by Ugh
So here we are, 7 years and one day after the ACA was signed into law by B. Hussein O. and after eleventybillion prior votes to repeal the law when it didn't matter, the House might finally vote on an ACA "replacement" bill via a process that actually involves all the mythical process horrors the GOP likes to claim went on during passage of the ACA itself. As always, it's projection with the GOP. Meanwhile President of the United States and poor man's Roger Goodell Donald Trump has laid down the Art of the DealTM and declared that either the GOP passes this horrible monstrosity of a bill or he will move on to more important things because this whole healthcare business is boring and stupid and who cares anyway? Wah.
What's going to happen? I'm still worried that the AHCA will pass, the Senate then modifies it in a way to move it from absolute horrible monstrosity to just horrible monstrosity, and it eventually makes it's way to Donald's desk for signature. Hopefully not.
Meanwhile, whatever happens here the next small item on the agenda is… tax reform! Easy! Actually, my guess is that if the AHCA goes down in flames, Trump will tell Ryan to piss-off on the destination based cash flow tax (DBCFT) pipe dream and move to a more "traditional" approach to tax reform because there will be a need for a "win"! And any significant tax bill that passes, no matter how un-reform like it is, will be declared a glorious victory and shut up.
But hey, maybe 24 million people will lose their insurance and they can declare that glorious too.
Meanwhile, the flailing about would be amusing if it wasn't so potentially deadly. Honestly, I'd trade tax cuts for the rich for leaving the ACA alone in a heartbeat (if such a trade could be made to stick, which it can't). What say y'all?
Update: Should have noted that the vote is scheduled for 3:30. Don't know if they will keep it open for hours and hours or what. If it fails expect Trump to lay all the blame at Paul Ryan's feet. "He's in charge of the House and he couldn't even get a bill through. Weak. Sad!" It will also let Trump take the lead on "tax reform."
The interesting question in my mind is, suppose that Ryan knows that he doesn’t have the votes. (Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the House Republican leadership knows how to do a whip count.)
Does he go ahead with the vote anyway, just to force everybody to take a formal, public stand?
Or does he recognize how toxic a vote might be for some of his members, and try to avoid hanging anyone out to dry? Just to help keep his majority past the 2018 elections.
The interesting question in my mind is, suppose that Ryan knows that he doesn’t have the votes. (Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the House Republican leadership knows how to do a whip count.)
Does he go ahead with the vote anyway, just to force everybody to take a formal, public stand?
Or does he recognize how toxic a vote might be for some of his members, and try to avoid hanging anyone out to dry? Just to help keep his majority past the 2018 elections.
Who deserves Trump more than Ryan?
Who deserves Trump more than Ryan?
Ryan could pull the bill, and perhaps that’s what he told Trump at the WH when they met earlier today when the message was supposedly “we don’t have the votes.” But Trump and/or his surrogates have loudly demanded a vote from the House on this and insisted that they will move on if it doesn’t pass, lots of embarrassment for Trump if Ryan pulls the bill and there’s no vote, unless Trump has somehow agreed to that.
I guess it might come down to who Ryan feels he has to answer/respond to, Trump or his Congressional GOP colleagues?
Who deserves Trump more than Ryan?
No one, although it would be nice to limit the damage to the fraud that is the current speaker of the house.
Ryan could pull the bill, and perhaps that’s what he told Trump at the WH when they met earlier today when the message was supposedly “we don’t have the votes.” But Trump and/or his surrogates have loudly demanded a vote from the House on this and insisted that they will move on if it doesn’t pass, lots of embarrassment for Trump if Ryan pulls the bill and there’s no vote, unless Trump has somehow agreed to that.
I guess it might come down to who Ryan feels he has to answer/respond to, Trump or his Congressional GOP colleagues?
Who deserves Trump more than Ryan?
No one, although it would be nice to limit the damage to the fraud that is the current speaker of the house.
Trumpty Dumpty sat in his stall
Trumpty Dumpty let twitter turds fall
All Bannon’s nazis and all Conway’s lies
Can’t keep sad Trumpty from his sorry demise
MH Durber
Trumpty Dumpty sat in his stall
Trumpty Dumpty let twitter turds fall
All Bannon’s nazis and all Conway’s lies
Can’t keep sad Trumpty from his sorry demise
MH Durber
Trumpty Dumpty might be the Gingerbread Man.
Trumpty Dumpty might be the Gingerbread Man.
and the vote has been cancelled!
Art Of The Deal, indeed.
suckers.
and the vote has been cancelled!
Art Of The Deal, indeed.
suckers.
Oh my God, the thrills and spills. Do we think this finally kills it? I don’t want to get excited when it might be revived later…
Oh my God, the thrills and spills. Do we think this finally kills it? I don’t want to get excited when it might be revived later…
Sad!
Sad!
I’d say that this kills “health care reform” for this Congress. That is, it won’t reappear until 2019 at the earliest.
Now we ask, what impact will this have on the next thing that Trump and/or Ryan want to pass? Because the same divide between the “Freedom caucus” and moderate Republicans occurs on other issues as well.
As we have seen, the Republicans who represent swing districts are not going to set themselves up for defeat by passing something radical. and the “Freedom caucus” is heavily into absolutism: my way down the line or nothing at all; never, ever agree to the slightest compromise.
I’d say that this kills “health care reform” for this Congress. That is, it won’t reappear until 2019 at the earliest.
Now we ask, what impact will this have on the next thing that Trump and/or Ryan want to pass? Because the same divide between the “Freedom caucus” and moderate Republicans occurs on other issues as well.
As we have seen, the Republicans who represent swing districts are not going to set themselves up for defeat by passing something radical. and the “Freedom caucus” is heavily into absolutism: my way down the line or nothing at all; never, ever agree to the slightest compromise.
they absolutely have to try again at some point.
their Obamacare demon has been an essential component of the GOP’s mythology for years. it’s been a great motivator for the base – ginned-up fear of their Obamacare caricature is a big part of of their majorities.
they can’t just shrug and walk away from it.
they absolutely have to try again at some point.
their Obamacare demon has been an essential component of the GOP’s mythology for years. it’s been a great motivator for the base – ginned-up fear of their Obamacare caricature is a big part of of their majorities.
they can’t just shrug and walk away from it.
it’s been a great motivator for the base – ginned-up fear of their Obamacare caricature is a big part of of their majorities.
The problem for them is that it’s an increasingly popular program (at least when you call it the ACA rather than Obamacare).
The people who will always be against it are the ones who are or perceive themselves to be paying for it and who are looking forward to a nice tax break if it’s repealed, regardless of what it means for anyone else. But those people are a small part of either the freedom caucus’ or Trump’s base.
How does Trump satisfy the rich and the poor? How does he work with the radicals and the moderates among the GOP in congress? Who knew politics could be so complicated?
it’s been a great motivator for the base – ginned-up fear of their Obamacare caricature is a big part of of their majorities.
The problem for them is that it’s an increasingly popular program (at least when you call it the ACA rather than Obamacare).
The people who will always be against it are the ones who are or perceive themselves to be paying for it and who are looking forward to a nice tax break if it’s repealed, regardless of what it means for anyone else. But those people are a small part of either the freedom caucus’ or Trump’s base.
How does Trump satisfy the rich and the poor? How does he work with the radicals and the moderates among the GOP in congress? Who knew politics could be so complicated?
Thanks wj. As I never thought I’d say (because too short-sighted) Thank God for the intransigence and extremism of the Freedom Caucus.
Thanks wj. As I never thought I’d say (because too short-sighted) Thank God for the intransigence and extremism of the Freedom Caucus.
Thanks wj. As I never thought I’d say (because too short-sighted) Thank God for the intransigence and extremism of the Freedom Caucus.
Thanks wj. As I never thought I’d say (because too short-sighted) Thank God for the intransigence and extremism of the Freedom Caucus.
So far he’s blaming *Democrats*. Says they’ll come crawling back when “Obama” (presumably =Obamacare) “explodes”.
The question is, how will Fox News pitch this? I suppose they’ll probably blame Democrats, too, somehow, even though the Rs had the #s to pass the things by themselves.
I for one am going to seriously celebrate how many friends of mine are not staring death in the face, tonight.
So far he’s blaming *Democrats*. Says they’ll come crawling back when “Obama” (presumably =Obamacare) “explodes”.
The question is, how will Fox News pitch this? I suppose they’ll probably blame Democrats, too, somehow, even though the Rs had the #s to pass the things by themselves.
I for one am going to seriously celebrate how many friends of mine are not staring death in the face, tonight.
Hmmm, I did not double click. Let’s hope I haven’t got the curse of the rogue double click (which will soon be revealed)…
Hmmm, I did not double click. Let’s hope I haven’t got the curse of the rogue double click (which will soon be revealed)…
maybe they could do a piranha brothers thing and say the bill passes if they don’t vote for it.
as it turns out, governmenting is hard.
meanwhile, in all the noise, the extension on the debt ceiling expired March 15, 2017, which was last Wednesday.
does anyone know what happened with that? I haven’t heard anything about it.
(R) House, (R) Senate, (R) POTUS, and an even split in the SCOTUS for the moment, with a conservative majority no doubt on its way.
Ball’s in their court.
maybe they could do a piranha brothers thing and say the bill passes if they don’t vote for it.
as it turns out, governmenting is hard.
meanwhile, in all the noise, the extension on the debt ceiling expired March 15, 2017, which was last Wednesday.
does anyone know what happened with that? I haven’t heard anything about it.
(R) House, (R) Senate, (R) POTUS, and an even split in the SCOTUS for the moment, with a conservative majority no doubt on its way.
Ball’s in their court.
as it turns out, governmenting is hard
And complicated. Who knew?
(Somebody may have made this joke already).
as it turns out, governmenting is hard
And complicated. Who knew?
(Somebody may have made this joke already).
With that done, now we can work on impeachment!
With that done, now we can work on impeachment!
I hope they continue to tear each other apart.
I hope they continue to tear each other apart.
Maybe stories about the bill failing to pass are FAKE NEWS!…?
Maybe stories about the bill failing to pass are FAKE NEWS!…?
russell: meanwhile, in all the noise, the extension on the debt ceiling expired March 15, 2017, which was last Wednesday. does anyone know what happened with that? I haven’t heard anything about it.
I believe I heard that the Treasury is operating with “extraordinary measures” so as to stave off actual default for a few weeks(?) as has been done a couple of times before.
When the initiative du jour moves on to tax “reform”, I still say the Dems should hold out for increasing the personal exemption on the 1040 to about $50K per person. The “Freedom Caucus” ought to go for that, unless they’re complete frauds and swindlers.
–TP
russell: meanwhile, in all the noise, the extension on the debt ceiling expired March 15, 2017, which was last Wednesday. does anyone know what happened with that? I haven’t heard anything about it.
I believe I heard that the Treasury is operating with “extraordinary measures” so as to stave off actual default for a few weeks(?) as has been done a couple of times before.
When the initiative du jour moves on to tax “reform”, I still say the Dems should hold out for increasing the personal exemption on the 1040 to about $50K per person. The “Freedom Caucus” ought to go for that, unless they’re complete frauds and swindlers.
–TP
By the way, Trump ally the National Enquirer is apparently saying Flynn is a Russian spy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/national-enquirer-michael-flynn_us_58d562dae4b03692bea5958b?3i1ikwn7k8kc5wmi&
I guess this means he’s the one under the bus. Funny that they think it might stop with him…
By the way, Trump ally the National Enquirer is apparently saying Flynn is a Russian spy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/national-enquirer-michael-flynn_us_58d562dae4b03692bea5958b?3i1ikwn7k8kc5wmi&
I guess this means he’s the one under the bus. Funny that they think it might stop with him…
In a less giddy tone, I hope this means that, despite the Super Bowl level analysis of winners and losers, that Congress takes its responsibility and authority seriously and passes something that is actually better.
For those of us in the exchanges this is incredibly disappointing.
In a less giddy tone, I hope this means that, despite the Super Bowl level analysis of winners and losers, that Congress takes its responsibility and authority seriously and passes something that is actually better.
For those of us in the exchanges this is incredibly disappointing.
For some of us in the exchanges, this is good news. YMMV, of course.
For some of us in the exchanges, this is good news. YMMV, of course.
Poor Paul:
https://twitter.com/karoun/status/845394011506511874
Poor Paul:
https://twitter.com/karoun/status/845394011506511874
WH denies but someone is going after Kushner, wow.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/politics/jared-kushner-aspen-ski-trip-obamacare/index.html
WH denies but someone is going after Kushner, wow.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/politics/jared-kushner-aspen-ski-trip-obamacare/index.html
I suppose if you have a spare 30k laying around or you make less than 45k and the deductible the exchange works fine. I don’t know very many in that group.
I suppose if you have a spare 30k laying around or you make less than 45k and the deductible the exchange works fine. I don’t know very many in that group.
Why Ryan may be on short time:
It’s probably true. But admitting that, in 7 years of demanding “repeal and replace,” you never bothered to work out what “replace” should look like? Not a great way to demonstrate what a great leader you are. Nor a great way to demonstrate that your party is serious about the business of actually running the country.
Why Ryan may be on short time:
It’s probably true. But admitting that, in 7 years of demanding “repeal and replace,” you never bothered to work out what “replace” should look like? Not a great way to demonstrate what a great leader you are. Nor a great way to demonstrate that your party is serious about the business of actually running the country.
It also demonstrates why lying to people about things can end up biting you in the a$$. “Death Panels!” “Government takeover or healthcare!” etc., why are they all of a sudden surprised that a bunch of their colleagues – many elected after the ACA became law – are not willing to go along with an 80% or 90% repeal. I mean, “smaller death panels!” and “partial government takeover!” aren’t something to rally around.
Also, forget where I read this today, but another problem with repeal is that the ACA was actually a compromise bill that could have garnered support from some GOP senators – but McConnell was on his crusade to make Obama a one term President and got those GOPers who might have voted for the ACA to vote against. But on substance it was a bill several GOPers could have (and from reports wanted to) voted for – thus repeal is harder because it’s not really the one sided, Democratic monster it’s been made out to be.
