Senate leadership delays health care vote

[Lexicus]

It'd also be folly to assume that large corporations aren't bureaucratic and inefficient in their own right. All it takes is one look at a company's executive suites to see millions upon millions of dollars flushed down the toilet on ineffectual bureaucracy.

Or you could just assume all activity done under the profit motive is 'efficient' by definition and just ignore any real analysis

 

[Hrothbern]

And some of that blue bar, hospital visits, should go down under single-payer, because some portion of that bar presently is people with conditions they've left untreated because of not being able to afford routine care going to hospitals only once the condition is full blown.

agree
That is also what I saw mentioned in remarks and side notes in all the many links I plowed through.
Early healthcare/routine healthcare is compared to other western countries at a lower level.
But I could not find a transparent benchmarking overview on it.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Also, I don't know whether anything in that chart captures the profits of health-insurance companies. Maybe that's why the orange bar is as much bigger as it is. But maybe the orange bar only reflects administrative costs and the chart just leaves out entirely one thing that makes Americans spend more on "health" than people with single-payer systems.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

My congressman opted to stay in Washington for the recess. Apparently he wanted to be available to the constituents that he actually represents; Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.

 

[El_Machinae]

There have been recent bipartisan noises that I think should be boosted. You will want legislation written by moderates. Not one written by a sole party.

 

[Ajidica]

There have been recent bipartisan noises that I think should be boosted. You will want legislation written by moderates. Not one written by a sole party.

I'm not necessarily sure about that. The act of appeasing the "moderates" tends to introduce a lot of unpopular and ineffective (if not outright bad) elements to the legislation. Think of all the caving done to insurance companies in the ACA to get Sleazeberman on board. Most of the "bipartisan" Clinton legislation gave us stuff like the savaging of the welfare system, increased reliance on block grants, and the infamous "superpredators" and "tough on crime" bills; which today are roundly reviled. The bipartisan aspect neither ensured both parties shard the blame of their mediocrity nor that both parties were equally invested in maintaining the legislation.
Not saying that groundbreaking legislation can't be bipartisan, but assuming a "moderate" stance in legislation is automatically better tends toward fallacy of the mean.

 

[Lexicus]

There have been recent bipartisan noises that I think should be boosted. You will want legislation written by moderates. Not one written by a sole party.

I disagree with this completely, Obamacare would have been far better if the public option hadn't been ditched to appease the "moderates."

 

[metalhead]

Yep. Ditching the filibuster entirely in order to first keep Sam Alito off the bench and then to pass the ACA with a public option is exactly what Democrats should have done. Granted that's easy to say in hindsight, but one could easily argue that the way the Senate handled Merrick Garland helped them electorally, and I'm quite sure nuking the filibuster for Gorsuch will help them as well.

Democrats were simply behind the times. They try to make everyone happy, while the GOP does almost exclusively base service and keeps winning elections. Granted, that strategy seems to have its own extremely negative side effects, but the Democrats apart from Obama haven't bothered to do anything for their base, er, ever, really.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There have been recent bipartisan noises that I think should be boosted. You will want legislation written by moderates. Not one written by a sole party.

This is fantasy. The "freedom caucus" will vote as a block against anything that moderates of either party would accept. So, theoretically you can pass legislation by pooling enough moderate republicans and moderate democrats. But in reality, outside the actual freedom caucus and stretching deep into the moderate republicans is the "fear caucus"; republicans who would never dare to sign on to a bill that appeals to more than a handful of democrats. Truthfully, even one democrat signing on is enough to kill a bill, since a single democrat in favor means at least half the republicans will be forced to vote no.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yup, the American States will turn into a country (or remain one) that requires 100% of the partisans to agree on something in order to get anything done. All legislation is then deemed best if it requires the assistance of the extreme elements of the parties instead of the moderates of the other.

The ACA would have been intensely better if two Republicans had been willing to cross the aisle for a good idea or to stop a bad one. And same thing for Trumpcare. You only need a handful of people in order to beat the Freedom Caucus, since it's a dam that merely needs a leak.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yup, the American States will turn into a country (or remain one) that requires 100% of the partisans to agree on something in order to get anything done. All legislation is then deemed best if it requires the assistance of the extreme elements of the parties instead of the moderates of the other.

The ACA would have been intensely better if two Republicans had been willing to cross the aisle for a good idea or to stop a bad one. And same thing for Trumpcare. You only need a handful of people in order to beat the Freedom Caucus, since it's a dam that merely needs a leak.

A dam that merely needs a leak to pass a Democratic party bill, sure. You can pass legislation with all the Democrats and a handful of Republicans that aren't terrified of being ousted for voting with them. But those bills only get out of committee when the Democrats have a majority.

 

[jackelgull]

A dam that merely needs a leak to pass a Democratic party bill, sure. You can pass legislation with all the Democrats and a handful of Republicans that aren't terrified of being ousted for voting with them. But those bills only get out of committee when the Democrats have a majority.

I think that shipped sailed with Trump's election. Now I think it might be even more toxic for the Democrats to be seen collaborating with the Republicans than it is for the Republicans to be seen collaborating with Democrats.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think that shipped sailed with Trump's election. Now I think it might be even more toxic for the Democrats to be seen collaborating with the Republicans than it is for the Republicans to be seen collaborating with Democrats.

I don't think so. For one, Democrats are generally better tuned in. They are more likely to look at what the collaboration produced rather than just go full on "you conspired with the enemy you RINO!!!" For another, most Democrats recognize that the Republican party itself is totally polarized. Working with the moderate Republicans has not even a superficial similarity to working with the lunatic extremist Republicans.

 

[El_Machinae]

A dam that merely needs a leak to pass a Democratic party bill, sure. You can pass legislation with all the Democrats and a handful of Republicans that aren't terrified of being ousted for voting with them. But those bills only get out of committee when the Democrats have a majority.

Do they? Or do the committees need a sane majority of Republicans to get out of committee?

 

[Lexicus]

Do they? Or do the committees need a sane majority of Republicans to get out of committee?

Do you mean, "do the bills need a sane majority of Republicans to get out of committee"?

I think at this point "sane Republicans" is nearly a contradiction in terms...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Do they? Or do the committees need a sane majority of Republicans to get out of committee?

Committee members don't matter. Chairmen matter. And chairmen are directed by the majority leader to keep bills that would expose Republicans to a controversial vote from ever reaching the floor.

 

[Leoreth]

Obamacare is the bipartisan solution. A Republican idea implemented by Democrats.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Obamacare is the bipartisan solution. A Republican idea implemented by Democrats.

Fact.