U.S. Politics transition time how Orange became the new black

[Commodore]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Huh? Please explain this. Cause it seems it is pretty close to:

you're conflating insurance with care. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Commodore said:

you're conflating insurance with care. 

Yeah, I understand the difference. But, it just so happens people are able to get care largely because of insurance.

So what do you do about people with pre-existing conditions? Perhaps give them a government subsidy in those cases where their insurance won't cover their healthcare needs?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Yeah, I understand the difference. But, it just so happens people are able to get care largely because of insurance.

So what do you do about people with pre-existing conditions? Perhaps give them a government subsidy in those cases where their insurance won't cover their healthcare needs?

That might work without the Constitutional objections the mandates raise.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That might work without the Constitutional objections the mandates raise.

And you know Scott, I might be fine with that. But, it would the government providing insurance where the private market will not. And you know some people will cry "socialism" over that.

[TrackerNeil]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That might work without the Constitutional objections the mandates raise.

The ACA mandate is, according to the Supreme Court, a tax. Objections are still raised, sure, but they're pointless as the constitutional issue is settled.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

And you know Scott, I might be fine with that. But, it would the government providing insurance where the private market will not. And you know some people will cry "socialism" over that.

Meh.  It's a spectrum.  Always has been.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Meh.  It's a spectrum.  Always has been.

Reasonable people know that. But, not everyone is reasonable. Some people feel like they are living in Ayn Rand novel.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

The ACA mandate is, according to the Supreme Court, a tax. Objections are still raised, sure, but they're pointless as the constitutional issue is settled.

My prior objections to that decision remain firm.  The SCOTUS got that one wrong, in my opinion.

[Commodore]

8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

So what do you do about people with pre-existing conditions? 

charity

[Commodore]

5 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

The ACA mandate is, according to the Supreme Court, a tax. Objections are still raised, sure, but they're pointless as the constitutional issue is settled.

nothing is settled, court rulings can be overturned

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Commodore said:

charity

If charity is insufficient to address the problem?

[TrackerNeil]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

My prior objections to that decision remain firm.  The SCOTUS got that one wrong, in my opinion.

I get that, but in terms of policy it's not something to consider. Mandates of this sort are constitutionally permissable and may be reasonably considered when constructing policy.

Myself, I'm not convinced the mandate is necessary, given that about 82% of those who use the exchanges receive subsidies. I don't think that's something anyone knows, because as far as I know it's not been tested. If conservatives wanted to eliminate the mandate I'm not necessarily opposed, provided that other steps are taken to ensure that the pool of insureds remains viable. Ironically, I think the provision that young adults can remain on their parents' policies until age 26 might have kept lots of healthy people out of the exchanges, so maybe that's something to be adjusted.

[DunderMifflin]

32 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Don't straw man please, it just makes your arguments ridiculous. I was careful to say that an order that is demonstrably crazy may not fly. That still leaves a lot of possibilities. In other words, the UK would definitely not be nuked, but I'd be less certain about less friendly countries, if a serious crisis were to arise.

But the use of nuclear weapons through the end of the no-first-use policy isn't something that comes out of the blue. There was a move to make smaller, usable nuclear weapons under GWB that continued under Obama (in fact, such a move can be traced back to the eighties, but let's not go into details ). This is very well referenced. Combined with a president-elect who appears impulsive and amateurish, there is a real possibility that the US will revise its nuclear policy. We're not talking about an imminent apocalypse (after all, Trump appears to strongly desire developing ties with Russia), but about a concrete policy making the world a more dangerous place, and in some specific regions especially.