I don’t think the fight is over – certainly the Secretary of HHS can do a lot of damage, and nothing keeps the GOP from attaching small provisions that sabotage parts of the ACA to “must pass” legislation (like the debt ceiling increase), and there could be a repeal repeat, but the big fight is done for now – but eternal vigilance!
It also demonstrates why lying to people about things can end up biting you in the a$$. “Death Panels!” “Government takeover or healthcare!” etc., why are they all of a sudden surprised that a bunch of their colleagues – many elected after the ACA became law – are not willing to go along with an 80% or 90% repeal. I mean, “smaller death panels!” and “partial government takeover!” aren’t something to rally around.
Also, forget where I read this today, but another problem with repeal is that the ACA was actually a compromise bill that could have garnered support from some GOP senators – but McConnell was on his crusade to make Obama a one term President and got those GOPers who might have voted for the ACA to vote against. But on substance it was a bill several GOPers could have (and from reports wanted to) voted for – thus repeal is harder because it’s not really the one sided, Democratic monster it’s been made out to be.
I don’t think the fight is over – certainly the Secretary of HHS can do a lot of damage, and nothing keeps the GOP from attaching small provisions that sabotage parts of the ACA to “must pass” legislation (like the debt ceiling increase), and there could be a repeal repeat, but the big fight is done for now – but eternal vigilance!
“Nor a great way to demonstrate that your party is serious about the business of actually running the country. ”
I am ok with someone pointing out reality. With a real honeymoon it took a lot longer for the Democrats to agree on a solution than the Republicans have had. The details are hard. And talking about 7 years misses the point they are still trying to solve a problem that has been under discussion for over 50 years. Where every attempt to solve it has failed. Including the ACA.
“Nor a great way to demonstrate that your party is serious about the business of actually running the country. ”
I am ok with someone pointing out reality. With a real honeymoon it took a lot longer for the Democrats to agree on a solution than the Republicans have had. The details are hard. And talking about 7 years misses the point they are still trying to solve a problem that has been under discussion for over 50 years. Where every attempt to solve it has failed. Including the ACA.
nothing keeps the GOP from attaching small provisions that sabotage parts of the ACA to “must pass” legislation (like the debt ceiling increase)
I don’t think that they’ll be able to agree on doing things like that. Breaking the international financial system on a Republican’s watch would look kind of terrible.
It’s true though that they can do some damage, and we need to be vigilant.
nothing keeps the GOP from attaching small provisions that sabotage parts of the ACA to “must pass” legislation (like the debt ceiling increase)
I don’t think that they’ll be able to agree on doing things like that. Breaking the international financial system on a Republican’s watch would look kind of terrible.
It’s true though that they can do some damage, and we need to be vigilant.
Where every attempt to solve it has failed. Including the ACA.
I have several family members on the ACA and every single one of them is glad to have it. You’re exceptional, Marty, in good ways and bad.
Where every attempt to solve it has failed. Including the ACA.
I have several family members on the ACA and every single one of them is glad to have it. You’re exceptional, Marty, in good ways and bad.
And looks like I was wrong in guessing that Trump would blame the Speaker, and Ryan also noted that Trump did all he could. So, it appears they have agreed not to play the blame game, which means they are going to get along in the coming tax reform process. Should be interesting.
And looks like I was wrong in guessing that Trump would blame the Speaker, and Ryan also noted that Trump did all he could. So, it appears they have agreed not to play the blame game, which means they are going to get along in the coming tax reform process. Should be interesting.
I am not the least bit exceptional, nor is my issue. There are many people glad to have something, but Trump is probably right in this case, its only going to get worse.
But its great that your family and wj have yours. F@ck the 20 mil who have nothing and the rest of us who have little more than manifestly expensive catastrophic insurance. And who cares if the cost curve is bending up instead of down?
Yall are otay today.
I am not the least bit exceptional, nor is my issue. There are many people glad to have something, but Trump is probably right in this case, its only going to get worse.
But its great that your family and wj have yours. F@ck the 20 mil who have nothing and the rest of us who have little more than manifestly expensive catastrophic insurance. And who cares if the cost curve is bending up instead of down?
Yall are otay today.
So, it appears they have agreed not to play the blame game
They’re worried about covering their butts regarding the Putin “situation”. I’m pretty sure that the entire Republican Party has been compromised in one way or another. There are a lot of conspiracy theories out there, many of which are quite plausible, but all you have to do is look at what we all know. Pretty gruesome. Especially since disloyalty is punished.
So, it appears they have agreed not to play the blame game
They’re worried about covering their butts regarding the Putin “situation”. I’m pretty sure that the entire Republican Party has been compromised in one way or another. There are a lot of conspiracy theories out there, many of which are quite plausible, but all you have to do is look at what we all know. Pretty gruesome. Especially since disloyalty is punished.
F@ck the 20 mil who have nothing and the rest of us who have little more than manifestly expensive catastrophic insurance
Hahahaha.
Remind me what you would have had before the ACA? Listening …
F@ck the 20 mil who have nothing and the rest of us who have little more than manifestly expensive catastrophic insurance
Hahahaha.
Remind me what you would have had before the ACA? Listening …
One more point, this helps Trump not hurts him. Even if he plays nice with Ryan he gets to say that he was right that all Washington is very bad. I told you so. See why I am so upset?
Then a Gorsuch filibuster gives him huge ammo. He will be adding supporters, not losing them. And Congress ratings will still suck.
One more point, this helps Trump not hurts him. Even if he plays nice with Ryan he gets to say that he was right that all Washington is very bad. I told you so. See why I am so upset?
Then a Gorsuch filibuster gives him huge ammo. He will be adding supporters, not losing them. And Congress ratings will still suck.
“Remind me what you would have had before the ACA? Listening ”
a job
“Remind me what you would have had before the ACA? Listening ”
a job
this helps Trump not hurts him
Trump is a loser. That’s the message being sent. The Art of the Deal? Hilarious!
Sure. His loser supporters and their enablers may dig in. But they will be marginalized by the people who are now quite inspired by this victory.
And, by the way, his people are going to go down. Maybe quickly, or maybe not. And I don’t kid myself that there is not going to be some suffering by everybody along the way. But many of us are determined to keep fighting. We are putting everything we have into not going into another dark ages. Because if that happens, it’s not on us.
this helps Trump not hurts him
Trump is a loser. That’s the message being sent. The Art of the Deal? Hilarious!
Sure. His loser supporters and their enablers may dig in. But they will be marginalized by the people who are now quite inspired by this victory.
And, by the way, his people are going to go down. Maybe quickly, or maybe not. And I don’t kid myself that there is not going to be some suffering by everybody along the way. But many of us are determined to keep fighting. We are putting everything we have into not going into another dark ages. Because if that happens, it’s not on us.
So you don’t have a job due to the ACA? I’m not entirely clear how that could have had a causal relationship.
So you don’t have a job due to the ACA? I’m not entirely clear how that could have had a causal relationship.
So you don’t have a job due to the ACA? I’m not entirely clear how that could have had a causal relationship.
As I mentioned, wj, Marty is exceptional.
So you don’t have a job due to the ACA? I’m not entirely clear how that could have had a causal relationship.
As I mentioned, wj, Marty is exceptional.
Honestly, whatever Marty. You seem like a sweet person in some of your comments, so I’m not hating on you or anything.
But how can anyone take you seriously? Most of the people here are around my age (60). I personally know 30, maybe more, people who have lost their jobs, mysteriously, at about Age 60. I’ve been observing this for the past 20 years among work colleagues, and then family ….
You’re blaming Obama? I’m intrigued with restarting a marijuana habit to mitigate my increasing alcohol use, but your views on things give me pause.
Honestly, whatever Marty. You seem like a sweet person in some of your comments, so I’m not hating on you or anything.
But how can anyone take you seriously? Most of the people here are around my age (60). I personally know 30, maybe more, people who have lost their jobs, mysteriously, at about Age 60. I’ve been observing this for the past 20 years among work colleagues, and then family ….
You’re blaming Obama? I’m intrigued with restarting a marijuana habit to mitigate my increasing alcohol use, but your views on things give me pause.
The landscape on health care (and just about everything else) has changed drastically over the last 50 years, so suggesting that solving relatively current problems has been something anyone has had 50 years to work on is silly. And the Republicans have had just as much time as anyone else to come up with an actual solution. They’ve done less than d*ck about it. There’s not enough lipstick for this pig, but keep trying.
The landscape on health care (and just about everything else) has changed drastically over the last 50 years, so suggesting that solving relatively current problems has been something anyone has had 50 years to work on is silly. And the Republicans have had just as much time as anyone else to come up with an actual solution. They’ve done less than d*ck about it. There’s not enough lipstick for this pig, but keep trying.
“And then, when the moment came, when Republicans finally had full control of government, it took barely two months for them to admit they hadn’t really thought it through.
It hadn’t really occurred to them that repealing the individual mandate and cutting the subsidies would result in many millions uninsured or raise premiums massively on people in their 50s and 60s. It didn’t seem to have occurred to them that the demands of the House Freedom Caucus members, the most unflinching ideologues to achieve near-total repeal, the desire by less conservative members to keep at least the basic structure of benefits, and the president’s promise to improve every single thing could not be easily accommodated. They hadn’t considered the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that as unpopular as the ACA remained, their own alternative would be even more unpopular, not least because change alone is terrifying to people when they think about health care.”
“If the goal of the campaign against the Affordable Care Act was to repeal the Affordable Care Act and leave millions without health care, it failed, thankfully. But if the goal was to win election after election, and virtually wipe out the Democratic Party across much of the country, while never actually engaging with the tough questions of health care, then it succeeded beautifully. And that success lives on. It is really one of the longest, most coordinated political deceptions in American history, and one in which Trump is only a minor player.”
http://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2017/3/24/15055636/aca-repeal-angry
“And then, when the moment came, when Republicans finally had full control of government, it took barely two months for them to admit they hadn’t really thought it through.
It hadn’t really occurred to them that repealing the individual mandate and cutting the subsidies would result in many millions uninsured or raise premiums massively on people in their 50s and 60s. It didn’t seem to have occurred to them that the demands of the House Freedom Caucus members, the most unflinching ideologues to achieve near-total repeal, the desire by less conservative members to keep at least the basic structure of benefits, and the president’s promise to improve every single thing could not be easily accommodated. They hadn’t considered the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that as unpopular as the ACA remained, their own alternative would be even more unpopular, not least because change alone is terrifying to people when they think about health care.”
“If the goal of the campaign against the Affordable Care Act was to repeal the Affordable Care Act and leave millions without health care, it failed, thankfully. But if the goal was to win election after election, and virtually wipe out the Democratic Party across much of the country, while never actually engaging with the tough questions of health care, then it succeeded beautifully. And that success lives on. It is really one of the longest, most coordinated political deceptions in American history, and one in which Trump is only a minor player.”
http://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2017/3/24/15055636/aca-repeal-angry
they are still trying to solve a problem that has been under discussion for over 50 years.
there are only about 20 other countries who have figured this out. not all the same way, but most with better outcomes than us at order-of-magnitude half the cost.
we are, as a nation, frankly stupid. boneheadedly, mulishly stupid. that’s why you can’t afford health insurance.
you may be right, trump may come out ahead on this. there’s no accounting for what people think.
they are still trying to solve a problem that has been under discussion for over 50 years.
there are only about 20 other countries who have figured this out. not all the same way, but most with better outcomes than us at order-of-magnitude half the cost.
we are, as a nation, frankly stupid. boneheadedly, mulishly stupid. that’s why you can’t afford health insurance.
you may be right, trump may come out ahead on this. there’s no accounting for what people think.
they are still trying to solve a problem that has been under discussion for over 50 years.
Well over 50 years.
If it weren’t for the fact that most “middle class” folks and above have some kind of insurance through their employer, this whole debate would take on an entirely different cast. They haz their tax subsidized insurance, f*ck all those morally defective poors, poor women, and the not so white.
they are still trying to solve a problem that has been under discussion for over 50 years.
Well over 50 years.
If it weren’t for the fact that most “middle class” folks and above have some kind of insurance through their employer, this whole debate would take on an entirely different cast. They haz their tax subsidized insurance, f*ck all those morally defective poors, poor women, and the not so white.
…then it succeeded beautifully
I would say not. This is a major short term defeat for the GOP. They reveal themselves to be totally incompetent, utterly lacking in serious policy chops.
The major thrust of the con lies elsewhere.
…then it succeeded beautifully
I would say not. This is a major short term defeat for the GOP. They reveal themselves to be totally incompetent, utterly lacking in serious policy chops.
The major thrust of the con lies elsewhere.
“the Republicans have had just as much time as anyone else to come up with an actual solution”
At least they are still trying.
“the Republicans have had just as much time as anyone else to come up with an actual solution”
At least they are still trying.
Still? And trying? This is the kind of stuff that makes me suspsect you’re pulling a gag at my and others’ expense a la Andy Kaufman.
Still? And trying? This is the kind of stuff that makes me suspsect you’re pulling a gag at my and others’ expense a la Andy Kaufman.
I was kind of hoping the thing would pass so Paul Ryan could do a keg stand like the shallow Ayn Rand frat c&nt he is.
Obamacare can be improved, no doubt about it.
But not by Andy Kaufman trying to improve WWF piledriving with the innocent down-turned fake sympatico, neck-braced smile of Ryan calling Marty’s denied pre-existings the very essence of, well that Lamborghini is accessible to you now go and get it unemployed, free person by virtue of your unfortunate age, you liability, shareholder-starving you.
If all of us were fetuses, we’d have universal healthcare and full employment.
If we had had universal healthcare, Ryan would would be pro-abortion, because then fetuses would be undeserving on account of their high rate of unemployment.
