U.S. Politics-Getting a Handel On Why the DNC Is Pissing Ossof

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Also, Iove how the "Party of Bidness" gets a 7 point lead in "dealing with economy". Based on what evidence? The Bush Boom? The Brownback boom? The way Reagen did it?

Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

The Stock market has been up, I guess? 

[drawkcabi]

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Agreed, Wealthcare is the perfect name for it. That said it would be nice to tie both Trump and McConnell's name to this abortion. Trumpy and the Turtle's Wealthcare?

Tortoise and the Hairscare?

[Red Tiger]

So are they gonna succeed in pushing Trumpcare through?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Red Tiger said:

So are they gonna succeed in pushing Trumpcare through?

If they think they can do it without cutting their own throats, yes. That seems to be the calculus that is taking place right now.

[LongRider]

1 minute ago, drawkcabi said:

Tortoise and the Hairscare?

Hairscare Healthcare!  That will fix what ails ya!

[drawkcabi]

1 minute ago, Red Tiger said:

So are they gonna succeed in pushing Trumpcare through?

They are relentless so, yeah it's going to pass. It's gonna hurt, and hurt bad. Hopefully voters will remember (those left alive that is) in 2018.

[LongRider]

7 minutes ago, drawkcabi said:

(those left alive that is)

Good point.

[Red Tiger]

Jesus fucking christ this is depressing. To  make matters worse, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Bryer are pretty old, so the right might get even more power on the  Judicial branch. As if having the White House and congress aint enough.

[Rippounet]

So I've been going on Breitbart again, and something I don't get about the Wealthcare/Trumpcare bill is that the "individual mandate" has only been modified so that people without insurance have to pay a penalty to insurance companies instead of paying it to the government.
And I'm like: what the actual fuck?
I don't get this at all. I thought the main reason conservatives hated Obamacare is that it didn't give people a choice to buy or not buy insurance. Something I can actually understand: if an individual is willing to take the risk of not having any insurance, then maybe he should be allowed to take that risk, in the name of individual liberty.
But this bill does not provide more individual liberty. So why the fuck is anyone cheering exactly?
Apparently the logic is that insurers lose money if they have to pay for the healthcare of sick/elderly individuals while healthy/young individuals don't want to contribute. So the insurers must be compensated -so they don't raise their prices to protect their profits.
It basically eliminates any kind of business risk for insurance companies. It makes potential consumers subsidize private companies if they don't subscribe to their service. By that logic, people in Vermont should be paying a penalty to companies providing insurance for tornadoes in Texas (Texas is the state where there are the most tornadoes, Vermont where there are the least).
This isn't about individual liberty at all, it's just about entrusting private companies with responsibilities that were taken on by the government.
The difference being, of course, that the government is headed by elected officials, thus providing some form of democratic oversight.
Also the government isn't trying to make a profit, it's supposed to work for the people.

The sad irony is that no one over at Breitbart really understands this. There was one person commenting that their aunt had cerebral palsy and that the caps on medicaid could kill her. People just told them that is was their family and their responsibility, and that they should not be expected others to pay for their aunt's treatment.
Notwithstanding the fact that the exchange shows what this is all about (basic human solidarity and empathy and the lack thereof), no one seems to understand that people will, in fact, pay for the care of others indirectly. Through penalties and insurance fees, everyone will indirectly pay for the treatment of sick people, but only those rich enough to afford insurance. Or rather, they will pay to guarantee that the insurance companies can pay for the treatment of the sick rich people and still make a profit.

It's so crazy it's unbelievable, It's privatizing a public service (healthcare) but Americans still don't get to choose whether they want the service or not.
This is not conservatism. I'm not sure what it is and how to call it, but it doesn't actually put any emphasis on individual liberty. It only guarantees that private companies make huge profits, and that poor people who can't afford their services will die.
Shouldn't true conservatives be just as angry at Republicans as liberals?

[mcbigski]

On 6/23/2017 at 1:49 PM, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

 

Look at how they repeatedly try to shut Elizabeth Warren up, and now Kamala Harris.

Its perfectly fine when its Betsy Devos though because double standard.

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Red Tiger said:

Jesus fucking christ this is depressing. To  make matters worse, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Bryer are pretty old, so the right might get even more power on the  Judicial branch. As if having the White House and congress aint enough.

I assume you're referring to the rumors Kennedy is about to announce his retirement?  Yes, it is depressing.

27 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Its perfectly fine when its Betsy Devos though because double standard.

The fuck does Betsy DeVos have to do with it?  Please cite a relevant comparison, which would be a Democratic legislator publicly silencing a fellow GOP female MC.

