Tuesday, July 25, 2017

It's time to vote for repeal of Obamacare in Senate today - CNN

Washington (CNN)It's time to vote.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has the Senate set to vote Tuesday on the first major test for the GOP effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. It's a vote on the motion to proceed to debate and amendments on the House-passed health care bill (i.e. the AHCA.)
John McCain to return to Senate Tuesday for health care vote
John McCain to return to Senate Tuesday for health care vote
President Donald Trump ratcheted up the pressure Tuesday morning, tweeting: "Big day for HealthCare. After 7 years of talking, we will soon see whether or not Republicans are willing to step up to the plate!"
McConnell needs 50 out of the 52 Senate Republicans to support him. Here's everything else you need to know for today:
John McCain is coming back
This was the big news Monday night. Sen. John McCain's office said the Arizona Republican is going to be in the Senate Tuesday for the vote. That means McConnell has a teeny bit more wiggle room. Now, instead of only being able to afford one defection, McConnell can have two. That gets McConnell closer, but these are still very narrow margins and a lot of senators on the fence (see below.)
While he remains undecided on a final bill, McCain has always said he would support moving forward to debate health care. His surprise return puts some pressure on his colleagues to ensure McCain didn't come back for nothing.
Does anyone know what they are voting to proceed to
Technically yes -- the House-passed bill. That was always going to be the case procedurally. After that and debate, an open amendment process would begin.
Donald Trump's political jamboree
Donald Trump's political jamboree
In McConnell's ideal world, the idea was to have an agreed upon substitute amendment, with 50 votes in support in hand, that would serve as the final amendment of the process, pass the Senate, pass the House and hit Trump's desk. Or something close to that.
But too many GOP senators opposed that amendment last week, so the motion to proceed could open up a can of worms. As Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, put it to reporters, we're entering a "wild west" type of scenario if the procedural vote passes. Anything that's germane to the bill and falls within the confines of the budget reconciliation rules, can be offered on the floor.
How this will all play out
Republican senators will meet behind closed doors for their weekly lunch at 12:45 p.m.
Democrats pitch 'A Better Deal' agenda: Focus on job training, lowering costs
Democrats pitch 'A Better Deal' agenda: Focus on job training, lowering costs
During that meeting, the final pitch will be made, not just by leadership, but by rank-and-file members who want to move forward with this process. The order in which specific amendments will be offered -- from the 2015 repeal-only bill, to Cassidy-Collins, to Graham-Cassidy, to everything in between -- will also be discussed, aides say. Immediately following this meeting, the Senate will proceed to the procedural vote (at 2:15 p.m. or so).
What's happening right now
The final lobbying blitz. The President. The Vice President. Administration officials. Senate GOP leadership. All are pushing members not to be the vote that shuts this process down. The pressure inside the building right now is immense, something that has become exceedingly clear as senators who have clearly, and publicly, opposed past iterations of this bill have remained firmly in the "undecided" camp.
Who appears firmly in the "no" camp
No surprise here: Maine Sen. Susan Collins
Who to watch:
These senators will decide if health care moves forward or not. Period. They have different asks and needs and to this point, none have been publicly, sufficiently provided to them. But there are a lot of promises being made, along with near unlimited pressure from the White House and leadership to just. Let. The. Process. Move. Forward.
On Tuesday we'll see if that's enough.
Sen. Rob Portman
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito
Sen. Lisa Murkowski
Sen. Dean Heller
Sen. Mike Lee
Sen. Rand Paul
Sen. Jerry Moran
Sen. Ron Johnson
Here's a sampling of what some of them are saying
"I'm not blindly voting," Paul said Monday night when members were still waiting to see if leadership had a plan on what bill to ultimately substitute.
"I'm not real happy with the process. I think you guys are more than aware of that," Johnson said.
McCain returning to Senate for critical vote 01:30
Why vote yes on this, with no clear "replace" plan or final product already locked in
There are a myriad of reasons this could move forward, among them: No senator wants to be the senator to kill the effort. Senators have received specific promises and/or assurances regarding which amendments will be considered on the floor. Senators have received specific promises and/or assurances regarding specific policy provisions that will be in any final product before the final vote.
So why vote yes to proceed?