I was kind of hoping the thing would pass so Paul Ryan could do a keg stand like the shallow Ayn Rand frat c&nt he is.
Obamacare can be improved, no doubt about it.
But not by Andy Kaufman trying to improve WWF piledriving with the innocent down-turned fake sympatico, neck-braced smile of Ryan calling Marty’s denied pre-existings the very essence of, well that Lamborghini is accessible to you now go and get it unemployed, free person by virtue of your unfortunate age, you liability, shareholder-starving you.
If all of us were fetuses, we’d have universal healthcare and full employment.
If we had had universal healthcare, Ryan would would be pro-abortion, because then fetuses would be undeserving on account of their high rate of unemployment.
At least they are still trying.
as opposed to the ACA and the Medicare expansion, which were not an attempt.
The (R)’s do not appear to give a crap if you live or die. Why you come to their defense is a mystery to me.
At least they are still trying.
as opposed to the ACA and the Medicare expansion, which were not an attempt.
The (R)’s do not appear to give a crap if you live or die. Why you come to their defense is a mystery to me.
If it weren’t for the fact that most “middle class” folks and above have some kind of insurance through their employer, this whole debate would take on an entirely different cast.
good point, that.
If it weren’t for the fact that most “middle class” folks and above have some kind of insurance through their employer, this whole debate would take on an entirely different cast.
good point, that.
“as opposed to the ACA and the Medicare expansion, which were not an attempt.”
It was an attempt, it failed to achieve any of its stated goals. It did expand Medicaid which insured 14m people, no complaints. Is high cost nigh deductible insurance better than none? Sure. But that doesn’t make the ACA good or successful. There are a lot more people not covered or having an expensive policy with little value than are covered. The cost curve is going up, everybody’s health care and insurance is still getting more expensive.
But lets defend the ACA at all cost and celebrate that it is now an actual entitlement that will fail expensively because hell, it worked in Massachusetts.
“as opposed to the ACA and the Medicare expansion, which were not an attempt.”
It was an attempt, it failed to achieve any of its stated goals. It did expand Medicaid which insured 14m people, no complaints. Is high cost nigh deductible insurance better than none? Sure. But that doesn’t make the ACA good or successful. There are a lot more people not covered or having an expensive policy with little value than are covered. The cost curve is going up, everybody’s health care and insurance is still getting more expensive.
But lets defend the ACA at all cost and celebrate that it is now an actual entitlement that will fail expensively because hell, it worked in Massachusetts.
Nah, yesterday’s “failure” while a defeat or show of incompetence by individual ideologues like Ryan, essentially demonstrated that Obamacare, with its fragmentation and reliance on the the states to administer, its surrender to private, corporate, and commercial interests, the coercive funneling of individual income to profit centers,its intentional hollowing out of the middle class, its basic neoliberal and pro-capitalist framework…
…is pretty much acceptable even to the radicals that makeup the current Republican Congress and Party.
Nah, yesterday’s “failure” while a defeat or show of incompetence by individual ideologues like Ryan, essentially demonstrated that Obamacare, with its fragmentation and reliance on the the states to administer, its surrender to private, corporate, and commercial interests, the coercive funneling of individual income to profit centers,its intentional hollowing out of the middle class, its basic neoliberal and pro-capitalist framework…
…is pretty much acceptable even to the radicals that makeup the current Republican Congress and Party.
its intentional hollowing out of the middle class
Proof?
its intentional hollowing out of the middle class
Proof?
What are the goals of the ACA?
1. Expand access. This has been done to great success. It would be even more successful were it not for the lunatic Roberts Court and GOP state governments who turned down the Medicaid expansion for pure partisan reasons.
2. Protect patients against arbitrary actions by insurance companies. No more rejection due to pre-existing conditions, etc., etc. Undoubtedly a success on this score.
3. Reduce Costs. Possibly. But the problem is the structure of the health care industry and cost pushers such as patents, fee for service, limited entry, private profit. But these institutional relationships cannot be placed at the doorstep of the ACA.
In terms of reaching its stated goals, I’d say it’s been pretty successful given the political headwinds it’s up against.
What are the goals of the ACA?
1. Expand access. This has been done to great success. It would be even more successful were it not for the lunatic Roberts Court and GOP state governments who turned down the Medicaid expansion for pure partisan reasons.
2. Protect patients against arbitrary actions by insurance companies. No more rejection due to pre-existing conditions, etc., etc. Undoubtedly a success on this score.
3. Reduce Costs. Possibly. But the problem is the structure of the health care industry and cost pushers such as patents, fee for service, limited entry, private profit. But these institutional relationships cannot be placed at the doorstep of the ACA.
In terms of reaching its stated goals, I’d say it’s been pretty successful given the political headwinds it’s up against.
Stated goals:
1)Cover all Americans
2)Bend the cost curve on Health CARE
3) Pay for itself
The preexisting conditions stuff was a problem in implementation not a stated goal.
As for acceptable, as soon as it was forced through it became almost impossible to fix, with a second term to protect it the political backlash of removing it became the headwind. Give people something for free its damn hard to take it back.
Obama knew that when he passed it, and never much talked about it in his second term because he was pretty sure it was over the repeal hump and politically safe.
The only real chance to fix it was if enough Republicans felt they should actually deliver on 6 years of campaign promises. But no.
Stated goals:
1)Cover all Americans
2)Bend the cost curve on Health CARE
3) Pay for itself
The preexisting conditions stuff was a problem in implementation not a stated goal.
As for acceptable, as soon as it was forced through it became almost impossible to fix, with a second term to protect it the political backlash of removing it became the headwind. Give people something for free its damn hard to take it back.
Obama knew that when he passed it, and never much talked about it in his second term because he was pretty sure it was over the repeal hump and politically safe.
The only real chance to fix it was if enough Republicans felt they should actually deliver on 6 years of campaign promises. But no.
IMO the ACA is kind of a shambles. It’s the ultimate Rube Goldberg law. And it’s the best thing that could be passed at the time. And, for millions of people, it has been literally a life-saver.
The alternative was do nothing, which would have left us in a world where 15% of the population had no coverage at all, and where medical emergencies were one of the main causes of personal bankruptcy.
I have no issue whatsoever with changing the ACA to improve its flaws. The (R)’s are unable to do that, because a significant minority of (R)’s in Congress are committed to unequivocal repeal of every piece of the ACA, lock stock and barrel, and the (R) leadership can’t get anything passed without the buy-in of the maniacal hard-liners.
So, as a practical matter, the (R)’s bring nothing to the table.
Were they not palpably insane, the more moderate (R)’s would reach out to the (D)’s, kick the Freedom Caucus knotheads to the curb, and find a reasonable path forward.
With Ryan and McConnell driving the bus, that is not likely to happen.
I’m sorry the ACA sucks for your personal situation. For many millions of people, it’s what is keeping them alive.
If you want to change it, call your Congresspeople and tell them to start talking to (D)’s and get something done. The (R) leadership is not going to do it, and doesn’t care if you have insurance or not.
IMO the ACA is kind of a shambles. It’s the ultimate Rube Goldberg law. And it’s the best thing that could be passed at the time. And, for millions of people, it has been literally a life-saver.
The alternative was do nothing, which would have left us in a world where 15% of the population had no coverage at all, and where medical emergencies were one of the main causes of personal bankruptcy.
I have no issue whatsoever with changing the ACA to improve its flaws. The (R)’s are unable to do that, because a significant minority of (R)’s in Congress are committed to unequivocal repeal of every piece of the ACA, lock stock and barrel, and the (R) leadership can’t get anything passed without the buy-in of the maniacal hard-liners.
So, as a practical matter, the (R)’s bring nothing to the table.
Were they not palpably insane, the more moderate (R)’s would reach out to the (D)’s, kick the Freedom Caucus knotheads to the curb, and find a reasonable path forward.
With Ryan and McConnell driving the bus, that is not likely to happen.
I’m sorry the ACA sucks for your personal situation. For many millions of people, it’s what is keeping them alive.
If you want to change it, call your Congresspeople and tell them to start talking to (D)’s and get something done. The (R) leadership is not going to do it, and doesn’t care if you have insurance or not.
D’s aren’t going to change the ACA, they are going to protect it to the death, claiming victory.
And there isn’t a way to fix it without repealing it. It has been inherently flawed from the start.
And 15% of the population still doesn’t have insurance.
D’s aren’t going to change the ACA, they are going to protect it to the death, claiming victory.
And there isn’t a way to fix it without repealing it. It has been inherently flawed from the start.
And 15% of the population still doesn’t have insurance.
…GOP state governments who turned down the Medicaid expansion for pure partisan reasons.
Look for more of them to accept the expansion over the next couple of years. The ACA changed the way hospitals are compensated for charity care — much more through Medicaid, much less through direct payments. Those states’ hospital associations have been leaning on the politicians, because absent the expansion they have to absorb a lot more costs. Once the rural hospitals start closing, those states will take the expansion.
…GOP state governments who turned down the Medicaid expansion for pure partisan reasons.
Look for more of them to accept the expansion over the next couple of years. The ACA changed the way hospitals are compensated for charity care — much more through Medicaid, much less through direct payments. Those states’ hospital associations have been leaning on the politicians, because absent the expansion they have to absorb a lot more costs. Once the rural hospitals start closing, those states will take the expansion.
This seems absolutely true and inarguable. Marty, you are being blindly partisan, maybe not for the first time (you aren’t the only one who sometimes is) but very clearly.
This seems absolutely true and inarguable. Marty, you are being blindly partisan, maybe not for the first time (you aren’t the only one who sometimes is) but very clearly.
sapient 9:28
Googling “aca middle class” I get articles, 2016:
Is Obamacare really affordable? Not for the middle class — CNN Money
Middle-Class Americans Face Biggest Strain Under Rising Obamacare Costs — NPR
Burden of Health-Care Costs Moves to the Middle Class — WSJ
Obamacare Crushing Middle Class …zerohedge, charts maps and graphs
Dilemma over deductibles: Costs crippling middle class == USA Today
ohh, whatever. I was fed up with Clintonites and Obamabots back in 2009 when hilzoy loved tax cuts because they were Obama’s. When I noticed the very active and aggressive sapient refused to visit Jacobin I realized that this is not a comfortable environment for me.
sapient 9:28
Googling “aca middle class” I get articles, 2016:
Is Obamacare really affordable? Not for the middle class — CNN Money
Middle-Class Americans Face Biggest Strain Under Rising Obamacare Costs — NPR
Burden of Health-Care Costs Moves to the Middle Class — WSJ
Obamacare Crushing Middle Class …zerohedge, charts maps and graphs
Dilemma over deductibles: Costs crippling middle class == USA Today
ohh, whatever. I was fed up with Clintonites and Obamabots back in 2009 when hilzoy loved tax cuts because they were Obama’s. When I noticed the very active and aggressive sapient refused to visit Jacobin I realized that this is not a comfortable environment for me.
And 15% of the population still doesn’t have insurance.
Hmmm..
And 15% of the population still doesn’t have insurance.
Hmmm..
Stated goals:
1)Cover all Americans
2)Bend the cost curve on Health CARE
3) Pay for itself
1) Addressed above.
2) Not determined, but not an abject failure as claimed.
3) Pretty much does.
For more on the Act’s goals, see here.
You want lower costs? How about publically expanding the number of doctors and nurses? How about single payer? How about telling all those thousands of health insurance clerks, claims adjusters, salespeople, underwriters, actuaries, and hugely overpaid executives to go out and f*cking get “real” jobs?
Our genius political class told that to steelworkers and autoworkers, why no these folks?
Stated goals:
1)Cover all Americans
2)Bend the cost curve on Health CARE
3) Pay for itself
1) Addressed above.
2) Not determined, but not an abject failure as claimed.
3) Pretty much does.
For more on the Act’s goals, see here.
You want lower costs? How about publically expanding the number of doctors and nurses? How about single payer? How about telling all those thousands of health insurance clerks, claims adjusters, salespeople, underwriters, actuaries, and hugely overpaid executives to go out and f*cking get “real” jobs?
Our genius political class told that to steelworkers and autoworkers, why no these folks?
An interesting piece on the ins and outs of the negotiations:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/obamacare-vote-paul-ryan-health-care-ahca-replacement-failure-trump-214947
An interesting piece on the ins and outs of the negotiations:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/obamacare-vote-paul-ryan-health-care-ahca-replacement-failure-trump-214947
D’s aren’t going to change the ACA, they are going to protect it to the death, claiming victory.
And there isn’t a way to fix it without repealing it. It has been inherently flawed from the start
no, the Dems probably aren’t going to “fix” it if the only “fix” is repeal. but Dems don’t live within the topology of that little knot.
D’s aren’t going to change the ACA, they are going to protect it to the death, claiming victory.
And there isn’t a way to fix it without repealing it. It has been inherently flawed from the start
no, the Dems probably aren’t going to “fix” it if the only “fix” is repeal. but Dems don’t live within the topology of that little knot.
I was fed up with Clintonites and Obamabots back in 2009 when hilzoy loved tax cuts because they were Obama’s.
I don’t know you bob mcmanus, because you post so seldom, but I have seen that you have been greeted welcomingly and with pleasure by main commenters when you have reappeared, and I set great store by that. However, this characterisation of a hilzoy position rings very false to me, she was always rational and measured, could always back up her view in a clear and logical way (whether you agreed with her or not – that is a separate issue), and I would bet good money that she never had an opinion for anything even resembling such an inane reason (if you can even all it a reason). This sounds like you had a difference of opinion due to ideology, and retrospectively have a need to rubbish her point of view.
I was fed up with Clintonites and Obamabots back in 2009 when hilzoy loved tax cuts because they were Obama’s.
I don’t know you bob mcmanus, because you post so seldom, but I have seen that you have been greeted welcomingly and with pleasure by main commenters when you have reappeared, and I set great store by that. However, this characterisation of a hilzoy position rings very false to me, she was always rational and measured, could always back up her view in a clear and logical way (whether you agreed with her or not – that is a separate issue), and I would bet good money that she never had an opinion for anything even resembling such an inane reason (if you can even all it a reason). This sounds like you had a difference of opinion due to ideology, and retrospectively have a need to rubbish her point of view.
