United States Congress

[GreyhoundFan]

"The Senate just voted to undo landmark rules covering your Internet privacy"

Quote

Senate lawmakers voted Thursday to repeal a historic set of rules aimed at protecting consumers' online data from their own Internet providers, in a move that could make it easier for broadband companies to sell and share their customers' usage information for advertising purposes.

The rules, which prohibit providers from abusing the data they gather on their customers as they browse the Web on cellphones and computers, were approved last year over objections from Republicans who argued the regulations went too far.

U.S. senators voted by a 50-48 margin to approve a joint resolution from Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) that would  prevent the Federal Communications Commission's privacy rules from going into effect. The resolution also would bar the FCC from ever enacting similar consumer protections.  It now heads to the House.

Industry groups welcomed the vote.

“Our industry remains committed to offering services that protect the privacy and security of the personal information of our customers,” said NCTA — The Internet and Television Association, a trade group representing major cable providers. “We support this step toward reversing the FCC’s misguided approach and look forward to restoring a consistent approach to online privacy protection that consumers want and deserve.”

Consumer and privacy groups condemned the resolution.

“It is extremely disappointing that the Senate voted today to sacrifice the privacy rights of Americans in the interest of protecting the profits of major Internet companies, including Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon,” said Neema Singh Giuliani, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

The FCC didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

The agency's rules are being debated as Internet providers — no longer satisfied with simply offering Web access — race to become online advertising giants as large as Google and Facebook. To deliver consumers from one website to another, Internet providers must see and understand which online destinations their customers wish to visit, whether that's Netflix, WebMD or PornHub.

With that data, Internet providers would like to sell targeted advertising or even share that information with third-party marketers. But the FCC's regulations place certain limits on the type of data Internet providers can share and under what circumstances. Under the rules, consumers may forbid their providers from sharing what the FCC deems “sensitive” information, such as app usage history and mobile location data.

...

“At a time when our personal data is more vulnerable than ever, it’s baffling that Senate Republicans would eliminate the few privacy protections Americans have today,” said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), the top liberal on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Pallone added in a statement Thursday that he hoped his House Republican colleagues “will exercise better judgment” when it becomes their turn to vote on the resolution.

On Wednesday, Senate Democrats challenged the idea that the FTC could take responsibility for regulating Internet providers' privacy practices.

“The Federal Trade Commission does not have the rulemaking authority in data security, even though commissioners at the FTC have asked Congress for such authority in the past,” said Sen. Bill Nelson (Fla.), the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee.

Sigh. This is what is so scary with the whole Trumpling Family circus, the Repubs can push important crap like this through with little notice because everyone is looking at all the other stuff going on.

[fraurosena]

You know, with all these terrible bills being passed right now, I do wonder one thing. When (yes, when, not if) this administration is taken down because of the whole Russian connection, how 'lawful' will these bills and executive orders be? Will they automatically be nullified? Or if not, can they be easiliy overturned, or repealed or whatever? Or are you stuck with them until new laws are passed? And how will the inevitable dreadful consequences of these bills/orders be compensated?

Oh, and Gorsuch? What if he is appointed to the Supreme Court, and it turns out this was done so by corrupt and/or colluding GOPpers? Could his appointment be nullified or overturned?

[GreyhoundFan]

35 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

You know, with all these terrible bills being passed right now, I do wonder one thing. When (yes, when, not if) this administration is taken down because of the whole Russian connection, how 'lawful' will these bills and executive orders be? Will they automatically be nullified? Or if not, can they be easiliy overturned, or repealed or whatever? Or are you stuck with them until new laws are passed? And how will the inevitable dreadful consequences of these bills/orders be compensated?

Oh, and Gorsuch? What if he is appointed to the Supreme Court, and it turns out this was done so by corrupt and/or colluding GOPpers? Could his appointment be nullified or overturned?

The bills that are passed into law will not be impacted if/when Agent Orange is impeached. I believe the next president would have to reverse any executive orders issued by the tangerine toddler. Also, unfortunately, Gorsuch's appointment will not be impacted, as it is Congress that votes on him. If they didn't want the current president's pick, they'd either not vote (like they did on Merrick Garland) or reject him (like they did with Bork). In other words, nothing done by Agent Orange will be easily overturned. Also, anybody impacted by the orders would have little recourse. They could probably sue, but the courts could choose not to hear the case(s).

