sycasey;842841428 said:

---

On this note: the new CBO score for the AHCA is out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/politics/cbo-congressional-budget-office-health-care.html

23 million lose their insurance, 14 million next year alone.

At least that's one million better than the last version! Progress?

I'm just wondering if there is any defense of this bill. I know, the Senate plans on changing it. But if you're in the House, why would you want to vote for something like this? How is it supposed to help the country?

---

GB54;842841429 said:

---

The only "defense" seems to be that some people get tax cuts.

---

sycasey;842841428 said:

---

On this note: the new CBO score for the AHCA is out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/politics/cbo-congressional-budget-office-health-care.html

23 million lose their insurance, 14 million next year alone.

At least that's one million better than the last version! Progress?

I'm just wondering if there is any defense of this bill. I know, the Senate plans on changing it. But if you're in the House, why would you want to vote for something like this? How is it supposed to help the country?

---

BearNIt;842841434 said:

---

Their going to have to go back to their districts and try to calm the pissed off constituents who have family members on on the Obamacare, people with pre-existing conditions, and those affected by a budget that makes deep cuts to medicaid among other programs which benefit republican districts.

---

Quote:

---

of the 217 Republicans who voted for the House health care bill last week, just 14 have scheduled town halls to talk about it.

---

oski003;842841403 said:

---

When Osama bin Laden was killed, President Obama was not content to explain that fact to the American people. His administration gratuitously disclosed that the raid on the al-Qaeda emir's compound in Pakistan produced a "trove" of actionable intelligence. From a national-security standpoint, this political grandstanding was a foolish: It gave al-Qaeda operatives a heads-up that their cells and activities had likely been exposed, providing them the opportunity to disappear before our forces could roll them up. And then there is the Obama administration's leak disclosing ( to the Washington Post ) General Michael Flynn's conversations with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. This was done with obvious malevolence to hurt Flynn and Trump (who had named Flynn national-security adviser). The beneficiary, however, was Russia. It received valuable information that its ambassador was under surveillance and that whatever countermeasures the Kremlin's intelligence services had been taking had failed. This is apt to make Russian operatives more difficult to monitor in the future.

When Democrats mishandle classified information, they are earnest progressives. When Republicans do it, they are incompetent morons.
More to the point, does anyone believe that American presidents other than Trump do not make highly questionable disclosures in their negotiations with hostile regimes? Remember when Obama told Putin's factotum, Medvedev, to tell ol' Vlad he'd have much more "flexibility" to accommodate Russian concerns after his 2012 reelection patently signaling that Putin should just be patient and not pay too much attention to campaign rhetoric about dealing sternly with Moscow? And what of the to-and-fro over Obama's coveted Iran nuclear deal? Is it necessary to remind Democrats that Obama entered secret side deals with the "death to America" regime that were withheld from Congress and the American people? That was not an instance of what Trump was apparently doing sharing some intel with a hostile government in the (probably nave) hope of getting cooperation from that government against a common enemy. Obama was actually partnering with a hostile regime through arrangements that were against American interests and that promoted Iranian interests.

How about Secretary " Extremely Careless " herself, Hillary Clinton? If she had done the same thing Trump did, the media wouldn't be saying she was grossly negligent in handling top-secret information. We'd be hearing, instead, that what she did was fine because it was communicated in a high-level diplomatic exchange and that it's not like she handed the Russians a document that was "marked classified." Or more likely, we would be hearing nothing at all about her conversation with the Russians, because "current and former intelligence officials" would not be leaking to the Washington Post .

You should read the FBI reports of interviews with Mrs. Clinton's former State Department staffers sometime. In explaining their actions, in the context of an investigation about the mishandling the serial mishandling of classified information, one of the themes that comes through is: Statecraft involves a lot of exchanges of sensitive information with foreign governments; sometimes tough calls about transmitting information have to be made in the heat of the moment, and it's not always practical to weigh carefully the need to safeguard information against the imperative of getting it into the right hands promptly.

Could there have been more sympathy for Clinton's aides in the press and official Washington? The lesson appears to be that if administration officials repeat often enough the party line that "we were all working really hard, we all understand that classified information is really important, and we all really did our best to protect it," the media and intelligence-agency chiefs will forgive the transmission and storage of even thousands of classified e-mails on an unsecured server that was undoubtedly hacked by hostile intelligence services.

Provided, that is, that the administration officials are Democrats.

*
When Democrats mishandle classified information, they are earnest progressives who understandably suffer the occasional lapse while struggling to make the international community a better place. When Republicans do it, they are incompetent morons.

