Obamacare: Say goodnight, Gracie...

[Alpo]

I think you're giving large scale socialism a far more organic origin than there was. The idea of communal economies is very old, especially in smaller scales. Trying to scale that and apply it in a democratic society still requires someone at some point saying, hey, let's try this, and then having to justify that policy to build support for it.

European socialism didn't happen unilaterally. It didn't just happen by natural societal evolution, as you seem to imply, either. Socialism isn't the next logical and natural evolutionary step in the development of societies as much as you would like that to be the case. It grew in popularity in part because it is quite efficient at giving fewer people power over large societies. Capitalism, by itself doesn't most naturally do that. Crony capitalism, which is a function of socialism, does naturally do that.

Capitalism is a far more naturally evolved economic system because it is the default economy for human nature. No matter what socialism tries to provide, or ban, or control, it must place arbitrary limitations that are less natural to the needs and wants of the people. Economies will still exist for what the people really need and want.

It's true that tribal cultures are more communal in their economies, but a tribe isn't a scale much beyond a family unit. The inner economy in my family is not capitalist. It is communal as most families are. My son doesn't have to trade something of value in return for food. Tribal economies are like that. Communal economies work fine in families and scales of community where homogeneity of purpose can exist. But where there is wide diversity, it's much harder to pull off without creating losers for every winner. We're all still traders by nature and have been since recorded history. That's still the most natural economy.

I won't continue the dorm room discussion. I'll just say there are many things in your observations that I believe to be in error. Hierarchies appear to be the common thread among large organized groups across all cultures. Economic systems vary. What the future holds when the population increases by 50%, I don't think you've managed to convince me that free market democracy is the default state of affairs.

 

[Twangbanger]

...And as a followup:

If and when any new bill is tacked far enough to the Right to get the FC to vote for it - and assuming you don't then lose an offsetting number of swing-Moderates - what are the resulting bill's chances of passing the Senate?

...You know...that weak-kneed chamber where the majority-risk is greatest...and where replacements for future SC justices get confirmed?

 

[T.Lex]

...And as a followup:

If and when any new bill is tacked far enough to the Right to get the FC to vote for it - and assuming you don't then lose an offsetting number of swing-Moderates - what are the resulting bill's chances of passing the Senate?

...You know...that weak-kneed chamber where the majority-risk is greatest...and where replacements for future SC justices get confirmed?

And only 1/3 of whom will be facing an election in 2018.

By my count, I think its 23 Dems, 9 Rs, and 2 Independents. Donnelly's among the Ds.

 

[Woobie]

...And as a followup:

If and when any new bill is tacked far enough to the Right to get the FC to vote for it - and assuming you don't then lose an offsetting number of swing-Moderates - what are the resulting bill's chances of passing the Senate?

...You know...that weak-kneed chamber where the majority-risk is greatest...and where replacements for future SC justices get confirmed?

Would they? Maybe not. There aren't as many republicans up for re-election next year. The GOPe are used to being the media whipping boy, and they flinch when they see the flick of the hand. What they don't take into account is that this is really a low risk proposition for them, because Obamacare is so unpopular.

Just because they can advise and consent on various nominees doesn't make them stout of heart. It means they know how to obey enough to get campaign funds from their owners so they can sit in the big boy chairs.

 

[bwframe]

When Obama care fails, they'll have to do something...






...or not...

 

[jamil]

And only 1/3 of whom will be facing an election in 2018.

By my count, I think its 23 Dems, 9 Rs, and 2 Independents. Donnelly's among the Ds.

Speaking of, I still need to write Donnelly and remind him his chances of retaining his seat are made even narrower if he participates in a filibuster of Gorsuch, or votes against.

 

[jamil]

Would they? Maybe not. There aren't as many republicans up for re-election next year. The GOPe are used to being the media whipping boy, and they flinch when they see the flick of the hand. What they don't take into account is that this is really a low risk proposition for them, because Obamacare is so unpopular.

Just because they can advise and consent on various nominees doesn't make them stout of heart. It means they know how to obey enough to get campaign funds from their owners so they can sit in the big boy chairs.

The Senate, from moderates to conservatives, said the House GOP bill, which was by all accounts Ryan's best approximation of the "sweet spot", was DOA. The moderates won't allow to be removed the things most offensive to conservatives. That is unfortunately the reality of the math. Even among conservatives there is little political courage to repeal Obamacare.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Might've had a chance if they'd not piled the PP funding with it.

 

[jamil]

Might've had a chance if they'd not piled the PP funding with it.

Wasn't that candy to entice conservatives into voting for it?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Wasn't that candy to entice conservatives into voting for it?

Ah, dunno...

Just seems like when you add controversial side-bills to something, then that ends up being what everyone is voting on.

 

[Woobie]

Ah, dunno...

Just seems like when you add controversial side-bills to something, then that ends up being what everyone is voting on.

I always get that same impression.

