2190-4f7b-912e-078befcfe97c]
LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN)
THEN"Obamacare was an historic mistake, and should be repealed and replaced with step-by-step reforms that transform the health care delivery system."
NOW: Voted Against Repeal
[d8090cc1-4715-481d-896b-65d24c5fb7e9]
SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME)
THEN"I believe that we made - that Congress made - a real error in passing Obamacare, we should repeal the law so that we can start over."
NOW: Voted Against Repeal
[7e63f753-343e-49d4-a8d9-d4a7ea8f86ca]
JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ)
THEN“It is clear that any serious attempt to improve our health care system must begin with a full repeal and replacement of Obamacare.”
NOW: Voted Against Repeal
[b582f95b-2013-4de2-9783-1a3177d19507]
ROB PORTMAN (R-OH)
THEN“[Obamacare] is fundamentally flawed. I do think we ought to delay ... and then we’ve got to repeal this thing and start over."
NOW: Voted Against Repeal
 
"There is simply no excuse for their opposition to repeal.

They spent years promising to repeal the law and now with a Republican in the White House they have the power to do it."

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,121
Reply with quote  #130 
They campaigned to "repeal and replace".  The skinny bill only repealed the mandates.  That was the problem.  There was no proposed replacement.  The healthcare  system would be in worse shape than it is now.
__________________
“The hand of help has no color. The face of caring has no shape. The language of love has no accent.” - Unattributed
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 5,402
Reply with quote  #131 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DietCoke
They campaigned to "repeal and replace".  The skinny bill only repealed the mandates.  That was the problem.  There was no proposed replacement.  The healthcare  system would be in worse shape than it is now.

Not possible.  People are being punished for being hard working, supporting their family. 

__________________
 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,942
Reply with quote  #132 
[DF0WKycWsAUwuyM]
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 4,462
Reply with quote  #133 
He definitely has outlived his usefuleness to society
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,628
Reply with quote  #134 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DietCoke
They campaigned to "repeal and replace".  The skinny bill only repealed the mandates.  That was the problem.  There was no proposed replacement.  The healthcare  system would be in worse shape than it is now.

Newsflash for the clueless - skinny repeal was never intended to be passed by Congress. It was just a vehicle to punt the bill to a House/Senate conference to draft a final bill. No one knows what they would produce, but it sure wouldn't be the skinny bill.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,628
Reply with quote  #135 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uwApoligist
I just don't get the fat laddening from the republicans.  It is jaw dropping to see them demand on 100's of Billions like it is nothing.  The opiate addiction, the this, the that.  Then that HSA run up at the end.  Murkowski is a solid joke.  Collins and McCain too.  Better passing nothing, hopefully some voters figure it out and screw those guys over.

Surprised to hear you complain about Health Savings Accts since they've been a cornerstone of the Conservative approach. Certainly raises doubts about your Conservative credentials.
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 5,402
Reply with quote  #136 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDad

Surprised to hear you complain about Health Savings Accts since they've been a cornerstone of the Conservative approach. Certainly raises doubts about your Conservative credentials.

Don't get me wrong.  Love the concept of HSA.  But it should not be funded on top of all the money already flowing into Ocare.  When that round of HSA came about they were just putting more and more cash into the bill trying to buy off Murkowksi and Collins.  In the end even 100's of Billions was not enough for them.  Nothing conservative about that.  Lee and the HFC boys eventually said f' it. 

Right now the system is literally pissing through cash at an ever increasing rate.  Nothing, zero is stopping that.  So insurers are always out of cash, Medicare out of cash.  The whole thing needs 30-40% rate increases this fall, after 4 years of 30-40% increases and they are still pumping taxpayer money in after the fact to keep the insurers solvent. 



__________________
 
woody

Registered:
Posts: 8,338
Reply with quote  #137 
I thought a bill (Rubio?) sponsored, killed off, or severely limited the insurance company open ended reimbursements, (handouts to play along), when Obama was in the last year or so of his inept rule.
__________________
Anarcho Capitalism. Get some, and no you can't have any of my money to live off of you Socialist Democrat.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,628
Reply with quote  #138 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uwApoligist
Don't get me wrong.  Love the concept of HSA.  But it should not be funded on top of all the money already flowing into Ocare.  When that round of HSA came about they were just putting more and more cash into the bill trying to buy off Murkowksi and Collins.  In the end even 100's of Billions was not enough for them.  Nothing conservative about that.  Lee and the HFC boys eventually said f' it. 

