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

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

34 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Your claims are what exactly?

1. Life was grand before the ACA if you had pre-existing condition?

2. The ACA has caused an increase in employer sponsored healthcare premiums over their historical averages before the ACA?

3. Cost sharing have gone up over their historical averages because of the ACA?

4. The premium raises on the invidual market are out of control?

As far as the situation in Kentucky, that wouldn't possibly have anything to do with Bevins would it? Who vowed to destroy it? And couldn't possibly have anything to do with Republicans taking out the risk corridor provision could it?

You really, even though, the law ain't perfect the basic idea behind the law, getting more people to sign up for insurance with the mandate, so you didn't have to deny people insurance with pre-existing conditions was sound. The use of risk corridors was sound until the Republican Party got rid of it.

What can't end fast enough here is the Republican nonsense over the ACA.

 

Not to answer for Rhom, but I think many of the responses here have been unnecessarily defensive and more than a bit harsh. I think he's saying that he and his family are having issues with the ACA. If you think that's limited to folks making 100k+, I think you're fooling yourselves. I work at a large HMO, and I come across these issues frequently, with patients of all ages and varied financial status.It truly is a flawed system in many ways. I get that the intention was good, but I can't agree that it was implemented well. 

[Dr. Pepper]

14 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Trump sez he wants to cancel the contract for Boeing to build the new Air Force One.  That's tremendous. 

Can't help but wonder if he's screaming about this because he doesn't want people to keep talking about how much money is being paid (some of it directly to him) to protect his wife and child since they won't be moving into the white house.

[DMC]

Just now, Yukle said:

Out of curiousity, how come the SCOTUS is appointed on the advice of the President? Aren't most judiciaries in the United States elected?

I'm not criticising this, I think that's a working, logical and efficient system. I'm just wondering why.

The Founders wanted an independent (i.e. unelected) judiciary.  Granted, judicial review was not established until Marbury v. Madison (1803), but that was clearly the intent - See Federalist Paper #78.

It is true many states have elected justices - although what's currently en vogue is what's known as the Missouri, or "merit" plan, wherein a panel of "qualified and nonpartisan" (read: elite lawyers) give a list to the governor to appoint appellate justices, then they are subject to retention (up or down vote) elections every ten years.  The normative implications of elected justices (as opposed to the "independence" of appointed judges) rankles many jurists - most prominently Sandra Day O'Connor - on the grounds that it threatens the courts' legitimacy, but most empirical studies find little difference in their objective performance IRT productivity, decisions overturned by higher courts, or even ideological voting.  Of course I'm biased, one of my advisors (I'm a PhD candidate) has made a career out of arguing for judicial elections.  Here's a link to a WaPo op-ed he published five years ago.

[LongRider]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Can't help but wonder if he's screaming about this because he doesn't want people to keep talking about how much money is being paid (some of it directly to him) to protect his wife and child since they won't be moving into the white house.

Could be.  But canceling the contract would put Americans Out of Work!^TM   That said, I doubt it will happen, but yeah, could be a diversion for other crap he's pulling.

[Crazydog7]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Can't help but wonder if he's screaming about this because he doesn't want people to keep talking about how much money is being paid (some of it directly to him) to protect his wife and child since they won't be moving into the white house.

 

I just keep praying he doesn't put a big T on it and try to name it "Trump House" or something.  This is like the worst reality TV pitch ever and its unfolding in real time.  Remarkable. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Not to answer for Rhom, but I think many of the responses here have been unnecessarily defensive and more than a bit harsh. I think he's saying that he and his family are having issues with the ACA. If you think that's limited to folks making 100k+, I think you're fooling yourselves. I work at a large HMO, and I come across these issues frequently, with patients of all ages and varied financial status.It truly is a flawed system in many ways. I get that the intention was good, but I can't agree that it was implemented well. 

The thing is though I've had to sit here for six years and hear the Republican Party tell some mighty big whoppers about the ACA. And to no small extent, some of the problems that the ACA has had, has been the result of Republican governors not implementing it in good faith in their states. And things like the Republican Party eliminating the risk corridor provisions were not helpful.

That's why I get mighty defensive and harsh.

I'm aware the bill has some technical problems. And I am certainly aware that the group that is realistically having the hardest time with the bill are folks like Rohm, who are well off enough not to get subsidies for the individual market, which are facing rising premiums (which though are largely still below CBO projections).

Also, before, the ACA we had a purely employer sponsored healthcare system. And I truly kind of dislike the the employer based system. For one it locks people into employers. Secondly it had a tendency to subsidize people that were already doing fairly well.

The ACA while not perfect was a step in the right direction. Sure it has problems. I don't mind a good faith discussion about it. But a lot of the Republican noise about it hasn't been in good faith.

