Post New

The reason, the only reason our House of Representatives is “shut down” is….
(Drum roll)

The Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, refuses to call the House back in session.

He could do it tomorrow. Hell, he could do it tonight.

And a growing majority of Americans see straight through this nonsense.

Holy Mike says “My hands are tied”.

Horseshit.

Why is Holy Mike refusing to call the world’s (formerly) best deliberative body back in session… to deliberate?

Why is Holy Mike refusing to call the world’s (formerly) best deliberative body back in session… to deliberate?

Principally in order to improve the GOP's position in the shutdown. If the House isn't in session, then there is not an easy way to modify the CR currently before the Senate. So it's a yes-no vote, not an "anything is on the table" vote.

Secondarily, because if the House is called into session he'll need to seat Grijalva, who would give the last signature necessary for the Epstein discharge petition. Which is going to happen anyway, but the sooner that happens the sooner the legislative clock starts ticking on it. And Johnson would prefer to avoid dealing with that as long as possible.

Secondarily, because if the House is called into session he'll need to seat Grijalva, who would give the last signature necessary for the Epstein discharge petition.

So he prefers having the Epstein files released closer to the midterms instead of a month ago.

Makes sense to me.

So he prefers having the Epstein files released closer to the midterms instead of a month ago.

No. He prefers having as much time as possible to try to avoid having a divisive vote on whether to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Part of the job of being Speaker is to try to save your members from hard votes. Part of that job is using the power of setting the agenda to keep hard votes for your side off the agenda, and keep hard votes for the other side on the agenda. This is a hard vote - because even GOP members who are 100% in support of having the Epstein files released will not want to vote for a bill that forces the President (from their party) to do something that the Administration has decided they don't want to do.

BTW, passing the bill out of the House doesn't mean that the files will be released. It might not get a vote in the Senate, it might fail the Senate, it might be vetoed by Trump - or Trump might let the bill pass and just say that parts of it are unconstitutional, a la the frequent practice of W back in the day.

House of Reps did its job--it passed the CR.

Senate Dems think they are KINGS, don't believe in democracy, and want to starve our kids for political leverage.

Senate Dems think they are KINGS, don't believe in democracy, and want to starve our kids for political leverage.

The Senate Republicans have 53 seats, a clear majority.

If they want to pass the CR, they could do it tonight. All they have to do is change the rules to allow 51 votes to pass a CR, and then pass it.

The Senate rules have been changed by both parties in the past.

They don’t need the Democrats to pass the CR.

And yet they choose not change the rules and the pass the CR.

Why?

AlphaWolf,

If you believe the clean C.R. deserves to be passed, you should be chastising Senate Dems for not voting for it.

If you do not believe the clean C.R. deserves to be passed, then why would you encourage Republicans to break the fillibuster rule to pass a bad (according to you) C.R.? That's an unprincipled position on your part.

Also: Why do Democrat Senators want to be anti-Democratic Kings and starve our kids???

If you believe the clean C.R. deserves to be passed, you should be chastising Senate Dems for not voting for it.

In 2025, the cost of my health insurance is 39% higher than it was in 2024 because Republicans did not extend healthcare subsidies for the middle class that existed in 2024. Yet they thought it was a good idea to extend tax cuts that were due to expire for billionaires. That doesn’t sound so clean to me.

So I do not believe the “clean” CR deserves to be passed.

If you do not believe the clean C.R. deserves to be passed, then why would you encourage Republicans to break the fillibuster rule to pass a bad (according to you) C.R.? That's an unprincipled position on your part.

I’m not encouraging the Republicans to do anything except extending healthcare subsidies for the middle class. I’m just pointing out that the Republicans have the option to pass their “clean” CR all on their own. They do not need the Democrats in order to pass their CR. Nothing unprincipled there.

Also: Why do Democrat Senators want to be anti-Democratic Kings and starve our kids???

Why are you blaming Democrats when the Republicans have the option to pass the CR all on their own?

