Rand Paul Invades The House Of Reps!!

[DC Tom]

Agree... truly disheartening... gone are the days where things could be adjusted to accomodate more than one point of view and every side be ok with it.

 

I've taken to calling it "Manicheanist politics." The belief that politics is an absolute struggle between good and evil.

[ExiledInIllinois]

You know gator, by preponderance of evidence you are a phucking uneducated, lazy, assmudgeon of a pissant, who only detracts from this board. Whenever you get sent on vacation the level of discourse here rises and the sun shines just a little bit brighter.

Honestly, what is he doing wrong?

 

"you're knew here. Disirregsrdless you wouldn't get it."

 

This is the level of discourse here, without them?

 

3.5 out of 6 ain't bad! Hey! That's convenient! ;-)

 

I gave him 1/2 right for right word, but wrong spelling.

 

At least you have enough common sense to edit...

[Magox]

On a substantive level, rather than repeal and replace the whole law, they should just look to repeal parts of the law and replace parts of it.

 

The idea that you are going to get 60 people to vote for the replace parts of the law that Rand, Cruz and Lee would like are next to nil.

 

I'm playing all the scenarios out in how they will do this and I just don't see it. You guys are seeing the political climate out there, do you really think there is an appetite for Democrats to work with Trump? Seriously, aside from a handful of Dems at most, this would be political suicide.

 

One of the problems is that Repubs will pay a heavy political cost for not repealing and replacing the law. But if anyone is able to hoodwink the entire base, it's Trump. He could suggest/instruct them to Repeal parts of the law and to replace in piecemeal parts. I think there is a shot they could replace parts of the law and get to that 60 vote threshold.

 

I don't know. Someone, help me out. Help me see a way where Democrats will help join in to get 60 votes on a replace.

[grinreaper]

Honestly, what is he doing wrong?

 

"you're knew here. Disirregsrdless you wouldn't get it."

 

This is the level of discourse here, without them?

 

3.5 out of 6 ain't bad! Hey! That's convenient! ;-)

 

I gave him 1/2 right for right word, but wrong spelling.

 

At least you have enough common sense to edit...

"Of" is not a cinnamon of "have".

[North Buffalo]

I've taken to calling it "Manicheanist politics." The belief that politics is an absolute struggle between good and evil.

Interesting but that theory ignores the fallible man, instead all black and white. I think there is both, with a lot of people falling somewhere in the middle. Certain native americans believed human life on earth was a hell or form of purgatory. Struggle sounds too Dyanetics like cant buy that crap, ends up being toonarcissistic.

Edited March 3, 2017 by North Buffalo

[ExiledInIllinois]

"Of" is not a cinnamon of "have".

No schit Sherlock. Of course there will always be ticky-tacky, over-officious grammar jerks when they can't win an argument on the merit of the argument.

 

The discourse is so much better when they aren't here? Because it becomes your own echo-chamber?

 

 

"Why Do People Say Should Of?

 

When youre talking, it sounds as if youre saying I should of called my sister or I shoulda called my sister, and I must of forgotten her phone number or I musta left my phone at home.

 

It sounds as if youre saying should of or shoulda and must of or musta, but these words are really contractions:

 

shouldve for should have

mustve for must have

couldve for could have

Remember that these words arent spelled the way they sound. You might say, shoulda, coulda, woulda, but you should spell them shouldve, couldve, and wouldve."

[grinreaper]

No schit Sherlock. Of course there will always be ticky-tacky, over-officious grammar jerks when they can't win an argument on the merit of the argument.

 

The discourse is so much better when they aren't here? Because it becomes your own echo-chamber?

 

 

"Why Do People Say Should Of?

 

When youre talking, it sounds as if youre saying I should of called my sister or I shoulda called my sister, and I must of forgotten her phone number or I musta left my phone at home.

 

It sounds as if youre saying should of or shoulda and must of or musta, but these words are really contractions:

 

shouldve for should have

mustve for must have

couldve for could have

Remember that these words arent spelled the way they sound. You might say, shoulda, coulda, woulda, but you should spell them shouldve, couldve, and wouldve."

You asked me what he did wrong and I then told you. I occasionally pick on gator because he continuously makes the same mistakes. He's not only an idiot but he's too lazy to learn from those mistakes. Remember the $15 an hour times 40 hours =$600 a week x's 4 weeks to the month=$2400 x's 12 months = $28.800 a year debacle? Even after his error was explained to him he stuck by it.

[North Buffalo]

You asked me what he did wrong and I then told you. I occasionally pick on gator because he continuously makes the same mistakes. He's not only an idiot but he's too lazy to learn from those mistakes. Remember the $15 an hour times 40 hours =$600 a week x's 4 weeks to the month=$2400 x's 12 months = $28.800 a year debacle? Even after his error was explained to him he stuck by it.

