|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 17 2016 06:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 05:59 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2016 04:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think fracking is likely to be pretty high up on the list over things she's willing to concede in political dealership. I don't have data for this, but it's kinda my impression that people who like fracking like fracking more than people who hate fracking hate it. Her party has a determined environmentalist base that will forever ideologically oppose fracking. In future struggles with polls or compromise legislation, she stands to gain tossing a bone that way. She's already shown promise on that front on her speeches regarding the coal industry (and Obama before her). From what I'm reading, this years DNC platform certainly does more to combat climate change than any earlier platform. But when I'm reading specifics, like from this blatantly partisan site , they mention something like 12 different goals, fracking however isn't mentioned by name. There's some 'tough stance on fossil fuel companies, even calling for eliminating tax breaks and subsidies for these firms' and 'reform of fossil fuel leasing on public lands'. I feel that stuff like, reducing energy waste, increased use of solar panels, modernizing the electric grid, making manufacturing and power plants cleaner, more public transportation and electric cars, increased bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in urban and suburban areas, these goals can get some bipartisan support. Then I think republicans are likely to fight two battles in particular, keystone pipeline and fracking. Like, I don't actually know much about the specifics of climate change and how different specific policies will impact the environment. I personally think that climate change is the single biggest threat humanity faces and thus, I prioritize this issue very highly. But I've noticed that some people I consider reasonable, who do think climate change is a global threat (even if not to the extent I do), are still positive towards fracking. This leads me to believe that if there's any single battle that democrats are likely to be willing to concede in getting political support, fracking is going to be that one battle. And regardless of what you may think of Hillary's faulty character, if there's one thing she's been consistent about through her political life, it is that she's willing to concede symbolic causes as part of a greater political package. Now, more regulations, sure, probably fracking will only be permitted in areas where water supplies are deemed completely-ish safe by some metric (it seems like fracking is criticized more for its impact on local water supplies than for its impact on co2 emissions or whatever). Basically, out of all the talked-about climate issues, fracking is prolly the area where I most easily see her offer republicans an olive branch - because it's probably the one area where I myself think I would. edit: I think sanders supporters are gonna get symbolic victories more in terms of wall street regulation and college tuition, but her climate policies will be geared towards having the biggest climate impact rather than be the most talked-about issues (fracking mostly became such a big deal because some people's tapwater started burning, which is such a weird event that it naturally got a lot of media traction even if that doesn't actually constitute a big threat to the climate compared to other issues). I feel you there. Now on keystone pipeline and fracking, the Republicans will go up to bat and it will be well-funded oil companies and industry lobbying groups against the green lobby and the various progressive groups.
I have talked to and heard from many people that think climate change is THE political issue of our time. Even above transgender rights! I see a lot of movement on the so-called "corporate loopholes" although Jane-environmentalist-activist won't care if depreciation deductions or deferments are tame or exemplary waste.
I see her making the best deals she can do to augment her political power and ingratiate herself with the mainstream environmental movement.
|
|
|
If the election for President were being held today and the Democratic nominee for President is Hillary Clinton and the Republican nominee for President is Donald Trump; the Libertarian nominee is Gary Johnson and the Green party nominee is Jill Stein for whom would you vote?
Hillary Clinton 38%
Donald Trump 36%
Gary Johnson 8%
Jill Stein 5%
Not sure 13%
*Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.
The Takeaways: In a new Zogby Analytics online poll conducted August 12-13, +/-2.8% MOE, we asked 1,277 likely voters who they would vote for if the election for President were being held today. Since our Last poll in early July, Clinton still maintains a small 2% lead over Trump. It seems the convention bumps are behind us and we are back to a close race!
Donald Trump continues to lead among his core groups, which are men, he leads Clinton 41% to 35%. He also leads Clinton among older likely voters such as 50-64 year olds (41%-36%), and those 65+ (44%-36%).
Trump's numbers have dipped a little among middle income voters, Hillary Clinton now leads among those voters who earn $35k-50k (38%-37%), $50k-75K (37%-34%) and $75-100k (45-35%). Clinton also leads big among her core base-Millennials 18-29 years old (36%-26%), 18-24 year olds (59%-22%), Hispanics (51%-18%) and African Americans (81%-8%), which is not a big surprise. She has also won back the support of women voters, which Trump had narrowed the gap in our last poll; Clinton is winning among women 42% to 32%.