The most common answer is so that there can be an open debate.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas: "We can't vote to amend the bill or debate it unless we get on it."
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas: "Any senator can introduce any amendment that he or she wishes ... that's the way the process works."
Sen. John Kennedy, R-Louisiana: "It's inexplicable to me why anyone including Democrats wouldn't vote to allow us to debate the bill and offer amendments."
Why vote no on this, with no clear "replace" plan or final product already locked in?
Several senators (among them Collins, Capito and Murkowski), have said they want a "replace" plan ready to go before voting "yes." Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, has made clear "repeal-only" is not a satisfactory option for him. All of these senators have said the House-passed bill, and, up to this point, every version of the Senate bill that has been offered, haven't struck the right balance on Medicaid.
Utah Sen. Mike Lee has said his procedural vote is contingent on the 2015 repeal-only bill being the final product, or changes to Cruz's regulations amendment. Sen. Rand Paul has asked for similar assurances regarding the 2015 repeal-only bill, or a very clear opportunity to separate the insurance stabilization aspects of any bill from the repeal portion. On top of all of that, entering an open amendment process, where Democrats' sole goal will be to offer politically damaging amendment after politically damaging amendment, is a risky move for any senator who may one day seek re-election.
When will we know how everyone is voting
When they call the yeas and nays.
There is tremendous pressure not to the "no" vote that can be blamed for sinking this process, which means senators, up to this point, are keeping their powder dry. That may change Tuesday morning, or even as senators walk from their closed-door lunch to the floor. But at the moment, there is a very real possibility it will not. We're all just going to have to find out if this thing lives or dies on the Senate floor.
If the procedural vote passes, does that mean the bill eventually will?
No.
Short of an agreement on some final substitute amendment that locks in 50 votes -- something they've repeatedly come up short on accomplishing -- the process going forward is far from a sure thing. But momentum -- and hour after hour of amendment votes -- can be a unifying process. That's what leadership is counting on right now.
If this thing goes down, is it really dead?
If there's one lesson that everyone should've learned over the last six months, it's that when you've promised to do something for seven years on the campaign trail, failure is an awfully tough pill to swallow. There will be every reason to give another go. Just take a look at what Sen. John Thune told CNN Monday night:
Sanders calls GOP health care bill 'destructive' and 'irresponsible'
Sanders calls GOP health care bill 'destructive' and 'irresponsible'
CNN: If it fails, is health care dead for at least a while or do you go right back to figuring it out?
Thune: "I don't. I think it might get slotted in behind something else that we might move to. You know, we have a reconciliation vehicle that's available until the end of the fiscal year so we have to move at some point. I don't think the issue is going away. I don't think it gets any easier to solve the longer this things hangs around. I've been of the school for a long time that at some point you have to listen and modify and adjust and get it to where you think you have the best possible product you can have but at some point you have to vote and that's I think where we are. People are going to hold us accountable for processing and handling at some point on this issue. It could become, maybe not front and center as it is at this point, but it's going to have to be dealt with."
What does the majority whip think?
The man in charge of counting votes for Senate Republicans, whip John Cornyn of Texas, said he expects enough Republicans will vote to take up the bill. But when asked what the GOP would do it the bill is blocked, he too said his party would not walk away from the contentious issue. If they get 48 or 49 votes, he explained, leaders will know who they need to work with to get a bill over the finish line.
He added that Republicans would not start from scratch with committee hearings and the like but would stay with the leadership-led process underway now.
What is Trump saying?
Trump to Tom Price: Get votes or you're fired 01:15
The President spent Monday telling his fellow Republicans it's time to fulfill their long-term promises to voters to repeal Obamacare.
In a White House speech, Trump said the GOP hasn't done it's job.
"For the last seven years, Republicans have been united in standing up for Obamacare's victims. Remember repeal and replace, repeal and replace, they kept saying it over and over again. Every Republican running for office promised immediate relief from this disastrous law," Trump said. "We, as a party, must fulfill that solemn promise to the voters of this country to repeal and replace.
"But so far, Senate Republicans have not done their job in ending the Obamacare nightmare," he added.