Takes after Wolf Blitzer.... Gator = Wolf

[Tiberius]

You asked me what he did wrong and I then told you. I occasionally pick on gator because he continuously makes the same mistakes. He's not only an idiot but he's too lazy to learn from those mistakes. Remember the $15 an hour times 40 hours =$600 a week x's 4 weeks to the month=$2400 x's 12 months = $28.800 a year debacle? Even after his error was explained to him he stuck by it.

My God that really was so horrible!

 

Get a life

[Azalin]

Takes after Wolf Blitzer.... Gator = Wolf

 

I'm no fan of Wolf Blitzer, but to liken him to an incontinent, lobotomized Yorkshire Terrier with Down's syndrome is completely uncalled for.

[ExiledInIllinois]

You asked me what he did wrong and I then told you. I occasionally pick on gator because he continuously makes the same mistakes. He's not only an idiot but he's too lazy to learn from those mistakes. Remember the $15 an hour times 40 hours =$600 a week x's 4 weeks to the month=$2400 x's 12 months = $28.800 a year debacle? Even after his error was explained to him he stuck by it.

Again... Ticky tacky. Yeah, I know $15/hour equates to 31,200k a year. Don't work a bank holiday and it cuts into that $2,400 difference by 1/2. What about sick leave, and vacation policies? Not many places offering that any more. Sure they can give FLMA... But that's up to 12 weeks UNpaid.

 

Does it really matter? Could've, should've, would've... Could'a, should'a, would'a... Again, ticky tacky just like $1.2k to $2.4... Or which amounts to 0-8% of gross pay.

 

?? Yet, the discouse is so much better when he isn't here. ?? At least he is keeping the conservative echo-chamber on it's toes... Try not to bite the other children out of verbal frustration.

[TakeYouToTasker]

On a substantive level, rather than repeal and replace the whole law, they should just look to repeal parts of the law and replace parts of it.

 

The idea that you are going to get 60 people to vote for the replace parts of the law that Rand, Cruz and Lee would like are next to nil.

 

I'm playing all the scenarios out in how they will do this and I just don't see it. You guys are seeing the political climate out there, do you really think there is an appetite for Democrats to work with Trump? Seriously, aside from a handful of Dems at most, this would be political suicide.

 

One of the problems is that Repubs will pay a heavy political cost for not repealing and replacing the law. But if anyone is able to hoodwink the entire base, it's Trump. He could suggest/instruct them to Repeal parts of the law and to replace in piecemeal parts. I think there is a shot they could replace parts of the law and get to that 60 vote threshold.

 

I don't know. Someone, help me out. Help me see a way where Democrats will help join in to get 60 votes on a replace.

They can do it through reconciliation.

 

Thanks again, Harry Reid.

[Magox]

They can do it through reconciliation.

 

Thanks again, Harry Reid.

 

The repeal they can to through reconciliation, but the vast majority of the replace cannot be done under reconciliation.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

The repeal they can to through reconciliation, but the vast majority of the replace cannot be done under reconciliation.

The law itself was passed through reconciliation, so I can see no reason it couldn't be replaced through reconciliation.

 

It's not something I recommend, as it subverts Constitutional processes; I'm just speaking to "could" as opposed to "should".

[grinreaper]

Again... Ticky tacky. Yeah, I know $15/hour equates to 31,200k a year. Don't work a bank holiday and it cuts into that $2,400 difference by 1/2. What about sick leave, and vacation policies? Not many places offering that any more. Sure they can give FLMA... But that's up to 12 weeks UNpaid.

 

Does it really matter? Could've, should've, would've... Could'a, should'a, would'a... Again, ticky tacky just like $1.2k to $2.4... Or which amounts to 0-8% of gross pay.

 

?? Yet, the discouse is so much better when he isn't here. ?? At least he is keeping the conservative echo-chamber on it's toes... Try not to bite the other children out of verbal frustration.

Seriously Eric? Gator keeps conservatives on their toes? That little pissant is lucky if he doesn't tie his shoes together when he laces them up. BTW, I'm not "knew" here.

[Magox]

The law itself was passed through reconciliation, so I can see no reason it couldn't be replaced through reconciliation.

 

It's not something I recommend, as it subverts Constitutional processes; I'm just speaking to "could" as opposed to "should".

 

TYTT,

 

I've read more about this than I would have liked to have but in order for reconciliation to be used, is that many provisions in a replace bill wouldn't have a specific budgetary impact, which within the confines of budget reconciliation does not meet the criteria. Such as selling insurance across state lines, tort reform, maintaining people that are 26 years old on their parents policies or covering people with pre existing medical conditions. These are priorities of Trump and that are in the goals of the House/Price/Trump health plan.

 

The only way they could circumvent the process is to eliminate the fillibuster.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

TYTT,

 

I've read more about this than I would have liked to have but in order for reconciliation to be used, is that many provisions in a replace bill wouldn't have a specific budgetary impact, which within the confines of budget reconciliation does not meet the criteria. Such as selling insurance across state lines, tort reform, maintaining people that are 26 years old on their parents policies or covering people with pre existing medical conditions. These are priorities of Trump and that are in the goals of the House/Price/Trump health plan.

