Discussion for article #234454
Now that you’ve called attention to it, Boehner is going to furiously backpedal away from this deal.
26 Likes
In light of the current fighting in the Senate over a human-trafficking bill that also has broad bipartisan support being hijacked to appease the anti-choice crowd, the optimism in this article is rather naive. If the past six years have taught us anything, it’s that Republicans never pass up the chance to totally bork bipartisan efforts to promote partisan goals.
36 Likes
This is a long-term solution for doctors who are having their patients really destroyed. …
What kind of dolt thinks/talks in these terms?
…said Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), a staunch conservative…
Was it a typo?
Patience, maybe?
Or simply another hyperbolic, pants-wetting ® idiot–
who can’t create a spark by rubbing his frontal lobes together?
jw1
11 Likes
Well, that’s nice. Let’s see how the Republicans are going to f**k this one up.
19 Likes
It has been my experience that the Republicans will fuck up every good and rational deal. This is a good deal because the doc fix trap has been one of the major hostage weapons the GOP has been using since Clinton agreed to it in 1997.
Boehner will need to get rid of the Hastert rules because it will never pass any other way. It will take almost unanimous support from Democrats and just enough moderate Republicans to pass it.
7 Likes
more likely : for doctors who are having their practices really destroyed
8 Likes
I saw an interview with Paul Ryan with Ezra Klein blaming Bill Clinton for the doc fix because he signed it. He admitted it was bad policy but it was Clinton fault’s even though House Republicans created this mess.
Never mind that Newt and his buddies came up with the preposterous idea as a backdoor way to save face after Newt tried to with hold flood aid to the Midwest and had his ass kicked by public opinion. Clinton correctly calculated that the GOP would never with hold the doctor payments but he under estimated the political melodrama this idiocy would create every year.
9 Likes
Bad idea. Making upper-income Medicare recipients pay more sounds OK, but it is the camel’s nose under the tent. Medicare and Social Security benefits have never been conditioned on income, and shouldn’t be now. Doing so will tend to reduce support for the programs among those at the top of the economic scale, which has been one secret to their success.
9 Likes
Thank you, John Boehner for stepping up to the plate here.
Thank you Nancy Pelosi for being awesome.
11 Likes
Wow, ye Curmudgeon of Old! What a curmudgeonly old gripe! The rich will have to pay their way, you barf?! Next communistic step will bring Pol Pot and show trials, no doubt!
2 Likes
Gratitude is an awesome feeling isn’t it?
Gratitude begets more goodness, bring it on!
4 Likes
Our seniors are having more and more difficulty getting doctors because Medicare doesn’t reimburse, and doctors are dropping Medicare.
Of course, we all know the real solution to that problem: Medicare for Everyone (a.k.a. single-payer). At that point, doctors can accept Medicare payment, or have boutique practices that treat only the very wealthy or do only elective procedures like cosmetic surgery.
10 Likes
I smell a rat.
6 Likes
See-- that does make sense J.
Though living in TX and having sampled LA culture on a regular basis (particularly around Lent!)-- I’m aware of the multitude of influences on the indigenous and their dialects.
But an ESL-like-sitting-US Senator is a bit beyond the pale.
If he can’t blurt the right words with cameras rolling-- he shouldn’t get in front of one.
jw1
3 Likes
Actually? I think I smell a turtle.
jw1
9 Likes
So, the Republicans agree that those under 18 should all have health insurance (CHIP). They also agree those over 65 should all have health insurance (Medicare). So why not the same for those 18-65 (Obamacare)?
16 Likes
No - the rich will decide that since they have to pay their way they now have no interest in supporting the law and then everyone will have to pay their way.
In fact, Medicare presently has a means test. They deduct more from the Social Security payment if you had a big income in the prior year. It has the advantage of not being a constant reminder which a bigger co-pay would be.
2 Likes
There is no Hastert rule and never was. Hastert has said so himself. Plenty of things have passed with Ds + some Rs under both Hastert and Boehner.
1 Like
Dave, we both-- on-the-whole-- seem to be optimists.
And I’m hoping for more and true bi-partisanship for the good of every citizen.
But I can’t help this gut-feeling.
Envisioning Boehner-as-Lucy-with-a-football.
Every issue as ‘contact sport’ is now the norm.
jw1
4 Likes