“When I noticed the very active and aggressive sapient refused to visit Jacobin I realized that this is not a comfortable environment for me.”
Well you can always find cool comfort at ZeroHedge.
“When I noticed the very active and aggressive sapient refused to visit Jacobin I realized that this is not a comfortable environment for me.”
Well you can always find cool comfort at ZeroHedge.
“How about publically expanding the number of doctors and nurses? How about single payer? How about telling all those thousands of health insurance clerks, claims adjusters, salespeople, underwriters, actuaries, and hugely overpaid executives to go out and f*cking get “real” jobs?”
Well, I have no problem with some of this, except that your assumption that the government bureaucracy would be some how magically cheaper. It is a silly premise. We cant even reduce the size of a single executive agency without the world coming to and end.
But that addresses insurance costs, not health CARE costs.
“How about publically expanding the number of doctors and nurses? How about single payer? How about telling all those thousands of health insurance clerks, claims adjusters, salespeople, underwriters, actuaries, and hugely overpaid executives to go out and f*cking get “real” jobs?”
Well, I have no problem with some of this, except that your assumption that the government bureaucracy would be some how magically cheaper. It is a silly premise. We cant even reduce the size of a single executive agency without the world coming to and end.
But that addresses insurance costs, not health CARE costs.
I want to be careful how I phrase this, my last attempt at praise was taken as a backhanded insult, but I hope Bob McManus isn’t offended when I point out that he represents part of the spectrum we don’t get over here very much and (as a woolly headed liberal committed to diversity), I’m always happy to see him, even if he is rarely, if ever, in the majority. He is incredibly well read and brings a lot to the table. However, with that view (which I hesitate to label) he’s not going to be all sweetness and light. While it would be great if everyone were comfortable here, I’m not sure what we could do to make Bob more comfortable here and I suspect that if we did, he might be even less willing to visit.
I want to be careful how I phrase this, my last attempt at praise was taken as a backhanded insult, but I hope Bob McManus isn’t offended when I point out that he represents part of the spectrum we don’t get over here very much and (as a woolly headed liberal committed to diversity), I’m always happy to see him, even if he is rarely, if ever, in the majority. He is incredibly well read and brings a lot to the table. However, with that view (which I hesitate to label) he’s not going to be all sweetness and light. While it would be great if everyone were comfortable here, I’m not sure what we could do to make Bob more comfortable here and I suspect that if we did, he might be even less willing to visit.
Understood, lj, to the extent that some of that is meant for me.
Now, a sane Republican view on the Healthcare situation. What say you, Marty?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/the-republican-waterloo/520833/
Understood, lj, to the extent that some of that is meant for me.
Now, a sane Republican view on the Healthcare situation. What say you, Marty?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/the-republican-waterloo/520833/
D’s aren’t going to change the ACA, they are going to protect it to the death, claiming victory.
Somehow every Democrat I know is quite willing to say that the ACA has flaws which should be addressed. (Admittedly they also note that this has been true of virtually every other piece of major legislation.)
Do you know of cases where a Republican in Congress has proposed something that is a fix, rather than a straight repeal? Because I seem to have missed it. And if so, what was the response — refusal to even consider it, or agreement (perhaps with the caveat that there was no chance of getting it passed), or disagreement with the specifics?
A blanket statement that the Democrats won’t consider any changes neds some support.
D’s aren’t going to change the ACA, they are going to protect it to the death, claiming victory.
Somehow every Democrat I know is quite willing to say that the ACA has flaws which should be addressed. (Admittedly they also note that this has been true of virtually every other piece of major legislation.)
Do you know of cases where a Republican in Congress has proposed something that is a fix, rather than a straight repeal? Because I seem to have missed it. And if so, what was the response — refusal to even consider it, or agreement (perhaps with the caveat that there was no chance of getting it passed), or disagreement with the specifics?
A blanket statement that the Democrats won’t consider any changes neds some support.
There is nothing sane about David Frum. In the article he calls us a wealthy Democracy. In a wealthy democracy 1/5 of it’s people wouldn’t require free health care because they are too poor to pay for it. 1/7th of its citizens wouldn’t be on food assistance, and just at 40% of its work force wouldn’t be unable to find work.
Fundamentally, I have always believed that every citizen should have Medicaid(or medicare) if they were too poor to afford it or were unable to obtain it on the open market.
But he, like so many on each side, keep pointing to Massachusetts, where Mass Health is down to one provider and is as expensive as any other state these days. MassHealth only worked because the tax load was only to support less than 5% of the population through the system. Massachusetts also passed a law in 2014 that required employers to maintain the level of insurance they currently provided unless they were going to expand coverage significantly. This was to stem the tide of employers offering higher premiums and higher deductibles to their employees as costs continued to rise. In essence they created a new tax on employers to pay for the failing system.
People keep talking about universal healthcare like it is free, but most of those 20 countries that Russell mentioned have the highest real individual tax rates in the OECD, over 60%. Those that aren’t over 60% have problems with their systems, it is a continuing challenge for the UK. There is no appetite in the US for those kinds of tax rates on a broad base. And you simply cant keep pretending that the top .1% can fund it.
David Frum is simply saying that he is not a conservative. He is happy to join the ranks of social democracies and provide crappy service in government funded services to relieve the citizenry of its responsibility to be responsible for itself.
There is nothing sane about David Frum. In the article he calls us a wealthy Democracy. In a wealthy democracy 1/5 of it’s people wouldn’t require free health care because they are too poor to pay for it. 1/7th of its citizens wouldn’t be on food assistance, and just at 40% of its work force wouldn’t be unable to find work.
Fundamentally, I have always believed that every citizen should have Medicaid(or medicare) if they were too poor to afford it or were unable to obtain it on the open market.
But he, like so many on each side, keep pointing to Massachusetts, where Mass Health is down to one provider and is as expensive as any other state these days. MassHealth only worked because the tax load was only to support less than 5% of the population through the system. Massachusetts also passed a law in 2014 that required employers to maintain the level of insurance they currently provided unless they were going to expand coverage significantly. This was to stem the tide of employers offering higher premiums and higher deductibles to their employees as costs continued to rise. In essence they created a new tax on employers to pay for the failing system.
People keep talking about universal healthcare like it is free, but most of those 20 countries that Russell mentioned have the highest real individual tax rates in the OECD, over 60%. Those that aren’t over 60% have problems with their systems, it is a continuing challenge for the UK. There is no appetite in the US for those kinds of tax rates on a broad base. And you simply cant keep pretending that the top .1% can fund it.
David Frum is simply saying that he is not a conservative. He is happy to join the ranks of social democracies and provide crappy service in government funded services to relieve the citizenry of its responsibility to be responsible for itself.
Responsibility for one’s self does not preclude collective action, particularly if collective action works better by orders of magnitude than individual action. I will note that conservative credentials are not challenged when a conservative calls for collective governmental implementation of defense policies.
Responsibility for one’s self does not preclude collective action, particularly if collective action works better by orders of magnitude than individual action. I will note that conservative credentials are not challenged when a conservative calls for collective governmental implementation of defense policies.
In a wealthy democracy 1/5 of it’s people wouldn’t require free health care because they are too poor to pay for it.
That’s an interesting standard, Marty. Are there any wealthy countries, democracies or not, on the planet?
In a wealthy democracy 1/5 of it’s people wouldn’t require free health care because they are too poor to pay for it.
That’s an interesting standard, Marty. Are there any wealthy countries, democracies or not, on the planet?
Well, Michael, I think not. In this case it is supposed to set us apart somehow. Yet, if the rest of the state’s had expanded Medicaid, that number could be close to 1/3.
I guess I think that our economy is strong enough that, barring the ACA, that number would be much lower even if it included being poor as a criteria. But, to ensure the numbers to create a broad sense of entitlement it includes up to 1.45 (that’s from memory) of poverty level income as the standard.
Well, Michael, I think not. In this case it is supposed to set us apart somehow. Yet, if the rest of the state’s had expanded Medicaid, that number could be close to 1/3.
I guess I think that our economy is strong enough that, barring the ACA, that number would be much lower even if it included being poor as a criteria. But, to ensure the numbers to create a broad sense of entitlement it includes up to 1.45 (that’s from memory) of poverty level income as the standard.
“D’s aren’t going to change the ACA, they are going to protect it to the death, claiming victory.”
my very own rep, from the deep blue heart of the blest state in the union except maybe HI, has changes he wants to see in the ACA.
if you are represented in Congress by a (R), get on the horn and tell them you’re sick of the stranglehold the freedom Caucus has on their party, and that they need to start talking to some (D)’s and get busy getting stuff done.
or, you can sit around and piss and moan about obama, the greatest tyrant in American history.
your choice.
“D’s aren’t going to change the ACA, they are going to protect it to the death, claiming victory.”
my very own rep, from the deep blue heart of the blest state in the union except maybe HI, has changes he wants to see in the ACA.
if you are represented in Congress by a (R), get on the horn and tell them you’re sick of the stranglehold the freedom Caucus has on their party, and that they need to start talking to some (D)’s and get busy getting stuff done.
or, you can sit around and piss and moan about obama, the greatest tyrant in American history.
your choice.
Mass Health is down to one provider
are you sure?
http://www.telegram.com/news/20170301/mass-health-insurers-report-year-end-earnings
Mass Health is down to one provider
are you sure?
http://www.telegram.com/news/20170301/mass-health-insurers-report-year-end-earnings
People keep talking about universal healthcare like it is free, but most of those 20 countries that Russell mentioned have the highest real individual tax rates in the OECD, over 60%.
so what?
why fret about the path the money takes as it goes from individual to health care provider?
we’re going to spend that money, all of us, one way or another.
People keep talking about universal healthcare like it is free, but most of those 20 countries that Russell mentioned have the highest real individual tax rates in the OECD, over 60%.
so what?
why fret about the path the money takes as it goes from individual to health care provider?
we’re going to spend that money, all of us, one way or another.
“Well, I have no problem with some of this, except that your assumption that the government bureaucracy would be some how magically cheaper.”
as a simple thought experiment, compare the percentage of dollars spent on care to dollars received for Medicare vs any private insurer.
i’ll also note that i’ve probably had fifteen different insurance plans and almost that many different insurance providers over the last 30 years of getting my coverage via employment. how efficient do you think that was?
“Well, I have no problem with some of this, except that your assumption that the government bureaucracy would be some how magically cheaper.”
as a simple thought experiment, compare the percentage of dollars spent on care to dollars received for Medicare vs any private insurer.
i’ll also note that i’ve probably had fifteen different insurance plans and almost that many different insurance providers over the last 30 years of getting my coverage via employment. how efficient do you think that was?
Well said NV,good point.
Well said NV,good point.
“He is happy to join the ranks of social democracies and provide crappy service in government funded services to relieve the citizenry of its responsibility to be responsible for itself.”
and so we come to the reason why the US will continue to blunder around like a wounded freaking moose until we keel over and die from our own obstinacy and stupidity.
having the government participate in making health care accessible to people *is precisely the citizenry being responsible for itself*.
self government in the costitutional republican form is what this country is. it’s why we exist.
raising and spending public money for the general public welfare is among the very first enumerated powers listed in article 1 section 8.
there is nothing whatsoever wrong or wrong-headed with people employing public means to address basic public needs. which access to basic health care surely is.
we will not recognize or accept this, and so we will suffer like the dumbasses that we are.
best of luck to you, marty, it sounds like you’re between a rock and a hard place. I’m sure it sucks.
“He is happy to join the ranks of social democracies and provide crappy service in government funded services to relieve the citizenry of its responsibility to be responsible for itself.”
and so we come to the reason why the US will continue to blunder around like a wounded freaking moose until we keel over and die from our own obstinacy and stupidity.
having the government participate in making health care accessible to people *is precisely the citizenry being responsible for itself*.
self government in the costitutional republican form is what this country is. it’s why we exist.
raising and spending public money for the general public welfare is among the very first enumerated powers listed in article 1 section 8.
there is nothing whatsoever wrong or wrong-headed with people employing public means to address basic public needs. which access to basic health care surely is.
we will not recognize or accept this, and so we will suffer like the dumbasses that we are.
best of luck to you, marty, it sounds like you’re between a rock and a hard place. I’m sure it sucks.
OK, since I’ve joined ObWi more than a decade ago we’ve been talking about healthcare, healthcare, healthcare and I still have no idea why these crazy people scream socialism all the time and apparently want folks to die in the streets all while the US is spending gazillions more on healthcare than the UK, France or Germany. Are 50% of Americans retarded sociopaths? Get your act together for god’s sake, it’s getting boring …
OK, since I’ve joined ObWi more than a decade ago we’ve been talking about healthcare, healthcare, healthcare and I still have no idea why these crazy people scream socialism all the time and apparently want folks to die in the streets all while the US is spending gazillions more on healthcare than the UK, France or Germany. Are 50% of Americans retarded sociopaths? Get your act together for god’s sake, it’s getting boring …
Are 50% of Americans retarded sociopaths?
I think if I answer yes, that will violate the posting rules. But you’re definitely on the right track.
Are 50% of Americans retarded sociopaths?
I think if I answer yes, that will violate the posting rules. But you’re definitely on the right track.
Are 50% of Americans retarded sociopaths?
Relative to most of the rest of the world, the US is a fairly young nation. We’re not that far from times when a lot of people lived in areas where there was minimal or no formal government, and minimal or no public infrastructure or institutions.
In some parts of the country, that distance is as small as two or three generations. There are lots of places in the US that were, at most, minimally settled as recently as the late 19th C. At least by people identifying as American.
That, among other things, feeds an ethos of self-reliance and plucky independence from what is seen as meddlesome government interference.
A lot of that ethos is based on really bad history, but it is what it is.
