|
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 June 23 2017 02:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
honestly, i think a good part of the blame lies with obama. i love the guy, but he gutted/ starved the democrat's infrastructure by running stuff though OFA. meanwhile, he was also fairly hands off who wasn't super involved in campaigning, while forcing many dems to make choices like voting for the ACA, while certainly the right ones, were politically untenable.
Obama had enough charisma that it was always hard to assign the blame for his genuine faults.
His support for Clinton to the point of absurdity laid that clear.
|
On June 23 2017 03:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:55 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 02:46 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 02:35 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. young voters don't vote, which is why they don't have much power. actual competence and experience are underrated; sadly some people need periodic reminders of how important they are; hence trump, and the predictable mess. I question what the actual benefits would be wrt disullisioned voters; if people wanna gripe they alwyas find something to gripe about. that said, optics does have some value. it's sad how people sucker for optics and pay so little attention to the actual getting stuff done part. I cannot stress this enough, she is reviled by Republicans in both the house and in red states. Skill and experience matters, but she is loathed by the other side of the isle that they are supposed t work with. Not Ted Cruz level, but no one can top that. But I also am not sure that anyone wouldn’t be painted with the same brush by the GOP once they were in the position. I am pretty sure ads of “working with Tim Ryan” would run during the primary of any GOP house member that voted with the democrats. it matters little that they are supposed to work with the other side, if the other side does not wish to work with them or compromise. I'm pretty sure that anyone in that position would be painted with the smae brush by the GOP, it is a highly partisan era after all, and leadership will always be given extra targetting; I suppose you could cycle them at a high frequency so that the tarring has less effect, but I'm not sure to what extent that would actually benefit the dems or the country; they'll always have a target to hate on after all. I agree that the GOP has been totally unwilling to work with democrats. The democrats were also very happy to slap the GOP in 2008 with all the same tactics that were used from 2000 onward. The house was a toxic place at the end of the Bush’s time in office. And her leadership did nothing to reduce that. They have lost ever election since she was put in a leadership position. She is very experienced at losing and pissing off the GOP. on what basis would you credit those lost elections to her leadership rather than other factors? also, didn't the dems gain in 2008, after she had a leadership position? failing to reduce a toxicity caused by the other side is understandable. She has been in the leadership since 2003, minority leader in 2005. During that time the democrats have held the house for 2 years in 2008. This was on the back of an insurgent Obama and the real estate crash, leading to the great recession. She was a passenger on that election and little of it had to do with her. If I remember correctly, she was skeptical of the 50 state strategy that won that election and picked up seats in 2006. She is one of the most senior members of the party. The buck stops with the leaders and to many of the democrats lean into demographics to win elections. That includes her.
I agree relying on demographic changes is a bad plan; but your claim that they lost every election since she was put into a leadership position is demonstrably false. If you claim the win in '08 had little to do with her, on what basis do you assert with such confidence that the losses in some other years were much more due to her?
was the '08 election truly won because of the 50 state strategy, or because of simple anti-bush sentiment?
|
On June 23 2017 02:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. After the Bush administration, I felt it was a bit much for the Democrats to install one of their most disliked members in leadership in 2008. I was as pissed as anyone else after Bush, but it just seemed petty and spiteful. I felt the same about Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff. Especially when their first plan was to pass a bill that they wanted Republican buy in on.
Rahm Emanuel at least has his head screwed on right on the Democrat party's future.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel has warned Democrats they need to "take a chill pill" and realize that they are not going to take back national power anytime soon.
"It ain't gonna happen in 2018," Emanuel said Monday at Stanford's Graduate School of Business in California. "Take a chill pill, man. You gotta be in this for the long haul."
As he did last month at an event in Washington, D.C., the mayor expanded on what he believes is the road map back to power for his party — putting moderate candidates such as veterans, football players, sheriffs and business people up in Republican districts, picking battles with Republicans, exploiting wedges within the GOP and fighting attempts to redistrict Congress on partisan grounds.
But this time he didn't hold back on his frustration with some of his fellow Democrats.
"Winning's everything," he said. "If you don't win, you can't make the public policy. I say that because it is hard for people in our party to accept that principle. Sometimes, you've just got to win, OK? Our party likes to be right, even if they lose."