 

The only way they could circumvent the process is to eliminate the fillibuster.

Anything having to do with the expansion or contraction of Medicare/caid would be considered to have serious budgetary impacts though, no?

[Magox]

Anything having to do with the expansion or contraction of Medicare/caid would be considered to have serious budgetary impacts though, no?

 

Depends, give me an example.

[Magox]

Here are a couple areas I'd like for anyone who cares how the Repeal and Replace could work only in part through Budget Reconciliation. Outside of Budget Reconciliation, you have to get the good old 60 Filibuster proof amount of votes to push important parts of the health plan.

 

If anyone is interested in really understanding how something like this would need to be done, have a read.

 

Can reconciliation be used to repeal and replace “Obamacare”?

Reconciliation could be used to repeal and replace some parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”) but could not be used to fully repeal the law and could only be used for replacement policies affecting spending and revenues.

Full repeal would violate numerous parts of the Byrd rule. First, full repeal would cost roughly $500 billion over a decade since the legislation’s Medicare cuts and tax increases exceed the ACA’s new spending, and those costs would grow over time. Second, the provisions increasing costs outside of the budget window would violate the Byrd rule. Further, parts of the ACA contain non-budgetary items that would be subject to the Byrd rule if repealed in a reconciliation bill.

To comply with the Byrd rule, the reconciliation bill passed in 2015 to repeal the ACA largely left in place the legislation’s Medicare reductions. The reconciliation bill also initially delayed but did not repeal the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans to avoid revenue loss outside the budget window, but an amendment repealing it was adopted by an overwhelming bipartisan vote and no Byrd rule challenge was raised despite its deficit impact.

Additionally, the legislation left in place a large number of legal requirements in the ACA, including the essential benefits package requirements, the prohibition on insurers denying or charging more for coverage for those pre-existing conditions, the limits on “medical loss ratios,” and other changes that do not have a direct budgetary effect. It also technically retained the legislation’s individual mandates (though it reduced the penalties to $0) and left in place the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which can make Medicare savings recommendations subject to congressional disapproval on a fast-tracked basis.

Importantly, reconciliation legislation can include provisions with costs, such as tax credits for health insurance or other tax and spending policies replacing Obamacare, as long as the net effect of the bill complies with the reconciliation instructions and does not increase the deficit beyond the budget window. The budget resolution that provides reconciliation instructions would need to include the costs and savings of both the repeal and the replacement. If replacement legislation were considered as part of a separate reconciliation process, then the replacement plan (assuming a net cost) would likely need to sunset to avoid increasing the deficit beyond the budget window, unless the reconciliation legislation contained other savings to offset the net cost of replacement. Any changes in requirements for insurance companies, which are likely to be an important element of any replacement legislation, could not likely be passed under reconciliation without 60 votes to waive the Byrd rule.

 

And here.

 

One obstacle here is the set of pesky Senate rules about just what the reconciliation process can be used for. Depending on how it’s written, a full-blown health reform bill would likely contain many provisions that don’t have a specific budgetary impact. “Allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines, for instance, probably can’t fly under reconciliation,” says Sarah Binder, a congressional procedure expert at the Brookings Institution. Instead, policy changes like that would likely have to be considered under normal Senate order, which means they could be filibustered.

The upshot is that a comprehensive replace bill could well need 60 Senate votes, not just 51, to advance — which means the GOP would have to win over at least eight Senate Democrats. That seems immensely challenging. However, the New York Times’s Maggie Haberman and Robert Pear report that House Speaker Paul Ryan’s aides currently believe the Senate will end up having to try to pass an ordinary bill alongside or shortly after the reconciliation effort to enact truly comprehensive health reform.

If there’s a second piece of legislation (or a few more pieces of legislation) involved in the effort, then the bulk of the process outlined above — debates and amendments in four committees, Congressional Budget Office scoring, a merger of the committees’ various bills, a floor debate and amendments, passage in both chambers, conference committee, passage again in both chambers, and the president’s signature — would all have to be done again. But the threshold at the end for success in the Senate would be 60 votes, because of that filibuster.

There are five Democratic senators representing deep red states that Trump won by double digits: Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Jon Tester of Montana. All five are up for reelection in 2018, so they might be eager to work with Trump on high-profile issues to prove their centrist bona fides. Still, most of them have shown no love for the GOP’s Obamacare replacement ideas. And even if they are won over, Republicans would need to pick off at least three more Democrats — and it’s harder to imagine whom they might be.

A replacement effort under the regular rules, therefore, seems likely to stall. If it does, there may be a round of chatter from the right about whether the filibuster should be eliminated. But many key Republican senators seem distinctly uninterested in taking such a drastic measure.

 

[B-Man]

 

Report: House GOP to vote on ObamaCare repeal in three weeks, prepared to “steamroll” conservatives if necessary