If the Republicans need Democrat vote, then the democratic thing to do is compromise with the Democrats. The Democrats aren’t asking for all their priorities, just affordable healthcare for the middle-class.

Alpha Wolf, your prior response exemplifies the profound lack of economic understanding that ProGlibs suffer from.

If your health insurance premiums go up 39%, the removal of subsidies to you doesn't change that cost. It merely forces someone else, other taxpayers', to lay your premiums.

Why should they, in your particular case? What is your household net worth?

Alpha Wolf, your prior response exemplifies the profound lack of economic understanding that ProGlibs suffer from.

If your health insurance premiums go up 39%, the removal of subsidies to you doesn't change that cost. It merely forces someone else, other taxpayers', to lay your premiums.

Moreover, the subsidies are mere band-aids on to the problem of high medical costs. Proggies don't understand it. Never have, never will.

Its even worse that that. Folks like Alpha Wolf aren't motivated by market signals to obtain cheaper health insurance nor to change behavior or their politics so as to seek decreases in overall premium rates because they aren't paying the full amount of what they are consuming. Classic free rider problem

...your prior response exemplifies the profound lack of economic understanding that ProGlibs suffer from.
If your health insurance premiums go up 39%, the removal of subsidies to you doesn't change that cost. It merely forces someone else, other taxpayers', to lay your premiums.
Why should they...? -Marco

Why should I have to pay for the murdering of fisherman in the Caribbean?
Or these absurd Tariffs?
Or Trumps golf outings?
Or An Argentinian bailout?

Its even worse that that. Folks like Alpha Wolf aren't motivated by market signals to obtain cheaper health insurance nor to change behavior or their politics so as to seek decreases in overall premium rates because they aren't paying the full amount of what they are consuming. Classic free rider problem

100%. He also doesn't get that at some point, since the government is paying for his health care the government will decide what he can and can't eat and how much exercise he gets. They never make the connection Uncle Sam either gets his money or his money's worth.

Moreover, the subsidies are mere band-aids on to the problem of high medical costs. Proggies don't understand it. Never have, never will.

I would suggest that the Proggies know perfectly well that costs in the US are out of control vs, the national health plans in other "rich, first world" countries, but, a system that funnels the money through the private insurance industry, so they could skim a profit off it, was the only thing that could pass the bought Congress. Nothing new under the sun department. The Bush regime wrote "Medicare Advantage" and "Part D" specifically to deal in private insurance companies, so they could skim that cash flow. Then we get luminaries like Paul Ryan, who wanted to turn Medicare into "premium support" to force all the people on conventional Medicare, into the arms of the private insurance companies, so they could skim that cash flow as well.

Steve

ACA subsidies are going directly into the subsidy recipients' pockets.

Why should I have to pay for the murdering of fisherman in the Caribbean?
Or these absurd Tariffs?
Or Trumps golf outings?
Or An Argentinian bailout?

You should not.
However.
Two wrongs have never ever made a right and never will.
Horseshoe ends (extreme left and right) never get it.
Stop with the whataboutery.

The Bush regime wrote "Medicare Advantage" and "Part D" specifically to deal in private insurance companies, so they could skim that cash flow. Then we get luminaries like Paul Ryan, who wanted to turn Medicare into "premium support" to force all the people on conventional Medicare, into the arms of the private insurance companies, so they could skim that cash flow as well.

Amen, brother.
Medicare overheard is 2% ish.
By law, here in California, private health insurance is allowed a 15% profit margin. Nationally, it's between 12 to 18%. I don't understand how it is advantageous to the patients or the doctors to have a third-party in the middle skimming 12 to 18%. Where is the value add? I understand the concept of pooling risks, but Medicare for all would do effectively the same thing.

Medicare for all would do effectively the same thing.

I look at the EOBs (Explanation of Benefits) every time, and file them away. I notice how little my supplemental insurance pays, and wonder why I'm paying for it. One of these days I intend to look into it, so I need to find a group where they do that - but it will be very hard for me to make a change. My insurance wouldn't let me back on if I quit, then when I got back to the states there was a slight concession and you could try medicare Advantage for a year, and were allowed back in if you changed your mind. Suspicious. 🧐

The explanations as to why single payer won't work all seem to be - "We're too far along, you can;t get there from here." We already partner wiht big pharma and they make profits off of us, why can't we profit and use those profits for single payer?