I'm not suggesting that Trump be cut slack. This seems like it could be a serious error, and one that was easily avoidable. But after a couple of years of hearing the Iran deal and Mrs. Clinton's homebrew server explained away, I'm just wondering when the media suddenly got so interested again in harmful White House dealings with hostile powers and the proper safeguarding of classified information.

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review

---

jyamada;842841440 said:

---

Bottom line, Trump bases all his decisions on what makes Trump look good and what puts money in his pocket........there isn't another politician in the history of this country who comes remotely close to this con man. I agree with Dajo.....if you're in Trump's corner, then you are against America and all that it stands for.

---

sycasey;842841432 said:

---

That seems to be the only motivation in the Republican Congress right now: tax cuts for people with high incomes. Doesn't matter how they get them.

---

oski003;842841447 said:

---

I can play this game of making overgeneralizations:

The only motivation of liberals is handouts for people who need money; it does not matter why they need it or what they spend it on.

---

oski003;842841447 said:

---

The only motivation of liberals is handouts for people who need money; it does not matter why they need it or what they spend it on.

---

sycasey;842841456 said:

---

Yes, but in the case of the ACA you can't make this argument. People DEFINITELY need health care (doesn't matter if they want it, they are going to need it), and the ACA certainly did expand health coverage and did not increase costs (costs did continue to increase, but at a slower rate than prior to the ACA).

It wasn't perfect, but the bill basically did what its backers said it would. Meanwhile, Trump and the GOP claim they don't want anyone to lose health coverage and then push this thing through.

Anyway, enough of your "but Democrats!" responses. What is your defense for THIS Republican bill? How does it help the country? What benefit is there besides upper-class tax cuts?

---

sycasey;842841456 said:

---

Yes, but in the case of the ACA you can't make this argument. People DEFINITELY need health care (doesn't matter if they want it, they are going to need it), and the ACA certainly did expand health coverage and did not increase costs (costs did continue to increase, but at a slower rate than prior to the ACA).

It wasn't perfect, but the bill basically did what its backers said it would. Meanwhile, Trump and the GOP claim they don't want anyone to lose health coverage and then push this thing through.

Anyway, enough of your "but Democrats!" responses. What is your defense for THIS Republican bill? How does it help the country? What benefit is there besides upper-class tax cuts?

---

oski003;842841466 said:

---

It wasn't a But Democrats response, it was a response to your stupid comment that the only motivation in the Republican Congress right now is to give tax cuts to people with high incomes regardless of how they get them. I believe the ACA is a tax on healthy people and business. Costs increased exponentially after the ACA for those on private health insurance. The few coworkers/employees I have eligible for Medicaid switched to it to save money and get better health coverage, even those making 6 figures. Generally, I'm in favor of having the wealthy pay higher percentages in taxes. However, I have little faith in the government's ability to help deserving people. I appreciate the fact that a few wealthy posters here prefer to give to charity and dislike the government taking their money away and redistributing it.

However, I too am concerned that automation, computers, and outsourcing is taking jobs. My company cannot hire new employees right now. They cost too much. Customer service is being replaced by a better E-Commerce engine. We might actually listen this time when someone is selling conveyor belts and machines to replace warehouse employees. The automation is getting cheaper and the employees are getting more expensive. If we don't make these changes, we won't be around in a couple years.

Today, I called Microsoft Customer Support and spoke with someone in southeast Asia. I wonder what government is going to look like when the unemployment rate is 40% because there are few unskilled jobs available. At the same time, I shudder because of the guy who watches TV and plays computer games and/or drinks all day collects a welfare check because they cannot get a job when 100 miles away companies are raising wages to encourage people to move their because they cannot find workers.

---

oski003;842841466 said:

---

However, I too am concerned that automation, computers, and outsourcing is taking jobs. My company cannot hire new employees right now. They cost too much. Customer service is being replaced by a better E-Commerce engine. We might actually listen this time when someone is selling conveyor belts and machines to replace warehouse employees. The automation is getting cheaper and the employees are getting more expensive. If we don't make these changes, we won't be around in a couple years.

---

oski003;842841469 said:

---

ACA's solution is to make healthy people pay for the less healthy people / at risk people with increased premiums and allocation of everyone's tax dollars to subsidize those people. It's noble, but I disagree with it.

---

oski003;842841466 said:

---

It wasn't a But Democrats response, it was a response to your stupid comment that the only motivation in the Republican Congress right now is to give tax cuts to people with high incomes regardless of how they get them.

