In broad strokes, I’m persuaded that Medicaid is a good way for the federal government to use its spending power to allow the states to administer the requisite programs. As a general proposition, I’m not in favor of sharp cuts to Medicaid.
And Ben Sasse moves to a talking point that somehow repealing without replacing will force Dems to the table. Sorry folks, this one has (R) written all over it. There’s no evading that, except of course with the base that will buy any kind of fairy tale.
How do you ‘force’ someone to a table when you refused to invite them in the first place?
The Dems have zero incentive to bail the Republicans out on this one.
'Pubs are buying stock in health insurance companies while the repeal moves forward:
But I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.
Yeah, and “the intercept” is a reliable source. Do you have a legitimate cite for your claim(s)?
Read the story. Follow the links to the disclosure documents.
No, that’s not how it works. If she has facts to bring to the debate, she should post them, not a link to a website with a very obvious political slant.
So you refuse to look at supporting documents unless they’re served up on a silver platter?
Or do you just want to avoid facts?
A silver platter? Avoiding facts? No.
Just post the actual facts, instead of a link to a diatribe. Is it really that hard to figure out?
Can’t you just click the links in the story and evaluate them? Will your computer explode if it opens theintercept.com ?
…the cites are in the second paragraph. They even make the links to the citations blue so you know what to click. It took me less time to verify the story than it did to write this post. And you’ve written three of them. Just click the blue words already.
Ha! Not when links include “think progress” and, ironically, the intercept itself. If someone has facts to bring to the debate, why not just post the facts themselves?
Way to avoid the first two links which go to the documentation.
To end this stupid argument:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3889817-Conaway1.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3889814-Inhofe1.html
Feel free to read through them at your leisure, D’Anconia. As others have pointed out, that took approximately no time to find, they’re quite clearly marked in the article. I don’t know why you couldn’t find them on your own, but there you go.
I am thinking of a way to carve out this silly hijack about sources, etc. and I’m struggling. The challenge is to make it broad enough to accomplish getting the thread back on track, without being overly broad to stifle discussion.
Let’s try this, please drop the hijack about the nature of the Intercept or its quality as a source unless directly relevant to healthcare.
[/moderating]
Just to clarify, this is not part of the hijack, right?
Right. The underlying information or its veracity is not a hijack.
OK, so the comment is:
"'Pubs are buying stock in health insurance companies while the repeal moves forward:
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/06/...moves-forward/
But I’m sure it’s just a coincidence."
What is this observation intended to prove?
Well it doesn’t prove anything but clearly they’re inferring these Republicans are trying to cash in on their legislation as repealing Obamacare is generally seen as a win for insurance companies. Of course it looks like these purchases happened in March, well before any bill was passed.
The whole thing may be moot after all:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/gop-senators-suggest-bill-repeal-health-care-law-48533920
They’ve had a tough time trying to sell this bill, and for good reasons.
For references to Medicaid cuts, closures of rural hospitals, and the strain on patients and caregivers, etc., there are links in the following posts:
1066,
1224,
1227,
1257