And I think a clean repeal could have passed for this reason. Repeal, then debate the replacement. Implement what you can, move on to the next point. I know that had the danger of creating an incoherent policy, but newsflash, most of the crap they put out is anyway.

 

[Libertarian01]

There is of course a Plan B option that could be used to total destroy the ACA AND any future federal interference in healthcare.

As the republicans control the majority of state houses, I propose:

The 28th Amendment to the Constitution: "The federal government shall no power to regulate private health insurance. The Interstate Commerce Clause shall not apply to private health insurance. Any existing federal regulations affecting private health insurance are hereby repealed."

BOOM!

If the federalies cannot do it, get the state republicans to make it so.

Just a thought...

Regards,

Doug

 

[Woobie]

There is of course a Plan B option that could be used to total destroy the ACA AND any future federal interference in healthcare.

As the republicans control the majority of state houses, I propose:

The 28th Amendment to the Constitution: "The federal government shall no power to regulate private health insurance. The Interstate Commerce Clause shall not apply to private health insurance. Any existing federal regulations affecting private health insurance are hereby repealed."

BOOM!

If the federalies cannot do it, get the state republicans to make it so.

Just a thought...

Regards,

Doug

I don't know about the likelihood of this, but this is the best solution of all.

 

[Twangbanger]

There is of course a Plan B option that could be used to total destroy the ACA AND any future federal interference in healthcare.

As the republicans control the majority of state houses, I propose:

The 28th Amendment to the Constitution: "The federal government shall no power to regulate private health insurance. The Interstate Commerce Clause shall not apply to private health insurance. Any existing federal regulations affecting private health insurance are hereby repealed."

BOOM!

If the federalies cannot do it, get the state republicans to make it so.

Just a thought...

Regards,

Doug

Now we're cookin' with gas...

...In a world modeled after Galt's INGO Gulch, where Senators are more than happy to jeopardize their jobs taking away entitlements from tens of millions of citizens, and where most Hospitals aren't Catholic, don't get a substantial portion of their revenue from Medicare reimbursements, and are free to turn away emergency accident victims on the verge of death with complete legal and political impunity...this just might have a chance.

Keep them good ideers comin', folks.

 

[Woobie]

Well, Twangbanger, what is your fix for this healthcare debacle?










I mean, beyond supporting a piece of legislation that was doomed from the start.

 

[Twangbanger]

Well, Twangbanger, what is your fix for this healthcare debacle?

I mean, beyond supporting a piece of legislation that was doomed from the start.

Oh, no mister! I don't get to cross items off your dreamworld fantasy-menu...so you don't get to do it for me, either.

I seem to recall there were some "clean repeal" proponents in the Republican Primary a year or so ago...and they got their asses beat by a guy advocating "Repeal and Replace." So that's the reality of what people _actually_ voted for, most recently. (Speaking, of course, of a "real" arrangement in which you have a Republican President ready to sign the result, as opposed to the "fantasy-bills" the House passed 40+ of which they knew were dead on arrival).

I voted for Trump, and like Houghmade, I would gladly have accepted a half-way bill that either repealed or even just crippled the Individual Mandate, even at the cost of maintaining some "tax entitlements" to grease the skids. That _truly_ would have put the ACA on its way to doom, in actuality as opposed to in your dreams, because it would have taken away the court-guaranteed, government-mandated revenue streams the Insurance Companies will be getting from ACA once their final monopoly arrangement shakes out. _That_ would have opened the door for Insurers to all completely, actually bail and head for the hills, once the young, healthy people started opting back out in the absence of the penalties/taxes/whatever. But, to our detriment, the Insurance companies were successfully able to play both fringes against the middle, keep this from happening, and keep their revenue streams coming to them.

Whew! Insurance Companies live to fight another day...just like we knew they would. Thanks Freedom Caucus!

As for passage, I really believe the "bought and paid for by corporate interests" aspect of the GOP applies to a good enough number of Republicans on _both_ the Moderate and FC sides of the House, that taking care of that problem (in terms of who we elect) would have made the difference this past week, for example, in getting a bill passed chipping away at Obamacare. I do not believe it has to be all at once. The Democrats are willing to hit sacrifice-flies to advance their agenda; we need to be, too.

But what we actually have here in our own little non-governing "Opposition GOP" organization is a bunch of whiny, petulant asses like Rand Paul, representing welfare-states with plenty of poor, ignorant white people who draw lots of Federal benefits...who will now continue to collect them and whom I predict will still be collecting their Obamacare benefits long after "Senator Welfare" has retired from the "family business" he inherited from his daddy, has partially disengaged himself from the Federal teat, and is sitting in Georgetown or Fairfax or Alexandria collecting his Federal Pension and Federal Healthcare.

