115th United States Congress

[Quicklet]

The whole point of the pre-existing conditions rule is that insurers can't charge more based on a person's pre-existing conditions. By definition they are getting rid of that. It's another lie designed to try to hide their moral reprehensibility because they think it's okay for someone with cancer to have a $100k premium or for women to have more expensive health care because they can get pregnant.

[Ksandra]

The whole point of the pre-existing conditions rule is that insurers can't charge more based on a person's pre-existing conditions. By definition they are getting rid of that. It's another lie designed to try to hide their moral reprehensibility because they think it's okay for someone with cancer to have a $100k premium or for women to have more expensive health care because they can get pregnant.

I understand that 100%. But the republican voters seem to be ok with that idea because god forbid their money "get stolen to pay for someone else's bills!"

edit: just to be clear, I am not arguing that this plan is good. My heart aches for it as I had a horrible experience with it before the ACA. I am arguing that republicans are working on giving what their voters want. So I blame the dems for allowing them to be the majority in the first place.

That is how a republic works. And, personally, I like a republic more than a democracy.

[Quicklet]

But my point is that many of those same voters have pre-existing conditions and will be priced out of health insurance if anything close to this bill becomes law. I guarantee you that those voters will not be happy with that outcome. And again, the big question is whether those voters will see the causal link between the AHCA and that outcome, or if they'll be led to believe that it's somehow Obamacare's or Democrats' fault for that.

There is a reason Democrats made such big gains in the 2006 and 2008 elections. When the consequences become visceral and people feel like the party in power is not doing enough to help them, they have historically voted the other party in. Unless something goes very wrong, there is no reason to expect that to change.

[Tyche]

But my point is that many of those same voters have pre-existing conditions and will be priced out of health insurance if anything close to this bill becomes law. I guarantee you that those voters will not be happy with that outcome. And again, the big question is whether those voters will see the causal link between the AHCA and that outcome, or if they'll be led to believe that it's somehow Obamacare's or Democrats' fault for that.

There is a reason Democrats made such big gains in the 2006 and 2008 elections. When the consequences become visceral and people feel like the party in power is not doing enough to help them, they have historically voted the other party in. Unless something goes very wrong, there is no reason to expect that to change.

Matt Bevin ran on the platform that he'd gut a hugely popular Medicaid expansion program in Kentucky. Some of the poorest counties in the country overwhelmingly voted for him. Don't underestimate how fucking stupid poor and middle class republicans are and how often they vote against their own self interest because jesus.

[Ksandra]

But my point is that many of those same voters have pre-existing conditions and will be priced out of health insurance if anything close to this bill becomes law. I guarantee you that those voters will not be happy with that outcome. And again, the big question is whether those voters will see the causal link between the AHCA and that outcome, or if they'll be led to believe that it's somehow Obamacare's or Democrats' fault for that.

There is a reason Democrats made such big gains in the 2006 and 2008 elections. When the consequences become visceral and people feel like the party in power is not doing enough to help them, they have historically voted the other party in. Unless something goes very wrong, there is no reason to expect that to change.

OK, but that's the future. I'm blaming the Dems for their part in the 2016 elections. Are you saying it's ok the dems were shit then because hey, sick and poor people only have to suffer for 2-4 years? And that is going to make it so easy for the dems to put up another shitty person (or bunch of other shitty reps) and still win? Really?

What do poor parents who give births NOW to kids with defects that they might die from care what is possibly going to happen a couple of years from now?

[edit]Or how about old people getting cancer? I'm sure they are just fine trying to survive 2-4 years with the medical costs until the shitty dems come to save them.


It should be noted that the ACA did not cancel out medical bills accrued before its existence. And I guarantee that even if the dems could put the ACA back the gov't is not footing the bills from 2016-2020.

[Quicklet]

I think it's a bit reductive and revisionist to judge what Hillary and the DNC should have done differently in retrospect at this point. Even Trump's polling people were expecting him to lose. I just think it's unproductive to relitigate 2016 strategy when there are special elections coming up now, local/state elections in 2017, and elections in 2018.

So what do people do now? Apply as much pressure to the House and Senate to try to prevent this from becoming law before the 2018 elections, and then turn out to take back the House in 2018 if they don't like what Republicans are doing. If Republicans hold the House in 2018 after all this, then I guess we're all just fucked at that point.

[Fiye]

Recommend anywhere here start working with their local democratic party.

