US politics 2016: I can see Russia from my White House

[IamMe90]

14 minutes ago, The Brandon Stark said:

Not true. It can't get any more expensive than it is already and that along with keeping "children" until the age of 26 on a family health plan are two things that PEOTUS wants to keep.

It can, though. When insurance companies are allowed to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, that restricts choice for that segment of the population, allowing a small number of insurers to charge obscene prices for coverage because they know that people with preexisting conditions have no other choices. 

Also, obviously it can get more expensive. We already have COBRA, which is way more expensive than the options on the exchange. 

[all swedes are racist]

ya know the term "free market health care" is, like, a sick fucking joke

[LongRider]

2 minutes ago, r'hllor's dirtbag lobster said:

ya know the term "free market health care" is, like, a sick fucking joke

Free market healthcare = you can't afford it and it doesn't cover shit anyway. 

[ThinkerX]

Quote

Two Democratic electors from Colorado filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday, challenging a state law that requires they vote for the winner of the state's popular vote, the Denver Post reports.

Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich had pledged to support Democrat Hillary Clinton, the winner of Colorado's nine electoral votes.

But now they are joining so-called "Moral Electors" in other states and say they'll shift their Democratic votes to a consensus Republican pick -- if one emerges.

Been seeing a number of blurbs like this one lately:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/colorado-electors-sue-state-in-effort-to-block-trump/ar-AAleTuf?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=msnclassic

 

The previous one involved an elector from Texas. 

Won't make a difference, of course, but there might be some interesting fireworks.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, The Brandon Stark said:

If it is really based on free market health care than yes. And as far as inflation, it is way up. And good luck with the deductibles attached to Obamacare now. It has to go.

Oh yes, yes. please somebody from the "party of business" tell me about the "free market". Please explain that to me, I'm all ears.

Under the "free market" system to which you refer people with pre-existing conditions are going to pay a hell of lot higher premiums than they are now for the most part, even factoring in the current deductibles.

That's assuming of course people with pre-existing conditions can even get health insurance on the individual market of course.

As for healthcare inflation, here:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=c3Qx

And as far as employer sponsored healthcare goes, nope, not really when you look at pre-ACA averages.

The inflation that you are probably thinking about here is on the individual markets. But even with those inflation increases the premiums are mostly under CBO projections. And part of the problem here with the individual markets is because of the stupidity of Republican governors and getting rid of things like risk corridors, courtesy of the Republican Party.

The only thing that needs to go here is conservative nonsense.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, r'hllor's dirtbag lobster said:

ya know the term "free market health care" is, like, a sick fucking joke

It's also Republican speak for:

I have no idea as to what I'm talking about. Not a clue. And I'm not even gonna try.

So, I'll just mumble something about the "free market".

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's just ridiculous. It's one thing to stand up to those sorts of people and answer criticism with robust debate and strong defence of one's policies. But to resort to petty bully tactics that have nothing to do with the issues is wholly unsuitable and irresponsible.

There have been thousands of pages of very strong arguments against the behavior of corporations written over the past few decades. I don't know whether the corporations actually used up these pages for confetti at office parties celebrating the increase in inequality (which, for them, translates to record profits and stock prices), but even if they did not, the result is exactly the same. No, it is clear that trying to convince them of problems with anything that positively impacts their bottom line is a lost cause. It would be nice if somebody found Teddy's Big Stick and beat them with it, but, lacking that, we'll have to make do with Trump's bullying.

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

There have been thousands of pages of very strong arguments against the behavior of corporations written over the past few decades. I don't know whether the corporations actually used up these pages for confetti at office parties celebrating the increase in inequality (which, for them, translates to record profits and stock prices), but even if they did not, the result is exactly the same. No, it is clear that trying to convince them of problems with anything that positively impacts their bottom line is a lost cause. It would be nice if somebody found Teddy's Big Stick and beat them with it, but, lacking that, we'll have to make do with Trump's bullying.

So your biggest issue was inequality this cycle?

[Swordfish]

26 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Been seeing a number of blurbs like this one lately:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/colorado-electors-sue-state-in-effort-to-block-trump/ar-AAleTuf?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=msnclassic

 

The previous one involved an elector from Texas. 

Won't make a difference, of course, but there might be some interesting fireworks.

Utterly awful, and almost as frightening as Trumps election. 

Talk about a can of worms, this is a terrifying precedent.

[ThinkerX]

Florida is jumping in on the recount craze:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/florida-voters-sue-for-recount/ar-AAlbJKa

 

Well, sort of. 

 

Ok, highly unlikely, but given this, the other recounts, and a slowly increasing number of publically wavering Electors, just how big of a disaster are we looking at should the EC vote go against Trump? 

 

Also, even if Trump does win the EC (likely), then what happens should these recounts reveal serious election fraud issues? 

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Utterly awful, and almost as frightening as Trumps election. 