 

[fraurosena]

1 minute ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Gorsuch's appointment will not be impacted, as it is Congress that votes on him.

Hmmm, yes. I get that. But what if it turns out that a large part of the repubs currently in Congress are also part of the Russian Connection? Wouldn't that somehow invalidate their votes? Because wouldn't that mean that he was elected illegally (or by illegal means)? 

And then, what if Gorsuch himself is also part of the Russian Connection? What then?

I realize I'm asking questions to which there may be no answers though!

[GreyhoundFan]

1 minute ago, fraurosena said:

Hmmm, yes. I get that. But what if it turns out that a large part of the repubs currently in Congress are also part of the Russian Connection? Wouldn't that somehow invalidate their votes? Because wouldn't that mean that he was elected illegally (or by illegal means)? 

And then, what if Gorsuch himself is also part of the Russian Connection? What then?

I realize I'm asking questions to which there may be no answers though!

That's a good question. I don't know of any mechanism to remove a sitting SCOTUS justice for those types of irregularities. I'm sure others will weigh in if they have any more info. Frankly, I'd love for the whole Russia connection to take down the Republican party.

[GreyhoundFan]

No surprise: "CBO: Latest House GOP health-care bill would mean as many uninsured by 2026"

Quote

Changes that House Republicans have made to their health-care legislation would reduce savings in federal spending by $150 billion over the next decade — far less than for their earlier plan — and would still leave 24 million more Americans uninsured, according to congressional budget analysts.

The estimates by the Congressional Budget Office arrived late Thursday afternoon as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and the Trump administration were scrambling to corral enough support to put the legislation erasing major parts of the Affordable Care Act to a vote.

According to the CBO’s projections, a set of amendments that House GOP leaders agreed to support Monday night would more than halve the amount by which the bill would reduce the federal deficit. The original version of the American Health Care Act, as the bill is called, would have curbed the deficit by an estimated $337 billion by 2026, while the latest changes would result in $150 billion in savings during that time.

The changes would be less helpful to the deficit because they would make it easier for Americans to deduct the cost of medical care from their income taxes and would move forward by a year the repeal of several taxes that help pay for the ACA, including taxes on insurers, hospitals, high-income adults and tanning beds.

Other changes to the bill would increase federal spending for Medicaid, the estimate says, in part by altering the payments states receive for their most expensive enrollees — people who are elderly or disabled.

The fresh analysis suggests that the amendments would not affect the number of Americans who would be uninsured if the bill were to become law. Nor would the amendments make much difference to the cost of health plans.

Compared with the current law, the CBO projects that 14 million more people would be uninsured next year and 24 million more by 2026. Those were the same figures as in the CBO’s first and much-anticipated report, issued last week, on the GOP plans.

The new forecast does not take into account any of the ideas for tipping federal health-care policy even further in directions favored by conservatives — ideas being advanced by members of the House Freedom Caucus who are rebelling against the bill. The caucus, the chamber’s faction on the hard right, are lobbying to eliminate a requirement that insurance plans include 10 basic health benefits in the policies they sell to individuals and small businesses.

So tell me again why this plan is so great....

[Cartmann99]

@fraurosena, we're in uncharted territory here, because the authors of our Constitution assumed that the voting public would never be unwise enough to elect a man like Trump. We've all received a sobering education in just how many of the things we just assumed we could always expect from our president, were never codified into law. 

I am hoping, that if we can manage to extricate ourselves from this debacle, that we can get a Constitutional Amendment passed that addresses all of the " Well, no president would ever dare...." things we have experienced with Trump. I'm not comfortable with taking the risk of just passing a handful of laws to address these issues, I want a Constitutional Amendment because you have to work a lot harder in order to repeal it.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"How Ryan messed this up"

Quote

Conceding failure for now, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) has postponed the House vote on the Republican health-care plan. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) helped explain how things went so wrong at her news conference earlier in the day.

