Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:Bigger than "Read my lips, no new taxes"? I wonder which will have more lasting fallout.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Peeps wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Bigger than "Read my lips, no new taxes"? I wonder which will have more lasting fallout.

not raising taxes is always a given. when a politician says it i dont think any of them mean it, it just means they will do their best to reach around as they screw us

I just meant that my impressions was that the "Read my lips" debacle was a bit part of why HW Bush was a single termer. Here's hoping that Trump's awful performance in his first 100 days will have the same effect.

bart wrote:It's clearly not.

McParadigm wrote:GOP Senators/Reps: Well, that sucked. But we can allow the ACA undermine the ACA to the point of collapse (as a function of its initial drafting), and make repeal work that way.

@SkitchP wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I hope the left gloating on this disappears quickly. The longer the gloating, the increased likelihood that they decide to target the ACA again.

I understand, and I agree with a perspective I read earlier today that this could actually be manipulated into fodder for the GOP in 18...but, christ, give it 48 hours. Liberals just spent 3 months with "you lost so shut up snowflake." And then those same douchebags crashed in the absolute dumbest, most unspinnable way possible.

Better still, it was the first time ever democrats in office were smart enough to stfu and not give them an out...which is basically a victory all it's own.

I mean...what could be better than Paul Ryan self-immolation while Schumer stays silent for a whole day at a time?

I think if it was more "YES WE'RE KEEPING THE ACA!!!" gloating it wouldnt make me so uncomfortable. Repeatedly pointing out "HAHAHA RYAN AND TRUMP AND THE GOP ARE FAILURES" just seems like something that will make them, going forward, far more resolute.

B wrote:Lindsey Graham gives me some hope.

Of course, he also said this ...

Do Republicans really expect Democrats to vote for a bill created entirely without them in the room which makes NO consensus to their point of view?

Shit, ACA spent a year being bent from a Centrist bill to a Center-Right bill and Republicans still refused to vote for it. This one spent 18 hours being crammed up Democratic asses and the GOP is shocked, SHOCKED, that none of them voted for it.

B wrote:obviously.

B wrote:Lindsey Graham gives me some hope.

Of course, he also said this ...

Do Republicans really expect Democrats to vote for a bill created entirely without them in the room which makes NO consensus to their point of view?

Shit, ACA spent a year being bent from a Centrist bill to a Center-Right bill and Republicans still refused to vote for it. This one spent 18 hours being crammed up Democratic asses and the GOP is shocked, SHOCKED, that none of them voted for it.

Electromatic wrote:Health Insurance these days is not insurance, we're paying for buying into a plan in large groups.

tragabigzanda wrote:Funny you should ask, my wife made a comparison spreadsheet last night (as it relates to our own finances). Our question was whether it might be cheaper for me to set up insurance through my company (I'm the only FT employee); to buy on the open market; or for her to keep the plan we have through her job.

Keeping the plan through her job won by a significant amount. It's just about the buying power of a larger organization, you know?

Green Habit wrote:

Electromatic wrote:Health Insurance these days is not insurance, we're paying for buying into a plan in large groups.

Uh, that's exactly what all forms of insurance are, by definition. And the way most forms of insurance are able to work is by managing the risk pools properly, including charging more or denying coverage for the riskiest. That's entirely uncontroversial for most forms of insurance, but with health insurance it creates a terrible moral problem that we generally know as the practice of vetting for pre-existing conditions.

I'm coming to think that the best way to solve the problem is to have the government dedicate part of its budget particularly to serve those with pre-existing conditions. I don't think you need to do single payer to do that--you could simply raise taxes devoted to covering those people. I'd personally prefer a public option so that people could buy in and help reduce the amount of tax revenue that's needed. Once you take care of the riskiest of pools, I think you'd see the private insurance market right its ship.