U.S. Politics: The Jeff Sessions: The Killing of a Keebler Elf

[Kalbear]

Giving states the ability to do the waiver for EHB is incredibly horrible, as because of awesome rules it means that as long as an insurance company is in one state without EHBs any plans they can offer can be 'based' in that state for EMPLOYERS.

The good news is that this isn't cutting medicaid. The bad news is that is is likely to fuck over my family. 

[Fez]

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Giving states the ability to do the waiver for EHB is incredibly horrible, as because of awesome rules it means that as long as an insurance company is in one state without EHBs any plans they can offer can be 'based' in that state for EMPLOYERS.

The good news is that this isn't cutting medicaid. The bad news is that is is likely to fuck over my family. 

Yeah, its bad. But not all employers are affected, because large group insurance was never subject to EHB requirements. So if you work for a company with 100 or more employees and were receiving EHB coverage, it was because your employer decided to do so, not the ACA. So this doesn't change that. Everyone else with non-government coverage though, yeah, we might be screwed. Depending on the state you're in and what your employer feels like offering/what you can afford on the individual market.

Also, slight correction to above. The employer mandate is actually not eliminated, its suspended through 2025 and then would take effect again. Also, I was wrong about which prevention fund was getting cut, this is the one that gives the CDC $1 billion per year; so the CDC is getting around 1/12th of its budget cut tonight. If this passes.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

Yeah, its bad. But not all employers are affected, because large group insurance was never subject to EHB requirements.

This isn't true at all. Large group insurance is absolutely required to implement EHB. This was kind of a big deal, if you'll recall, with the Hobby Lobby thing. In addition to that, it means things like pre-existing condition coverage can be waived. It means that the 26 and under thing can be waived. 

 

[Kalbear]

This thread seems to contradict what I said above; it basically states that because the BRCA language isn't in there, any waiver granted would require that the state give at least as much coverage and as comprehensive coverage as what the ACA does now. So yay!
 

ETA: or maybe not. While the waiver is granted, that state can blow it on hookers and cocaine for the next 8 years without the waiver being repealed. 

It's astounding how fucking irresponsible and vile this fucking process and bill is. 

[Fez]

27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This isn't true at all. Large group insurance is absolutely required to implement EHB. This was kind of a big deal, if you'll recall, with the Hobby Lobby thing. In addition to that, it means things like pre-existing condition coverage can be waived. It means that the 26 and under thing can be waived. 

 

No, they aren't. Large group plans, self-insured plans, and grandfathered plans are all exempt. https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Files/Downloads/ehb-faq-508.pdf See question 10.

The Hobby Lobby case was about the contraception mandate which was one of 63 preventative and wellness services that all plans are required to cover. That's very different from the 10 EHB categories.

Also, its not clear that the pre-existing condition requirements can be waived under this bill. The language is a bit confusing. This analysis thinks they can't be though:http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/07/27/the-senates-health-care-freedom-act/

Quote

Provide that HHS and the IRS “shall” instead of “may” approve a 1332 waiver if (not “only if” as in the current legislation) the secretaries determine that the application meets the benefit comprehensiveness, cost sharing, enrollment, and budget neutrality guardrail requirements;

That text means these waives still need to comply with most of the ACA's regulations.

[DMC]

7 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Again, I'll believe it when I see it. That assumes that Trump even pays attention to this or cares, mind you. 

Not sure you're gonna see anything after that Carlson interview.  Graham's statement also is about as explicit as one can get a priori:

Quote

There will be no confirmation for a new attorney general in 2017. If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay. Any effort to go after Mueller could be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency, unless Mueller did something wrong.

Sounds pretty damn familiar.  Sorry can't help myself - didn't you say yesterday Sessions would resign by Friday?  Will you still let me take that action?  

Finally, just got home and googled Sessions with a couple other terms, and this was the first tweet that came up:

Thought that was worth sharing.

RE:  The Mooch doesn't realize he's on the record with Ryan Lizza - I totally undersold him early this afternoon.  He could be the greatest wrestling heel ever.  Unfortunately, it appears his schtick would be too extreme even during the Attitude era.  But I'd still love to see The Mooch versus Heel Rock.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Not sure you're gonna see anything after that Carlson interview.  Graham's statement also is about as explicit as one can get a priori:

Sounds pretty damn familiar.  Sorry can't help myself - didn't you say yesterday Sessions would resign by Friday?  Will you still let me take that action?  