We need to figure out how to get rural people to good health care. Allow vets to treat humans in remote areas?

My insurance wouldn't let me back on if I quit, then when I got back to the states there was a slight concession and you could try medicare Advantage for a year, and were allowed back in if you changed your mind. Suspicious.

I'll link below a recent deep-dive into Medicare Advantage, if you care to view it. Otherwise, I can sum it up: flee. Don't do it. The name "Medicare" shouldn't even be associated with it. It's a private insurance program almost completely detached from actual Medicare. The low premiums are attractive, but you then have all the issues of "in network", and denials of coverage that any insurance has. And, if you do Advantage, you can almost never go back because a "Medi-gap" policy for standard Medicare can reject you for pre-existing conditions if you are moving from an Advantage plan to standard Medicare. If you don't do an Advantage plan, they cannot. So flee to pure Medicare with a Medi-gap, and count yourself lucky to avoid an Advantage plan.

On TMF, this topic came up occasionally. It was pretty universally stomped-on by the various board gurus every time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejoi9yfLVCc&t=1s
(John Oliver)

marco100: Its even worse that that. Folks like Alpha Wolf aren't motivated by market signals to obtain cheaper health insurance nor to change behavior or their politics so as to seek decreases in overall premium rates because they aren't paying the full amount of what they are consuming. Classic free rider problem

Dope1: 100%. He also doesn't get that at some point, since the government is paying for his health care the government will decide what he can and can't eat and how much exercise he gets. They never make the connection Uncle Sam either gets his money or his money's worth.

To say you both missed the point would be an understatement.

If the Republicans actually cared about their base (or ordinary Americans, for that matter), they would have extended the healthcare subsidies.

Instead, the made a decision to extend tax cuts for billionaires. In other words, Republicans are subsidizing lower taxes for billionaires.

That’s the Republicans position. That’s what Republicans stand for. That is their policy. That is their belief.

And, by the way, that subsidy goes directly into the pockets (literally!) of billionaires.

So according to you gentlemen, healthcare costs for ordinary Americans is bad and evil but subsidizing tax cuts for billionaires is good. And where is the money to subsidize tax cuts coming from? Ordinary American’s healthcare.

Now, I usually don’t offer advice on helping the Republicans party, but I’m making an exception today. Please keep supporting tax subsidies for billionaires and taking away healthcare subsidies for middle-class Americans. It’s a winner. Run with it.

Speaking of subsidies, how do you feel about billions and billions in subsidies for American farmers? Why are we coddling the farmers? If it costs more to grow food, then Americans should tighten their belts (pun intended) and pay more for food. They shouldn’t expect their food costs to be subsidized and go right into their pocket. In fact they literally “aren’t paying the full amount of what they are consuming.”

And billions in subsidies for energy companies? Outrageous!! Why are we subsiding lower energy costs for Americans? Did you know that money goes right into their pockets? Horrible!

And this is just scratching the surface of subsidies.

Americans are hurting as a result of the Republican’s economic policies such as endless and ill-conceived tariffs.

The Republican response is to shut down the House, raze the White House, grift billions in fake crypto currency, withhold food from poor Americans, disrupt travel, lay off hundreds of thousands of government workers, and have Great “let them eat cake” Gatsby parties.

Two days ago Americans let you know what they thought of these policies. Keep up the good work.

I'll link below a recent deep-dive into Medicare Advantage,

Thanks. I've read and heard that about Medicare Advantage and look forward to the deep dive. My brother seems to like it and his wife is always having problems and surgeries, etc. He's not rich. I'd never ask him which Medicare Advantage plan he's on since he's sensitive enough to fib.

