Octopus Overlords

Tapper is, literally, incredulous. "You don't know that?!"

El Guapo wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:43 am

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:26 am Look at them. Look at them turn on one another.

I'm half expecting Mitch McConnell to pull some B.S. maneuver where he refuses to seat Jones until an obscure (and questionable) Senate rule is observed.

In 2008 / 2009 Franken was kept from taking his Senate seat for more than six months by recounts (though the vote in that race was far closer than Jones v. Moore). If Moore pays for a recount, I'm curious how long he / the GOP can keep Jones from taking the seat.

I think McConnell's mainly going to be concerned with getting the tax bill done before Jones shows up. Since the Alabama Secretary of State evidently won't certify the vote until Dec. 26th, McConnell has enough time (as long as he can keep Collins, Flake, and/or McCain on board).

But surely, much as he did with Obama's Supreme Court nominee, McConnell HAS to hold the vote on this hugely impactful tax bill until after Alabama's duly-elected Senator is seated? We have to respect the choice of the voters, right? That's the thing we're doing now?

Oh, wait, you mean that whole thing was just a bullshit stunt?

Chaz wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:26 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:43 am

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:26 am Look at them. Look at them turn on one another.

I'm half expecting Mitch McConnell to pull some B.S. maneuver where he refuses to seat Jones until an obscure (and questionable) Senate rule is observed.

In 2008 / 2009 Franken was kept from taking his Senate seat for more than six months by recounts (though the vote in that race was far closer than Jones v. Moore). If Moore pays for a recount, I'm curious how long he / the GOP can keep Jones from taking the seat.

I think McConnell's mainly going to be concerned with getting the tax bill done before Jones shows up. Since the Alabama Secretary of State evidently won't certify the vote until Dec. 26th, McConnell has enough time (as long as he can keep Collins, Flake, and/or McCain on board).

But surely, much as he did with Obama's Supreme Court nominee, McConnell HAS to hold the vote on this hugely impactful tax bill until after Alabama's duly-elected Senator is seated? We have to respect the choice of the voters, right? That's the thing we're doing now?

Oh, wait, you mean that whole thing was just a bullshit stunt?

It's more than that. As you may recall, after Scott Brown won in 2010, McConnell recognized that it was very important to not have substantive votes until Brown could be seated. No doubt McConnell, who is very consistent and respectful of precedent, will consider that important principle to apply here as well.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:28 pm No doubt McConnell, who is very consistent and respectful of precedent, will consider that important principle to apply here as well.

Were you able to type that with a straight face? Inquiring minds want to know.

Skinypupy wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:59 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:28 pm No doubt McConnell, who is very consistent and respectful of precedent, will consider that important principle to apply here as well.

Were you able to type that with a straight face? Inquiring minds want to know.

I have a very dry sense of humor.

Republicans Shouldn’t Assume Roy Moore Was An Outlier.

Good 538 analysis. Basically looking to explain a roughly 30 point swing in Alabama between the presidential election and here. Basically they say about a third of the difference can be chaulked up to deterioration in the Republican brand (democrats are now ~ 10 points ahead in the generic ballot polls). That would take any Republican down from about a 30 point lead to about a 20 point lead. After that Moore's (non-molestation) brand of crazy probably cost him another 10 - 15 points - he was up around 5 - 10 points in polls over Jones pre-molestation allegations. Then the allegations probably cost him another 5 - 10 points (taking it to Jones +1.5).

He's an outlier of sorts, but the allegations against him really only explain a small portion of the outcome. It's also a reminder of how bad the GOP brand is now, and how that plus nominating fringe candidates can easily cost the GOP even in deep red states.

It's kind of disturbing that (credible) alleged pedophilia is only a 5-10 point swing.

YellowKing wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:54 pmIt's kind of disturbing that (credible) alleged pedophilia is only a 5-10 point swing.

Alabama!

I'd like to think that in other places, this would be a deathblow by itself.

YellowKing wrote:It's kind of disturbing that (credible) alleged pedophilia is only a 5-10 point swing.

