The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hope the FBI does surveillance on Nunes. I don't trust this twat at all.
 
I'm most likely reading too much into it but this isn't a strong sign of confidence the bill passes, is it? Can somebody remind me why Ryan was elected as speaker at all? Were the other candidates even more evil / worse?

 
Pexbo said:
Err... I don't think that would go down too well :lol:
Click to expand...
Just for the sake of it, let's assume communication between a Russian Putin buddy and Nunes is intercepted that is suspicious enough to investigate Nunes for ties to Russia. How would they go about it? They wouldn't refrain from it just because he's the chairman or because it wouldn't go down too well?
 
barros said:
Un-Budget-Top-10.png

We pay more than England, Germany, Italy and France together so should you voice your support for UN in your own country?
Click to expand...
You always do this. Post some graph or something you've looked up and then proceed to not form an argument based on it or provide the source. Why?
 


Feck knows how this will go at this point.
 
senorgregster said:
Again, take a look at the percentage. The US spends $600b on American Interests via the military. You are saying we should stop $1b going to the UN? How about we build one less plane and keep funding malaria pills and 50cent meals for kids in Africa.
Click to expand...

Or stop/cut the funding both and spend the money in the US fixing our schools, healthcare, infrastructure, malnutrition problems, student loan debt, and on and on and on and on.
 
In case somebody wants to read the amendments to the bill:
 
Last edited:
Crossie said:
I'm most likely reading too much into it but this isn't a strong sign of confidence the bill passes, is it? Can somebody remind me why Ryan was elected as speaker at all? Were the other candidates even more evil / worse?
Click to expand...
Ryan was elected in the 1st place (2015) after the Tea Party retards drove John Boehner crazy. His deputy Kevin McCarthy was meant to be a strong candidate...but then Ryan came up a compromise candidate. He was meant to be a rising star with some gravitas.

But, in reality he's a hateful bastard.

He got reelected because well...they decided to stick with the status quo.
 
Crossie said:
If the GOP staffer can be believed that Matt Fuller refers to, the bill is dead.

Click to expand...

I suppose it's just hard to believe they could've done such a bad job trying to put it through, everyone's just waiting for a final twist.
 
something about the healthcare changes.

Eliminating the requirement that insurers in the individual and small-group market cover the essential health benefits would create a vicious race to the bottom among insurers. Fortunately, the manager’s amendment doesn’t go that far. Instead, the amendment tells each state to define what counts as essential within the state, “for purposes of section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code.”

State-defined benefits will then drive the size of the tax credits: the more expansive the benefits, the bigger the tax credit. Did House Republicans really want to give states an incentive to expand the definition of essential health benefits in order to draw down more federal dollars? As Tim Jost points out, this problem dissipates in 2020, when the tax credits will be fixed amounts that don’t turn on which benefits are essential. But the concern is very real for 2018 and 2019.

Even if you think that’s good policy, the manager’s amendment is troubling. Start with its irresponsibility. The new rule would apply as of January 1, 2018. But insurers have to create and price their health plans within the next few months in order to get them approved prior to the start of open enrollment. They don’t know which services their states will say are essential and they don’t have time to wait around while their states bicker about it.

The problem runs deeper. Section 36B governs eligibility for tax credits; among other things, you’re eligible only if you buy a qualified health plan that covers the essential health benefits. In 2018 and beyond, then, it looks like you’re eligible for tax credits only if you buy a health plan that adheres to state-defined essential health benefits.

So—in a weird echo of the argument in King v. Burwell—if a state hasn’t defined the essential health benefits, it seems that no one in the state is eligible for tax credits. If that’s right, then the best way to read the manager’s amendment may be the same way that Republicans in King argued the ACA should be read: as dangling tax credits to induce states to do what Congress couldn’t order them to do directly.

I can’t imagine that’s what House Republicans have in mind, just as it wasn’t what the ACA’s drafters had in mind. But that appears to be what this amendment says. Perhaps HHS could adopt an alternative interpretation through rulemaking, but that too will take time—several months, probably closer to a year—and any rule would be challenged in court. Until the uncertainty is resolved, no insurer will offer health plans in any state that—for whatever reason—can’t get its act together to specify the essential health benefits.

* * *

Which brings me to the next big ambiguity. The manager’s amendment retains almost the entirety of the ACA’s rule governing the essential health benefits. The Secretary of HHS is still required to “define the essential health benefits,” which must include the ten major benefit categories, including maternity care and mental health services. Plus, the Secretary must “ensure” that the scope of the essential health benefits is “equal to the scope of benefits provided under a typical employer plan.”

