4 ms·

Except that it wasn't workable. It was never financially sound and was doomed without additional funding for which the public was never prepared politically.

by gozur88 10y ago

Except that it wasn't workable. It was never financially sound and was doomed without additional funding for which the public was never prepared politically. It was rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote using a procedural trick, so politically the best play for the GOP was to let it fail and then hang the failure on the Democrats. I have no idea what Trump's plan is, but I hope whatever it is the Republicans don't play games with the GAO accounting and they also bring Democrats on board so both parties have a political stake in success.

jljljl 10y ago
What procedural trick? It received 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the House.
- gozur88 10y ago
  The final bill would not have survived a filibuster because the Democrats no longer had 60 votes. From wikipedia: "House Democrats had expected to be able to negotiate changes in a House-Senate conference before passing a final bill. Since any bill that emerged from conference that differed from the Senate bill would have to pass the Senate over another Republican filibuster, most House Democrats agreed to pass the Senate bill on condition that it be amended by a subsequent bill.[165] They drafted the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which could be passed by the reconciliation process.[166][169][170] As per the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, reconciliation cannot be subject to a filibuster. But reconciliation is limited to budget changes, which is why the procedure was not used to pass ACA in the first place; the bill had inherently non-budgetary regulations.[171][172] Although the already-passed Senate bill could not have been passed by reconciliation, most of House Democrats' demands were budgetary: "these changes—higher subsidy levels, different kinds of taxes to pay for them, nixing the Nebraska Medicaid deal—mainly involve taxes and spending. In other words, they're exactly the kinds of policies that are well-suited for reconciliation."[169]" Despite the gloss the wiki authors put on it, this is highly irregular. It's within the letter of Senate rules, but if you're expecting to ever get cooperation from the opposition party this is not the sort of stunt you want to pull. I saw a headline that said something along the lines that the Republicans plan to repeal the ACA using reconciliation, which would be poetic if true.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    If I'm reading that right, both House and Senate approved almost the exact version that went into law, but some of them expected there to be more rounds of edits that didn't happen. So they avoided filibuster by suddenly being more cooperative than expected and not having more rounds of edits? I might be deeply misunderstanding, but that trick seems okay. Don't pass a bill if you don't want the bill becoming a law...
    - gozur88 10y ago
      The normal process is different bills pass different houses, then they go into a conference committee that produces a negotiated third version which then goes back to be voted on in each chamber. What happened in this case, as I understand it, was the Democrats in the Senate took a bill that had already passed, a bill addressing some other matter entirely, and rewrote it completely while maintaining it was the "negotiated third version" above, i.e. it was a reconciliation of the bill that had been discarded. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, TBH, but that's the essence.
      - DrScump 10y ago
        Exactly. Plus, it violated Article 1 Section 7, which requires that revenue bills originate in the House. Then, the Democrat leadership argued that it wasn't actually a tax, so Clause 1 didn't apply. Then, in the infamous Supreme Court case, they argued that it was a tax and therefore couldn't be challenged before collections actually begin due to the Pre-emption clause. The process of taking a bill in progress and completely rewriting it (while retaining "credit" for those procedural steps the original bill completed) is commonly known as "gut-and-amend".
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        >What happened in this case, as I understand it, was the Democrats in the Senate took a bill that had already passed, a bill addressing some other matter entirely, and rewrote it completely while maintaining it was the "negotiated third version" above, i.e. it was a reconciliation of the bill that had been discarded. That's not what the text around your quote says. In fact reading it in full context implies that nobody got tricked. First the senate broke the filibuster and passed the act. Then the house, realizing that breaking another filibuster was unlikely, decided to pass a version that was compatible with the senate version and only needed budget reconciliation. Then it passed without the ability to filibuster and became a law. I don't see where a bill addressing something different comes into the picture. I don't see any deception. Am I missing something?
Frondo 10y ago
The initial bill did have one Republican congressman voting in favor, the guy from Louisiana.
- gozur88 10y ago
  That may be true, but the final vote tally had every Republican voting against.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> they also bring Democrats on board so both parties have a political stake in success. Republicans and Democrats in government (not necessarily in the electorate) now (this was not as obviously the case before the ACA was proposed) have fundamentally opposed goals on healthcare. So a bipartisan compromise is improbable.
- gozur88 10y ago
  I disagree. The goals are actually quite similar. It's the vision of the framework that achieves those goals that's in conflict.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    I'm not sure that's true. The GOP platform does not mention universal healthcare or anything like it, that's simply not a top priority. The healthcare-related planks are: - Restoring Patient Control and Preserving Quality in Healthcare - Protecting Individual Conscience in Healthcare - Better Care and Lower Costs: Tort Reform - Advancing Research and Development in Healthcare - Putting Patients First: Reforming the FDA Freedom of choice, high quality, affordability, and limited regulations are the goals. I don't think they're against universal coverage, but as a party it is not a main focus. The Democratic platform healthcare section begins with "Securing Universal Health Care: Democrats believe that health care is a right, not a privilege". Their priorities are: - Securing Universal Health Care - Supporting Community Health Centers - Reducing Prescription Drug Costs - Enabling Cutting-Edge Medical Research - Combating Drug and Alcohol Addiction - Treating Mental Health - Supporting Those Living with Autism and their Families - Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice - Ensuring Long-Term Care, Services, and Supports - Protecting and Promoting Public Health - Ending Violence Against Women - Preventing Gun Violence The main goals are universal coverage, public funding, affordability, opposing discrimination, and a couple specific areas of focus. Some of this overlaps with the Republican platform, but this is clearly a very different set of goals, and I think universal care is the most significant difference.
    - gozur88 10y ago
flour_power 10y ago
great plan except that it hasn't failed and hijinks like this are making it look like it is.