It’s not at all remarkable for Americans to rely on public institutions while simultaneously not only disparaging them but insisting that they ought not exist in the first place.
So, not retarded sociopaths, just enchanted by a mythology that is no longer a fit for the world we actually live in now. And probably wasn’t a great fit for, or even an accurate reflection of conditions in, any other time.
We think we’re special. It gets in the way.
Are 50% of Americans retarded sociopaths?
Relative to most of the rest of the world, the US is a fairly young nation. We’re not that far from times when a lot of people lived in areas where there was minimal or no formal government, and minimal or no public infrastructure or institutions.
In some parts of the country, that distance is as small as two or three generations. There are lots of places in the US that were, at most, minimally settled as recently as the late 19th C. At least by people identifying as American.
That, among other things, feeds an ethos of self-reliance and plucky independence from what is seen as meddlesome government interference.
A lot of that ethos is based on really bad history, but it is what it is.
It’s not at all remarkable for Americans to rely on public institutions while simultaneously not only disparaging them but insisting that they ought not exist in the first place.
So, not retarded sociopaths, just enchanted by a mythology that is no longer a fit for the world we actually live in now. And probably wasn’t a great fit for, or even an accurate reflection of conditions in, any other time.
We think we’re special. It gets in the way.
We think we’re special. It gets in the way.
I would argue that this isn’t really the problem. Every nationality has its mythologies and “specialness”. We would do better to focus on the myth that we are a country founded on ideals such as openness, equality, liberty, tolerance, diversity – that we’re constantly striving to embrace and achieve. Yes, it’s a myth, but it urges us be humanitarian rather than self-absorbed provincial bigots.
That, among other things, feeds an ethos of self-reliance and plucky independence from what is seen as meddlesome government interference.
Of course, there is some of this throughout our history, culminating in the Civil War, and the repercussions of its aftermath. But its important to remember how sociopathic the South was, in fact. Modern conservatism is a remnant of that, certainly as much as it is the pioneer ethic.
We think we’re special. It gets in the way.
I would argue that this isn’t really the problem. Every nationality has its mythologies and “specialness”. We would do better to focus on the myth that we are a country founded on ideals such as openness, equality, liberty, tolerance, diversity – that we’re constantly striving to embrace and achieve. Yes, it’s a myth, but it urges us be humanitarian rather than self-absorbed provincial bigots.
That, among other things, feeds an ethos of self-reliance and plucky independence from what is seen as meddlesome government interference.
Of course, there is some of this throughout our history, culminating in the Civil War, and the repercussions of its aftermath. But its important to remember how sociopathic the South was, in fact. Modern conservatism is a remnant of that, certainly as much as it is the pioneer ethic.
I would argue that this isn’t really the problem.
I actually think it contributes to difficulty here.
Americans commonly think of ourselves as the greatest country on earth, perhaps the greatest country in history. Not just in a “Yay for our team” sense, but as a serious proposition.
Every country affirms its unique history and qualities, I’m not sure every country on earth insists, as a given, that it is superior to every other country on the planet.
And I think it does get in the way. We’re unable to see ourselves accurately because we can’t allow for the idea that we might not, in fact, be #1 in every way.
That’s my take on it.
I would argue that this isn’t really the problem.
I actually think it contributes to difficulty here.
Americans commonly think of ourselves as the greatest country on earth, perhaps the greatest country in history. Not just in a “Yay for our team” sense, but as a serious proposition.
Every country affirms its unique history and qualities, I’m not sure every country on earth insists, as a given, that it is superior to every other country on the planet.
And I think it does get in the way. We’re unable to see ourselves accurately because we can’t allow for the idea that we might not, in fact, be #1 in every way.
That’s my take on it.
I would argue that we are not even unique in thinking that we are superior to every other country on the planet. The folks in a lot of countries see things that way.
But you’re right, Russell, our handicap (and it is a handicap) is that “we can’t allow for the idea that we might not, in fact, be #1 in every way.” [emphasis added] Which necessarily makes it difficult to impossible to accept that it might be possible to borrow a good idea that someone else came up with. Not Invented Here, taken to a national cultural level. (I was going to add “pathological”, except that NIH is pathological anywhere it occurs.)
I would argue that we are not even unique in thinking that we are superior to every other country on the planet. The folks in a lot of countries see things that way.
But you’re right, Russell, our handicap (and it is a handicap) is that “we can’t allow for the idea that we might not, in fact, be #1 in every way.” [emphasis added] Which necessarily makes it difficult to impossible to accept that it might be possible to borrow a good idea that someone else came up with. Not Invented Here, taken to a national cultural level. (I was going to add “pathological”, except that NIH is pathological anywhere it occurs.)
russell, I think this is exactly right, and what the rest of the world (on the whole) understands the American attitude to be. And, again on the whole, this self-image is regarded, I would say, with varying degrees of amusement, contempt or pity, depending on who is doing the regarding.
russell, I think this is exactly right, and what the rest of the world (on the whole) understands the American attitude to be. And, again on the whole, this self-image is regarded, I would say, with varying degrees of amusement, contempt or pity, depending on who is doing the regarding.
And regarded in that manner, contra wj, not because the other countries see themselves that way, but because it is really a pretty absurd idea. Which is not to denigrate the wonderful things about America, and particularly the wonderful thing about its aspirations (in the idealistic sense) for itself.
And regarded in that manner, contra wj, not because the other countries see themselves that way, but because it is really a pretty absurd idea. Which is not to denigrate the wonderful things about America, and particularly the wonderful thing about its aspirations (in the idealistic sense) for itself.
And I think it does get in the way. We’re unable to see ourselves accurately because we can’t allow for the idea that we might not, in fact, be #1 in every way.
That’s my take on it.
Good point.
Isn’t this exactly what keeps us from saying,
“Some of these other countries seem to have health care systems that work better than ours. Maybe we could take a lesson.”
And I think it does get in the way. We’re unable to see ourselves accurately because we can’t allow for the idea that we might not, in fact, be #1 in every way.
That’s my take on it.
Good point.
Isn’t this exactly what keeps us from saying,
“Some of these other countries seem to have health care systems that work better than ours. Maybe we could take a lesson.”
Every country affirms its unique history and qualities, I’m not sure every country on earth insists, as a given, that it is superior to every other country on the planet.
I think that people need mythology in order to aspire to greatness. The Enlightenment had its problems, but we were founded on Enlightenment principles which create infinite possibilities for progress.
We’re unable to see ourselves accurately because we can’t allow for the idea that we might not, in fact, be #1 in every way.
Principles of diversity and tolerance allow us to embrace other people’s cultures and ideas. Our country’s political system is as good as the collective will of the people. Unfortunately, the collective will of the people has failed the promise of our system time and again. We continue the struggle.
Our being “the greatest country on earth” is not a fact, but is a possibility because of the citizens’ ability to make it so. We can’t assume it; we have to work for it. The fact that so many of us are so cynical about the possibilities that our government provides is why so many of us gave up on it, and gave it to an oligarch buffoon. We didn’t value it, and we let it be stolen.
Every country affirms its unique history and qualities, I’m not sure every country on earth insists, as a given, that it is superior to every other country on the planet.
I think that people need mythology in order to aspire to greatness. The Enlightenment had its problems, but we were founded on Enlightenment principles which create infinite possibilities for progress.
We’re unable to see ourselves accurately because we can’t allow for the idea that we might not, in fact, be #1 in every way.
Principles of diversity and tolerance allow us to embrace other people’s cultures and ideas. Our country’s political system is as good as the collective will of the people. Unfortunately, the collective will of the people has failed the promise of our system time and again. We continue the struggle.
Our being “the greatest country on earth” is not a fact, but is a possibility because of the citizens’ ability to make it so. We can’t assume it; we have to work for it. The fact that so many of us are so cynical about the possibilities that our government provides is why so many of us gave up on it, and gave it to an oligarch buffoon. We didn’t value it, and we let it be stolen.
Isn’t this exactly what keeps us from saying,
“Some of these other countries seem to have health care systems that work better than ours. Maybe we could take a lesson.”
novakant talked about 50% being sociopathic. That’s actually the problem. Many of us see the fact that we can “take a lesson” as part of the “specialness” that we are.
Isn’t this exactly what keeps us from saying,
“Some of these other countries seem to have health care systems that work better than ours. Maybe we could take a lesson.”
novakant talked about 50% being sociopathic. That’s actually the problem. Many of us see the fact that we can “take a lesson” as part of the “specialness” that we are.
In addition to the things that Russell mentions, for most other nations, healthcare was part of a bargain that was agreed upon after WW2. For the US, we didn’t think we needed it. In addition, we are a country that has elevated doctors to a point where we aren’t supposed to question their decisions. Thus, you have Marty’s toxic creed of individual responsibility driving an industry that wants to maximize profits regardless of the overall impact on society. For me, it’s the American attitude to health care which is really the final straw. That inability to think of your fellow citizen while loudly proclaiming what a wonderful country embarrasses me to no end.
In addition to the things that Russell mentions, for most other nations, healthcare was part of a bargain that was agreed upon after WW2. For the US, we didn’t think we needed it. In addition, we are a country that has elevated doctors to a point where we aren’t supposed to question their decisions. Thus, you have Marty’s toxic creed of individual responsibility driving an industry that wants to maximize profits regardless of the overall impact on society. For me, it’s the American attitude to health care which is really the final straw. That inability to think of your fellow citizen while loudly proclaiming what a wonderful country embarrasses me to no end.
I think that people need mythology in order to aspire to greatness.
I don’t disagree with this, necessarily – it’s good to have an ideal – an aspirational goal – as a motivating image.
When your aspirational goal gets in the way of acknowledging where you are actually at, as a concrete reality, then I think it becomes dysfunctional.
Our being “the greatest country on earth” is not a fact, but is a possibility because of the citizens’ ability to make it so.
I don’t think it’s necessary to have goals like being “the greatest country on earth” in order for us to be our best.
“Being our best” is a sufficient goal.
I would even argue that the burden of the whole “we’re number 1” thing is part of what makes people cynical.
If the bar is that you must be better than everyone else, at everything, all the time, you are setting yourself up for disappointment, frustration, and resentment.
QED.
We’re not “number 1”, and that’s fine, because nobody is “number 1”. We should strive to be the best that we can be. That will be more than sufficient.
At our best, we’re quite good. That’s enough.
I think that people need mythology in order to aspire to greatness.
I don’t disagree with this, necessarily – it’s good to have an ideal – an aspirational goal – as a motivating image.
When your aspirational goal gets in the way of acknowledging where you are actually at, as a concrete reality, then I think it becomes dysfunctional.
Our being “the greatest country on earth” is not a fact, but is a possibility because of the citizens’ ability to make it so.
I don’t think it’s necessary to have goals like being “the greatest country on earth” in order for us to be our best.
“Being our best” is a sufficient goal.
I would even argue that the burden of the whole “we’re number 1” thing is part of what makes people cynical.
If the bar is that you must be better than everyone else, at everything, all the time, you are setting yourself up for disappointment, frustration, and resentment.
QED.
We’re not “number 1”, and that’s fine, because nobody is “number 1”. We should strive to be the best that we can be. That will be more than sufficient.
At our best, we’re quite good. That’s enough.
Isn’t this exactly what keeps us from saying,
“Some of these other countries seem to have health care systems that work better than ours. Maybe we could take a lesson.”
Yes. Among other things.
Isn’t this exactly what keeps us from saying,
“Some of these other countries seem to have health care systems that work better than ours. Maybe we could take a lesson.”
Yes. Among other things.
We’re not “number 1”, and that’s fine, because nobody is “number 1”
That’s fair, but some people are motivated by competition. If “doing our best” means that our healthcare outcomes suck compared to countries doing it better, we need to try harder. IMO.
We’re not “number 1”, and that’s fine, because nobody is “number 1”
That’s fair, but some people are motivated by competition. If “doing our best” means that our healthcare outcomes suck compared to countries doing it better, we need to try harder. IMO.
Despite my contradiction of wj earlier, by the way, I didn’t mean to downplay the undeniable truth that for a large portion of the 18th, particularly the 19th and then part of the 20th century the English or British definitely saw themselves as civilizers of the rest of the world (and particularly “the colonies”), infinitely superior in every way to almost everyone. “To be born an Englishman is to win first prize in the lottery of life” etc etc. And our mythology sees us as the plucky little island (I am using the actual language) that stood alone against the Germans in WW2 until the Americans were ready to come in, thereby saving civilisation etc etc. This part is still felt fairly strongly I would say by a substantial minority of the population. It’s very hard to be clear eyed about these national mythologies, they have an undeniable emotional pull.
Despite my contradiction of wj earlier, by the way, I didn’t mean to downplay the undeniable truth that for a large portion of the 18th, particularly the 19th and then part of the 20th century the English or British definitely saw themselves as civilizers of the rest of the world (and particularly “the colonies”), infinitely superior in every way to almost everyone. “To be born an Englishman is to win first prize in the lottery of life” etc etc. And our mythology sees us as the plucky little island (I am using the actual language) that stood alone against the Germans in WW2 until the Americans were ready to come in, thereby saving civilisation etc etc. This part is still felt fairly strongly I would say by a substantial minority of the population. It’s very hard to be clear eyed about these national mythologies, they have an undeniable emotional pull.
Unfortunately, the collective will of the people has failed the promise of our system time and again
the founders, and everyone watching, knew this was a risk.
Unfortunately, the collective will of the people has failed the promise of our system time and again
the founders, and everyone watching, knew this was a risk.
the founders, and everyone watching, knew this was a risk.
And yet we persisted.
the founders, and everyone watching, knew this was a risk.
And yet we persisted.
and will continue to… 🙂
and will continue to… 🙂
D’s aren’t going to change the ACA, they are going to protect it to the death, claiming victory.
And there isn’t a way to fix it without repealing it. It has been inherently flawed from the start.
I don’t think so, Marty. What do you see as the source of the problems?
Inadequate incentive for young people to sign up?