My plan just seems to be a BCBS federal employee supplemental plan with Medicare as first payer, with no letter or standard name like Advantage, and I'm intrigued by Medigap, but it seems if you didn't do that first, you're out and can't do it.
]
But it seems like Medicare pays for everything. So I question the supplemental.

I'm intrigued by Medigap, but it seems if you didn't do that first, you're out and can't do it.

That's not exactly it. If you have an Advantage plan, and you develop a problem that the insurance company starts denying (and denying, etc), you have a "pre-existing condition" for any Medigap provider. And they can discriminate against you for that. But if you have no problems, and just want to switch, they probably won't want to reject you because there aren't any pre-existing conditions.

Medicare doesn't really pay for everything. A & B cover hospitalizations and about 80% of other things. The Medigap policy is intended to fill that 20% hole. There are several Medigap options. I think 1poormom had the "G" option, which has since been removed (it was the best option). I'll have to start sorting that out in about 2 years. IIRC, 'F' is the next best option for most people. But don't quote me on that.

The safest bet is to skip the Advantage plans. They're money-makers for insurance, and they can deny you coverage just like any other insurance. The little bennies (like optical or dental) aren't worth it. Just get separate plans for those yourself.

Well, I spent some time reading about different plans, and went through the medicare book reading everything there. I discovered my plan isn't listed. I have Medicare AB n D, and the supplemental. I always wanted to compare my plan to Medigap, but couldn't figure out how to do it. Medigap seemed to be the way to go, if I hadn't already run unto needing health care as I returned to the states. I got tonsil cancer and suddenly I was filling out forms and triggered Blue Cross Blue Shield by listing them second on the forms. I noticed the video said Medigap was for about $200 a month, and I'm paying more than that, but I'm reticent to change, unsure.

"supplement" is the new name for "medigap". The other option is Medicare advantage. As has been noted, the advantage plans look great and tend to be very low cost, but often don't cover as much expensive care. To make things extra confusing the supplement plans also have letter names, just like Medicare A, B, C, and D.

As an anecdote, my mom had an advantage plan. We checked her into a PT rehab after her stroke and they said since she had Medicare everything was covered. After checkout we received a bill for thousands of dollars, because the advantage plan refused to cover her rehab.

Alan: Medicare, supplement plan G, Pay for part B, and pay for Part D for drugs
--> complicated but much cheaper than my previous private pay plan.

Finished the video I can't return to my supplemental if I leave for advantage, so it doesn't apply, but I found it interesting Medicare cuts them X amount per month depending on what ailment you have. It isn't clear about sudden surgeries, but I assume a certain amount is covered. But I'm not interested in Advantage anyway, just curious as to why my brother thinks it's OK. I think the group he bleongs to may steer him to the better advantage plans - and they even paid for a medivac for his wife.

That they would list drugstores as endocrinologists shows a bad plan, just like Ambetter ACA that my wife was on had specialists that had quit for years or moved and were still listed. Just talking to the medical office personnel who process claims told me Ambetter had a bad reputation and were difficult to deal with. I enjoyed the pre-authorization for a pre authorization needed on the video - and too many hurdles to wear you down.
I've read before that some health insurance companies automatically deny the first time and not everyone reapplies. arguments over codes.

But I haven't paid for anything other than a few minor copays for drugs in the past. I never paid for any of my cancer treatment.

But... my brother likes Advantage and I've talked to younger people with Ambetter and they like it. Younger folks usually have less problems.

Of course.

Younger people generally have much less need for medical services than older. So from 65-75 or so Medicare Advantage can seem like a winner.

But people on Advantage don't seem to realize that the plans aren't giving away gym memberships and other nonsense for free.

"supplement" is the new name for "medigap".

That was MY term because they actually call it "combining FEP and Medicare" which is awkward to use. :) And BCBS does have Medigap plans and they call them Medigap. I'd have to make a phone call to find out, but I think I asked and the phone person also said "combining FEP and Medicare". Since them I've seen a whole raft of lettered plans - California has some of it's own for its state employees.

Yes, I never wanted Advantage but am surprised my brother is doing well with it as his wife falls a lot and has ailments.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.