|
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. |
There's some leaked audio of Trump threatening to sue CNN at a funraiser out and about via the intercept.
“Boy, did CNN get killed over the last few days,” “But as far as I’m concerned, I love it. If anybody’s a lawyer in the house and thinks I have a good lawsuit — I feel like we do. Wouldn’t that be fun?”
“Van Jones — you see this man? These are really dishonest people. Should I sue them? I mean, they’re phonies. Jeff Zucker, I hear he’s going to resign at some point pretty soon. I mean these are horrible human beings.”
https://soundcloud.com/the-intercept/donald-trump-fundraiser#t=0:04
On July 01 2017 01:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 00:43 Nevuk wrote:On July 01 2017 00:28 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:07 Nevuk wrote:
Honestly Trump doesn't realize how precarious his position is. If the economy takes a serious downturn he's probably going to be instantly impeached. The only reason the GOP is getting away with their "I see no evil, I have my eyes closed" act is that things are actually going fairly well for the majority of Americans. He'd be a greater fool to actually believe this reasoning. Only a huge economic downturn/scandal that prompts a Democratic sweep of the House would prompt impeachment (and the subject will nonetheless be a backdrop for the 2018 election). Everything else is fatuous wishcasting. He's in there till 2020 with high likelihood, secondly because the remove part of the process won't happen without a doubly doubtful change in the Senate makeup. I feel like that is a possibility if a trade war occurs. I'm imagining something like the gas crisis in the 70s that ruined Carter - it wasn't even technically Carter's fault, but everyone blamed him for it. A trade war is incredibly easy to understand who to blame in this situation Then I misinterpreted what you meant by "instantly impeach" because it didn't sound like your timing was a regular election cycle. As an aside, I think Carter got his deserved blame for his economic troubles, for inheriting something bad and making it worse. Trump may do the same with stupid, shortsighted trade policy (or something else, who knows with his economic protectionism).
I'll grant it's unlikely that the current house does it, but I could see it happening in 2019 even if the democrats don't have a majority in the CNN (or just a small one).
If there's a 2008 level crisis I think even the current house might turn on him.
|
On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics.
Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that.
If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all.
|
On July 01 2017 00:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Yeah, it's almost like nuking the Medicaid expansion provisions of the ACA (which all of those do) is what is causing the insurance loss. How could that possibly reduce coverage? Must be CBO conspiracy (they've joined the "deep state" and probably have "tapes")
Well, that and not hitting people over the stick to buy an expensive product they don't want. It was kinda fun seeing how quickly everybody went from the 'making insurance more affordable' and 'no disruption to current doctors and plan' to 'ignore how we fucked up insurance markets & the product being sold/available, focus on raw coverage numbers!!1!"
|
On July 01 2017 01:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
darn, and he has such a good monday and tuesday.
|
On July 01 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 00:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Yeah, it's almost like nuking the Medicaid expansion provisions of the ACA (which all of those do) is what is causing the insurance loss. How could that possibly reduce coverage? Must be CBO conspiracy (they've joined the "deep state" and probably have "tapes") Well, that and not hitting people over the stick to buy an expensive product they don't want. It was kinda fun seeing how quickly everybody went from the 'making insurance more affordable' and 'no disruption to current doctors and plan' to 'ignore how we fucked up insurance markets & the product being sold/available, focus on raw coverage numbers!!1!"
step 1 to making insurance more affordable is to increase the risk pool, which is coverage numbers.
The more people covered the more cost is spread the lower costs can become.
|
On July 01 2017 01:12 Nevuk wrote:There's some leaked audio of Trump threatening to sue CNN at a funraiser out and about via the intercept. Show nested quote +“Boy, did CNN get killed over the last few days,” “But as far as I’m concerned, I love it. If anybody’s a lawyer in the house and thinks I have a good lawsuit — I feel like we do. Wouldn’t that be fun?” Show nested quote +“Van Jones — you see this man? These are really dishonest people. Should I sue them? I mean, they’re phonies. Jeff Zucker, I hear he’s going to resign at some point pretty soon. I mean these are horrible human beings.”