Coincidence: just as I writing this, I received a notification about an article by Michael Klare, a professor at Hampshire College, Amherst, about the rising tensions and the new (and worrying) nature of military plans for the next years.
The article is in French I'm afraid: http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2016/09/KLARE/56193
But a number of relevant sources are not:
- Paul Bernstein, « Putin’s Russia and US defense strategy » (PDF), National Defense University (NDU), Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), Washington, DC
- Alexander Mattelaer, « The NATO Warsaw summit : How to strengthen Alliance cohesion » (PDF), Strategic Forum, NDU- INSS
-  Remarks by Secretary Carter on the budget at the Economic Club of Washington, D.C
- Stephen Castle, « Theresa May wins votes to renew Britain’s nuclear program », The New York Times
- Maggie Haberman et David E. Sanger, « Donald Trump expounds on his foreign policy views », The New York Times

If I may say so, there's a huge difference between fear-mongering and being well-informed which I think you just don't understand.

Please state clearly what your argument is here so I'll be sure not to strawman it. Because as it stands now you just jumped into a discussion and changed it to what you wanted it to be about and claimed that I strawmanned you because I remained with my original argument.

My point which had remain consistent is that I don't see anything about Trump or his personality, or his Tweets that scare me anymore than any other President into thinking he's going to just launch a nuclear attack on a whim. Meaning, that the scenario here is something like --- he's planning on not using nuclear weapons at all, everything's going smoothly and all of a sudden a foreign leader says he has small hands. Then Trump goes into a rage and says "I don't have small hands! That's it! You are about to get nuked!"

The articles you linked are not about impulse and doing things on whims. They are talking in context of calculated planning.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Commodore said:

charity

[TrackerNeil]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Exactly. "Charity" in this context means, "Not my problem."

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

Exactly. "Charity" in this context means, "Not my problem."

Yep. Spewing out Ayn Rand libertarian horseshit.

Sorry Republican Party, I'm not going back to the late 19th Century. I don't think a lot of other people are willingly to that either.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said:

Please state clearly what your argument is here so I'll be sure not to strawman it. Because as it stands now you just jumped into a discussion and changed it to what you wanted it to be about and claimed that I strawmanned you because I remained with my original argument.

My point which had remain consistent is that I don't see anything about Trump or his personality, or his Tweets that scare me anymore than any other President into thinking he's going to just launch a nuclear attack on a whim. Meaning, that the scenario here is something like --- he's planning on not using nuclear weapons at all, everything's going smoothly and all of a sudden a foreign leader says he has small hands. Then Trump goes into a rage and says "I don't have small hands! That's it! You are about to get nuked!"

Trump is petulant, whiney, and entitled.  He's narcissistic in the extreme.  His behaviors, twitter included, demonstrate this.  Hence, our concern.

[TrackerNeil]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Yep. Spewing out Ayn Rand libertarian horseshit.

Sorry Republican Party, I'm not going back to the late 19th Century. I don't think a lot of other people are willingly to that either.

Also, the uninsured are indeed my problem, and everyone else's...unless of course we propose to let them die untreated. Then there is no problem with the uninsured, because they're dead. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If charity is insufficient to address the problem?

I just want to play this out a little bit more.  Why do economically rational people give to charity?  (Assuming for a moment, such an animal exists, which it doesn't)- either because it benefits them from a pecuniary standpoint (e.g., through a tax deduction), a social standpoint (they get their name on a fancy buidling or otherwise it improves or maintains social standing within a community- think of religious giving - the Mormon tithe etc.), or it makes them "feel good" (how utilitarian of me).  The first is at base a government subsidy.  Note that it doesn't direct the giving, so one gets the same benefit from donating to the Metropolitan Opera as one does to Memorial Sloan Kettering.  The second isn't a universal experience, and in fact I would guess this is declining with declines in church membership and the proliferation of charitable organizations.  The third is a motivator, and can be powerful (see go fund me campaigns), BUT, that won't necessarily help a 50 year pack a day smoker with emphysema.  The "feel good" motivator isn't there the same way that there is for "kids with cancer", e.g..  

[Commodore]

1 minute ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I just want to play this out a little bit more.  Why do economically rational people give to charity?  

because they want to help people?