Sure, take it as you want. Friday is usually good for news reports. And I think he'll be fired. I don't think Sessions will resign unless he gets a deal. 

As to Graham or Grassley: again, I'll believe it when I actually see it. Graham spoke a lot of shit about Trump during the campaign too, and has basically been in lockstep with him. Ryan did too. Not a single Republican has put their action where their mouth is with any regularity. 

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sure, take it as you want. Friday is usually good for news reports. And I think he'll be fired. I don't think Sessions will resign unless he gets a deal. 

That wasn't the deal!  You said resign, not fired.

...Although I suppose that is somewhat of a technicality.  Usually the way Cabinet members are fired is by way of the President asking for their resignation.  Sessions made clear he would do so if Trump asked him.  Anyway, I think the salient point is Sessions actually offered his resignation sometime between his recusal and early June when it was widely reported.  Trump didn't accept, but it's quite telling.  If he was willing to resign then and not now, why do you think that is?  Perhaps because he knows Trump's intent in his ouster will kill the party?

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Graham spoke a lot of shit about Trump during the campaign too, and has basically been in lockstep with him.

Oh come on.  Of course he talked a lot of shit during the campaign - dude gave out his damn cel number!  That's entirely different than what he just said to a sitting president.

[S John]

But up until now most of Trumps shenanigans has been directed at degrading targets they can approve of - Obamacare, immigrants, the liberal media.  Now that Trump is trying to ruin one of their own in Sessions it might be a whole new ballgame.  Maybe not, but this is a little bit different from his antics toward thier fellow R's during the campaign.  

[Kalbear]

Just now, dmc515 said:

That wasn't the deal!  You said resign, not fired.

Actually I said he'd be gone. The ACA repeal is going better though, so chances are good it'll be next week so it doesn't hurt the newsworthiness of them fucking over 16 million people. 

Just now, dmc515 said:

...Although I suppose that is somewhat of a technicality.  Usually the way Cabinet members are fired is by way of the President asking for their resignation.  Sessions made clear he would do so if Trump asked him.  Anyway, I think the salient point is Sessions actually offered his resignation sometime between his recusal and early June when it was widely reported.  Trump didn't accept, but it's quite telling.  If he was willing to resign then and not now, why do you think that is?  Perhaps because he knows Trump's intent in his ouster will kill the party?

It's because he's an asshole and he's betting this will blow over, or he's trying to get something for himself. 

Just now, dmc515 said:

Oh come on.  Of course he talked a lot of shit during the campaign - dude gave out his damn cel number!  That's entirely different than what he just said to a sitting president.

Why? 

We've had plenty of Rs talking shit to Trump too, and it hasn't mattered. We had McCain say 'the way we're doing this bill is bad and we should all feel bad' and then proceeded to not only vote for MTP but also voted for that bill! We've had Sasse tell people that Trump outright sucks on NPR, and he's voting with Trump (and right now, even helping hold the floor so there are no debates). There's plenty of other examples of Republicans supposedly 'sticking it' to Trump in the last 6 months, and the long and short of it is that it hasn't mattered in the least as far as their actions go.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, S John said:

But up until now most of Trumps shenanigans has been directed at degrading targets they can approve of - Obamacare, immigrants, the liberal media.  Now that Trump is trying to ruin one of their own in Sessions it might be a whole new ballgame.  Maybe not, but this is a little bit different from his antics toward thier fellow R's during the campaign.  

So far he's gone after Comey, Ryan, Meadows, Collins, McCain, his generals, his chief of staff (who was the GOP chair), Flynn, Manafort, Graham, and more I'm sure I'm forgetting (probably the Tuesday group). 

Again, the next time Republicans actually stand up to him will be the first time. 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Actually I said he'd be gone. 

Wow man.  Just admit you were wrong.  Sure, you eventually said "he'd be gone," but that was in the context of me originally saying this:

On 7/26/2017 at 6:40 PM, dmc515 said:

Point is Sessions appears to be launching "leak" investigations in order to appease Trump and hopefully shut him up - a clear indication he intends to stay on and force Trump to fire him.