He added, "I don't go to moral victory speeches. I can't stand them. I've never lost an election. It's about winning, because if you win you then have the power to go do what has to get done.
"If you lose, you can write the book about what happened — great, that's really exciting!" he said, sarcastically.
Instead, he said, Democrats should focus on the GOP. "Wherever there's a disagreement among Republicans, I'm for one of those disagreements," he said. "I'm all for it. The president's with Russia? I'm with John McCain and Lindsey Graham, I'm for NATO! Why? (It's a) wedge. Wedges have to be schisms, schisms have to be divides."
Chicago Tribune
Asked by CNN’s Dana Bash to explain that comment, the Chicago mayor on Sunday criticized the Washington groupthink of making elections “only about Congress” rather than across the state and local level.
Over the past eight years, Democrats went from holding a majority of governor’s mansions to seeing Republicans hold 33 of them. Republicans have complete control of 32 state legislatures, while Democrats control 12 and six are divided.
“You have to have a long horizon, obviously, and work towards that — electing people at the local level, state houses, into Congress,” Emanuel said, declining to predict whether this generation of House Democrats could replicate what happened in 2006.
“Do I think we’re going to have a good year in 2018? Yes. Do I think everything’s going to be solved in a single cycle? That’s not how we got here, and it’s not going to be how we get out.”
WaPo
Things like DNC chief Perez attacking moderate Democrat positions right before elections will just keep them out of power. Keep Dems with a message appealing to certain elements of the left wing, but keep Republican districts in Republican hands.
|
|
|
On June 23 2017 03:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:26 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. After the Bush administration, I felt it was a bit much for the Democrats to install one of their most disliked members in leadership in 2008. I was as pissed as anyone else after Bush, but it just seemed petty and spiteful. I felt the same about Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff. Especially when their first plan was to pass a bill that they wanted Republican buy in on. Rahm Emanuel at least has his head screwed on right on the Democrat party's future. Show nested quote +Mayor Rahm Emanuel has warned Democrats they need to "take a chill pill" and realize that they are not going to take back national power anytime soon.
"It ain't gonna happen in 2018," Emanuel said Monday at Stanford's Graduate School of Business in California. "Take a chill pill, man. You gotta be in this for the long haul."
As he did last month at an event in Washington, D.C., the mayor expanded on what he believes is the road map back to power for his party — putting moderate candidates such as veterans, football players, sheriffs and business people up in Republican districts, picking battles with Republicans, exploiting wedges within the GOP and fighting attempts to redistrict Congress on partisan grounds.
But this time he didn't hold back on his frustration with some of his fellow Democrats.
"Winning's everything," he said. "If you don't win, you can't make the public policy. I say that because it is hard for people in our party to accept that principle. Sometimes, you've just got to win, OK? Our party likes to be right, even if they lose."
He added, "I don't go to moral victory speeches. I can't stand them. I've never lost an election. It's about winning, because if you win you then have the power to go do what has to get done.
"If you lose, you can write the book about what happened — great, that's really exciting!" he said, sarcastically.
Instead, he said, Democrats should focus on the GOP. "Wherever there's a disagreement among Republicans, I'm for one of those disagreements," he said. "I'm all for it. The president's with Russia? I'm with John McCain and Lindsey Graham, I'm for NATO! Why? (It's a) wedge. Wedges have to be schisms, schisms have to be divides." Chicago TribuneShow nested quote +Asked by CNN’s Dana Bash to explain that comment, the Chicago mayor on Sunday criticized the Washington groupthink of making elections “only about Congress” rather than across the state and local level.
Over the past eight years, Democrats went from holding a majority of governor’s mansions to seeing Republicans hold 33 of them. Republicans have complete control of 32 state legislatures, while Democrats control 12 and six are divided.
“You have to have a long horizon, obviously, and work towards that — electing people at the local level, state houses, into Congress,” Emanuel said, declining to predict whether this generation of House Democrats could replicate what happened in 2006.
“Do I think we’re going to have a good year in 2018? Yes. Do I think everything’s going to be solved in a single cycle? That’s not how we got here, and it’s not going to be how we get out.” WaPoThings like DNC chief Perez attacking moderate Democrat positions right before elections will just keep them out of power. Keep Dems with a message appealing to certain elements of the left wing, but keep Republican districts in Republican hands.