That’s the main reason I’m finding it hard to celebrate today.

msteelers wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:17 pm

YellowKing wrote:It's kind of disturbing that (credible) alleged pedophilia is only a 5-10 point swing.

That’s the main reason I’m finding it hard to celebrate today.

I find it easy to celebrate Moore losing and Jones winning. I find it hard to be excited because all it really means is they push the tax bill through even faster with less care (if possible) for the ramifications.

YellowKing wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:54 pm It's kind of disturbing that (credible) alleged pedophilia is only a 5-10 point swing.

Cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug. I can understand the resistance to voting against your ideological desires and feel that the folks in Alabama deserve a senator who best represents their political wants. I think it's pretty crappy that the system (this time) didn't allow them to swap out the alleged pedophile for someone else who may have better fit their wants (I also understand how choices made by other politicians, namely their governor, put them behind the eightball). If you really don't want to vote for a pro-choice democrat, our brains have a lot of capacity for replacing what objectively is with what we subjectively want it to be. From a liberally-minded viewpoint, see what just happened in Alabama (for 48.x% of the electorate) and ask yourself in the future how you can be certain you're not also doing it based on your own biases and desires. Being from a red state or blue, seeing things from a conservative or progressive mindset, being more academically educated or from the school of hard knocks — none of those things affect our capacity for self awareness and the influence of cognitive dissonance.

Yes.

And it's not just a matter of individual belief. There was a constant drumbeat counter-narrative (Fake News! Paid allegations!) casting Moore and his supporters as the Real Victims.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:25 pm Republicans Shouldn’t Assume Roy Moore Was An Outlier.

Good 538 analysis. Basically looking to explain a roughly 30 point swing in Alabama between the presidential election and here. Basically they say about a third of the difference can be chaulked up to deterioration in the Republican brand (democrats are now ~ 10 points ahead in the generic ballot polls). That would take any Republican down from about a 30 point lead to about a 20 point lead. After that Moore's (non-molestation) brand of crazy probably cost him another 10 - 15 points - he was up around 5 - 10 points in polls over Jones pre-molestation allegations. Then the allegations probably cost him another 5 - 10 points (taking it to Jones +1.5).

He's an outlier of sorts, but the allegations against him really only explain a small portion of the outcome. It's also a reminder of how bad the GOP brand is now, and how that plus nominating fringe candidates can easily cost the GOP even in deep red states.

It's also a function of the die-hard craziness of GOP Primary Voters, especially in places like Alabama, where the worst of the worst tend to bubble up. It is nigh impossible for a moderate Republican to emerge from a GOP Primary in just about any state, not just the deep red ones.

It's entirely possible that the Alabama GOP will put up another incredibly horrible candidate in the 2020 Senate election, which leaves a slight possibility that Jones could even hold this seat, if he keeps up the fantastic ground game.

Remember when Rep Mo Brooks told everyone that good people don’t get sick and they shouldn’t have to pay for other people’s bad decisions?

My understanding is that (the new proposal) will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool,” Brooks said in comments that generated swift backlash. “That helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy, they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy. And right now, those are the people — who’ve done things the right way — that are seeing their costs skyrocketing.”

Karma strikes again.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/RepMoBrooks/status/ ... 91488?s=17[/tweet]

The replies lol

Skinypupy wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 4:57 pm Remember when Rep Mo Brooks told everyone that good people don’t get sick and they shouldn’t have to pay for other people’s bad decisions?

That's not what he said, he did not say "good" people, he talked about "good lives", by which he meant living healthily - that should be obvious. Second, he was obviously speaking in generalities. People who do live healthy do tend to have lower health care costs, all else being equal that is undeniably true. There are legitimate things to criticize but let's not intentionally misconstrue what people say.

Karma strikes again.

You are no better than Trumpers with that attitude, IMO. I think there's plenty of room for criticizing him for having care that he doesn't believe others should have or want to pay for. I don't wish or revel anyone struck by cancer, regardless of liberal or conservative. I don't relish him getting cancer.

