Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I had no idea. That seems odd to me since I have thought of US States like quasi-countries, and borrowing seems an absolute necessity to most Countries. Is it generally thought to be an odd anachronism in the States themselves that is just too difficult to fix or is it part of a political stand taken by some or other group?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

As such their ability to repay those bonds is not as certain as the federal government, which has more monetary options at its disposal plus a section of the Fourteenth Amendment which forbids the feds from defaulting on their debts.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The chief reason for this is that the individual states are forbidden from issuing their own currency. (Art. I, § 10 of the U.S. Constitution states, in part, that "No State shall . . . coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; . . .") As such their ability to repay those bonds is not as certain as the federal government, which has more monetary options at its disposal plus a section of the Fourteenth Amendment which forbids the feds from defaulting on their debts.

---

So if they print the money to pay them...they just have to watch out that internationally people don't lose confidence in the currency, which would generate 1930s Germany / Zimbabwe style inflation? (Sorry, I guess this is naive). Are there other issues?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
. . . <SNIP> if the states start printing their own money they have to watch out for the feds coming down hard on them for unconstitutional actions, possibly including sedition.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
That's the point. Its not a bill about health care. Its about taxes, giving lots of money to the rich.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
For those following along at home, here is a nice organized chart (and free!) delineating the winners and losers of the current legislation.

---

quote:

---

A one-year block will be placed on federal reimbursements for care provided by Planned Parenthood

---

quote:

---

States could request waivers to opt out of requiring essential health benefits.

---

quote:

---

States can get permission to let insurers charge more for some pre-existing conditions and to exclude some people altogether.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Ian--

AFAIK, "yes" is the answer to the questions at the end of your post. It was the best that could be done, at the time. I cringed when I first heard that participation would be mandatory, because Americans don't like to be told what to do--especially by the gov't. And the punishing fines for non-compliance sure didn't help.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The Senate voted Wednesday to defeat a bill that would have repealed Obamacare within two years without any immediate plan to replace the sweeping health care law.

Senators voted 45-55 in favor of the bill, falling six votes short of the 51 needed to pass it. Seven Republicans voted against it: John McCain of Arizona, Dean Heller of Nevada, Susan Collins of Maine, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Senate plan with Cruz and Portman amendments
Vote failed 43-57 (required 60 votes)

Repeal and delay with Paul amendment
Vote failed 45-55 (required 50 votes)

Return to committee process
Vote failed 48-52 (required 50 votes)

---

quote:

---

From the Post:

• Repeal the individual and employer mandates, as well as the taxes on medical device companies
• Leave the Medicaid expansion, subsidies, and marketplace regulations such as preexisting conditions protections in place

The CBO has not scored the plan as a whole, but pieces have been scored in the past. Eliminating the individual mandate, for instance, would cause 15 million more people to become uninsured over the decade.

---

Eliminating the mandates will massively destabilize the individual market. Insurance companies will still be forced to cover anyone who buys insurance, but young and/or healthy people will exit the market, insurance premiums will go up, more people will exit the market, and the whole thing could completely come to pieces. This is the worst option that's been put forward. Naturally it has the greatest chance of passing.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
This [skinny repeal] is the worst option that's been put forward. Naturally it has the greatest chance of passing.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Because he doesn't actually believe all that bullshit about "the world's greatest deliberate body" and "regular order." He put party before country, just like the rest of the hyenas.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
The skinny repeal at least doesn't eliminate Medicaid expansion or cut its future spending, and although the individual market seems to draw more attention, Medicaid was where the ACA achieved most of its coverage increases and where the Republican plans would do the most damage.

---

quote:

---

“We just heard from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that under such a plan, as reported in the press, 16 million Americans would lose their health insurance and millions more would pay a 20 percent increase in their premiums,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on the Senate floor.

---

quote:

---

But from what I've read, skinny repeal isn't meant to be a final proposal anyway; it's just a way of getting 51 votes so McConnell, Ryan, and crew can cook up the real thing in the House-Senate conference committee. At that point they can switch their vote-cadging spiel from "don't worry that this is terrible policy, someone will fix it later" to "this is your last chance - vote for this horrific policy or be forever branded an Obamacare-loving traitor."

---

Posted                      

1. The American people, who spent a lot of time calling Congress and demonstrating in the streets. Nothing stiffens the spines of legislators like knowing people back home will definitely hold you accountable on this one.
   -
2. Congressional Democrats, who never wavered in preserving a signature accomplishment of their party. It takes a lot of party discipline to resist the beltway media's promise of accolades to reward bipartisanship simply for the sake of bipartisanship (and policy outcomes be damned).
   -
3. Senators Collins and Murkowski, who were willing to stand up for their constituents' interests from the start, against a lot of push-back from their fellow Republicans.
   -
4. John McCain, who seems to have felt that "someone should do something about this" and finally realized that he was "someone" who had a vote in the U.S. Senate.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
And so we now move on to the next Republican plan to get rid of the Affordable Care Act: sabotage by the executive branch.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
And so we now move on to the next Republican plan to get rid of the Affordable Care Act: sabotage by the executive branch.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Let us not omit Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), diagnosed with stage 4 liver cancer three months ago, who hauled herself to the Senate floor to vote NO, without any fanfare or backslapping from the media. So there's three recipients of the Iron Ovary right there.

---