Rahm Emanuel is also hated by parts of the city he is mayor, specifically the black parts. But he does talk a good talk, even if he doesn’t often back it up when it comes to policy or governing. He is the dude who tells black people to calm down while running a city whose police force was operating an off the books detention center.
|
Reading through the health care bill...
1) The subsidy structure got more aggressive in a way that leaves more room for manipulation by insurers. In particular, they switch from calculating subsidies based on the 'second-lowest silver plan', which is a slot under competitive pricing pressure unless there's only one insurer, with the 'median cost benchmark plan', which any insurer can manipulate by offering additional high cost plans. Rating: D- as the likely result is transferring taxpayer money to insurance companies with little benefit to the insured.
2) Gets rid of subsidized abortion-insurance. Rating: A- In addition to the usual conservative conscience-based objections, abortion insurance as part of a general health insurance package is discriminatory against gay people, who pay a significant premium for something they can't use. Abortion's risk-profile is a poor fit for insurance; regardless, I expect this to lead to a supplementary abortion insurance market. This is an A- instead of A because of possible clashes with state law.
3) Individual mandate penalty reduced to $0. Rating: A+ I greatly appreciate this one. Having been priced out of the marketplace, I was likely to be hit by a large penalty for being too poor to afford insurance. This is one of the top 5 issues I wanted this bill to fix.
4) Employer mandate penalty reduced to $0. Rating: B. Effectively addresses the anti-growth hazard the mandate posed, but the non-conformance penalty is still on the books stifling innovation. This will need cleanup later.
5) Appropriates $35 billion to pay for transitions. Not rated, since I can't feasibly check the math, but even in the first case it's orders of magnitude less bad than the original ACA.
5B) Aforementioned $35 billion forbidden from being used in overseas territories. Rating: D as this appears to be power-politics; no senators = no access to the pork.
6) Repeals the special taxes on health insurance premiums and benefits. Rating: A-, since it directly makes health insurance more affordable, although I'm slightly worried that the benefits will be entirely captured by insurers in some markets.
7) Repeals special taxes on medications and medical devices. Rating: A since it directly makes health care more affordable.
8) Reduces taxes on health savings accounts. Rating: A as it makes paying for care without heavy insurance more feasible.
9) Other tax cuts. Rating: C on average as they're less relevant to affordable care and lost revenue is a concern.
10) Planned Parenthood cut out from Medicaid/ Rating: D Seriously, can y'all stop the pointless political posturing? This is so severe it's starting to look like an equal-protection violation.
11) Medicaid expansion changes. Not Rated because I couldn't understand them after a double readthrough.
12) Essential Health Benefits phased out in 2020. Rating: A+. The EHB was, in practice, strongly anti-innovation. It also included a bunch of things that it shouldn't have, driving up overhead and premiums. This is one of the top 5 issues I wanted this bill to fix. I think it should have phased out a year earlier, but I can understand the need for advanced notice for insurers.
13) Medicaid cap per capita. Rating: C. While the medicaid cost spiral was one of my top 5 issues, this seems like the clumsiest possible way to address it.
14) Requiring the Medicaid bureaucracy to get state and professional input for rule changes: Not Rated but very interesting.
15) New rules for small business heath plans: very complex and thus Not Rated.
16) $2 billion pork for substance abuse treatment. Rating: C; while helpful, this should be purely the states' responsibilities.
17) Age related price fixing brackets loosened. Rating: C- While a marginal improvement, the feds shouldn't be fixing prices in the first place. But it's not a failing grade because it also has a clause to let states override the federal brackets, which they can use to effectively remove the price controls.
18) State waivers. Rating: B; while we'll probably see some bad ideas from waivers, the good ones will eventually become standard. This will probably result in better health care at lower cost to the federal government since the states are responsible for funding their own waivers.