Trump has kept the race close by winning Independents. He is winning Independents 32% to 26% and has also closed the gap among older Millennials. Trump is tied with Clinton at 30% among 25-34 year old voters. Another interesting development is over the years we have tracked voting habits among NASCAR fans and Weekly WalMart shoppers. Ten years ago these groups tended to slant conservative and Republican. That trend has been reversed during the Obama Presidency, and these consumers tend to be more liberal and supporters of Democrats today. Trump has reversed this trend. Both NASCAR fans and WalMart shoppers favor Trump over Clinton. Donald Trump is winning NASCAR fans (44% to 36%) and weekly WalMart shoppers 41% to 36%. Zogby
Shocker.
|
On August 17 2016 10:27 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 09:59 Paljas wrote:On August 17 2016 09:39 zlefin wrote:
ravianna -> I recommend you retract that statement; by editing it out would be best. it is of course your choice. what the fuck is your problem dude what's yours, oh violently angry for no good reason person?
this peak liberalism on display
|
|
|
I bet cannon will encourage the worst tendencies in trump
|
On August 17 2016 20:23 PassiveAce wrote:
I bet cannon will encourage the worst tendencies in trump
These are the type of people that see loosing as a way to sow discontent to gear up for the next election. We are going to hear a lot more claims of the election being rigged and other allusions to "standing up for yourself if we lose."
|
I expect the RNC to drop support for Trump within a week or 2 now tbh. Completely abandon him and move to try and rescue the congressional elections.
Turning to Brietbart for his campaign team means that he has abandoned any pretense of changing his attitude and message.
Barring a complete implosion of Hillary this could become one of the biggest landslide elections ever.
|
i would expect resources to start shifting away from trump as early as september as well
|
On August 17 2016 20:45 Gorsameth wrote:
I expect the RNC to drop support for Trump within a week or 2 now tbh. Completely abandon him and move to try and rescue the congressional elections.
Turning to Brietbart for his campaign team means that he has abandoned any pretense of changing his attitude and message.
Barring a complete implosion of Hillary this could become one of the biggest landslide elections ever.
I don't think so (about the landslide, I mean). Even though Trump has basically no chance of winning at the moment, he won't have any in November, his hardcore support base is still strong enough to let this be a landslide (see the current polls in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, among others).
|
Trump is going to pull a McGovern in election results and it's going to be quite the sight to be hold.
|
Welp, the chains are finally off the crazy train. Now we will see just how low Trump can drag this election, and by extension, this country.
|
im sure priebus is fucking thrilled that trump hired the CEO of the website that's been accusing Paul Ryan of being a traitor for the last 2 years.
|
The weirdest part is how Bannon’s ongoing crusade of populism is funded by unknown backers and Seinfeld royalties. Many books will be written about this era of politics and the RNC.
But they are ultimately self destructive. This is the guy who pushed for Boehner to be removed as speaker and is now going after Ryan. They have no interest in working with anyone. They just want to destroy everyone that won’t do what they want, by any means possible. The idea of ever working with the Democrats is poison to them.
|
Insurance giant Aetna’s decision to stop offering much of its individual coverage through the Affordable Care Act is exposing a problem in President Obama’s signature health-care law that could lead to another fraught political battle in Congress.
Aetna’s announcement Monday night was the latest sign that large insurers are losing money in the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces, heightening concerns about the long-term stability of a key part of Obama’s domestic policy legacy. But addressing this issue could open the door to a nasty political fight, given that some Republicans have vowed to repeal the law outright.
If insurers continue to lose money, more are likely to withdraw from the marketplaces, a move that would reduce choices for consumers and could contribute to higher premiums. In one county, Aetna’s exit in 2017 could leave no insurers offering poicies through its marketplace.
WaPo
|
On August 17 2016 16:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +If the election for President were being held today and the Democratic nominee for President is Hillary Clinton and the Republican nominee for President is Donald Trump; the Libertarian nominee is Gary Johnson and the Green party nominee is Jill Stein for whom would you vote?
Hillary Clinton 38%
Donald Trump 36%
Gary Johnson 8%
Jill Stein 5%
Not sure 13%
*Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.
The Takeaways: In a new Zogby Analytics online poll conducted August 12-13, +/-2.8% MOE, we asked 1,277 likely voters who they would vote for if the election for President were being held today. Since our Last poll in early July, Clinton still maintains a small 2% lead over Trump. It seems the convention bumps are behind us and we are back to a close race!
Donald Trump continues to lead among his core groups, which are men, he leads Clinton 41% to 35%. He also leads Clinton among older likely voters such as 50-64 year olds (41%-36%), and those 65+ (44%-36%).
Trump's numbers have dipped a little among middle income voters, Hillary Clinton now leads among those voters who earn $35k-50k (38%-37%), $50k-75K (37%-34%) and $75-100k (45-35%). Clinton also leads big among her core base-Millennials 18-29 years old (36%-26%), 18-24 year olds (59%-22%), Hispanics (51%-18%) and African Americans (81%-8%), which is not a big surprise. She has also won back the support of women voters, which Trump had narrowed the gap in our last poll; Clinton is winning among women 42% to 32%.