Poor deflection and/or you seriously haven't been following along. I doubt you'll read this entire post since it's more than 140 characters, so I highlighted the main points.

- Skinny bill was never intended to pass Congress, just to get bill to conference.
- Skinny bill's contents were supposed to be just a few things everyone supported.
- Skinny bill's contents were meaningless once it got to conference - the clueless don't get that.
- HSA's weren't added for Collins and Murkowski. The additional community health center money was mainly added for Murkowski. Collins was a lost cause.
- Expanded HSA and waivers were added to get clueless senators on board that had balked.
- Lee was never an issue because he understood what was going on.
- HFC's Meadows got on board once he understood what was going on.
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 5,402
Reply with quote  #139 
Cutting payments to insurers is a great idea.  Trump is saying he may do exactly that.  You do that, though, you have realize they will exit the market.   They are not making any money.  They are exiting the markets with the payments.

Insurers hands are tied.  They have tried again and again to come up with some guidance on what they can refuse to cover.  Government keeps coming back and telling 'that is covered',  'that is also covered', 'and that and that and that as well'.  Guess what, if everything is covered, it is going to cost 13k per family of 4, or even more.   

You have a situation where irresponsible porch sitters and drug addicts are showing up in emergency rooms at alarming rates.   That is costing massively.  Yes hospitals are over billing, drug companies are over billing, and there is fault there as well.

Removing the individual mandate is in many plans.  That will crash the market.  People just cannot afford 13k on a 50k salary.  They will not care and will exit.  You have to hold a gun to their heads to keep them in the market.  Without them, it collapses.

The reality is that Ocare is basically a walking zombie that died about 3 years ago.  


__________________
 
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 5,402
Reply with quote  #140 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDad

Poor deflection and/or you seriously haven't been following along. I doubt you'll read this entire post since it's more than 140 characters, so I highlighted the main points.

- Skinny bill was never intended to pass Congress, just to get bill to conference.
> 100% agree. 
- Skinny bill's contents were supposed to be just a few things everyone supported.
- Skinny bill's contents were meaningless once it got to conference - the clueless don't get that.
> 100% agree.  Did not realize it the night of the vote.  To me seemed like goofy offering to McCain, to see if he would vote for anything.  After reading your explanation it made a lot more sense.  Ryan does some smart stuff.  He is still a bit of a Rino, but it takes all types to make a party.  That is the system.
- HSA's weren't added for Collins and Murkowski. The additional community health center money was mainly added for Murkowski. Collins was a lost cause.
> I accept your explanation.  I just thought all of the bills as they would start to roll them out, they would be 7 or 8 votes short.  So, they would start adding cash expenditures.  Almost in the same order.  Opiate programs, community health centers, money for this money for that, then at the end tack on HSA money.  In the end McCain, Collins and Murkowski were all lost causes.  There was just not enough money for them.  I suspect you could have offered above Ocare levels of spending, and McCain would have still said no. 
- Expanded HSA and waivers were added to get clueless senators on board that had balked.
- Lee was never an issue because he understood what was going on.
>The HFC did a great job of not letting the federal spending get so far out of control.   Every bill they just kept adding money and adding money.  To me they would have done that up until they were spending more than even Ocare, if it were not for the HFC stepping in and saying 'that is too much'.  Otherwise they would have taken any of the bills considered over the last 2 weeks, and piled cash in until they got to yes. 
- HFC's Meadows got on board once he understood what was going on.

Not true. I read all of your posts. 

__________________
 
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 9,277
Reply with quote  #141 
Today is the 50th anniversary of John McCain starting a fire on the USS Forrestal aircraft carrier which killed many servicemen...........

Take some time and read about it............


https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/no_author/john-mccain-is-no-hero/
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,942
Reply with quote  #142 
Sounds believable, let me study
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 9,277
Reply with quote  #143 
There are many stories written about this disaster during the Vietnam war..........Some are being focused on today because of the anniversary................