Major issues not fixed:
* Community Rating looks like it's still in place; the 'uninsurable' will continue to drive affordability or care-quality concerns for everyone else. (Top 5 issue)
* The subsidy feedback loop got worse (Top 5 issue)
* Does not address insurance portability
Overall, this is a real step in the right direction rather than another fake repeal, but still doesn't solve some of the core problems.
|
On June 23 2017 02:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:35 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. young voters don't vote, which is why they don't have much power. actual competence and experience are underrated; sadly some people need periodic reminders of how important they are; hence trump, and the predictable mess. Do you not think young voter turnout would have been higher with Bernie against Trump? I would argue this turnout delta can be attributed to the removal of disillusionment. a bit perhaps; but it's not at all clear that bernie woudl have done better against trump overall; he might have, he might've done terrible, it's hard to predict accurately. young voter turnout is always low; that's just how it is. so young voters aren't a group to aim for so much. also, if they failed to vote against trump, because of some unjustified sense of disillusionment, that supports my thesis of idiots  I really wanna find a better way than democracy.
how about a platonic republic, with no husbands and no wives, and intercourse for procreation is chosen by lot (but the elders ensure that the finest couple with the finest and the basest with the basest, as is natural) and our public guardians do not possess anything individually, but only in common and only as determined by the citizens
|
On June 23 2017 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:43 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:41 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:39 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:35 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. young voters don't vote, which is why they don't have much power. actual competence and experience are underrated; sadly some people need periodic reminders of how important they are; hence trump, and the predictable mess. Do you not think young voter turnout would have been higher with Bernie against Trump? I would argue this turnout delta can be attributed to the removal of disillusionment. a bit perhaps; but it's not at all clear that bernie woudl have done better against trump overall; he might have, he might've done terrible, it's hard to predict accurately. young voter turnout is always low; that's just how it is. so young voters aren't a group to aim for so much. also, if they failed to vote against trump, because of some unjustified sense of disillusionment, that supports my thesis of idiots I really wanna find a better way than democracy. I disagree with the notion that young voters can't be reached. They just need to be inspired. Trump has an enormous young following. Same with Bernie. I didn't say they can't be reached; I said they have low turnout, which is true, and always has been, and shows no sign of changing. also, being inspired to support stupidity isn't very helpful at all. you really want to have a viable plan to go with being inspired. By saying they can be inspired, I was saying this inspiration would translate into turnout. Bernie blew Clinton out of the water in Washington and Oregon for a reason. Out of all the liberals I know, I only can think of 4 who voted for Clinton over Bernie.
Unfortunately, on a national level inspiring people in deep blue and deep red states/districts is easy for people with strong leans right or left but utterly pointless. That kind of strategy is how you win the national vote but lose the electoral college and House (the Dems basically specialize in the latter at this point). All that matters is inspiring purple state/district folks to the point where there's really no reason to have other states contribute to the primary if you want to optimize your chances of winning.
|
@buckyman
are you just temporarily too poor to afford insurance?do you not mind being uninsured? how's that work?
|
well last year it was because he didnt know how subsidies worked
|
bucky -> was removing protection for pre-existing conditions on your list? I didn't see it; and I heard it was in the bill, but I might've misheard, or missed one of your bullet points.
also, I'm fairly certain you can't both be priced out of being able to buy insurance AND get hit with a penalty for not having insurance; the last people i've seen who thought that were proven wrong when I looked at the numbers. but the market is indeed rather irregular when it's setup as it was. people don't like to accept dying after all, and thus vote themselves more healthcare.
|
Two things happened:
First, the marketplace kicked me out with no explanation. The bureaucrats I talked to had no idea why, but they were sure I deserved it.
Second, my insurer raised my premiums to an amount larger than my paycheck.
I'm now paying cash for medical care. But there's no real loss in quality of care because I couldn't afford my full deductible before. That might change if my medical problems get worse.
Re: Pre-existing conditions - if it was in the bill, I didn't see it.
|
I like how the states are supposed to handle the opioid crisis on their own in his world. Poor states with no economy filled with addicts just get to rot until the crisis passes. The coasts will be fine, but the center of America will be playing the lottery.