(A little internet tid-bit from the Blue State of Kentucky):

Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange Home

I'm on record as saying I think Obamacare is here for-eva. I (now) think we're completely 4Q'ed. But if we ever, someday, muster the courage to get up another effort like the one your buddies like Rand Paul just farted away, I will make one concession to optimism: if we could somehow get ourselves a Republican Party that isn't bought and paid for by corporate interests scared of losing their government-mandated corporate-welfare revenue streams, maybe we could convince the public to re-set back to where we were before ACA and remove the Individual Mandate, but with the additions of allowing interstate competition in the HI market and getting people sold on the idea of Medical 401k / HSA accounts.

If...we can stop being duped by congressional corporate stooges who pass symbolic photo-op bills just to get our votes.

So, ptui! You asked for it....rant off. . (Alleluia, holy sxxt...where's the Tylenol).

 

[Libertarian01]

Now we're cookin' with gas...

...In a world modeled after Galt's INGO Gulch, where Senators are more than happy to jeopardize their jobs taking away entitlements from tens of millions of citizens, and where most Hospitals aren't Catholic, don't get a substantial portion of their revenue from Medicare reimbursements, and are free to turn away emergency accident victims on the verge of death with complete legal and political impunity...this just might have a chance.

Keep them good ideers comin', folks.

WHO IS GALT???

 

[Woobie]

Oh, no mister! I don't get to cross items off your dreamworld fantasy-menu...so you don't get to do it for me, either.

I seem to recall there were some "clean repeal" proponents in the Republican Primary a year or so ago...and they got their asses beat by a guy advocating "Repeal and Replace." So that's the reality of what people _actually_ voted for, most recently. (Speaking, of course, of a "real" arrangement in which you have a Republican President ready to sign the result, as opposed to the "fantasy-bills" the House passed 40+ of which they knew were dead on arrival).

I voted for Trump, and like Houghmade, I would gladly have accepted a half-way bill that either repealed or even just crippled the Individual Mandate, even at the cost of maintaining some "tax entitlements" to grease the skids. That _truly_ would have put the ACA on its way to doom, in actuality as opposed to in your dreams, because it would have taken away the court-guaranteed, government-mandated revenue streams the Insurance Companies will be getting from ACA once their final monopoly arrangement shakes out. _That_ would have opened the door for Insurers to all completely, actually bail and head for the hills, once the young, healthy people started opting back out in the absence of the penalties/taxes/whatever. But, to our detriment, the Insurance companies were successfully able to play both fringes against the middle, keep this from happening, and keep their revenue streams coming to them.

Whew! Insurance Companies live to fight another day...just like we knew they would. Thanks Freedom Caucus!

As for passage, I really believe the "bought and paid for by corporate interests" aspect of the GOP applies to a good enough number of Republicans on _both_ the Moderate and FC sides of the House, that taking care of that problem (in terms of who we elect) would have made the difference this past week, for example, in getting a bill passed chipping away at Obamacare. I do not believe it has to be all at once. The Democrats are willing to hit sacrifice-flies to advance their agenda; we need to be, too.

But what we actually have here in our own little non-governing "Opposition GOP" organization is a bunch of whiny, petulant asses like Rand Paul, representing welfare-states with plenty of poor, ignorant white people who draw lots of Federal benefits...who will now continue to collect them and whom I predict will still be collecting their Obamacare benefits long after "Senator Welfare" has retired from the "family business" he inherited from his daddy, has partially disengaged himself from the Federal teat, and is sitting in Georgetown or Fairfax or Alexandria collecting his Federal Pension and Federal Healthcare.

(A little internet tid-bit from the Blue State of Kentucky):

Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange Home

I'm on record as saying I think Obamacare is here for-eva. I (now) think we're completely 4Q'ed. But if we ever, someday, muster the courage to get up another effort like the one your buddies like Rand Paul just farted away, I will make one concession to optimism: if we could somehow get ourselves a Republican Party that isn't bought and paid for by corporate interests scared of losing their government-mandated corporate-welfare revenue streams, maybe we could convince the public to re-set back to where we were before ACA and remove the Individual Mandate, but with the additions of allowing interstate competition in the HI market and getting people sold on the idea of Medical 401k / HSA accounts.

If...we can stop being duped by congressional corporate stooges who pass symbolic photo-op bills just to get our votes.

So, ptui! You asked for it....rant off. . (Alleluia, holy sxxt...where's the Tylenol).

There are so many inaccurate assumptions in there I don't know where to begin.

I guess I can't blame you for throwing a pity party, though. It sucks when your team loses.


Luckily for me, my team isn't the R's the D's or the L's. And I'm certainly not with Ryan, Trump, Paul or Jordan. I'm siding with America, and we still have a chance. In part because your team couldn't get their deflated ball across the goal line.

 

[Woobie]

WHO IS GALT???

I don't know, but I don't think knowing would help. He rants about senators in response to a post about amending the constitution through the state legislatures.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

If I am not mistaken,Trump told the IRS not to enforce the " individual mandate" back in Feb. That should speed the collapse.