I don't wish cancer on anyone, and don't relish Brooks getting it. But let's not downplay what he said, either. His point was that folks with higher predicted costs should be asked to pay more in insurance to offset those costs. Yes, he was speaking in generalities--but the problem is you can't generalize something like healthcare in this manner. You can 'lead a healthy life' in the way Brooks was originally attempting to imply, and still get the shit end of the die roll.

And that's bullshit for a country as rich as this one. And bullshit for someone in Brooks' position to suggest, given his A-grade insurance plan comes from his job rather than his prospective healthy lifestyle.

Hopefully he's volunteered to significantly raise his insurance premium payments going forward, now that he is and will for the rest of his life be one of those "people who have higher health care costs" so that he can "contribute more to the insurance pool that helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy, they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy."

And the thing is at the end of the day, even if someone has led an unhealthy lifestyle, no one (outside of Rip and GOP leadership) thinks it's reasonable to deny them health coverage and thereby health treatment, which you do if you force them (or allow insurance companies to charge them) premiums beyond their ability to afford. At the end of the day forcing the healthy to subsidize the sick is at the core of how health insurance works.

Grifman wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:27 pm I don't wish or revel anyone struck by cancer, regardless of liberal or conservative. I don't relish him getting cancer.

Nor do I. Pointing out the irony/karma of him getting cancer after taking his previous position on healthcare doesn't mean I'm glad it happened.

After experiencing its devastating effect in our family very recently, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

This is a guy that worked hard to repel the ACA with no plan to replace it, who either maliciously or as Grif suggests, naively claimed that people who live healthy lives don't get sick/have pe-existing conditions, who enjoys top of the line healthcare paid for by the very Americans who can't afford their own insurance in part because of this man's efforts, and who claims to be a Christian.

Karma's a bitch. Does that make me a deplorable, Grif?

If that's your opinion, I guess I can live with that.

Amazingly, the majority of the responses to his tweet were both respectful, supportive, while also reminding him of his own words and failings re:American healthcare.

I was pretty amazed actually.

GreenGoo wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:58 pm Karma's a bitch. Does that make me a deplorable, Grif?

If that's your opinion, I guess I can live with that.

GreenGoo wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:58 pm This is a guy that worked hard to repel the ACA with no plan to replace it, who either maliciously or as Grif suggests, naively claimed that people who live healthy lives don't get sick/have pe-existing conditions,

Again, that is not what he said. You're creating falsehoods just like Trump. He was obviously speaking in generalities as we all know of people who live healthy lives who still get sick and diseases. Distorting someone's position is wrong, no matter what side of the issue you are on.

Grifman wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:05 pm Distorting someone's position is wrong, no matter what side of the issue you are on.

This is true, which is why I used direct quotes from Brooks in my earlier reply. Distorting someone's position is wrong, but it's also possible to have a position that is wrong. Brooks has one, here. Pointing that out is a good thing.

What's the saying, again? Opinions are like prostate cancer diagnoses--not everyone's got one, but if you do have one, you should "contribute more to the insurance pool that helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy, they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy."

No, that's not right.

Grifman wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:05 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:58 pm This is a guy that worked hard to repel the ACA with no plan to replace it, who either maliciously or as Grif suggests, naively claimed that people who live healthy lives don't get sick/have pe-existing conditions,

Again, that is not what he said. You're creating falsehoods just like Trump.

No I'm not.

It's your opinion that he was telling us that people who live healthy life styles are less likely to get sick?

There are 2 problems with that.

1). It's either a moronic statement of the obvious when it comes to things like the flu or common cold, lung cancer, heart disease (and obviously healthy lifestyle doesn't guarantee avoiding these things)

Or

2) as he himself has found out, things like prostate cancer do not give a shit what kind of life style you live.


Even if we interpret his statement incredibly generously as you do (which I believe is incorrect), he's still either malicious or a moron.

None this addresses a self proclaimed Christian yanking health care out from under people for no other reason other than ideological.

I'm sure Jesus is totally on board with increasing the suffering in the world while Mo enjoys all the best care himself as a servant of those who suffer.

Having just reviewed Brook's comments in full again, there are a few things that he tries to frame in support of his position.

First, everyone's costs are going up, not just "healthy" people.