These Are the Next 5 Industries That Amazon Could Take Over - TIME Business

Posted: 24 Jul 2017 07:06 AM PDT

No one should doubt Amazon.com’s power to disrupt new industries. While the onetime online bookstore has grown to dominate retail, it has also become a major player in businesses ranging from cloud computing to Hollywood — and even has experimented seriously with drones.
It’s no wonder that fear strikes investors and executives when they learn — or even hear rumors — that Amazon wants to compete in their industry. It’s the business-world equivalent of seeing viking sails appear on the horizon.
Just last month, grocery store stocks plunged when news arrived that Amazon planned to acquire trendy, upscale grocer Whole Foods. Then Amazon struck again late last week, with home improvement stores taking the hit.

Here are five industries that have all suffered recently from what one stock analyst has dubbed, “the Amazon effect” — the threat, real or perceived, that Amazon is on the verge of upending their business models.

Home Improvement Stores

Even as more and more retail moves online, big-box home improvement retailers Lowe’s and Home Depot have continued to thrive. After all, chances are you want to see your kitchen tile in person before ordering hundreds of dollars’ worth. And it’s not always easy to know exactly what size of bathroom fixture you need until you’re standing in front of a display model.
The upshot: Brick-and-mortar do-it-yourself stores have so far been able to keep customers coming in. But on Thursday, at least one lucrative segment of the business — home appliances — came under threat when also-ran Sears Holdings announced it had struck a deal for Amazon to sell the popular Kenmore-brand appliances. Appliances aren’t a perfect fit for online commerce; installation can be a big job and requires expertise. But some investors headed for the exits anyway: Shares of Home Depot closed down 4% by end of day, while Lowe’s fell 5.5%.

Grocery Stores

The news last month that Amazon planned to acquire Whole Foods for $13.7 billion might have rated as a blip. Sure, Whole Foods enjoys outsize cultural cachet among the arugula-munching set, but its overall market share in the grocery business is a measly 2%. But market watchers immediately began to speculate that Whole Foods’ roughly 450 stores would be turned into killer distribution hubs, enabling Amazon to deliver fresh groceries and other goods to upscale neighborhoods — or that the stores would become pickup points allowing customers to buy online, then have groceries put right in the trunks of their cars.
Either way Wall Street figured the consequences for other grocers would be direKroger shares plunged more than 9% on the day the news emerged, while Target fell 5.1% and Wal-Mart dropped 4.7%.

Meal Kit Companies

When a young company has an IPO — the first time it sells shares to the public — it’s supposed to be the belle of the ball. Investment bankers work hard to drum up hype, so starry-eyed investors will pay top dollar.
For meal kit company Blue Apron, however, rumors that Amazon might be preparing a competing service put a huge damper on the party. Blue Apron had originally planned to sell shares for $15 to $17 late last month, but ended up settling for $10 after Amazon’s Whole Foods purchase gave investors jitters. Blue Apron took another big hit early last week when news broke that Amazon had filed for a patent, and may already be testing its own kits. Blue Apron shares closed Friday at $6.55, having lost roughly a third of their value.

Banks

So far, America’s biggest banks have been largely immune to Silicon Valley disruption. That doesn’t mean they haven’t been looking over their shoulders, however. In February, a rumor that Amazon might buy Capital One prompted banking industry bible American Banker to (sort of) reassure readers, “No way that could happen … well, er, right, everybody?”
Such a deal might, indeed, prompt a veto from regulators. Yet Amazon is already enmeshed in the banking industry, and its ties are only poised to deepen. Amazon Marketplace — the part of Amazon.com that lets consumers purchase goods from third-party merchants (when you use Amazon to buy an out-of-print book from a bookstore across the country, for instance) — already allows shoppers to send payments directly to vendors in the U.S. and Europe, according to the FT. Amazon also offers loans to some of those small businesses; last month, for instance, it said loaned them $3 billion. No wonder Inc. recently warned that Amazon could swallow small business lending “like a python.”

Real Estate Brokers

Sometimes, all it takes is a hint. Earlier this month, in the runup to Amazon’s popular Prime Day sale, some shoppers noticed what appeared to be the beta version of a new “Hire a Realtor” service on Amazon’s home page. Soon screen shots of the page were circulating on trade Web sites, while the stock price of would-be competitor Zillow tumbled 3.5%.
The industry breathed a sigh of relief when the dummy Web page disappeared a day later, as quietly as it had arrived, and the National Association of Realtors reassured members that Amazon does not have permission to use the trademarked word “realtor.” Zillow stock also bounced back.
Yet trade publication The Real Deal predicted that Zillow “may soon meet its match.”