37 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

So I've been going on Breitbart again, and something I don't get about the Wealthcare/Trumpcare bill is that the "individual mandate" has only been modified so that people without insurance have to pay a penalty to insurance companies instead of paying it to the government.
And I'm like: what the actual fuck?

...

This is not conservatism.

This is one of Paul's main problems with the bill, and why I don't think he'll vote for it.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

I assume you're referring to the rumors Kennedy is about to announce his retirement?  Yes, it is depressing.

...Dayumn, I honestly didn't even know about that. I was actually more referring to the ages of some Supreme Court nominees to who have some libveral leanings.

Bryer is mostly liberal and he's close to 80

Ginsberg is in her 80s, liberal and has had health issues

Kennedy is a libertarianm, sure, but you can work with him on civil right

But man oh man, if those rumours are true, then liberals are fucked.

[LongRider]

9 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

But man oh man, if those rumours are true, then liberals are fucked.

Yes, and so are most of the conservatives and Trump's base, they just don't know it yet.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

So I've been going on Breitbart again, and something I don't get about the Wealthcare/Trumpcare bill is that the "individual mandate" has only been modified so that people without insurance have to pay a penalty to insurance companies instead of paying it to the government.
And I'm like: what the actual fuck?
I don't get this at all. I thought the main reason conservatives hated Obamacare is that it didn't give people a choice to buy or not buy insurance. Something I can actually understand: if an individual is willing to take the risk of not having any insurance, then maybe he should be allowed to take that risk, in the name of individual liberty.
But this bill does not provide more individual liberty. So why the fuck is anyone cheering exactly?

Because the black man made us buy insurance.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Yes, and so are most of the conservatives and Trump's base, they just don't know it yet.

Yeah, but considering they have continuously supported and pushed Trump's bullshit, I have no sympathy for them.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Rippounet said:

.The sad irony is that no one over at Breitbart really understands this. There was one person commenting that their aunt had cerebral palsy and that the caps on medicaid could kill her. People just told them that is was their family and their responsibility, and that they should not be expected others to pay for their aunt's treatment.

Isn’t libertarianism the best? If you can’t afford to let say educate your child well too bad. Lets get rid of public schools. Or like say if a family member gets murdered and you can’t pay to have the crime investigated and prosectued, oh well. Let’s eliminate publicly funded police departments and courts, cause, cause, golly!!! that’s socialism.

I find, however, from personal experience that many of these same conservatives, whenever they decide to get their libertarianism on, would support a draft if necessary. I know, cause I ask them, whenever they decide to get all libertariannnnnissssh, for the reason of trying to find out how libertarian they really are and letting them know they aren’t all that libertarian, just conveniently so.

Not to mention these same people are often pro-waterboarding.

[DMC]

28 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

...Dayumn, I honestly didn't even know about that. I was actually more referring to the ages of some Supreme Court nominees to who have some libveral leanings.

Bryer is mostly liberal and he's close to 80

Ginsberg is in her 80s, liberal and has had health issues

Kennedy is a libertarianm, sure, but you can work with him on civil right

But man oh man, if those rumours are true, then liberals are fucked.

Breyer is about to be 79.  Hoping he can hold out - Stevens did until he was 90.  Ginsburg at 84 with her issues is much more concerning.  I'm surprised about the Kennedy rumors - thought he enjoyed his role on the court and would be a lifer.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

The sad irony is that no one over at Breitbart really understands this.

Really? If you look at the comments for, say, this article, the majority of them is angry at the bill in general and the talk of a mandate in particular. Incidentally, the mandate to pay an insurance company is quite likely to be unconstitutional: the original ACA mandate only survived because the Supreme Court interpreted it as a tax, but the new one doesn't have that option.

48 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I assume you're referring to the rumors Kennedy is about to announce his retirement?  Yes, it is depressing.

I guess the evidence is that he pushed up the reunion with his clerks by a year? That sounds kind of thin to me.

[DMC]

Just now, Altherion said:

I guess the evidence is that he pushed up the reunion with his clerks by a year? That sounds kind of thin to me.

I'd agree except for the GW professor that used to clerk for him seeming to give it credence in link I gave.  Though I suppose you could interpret that multiple ways.  Drudge putting it at the top of the page worries me as well - dude's not usually wrong when he does stuff like that.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

Breyer is about to be 79.  Hoping he can hold out - Stevens did until he was 90.  Ginsburg at 84 with her issues is much more concerning.  I'm surprised about the Kennedy rumors - thought he enjoyed his role on the court and would be a lifer.

He might love his job, but he's been on the bench for 30 years and he is still 80, eventually it's gonna wear on you. Stevens and his monstrous 35 years are a rarity. He was the third-longest serving judge, after all.