Second, there is no good way to implement what he suggests. Healthy insurance premiums already take into account things like smoking. How do you regulate things like diet? Exercise? A good night's sleep?

Third, unlike car insurance, everyone needs healthcare and thus uses their health insurance. Some people choose not to use it and that's fine, but those of us who like living are guaranteed to use it.

Fourth, in order for health insurance to work, everyone must pay. Being young now shouldn't excuse you because you'll be old one day. Being healthy shouldn't excuse you, because chances are extremely high that you will need some form of major healthcare before you die.

Fifth, he absolutely blames people (if we believe grif's interpretation then only in a general way) for getting sick. He attempts to mitigate this somewhat, but he doesn't retract it, which leaves the idea that people who live the opposite of "good lives" are to blame when they get sick.
Sometimes that's true. Sometimes it's not. Who gets to decide, remembering that insurance companies already take into account obvious things like smoking?

His ideas are not workable and his reasoning is flawed. That he thinks people who live "not good lives" get what they deserve is just icing

KY lawmaker faced with rape allegation commits suicide.

A Kentucky state representative accused of molesting a teenage girl has committed suicide, according to WDRB.com in Louisville.

Rep. Dan Johnson, a Republican, reportedly shot and killed himself on a bridge in Mt. Washington, Ky. The gun was recovered by police, according to WDRB.

The Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting published an expose on Monday detailing allegations that Johnson forced himself on a 17-year-old friend of his daughter after a New Year's Eve Party in 2012.

The accuser was a member of the congregation Johnson led as a preacher and self-anointed "pope." He denied the allegations, claiming that he was "drugged" at a bar before the party.

I’d like to make a small point about health care.

We have a road system. Most road infrastructure is paid by taxes. Everyone who lives in the area pays taxes to use the road. Some people never use that road. Do they get their taxes back? No. Why is health care different?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scoop20906 wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:39 pm Why is health care different?

Because poor people eat bad foods. Why should I pay for their heart attacks? Also, women have babies and take birth control. Why should I pay for that? You know what, if we don't let women drive, that would keep 50% of the people off the roads. But watch out, Sharia Law is right around the corner!

Every healthy person is but a diagnosis away from being a sick person. Fair or deserving has nothing to do with health.

Blaming people for being sick is unfair and non-factual. Dismantling the healthcare system without thinking through the consequences is bad policy.

Until his cancer diagnosis, Brooks was fortunate in his health. Brooks remains fortunate in his health coverage and economic circumstances.

However, it is not unfair or misleading to acknowledge the irony or karma in the situation. It may be a dick move, but so is advancing a healthcare policy which will hurt millions of Americans.

It's also silly because even if you live a strictly healthy lifestyle, you're going to get old. Old people generally have higher medical costs than sick people, because even the healthiest lifestyle can only fight a rearguard action against Father Time. So you need disproportionately young healthy people to subsidize the healthcare of older, sicker people.

Daehawk wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:00 pm https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/940952006839160832

Oh so wrong, Doug Jones is a Bama fan.

Scoop20906 wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:39 pm I’d like to make a small point about health care.

We have a road system. Most road infrastructure is paid by taxes. Everyone who lives in the area pays taxes to use the road. Some people never use that road. Do they get their taxes back? No. Why is health care different?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Never underestimate the ability for people to yell and scream about having to pay for something that they don't see a direct benefit from. My town's local weekly has a "thumbs up, thumbs down" section where people can write in. It's basically a FB comments section for old people. There's a proposal to renovate the local high school, which is pretty old, for $41million. This has not gone over well with the olds in town. Every week, there's a handful of comments along the lines of "I've lived here for forty years, my kids are grown, why should I have to pay for a fancy new school for those lazy teachers? My taxes will go way up, and that's not fair!" We'll see how the vote goes, but that kind of attitude is exactly why my wife and I are planning on taking us, our kids, and our non-retirement income and tax dollars out of town and moving somewhere that actually values education.

Chaz wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:24 am

Scoop20906 wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:39 pm I’d like to make a small point about health care.