[Tyche]

I think it's a bit reductive and revisionist to judge what Hillary and the DNC should have done differently in retrospect at this point. Even Trump's polling people were expecting him to lose. I just think it's unproductive to relitigate 2016 strategy when there are special elections coming up now, local/state elections in 2017, and elections in 2018.

So what do people do now? Apply as much pressure to the House and Senate to try to prevent this from becoming law before the 2018 elections, and then turn out to take back the House in 2018 if they don't like what Republicans are doing. If Republicans hold the House in 2018 after all this, then I guess we're all just fucked at that point.

It absolutely is. 20 something thousand votes that ultimately swing the election, had those gone the other way, we would be absolutely mocking the Trump campaign and how it was ran.

[Ksandra]

I think it's a bit reductive and revisionist to judge what Hillary and the DNC should have done differently in retrospect at this point. Even Trump's polling people were expecting him to lose. I just think it's unproductive to relitigate 2016 strategy when there are special elections coming up now, local/state elections in 2017, and elections in 2018.

So what do people do now? Apply as much pressure to the House and Senate to try to prevent this from becoming law before the 2018 elections, and then turn out to take back the House in 2018 if they don't like what Republicans are doing. If Republicans hold the House in 2018 after all this, then I guess we're all just fucked at that point.

I am not talking about the now. Of course we need to act. But there is nothing wrong with laying blame where it deserves.


If you try to sugar coat it and make it seem like the dems did nothing wrong, then you are going to find out they will stay on the same track. And maybe that's what YOU want. More Hillaries. But that is not what I want. And I will blame them to try and get their asses in gear and pick some better people next time.

[Quicklet]

You're talking to someone who voted for Bernie and thinks that the Democratic Party has been too slow to adapt to the rising populism of the post-Great Recession era.

I just think that "Dems are bad politicians so they're responsible for Republicans doing this" plays into the cognitive dissonance of how seriously Republicans are treated no matter how reckless and duplicitous they are in governing.

[Fiye]

Okay if Democrats fail to push a message, don't give funding to a candidate, or push a candidate with a laundry list of issues who gets elected?

This isn't victim blaming.

[Quicklet]

If you want to criticize current Democratic strategy, by all means.

[kuronosan]

I understand that 100%. But the republican voters seem to be ok with that idea because god forbid their money "get stolen to pay for someone else's bills!"

edit: just to be clear, I am not arguing that this plan is good. My heart aches for it as I had a horrible experience with it before the ACA. I am arguing that republicans are working on giving what their voters want. So I blame the dems for allowing them to be the majority in the first place.

That is how a republic works. And, personally, I like a republic more than a democracy.

No. This is not what their voters wanted.

They're taking advantage of political ignorance of their base to fulfill an agenda. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Gryffes]

Recommend anywhere here start working with their local democratic party.

Nah, crying on facebook and twitter after the fact is a much better use of peoples time.

[Xno Kappa]

So apparently Rape, post-partum depression, c-sections, and domestic violence survivors are now considered pre-existing conditions under the AHCA?

[archibaldcrane]

This isn't a new thing. Any medical care you receive is relevant to an insurer in an individual rating scenario (as opposed to community rating under the ACA).

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Xno Kappa]

So glad I got Tricare lol. This whole situation is nuts.

[Byrthnoth]

Trump to House Republicans in their Rose Garden victory celebration:

“How am I doing? Am I doing OK? I'm president. Hey, I’m president,” Trump said in a Rose Garden victory lap that was unusually elaborate for a bill still so far from becoming law. “Can you believe it?”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...are-win-238005

I saw the quote/context as a HuffPo article headline yesterday and thought it was a parody of how childish he is. I internally eye-rolled HuffPo for going too far with its obvious bias. ...but it turns out I was wrong, he actually said it, and their context was accurate.


What a child. Seek validation much?

I hope that White House historians of the future find the gold star sticker sheets that Bannon used to promote his agenda with Trump.

[Buffy]

Honestly the health care law seems somehow less offensive then the potential destruction of overtime wages the house also passed.

"They say it would be illegal for an employer to coerce an employee into accepting comp time in lieu of overtime pay." Except that is going to be exactly what happens. I worked 40k worth of overtime last year alone. Comp time does me jack shit.

[Byrthnoth]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/news...-passes-house/

Yeah, that one also seems pretty terrible. Apparently similar bills have failed to pass the senate multiple times, though, so it might not be much of a threat.