Edit: Pre-existing conditions are still protected. There are now ways for insurance companies to lobby states to waive expensive coverage through the waiver system. Which can be done by the governor alone. It is a pretty great system to assure any regional health problems won’t be covered.
|
From what I've seen pre-existing conditions are being untouched and must be covered. I suppose the question to Buckyman is what do you grade the requirement that pre existing conditions must be covered, if correct?
|
United States43818 Posts
Bucky, it removes the stick used to prod healthy people into risk pools with unhealthy people and therefore destroys the whole thing.
Insurance as a concept does not reduce costs. That's not what it does, it has no mechanism by which to do that. It spreads risk across time. Instead of a large unexpected expense you have small regular expenses that amount to around the same as the large unexpected expense would by the time it would have happened. It's a tool for making uncertainty simpler to budget for.
If uncertainty isn't your problem, but rather being sick and having a shitton of very certain very expensive problems, then insurance doesn't do anything for you. If you've had cancer before and are likely to have cancer again then insurance will help you spread the likely cost of treating that cancer over time, but you still have to pay for cancer treatment yourself and if you can't afford that you're fucked.
The way Obamacare got around this is through risk pools which aren't really insurance at all. They get a healthy person and a sick person and they say that they'll average the costs of both of them and they both have to pay the same premium for their health insurance. Which isn't insurance at all because the healthy person isn't paying for his risks, he's paying for the average of his risks and those of the unhealthy person. In short, it's wealth redistribution from the healthy to the unhealthy, from the young to the old.
Healthy people don't like you doing this and for many of them it makes more sense to opt out of the system. But when they opt out they reduce the average health of the risk pool they're no longer part of and suddenly insurance is unaffordable again.
Basically the thing you are glad that they are changing is the thing that made it work. What the Republicans have promised is no different to promising to continue offering all government services while also getting rid of the taxes that paid for them. And while you may like the idea of government services, while also like the idea of not paying taxes, it's not going to work. The individual mandate is at the heart of reducing healthcare costs. It's the taxes that pay for it. This plan can only result in high risk pools forming and becoming unaffordable, leaving anyone with preexisting conditions unable to get healthcare.
|
On June 23 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:35 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. young voters don't vote, which is why they don't have much power. actual competence and experience are underrated; sadly some people need periodic reminders of how important they are; hence trump, and the predictable mess. I question what the actual benefits would be wrt disullisioned voters; if people wanna gripe they alwyas find something to gripe about. that said, optics does have some value. it's sad how people sucker for optics and pay so little attention to the actual getting stuff done part. I cannot stress this enough, she is reviled by Republicans in both the house and in red states. Skill and experience matters, but she is loathed by the other side of the isle that they are supposed t work with. Not Ted Cruz level, but no one can top that. But I also am not sure that anyone wouldn’t be painted with the same brush by the GOP once they were in the position. I am pretty sure ads of “working with Tim Ryan” would run during the primary of any GOP house member that voted with the democrats.
Republicans won't care that shes not officially leader. So long as she's a part of leadership (whip) and in elected office they will keep using her and it will make 0 difference to republicans that she isn't leader. That should be obvious.
EDIT: Rahm is a despicable human being, but he's right about Democrats being hopeless in 2018
|
On June 23 2017 04:00 On_Slaught wrote:
From what I've seen pre-existing conditions are being untouched and must be covered. I suppose the question to Buckyman is what do you grade the requirement that pre existing conditions must be covered, if correct?
You can't be denied, but essential services are no longer protected. So states can see waivers for anything, like hospital visits or pregnancy. Whatever the governor doesn't think is necessary.
Edit: and they kept high risk pools? Heath care ghettos for all the unlucky.
|
Kawrk made my point for me. Bucky, you'd better grade the coverage of pre existing conditions as an F since the system doesnt work with it. It's basically your Abortion argument being bad for gays (I've never heard anyone make this argument before btw).
|
On June 23 2017 04:09 On_Slaught wrote:
Kawrk made my point for me. Bucky, you'd better grade the coverage of pre existing conditions as an F since the system doesnt work with it. It's basically your Abortion argument being bad for gays (I've never heard anyone make this argument before btw).
It is part of the argument that people shouldn’t pay for things they don’t use. Which is a weird argument for those of us without kids.
|
The bill is already mostly dead. It won't even see a vote in its current form as it has lost 4 votes already.
Also listening to conservative talk radio at the moment and they aren't happy with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