Inadequate subsidies?
Too small a limit on the difference in premiums by age group?
Can there be improvements? Quite possibly, but let’s remember that our healthcare system was a giant mess before Obama. It’s not totally fair to blame him for not producing a wholesale, magical cure-all, especially given the situation inCongress at the time, which left no room for adjustments, corrections, and so on.
Do you think repeal with no replacement would improve things? That’s a hard proposition to accept.
D’s aren’t going to change the ACA, they are going to protect it to the death, claiming victory.
And there isn’t a way to fix it without repealing it. It has been inherently flawed from the start.
I don’t think so, Marty. What do you see as the source of the problems?
Inadequate incentive for young people to sign up?
Inadequate subsidies?
Too small a limit on the difference in premiums by age group?
Can there be improvements? Quite possibly, but let’s remember that our healthcare system was a giant mess before Obama. It’s not totally fair to blame him for not producing a wholesale, magical cure-all, especially given the situation inCongress at the time, which left no room for adjustments, corrections, and so on.
Do you think repeal with no replacement would improve things? That’s a hard proposition to accept.
Or, perhaps, when some of us look at, for example Sweden, where everyone is ultimately equal we don’t go gosh that’s awesome, yes they tax 70% at some ridiculously low income level so practically no one can be wealthy but so what, everyone has almost exactly the same standard of living. We don’t believe the marginalization of individual achievement is justified by forced charity.
My personal case is not understood very well I think. I don’t believe the government owes me insurance, or health care. It irks me they require me to accept crappy insurance they have created. I believe I would have better options if they would insure the poor and get the he’ll out of the way.
Universal minimum standard of living doesn’t approach any of the values this country was built on. Helping the poor is an American value, the government guaranteeing the poor a middle class living isn’t.
This is all about what do we want to be, a vibrant energetic nation of people dedicated to improving their lives and the lives of their children and neighbors, or a nation of people who outsource all of that to the government because we can get that money back from the rich folks that way.
This is a battle for the soul of our country, and we aren’t the ones abandoning American ideals.
Or, perhaps, when some of us look at, for example Sweden, where everyone is ultimately equal we don’t go gosh that’s awesome, yes they tax 70% at some ridiculously low income level so practically no one can be wealthy but so what, everyone has almost exactly the same standard of living. We don’t believe the marginalization of individual achievement is justified by forced charity.
My personal case is not understood very well I think. I don’t believe the government owes me insurance, or health care. It irks me they require me to accept crappy insurance they have created. I believe I would have better options if they would insure the poor and get the he’ll out of the way.
Universal minimum standard of living doesn’t approach any of the values this country was built on. Helping the poor is an American value, the government guaranteeing the poor a middle class living isn’t.
This is all about what do we want to be, a vibrant energetic nation of people dedicated to improving their lives and the lives of their children and neighbors, or a nation of people who outsource all of that to the government because we can get that money back from the rich folks that way.
This is a battle for the soul of our country, and we aren’t the ones abandoning American ideals.
Mary says: “People keep talking about universal healthcare like it is free, but most of those 20 countries that Russell mentioned have the highest real individual tax rates in the OECD, over 60%. ”
Let’s see. France has a really nice health care system yet they pay a 14% for earnings under €26,791. The max rate is 45% for income over €151,108.
The Netherlands also has a pretty great system and slightly higher tax rate at 52% max but also most Dutch will tell you they get a lot of benefits for that like college tuition less than €2,000 Euros per year.
Canada’s top marginal tax rate is 29%, less than ours, yet they manage to provide healthcare to all of their citizens.
I can’t name one country, much less “most of 20” that hit that 60% mark Marty refers to.
Marty? Was there a particular set of countries you were referring to? Sweden hits close to 60% but that’s all in taxes and no one seems to be complaining.
Norway is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world with a total tax burden of roughly 45%
Mary says: “People keep talking about universal healthcare like it is free, but most of those 20 countries that Russell mentioned have the highest real individual tax rates in the OECD, over 60%. ”
Let’s see. France has a really nice health care system yet they pay a 14% for earnings under €26,791. The max rate is 45% for income over €151,108.
The Netherlands also has a pretty great system and slightly higher tax rate at 52% max but also most Dutch will tell you they get a lot of benefits for that like college tuition less than €2,000 Euros per year.
Canada’s top marginal tax rate is 29%, less than ours, yet they manage to provide healthcare to all of their citizens.
I can’t name one country, much less “most of 20” that hit that 60% mark Marty refers to.
Marty? Was there a particular set of countries you were referring to? Sweden hits close to 60% but that’s all in taxes and no one seems to be complaining.
Norway is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world with a total tax burden of roughly 45%
I may be totally misguided, so please correct me if I’m wrong, but:
Europe arose from a feudal system, where the king actually owned everything. The tax system is part of who they are.
The United States also descended from a European system, and various governments owned the land at some point, or government supported projects, anyway. But when it was allotted to people, suddenly, they didn’t feel the necessity of rendering unto Caesar, because “pioneer”?
Yes, I know that a lot of Europeans don’t actually pay their taxes. Not really sure what the dynamic is though – it’s maybe just considered corruption rather than “don’t tread on me”?
I may be totally misguided, so please correct me if I’m wrong, but:
Europe arose from a feudal system, where the king actually owned everything. The tax system is part of who they are.
The United States also descended from a European system, and various governments owned the land at some point, or government supported projects, anyway. But when it was allotted to people, suddenly, they didn’t feel the necessity of rendering unto Caesar, because “pioneer”?
Yes, I know that a lot of Europeans don’t actually pay their taxes. Not really sure what the dynamic is though – it’s maybe just considered corruption rather than “don’t tread on me”?
The OECD calculates the top 20 countries have taxes for individuals based on all taxes they pay at somewhere in the 5t% to 70%. And its Saturday night and I probably wont go find the graph tonight.
The OECD calculates the top 20 countries have taxes for individuals based on all taxes they pay at somewhere in the 5t% to 70%. And its Saturday night and I probably wont go find the graph tonight.
In addition to the debt ceiling, the current spending authorization expires April 28. After getting nothing this past week, I don’t expect that the HFC is going to just roll over.
In addition to the debt ceiling, the current spending authorization expires April 28. After getting nothing this past week, I don’t expect that the HFC is going to just roll over.
if people in European democratic socialist countries agree to be taxed at rates that we would not accept, so be it. not our business, it has nothing to do with us. they appear to have quite vibrant societies in spite of their onerous tax burden.
as far as the battle for the soul of the country, I watched a roomful of (R)”s applaud the idea of a guy dying because he had no insurance, and I said to myself these people are no kin to me.
so let’s fucking have it out, and may the best point of view win. their side can’t seem to find their own asses with two hands and a flashlight, so I like my odds pretty well.
if i’m not mistaken, you, marty, are in the 60+ zone. you’re scrambling for a gig, which is no shame because you by god are not alone. but that puts you in the private markets, which is probably the most free-market based part of health insurance right now. and, if i’m not mistaken, you have some pre-existing health issues.
so you are, no doubt, up against it.
what I want to point out is that, in the world you think you want, you’d be up shit”s creek with no paddle, because no insurer would freaking touch you for less than your weight in gold. and the people you think are your fellow-travelers would applaud your death.
i, conversely, would not.
beyond that, I got nothing. best of luck to you.
if people in European democratic socialist countries agree to be taxed at rates that we would not accept, so be it. not our business, it has nothing to do with us. they appear to have quite vibrant societies in spite of their onerous tax burden.
as far as the battle for the soul of the country, I watched a roomful of (R)”s applaud the idea of a guy dying because he had no insurance, and I said to myself these people are no kin to me.
so let’s fucking have it out, and may the best point of view win. their side can’t seem to find their own asses with two hands and a flashlight, so I like my odds pretty well.
if i’m not mistaken, you, marty, are in the 60+ zone. you’re scrambling for a gig, which is no shame because you by god are not alone. but that puts you in the private markets, which is probably the most free-market based part of health insurance right now. and, if i’m not mistaken, you have some pre-existing health issues.
so you are, no doubt, up against it.
what I want to point out is that, in the world you think you want, you’d be up shit”s creek with no paddle, because no insurer would freaking touch you for less than your weight in gold. and the people you think are your fellow-travelers would applaud your death.
i, conversely, would not.
beyond that, I got nothing. best of luck to you.
We don’t believe the marginalization of individual achievement is justified by forced charity.
Who is “we” here, Marty? It’s certainly not me. It’s certainly not a lot of other folks, folks who just might constitute a majority in this country.
So why don’t “WE”, get to write this as: “WE don’t believe the enhancement of social and economic disparities is justified by public policies that reinforce and enhance that dispartity?”
How about that?
Universal minimum standard of living doesn’t approach any of the values this country was built on.
Yes. Such a standard simply does not hold a candle to slavery or propertied white male dominance now, does it? Or, perhaps those ideals have changed over time to be more inclusive or different in some substantive ways?
..or a nation of people who outsource all of that to the government because we can get that money back from the rich folks that way.
But if we did not have an array of public policies that basically give the lions share of the claim to future economic output to the already rich, we wouldn’t have to bring this up at all now, would we?
This is a battle for the soul of our country
Yes. It is.
…and we aren’t the ones abandoning American ideals.
That depends on the “ideals” you claim are “American” now, does it not?
The wingnut claim to have a unique understanding of these ideals is simply intellectual thuggery.
We don’t believe the marginalization of individual achievement is justified by forced charity.
Who is “we” here, Marty? It’s certainly not me. It’s certainly not a lot of other folks, folks who just might constitute a majority in this country.
So why don’t “WE”, get to write this as: “WE don’t believe the enhancement of social and economic disparities is justified by public policies that reinforce and enhance that dispartity?”
How about that?
Universal minimum standard of living doesn’t approach any of the values this country was built on.
Yes. Such a standard simply does not hold a candle to slavery or propertied white male dominance now, does it? Or, perhaps those ideals have changed over time to be more inclusive or different in some substantive ways?
..or a nation of people who outsource all of that to the government because we can get that money back from the rich folks that way.
But if we did not have an array of public policies that basically give the lions share of the claim to future economic output to the already rich, we wouldn’t have to bring this up at all now, would we?
This is a battle for the soul of our country
Yes. It is.
…and we aren’t the ones abandoning American ideals.
That depends on the “ideals” you claim are “American” now, does it not?
The wingnut claim to have a unique understanding of these ideals is simply intellectual thuggery.
First, healthcare in the USA is stupidly expensive, for a whole host of reasons which would take a generation to fix if you tried, which you won’t.
Second, no amount of legislative tinkering is going to get Marty healthcare insurance he can comfortably afford, so long as he is paying the market cost. There’s only one answer: premiums have to be independent of an individual’s expected healthcare costs. That is, compulsory insurance for all, charged as a percentage of earned income. It doesn’t have to be single payer, but the young, rich and healthy do have to pay for the old, poor and sick.
Something like the German system would work.
Call it socialism if you like, but it’s what US employers already in effect do – the costs of ‘free’ employee health insurance are borne by employees in reduced wages, and the reduction is the same regardless of health status.
First, healthcare in the USA is stupidly expensive, for a whole host of reasons which would take a generation to fix if you tried, which you won’t.
Second, no amount of legislative tinkering is going to get Marty healthcare insurance he can comfortably afford, so long as he is paying the market cost. There’s only one answer: premiums have to be independent of an individual’s expected healthcare costs. That is, compulsory insurance for all, charged as a percentage of earned income. It doesn’t have to be single payer, but the young, rich and healthy do have to pay for the old, poor and sick.
Something like the German system would work.
Call it socialism if you like, but it’s what US employers already in effect do – the costs of ‘free’ employee health insurance are borne by employees in reduced wages, and the reduction is the same regardless of health status.
The OECD calculates the top 20 countries have taxes for individuals based on all taxes they pay at somewhere in the 5t% to 70%.
This is not at all hard…took me less that a minute. I am sorry you are so busy:
https://taxfoundation.org/comparison-tax-burden-labor-oecd-2016/
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=REV
I’m sure there are many other data sources out there that would be fairly easy to find.
But whatever.
The OECD calculates the top 20 countries have taxes for individuals based on all taxes they pay at somewhere in the 5t% to 70%.
This is not at all hard…took me less that a minute. I am sorry you are so busy:
https://taxfoundation.org/comparison-tax-burden-labor-oecd-2016/
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=REV
I’m sure there are many other data sources out there that would be fairly easy to find.
But whatever.
“We don’t believe the marginalization of individual achievement is justified by forced charity.
Who is “we” here, Marty?”
right on.
everyone is entitled to their point of view, but don’t try selling me the idea that your point of is “the” American point of view, or is what “we” do.
there are about 100 “american points of view”. advocate for yours, i’ll advocate for mine.
just remember that the folks you think are on “your side” would applaud your death. the folks on “my side” would not.
personally i would not align myself with people who would applaud at the thought of my death. we all make our own choices.
best of luck to you.
“We don’t believe the marginalization of individual achievement is justified by forced charity.
Who is “we” here, Marty?”
right on.
everyone is entitled to their point of view, but don’t try selling me the idea that your point of is “the” American point of view, or is what “we” do.
there are about 100 “american points of view”. advocate for yours, i’ll advocate for mine.
just remember that the folks you think are on “your side” would applaud your death. the folks on “my side” would not.
personally i would not align myself with people who would applaud at the thought of my death. we all make our own choices.
best of luck to you.
I’m not the one selling superiority, we is a common term for me and people who agree with me. Advocating for mine is what I do.
I’m pretty sure no one on my side applauds the death of anyone, everyone who dies is martyred for the cause on your side. Like government policy should be set to maximize its value for a single individual, rather than the broadest good for the most people.
My side wants to provide universal access to affordable health care, your side wants to give me a useless insurance card and claim victory.
And the only people here proclaiming moral superiority is your side.
I’m not the one selling superiority, we is a common term for me and people who agree with me. Advocating for mine is what I do.