Talk about a can of worms, this is a terrifying precedent.

If it's a precedent that leads to getting rid of the EC, then maybe worth it in the long run.  

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, r'hllor's dirtbag lobster said:

ya know the term "free market health care" is, like, a sick fucking joke

It really is.  Too many people just cannot grasp what Kenneth Arrow pointed out many decades ago:  healthcare does not function like regular markets.

For the truly sick, medical procedures and drugs are extremely expensive, and this is true in just about any system; it's just a matter of degree. Insurance companies in a true market would have the perverse incentive of covering the people that need it least and not covering the people that need it most. An anti-market. 

[Altherion]

5 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

So your biggest issue was inequality this cycle?

More or less. The increasing concentration of wealth at the top is intrinsically the primary driver of a long list of problems and the efforts to maintain that increase generally take the form of divide-and-conquer thus generating an additional list and exacerbating much of the intrinsic one. The probability that Trump will make things better on this front is not large, but at the very least he serves as a warning that is much harder to ignore than most other expressions of rage.

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, Altherion said:

More or less. The increasing concentration of wealth at the top is intrinsically the primary driver of a long list of problems and the efforts to maintain that increase generally take the form of divide-and-conquer thus generating an additional list and exacerbating much of the intrinsic one. The probability that Trump will make things better on this front is not large, but at the very least he serves as a warning that is much harder to ignore than most other expressions of rage.

But his economic policies are a straight copy of the standard Republican tax cuts for the wealthy. Is that not a concern?

[Ormond]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

If it's a precedent that leads to getting rid of the EC, then maybe worth it in the long run.  

Not sure whether or not I think this is a good idea.

However, this might lead Congress to pass an amendment that would get rid of the Electoral College WITHOUT getting rid of "electoral votes." It would certainly be possible to have a system where the "electoral votes" as now allocated are simply cast as the state law directs them to be (either statewide or in the Maine/Nebraska system) without there being any human electors who have to show up in the state capitals to vote. 

[Dr. Pepper]

12 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Not sure whether or not I think this is a good idea.

However, this might lead Congress to pass an amendment that would get rid of the Electoral College WITHOUT getting rid of "electoral votes." It would certainly be possible to have a system where the "electoral votes" as now allocated are simply cast as the state law directs them to be (either statewide or in the Maine/Nebraska system) without there being any human electors who have to show up in the state capitals to vote. 

I assume Republican congress would either desire to keep the EC or keep the votes as you described above as it's the only way they will continue to hold the white house in the years and decades to come.  I imagine they'd be less likely to support a Maine/Nebraska system nationwide because that type of system wouldn't favor them as much as the current one that allows some people (predominately white people) to be worth more than everyone else.  

[TerraPrime]

41 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

But his economic policies are a straight copy of the standard Republican tax cuts for the wealthy. Is that not a concern?

The problem, of course, is Trump says whatever the hell he wants, and is not beholden to any of it. So, nobody really knows what he is going to do with any great certainty until he goes do it.

[Guest]

 This 21st Century Cures Act is not getting a ton of attention, but it is a very interesting bill that i'm leaning pretty heavily against.  Like ObamaCare, it's about a lot of things.

One thing is that it pumps billions of dollar back into the National Institutes of Health.  That is good.  But another thing it's about is speeding up drug approvals at the FDA.  This is a potential disaster. 

For one, there are already mechanisms to help people get experimental drugs that are still in trial.  For another, the scenario where a person dies because the cruel b'crats at the FDA didn't approve the life-saving medicine fast enough is comparable to the 24 nuclear bomb scenario:  exceedingly rare and a terrible justification for sweeping legislation.

And lastly, drugs are dangerous as shit.  In the status quo we do and will continue to see people harmed by unforseen consequences of approved drugs.  That will just happen more now if this passes.  This is complicated as it takes a while for drugs to be tested enough to know if they treat their indications.

ETA:   I didn't explain my point very well.  The problem is the fast-tracking of drug-approval which will undoubtedly lead to harm from adverse events not being well-enough understood before things get approved. 

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

But his economic policies are a straight copy of the standard Republican tax cuts for the wealthy. Is that not a concern?

1 hour ago, TerraPrime said:

The problem, of course, is Trump says whatever the hell he wants, and is not beholden to any of it. So, nobody really knows what he is going to do with any great certainty until he goes do it.

This is my point of view as well. He has said many standard Republican things, but so far he is not behaving like a standard Republican. Aside from the many examples which have already been mentioned, more of his inner circle appears to be from the military than is typical for most Presidents.

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

This is my point of view as well. He has said many standard Republican things, but so far he is not behaving like a standard Republican. Aside from the many examples which have already been mentioned, more of his inner circle appears to be from the military than is typical for most Presidents.

The appointment of Goldman Sachs employees to state positions does not alarm you?