If Paul, Collins and McCain are no then that will sink it.

I'm not sure Paul actually wants to repeal. Kentucky will get hammered without the funding for Kynect and I'm not convinced he's willing to put himself in jeopardy.

Or he has principles and doesn't want to replace a crappy health care bill with an even crappier one. I'm pretty sure if it was a straight repeal vote he would be one but plenty of Republicans would be too scared to vote.

Paul has been extremely outspoken about the bills not going far enough and that's why he's not voting yes. Are you suggesting he's taking the extreme position as a cover for the fact that he doesn't want the law to be repealed? He's been pretty consistent on his positions over the years on stuff like this.

Keep in mind also that Matt Bevin ran for governor on the promise of dismantling Kynect and he won easily, even though people were voting against their own self-interests.

I think it's a lot easier to be ideologically pure when there's no consequences. As long as he can stake a maximalist position without anybody losing insurance he's in a really good spot. Bevin has done basically the same thing so far, staking a pure position, but so far not taking away people's insurance.

This is just speculation, but Paul has consistently refused to move the ball in the direction of his stated goals.

Lee got told that there's no exceptions for Alaska. So they're literally back to where they were two months ago.

Paul wants a complete teardown (and Massie in the House by proxy, KY is weird). Anything short of complete dismantlement of ACA where everyone is responsible for their own care with no govt involvement at all and he won't be happy. He's happy to stomp around, not actually accomplishing anything just to stay he's taking the high moral road.

Bevin (also known as Trump's Mini-me) already gutted KYnect. It was a great program and now he's left it in the govt's care. KY had the greatest improvement in uninsured of any state, going from 16% to under 5% uninsured. If Graham-Cassidy passes, 10 years down the road, when the block grants stop and the State can't resist fucking with things, healthcare here will be a nightmare. I honestly fear for my son, who is disabled, and on Medicaid. We're trying to get him to find a job where he pays for his own insurance to guard against it, but that's an uphill climb. As parents we're genuinely fearful.

Good grief. He's one of the few senators with any sort of ideology. But since he is GOP it's all for nefarious purposes. McCain is the grand hero of the media right now... ever ask yourself why not Paul or Collins? Because they aren't the "maverick"?

https://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/medi...ctSections.pdf

I can never forgive DR Rand Paul for this:

Rand Paul plays up Ebola fears - CNNPolitics

Someone who should have more knowledge than most, comes at it from the fear mongering angle, simply in order to discredit the White House. He gets no love.

I did send him an email a while back about his stand against Trump, and I implored him to protect the first amendment while Trump was calling for sanctions against the media.

Unlike his father, I just think Rand is all talk.

Who would have thought that McCain and John Roberts would save Obamacare on 3 separate occasions.

I don't think the Republicans believe or want their bill to pass - if they get one through then they 'own' the American healthcare debacle .. as it stands they can blame any issues on Obama while at the same time quietly causing it to continue to fail ...

If they pass a bill now then their constituents will blame them for issues, if they manage to fail to do so until just before the next election it'll appear they're 'working' on improving things and can claim that improvements will be appearing soon ... all the while knowing that their bill will undoubtably gut things and leave millions uninsured and increase prices for those who have prior conditions while capping lifetime coverage.

(cynical = me)

No, I really think this health care debate is more a function of the echo chamber effect in modern politics (which both sides are suffering from mightily). When your colleagues, conference speakers, news talking heads, pundits, and social media followers are all uniform in their belief (in this case) that --Obamacare is awful, it must be repealed-- then you can effectively build that in as a foundational principle of what is true and right.

Right now, it's a rare case that the Dems (or at least the opponents of the various congressional repeal/replace plans) are doing a better job messaging this topic than the GOP/right/conservative side. The popular debate has indeed become about how many millions of people "lose health care" and the like... and that's become the standard for how awful a given bill is. That's an unusual twist, but it's clearly true. The entitlement mentality is a powerful force, once you promise something to people, taking it away is really hard.

However, it's not like there is no legitimate intellectual case against this sort of government-driven expansion of private insurance. If you're a small government person, it's not absurd to argue that compelling everyone into big grouped insurance amounts to too much distribution of wealth/income than is reasonable. That is, in a different framing than we are used to with things like tax policy, what insurance is, at its heart -- those who don't suffer a cost help bear the burden on those who do. And the broader the coverage (lower deductibles, lower co-pays, limits on participant differentiation, etc) the more shifting of this sort here becomes. Plus, you have a serious dilution of wise spending motivation once most health care spending is done through "other people's money." That's a monstrous part of our current health care cost crisis. You don't have to be an insane person to think that the government doesn't need to have a huge redistributional and distorting role like this.

The real twist is that with health care, it's not a perfect case of a standard good/service that people can just go without if they don't have the resources or motivation to afford it. People die without certain health care. Other people's health problems get worse and more expensive if they don't get proper care. So, you arguably have a community stake in its consumption/provision -- that's just different than baseball tickets or skateboards. And that's where the "stay out of it, let the market decide" argument shades toward the callous and inhumane.