I’m pretty sure no one on my side applauds the death of anyone, everyone who dies is martyred for the cause on your side. Like government policy should be set to maximize its value for a single individual, rather than the broadest good for the most people.
My side wants to provide universal access to affordable health care, your side wants to give me a useless insurance card and claim victory.
And the only people here proclaiming moral superiority is your side.
best of luck buddy. don’t get sick.
best of luck buddy. don’t get sick.
My side wants to provide universal access to affordable health care, your side wants to give me a useless insurance card and claim victory.
I’m curious to know who you think is on your side.
My side wants to provide universal access to affordable health care, your side wants to give me a useless insurance card and claim victory.
I’m curious to know who you think is on your side.
My side wants to provide universal access to affordable health care
Am I understanding correctly that what you (singular or plural) want is something like either
a) Medicare for all, or
b) government regulations restricting health insurance premiums while mandating coverage for everyone who signs up? (Which doesn’t work unless you also require everyone to buy said insurance somewhere, leaving only the choice of where to the purchaser.)
Because it is not obvious what third option there might be.
My side wants to provide universal access to affordable health care
Am I understanding correctly that what you (singular or plural) want is something like either
a) Medicare for all, or
b) government regulations restricting health insurance premiums while mandating coverage for everyone who signs up? (Which doesn’t work unless you also require everyone to buy said insurance somewhere, leaving only the choice of where to the purchaser.)
Because it is not obvious what third option there might be.
Exactly wj, selling insurance nationally, expanded hsa’s, drug purchases from outside the US, tort reform, medicaid block grants, of course are unimaginable. Changing the system in ways that enable individuals by reducing friction and regulation so more people can afford to buy health care couldn’t possibly work better. Because the government doesnt gaurantee it, which will aleays ultimately drive prices up or quality down. Unimaginable.
.
Exactly wj, selling insurance nationally, expanded hsa’s, drug purchases from outside the US, tort reform, medicaid block grants, of course are unimaginable. Changing the system in ways that enable individuals by reducing friction and regulation so more people can afford to buy health care couldn’t possibly work better. Because the government doesnt gaurantee it, which will aleays ultimately drive prices up or quality down. Unimaginable.
.
https://a.msn.com/r/2/BByCdsY?m=en-us
I want that health care solution that is killing thousands more Americans each year?
https://a.msn.com/r/2/BByCdsY?m=en-us
I want that health care solution that is killing thousands more Americans each year?
It’s reasonable to include payroll taxes in calculations of the individual tax burden, since the tax incidence is mainly on the employee. But for a fair comparison you should add the cost of employer-provided health insurance to the US number, since the incidence of that is equally on the employee.
It’s reasonable to include payroll taxes in calculations of the individual tax burden, since the tax incidence is mainly on the employee. But for a fair comparison you should add the cost of employer-provided health insurance to the US number, since the incidence of that is equally on the employee.
Marty,
your numbers about the Swedish taxes are unfounded. The Swedish income tax is, at the highest level of income (over 75 000 dollars or so) 57 per cent of which some 20 per cent goes to local taxes. In addition, there is a flat mandatory health insurance paymemt of 8.78 per cent. So the tax is at most about 65 per cent, but that includes a total-coverage health insurance.
This system is not really based on feudalistic principles, as Russell claimed. It is true that King Gustavus I did, in theory, claim in the 16th century that he had the dominium directum on all land in the country. This was, however, only a legal fiction that never had any useful application, and it was deprecated in the constitutional amendment of 1789, when all land in Sweden was declared to have the same protection of ownership, and to be freely acquirable by purchase by any citizen, regardless of their social position. (Which was a huge victory for the peasants’ chamber in the Swedish parliament.)
The ideology behind the current Swedish taxation is, historically, a mix of social democratic thought and liberal nationalism. The idea is that the whole nation is a family, linked with ties of common heritage and culture, where the moral obligation to maintain others extends to everyone.
And contrary to what you said, the system doesn’t really guarantee a middle class existence. The lowest level of income is pretty bleak. However, the system guarantees that you maintain a semblance of your current standard of living even if you get sick or into an accident. For example, if you get so ill that you are unable to work, your pension is around 60 per cent of your current income, and the take-home sum around 70 per cent, considering how the taxation plays. This means that an upper middle class person will sink to lower middle class, but does not face personal catastrophe. And this aspect of the system keeps the support pretty high among all classes of society.
And even with the high taxation, there are quite a few obscenely wealthy Swedes. You should sail through the Stockholm archipelago and then stroll through Rinkeby sometimes to get rid of the idea that the Swedes all have the same lifestyle.
Marty,
your numbers about the Swedish taxes are unfounded. The Swedish income tax is, at the highest level of income (over 75 000 dollars or so) 57 per cent of which some 20 per cent goes to local taxes. In addition, there is a flat mandatory health insurance paymemt of 8.78 per cent. So the tax is at most about 65 per cent, but that includes a total-coverage health insurance.
This system is not really based on feudalistic principles, as Russell claimed. It is true that King Gustavus I did, in theory, claim in the 16th century that he had the dominium directum on all land in the country. This was, however, only a legal fiction that never had any useful application, and it was deprecated in the constitutional amendment of 1789, when all land in Sweden was declared to have the same protection of ownership, and to be freely acquirable by purchase by any citizen, regardless of their social position. (Which was a huge victory for the peasants’ chamber in the Swedish parliament.)
The ideology behind the current Swedish taxation is, historically, a mix of social democratic thought and liberal nationalism. The idea is that the whole nation is a family, linked with ties of common heritage and culture, where the moral obligation to maintain others extends to everyone.
And contrary to what you said, the system doesn’t really guarantee a middle class existence. The lowest level of income is pretty bleak. However, the system guarantees that you maintain a semblance of your current standard of living even if you get sick or into an accident. For example, if you get so ill that you are unable to work, your pension is around 60 per cent of your current income, and the take-home sum around 70 per cent, considering how the taxation plays. This means that an upper middle class person will sink to lower middle class, but does not face personal catastrophe. And this aspect of the system keeps the support pretty high among all classes of society.
And even with the high taxation, there are quite a few obscenely wealthy Swedes. You should sail through the Stockholm archipelago and then stroll through Rinkeby sometimes to get rid of the idea that the Swedes all have the same lifestyle.
Marty,
medical tort reform alone is not the way to reduce medical costs, because many of those torts are real. It simply means moving the unavoidable cost of medical mistakes to the unlucky patients.
In Finland, you cannot sue a physician for damages. Instead, should there be a medical injury caused by malpractice or by simply extremely bad luck, you submit your claim to the malpractice insurance pool, and most likely, the practicioner who made the mistake will happily write you a supporting statement, because they will not be responsible for any of the costs. The physician is responsible only if the act was intentional or grossly negligent (which is a very high threshold in Finland). The vast majority of cases is solved without any legal help involved neither by the patient nor by the physician. If there is a disagreement on the case, the patient can requesta statement from a national board of medical malpractice claims, and almost definitively, the insurance will pay according to their recommendation.
The medical practitioner is personally responsible only if the patient makes an administrative complaint to the national board, which can limit or remove the right to practice. Such handling is rather rare, and never gives the patient any financial compensation. It is for revenge only.
However in the US, there is no similar system, and the threat of a tort trial is absolutely necessary for getting compensated. And I would wager that you, Marty, would be against setting up a bureaucracy for handling medical malpractice claims in administrtive manner.
Marty,
medical tort reform alone is not the way to reduce medical costs, because many of those torts are real. It simply means moving the unavoidable cost of medical mistakes to the unlucky patients.
In Finland, you cannot sue a physician for damages. Instead, should there be a medical injury caused by malpractice or by simply extremely bad luck, you submit your claim to the malpractice insurance pool, and most likely, the practicioner who made the mistake will happily write you a supporting statement, because they will not be responsible for any of the costs. The physician is responsible only if the act was intentional or grossly negligent (which is a very high threshold in Finland). The vast majority of cases is solved without any legal help involved neither by the patient nor by the physician. If there is a disagreement on the case, the patient can requesta statement from a national board of medical malpractice claims, and almost definitively, the insurance will pay according to their recommendation.
The medical practitioner is personally responsible only if the patient makes an administrative complaint to the national board, which can limit or remove the right to practice. Such handling is rather rare, and never gives the patient any financial compensation. It is for revenge only.
However in the US, there is no similar system, and the threat of a tort trial is absolutely necessary for getting compensated. And I would wager that you, Marty, would be against setting up a bureaucracy for handling medical malpractice claims in administrtive manner.
“This system is not really based on feudalistic principles, as Russell claimed”
not me.
fwiw, health insurance costs a lot because health care costs a lot.
address that and the insurance issue suddenly becomes manageable.
I think the free market is a fine thing, but there actually are conditions that have to be in place for an efficient market to exist. those conditions do not exist in the realm of health care beyond the level of aspirin and band aids. so, the benefits of ‘market based’ approaches are limited.
hsa’s are great if you actually have surplus income to save, and if they actually are a savings account, rather than the cruel mercenary craps game that so many are, where you have to guess what you’re going to spend and you forfeit whatever is left in the account at the end of the year if you guess wrong.
public payers negotiating pharmacy prices would be great but apparently we can’t have that. don’t blame us liberals for that.
basically I don’t care what we do as long as people can go to the doctor when they need to. as far as I can see, the ACA makes that happen more than whatever we had before did. if there’s a better idea on offer, fine with me. there was no better idea on offer.
best of luck marty.
“This system is not really based on feudalistic principles, as Russell claimed”
not me.
fwiw, health insurance costs a lot because health care costs a lot.
address that and the insurance issue suddenly becomes manageable.
I think the free market is a fine thing, but there actually are conditions that have to be in place for an efficient market to exist. those conditions do not exist in the realm of health care beyond the level of aspirin and band aids. so, the benefits of ‘market based’ approaches are limited.
hsa’s are great if you actually have surplus income to save, and if they actually are a savings account, rather than the cruel mercenary craps game that so many are, where you have to guess what you’re going to spend and you forfeit whatever is left in the account at the end of the year if you guess wrong.
public payers negotiating pharmacy prices would be great but apparently we can’t have that. don’t blame us liberals for that.
basically I don’t care what we do as long as people can go to the doctor when they need to. as far as I can see, the ACA makes that happen more than whatever we had before did. if there’s a better idea on offer, fine with me. there was no better idea on offer.
best of luck marty.
> Like government policy should be set to maximize its value for a single individual
Which individual?
Also, “selling insurance nationally” sounds like code for the murder of States’ Rights. What am I missing?
> Like government policy should be set to maximize its value for a single individual
Which individual?
Also, “selling insurance nationally” sounds like code for the murder of States’ Rights. What am I missing?
Sorry, russell. I should have referred to sapient.
Technically, the early modern Swedish law considered that only land owned by nobles was held in dominium directum, and the peasants had only a dominium utilium, that was permanent and inheritable, though. (These concepts were from Roman law, and worked really badly when used to formalize the medieval Swedish law.) The practical difference was that peasant land could be alienated outside the extended family only after family members had been given a year and a half to buy the land back, and there were some restrictions on breaking farms into smaller ones, which the noble land did not suffer from. In addition, only nobles could buy noble land. In the 17th century, some of the noble land was also tax-free but that was abolished during the 18th century. Swedish state had the politically strongest peasantry in Western world, including a separate peasant’s chamber in the parliament, so the crown never tried to contest the actual inheritable ownership of farms, though they had some ambitious legal fictions.
In 1789, the peasants, clergy and burghers got the right to buy also noble land, and the state noted that even non-noble land was held in dominium directum/i>.(However, the family pay-back right was not abolished. It was no longer considered to flow from king’s ultimate ownership but directly from the law of the land.) Essentially, this was a great win for capitalism, because it allowed non-nobles to acquire noble land, and secured the peasantry’s right to land against any claims that might be made under interpretations of Roman law.
Similarly, until 20th century, it was considered that land in towns was not really owned by the seeming owner, but only held permanently and inheritably, while the actual final dominion was vested in the city. This was considered to be the source of the zoning power. It was only in the 20th century, when zoning was considered a statutory right of the municipality, and the ownership of town land absolute.
In general, this simply shows that the general direction has been to consider ownership absolute and the limitations of that right to be statutory exceptions, not expressions of a higher property right held by the state. Thus, you can really say that this ideology is the absolute opposite of feudal thought, which tries to express administrative relationships as property rights.
Sorry, russell. I should have referred to sapient.
Technically, the early modern Swedish law considered that only land owned by nobles was held in dominium directum, and the peasants had only a dominium utilium, that was permanent and inheritable, though. (These concepts were from Roman law, and worked really badly when used to formalize the medieval Swedish law.) The practical difference was that peasant land could be alienated outside the extended family only after family members had been given a year and a half to buy the land back, and there were some restrictions on breaking farms into smaller ones, which the noble land did not suffer from. In addition, only nobles could buy noble land. In the 17th century, some of the noble land was also tax-free but that was abolished during the 18th century. Swedish state had the politically strongest peasantry in Western world, including a separate peasant’s chamber in the parliament, so the crown never tried to contest the actual inheritable ownership of farms, though they had some ambitious legal fictions.
In 1789, the peasants, clergy and burghers got the right to buy also noble land, and the state noted that even non-noble land was held in dominium directum/i>.(However, the family pay-back right was not abolished. It was no longer considered to flow from king’s ultimate ownership but directly from the law of the land.) Essentially, this was a great win for capitalism, because it allowed non-nobles to acquire noble land, and secured the peasantry’s right to land against any claims that might be made under interpretations of Roman law.
Similarly, until 20th century, it was considered that land in towns was not really owned by the seeming owner, but only held permanently and inheritably, while the actual final dominion was vested in the city. This was considered to be the source of the zoning power. It was only in the 20th century, when zoning was considered a statutory right of the municipality, and the ownership of town land absolute.