by gozur88 10y ago

jljljl 10y ago

What procedural trick? It received 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the House.

gozur88 10y ago
The final bill would not have survived a filibuster because the Democrats no longer had 60 votes. From wikipedia: "House Democrats had expected to be able to negotiate changes in a House-Senate conference before passing a final bill. Since any bill that emerged from conference that differed from the Senate bill would have to pass the Senate over another Republican filibuster, most House Democrats agreed to pass the Senate bill on condition that it be amended by a subsequent bill.[165] They drafted the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which could be passed by the reconciliation process.[166][169][170] As per the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, reconciliation cannot be subject to a filibuster. But reconciliation is limited to budget changes, which is why the procedure was not used to pass ACA in the first place; the bill had inherently non-budgetary regulations.[171][172] Although the already-passed Senate bill could not have been passed by reconciliation, most of House Democrats' demands were budgetary: "these changes—higher subsidy levels, different kinds of taxes to pay for them, nixing the Nebraska Medicaid deal—mainly involve taxes and spending. In other words, they're exactly the kinds of policies that are well-suited for reconciliation."[169]" Despite the gloss the wiki authors put on it, this is highly irregular. It's within the letter of Senate rules, but if you're expecting to ever get cooperation from the opposition party this is not the sort of stunt you want to pull. I saw a headline that said something along the lines that the Republicans plan to repeal the ACA using reconciliation, which would be poetic if true.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  If I'm reading that right, both House and Senate approved almost the exact version that went into law, but some of them expected there to be more rounds of edits that didn't happen. So they avoided filibuster by suddenly being more cooperative than expected and not having more rounds of edits? I might be deeply misunderstanding, but that trick seems okay. Don't pass a bill if you don't want the bill becoming a law...
  - gozur88 10y ago
    The normal process is different bills pass different houses, then they go into a conference committee that produces a negotiated third version which then goes back to be voted on in each chamber. What happened in this case, as I understand it, was the Democrats in the Senate took a bill that had already passed, a bill addressing some other matter entirely, and rewrote it completely while maintaining it was the "negotiated third version" above, i.e. it was a reconciliation of the bill that had been discarded. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, TBH, but that's the essence.
    - DrScump 10y ago
      Exactly. Plus, it violated Article 1 Section 7, which requires that revenue bills originate in the House. Then, the Democrat leadership argued that it wasn't actually a tax, so Clause 1 didn't apply. Then, in the infamous Supreme Court case, they argued that it was a tax and therefore couldn't be challenged before collections actually begin due to the Pre-emption clause. The process of taking a bill in progress and completely rewriting it (while retaining "credit" for those procedural steps the original bill completed) is commonly known as "gut-and-amend".
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      >What happened in this case, as I understand it, was the Democrats in the Senate took a bill that had already passed, a bill addressing some other matter entirely, and rewrote it completely while maintaining it was the "negotiated third version" above, i.e. it was a reconciliation of the bill that had been discarded. That's not what the text around your quote says. In fact reading it in full context implies that nobody got tricked. First the senate broke the filibuster and passed the act. Then the house, realizing that breaking another filibuster was unlikely, decided to pass a version that was compatible with the senate version and only needed budget reconciliation. Then it passed without the ability to filibuster and became a law. I don't see where a bill addressing something different comes into the picture. I don't see any deception. Am I missing something?

Frondo 10y ago

The initial bill did have one Republican congressman voting in favor, the guy from Louisiana.

gozur88 10y ago
That may be true, but the final vote tally had every Republican voting against.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> they also bring Democrats on board so both parties have a political stake in success. Republicans and Democrats in government (not necessarily in the electorate) now (this was not as obviously the case before the ACA was proposed) have fundamentally opposed goals on healthcare. So a bipartisan compromise is improbable.

gozur88 10y ago
I disagree. The goals are actually quite similar. It's the vision of the framework that achieves those goals that's in conflict.
- burkaman 10y ago
  I'm not sure that's true. The GOP platform does not mention universal healthcare or anything like it, that's simply not a top priority. The healthcare-related planks are: - Restoring Patient Control and Preserving Quality in Healthcare - Protecting Individual Conscience in Healthcare - Better Care and Lower Costs: Tort Reform - Advancing Research and Development in Healthcare - Putting Patients First: Reforming the FDA Freedom of choice, high quality, affordability, and limited regulations are the goals. I don't think they're against universal coverage, but as a party it is not a main focus. The Democratic platform healthcare section begins with "Securing Universal Health Care: Democrats believe that health care is a right, not a privilege". Their priorities are: - Securing Universal Health Care - Supporting Community Health Centers - Reducing Prescription Drug Costs - Enabling Cutting-Edge Medical Research - Combating Drug and Alcohol Addiction - Treating Mental Health - Supporting Those Living with Autism and their Families - Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice - Ensuring Long-Term Care, Services, and Supports - Protecting and Promoting Public Health - Ending Violence Against Women - Preventing Gun Violence The main goals are universal coverage, public funding, affordability, opposing discrimination, and a couple specific areas of focus. Some of this overlaps with the Republican platform, but this is clearly a very different set of goals, and I think universal care is the most significant difference.
  - gozur88 10y ago

flour_power 10y ago

great plan except that it hasn't failed and hijinks like this are making it look like it is.