Trump has kept the race close by winning Independents. He is winning Independents 32% to 26% and has also closed the gap among older Millennials. Trump is tied with Clinton at 30% among 25-34 year old voters. Another interesting development is over the years we have tracked voting habits among NASCAR fans and Weekly WalMart shoppers. Ten years ago these groups tended to slant conservative and Republican. That trend has been reversed during the Obama Presidency, and these consumers tend to be more liberal and supporters of Democrats today. Trump has reversed this trend. Both NASCAR fans and WalMart shoppers favor Trump over Clinton. Donald Trump is winning NASCAR fans (44% to 36%) and weekly WalMart shoppers 41% to 36%. ZogbyShocker.
Yes, incredibly shocking that Zogby's always reliable polls are an outlier
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jk0Kqp1.png)
Giving them any credit at all is basically doing this
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On August 17 2016 22:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Insurance giant Aetna’s decision to stop offering much of its individual coverage through the Affordable Care Act is exposing a problem in President Obama’s signature health-care law that could lead to another fraught political battle in Congress.
Aetna’s announcement Monday night was the latest sign that large insurers are losing money in the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces, heightening concerns about the long-term stability of a key part of Obama’s domestic policy legacy. But addressing this issue could open the door to a nasty political fight, given that some Republicans have vowed to repeal the law outright.
If insurers continue to lose money, more are likely to withdraw from the marketplaces, a move that would reduce choices for consumers and could contribute to higher premiums. In one county, Aetna’s exit in 2017 could leave no insurers offering poicies through its marketplace. WaPo
Losing money? when they had a 2015 operational earning of 2.7 billion...
I don't buy it.
|
Politico reported that Aetna’s move and claim they are losing large amounts of money conflicted with what they said during a call to investors only a month ago. They reported that the losses associated with the markets were below their initial projections. Several folks on NPR pointed out this is not the first time Aetna has threaten to completely pull out and they use it as a negotiating tactic.
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/politico-pulse/2016/08/aetna-is-quitting-70-percent-of-obamacare-markets-215904
And remember, this is the same company that was denied a merger earlier this year as well.
|
On August 17 2016 19:59 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 10:27 zlefin wrote:On August 17 2016 09:59 Paljas wrote:On August 17 2016 09:39 zlefin wrote:
ravianna -> I recommend you retract that statement; by editing it out would be best. it is of course your choice. what the fuck is your problem dude what's yours, oh violently angry for no good reason person? this peak liberalism on display
I don't get your point.
but it doesn't seem important, so not raelly worth more discussion.
re: aetna
that sounds like one of those cases where I'd really like to get the definite facts. I wonder if congress can use its subpoena power to find out for sure.
certainly companies can lie or misrepresent, and do so all the time, just like people.
|
On August 17 2016 22:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Insurance giant Aetna’s decision to stop offering much of its individual coverage through the Affordable Care Act is exposing a problem in President Obama’s signature health-care law that could lead to another fraught political battle in Congress.
Aetna’s announcement Monday night was the latest sign that large insurers are losing money in the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces, heightening concerns about the long-term stability of a key part of Obama’s domestic policy legacy. But addressing this issue could open the door to a nasty political fight, given that some Republicans have vowed to repeal the law outright.
If insurers continue to lose money, more are likely to withdraw from the marketplaces, a move that would reduce choices for consumers and could contribute to higher premiums. In one county, Aetna’s exit in 2017 could leave no insurers offering poicies through its marketplace. WaPo
As someone who works in the healthcare industry and pretty closely with some major insurers, this was not unexpected. Different insurers took different approaches to the exchanges - some more thoughtful than others. UHC and Aetna jumped in and thought they use more or less the same model they had for their existing book of business and got burned for it. They did not do a good job recalibrating their risk models, pricing or anything to what everyone knew was going to be a sicker, older population. They figured that they could coast by by-and-large by getting payouts from the risk pools, and they did receive hundreds of millions from those. It's just too bad that they sucked too much.
On the other hand, plans who made the necessary adaptations are doing fine. Anthem/ Blues announced they are making money and they expect margin expansion. One of the very basic things they did was look at Medicare Supplement/ Medicaid groups, which are older and sicker and more similar to the individual exchange population, and design based on that. That means narrower networks, more collaborative care elements and a different mix of plans (ex. HMO vs PPO). These guys also run a much slimmer operation in general.
UHC and Aetna made a lot of mistakes. It's not to say their losses are completely self-inflicted - there are plenty of things on the government's side that could be fixed - but the insurers screwed up. And instead of looking at their losses (which are pretty trivial) as a learning experience and figuring out how to do better, they got scared and pulled out. They cut themselves off from one of the last new markets, just like the pioneer who says "this is too fucking hard" and doesn't go west.
Of course, it's possible that UHC and Aetna are doing this for leveralge to try and get the laws changed more favorably... and maybe they will, but they'll have sacrificed market share to all the folks who stayed in and built a working operation. That UHC and Aetna are goofing to me also shows how big of a problem we have with our healthcare system and how much we needed reform and how much of a kick in the butt the insurers needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uZC5fF9.gif)