https://soundcloud.com/the-intercept/donald-trump-fundraiser#t=0:04Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:06 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:43 Nevuk wrote:On July 01 2017 00:28 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:07 Nevuk wrote:
Honestly Trump doesn't realize how precarious his position is. If the economy takes a serious downturn he's probably going to be instantly impeached. The only reason the GOP is getting away with their "I see no evil, I have my eyes closed" act is that things are actually going fairly well for the majority of Americans. He'd be a greater fool to actually believe this reasoning. Only a huge economic downturn/scandal that prompts a Democratic sweep of the House would prompt impeachment (and the subject will nonetheless be a backdrop for the 2018 election). Everything else is fatuous wishcasting. He's in there till 2020 with high likelihood, secondly because the remove part of the process won't happen without a doubly doubtful change in the Senate makeup. I feel like that is a possibility if a trade war occurs. I'm imagining something like the gas crisis in the 70s that ruined Carter - it wasn't even technically Carter's fault, but everyone blamed him for it. A trade war is incredibly easy to understand who to blame in this situation Then I misinterpreted what you meant by "instantly impeach" because it didn't sound like your timing was a regular election cycle. As an aside, I think Carter got his deserved blame for his economic troubles, for inheriting something bad and making it worse. Trump may do the same with stupid, shortsighted trade policy (or something else, who knows with his economic protectionism). I'll grant it's unlikely that the current house does it, but I could see it happening in 2019 even if the democrats don't have a majority in the CNN (or just a small one). If there's a 2008 level crisis I think even the current house might turn on him.
Dems will need tons of seats gained to be very close to a tie and flip a few Repubs. And the flipping would rely on Trump doing something impeachable rather than being simply disliked, because it then looks too much like elites overruling the will of the people (of the party that elected him) and not like 2020 election where the people actually can reject him directly. Congress has very low approval ratings even when alongside Trump. But yeah, we disagree on what it will take for "turn on him," unless we move from GOP congressional impeachment to GOP congressional opposition to all his policy priorities and executive actions. The latter could happen.
|
little more convoluted with the caveat being that a good chunk of new enrollees are sicker and higher cost as a baseline, which is offset with the individual mandate and oh hey its the entire three legged stool thing where everything is related.
|
On July 01 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 00:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Yeah, it's almost like nuking the Medicaid expansion provisions of the ACA (which all of those do) is what is causing the insurance loss. How could that possibly reduce coverage? Must be CBO conspiracy (they've joined the "deep state" and probably have "tapes") Well, that and not hitting people over the stick to buy an expensive product they don't want. It was kinda fun seeing how quickly everybody went from the 'making insurance more affordable' and 'no disruption to current doctors and plan' to 'ignore how we fucked up insurance markets & the product being sold/available, focus on raw coverage numbers!!1!"
That is because the bill that is being pushed doesn’t address those problems and puts a lot of services people use on the chopping block. We would be talking more about making healthcare affordable if that was the goal of this bill.
|
On July 01 2017 01:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Yeah, it's almost like nuking the Medicaid expansion provisions of the ACA (which all of those do) is what is causing the insurance loss. How could that possibly reduce coverage? Must be CBO conspiracy (they've joined the "deep state" and probably have "tapes") Well, that and not hitting people over the stick to buy an expensive product they don't want. It was kinda fun seeing how quickly everybody went from the 'making insurance more affordable' and 'no disruption to current doctors and plan' to 'ignore how we fucked up insurance markets & the product being sold/available, focus on raw coverage numbers!!1!" step 1 to making insurance more affordable is to increase the risk pool, which is coverage numbers. The more people covered the more cost is spread the lower costs can become.
Step 1 is reversing the favorable tax treatment of employer-provided plans, or a case can be made for step 1 being cost transparency for non-life-threatening treatment at point of purchase.
|
Dear god @ that whole extended Mika story - from the petty insults to women on Twitter to the National Enquirer stalking her children and the Joe Scarborough Whitehouse visit where he was told it could stop. Just unbelievable.
This has got to be found out from start to finish with regards to any potential trace of communications between various parties to see what exactly happened & used in the impeachment. This kind of thing can't be happening at levels of the highest level of the office, right?
|
|
|
On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all.
When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes!
|
On July 01 2017 01:25 a_flayer wrote:
Dear god @ that whole extended Mika story - from the petty insults to women on Twitter to the National Enquirer stalking her children and the Joe Scarborough Whitehouse visit where he was told it could stop. Just unbelievable.
Horrifying from start to finish. This has got to be found out from start to finish with regards to any potential trace of communications between various parties to see what exactly happened & used in the impeachment. This kind of thing can't be happening at levels of the highest level of the office, right?