We have a road system. Most road infrastructure is paid by taxes. Everyone who lives in the area pays taxes to use the road. Some people never use that road. Do they get their taxes back? No. Why is health care different?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Never underestimate the ability for people to yell and scream about having to pay for something that they don't see a direct benefit from. My town's local weekly has a "thumbs up, thumbs down" section where people can write in. It's basically a FB comments section for old people. There's a proposal to renovate the local high school, which is pretty old, for $41million. This has not gone over well with the olds in town. Every week, there's a handful of comments along the lines of "I've lived here for forty years, my kids are grown, why should I have to pay for a fancy new school for those lazy teachers? My taxes will go way up, and that's not fair!" We'll see how the vote goes, but that kind of attitude is exactly why my wife and I are planning on taking us, our kids, and our non-retirement income and tax dollars out of town and moving somewhere that actually values education.

And If it’s anything like it is around here, the taxes that they’re screaming about going “way up” is usually something like $10 a year.

Zaxxon wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:38 pm I don't wish cancer on anyone, and don't relish Brooks getting it. But let's not downplay what he said, either.

Uh, who exactly is downplaying with what he said? I don't agree with it but I'm not rejoicing that he got cancer either.

Grifman wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:58 am

Zaxxon wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:38 pm I don't wish cancer on anyone, and don't relish Brooks getting it. But let's not downplay what he said, either.

Uh, who exactly is downplaying with what he said? I don't agree with it but I'm not rejoicing that he got cancer either.

I mean, you're the one up-playing what people here actually said into 'rejoicing' that he got cancer. You're also the one that jumped into what someone here said and alleged that it was misrepresenting Brooks. Which, while technically true (Brooks did not, AFAIK, say 'good' people), was IMO misrepresenting what Brooks *did* actually say in an overly-charitable way. His position is not valid on the stage of national healthcare policy. Full stop.

Apologies for using 'downplay,' which is not exactly accurate.

GreenGoo wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:54 pm

Grifman wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:05 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:58 pm This is a guy that worked hard to repel the ACA with no plan to replace it, who either maliciously or as Grif suggests, naively claimed that people who live healthy lives don't get sick/have pe-existing conditions,

Again, that is not what he said. You're creating falsehoods just like Trump.

No I'm not.

It's your opinion that he was telling us that people who live healthy life styles are less likely to get sick?

There are 2 problems with that.

1). It's either a moronic statement of the obvious when it comes to things like the flu or common cold, lung cancer, heart disease (and obviously healthy lifestyle doesn't guarantee avoiding these things)

Or

2) as he himself has found out, things like prostate cancer do not give a shit what kind of life style you live.

Duh, neither of which disproves the fact that people who live healthy lives tend to be in better health. Sure, a person that lives a healthy life is just as likely as other people to get many diseases/illnesses. But they will certainly do better for diseases impacted by lifestyles. If you don't eat certain foods and exercise, you improve your chances of not getting heart disease, diabetes and any number of diseases. That's irrefutable. To say otherwise is to ignore science. Are you ignoring science now?

Chaz wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:24 amNever underestimate the ability for people to yell and scream about having to pay for something that they don't see a direct benefit from.

Our local roads and bridges are crumbling and the county is millions of dollars behind. Our river is also polluted, and everyone agrees something needs to be done ASAP to fix it.

The county proposed a 1% sales tax to pay for infrastructure and water quality projects. It was also coupled with a 6% decrease on our power bills. It was voted down, because this area is super conservative and all they heard was "tax increase".

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:03 am I mean, you're the one up-playing what people here actually said into 'rejoicing' that he got cancer.

I'll accept guilt here.

You're also the one that jumped into what someone here said and alleged that it was misrepresenting Brooks.

This is a discussion board, people discuss. Are you "jumping" into what I said?

Which, while technically true (Brooks did not, AFAIK, say 'good' people), was IMO misrepresenting what Brooks *did* actually say in an overly-charitable way.

I don't think I was mis-characterizing his comment at all, taken in context. But YMMV.

His position is not valid on the stage of national healthcare policy. Full stop.

Strawman. Who has said that it is? I've said I disagree with this position.

Apologies for using 'downplay,' which is not exactly accurate.

You've coined a new phrase!