You don't have to be a villain to say the government shouldn't force people to go buy insurance. I think it's a tough position to defend that the country is practically better off if we revert back to having an extra 20+ million Americans become completely uncovered...but it's not like there's no argument at all that the current ACA program is not the right fit.

First off I agree totally that the ACA isn't perfect - it should have been a proper nationalized health system and I'm sure that would have been preferred by Obama, but what was passed was a lukewarm compromise ...

My case for this, which I've used in personal arguments, is asking why is America inferior to the rest of the western world within which the vast majority provide healthcare for all of their populations for a lesser cost than is incurred to Americans ... they can do this because of the leverage of negotiating as a large block and because their systems aren't geared to milk profit.

The idea that 'private' healthcare involves people driving down costs by making sensible choices is an illusion, no one (myself included) understands healthcare choices or costs and faced with an illness I've yet to meet someone who while in pain stops the doctor in the hospital and requests a breakdown of costs and a comparison with another local institution just in case they can save some money ;)

I'm a big believer in sensible government interference because left alone people do stupid shit - you can improve a lot of things by using a carrot and stick method or by enforcing simple rules.

No one argues against car insurance because without it other people are left in the lurch, the same thing with health insurance - currently the uninsured using ER is paid by others who do have insurance whether thats visible or not.

Other things I'd like to see happen - heavier taxes on junk food, its bad for people and helps cause the obesity issues in society (which in turn up healthcare costs) and make 'good things' tax free such as books (encourage education) and healthy food (which is ludicrously expensive here in Florida).

One thing I think is lost in this health care debate is that everyone pays, regardless.
Im type one diabetic. If I have terrible insurance because my condition makes it really expensive to afford good health care. And I have to choose between food and medicine or my 3 month doctor visits or whatever. I choose food. Then my health gets worse. And I get hospitalized. And I cant afford to stay. But they are obligated to take care of me.
Guess what happens? The cost of health care goes up for everyone.

I believe that obamacare was a step in the right direction, but done poorly. I think it rewarded the big business of insurance more than anything.

I believe there is an answer. And I would pay higher taxes to make health care more affordable.

BUT there are many reforms that need to take place as well. When I make less money every year because my insurance costs are higher than my salary increase, there is a problem.

We need to cap the cost of medication. We need to reign in insurance companies. Or create competition which would lower prices.

This is a pure money grab at this point. By both big pharma and big insurance. And we are all suffering. Regardless if you use your insurance or not. You are still paying for it.

Do you have a sense that healthy food is costly in Florida because of taxes? (I rather doubt that)

Overall, Marc, your argument is fine, and I tend to support most of it. I just don't like it when a policy argument gets framed as completely one-sided, that anyone who opposes something must be morally bankrupt. I don't think that's fair here, nor in most cases when it happens.

I believe health food is more costly because of what it is, natural.
Processed foods are a lot less costly to produce because of the amount that is produced.

It costs me about 5 bucks for 5 apples. It costs me about 2.50 for 6 candy bars. What am I buying if Im poor?

Fast food and processed foods are a boon for big food. But terrible for us.

I was looking at old emails while cleaning out my account. Ran into my Moms spaghetti and meatball recipe. The sauce takes 4 hours to make. Who has that much time? Not many. And when I can buy a jar of sauce, well, what am I going to do?

We need a cultural shift I guess. Less work. Cheaper health and medicine and food. Wouldnt that make a for more healthy society in general?

What are we calling healthy food?

Yes, the definition of "healthy food" is amorphous, making it a tough policy to try to promote it through taxes or whatever. Another weakness when the government steps in to pick winners/losers.

Some years ago, my state decided to enact a so-called (by detractors) "snack tax," excluding various salty snacks from the definition of food, which is not subject to sales tax. Well, the affected industries went berserk over it, and got it repealed a couple years later - with one major argument being the difficult and unsatisfying definition of what counted as taxable "snack food." Pretzels taxed, peanuts not. Soda taxed but Orangina not. And various weaknesses in the state-set definition that led to weird implementation/collection by retailers.

And that's even before we get into calling one another douchenozzles over deciding what constitutes "healthy." That has clearly become a toxic conversation itself at this point.

Its simple in my mind.
You add any type of sugar, tax it.
You dont, no tax.

Added sugars is the culprit. It doesnt seem any more difficult than that.

For me - I'd consider 'healthy food' anything which isn't prepared and hasn't had its nutrients removed by irradiation ... so basically potatoes, fruit, vegetables etc. ...

In case you're interested this link shows how such things are determined within the UK - you'll see they follow roughly what I've suggested and actually include things like sports activities and gyms as another way of encouraging good behavior and lowering health costs for society .. you'll also find many 'essential' items are zero rated (ie. heating, clothing, kids car seats).

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-of...s-and-services

Apparently Trump has decided to take on the NFL and the NBA.

LeBron James on Twitter: "U bum @StephenCurry30 already said he ain't going! So therefore ain't no invite. Going to White House was a great honor until you showed up!"

LeBron with the rejection!

Me: You want to go on a date?
Her: No thanks.
Me: Invitation REVOKED!

