EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 618
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
 | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On August 17 2018 00:25 Plansix wrote: The idea that we would expand Medicare and not address any of the issues with Medicare during the process is really silly. The topic would come up during the numerous hearing related to the expansion. Political capital and time are limited resources. My perspective is that both would be better spent on a list of relatively straightforward items with immediate impact, rather than another massive overhaul. The bulk of the ACA was already fleshed out before Obama was even elected, and it still took years to revise and refine. I've said it before - with non-limited time and resources, I'd probably be all for a government-run, single payer system. But we don't, so we have to prioritize. As you said, our system is in ruins. Pushing for M4A is like designing your next dream house while the house you're in is collapsing and on fire. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 17 2018 00:40 ticklishmusic wrote: Political capital and time are limited resources. My perspective is that both would be better spent on a list of relatively straightforward items with immediate impact, rather than another massive overhaul. The bulk of the ACA was already fleshed out before Obama was even elected, and it still took years to revise and refine. I've said it before - with non-limited time and resources, I'd probably be all for a government-run, single payer system. But we don't, so we have to prioritize. As you said, our system is in ruins. Pushing for M4A is like designing your next dream house while the house you're in is collapsing and on fire. We have to do both. Medicare regulations and policies have to be reformed and the ACA needs an update badly. If Medicare for all translates highlights the issues an gets the country discussion how much Medicare already does. This is the problem with the democrats and the left. People are shooting down ideas before the election takes place. People want to blow up the ACA and make Medicare for all, or stop the discussion about Medicare for all. Win first, then govern. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
In fact, I'm not sure I've seen a single politician whose proposal is just "make all Americans eligible for Medicare." I don't think there's any Dems *quite* that Trumpian yet. It's a very weird slogan to me because it is basically guaranteed to turn off people who already have Medicare until they decide to take it figuratively not literally, but there you go. Branding usually ends up that way though. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
How to Watch Ajit Pai Get Grilled by Congress Over Made-Up FCC Cyberattack On Thursday, Ajit Pai will have his first appearance before a Senate oversight committee since an internal report revealed the FCC has been falsely claiming its comment system was hit by a cyberattack last year. It’s going to be good and you can watch it live this morning starting at 10am Eastern. For more than a year, the FCC has claimed its website was hit by a DDoS attack that disabled its system for allowing the public to comment on its proposal to repeal net neutrality. Despite the numerous issues with the legally-mandated commenting process, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai barreled forward with his plans to kill the open internet and secured approval last December. All the while, he maintained that a cyberattack had occurred and the FCC was powerless to do anything about it. Earlier this month the FCC’s inspector general concluded an investigation into the attacks and found the whole story was hogwash. Despite the FCC being aware that it should expect a tremendous influx of traffic, it did not prepare for the flood of legitimate Americans who wanted to express their disapproval of the Title II repeal. Pai has previously testified to Congress that the phony cyberattack occurred and has since placed all the blame on his chief information officer. If a letter sent to Pai by Democrats from the Energy & Commerce Committee on Tuesday is any indication, members of the Senate aren’t buying it. So, get your popcorn ready. This guy has been spreading nonsense since he took office and it appears he might finally be held accountable. You can stream the hearing live at the Senate Commerce Oversight Committee’s website or over on C-SPAN. We’ll be watching along and covering the grilling all day. Source And this is apparently going on now. We know that he will likely keep his job and no one will be punished for this, but he denied US voters the right to publicly comment on a regulation change. This is every problem conservatives have with goverment agencies ruling imperial given form and with lies tacked on for good measure. The real question is if the the denial of the public comment period is grounds to challenge the repeal as it is. Would a legal challenge prevail? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On August 17 2018 02:00 TheTenthDoc wrote: "Medicare for all" is just a branding slogan. Many of the common threads through the various proposals (no premiums, limited or capped copays on prescriptions, etc.) are completely divorced from what Medicare actually is and has always been. It's much closer to "Medicaidcare for all" than anything else, but Medicaid is heavily stigmatized so they can't afford to include that. It's a very weird slogan to me because it is basically guaranteed to turn off people who already have Medicare until they decide to take it figuratively not literally, but there you go. Branding usually ends up that way though. Use of the word stigmatized belies the extent to which Medicaid is substantively criticized for, among other things, giving state governments far too much leeway when it comes to implementation and rulemaking. Folks don't want to use the Medicaid label because Medicaid is bad. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On August 17 2018 02:07 farvacola wrote: Use of the word stigmatized belies the extent to which Medicaid is substantively criticized for, among other things, giving state governments far too much leeway when it comes to implementation and rulemaking. Folks don't want to use the Medicaid label because Medicaid is bad. But if you're going to remove premiums and copays for anything besides hospitalization, you're a federal Medicaid. 3/4 of the parts of Medicare (everything besides catastrophic coverage) requires premiums and copays (well, Part C may or may not have copays depending on which you pick). Virtually all of the plans implement a Medicaid payment model because it sounds way nicer as long as you pretend it's Medicare. It's just such a weird bit of pseudo-generational warfare to call it "Medicare for all" when in reality the individual experience of Medicare would be drastically shifted that I have to wonder the degree to which it's an intelligent gamble vs. the degree to which it's stupidity. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