The amendment just tacks on a provision saying that, for 2018 and beyond, “each State shall define the essential health benefits with respect to health plans offered in such State, for purposes of section 36B.” That’s all the provision says; it doesn’t elaborate. So do these state-defined essential health benefits also have to cover the ten categories of benefits? And do those benefits have to be the same as those in a “typical employer plan”?

The amendment doesn’t say. It’s probably best understood to give states carte blanche. The ten categories and the typicality requirement would then apply only to the HHS Secretary’s definition, not to the states’ definitions.

But that’s not the only way to read the amendment. It’s also possible to read it as shifting responsibility for defining the essential health benefits from the Secretary to the states. On that view, states would have to adhere to the same rules that govern the Secretary’s definition. Maternity care and mental health services, among other benefits, would still count as essential. Typicality would be preserved.

Now, Secretary Price could probably issue a rule resolving this ambiguity in favor of state authority. But that, again, will take time—maybe years, if you take into account the inevitable litigation. In the meantime, the uncertainty over the availability of tax credits will drive insurers from the individual insurance markets.

* * *

The deficiencies of the manager’s amendment exemplify the perils of refashioning an enormous and complex system on the fly. Health care is complicated; anyone who tells you otherwise is delusional. If Republicans want to change the rules governing the essential health benefits, they need to take care that they don’t accidentally destroy the individual insurance market. The manager’s amendment fails to clear that very low bar.

@nicholas_bagley
Click to expand...
 
The irony of this healthcare bill is that they can't ever win.

Half the people are voting no because they are whats left of the sensible republicans who understand that is this goes through, their constituents will be fecked and they will be voted out of office as soon as possible.

The other half voting no are the freedom caucous, the tea party nutters who just want the lot to burn and don't give a feck how many die as a result, because it will be poor people and they do not matter.

You cannot ever reconcile the two, and one lot voting no is enough to kill it.
 
The tweet is now 4 hours old and based on 'hearsay' but nevertheless an interesting overview.

 
I feel that the GOP have been waging a Cold War on the ideals and people of this country since a man with Alzheimers told us the government were the enemy. The republican representatives I have witnessed in my time in this country are the dumbest mutherfeckers I have ever seen and Nunes takes the fecking cake.
I only wish that one generation could realize that this party does not have their or this nations best interest at heart and vote accordingly. Before anyone says that the Dems are crooks too and some are just as stupid I would tend to agree to some extent on one or two individuals but this Republican Party are on another fecking planet when it come to what this country needs.
Every election they create a fictional figure to run against or just run against their own positions and stupid people lap it up. Maybe we could help the uninformed out by demanding presidential candidates announce their VP and cabinet picks so you can better inform yourself of the consequences of your vote. The media also need to put people from other countries front and center to explain the benefits of a more mutually beneficial system. Sick and tired of watching asshats on tv and one last point, well done to Ali Velshi on MSNBC, he is schooling these anti math cnuts everyday and making look like the partisan crooked liars they are.
 
sglowrider said:
What leverage would he have to force a man to do done thing this stupid that would taint his career? And to what ends? Nothing was achieved.
Click to expand...


As I said before, the simple explanation is that the intel he saw, one of the conversations was his own. Only someone that deep in the shite would panic this much.
 
Fergies Gum said:
Click to expand...


This is confusing though, of course it isn't going well and on top of that it's going against many of the promises Trump made before and after the election. He can't be happy with it anyway because it contradicts many of his promises and he has reiterated those promises countless times in recent weeks. Surely he needs to keep hold of all the support he has, not ostracise them further.
 
langster said:
This is confusing though, of course it isn't going well and on top of that it's going against many of the promises Trump made before and after the election. He can't be happy with it anyway because it contradicts many of his promises and he has reiterated those promises countless times in recent weeks. Surely he needs to keep hold of all the support he has, not ostracise them further.
Click to expand...

Trump has no clue what it will do, he has no clue what obamacare did, and he doesn't care what the effects will be, and he couldn't understand it even if he was bothered.
 
langster said:
This is confusing though, of course it isn't going well and on top of that it's going against many of the promises Trump made before and after the election. He can't be happy with it anyway because it contradicts many of his promises and he has reiterated those promises countless times in recent weeks. Surely he needs to keep hold of all the support he has, not ostracise them further.
Click to expand...

Trump would ideally want to keep his party on side but I could see his temperament getting the better of him to an extent.
 
Looks like Nunes leaked selective classified info and blamed an "anonymous source".
Waspo calling for him to be investigated.
How he could take derails of the investigation to the people being investigated and still be in the job is beyond me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.