Hope we won't need to use this one much... Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy have simply had it with all of the liberals' mean, lying lies about the Graham-Cassidy plan to kill the Affordable Care Act and replace it with a system of block grants that will allow states to try to put together their own healthcare systems, or not, at least for the six years before the ever-shrinking block grants exist before ending in 2026. And poor Bill Cassidy is really upset that Jimmy Kimmel
Hmm. Maybe this has something to do with it. Note the dates-- not recent news.https://www.theguardian.com...
Monday 26 June 2017 07.49 EDT Last modified on Tuesday 18 July 2017 12.59 EDT
At a weekend donor retreat attended by at least 18 elected officials, the Koch brothers warned that time is running out to push their agenda, most notably healthcare and tax reform, through Congress.
One Texas-based donor warned Republican lawmakers that his “Dallas piggy bank” was now closed, until he saw legislative progress.
I'd like to see just a set amount of federal funding for national campaigns and no other money can be used. If nothing else it will show who can budget and who can't.
There will be no personal/corporate/other donations to any campaign.
Not sure how it would work - this isn't my forte but I think that anyone who wanted it could get a small amount to get started.
Getting started means a petition drive to see if you can continue your campaign. For example you need a certain number of signatures in each stated determined by number of Congressional districts.
So let's say the number is 5K per. If the state has 10 districts you'd need 50k signatures from that state.
Once you meet that threshold then you get more money to actually start campaigning.
During all this time you have to provide details expense reports accurate to the penny.
Dole out the payments monthly. When the primaries are over the remaining candidates get more money.
If there are unused funds then it's returned to the feds. Of course there will never be unused funds.
Spending more than allotted is a crime and kicks you out of the race. You then have to pay back every penny you were given.
Doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to administrate and candidates wouldn't win just because they had a shit-ton more money than their opponent.
Washington (CNN)If Republicans are able to cobble together the votes for the Graham-Cassidy health care plan and pass it before September 30, it would be one speedy legislative sprint. But just how speedy?
Only 4% of bills signed into law over the last four decades have taken 10 days or fewer from introduction to becoming a law on the books, according to a CNN analysis of almost 12,000 laws passed since 1977, when this data became available.The Senate has until only September 30 to pass a health care reform plan under rules that bypass the 60-vote threshold and allow the chamber to pass a bill with only 51 votes.
Despite many evident shortcomings in a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act health care law, Republicans have a responsibility to pass it, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley said Wednesday.
In a conference call with Iowa reporters, Grassley expressed support for the Graham-Cassidy health care reform proposal currently before the Senate, arguing that the GOP has pledged to repeal the law known as Obamacare and must seize any opportunity to do so.
“You know, I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill shouldn’t be considered,” Grassley said. “But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. That’s pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill.”
We now have three separate analyses of how the Obamacare repeal bill offered by Sens. Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham would affect states.
Two of them — one from a left-leaning think tank, another from a health research firm — tell a very similar story of significant budget cuts for the states that have successfully implemented the Affordable Care Act.
The third, from Sen. Cassidy's office, tells a very different story — one in which every state gets a funding boost within a bill that, at the topline, includes a very significant spending cut.
okay, that's a well-written article that confirms what i knew about federal "entitlements" (their words, not mine); but i thought block grants were apportioned differently - maybe based on population? or some other arbitrary metric?
it seems that states have to apply for block grant funding. just wondering if the grants are divvied up equally among those states. could really clever states use this dumbassed republican bill to kickstart publicly-run insurance to compete in the private marketplace?
Trump on Twitter: "I would not sign Graham-Cassidy if it did not include coverage of pre-existing conditions. It does! A great Bill. Repeal & Replace."
I can't even. There is nothing "great" about this bill. And like Graham, Trump has decided pre-existing conditions are covered, and that is the lie he is sticking to.
People behind the scenes (lobbyists,staff?) are writing it. After watching Lindsey talking to that reporter (somewhere in this thread) it's obvious that they don't even know what's in the goddamn thing. They're so busy raising money and trying to get on TV they don't have the time to actually know what they're voting on. It's fucking unbelievable!
Yes, blue states help cover red states:http://www.truth-out.org/bu...