And to the fly-by poster praising tax cuts... if the right was serious about helping working families, they would champion getting rid of FICA- a truly regressive tax, instead of more windfalls to the wealthy. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On August 17 2018 02:17 TheTenthDoc wrote: But if you're going to remove premiums and copays for anything besides hospitalization, you're a federal Medicaid. 3/4 of the parts of Medicare (everything besides catastrophic coverage) requires premiums and copays (well, Part C may or may not have copays depending on which you pick). Virtually all of the plans implement a Medicaid payment model because it sounds way nicer as long as you pretend it's Medicare. It's just such a weird bit of pseudo-generational warfare to call it "Medicare for all" when in reality the individual experience of Medicare would be drastically shifted that I have to wonder the degree to which it's an intelligent gamble vs. the degree to which it's stupidity. The "medically needy" spendown eligibility game that is played by folks just over the income/asset eligibility threshold basically mimics a copay system anyway, so I'm not sure your distinction holds. Further, I'm pretty sure at least a few states still require copays even among the eligible, but don't have the info in front of me. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On August 17 2018 02:42 Plansix wrote: FICA is the act that requires the collection of several taxes through pay roll. Can we assume you mean all of those taxes? Yes. It is a regressive tax that should be abolished! As much as the right claims to love their tax cuts, they never seem to champion tax cuts for the working class. It is another remnant of the gold standard which is no longer necessary and does not fund federal programs. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 17 2018 02:45 screamingpalm wrote: Yes. It is a regressive tax that should be abolished! As much as the right claims to love their tax cuts, they never seem to champion tax cuts for the working class. I wouldn’t mind paying less for SS and Medicaid. But I’m not in the abolish all “regressive” taxes camp, as it is important for everyone to have some skin in the game, even a little. Those with more money should just have to pay more, rather than receive tax cut after tax cut. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On August 17 2018 02:44 farvacola wrote: The "medically needy" spendown eligibility game that is played by folks just over the income/asset eligibility threshold basically mimics a copay system anyway, so I'm not sure your distinction holds. Further, I'm pretty sure at least a few states still require copays even among the eligible, but don't have the info in front of me. Well, any sort of eligibility spenddown is obviously irrelevant if we enter the space of "everyone is eligible." Back when I was seeing people pay for prescriptions every day Medicaid drug copays were generally capped to about ~3.25 at max for specialty items or 1.15 for most items, which is vastly less than you would expect to pay with a typical Part D plan (apparently it's capped at 8 and 4 dollars nationally). Then you have deductibles out the whazoo with Medicare at virtually every level. The only insurance plan that was closer to what these policies describe as Medicare for all at the copay level than the various Medicaid plans was Tricare (though Tricare still has premiums). But most don't know what Tricare is so I don't think that rallying cry would catch on. But at least it wouldn't ring so hollow to all the people who already have Medicare. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10163 Posts
On August 17 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote: So... progressive taxes ?I wouldn’t mind paying less for SS and Medicaid. But I’m not in the abolish all “regressive” taxes camp, as it is important for everyone to have some skin in the game, even a little. Those with more money should just have to pay more, rather than receive tax cut after tax cut. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 17 2018 03:33 Godwrath wrote: So... progressive taxes ? Yes, the more functional tax policy. Rather than the cut revenue and spend policies of the Republican party. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On August 17 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote: I wouldn’t mind paying less for SS and Medicaid. But I’m not in the abolish all “regressive” taxes camp, as it is important for everyone to have some skin in the game, even a little. Those with more money should just have to pay more, rather than receive tax cut after tax cut. That's a lesser evil I suppose, but the problem with FICA, is that it makes people believe that taxes are necessary to pay for federal spending. You can still have your Calvinism with state and local taxes (where revenue is actually necessary). :D | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 17 2018 03:51 screamingpalm wrote: That's a lesser evil I suppose, but the problem with FICA, is that it makes people believe that taxes are necessary to pay for federal spending. You can still have your Calvinism with state and local taxes (where revenue is actually necessary). :D I would rather have a population that believes money must be collected for federal spending to take place than one that believes the government can just print unlimited money to solve any spending problem. Mostly people barely have a grasp on how economies work, so the latter option is prone to instability and poor management. | ||
| ||