That's not a bad idea at all. Some of the results would be hilarious, and to some, problematic. That "lite" salad dressing folks buy b/c they're terrified of fat and think its better for them? Almost all products like that have added sugar.


To reference Marc's post as well, all of these ideas seem well meaning but in the end both of those suggestions end up harming the poor the most. Simple access to healthy foods for millions in poverty is a big problem (Food desert - Wikipedia) so there is a risk of taxing many things that are, at present, the only realistic options in many places.

The added sugar bit is a great place to start. The type of sugar isn't the issue, it's the insane amounts we consume as a society. Also agree that definitions, especially with corporate lobbying to interfere with the process, can be a problem. I think the solution there is to set some generic baselines for things like sugar, salt, etc and simply say that anything meeting those standards is healthy while also reintroducing campaigns that urge people to vary their diets.

I'll go with an unpopular addition to the healthy definition.

Since there's absolutely no nutritional difference between organic, conventional, and GMO, that needs to be advertised (along with the 2000+ legitimate studies that support it) so that people in poorer areas know that their fruit/veggie/whatever options are just as healthy as anyone else's.

Next step is to go all in on things like Arctic Apples (non-browning) and Golden Rice (fortified with Vitamin A). They're healthy, cheap, and have been modified in positive ways. Get those types of things into everyone's hands at reasonable prices asap.

Every. Single. Occasion.

President should not be telling the Washington Redskins to change their name-our country has far bigger problems! FOCUS on them,not nonsense

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 8, 2013

So who had the NFL owners and the goody two shoes Warriors as the sports groups that POTUS would take on first?

And NFL referees as well. For penalizing players for "beautiful tackles". You know the ones that end a season or career or concussion syndrome.

President Donald Trump speaks out against NFL player protests

I'll give him credit, when he finds something that plays well to his base he doesn't drop it.

Still going at NFL players.

It's remarkable. Feels like performance art at this point.

You know, its tough. The poor are always the ones that get left out.I dont have a solution. Maybe tear down abandoned buildings and plant gardens? Have the park dept of cities in charge of it. Sell the products cheap to help off set the cost.

Take some of the tax dollars and open fresh food markets in areas where the poor dont have access.

No idea how to fix food deserts.

I'm fine with lowering or eliminating taxes on healthy products. I'm fine with taxing things that end up costing taxpayers money (alcohol). Not a fan of the government dictating what is "heatlhy food" as they have a bad history in that regard and are easily influenced by money.

I still don't understand how it's expensive to eat healthy. Frozen veggies, lean meats, eggs, oats, beans, etc are all really cheap.

I'm hoping companies like Amazon and Walmart find a solution. They are already doing food delivery by me. I would not be opposed to the government covering the delivery of groceries in areas that don't have access to grocery stores.

A lot of people don't know how to prepare these foods without them tasting like shit, I'd imagine.

Or don't have time to do so.

80% of all products in grocery stores have added sugars.
There around 120 different names for added sugars.
It is in everything.
And that is the rub. Big food would throw a fit if you taxed their food products.
Remember, the company that sold 80% of the pizza's to all public schools were able to convince the govt to label pizza a vegetable.

And food can cure or kill. We are, literally, what we eat.

Im not a big forks over knives guy or a vegen. I dont eat the best, but I am trying to limit carbs and sugars. But its hard.

I love me a candy bar occasionally. And thats what you hope for, doing things in moderation.

It isn't expensive to eat healthy unless the definition of healthy involves words like heirloom, seasonal, and organic.


I would wager that this is the biggest issue.

Once again, judging solely by my Facebook feed, I'm excited about attending church this Sunday since it's apparently now okay to swap "sons of bitches" and "sinners" interchangeably.

On the upside, this means I can think of a couple of Country songs that can now be leveraged in the song/worship part of the service with likely only minimal editing.

Trump just tweeted against Roger Goddell, apparently to test the limits of the "Enemy of my Enemy is my friend" saying.

Solid recap of the day.

Today on Twitter, the President has raised tensions with North Korea; the Golden State Warriors; Iran; the NFL; and John McCain.

— Jeffrey Goldberg (@JeffreyGoldberg) September 23, 2017

It's cheaper than Whole Foods, but in places without a supermarket it can be much more expensive than eating unhealthy.

Definitely. It feels like the money we pour into making food affordable goes to the wrong part of the food chain.

Trump and this continued threatening, what is essentially the lives of top leadership of NK, is opening himself up to a like response by others who don't necessarily see eye to eye with the US. It's an incredibly dangerous road for him and future US leadership.

Looks like the latest ACA repeal is dead enough that Senators who would vote for it can speak out against it.

Ted Cruz Comes Out Against Graham-Cassidy: ‘Right Now, They Don’t Have My Vote’

Cruz and his convictions are are strong as this:

Trump might be the only person who can make Roger Goodell not be the villain in a situation.

Not to mention incredibly childish. This MF literally has no ability to comprehend the long term ramifications of his reactionary personality. He is the kind of "leader" that would run things the exact same way as Kim Jung Un or any other maniacal despot does if he was in a situation of absolute power.