OT: Are you Dutch? Otherwise, where did you find this picture of a brave young Dutch boy?
Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog. Republicans don't know and don't care about the details of their ACA repeal.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel...
Hmm. Maybe this has something to do with it. Note the dates-- not recent news.https://www.theguardian.com...
Monday 26 June 2017 07.49 EDT Last modified on Tuesday 18 July 2017 12.59 EDT
At a weekend donor retreat attended by at least 18 elected officials, the Koch brothers warned that time is running out to push their agenda, most notably healthcare and tax reform, through Congress.
One Texas-based donor warned Republican lawmakers that his “Dallas piggy bank” was now closed, until he saw legislative progress.
I'd like to see just a set amount of federal funding for national campaigns and no other money can be used. If nothing else it will show who can budget and who can't.
There will be no personal/corporate/other donations to any campaign.
Not sure how it would work - this isn't my forte but I think that anyone who wanted it could get a small amount to get started.
Getting started means a petition drive to see if you can continue your campaign. For example you need a certain number of signatures in each stated determined by number of Congressional districts.
So let's say the number is 5K per. If the state has 10 districts you'd need 50k signatures from that state.
Once you meet that threshold then you get more money to actually start campaigning.
During all this time you have to provide details expense reports accurate to the penny.
Dole out the payments monthly. When the primaries are over the remaining candidates get more money.
If there are unused funds then it's returned to the feds. Of course there will never be unused funds.
Spending more than allotted is a crime and kicks you out of the race. You then have to pay back every penny you were given.
Doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to administrate and candidates wouldn't win just because they had a shit-ton more money than their opponent.
probably at a bar yes.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/...
Washington (CNN)If Republicans are able to cobble together the votes for the Graham-Cassidy health care plan and pass it before September 30, it would be one speedy legislative sprint. But just how speedy?
Only 4% of bills signed into law over the last four decades have taken 10 days or fewer from introduction to becoming a law on the books, according to a CNN analysis of almost 12,000 laws passed since 1977, when this data became available.The Senate has until only September 30 to pass a health care reform plan under rules that bypass the 60-vote threshold and allow the chamber to pass a bill with only 51 votes.
http://www.desmoinesregiste...
Despite many evident shortcomings in a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act health care law, Republicans have a responsibility to pass it, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley said Wednesday.
In a conference call with Iowa reporters, Grassley expressed support for the Graham-Cassidy health care reform proposal currently before the Senate, arguing that the GOP has pledged to repeal the law known as Obamacare and must seize any opportunity to do so.
“You know, I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill shouldn’t be considered,” Grassley said. “But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. That’s pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill.”
https://www.vox.com/policy-...
We now have three separate analyses of how the Obamacare repeal bill offered by Sens. Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham would affect states.
Two of them — one from a left-leaning think tank, another from a health research firm — tell a very similar story of significant budget cuts for the states that have successfully implemented the Affordable Care Act.
The third, from Sen. Cassidy's office, tells a very different story — one in which every state gets a funding boost within a bill that, at the topline, includes a very significant spending cut.
Guess which man he's already convicted?
Order of operations?
thank you, WITP. you're too kind.
okay, that's a well-written article that confirms what i knew about federal "entitlements" (their words, not mine); but i thought block grants were apportioned differently - maybe based on population? or some other arbitrary metric?
it seems that states have to apply for block grant funding. just wondering if the grants are divvied up equally among those states. could really clever states use this dumbassed republican bill to kickstart publicly-run insurance to compete in the private marketplace?
Trump on Twitter: "I would not sign Graham-Cassidy if it did not include coverage of pre-existing conditions. It does! A great Bill. Repeal & Replace."
I can't even. There is nothing "great" about this bill. And like Graham, Trump has decided pre-existing conditions are covered, and that is the lie he is sticking to.
Which of course, is just about the shittiest reason of all.
People behind the scenes (lobbyists,staff?) are writing it. After watching Lindsey talking to that reporter (somewhere in this thread) it's obvious that they don't even know what's in the goddamn thing. They're so busy raising money and trying to get on TV they don't have the time to actually know what they're voting on. It's fucking unbelievable!
https://www.google.com/amp/...