---

GB54;842841473 said:

---

I'm not sure I get this- you have employees on Medicaid with six figure incomes and you are complaining about people on welfare?

---

oski003;842841466 said:

---

..However, I too am concerned that automation, computers, and outsourcing is taking jobs. My company cannot hire new employees right now. They cost too much. Customer service is being replaced by a better E-Commerce engine. We might actually listen this time when someone is selling conveyor belts and machines to replace warehouse employees. The automation is getting cheaper and the employees are getting more expensive. If we don't make these changes, we won't be around in a couple years.....

---

Quote:

---

At that point, Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him. Faith, Keith and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the reporter. As Gianforte moved on top of Jacobs, he began yelling something to the effect of, "I'm sick and tired of this!"

---

GB54;842841473 said:

---

I'm not sure I get this- you have employees on Medicaid with six figure incomes and you are complaining about people on welfare?

---

sycasey;842841485 said:

---

The irony is that this proves the public insurance program was better than what the open market offered. Not great support for oski003's assertion that government services can't be trusted.

---

sycasey;842841483 said:

---

It looks to me like you just described health insurance and said you don't like it. Healthy people pay for the sick, yes. That's how it works. The alternative is that we tell sick people to go off and die cheaply. Most modern countries have decided this is not acceptable. In this country it's still a debate, for some reason.

---

sycasey;842841484 said:

---

I said this because I see no other benefit the AHCA provides. After your responses I still don't. Who does this bill help, other than high earners?

---

oski003;842841541 said:

---

No, if the government takes tax dollars and uses it to subsidize Healthcare and force private insurers to subsidize unhealthy people thus making health insurance for healthy people cost more, it does not back your assertion that the government is running Healthcare efficiently.

---

oski003;842841545 said:

---

Well, if it provides our employees better health care at less cost, like it was before the ACA,it would help a lot of people.

---

Unit2Sucks;842841474 said:

---

What are you proposing? I haven't heard anything from the republicans to ameliorate the impacts of automation on unskilled labor. Increases in productivity essentially require us to eliminate unskilled labor. Republicans nominally oppose burdensome regulation but outside of a voluntary business-driven Luddite movement (or a metastasis of the artisan maker movement), automation is going to increase without regulation. In other words, those jobs in the rust belt aren't coming back. I don't think either side has a great answer and it's not a simple problem.

You are blaming regulations for the cost of labor being higher than automation but at best that just shifts the timetable and doesn't do anything to address the fact that your business can't pay living wages for unskilled labor because automation is a better solution.

---

oski003;842841539 said:

---

Medicare

---

sycasey;842841546 said:

---

It was already making health insurance cost more, because those people who lacked coverage still got treatment in emergency rooms, which are far more expensive and less efficient.

The ACA did not make premiums rise. Premiums were already rising like crazy, and the ACA slowed them down.

---

oski003;842841551 said:

---

As for your first statement, do you have facts on this? As for the second, do you have facts on that?

---

Quote:

---

These increased costs for employers and employees alike may seem steep—up around 50% over the past eight years—but they could have risen far higher had the Affordable Care Act never passed. The Kaiser study shows that average family premiums rose 20% from 2011 to 2016. That rate of increase is actually much lower than the previous five years (up 31% from 2006 to 2011) and the five years before that (up 63% from 2001 to 2006).

Pointing to data from Kaiser, a White House press release recently stated, "The average premium for a family with employer coverage is now almost $3,600 lower than if premium growth since 2010 had matched the decade preceding the Affordable Care Act."

---

oski003;842841551 said:

---

As for your first statement, do you have facts on this? As for the second, do you have facts on that? Is it just bad luck that every insurance company stuck us on our first renewal after the ACA passed? We got multiple quotes. They all cost 50% more with higher co-pays and deductibles than we previously had. They all blamed the ACA. Were they just fing with us? Should we have just canceled the insurance we already offered and pay fines?

---

GB54;842841584 said:

---

The fact that simply turning 65 reduces your medical insurance by about 90% and gives you better coverage is taken to mean that government insurance is inefficient- quite the opposite.

---

Cal88;842841184 said:

---

There is a kind of dumbing down from sane posters like you who get emotionally so caught up in visceral Trump phobia that their rational side checks out, and unfortunately the MSM has been feeding all this. So many points are utterly ludicrous. Like the one above, or the idea that Trump is "not a competent businessman or builder" when the guy is a billionaire who started out with $12M and succeeded in a very competitive environment. In what universe is this not a great success?

---