U.S. Politics: Russian Around

[Kalbear]

30 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think that was mostly true until he started to press for it. I think once he kind of puts his name or support to something, then it gets personal for him. I believe as you do that he doesn't really give a shit about it per se, but he does give a shit about perception. WE HAVE TO START WINNING! 

That's certainly true, but this wasn't his major plan and he fucking hates Ryan. If Ryan goes down in flames he can always say that Ryan didn't do his job that well, and he'll happily spin this as being a disaster for Democrats and continue to wail on it that way. 

He wants this out of the way one way or another so he can get to his major tax cuts in FY 2018, which (he believes) have to come after the ACA repeal. They don't, but that's what he thinks. So he wants it done. 

ETA: another reason to suspect that my interpretation is correct is that he doesn't want people calling it TrumpCare.

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

There's 23 House Republicans in districts won by Clinton. Gerrymandering helps protect the Republican majority, but it is not invincible. And gerrymandering falls apart quickly if voter preferences change; as Democrats in Arkansas found out after 2010.

I'd love that to be true, but I've seen almost no sign that this is the case, and that always implies a competent Democratic organization. 

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

Also, I think you're ignoring the extent to which Trump's breaks with Republican orthodoxy in the campaign helped him. He campaigned on protecting entitlement programs because those programs are popular; and Clinton never attacked him on those issues. It wasn't the core of his message, but it was there. And his breaking of those campaign promises will hurt him with some of his voters; especially the ones who had voted for Obama in past elections.

I think some of it helped him, sure - mostly because he let people believe things would be fine so they could vote for him. But make no mistake - his base doesn't care that much about the end result of repealing ACA and doesn't really care that much about the ACA at all - they care more about ObamaCare being gone because of the name, not the care. 

They rallied behind Trump because of fear of immigrants and being left behind and the othering of their world. Many of the supporters never dreamed that Trump would ever repeal the ACA because of course, it's too important - but they were willing to accept that possibility to get more of what they wanted, which was better job security, more immigrants gone and feeling safer about terrorism. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Swordfish said:

In the short term perhaps.  Not sure that's true if you consider 'lifetime spending'.  I'll do some googling.

Let's say the government passes a law that says no more caps on lifetime or yearly spending and then does nothing else. No subsidies no redistribution. Nothing.

I'd suspect insurance companies to be sophisticated enough to know how that would affect their cost and hence what to charge. So, I don't see that generally altering what I was saying.

Now, suppose the government now gives subsidies for insurance. Then, that probably changes what I said.

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Fragile Bird said:

Hey, I was singing along! Great stuff!

 

Just now, Nasty LongRider said:

Goofy is good. Well done. 

Thanks guys.

[The Wedge]

32 minutes ago, Fez said:

There's 23 House Republicans in districts won by Clinton. Gerrymandering helps protect the Republican majority, but it is not invincible. And gerrymandering falls apart quickly if voter preferences change; as Democrats in Arkansas found out after 2010.

I'm in one of those 23 districts.  Got gerrymandered into it after the last census and redistricting.

My US Representative is the odious Peter Roskam. Carries all the water for the GOP and is one of the main Ways/Means members always on CNBC or where ever talking up the Tax Reform (read - more cuts for the top 1%) that's on its way.

Hopefully the 50 percent that voted for HRC in our district figure out that they also need to vote in the same direction for their local rep in 2018.

[Kalbear]

Here's a reasonable argument for TrumpCare being a bill designed  to fail - purposely.

Quote

 

But if you flip the intention — if you assume Republican leaders want to see a repeal-and-replace bill die in the Senate so they can say they tried and move on to tax reform — all of a sudden, it makes much more sense. It explains why more time wasn’t spent getting the bill right. It explains why they’re going so fast. It explains why they don’t care what the Congressional Budget Office says. It explains why they aren’t doing the outreach that would normally buffer them from this backlash.

Why would they want their own bill to fail? Well, consider the predicament they’re in. Republicans have spent seven years promising to repeal and replace Obamacare. They won election after election atop that vow. But now that they have the power to make good, they’ve run into three problems. First, Obamacare has become popular. Second, they don’t have an alternative plan that would make good on their promise to provide more people with more generous health care at lower cost. Third, implementing a repeal-and-replace plan — with all the complexity and disruption that entails — will drown the rest of the GOP’s agenda, and perhaps its congressional majority. Arguably, the best outcome for Republicans is to try — hard — and fail.

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Here's a reasonable argument for TrumpCare being a bill designed  to fail - purposely.

Cool theory. I hope it's right. *Fingers crossed*

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Cool theory. I hope it's right. *Fingers crossed*

It's not a particularly good thing if that happens either, mind you. With there not being any actual reform in the healthcare industry and no one being punished for not carrying insurance (as Trump signed an EO for that) the insurance companies will withdraw significantly from marginal markets, though the bigger markets will likely do pretty well for a while. You'll also see more people just buy insurance when they need it instead of keeping it all the time, which will hurt.

But it will save the medicaid expansion, and that's good.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

It's not a particularly good thing if that happens either, mind you. With there not being any actual reform in the healthcare industry and no one being punished for not carrying insurance (as Trump signed an EO for that) the insurance companies will withdraw significantly from marginal markets, though the bigger markets will likely do pretty well for a while. You'll also see more people just buy insurance when they need it instead of keeping it all the time, which will hurt.

But it will save the medicaid expansion, and that's good.

Better than the alternative of it passing though.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Kalbear said:

 ETA: another reason to suspect that my interpretation is correct is that he doesn't want people calling it TrumpCare.

I was kinda thinkin I'd call it "Chump Care"

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well it certainly isn't painfully obvious to me that single payer would end up costing us more and producing worse outcomes.

And it's isn't painfully obvious that that things were worse after the ACA than before. And it isn't painfully obvious to me that Medicare has higher administrative cost than private insurance.

To people like Paul Ryan, all this might seem "painfully obvious" but to everyone else, not so much.

Well it's a damn good thing I didn't claim any of those things were painfully obvious, now isn't it?  Otherwise we'd be in a disagreement.

[Which Tyler]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

In the short term perhaps.  Not sure that's true if you consider 'lifetime spending'.  I'll do some googling.

On average, of course it's true, otherwise the insurance company doesn't earn enough to cover it's operating costs, let alone turn a profit.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Swordfish said:

Well it's a damn good thing I didn't claim any of those things were painfully obvious, now isn't it?  Otherwise we'd be in a disagreement.

Well that's good to know. Cause Rand Paul was looking for his healthcare policy talking points sheet and I was going to tell him you had it.

I'll call him and let him know you don't.

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Which Tyler said:

On average, of course it's true, otherwise the insurance company doesn't earn enough to cover it's operating costs, let alone turn a profit.

Well, no, not exactly.  You just need enough people paying more than they use at the current time.  This is one of the reasons for some of the rates climbing.  The pool of older people who require more medical coverage is growing.  They can continue to make a profit by simply raising rates as demographics change.

 

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Well that's good to know. Cause Rand Paul was looking for his healthcare policy talking points sheet and I was going to tell him you had it.

I'll call him and let him know you don't.

Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning i see.

If you can't, or are unwilling to, understand why there are legitimate concerns about handing over my healthcare coverage to the whims of someone like trump and the republican congress, than I really don't know what to tell you.  

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Swordfish said:

Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning i see.

If you can't, or are unwilling to, understand why there are legitimate concerns about handing over my healthcare coverage to the whims of someone like trump and the republican congress, than I really don't know what to tell you.  

Well, I certainly don't want Trump or the Republicans to touch healthcare, if they are going to keep on with their nonsense. 

I guess I haven't been clear enough about not liking their plan.

So, let me just take the opportunity to to be clear:

I don't like Trump's or the Republicans healthcare "plan". And I really really mean it!!!!

[Which Tyler]

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Well, no, not exactly.  You just need enough people paying more than they use at the current time.  This is one of the reasons for some of the rates climbing.  The pool of older people who require more medical coverage is growing.  They can continue to make a profit by simply raising rates as demographics change.

 

So... average lifetime spend needs to be more than average lifetime take then

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well, I certainly don't want Trump or the Republicans to touch healthcare, if they are going to keep on with their nonsense. 

I guess I haven't been clear enough about not liking their plan.

So, let me just take the opportunity to to be clear:

I don't like Trump's or the Republicans healthcare "plan". And I really really mean it!!!!

Sure.  I get that.  but you can't(obviously) predict who is going to have their fingers in your healthcare plan if you hand it over to the government.  Thats a legitimate concern for people, and you handwaving it away or trying to snark over it is completely nonsensical, since the concern is becoming reality as we speak.

This is a matter of practicality.  the fact is, for a lot of people, myself included, government involvement (The ACA) has made their health insurance situation worse, and with the current slew of nincompoops tinkering the hope that that trend is not going to continue is nonexistant.  You can sit in an ivory tower and wax poetic about the glory of UHC, but in the real world, there are genuine concerns about it.

But by all means, go ahead and continue to just be smug about it.  That kind of attitude is clearly working out really well for the left.

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Business Insider had an article on this earlier this week. It certainly sounds like Mathew Boyle has editorial independence from Bannon, regardless of what Bannon wants.

After reading it I have to agree, although it's also clear that Bannon perceived himself as still having some control. Guess that's not the case, at least not now. 

Also, Boyle sounds absolutely insane. 

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

But Trump prefers his underlings to compete and fight for his favor.  Just because Pence and Price are pushing the AHCA doesn't mean Bannon is.  The White House isn't united on much of anything these days, this is the new normal.

In general this is true, but I doubt he'd want that to occur over the first major piece of legislation he might sign. Something just seems off here, and it's hard to shake the fact that in the past Bannon has said that he wants to destroy Ryan. Sinking Ryancare could possibly achieve that, and it still leaves an out for Trump to dump all the blame on Ryan.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Swordfish said:

Sure.  I get that.  but you can't(obviously) predict who is going to have their fingers in your healthcare plan if you hand it over to the government.  Thats a legitimate concern for people, and you handwaving it away or trying to snark over it is completely nonsensical, since the concern is becoming reality as we speak.

This is a matter of practicality.  the fact is, for a lot of people, myself included, government involvement (The ACA) has made their health insurance situation worse, and with the current slew of nincompoops tinkering the hope that that trend is not going to continue is nonexistant.  You can sit in an ivory tower and wax poetic about the glory of UHC, but in the real world, there are genuine concerns about it.

But by all means, go ahead and continue to just be smug about it.  That kind of attitude is clearly working out really well for the left.

 

 

Here is a newsflash: Government has been all up in your healthcare for long time, with Medicare and the tax exclusion for employer sponsored health insurance.

The problem is that government hasn't being doing it as good as it could be. 

And many countries do achieve universal coverage with at least arguable better outcomes. So this isn't some ivory academic thingy.

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

So... average lifetime spend needs to be more than average lifetime take then

No.  It doesn't.  Not necesarily.  It's pay as you go.  So the only thing that needs to happen is, current intake has to be higher than current outlays.