And by the way, before the ACA the US spent about 17% of it's GDP on healthcare compared to say maybe 11-13% average in Europe and had little to show for it. Didn't stop some conservatives from saying that we had "the best healthcare system in the world" though.

 

[Yukle]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

The normative implications of elected justices (as opposed to the "independence" of appointed judges) rankles many jurists - most prominently Sandra Day O'Connor - on the grounds that it threatens the courts' legitimacy, but most empirical studies find little difference in their objective performance IRT productivity, decisions overturned by higher courts, or even ideological voting.

That makes sense. And thanks for the explanation.

Having elections for them is probably more effort than it's worth. As you say, it's not likely to make any difference in the results of court cases. Judges have ideological leans, but they're not predisposed to a position before a case comes before them. The judges under consideration are all going to take each decision as it comes, not in advance.

That said, I think that appointed judges can be appointed independently. As can judges who are voted. They are two different means of making an independent decision, it's just one of them is more cumbersome than the other while having a higher probability of being representative.

[Mexal]

23 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Can't help but wonder if he's screaming about this because he doesn't want people to keep talking about how much money is being paid (some of it directly to him) to protect his wife and child since they won't be moving into the white house.

Think it has more to do with the article in the Chicago Tribune where Boeing CEO was criticizing Trump's trade policies. Trump tweeted about Air Force One thirty minutes after that article was published and it came out of nowhere. 

This is what's scary. If you criticize Trump, he'll use his pulpit to try to damage you. He's a bully and he's going to use the presidency to take it to the next level.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

18 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

The Founders wanted an independent (i.e. unelected) judiciary.  Granted, judicial review was not established until Marbury v. Madison (1803), but that was clearly the intent - See Federalist Paper #78.

It is true many states have elected justices - although what's currently en vogue is what's known as the Missouri, or "merit" plan, wherein a panel of "qualified and nonpartisan" (read: elite lawyers) give a list to the governor to appoint appellate justices, then they are subject to retention (up or down vote) elections every ten years.  The normative implications of elected justices (as opposed to the "independence" of appointed judges) rankles many jurists - most prominently Sandra Day O'Connor - on the grounds that it threatens the courts' legitimacy, but most empirical studies find little difference in their objective performance IRT productivity, decisions overturned by higher courts, or even ideological voting.  Of course I'm biased, one of my advisors (I'm a PhD candidate) has made a career out of arguing for judicial elections.  Here's a link to a WaPo op-ed he published five years ago.

I hate elected judges.  The idea of judges "running" for office based on the way they plan to officiate turns my stomach.  If ever there was a position that shouldn't be subject to the whims of popularity it is the Judiciary.

[LongRider]

8 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Think it has more to do with the article in the Chicago Tribune where Boeing CEO was criticizing Trump's trade policies. Trump tweeted about Air Force One thirty minutes after that article was published and it came out of nowhere. 

This is what's scary. If you criticize Trump, he'll use his pulpit to try to damage you. He's a bully and he's going to use the presidency to take it to the next level.

Thanks, I knew there had to be more to this but only looked at headlines today.  Usually have NPR on the radio for the drive to work but listened to a CD instead because I didn't want to hear talk of the PEOTUS.  Just looked at headlines at work and saw that, and it was enough to turn my stomach. 

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Yukle said:

As you say, it's not likely to make any difference in the results of court cases. Judges have ideological leans, but they're not predisposed to a position before a case comes before them. The judges under consideration are all going to take each decision as it comes, not in advance.

Well, that makes you far less cynical than me.  But, yes, the point is the constraints imposed upon an elected vs. an appointed appellate judge in overextending their ideological dispositions via opinions/votes are identical.  That's why I'm ambivalent on the matter.  The argument for judicial elections is simply a democratic one - affording citizens an increased say in how their government is run.  Granted, considering ballot roll-off and the abysmal turn out of off-cycle elections, such an ideal is somewhat farcical.

To be clear, neither I nor the advisor I cited advocates for the election of SCOTUS members (or any federal judges, for that matter).  Outside the military, the courts are basically the last institution left with some semblance of trust from public opinion.  Anyway, the point is obviously moot.  SCOTUS has spent two centuries cultivating a perception of being "above politics" with the public - primarily because it is essential to their authority (since, as Hamilton put it, they possess neither the power of the purse nor the sword) - and that legitimacy is precious, especially right now.

[Dr. Pepper]

17 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Think it has more to do with the article in the Chicago Tribune where Boeing CEO was criticizing Trump's trade policies. Trump tweeted about Air Force One thirty minutes after that article was published and it came out of nowhere. 

This is what's scary. If you criticize Trump, he'll use his pulpit to try to damage you. He's a bully and he's going to use the presidency to take it to the next level.

Oh wow, I didn't know that.  I've been very light with my news reading recently as I really needed to limit the constant anger and fear I've been experiencing with current events.  This is really scary, really terrifying.  