She was plainly enjoying herself at Republicans’ expense. She heralded the Affordable Care Act as “overwhelmingly” successful on this, its seventh anniversary. She chided President Trump, whom she called a “rookie.” But she also cut to the heart of the House Republicans’ error, one which will either result in a nonsensical bill that will come back to haunt them — one that removes essential coverage components, rolls back Medicaid, gives a big tax cut to the rich and gives skimpier tax credits to some voters — or will result in failure to pass anything, a huge embarrassment for the speaker and the White House.

...

n this case, Ryan ran a low-key process in the spring and early summer of 2016 as part of his “A Better Way” idea to come up with substantive policies for Republicans to run on in the House and Senate elections. The health-care portion was not written in legislative language, did not have any dollar figures and was not voted upon. Sorry, but that isn’t close to the same thing as readying legislation and building consensus for a bill this complicated. Ryan presented a full-blown bill not crafted by open committee hearings and forced votes just days later in the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees before there was even a Congressional Budget Office scoring. Now he finds out the entire concept — essentially rebuilding Obamacare with a system of big tax cuts for the rich — doesn’t please anyone.

Trump and his neophytes had no idea how to work this so they left it to Ryan. The result is a political near-death (maybe worse) experience which has revealed how dreadful the GOP is when it comes to governing. White House press secretary Sean Spicer chided Republicans that they passed a total repeal in 2015. (By the way, his boss rejected a process of full repeal without a replacement.) Well, yes, that was for show. Everything in the past seven years from the GOP has been for show because they did not control the White House.

When Ryan drafted his Better Way proposals no one, including him, thought the GOP would win the presidency. (By then, Trump was the nominee.) This was a campaign platform and not legislation. Ryan never confronted what Republicans would have to do once they were actually responsible for it. It would have done him a world of good to have gone through a painstaking, open process so Republicans could wrestle with the problems inherent in their effort. Today, he is paying the price for not doing so initially

I hope this comes back to bite Ryan and his crew.

[onekidanddone]

21 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"How Ryan messed this up"

I hope this comes back to bite Ryan and his crew.

I cam't look, but has Agent tweeted about this?  I expect it to start raining tweets about 3:00 EDT.

An old work buddy of mine lives Wisconsin.  Cheese head born and raised.  I emailed him about the state of his state. Oh my did he unleash a flood of bile. Says America's Dairy Land is becoming cesspool.  

[GreyhoundFan]

1 minute ago, onekidanddone said:

I cam't look, but has Agent tweeted about this?  I expect it to start raining tweets about 3:00 EDT.

I refuse to even look at his Twitter account, so I'm not sure. I haven't seen anything in the WaPo or NYT about responses from the tangerine toddler. CNN has a live updates on their website. From that feed: Kellyanne just showed up at the US Capitol (I'm sure that will help things...). And supposedly the White House is "done negotiating".

 

This was good:

[onekidanddone]

1 minute ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I refuse to even look at his Twitter account, so I'm not sure. I haven't seen anything in the WaPo or NYT about responses from the tangerine toddler. CNN has a live updates on their website. From that feed: Kellyanne just showed up at the US Capitol (I'm sure that will help things...). And supposedly the White House is "done negotiating".

 

This was good:

Oh bless her little sycophantic heart.  

[GreyhoundFan]

Politico just published this:

Quote

UPDATE: 7:42 p.m.: President Donald Trump is demanding a vote Friday in the House on the Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said. If the bill fails, Trump is prepared to move on and leave Obamacare in place, Mulvaney said.

...

 

 

[Audrey2]

41 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"How Ryan messed this up"

I hope this comes back to bite Ryan and his crew.

I also hope this means that Ryan will never be able to run for President. After seeing him with Romney in 2012, I was afraid he'd try his own run at some point. That VP run gave him name recognition and, with a stint at Speaker, I was terrified that Ryan would take his bile to formally run on the national level. 

[GreyhoundFan]

28 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

I also hope this means that Ryan will never be able to run for President. After seeing him with Romney in 2012, I was afraid he'd try his own run at some point. That VP run gave him name recognition and, with a stint at Speaker, I was terrified that Ryan would take his bile to formally run on the national level. 

Oh, I'm right there with you. I hope his political career comes to a screeching halt sooner, rather than, later.