Quote:
McCain all by himself nearly sank a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier…



Quote:
This stunt and aftermath caused the deathof 134 sailors and seriously injure (blow off arms legs, cause blindness and burns to another 161 sailors) and took the ship off the battle line for extensive repairs. 
woody

Registered:
Posts: 8,338
Reply with quote  #144 
But, But, He's a Maverick.
__________________
Anarcho Capitalism. Get some, and no you can't have any of my money to live off of you Socialist Democrat.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
TerpAlum

Registered:
Posts: 759
Reply with quote  #145 

Let's stop:

Saying insurers aren't making any money. (They are making loads of $$)
Giving them bailouts (They don't need them.)

Let's DO:

Have them simply move individuals on the market into the SAME groups that employer-covered individuals are in.

This provides a larger pool, with less insurance bureaucracy and admin BS. Right now they spend admin hours having a--hat actuarials make up all kinds of tables on age/risk for 5% of the market! The one they use now has EVERY AGE on it, with prices for each age and risk. What a waste of time and admin $$. (In the old days the chart was grouped for every five or 10 years.)

DONE.

uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 5,402
Reply with quote  #146 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerpAlum

Let's stop:

Saying insurers aren't making any money. (They are making loads of $$)
Giving them bailouts (They don't need them.)

Let's DO:

Have them simply move individuals on the market into the SAME groups that employer-covered individuals are in.

This provides a larger pool, with less insurance bureaucracy and admin BS. Right now they spend admin hours having a--hat actuarials make up all kinds of tables on age/risk for 5% of the market! The one they use now has EVERY AGE on it, with prices for each age and risk. What a waste of time and admin $$. (In the old days the chart was grouped for every five or 10 years.)

DONE.


Insurers are leaving markets.  Solid indication they are not making money. 

Putting losers and drug addicts in with employer pools will cause the cost of those pools costs to skyrocket.  

We are going to have to address the cost issue.  We are bankrupting our country, and destroying the lower middle class.

__________________
 
TerpAlum

Registered:
Posts: 759
Reply with quote  #147 
Ps Has nothing to do with Medicaid or indigent people. These are self employed people. And it is not more than 5 percent of total pool so no prices will not skyrocket.
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 5,402
Reply with quote  #148 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerpAlum
Do you not get it? Insurers have a booming business, based on employer provided insurance. Just add the individuals in the employer pools based on state boundaries (or other boundaries) for pricing and risk purposes and stop arbitrarily separating them out. Individuals in insurance markets pay two to three times the premiums (based on employer price not employee contribution which is part of that ) of those covered under employers.

The reason 'employees' are cheaper is that 'employees' are more stable pool of people.  They tend to exercise.  They are to busy getting up and going to work to get involved in too much stupidity. 

Lump the porch sitters and drug addicts in and 'employee' insurance will cost triple.

Only answer is going to be putting the losers in indigent (cheap) care system.   

Why punish hard working Americans that are making good choices?

__________________
 
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 5,402
Reply with quote  #149 
PS, since odummercare, employee insurance has skyrocketed as well.  30-40% per year.  Deductibles have skyrocketed as well.

Employers ate the cost for a while, but last year record numbers of firms dropped fully free healthcare and employees are being asked to pay more and more of this cost.

No cost reduction, goodbye communist free healthcare system. 

__________________
 
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,628
Reply with quote  #150 
Quote:
- Lee was never an issue because he understood what was going on.
>The HFC did a great job of not letting the federal spending get so far out of control.   Every bill they just kept adding money and adding money.  To me they would have done that up until they were spending more than even Ocare, if it were not for the HFC stepping in and saying 'that is too much'.  Otherwise they would have taken any of the bills considered over the last 2 weeks, and piled cash in until they got to yes. 
- HFC's Meadows got on board once he understood what was going on.


FTR, Lee is not a member of House Freedom Caucus (HFC) since he is a senator. Lee, Cruz and Paul just have a lot in common with HFC members.

HFC had little impact on the Senate bills. HFC did squawk about the spending in the House bill, however their main focus and criteria has been lowering premiums.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: