U.S. Elections: The Trumph of the Will

[Altherion]

19 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Actually, they did. They might not do as much as you want them to, but wage growth did increase from 2009 to 2015. It isn't back to 2000 standards, but it did increase. It also was significantly better than Bush, even when you factor out 2008.

Your starting point is the end of a major recession so yes, it increased, but it is incredibly unlikely to be due to any actions on the part of the Democrats -- this is just the natural economic cycle. Also, I'm not sure where you're getting 2015 data from (it's not released until September).

[Kalbear]

Just now, Altherion said:

Your starting point is the end of a major recession so yes, it increased, but it is incredibly unlikely to be due to any actions on the part of the Democrats -- this is just the natural economic cycle. Also, I'm not sure where you're getting 2015 data from (it's not released until September).

It's actually reasonably likely to be an action as a part of a  Democrat policy, given that the prior years (2000-2007) we saw wage growth decline, and there was no major recession to blame then - just GWB policies. And that's not including things like the ability for more people to have more affordable healthcare, the number of health bankruptcies decreasing, etc.

2015 was shorthand. You're right that it ends 2014. That said, nothing in 2015 would indicate that the trend was changing, and 2015  was one of the stronger job growth and wage growth periods - though apparently not as good as 2016. 

[Mudguard]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well it all depends on how you want to define legislation that address income inequality. But yes, there were numerous laws passed that had a net positive effect on the average person as well as communities that were experiencing disproportionate income inequality. The ACA alone is a perfect example.

The use of the filibuster spiked under Obama, with the largest spike occurring during his first two years in office. So my guess is that if that doesn't convince you, nothing ever will. 

I addressed the ACA above.  The ACA is not about addressing income inequality.  It's about getting more people on insurance.  There are provisions that can make the poor even more poor, such as the penalties for not buying insurance.  You can even argue that forcing the young and healthy to buy insurance coverage that they may not need makes them poorer.

Your pic isn't coming through for me.  Not sure if others can see it.  Still, what were they filibustering?  How many of these filibusters were for legislation addressing income inequality?

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well it all depends on how you want to define legislation that address income inequality. But yes, there were numerous laws passed that had a net positive effect on the average person as well as communities that were experiencing disproportionate income inequality. The ACA alone is a perfect example.

I'm not sure I agree that the ACA is a net positive.  Saddling poor people with expensive deductibles in addition to high premiums can leave them worse off than they were before.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I addressed the ACA above.  The ACA is not about addressing income inequality.  It's about getting more people on insurance.  There are provisions that can make the poor even more poor, such as the penalties for not buying insurance.  You can even argue that forcing the young and healthy to buy insurance coverage that they may not need makes them poorer.

Your pic isn't coming through for me.  Not sure if others can see it.  Still, what were they filibustering?  How many of these filibusters were for legislation addressing income inequality?

But it does address this issue, albeit indirectly. How many folks with chronic conditions who could never have coverage due to huge premiums now have it? How many folks who would've been financially destroyed by a hospital stay have avoided that fate due to the ACA? 

I agree with the mandate bit for the young and healthy. The ACA does little to address income inequality if you are one of these folks, and can be seen as an unnecessary expense for them. 

[DunderMifflin]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But it does address this issue, albeit indirectly. How many folks with chronic conditions who could never have coverage due to huge premiums now have it? How many folks who would've been financially destroyed by a hospital stay have avoided that fate due to the ACA? 

I agree with the mandate bit for the young and healthy. The ACA does little to address income inequality if you are one of these folks, and can be seen as an unnecessary expense for them. 

I have no clue but I'd be interested in how many

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Rory Snow said:

Once again with the straw men. I don't defend Trump, I've stated repeatedly he's despicable, un Presidential etc etc. You get hyper sensitive because I dislike your girl as well and project that as Trump support.

That's not really the issue. The issue is that you keep comparing Clinton and Trump in order to denigrate Clinton. You've also, separately, said some negative things about Trump, but when you use him as a stick to beat Clinton with, it naturally leads to the (I'm happy to accept, incorrect) conclusion that you prefer Trump.

Quote

Hillary Clinton has been lying and pandering since Bill's 1st campaign. She changed her look a half dozen times while Bill was first running just to conform to public opinion.

I'm not seeing how this is supposed to be a problem. Politicians all do it, male and female, and so do their spouses. They get put in certain colours of ties, certain colours of suits, certain lapel pins, that they're told will help with messaging.They get carefully selected haircuts and avoid facial hair, because they're told the public don't trust men with beards.

You will not be able to find a single politician of either party who has not done exactly this, and had their spouse, kids, etc. do the same. Bill certainly did it. Donald Trump does it, hard as that is to believe. I mean, you know the whole red baseball cap thing stems from a need to protect his hair when outdoors, for image reasons?

Is it lying and pandering? Well... are you lying when you put on a suit for a job interview? I assure you, you're pandering. And so am I, when I do it. We all do things like this. But when we use normal behaviour to label someone as dishonest, we should probably reflect on whether we're being reasonable, or whether we're blinded by the search for evidence to support an existing prejudice.

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I addressed the ACA above.  The ACA is not about addressing income inequality.  It's about getting more people on insurance.  There are provisions that can make the poor even more poor, such as the penalties for not buying insurance.  You can even argue that forcing the young and healthy to buy insurance coverage that they may not need makes them poorer.

Except that you get credited for it if you don't have enough money. 

And sorry, it is absolutely about income inequality when one class of people can afford to be sick and another cannot. 

Quote

I'm not sure I agree that the ACA is a net positive.  Saddling poor people with expensive deductibles in addition to high premiums can leave them worse off than they were before.

What has happened in actual fact instead of 'not sure I agree' space is that the main swelling has come from added Medicaid coverage, which has been largely pretty awesome. The surprise was that fewer companies dumped their insurance, so almost everyone kept what they had. The high deductible and high premium thing appears to be complete garbage; while it's true that premiums rose from 2014 to 2015, they are still significantly below projected values, and most of that is because the original premiums came in so cheaply. 

Oh yeah, the savings for the ACA amounted to something like 1.3 trillion dollars more than projected. 

[Altherion]

2 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

It's actually reasonably likely to be an action as a part of a  Democrat policy, given that the prior years (2000-2007) we saw wage growth decline, and there was no major recession to blame then - just GWB policies. And that's not including things like the ability for more people to have more affordable healthcare, the number of health bankruptcies decreasing, etc.

Take a look at the graph. 2000-2007 had its own recession driven by 9/11. Once it recovered from that, it went back up and was fairly close to the 1999 maximum at the peak. 2009-2014 recovered from the larger recession, but it did not start increasing again until 2013 and is still quite a bit short of the 1999 peak. There is no evidence here that government policy (Democrat or Republican) had any effect on this -- these are just cyclical fluctuations. In fact, in 2014, we're very nearly right back to where we were in 1989.

[Mudguard]

15 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But it does address this issue, albeit indirectly. How many folks with chronic conditions who could never have coverage due to huge premiums now have it? How many folks who would've been financially destroyed by a hospital stay have avoided that fate due to the ACA? 

I agree with the mandate bit for the young and healthy. The ACA does little to address income inequality if you are one of these folks, and can be seen as an unnecessary expense for them. 

The thing is, the people with chronic conditions or that have been bankrupted by medical costs aren't necessarily poor.  Older people tend to be wealthier.  The relatively well off also benefit from the rule changes.  It's a good thing, but it doesn't really address income inequality.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

2 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

What has happened in actual fact instead of 'not sure I agree' space is that the main swelling has come from added Medicaid coverage, which has been largely pretty awesome. The surprise was that fewer companies dumped their insurance, so almost everyone kept what they had. The high deductible and high premium thing appears to be complete garbage; while it's true that premiums rose from 2014 to 2015, they are still significantly below projected values, and most of that is because the original premiums came in so cheaply. 

Oh yeah, the savings for the ACA amounted to something like 1.3 trillion dollars more than projected. 

You're missing the point.  If an individual who had no coverage and wasn't sick now has to pay a premium and doesn't meet his deductible, he's not better off just because he has coverage.  He's actually poorer because of it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

32 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I addressed the ACA above.  The ACA is not about addressing income inequality.  It's about getting more people on insurance.  

How many programs solely deal with income inequality? The answer is not many. More often what you'll see is programs that will effect multiple aspects that can cause income inequality, such as the ACA. 

32 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

There are provisions that can make the poor even more poor, such as the penalties for not buying insurance.  

You do realize there are a several exceptions, so no, this just isn't accurate. 

https://www.healthcare.gov/health-coverage-exemptions/forms-how-to-apply/

32 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

You can even argue that forcing the young and healthy to buy insurance coverage that they may not need makes them poorer.

You can also argue that young people like myself greatly benefited by staying on my parents insurance for an additional 3 years. Or that people with pre-existing illnesses won't be impoverished because of them. etc. etc.

32 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Your pic isn't coming through for me.  Not sure if others can see it.  Still, what were they filibustering?  How many of these filibusters were for legislation addressing income inequality?

It was worth a try. Anyways, it would take too long for me to look at each filibuster, considering their was a record breaking number of them in the 111th Congress, but here is a list of some prominent ones in which the legislation likely would have become law had there been no filibuster, and yes, some of them directly address a form of income inequality:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/05/17-bills-that-likely-would-have-passed-the-senate-if-it-didnt-have-the-filibuster/

Here is another list:

Quote

H.R. 12 - Paycheck Fairness Act
H.R. 448 — Elder Abuse Victims Act
H.R. 466 - Wounded Veteran Job Security Act
H.R. 515 - Radioactive Import Deterrence Act
H.R. 549 — National Bombing Prevention Act
H.R. 577 - Vision Care for Kids Act
H.R. 626 - Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act
H.R. 1029 - Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act
H.R. 1168 — Veterans Retraining Act
H.R. 1171 - Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization
H.R. 1293 — Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act
H.R. 1429 — Stop AIDS in Prison Act
H.R.5281 — DREAM Act
S.3985 — Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act
S.3816 — Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act
S.3369 — A bill to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities
S.2237 — Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act
S.2343 — Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act
S.1660 — American Jobs Act of 2011
S.3457 — Veterans Jobs Corps Act

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/republicans-filibuster-ev_b_2018663.html

And as you can see above, going back to my original comment, there are several pieces of legislation that deal with an issue related to income inequality without being called the Fixing Income Inequality Act. 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

You're missing the point.  If an individual who had no coverage and wasn't sick now has to pay a premium and doesn't meet his deductible, he's not better off just because he has coverage.  He's actually poorer because of it.

I guess that's true. I'll take that in exchange for 20 million people who have healthcare and reducing the number of medical bankruptcies. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

I'm not sure I agree that the ACA is a net positive.  Saddling poor people with expensive deductibles in addition to high premiums can leave them worse off than they were before.

Literally took me less than 30 seconds on google to find this:

https://www.healthcare.gov/health-coverage-exemptions/forms-how-to-apply/

[Kalbear]

14 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Take a look at the graph. 2000-2007 had its own recession driven by 9/11. Once it recovered from that, it went back up and was fairly close to the 1999 maximum at the peak. 2009-2014 recovered from the larger recession, but it did not start increasing again until 2013 and is still quite a bit short of the 1999 peak. There is no evidence here that government policy (Democrat or Republican) had any effect on this -- these are just cyclical fluctuations. In fact, in 2014, we're very nearly right back to where we were in 1989.

And if you look at the graph, what's the biggest increase in median income? 1992 to 2000. And who was the president then? 

Note that the recession in 2008 was significantly longer than any recession the US has had for 50 years. It's not quite fair comparing it to prior ones and saying that things are the same. 

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Literally took me less than 30 seconds on google to find this:

https://www.healthcare.gov/health-coverage-exemptions/forms-how-to-apply/

You probably found it so easily because it literally has nothing to do with the point at hand.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

9 minutes ago, Triskan said:

Unless he needs to use his coverage.  The very essence of insurance.

ETA:  Still absolutely nothing but non-stop Munich coverage on all US news channels. 

Yeah, it is a success for who get medical bills higher than their premium and deductible.  For those who don't, it's not and actually leaves them poorer and worse off than they were before.  I'm not trying to debate the value of insurance to society, but whether the ACA is successfully combating wealth inequality.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

You probably found it so easily because it literally has nothing to do with the point at hand.

It does, because if you're poor you can actually get a plan when before you couldn't. I'm sure most poor people would prefer your grossly exaggerated " expensive deductibles in addition to high premiums"  than nothing at all. 

[Swordfish]

43 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But it does address this issue, albeit indirectly. How many folks with chronic conditions who could never have coverage due to huge premiums now have it? How many folks who would've been financially destroyed by a hospital stay have avoided that fate due to the ACA? 

i give up.  how many?

 

 

14 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

And if you look at the graph, what's the biggest increase in median income? 1992 to 2000. And who was the president then? 

 

What difference does it make who was president then?  i think you are VASTLY over rating the influence a sitting president has on median income changes.

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It does, because if you're poor you can actually get a plan when before you couldn't. I'm sure most poor people would prefer your grossly exaggerated " expensive deductibles in addition to high premiums"  than nothing at all. 

I'm not sure that's true.  it would be interesting to see some data on this.

there is a challenge here in conflating 'coverage' with 'care'.

Among many young people, the option of having the premium in their pocket and betting that they won't need the care is pretty enticing.  And in fact, many of them don't really need the coverage, because they won't require the care.