 

A little more from the WaPo: "At Trump’s urging, House Republicans to vote on health-care bill Friday even as they still whip for votes"

Quote

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) intends to send his embattled plan to overhaul the nation’s health-care system to the House floor on Friday after signals from President Trump that he was done negotiating and it was time for a decision from wavering lawmakers.

It’s a high-risk gamble for both the speaker and the president, who have both invested significant political capital in passing the health-care plan. Trump also campaigned as a skilled negotiator who could cut a good deal on behalf of Americans.

But it is far from clear that Ryan and Trump have the votes after several members of the hardline House Freedom Caucus refused to back the measure even after a marathon session of negotiations with Trump and other top aides.

“They’re going to bring it up, pass or fail,” said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho)

Ryan had intended to bring up his plan for a vote on Thursday. But criticism mainly from conservatives caused that strategy to unravel after Freedom Caucus members rejected Trump’s offer to strip a key set of mandates from the nation’s current health-care law.

By evening, Republicans had crafted a proposed change to the measure eliminating the law’s “essential benefits” that insurers must offer under the Affordable Care Act, including mental-health treatment, wellness visits, and maternity and newborn care.

Lawmakers and White House officials continued to express confidence that the revisions to the ACA would pass. As evening came, members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus filed into the office ofRyan (R-Wis.), as did White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and Trump’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon.

...

 

[Cartmann99]

2 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Oh, I'm right there with you. I hope his political career comes to a screeching halt sooner, rather than, later.

I want him on that deserted island we're always talking about. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Another dumbass Repub: "‘I wouldn’t want to lose my mammograms,’ male GOP senator says — then immediately regrets"

Quote

It’s a common question among those decrying the cost of health insurance: Why should you have to purchase a plan that covers procedures you won’t ever need? Especially if, say, you’re a guy, and your plan covers maternity care — as Obamacare requires most plans sold through an exchange to do?

It’s also a philosophy in conservative circles gaining momentum as Republicans try to deconstruct Obamacare: Everyone should have to pay for their own unique health plans; nothing more, nothing less. But it’s a philosophy that, when phrased the wrong way by the wrong person, can go terribly wrong.

On Thursday, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) was asked by Talking Points Memo reporter Alice Ollstein whether he supports a proposal being floated by conservatives to get rid of Obamacare’s minimum coverage requirements. His response:

"I wouldn't want to lose my mammograms," he snarked.

Roberts, perhaps recognizing that he just appeared to disparage a medical procedure that the American Cancer Society suggests all women over  45 should get, almost immediately apologized.

Here’s what he said in a separate statement to The Fix: “I deeply regret my comments on such an important topic. I know several individuals whose lives have been saved by mammograms, and I recognize how essential they are to women’s health. I never intended to indicate otherwise, and I apologize for my comments.”

...

I'm sure he's not sorry. He's only sorry that people heard what he said.

[Cartmann99]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Politico just published this:

UPDATE: 7:42 p.m.: President Donald Trump is demanding a vote Friday in the House on the Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said. If the bill fails, Trump is prepared to move on and leave Obamacare in place, Mulvaney said.

Oh look, the baby is throwing all of his toys out of his playpen again. 

[GreyhoundFan]

No big surprise here: "The GOP wants to take money from Medicare’s trust fund and give it to the rich"

Quote

The Republican plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, would draw on Medicare's financially distressed trust fund to put money back in the pockets of some of the country's richest people.

Republicans would repeal the Medicare tax, a 0.9 percent surcharge on annual salaries of at least $200,000 for individual taxpayers or $250,000 for married couples. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that over a decade, repealing the tax would forego $117 billion that those wealthy households are currently expected to pay into the trust fund, which is used to cover the costs of health care for elderly Americans.

Repealing the tax would put the fund into “crisis mode,” said Andrew Slavitt, a former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under President Barack Obama. Slavitt said the fund could be exhausted as soon as 2024 because of the changes, when President Trump might still be in office.

Other Democratic experts joined in the criticism of the Republican plan.