I'm sure it's happened in the past before we had access to soundbites and everything else. If you think President's before the Internet didn't attempt something like this, that is naive. But this is a bit more opaque, we can see it happening in real time. Like they said yesterday on the news, most congressmen/women will issue a statement, and move on. Nothing will be done about it.
|
On July 01 2017 01:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Yeah, it's almost like nuking the Medicaid expansion provisions of the ACA (which all of those do) is what is causing the insurance loss. How could that possibly reduce coverage? Must be CBO conspiracy (they've joined the "deep state" and probably have "tapes") Well, that and not hitting people over the stick to buy an expensive product they don't want. It was kinda fun seeing how quickly everybody went from the 'making insurance more affordable' and 'no disruption to current doctors and plan' to 'ignore how we fucked up insurance markets & the product being sold/available, focus on raw coverage numbers!!1!" That is because the bill that is being pushed doesn’t address those problems and puts a lot of services people use on the chopping block. We would be talking more about making healthcare affordable if that was the goal of this bill.
The CBO did say it made insurance more affordable in the same term as its coverage prediction. That fact still didn't make it earn my support or even come close.
|
On July 01 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all. When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes!
I would love a trustworthy source on that Medicaid does nothing for peoples access to healthcare compared to being uninsured.
Sounds an awful lot like the Fox News "They would have died anyway at some point" line.
|
On July 01 2017 01:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all. When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes! I would love a trustworthy source on that Medicaid does nothing for peoples access to healthcare compared to being uninsured. Sounds an awful lot like the Fox News "They would have died anyway at some point" line.
When I said health outcomes, I meant outcomes. You can say access to education in the US is great, but educational outcomes are piss-poor.
|
On July 01 2017 01:25 a_flayer wrote:
Dear god @ that whole extended Mika story - from the petty insults to women on Twitter to the National Enquirer stalking her children and the Joe Scarborough Whitehouse visit where he was told it could stop. Just unbelievable.
Horrifying from start to finish. This has got to be found out from start to finish with regards to any potential trace of communications between various parties to see what exactly happened & used in the impeachment. This kind of thing can't be happening at levels of the highest level of the office, right?
I mean this seriously, you should do a deep dive into the Nixon administration and the ramp up to him being impeached. From his sweeping victory in in 1972 to him resigning. The tactics he used were very similar to Trump, but he was better at them.
It will be a slow build. Yesterday the a republican controlled committee allowed floor debate of a democrat's amendment to end the 2001 authorization for force in the middle east. Out of no place, even she was surprised. That doesn't seem like a lot, but it is a big deal and likely not possible 6 months ago.
|
On July 01 2017 01:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:22 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Yeah, it's almost like nuking the Medicaid expansion provisions of the ACA (which all of those do) is what is causing the insurance loss. How could that possibly reduce coverage? Must be CBO conspiracy (they've joined the "deep state" and probably have "tapes") Well, that and not hitting people over the stick to buy an expensive product they don't want. It was kinda fun seeing how quickly everybody went from the 'making insurance more affordable' and 'no disruption to current doctors and plan' to 'ignore how we fucked up insurance markets & the product being sold/available, focus on raw coverage numbers!!1!" That is because the bill that is being pushed doesn’t address those problems and puts a lot of services people use on the chopping block. We would be talking more about making healthcare affordable if that was the goal of this bill. The CBO did say it made insurance more affordable in the same term as its coverage prediction. That fact still didn't make it earn my support or even come close.
But the political reality of this bill is that it cuts medical coverage for the poor to allow a tax cut for the rich. That is why the discussion centers around cuts, not affordability.
|
On July 01 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 01 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all. When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes! I would love a trustworthy source on that Medicaid does nothing for peoples access to healthcare compared to being uninsured. Sounds an awful lot like the Fox News "They would have died anyway at some point" line. When I said health outcomes, I meant outcomes. You can say access to education in the US is great, but educational outcomes are piss-poor.
Right, so your going with the Fox line of "Everyone dies at some point, access to healthcare doesn't stop that".
Does access to Medicaid allow these people access to healthcare sooner, and therefor cheaper and safer, then when they had to wait to land on the ER as an uninsured where the rest of society ends up paying the (higher) bill because they cant pay and we don't like to leave people dying in the streets because their poor?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