[Yukle]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

SCOTUS has spent two centuries cultivating a perception of being "above politics" with the public - primarily because it is essential to their authority (since, as Hamilton put it, they possess neither the power of the purse nor the sword) - and that legitimacy is precious, especially right now.

That's a fair assessment. In fact, they're not especially well paid - especially given what they could earn in private firms with their expertise. It's probably fair to say that their authority and trust partly comes from the fact that they are far more likely to be motivated by the pursuit of a just cause than a typical member of the judicial system.

But, as you say, I'm probably less cynical about it. Maybe even naive, but I'd prefer to think the best.

[LongRider]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Oh wow, I didn't know that.  I've been very light with my news reading recently as I really needed to limit the constant anger and fear I've been experiencing with current events.  This is really scary, really terrifying.  

Yanno, I feel like that too, and it's just been less than a month since the election.  Ugh.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I hate elected judges.  The idea of judges "running" for office based on the way they plan to officiate turns my stomach.  If ever there was a position that shouldn't be subject to the whims of popularity it is the Judiciary.

I agree in theory it is unbecoming, but this also rests on the assumption appointed judges are significantly different than elected justices in their aims, capabilities, or judicial philosophy.  The fact is they're not.  That being said, I do (strongly) agree that the court of last resort (i.e. SCOTUS) should not be subject to the tyranny of the majority.  After all, checking that is why primarily why they were conceived in the first place.

3 minutes ago, Yukle said:

But, as you say, I'm probably less cynical about it. Maybe even naive, but I'd prefer to think the best.

Considering what I have to deal with day by day, I sincerely appreciate your relative lack of cynicism! 

[Altherion]

21 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Think it has more to do with the article in the Chicago Tribune where Boeing CEO was criticizing Trump's trade policies. Trump tweeted about Air Force One thirty minutes after that article was published and it came out of nowhere. 

This is what's scary. If you criticize Trump, he'll use his pulpit to try to damage you. He's a bully and he's going to use the presidency to take it to the next level.

As long as this behavior is restricted to CEOs, media personalities, etc., I have absolutely no problem with it. In fact, part of the reason Trump was elected is that he showed a willingness to stand up to that sort of people.

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, Rhom said:

I agree with this. 

I just don't see how anyone can say that any system that leads to a situation where one private company has a monopoly on the market is a good thing.

It isn't. It is the biggest failure of the ACA. It is also not at all the ACA's fault, and won't be fixed if the ACA goes away. In fact, it will likely be worse and you'll have fewer options than you do now at far more expensive results. 

And it isn't a good thing because it resulted in this. It's a good thing because it expanded coverage and allowed 20 million more people health care. There are problems aplenty with it, and I'm empathetic to that - but if you can't see how giving 7% of the US coverage when they didn't have it is a good thing, I'm not sure what to tell you.

4 hours ago, Rhom said:

The drawback is the lack of choice.  There are hundreds of insurance companies contracted to do business in the State of Kentucky.  And only one is offering a plan?  There's something wrong with that.

Can she find someone else?  Perhaps, but in her experience its never been an easy thing to do.

The lack of choice is due to the restrictions on the type of care - things like being forced to offer pre-existing condition coverage and being forced to cover certain things like...arthritis. Another question I have is what is stopping you from getting a plan from these other insurers? I realize they aren't part of the ACA, but if they're offering coverage in state, you can get that, right?

[Crazydog7]

1 hour ago, LongRider said:

Thanks, I knew there had to be more to this but only looked at headlines today.  Usually have NPR on the radio for the drive to work but listened to a CD instead because I didn't want to hear talk of the PEOTUS.  Just looked at headlines at work and saw that, and it was enough to turn my stomach. 

 

I'm right there with you with the sensations in the stomach but apathy is a real danger as well.  Don't get disgusted and tune out get FUCKING angry and come up with a better message for next time. 

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Think it has more to do with the article in the Chicago Tribune where Boeing CEO was criticizing Trump's trade policies. Trump tweeted about Air Force One thirty minutes after that article was published and it came out of nowhere. 

This is what's scary. If you criticize Trump, he'll use his pulpit to try to damage you. He's a bully and he's going to use the presidency to take it to the next level.

Oh, now that's interesting. I hadn't read that particular twist.

 

59 minutes ago, Altherion said:

As long as this behavior is restricted to CEOs, media personalities, etc., I have absolutely no problem with it. In fact, part of the reason Trump was elected is that he showed a willingness to stand up to that sort of people.

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.

[LongRider]

1 minute ago, Crazydog7 said:

 

I'm right there with you with the sensations in the stomach but apathy is a real danger as well.  Don't get disgusted and tune out get FUCKING angry and come up with a better message for next time. 

I've got anger fatigue.  That's my message. Better enough for you?