“How could you possibly look out at America and decide that the problem is that rich people don’t have enough money and the Medicare trust fund is too flush?” asked Jared Bernstein, who was chief economist to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Lauren Blair Aronson, the Republican press secretary for the House Ways and Means Committee, argued for other solutions than taxation to Medicare's financial trouble.

“Keeping Obamacare’s job-killing taxes that discourage work rather than reward it is not the answer,” she said in a statement.

The Medicare tax is one of a number of taxes levied under the Affordable Care Act that Republicans would repeal retroactively in the revised version of their bill. These taxes primarily fall on wealthy households and the health-care industry. For instance, the list includes fees on insurance companies, prescription and over-the-counter medication, and medical devices.

...

 

[Cartmann99]

4 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Another dumbass Repub: "‘I wouldn’t want to lose my mammograms,’ male GOP senator says — then immediately regrets"

I'm sure he's not sorry. He's only sorry that people heard what he said.

I'm so far in debt to the swear jar, that it's not even funny....

These idiots don't understand how insurance works, and it really frosts my biscuits that the fucking idiots making these decisions are, well, fucking idiots! I really want to believe that the folks who are elected senators know more than Joe or Jane Average, and here we have Dumbass McFuckwit III, once again, shooting my theory all to hell. 

Secondly, honey, you may not need a mammogram, but there are exams men need that women help pay for through their health insurance premiums. Since I'm not a sociopathic Republican, I want men, women, and children to receive whatever exams or treatments their healthcare providers feel are necessary.

Too bad you don't feel the same. I'll let you go now, as I'm sure somewhere there's a young child with some candy that you'd like to steal.

22 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

No big surprise here: "The GOP wants to take money from Medicare’s trust fund and give it to the rich"

I hope like hell the seniors are paying attention to this nonsense. There's a reason Charlie Pierce calls Paul Ryan the zombie-eyed granny starver. 

[Audrey2]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Another dumbass Repub: "‘I wouldn’t want to lose my mammograms,’ male GOP senator says — then immediately regrets"

I'm sure he's not sorry. He's only sorry that people heard what he said.

In 2017, approximately 2,470 men will be diagnosed with breast cancer, according to http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/types/male_bc .

You, Anal Orifice, Senator Pat Roberts might want to mouth off about this, but it is a concern to these men. Granted, breast cancer in men isn't nearly as prevalent as breast cancer in women, but MEN HAVE BREAST TISSUE TOO!!!!  If one of these men is one of your constituents, I'm sure he really doesn't want to lose access to mammograms. 

 

Furthermore, I'm sure my Mom, sister, and female cousins are happy that some of our insurance premiums pay for prostate cancer screenings and treatment and testicular cancer screenings and treatment, even though we don't have those parts. We've had both in our extended family.

 

 

[Cartmann99]

54 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

You, Anal Orifice, Senator Pat Roberts might want to mouth off about this, but it is a concern to these men. Granted, breast cancer in men isn't nearly as prevalent as breast cancer in women, but MEN HAVE BREAST TISSUE TOO!!!!  If one of these men is one of your constituents, I'm sure he really doesn't want to lost access to mammograms

Thank you for this @Audrey2. In my rage, I completely forgot that men can also develop breast cancer. 

[RoseWilder]

If they really remove all those services from the healthcare bill, then what the fuck would we even need insurance for? What would it even be covering?

[candygirl200413]

In addition I read that in the negotiations that he took off the up till 26 requirement and per-existsting clause too.

[Audrey2]

31 minutes ago, RoseWilder said:

If they really remove all those services from the healthcare bill, then what the fuck would we even need insurance for? What would it even be covering?

With much fear, I wonder how many insurance plans provided by companies will see this legislation and decide that they no longer need to cover these things either.

[GreyhoundFan]

9 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

With much fear, I wonder how many insurance plans provided by companies will see this legislation and decide that they no longer need to cover these things either.

That's been my concern. I'm lucky to have a job that provides insurance. Once the ACA was enacted, our insurance got so much better. More stuff was covered, deductibles were lowered, and we had choices. I'm so worried that we'll go back to the "old days" where we had two choices: a crappy plan and a really crappy plan, with yearly and lifetime limits on coverage. I have a couple of chronic health issues, and will bump up against any limits.