The constants of nature are among the things you just do not want to mess with - Economist

The constants of nature are among the things you just do not want to mess with
IF YOU give a balloon a modest electric charge—by rubbing it on your jumper, say—you can stick it to the ceiling, thereby both delighting small children and revealing a basic truth about the universe: electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitational ones. Despite the fact that there is a whole planet pulling down on that balloon with all the gravity that its six billion trillion tonnes can provide, your party trick is enough to thwart it. This disparity in the forces’ strengths, though, tells you little about why the absolute strengths are what they are. Nor, when it comes down to it, does the hard-won wisdom of the world’s physicists.
The way that the laws of nature, expressed in mathematics, describe the relationships between space, time and matter has a great formal coherence. But some aspects of this systematic and highly successful description stand alone. There are fundamental constants in physics that are apparently arbitrary—numbers that seem to exist entirely in their own right, without reference to the rest of the universe. No obvious reason seems to exist for them to be as they are; they are simply the way the world is.
One of these, called the fine-structure constant, says how strong electromagnetic forces are. Its value is 1/137. If it were larger, balloons would stick more strongly to ceilings. If it were smaller, their weight would more easily pull them down.
Such possibilities might seem to be of no particular importance. It is obvious that the universe would be fundamentally different if either force went away: no electromagnetism, no molecules; no gravity, no planets. That a small change in the strength of either might matter is harder to imagine. But it would.
In the 1950s Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astrophysicist, realised that the abundance of carbon in the universe was a bit of a conundrum. Carbon, like almost all other elements, is made in stars, where fusion creates heavier elements from the nuclei of lighter ones. Nuclei all have positive electric charges, and since like charges repel each other, this means that the nuclear banging together needs to be pretty forceful. If electromagnetism were only a little stronger, then even in the hearts of stars nuclei would not be banged together hard enough to bring forth carbon. That said, if it were just a little weaker, carbon would be simply one step on the way to nuclei that were heavier still, no sooner made than consumed.

    • In either case, the result would be a universe radically less amenable to life. The quality and number of the bonds that carbon atoms can form with each other and with atoms of other elements provide a unique versatility when it comes to the creation of large and complex molecules; no other element comes close. Without carbon there would be no polymers with which to make either wool or rubber, no muscles with which to rub the two together, no brains to conceive of doing so—or of explaining what happens afterwards. According to the most recent studies, which take into account far more subtleties than Hoyle knew about in the 1950s, if the fine-structure constant were 4% higher, or 4% smaller, the universe would be essentially rubber-, wool- and carbon-free, and there would be no chemical basis for life.
      This is far from the only example of what is sometimes called “fine tuning” in the physical universe: that is, seemingly arbitrary arrangements which turn out to be necessary for life. The rate at which the universe expands, its ratio of matter to energy and various other apparently arbitrary factors can be seen as showing signs of such fine tuning.
      Some, including some scientists, take this as evidence for the role of an intelligence in the creation of the universe, or the setting of its laws. Hoyle himself had a tendency to such views, though he did not hold them in a way that fitted into any religious tradition. Others see it as a selection effect: of all the universes that there could be, only those in which observers are possible get observed. There should be no surprise to carbon-based life forms in the discovery that their universe is well supplied with carbon; what other sort of universe could they expect?
      This way of thinking has become particularly pertinent as physical theory has opened up the possibility of a “multiverse”—wherein that which is observed, or will ever be observable, from Earth is but the tiniest fraction of all there is, with other universes subject to other rules in an endless panoply beyond. Seen in this light, untuned, un-lived-in universes may not be mere counterfactuals, but real and profuse. Maybe there is something that can be learned by considering them not just as thought experiments, but in the context of the rules that govern what gets created in the whole great ensemble.
      Curiouser and curiouser
      Perhaps the most fruitful way of thinking about fine tuning is to appreciate it as a focus for curiosity. In the 1970s there was talk of fine tuning as an explanation of why, cosmologically speaking, the universe was both smooth and flat (unlike a billiard ball, smooth but not flat, or a shingle beach, flat but not smooth). In the 1980s physicists fascinated by this conundrum came up with a theory that explained both attributes in terms of a single process, known as cosmic inflation, a theoretical path which led, in time, to the interest in multiverses. Perhaps some things which currently appear to be fine-tuned—such as the rate at which the universe’s expansion accelerates—may similarly, with enough hard thought, come to be seen as consequences of a deeper necessity in the laws of nature.
      It is not clear why things which seem fine-tuned should be more likely routes to deeper insights than other aspects of reality. But perhaps they do not need to be. Perhaps a seeming quirk or coincidence that captures the imagination is enough in and of itself to provide the spur to progress. Finding, or appreciating, a way in which the universe appears fine-tuned generates the same sensations as a balloon stuck out-of-reach on the ceiling: delight, curiosity and an exquisite frustration. That is often all the path to understanding needs.
    • Economist