 

[S John]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So far he's gone after Comey, Ryan, Meadows, Collins, McCain, his generals, his chief of staff (who was the GOP chair), Flynn, Manafort, Graham, and more I'm sure I'm forgetting (probably the Tuesday group). 

Again, the next time Republicans actually stand up to him will be the first time. 

All of whom are often dismissed as 'RINOs'.  That label won't stick to Sessions.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

32 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sure, take it as you want. Friday is usually good for news reports. And I think he'll be fired. I don't think Sessions will resign unless he gets a deal. 

As to Graham or Grassley: again, I'll believe it when I actually see it. Graham spoke a lot of shit about Trump during the campaign too, and has basically been in lockstep with him. Ryan did too. Not a single Republican has put their action where their mouth is with any regularity. 

 

Exactly. Looking to Graham to save Sessions is like hoping McCain was going to stop this ACHA bullshit. That doesn't mean Sessions is going to get fired of course, but Lindsey Graham is not going to stop it from happening.

[Kalbear]

Just now, dmc515 said:

Wow man.  Just admit you were wrong.  Sure, you eventually said "he'd be gone," but that was in the context of me originally saying this:

 

I'm not sure how that disagrees with  you. I think Sessions is going to force Trump to fire him. I think that Trump is going to oblige. 

Just now, S John said:

All of whom are often dismissed as 'RINOs'.  That label won't stick to Sessions.

Meadows as a RINO is pretty interesting. Same with Graham. Or McMaster, or Priebus, or...

Again, so far predicting that Republicans fall in line has been 100% accurate. I would be THRILLED to be proved wrong, but I'm not falling for the football pulling again. 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not sure how that disagrees with  you. I think Sessions is going to force Trump to fire him. I think that Trump is going to oblige. 

It doesn't disagree with me.  I was the one yesterday who was arguing Sessions would force Trump to fire him, and you clearly took issue with this at the time.  Saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest, but whatever let's move on.

[DMC]

41 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Exactly. Looking to Graham to save Sessions is like hoping McCain was going to stop this ACHA bullshit. That doesn't mean Sessions is going to get fired of course, but Lindsey Graham is not going to stop it from happening.

Well, ignoring Graham obviously has no power to stop Trump from firing Sessions, let's put cards on the table:  If Trump fires Sessions, his replacement AG will be blocked - unless he/she pledges to recuse themselves from the Russia investigation.  I'll take Cornyn as my wildcard.

I don't have much to say on healthcare, mainly because it's incredibly hard to tell what the hell is going on.  Does the Senate think the House won't just pass the skinny repeal?  What happens if it doesn't go to conference?  Are they fine with blowing up the markets and consequently owning healthcare for a bill that is still probably gonna piss off the base?  Too many questions.

[DMC]

...Which of course means McCain will vote yay.

[S John]

50 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not sure how that disagrees with  you. I think Sessions is going to force Trump to fire him. I think that Trump is going to oblige. 

Meadows as a RINO is pretty interesting. Same with Graham. Or McMaster, or Priebus, or...

Again, so far predicting that Republicans fall in line has been 100% accurate. I would be THRILLED to be proved wrong, but I'm not falling for the football pulling again. 

There's been plenty of goalpost shifting going on about who is a 'real conservative' to cover the asses of Trump and a seemingly inept congress.  This was going on even before Trump as a plea from conservatives to the nation that the problem is that even some Republicans just aren't conservative enough. 

I'm saying Jeff Sessions is about the point where those goalposts meet a cliff.  You can't use that excuse anymore when it comes to that guy and that is why there's been some resistance from Republicans over Trumps poor treatment of his AG.  His conservative credentials are beyond reproach.  Whether or not Repiblicans do anything about it that would require an actual spine is definitely an open question.  

But I could see this turning sour for Trump among much of his base.  The line is going to be to declare that Trump's admin (or Trump himself) are too liberal and that is the root of the dysfunction. Just not conservative enough at the top to send this country into an orgasmic state of freedom.  They're already trying this line of bullshit on for size with regard to Ivanka and Kushner.  I could see this damaging Trump and his already dwindling chances at reelection, but I don't know what it'll mean for the next few years, though I tend to believe that discord in the enemy camp is a good thing.  I think going after Sessions is probably the biggest tactical errror Trump has yet made.

[all swedes are racist]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

...Which of course means McCain will vote yay.

sounds like they have moved on to trying to convince murkowski... lol jesus