In general, this simply shows that the general direction has been to consider ownership absolute and the limitations of that right to be statutory exceptions, not expressions of a higher property right held by the state. Thus, you can really say that this ideology is the absolute opposite of feudal thought, which tries to express administrative relationships as property rights.
Killing italics?
Killing italics?
Killing italics again?
Killing italics again?
Changing the system in ways that enable individuals by reducing friction and regulation…
how does ‘tort reform’ happen without using regulations?
Changing the system in ways that enable individuals by reducing friction and regulation…
how does ‘tort reform’ happen without using regulations?
Thank you, Lurker, for a very fascinating pocket history!
Thank you, Lurker, for a very fascinating pocket history!
fwiw, health insurance costs a lot because health care costs a lot.
You shouldn’t be writing that. That novel idea is exclusively within the purview of the people on Marty’s “side.”
On another note, you don’t have to be an actuarial genius to recognize that single-payer resutls in the largest and most diverse risk pool possible, allowing insurance to most effectively fulfull its intended purpose. But that’s bad, because it’s government.
Freedom!
fwiw, health insurance costs a lot because health care costs a lot.
You shouldn’t be writing that. That novel idea is exclusively within the purview of the people on Marty’s “side.”
On another note, you don’t have to be an actuarial genius to recognize that single-payer resutls in the largest and most diverse risk pool possible, allowing insurance to most effectively fulfull its intended purpose. But that’s bad, because it’s government.
Freedom!
hey, here’s an idea.
medical school costs, order of magnitude, a quarter of a million bucks.
we offer to pay for medical school for 1,000 would-be doctors. either as tuition for current students, or just pay off student loans for folks who have already been to school and are now doing residency.
That’s $250M.
Then, the folks whose schooling we pay for will work as GP’s, in public clinics as public employees, for ten years, for $150K/year, with a modest annual raise to keep them a little bit ahead of inflation.
So, order of magnitude, $150M/year. Plus the cost of the clinic itself. The clinics will serve the public on a sliding scale basis. If you have insurance, they take insurance. If you don’t, they take cash according to what you can afford. If all you have is chickens, they will take chickens.
For that expenditure, we get 1,000 GP’s who will work in public clinics. That’s 20 per state, on average, with the actual distribution to be based on which areas of the country are least well served.
Lather, rinse, and repeat this program every year for as long as makes sense.
The number of patients in a GP’s panel varies pretty widely, but 2,000 is apparently not an unusual number.
So, for that outlay, we get basic hands-on medical care for about 2M additional patients, each year, as long as we want to keep running the program.
We might run the program for 5 years, or 10. We might continue it indefinitely to replace public employee GP’s who fulfill their 10 year contract and want to move to private practice.
And yes, it’s socialized medicine. The government is paying your doctor. If that doesn’t work for you, go to a different doctor. There will be plenty of room for private sector docs to work as specialists, in concierge practices, or just as plain old GP’s who have their own private practice.
But if you don’t have money or insurance, or live someplace where there aren’t GP’s to be had for whatever price, now you can go to the doctor.
That’s my big idea. Relative to some other stuff I’ve seen proposed, it seems pretty cost effective.
hey, here’s an idea.
medical school costs, order of magnitude, a quarter of a million bucks.
we offer to pay for medical school for 1,000 would-be doctors. either as tuition for current students, or just pay off student loans for folks who have already been to school and are now doing residency.
That’s $250M.
Then, the folks whose schooling we pay for will work as GP’s, in public clinics as public employees, for ten years, for $150K/year, with a modest annual raise to keep them a little bit ahead of inflation.
So, order of magnitude, $150M/year. Plus the cost of the clinic itself. The clinics will serve the public on a sliding scale basis. If you have insurance, they take insurance. If you don’t, they take cash according to what you can afford. If all you have is chickens, they will take chickens.
For that expenditure, we get 1,000 GP’s who will work in public clinics. That’s 20 per state, on average, with the actual distribution to be based on which areas of the country are least well served.
Lather, rinse, and repeat this program every year for as long as makes sense.
The number of patients in a GP’s panel varies pretty widely, but 2,000 is apparently not an unusual number.
So, for that outlay, we get basic hands-on medical care for about 2M additional patients, each year, as long as we want to keep running the program.
We might run the program for 5 years, or 10. We might continue it indefinitely to replace public employee GP’s who fulfill their 10 year contract and want to move to private practice.
And yes, it’s socialized medicine. The government is paying your doctor. If that doesn’t work for you, go to a different doctor. There will be plenty of room for private sector docs to work as specialists, in concierge practices, or just as plain old GP’s who have their own private practice.
But if you don’t have money or insurance, or live someplace where there aren’t GP’s to be had for whatever price, now you can go to the doctor.
That’s my big idea. Relative to some other stuff I’ve seen proposed, it seems pretty cost effective.
That’s my big idea. Relative to some other stuff I’ve seen proposed, it seems pretty cost effective.
It’s a great idea. And the incentive for young doctors to provide good care is huge, because they’re building their careers.
That’s my big idea. Relative to some other stuff I’ve seen proposed, it seems pretty cost effective.
It’s a great idea. And the incentive for young doctors to provide good care is huge, because they’re building their careers.
And if you’re trying to get costs down, increasing access to primary and preventive care does that. ERs are a terribly inefficient way to deliver non-emergency care. Keeping things from needlessly becoming emergencies is great, too.
And if you’re trying to get costs down, increasing access to primary and preventive care does that. ERs are a terribly inefficient way to deliver non-emergency care. Keeping things from needlessly becoming emergencies is great, too.
You are of course aware, russell, that what you propose is nothing but indentured servitude in disguise. 😉
You are of course aware, russell, that what you propose is nothing but indentured servitude in disguise. 😉
Great ideas are like waves; ideologies are the rocks they crash against. The waves eventually wear the rocks down, but it takes practically forever.
I don’t know what corresponds to dynamite in this metaphor, but sometimes that’s what it takes to break rocks on a human time scale.
–TP
Great ideas are like waves; ideologies are the rocks they crash against. The waves eventually wear the rocks down, but it takes practically forever.
I don’t know what corresponds to dynamite in this metaphor, but sometimes that’s what it takes to break rocks on a human time scale.
–TP
Preventive care is like asking the fire department to pour water on your house once a week, i.e. buying into their protection racket. ER is the only rational solution. 😉
Preventive care is like asking the fire department to pour water on your house once a week, i.e. buying into their protection racket. ER is the only rational solution. 😉
you have uncovered my secret plan….
you have uncovered my secret plan….
we offer to pay for medical school for 1,000 would-be doctors. either as tuition for current students, or just pay off student loans for folks who have already been to school and are now doing residency.
I am told by usually reliable sources that the bottleneck is residencies. Residents are paid by the federal government — it’s part of Medicare — and Congress has capped the number of residencies at 100,000. Increasing the number depends on both Congress and the teaching hospitals.
As an aside, several states have tried some variation of this plan, particularly for rural areas where the GP shortage is especially acute. None of those programs have been very successful — it turns out that new doctors would rather practice in urbanized areas under the massive debt load than practice in rural areas without debt.
we offer to pay for medical school for 1,000 would-be doctors. either as tuition for current students, or just pay off student loans for folks who have already been to school and are now doing residency.
I am told by usually reliable sources that the bottleneck is residencies. Residents are paid by the federal government — it’s part of Medicare — and Congress has capped the number of residencies at 100,000. Increasing the number depends on both Congress and the teaching hospitals.
As an aside, several states have tried some variation of this plan, particularly for rural areas where the GP shortage is especially acute. None of those programs have been very successful — it turns out that new doctors would rather practice in urbanized areas under the massive debt load than practice in rural areas without debt.
Congress has capped the number of residencies at 100,000
And that, my friends, is called a barrier to entry. Enforced by the power of the law.
it turns out that new doctors would rather practice in urbanized areas under the massive debt load than practice in rural areas without debt.
everybody wants to make a million bucks. it’s the american way.
so be it. free markets for a free people. no doctors for rural america, if they don’t like it they can move to the big town where all the docs want to live.
Congress has capped the number of residencies at 100,000
And that, my friends, is called a barrier to entry. Enforced by the power of the law.
it turns out that new doctors would rather practice in urbanized areas under the massive debt load than practice in rural areas without debt.
everybody wants to make a million bucks. it’s the american way.
so be it. free markets for a free people. no doctors for rural america, if they don’t like it they can move to the big town where all the docs want to live.
Cap on graduate medical education programs (GME’s aka residencies)?
Thank you, pointless austerity pain caucus!
Cap on graduate medical education programs (GME’s aka residencies)?
Thank you, pointless austerity pain caucus!
It’s not just about the money. Over here in Germany rural areas have the same problem to get or keep doctors (general practitioners*). There have been plans to steer doctors into those areas by limiting licences in urban areas but I do not know about the current status. Such measures would not be new but in the past it was mainly to avoid oversupply, e.g. a former neighbour of ours could not open a dentist office because there were already several within walking distance, so his application got denied by the local authorities.
*whose income would not really depend on location. Specialists is a different matter.
It’s not just about the money. Over here in Germany rural areas have the same problem to get or keep doctors (general practitioners*). There have been plans to steer doctors into those areas by limiting licences in urban areas but I do not know about the current status. Such measures would not be new but in the past it was mainly to avoid oversupply, e.g. a former neighbour of ours could not open a dentist office because there were already several within walking distance, so his application got denied by the local authorities.
*whose income would not really depend on location. Specialists is a different matter.
Congress has capped the number of residencies at 100,000.
It’s not just a barrier to entry. It seems like it’s also at least part of the reason why hospitals have residents working insanely long shifts.** Which, note, means having doctors required while too tired to see straight. And anyone who’s even minimally informed knows that leads to avoidable mistakes.
** The other reason being flat-out hazing. Existing doctors had to suffer, so they think that the next generation should have to suffer as well.
Congress has capped the number of residencies at 100,000.
It’s not just a barrier to entry. It seems like it’s also at least part of the reason why hospitals have residents working insanely long shifts.** Which, note, means having doctors required while too tired to see straight. And anyone who’s even minimally informed knows that leads to avoidable mistakes.
** The other reason being flat-out hazing. Existing doctors had to suffer, so they think that the next generation should have to suffer as well.
Some background.
An economic history of the American health care system-Part 1: From the pre-Flexner era to the great depression
An economic history of the American health care system – Part 2: From the Great Depression to the present time
Some background.
An economic history of the American health care system-Part 1: From the pre-Flexner era to the great depression
An economic history of the American health care system – Part 2: From the Great Depression to the present time
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/03/26/the-maskirovka-slips-xii-anti-corruption-protests-in-russia-edition/
I suspect trump is counseling Putin to implicate Obama and Clinton as outside agitatahs in this Russian unrest to dovetail with the National Enquirer’s (the White House news outlet) crack reporting that trump has identified the traitors in the White House and out federal agencies who have outed him and his traitorous people, so that martial crackdowns against democratic and liberal movements may proceed apace in both countries.
My hope is that this Russian uprising, which will be met with savage violence, will be the beginning of a catastrophic endgame for corrupt, conservative, nationalistic filth on every continent and country throughout the world.
meanwhile ….
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/did-donald-trump-really-hand-angela-merkel-bill-nato-services
Merkel should play this out by inviting Putin in the midst of his troubles for a state visit while spreading rumors that Germany will sever its ties with NATO and ask Russia to supply long range nuclear missiles on German soil with targets in every red state in America.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/03/26/the-maskirovka-slips-xii-anti-corruption-protests-in-russia-edition/
I suspect trump is counseling Putin to implicate Obama and Clinton as outside agitatahs in this Russian unrest to dovetail with the National Enquirer’s (the White House news outlet) crack reporting that trump has identified the traitors in the White House and out federal agencies who have outed him and his traitorous people, so that martial crackdowns against democratic and liberal movements may proceed apace in both countries.
My hope is that this Russian uprising, which will be met with savage violence, will be the beginning of a catastrophic endgame for corrupt, conservative, nationalistic filth on every continent and country throughout the world.
meanwhile ….
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/did-donald-trump-really-hand-angela-merkel-bill-nato-services
Merkel should play this out by inviting Putin in the midst of his troubles for a state visit while spreading rumors that Germany will sever its ties with NATO and ask Russia to supply long range nuclear missiles on German soil with targets in every red state in America.
Silence from our so-called-president and State Department on the arrest of Russia’s opposition leader (along with 700 or so others).
Silence from our so-called-president and State Department on the arrest of Russia’s opposition leader (along with 700 or so others).
“Silence from our so-called-president and State Department on the arrest of Russia’s opposition leader”
Can “lock her up!” be far behind?
“Silence from our so-called-president and State Department on the arrest of Russia’s opposition leader”
Can “lock her up!” be far behind?
Well unless it was reported on a Fox opinion show, how would he even know about it?
Well unless it was reported on a Fox opinion show, how would he even know about it?
A quote from CharlesWT’s 2nd link:
“Health insurance is a seriously addictive and harmful social drug.”
That’s some real high octane glibertarian nonsense there, Charles.
A quote from CharlesWT’s 2nd link:
“Health insurance is a seriously addictive and harmful social drug.”
That’s some real high octane glibertarian nonsense there, Charles.
Max Speaks!
Max Speaks!
Excellent piece bobbyp. Very neatly and logically laid out, it seems to me. However, I am sure that for Marty, McKinney et al TMMV.
Excellent piece bobbyp. Very neatly and logically laid out, it seems to me. However, I am sure that for Marty, McKinney et al TMMV.
Perhaps you would help me understand what you want Marty:
– what do you think is the expected cost of your healthcare for a year? I mean ‘expected’ in the technical sense – averaged over all scenarios, including ones where you develop an expensive disease.
– do you think an insurer should be obliged to renew your coverage next year at about the same price even if you’ve got sicker? If so, please add enough on to cover their expected future losses in this case.
– what do you think a fair amount extra for an insurer to charge, to cover all its costs, including the cost of working out how much to charge you in the first place, and to make a profit?
– now that you’ve arrived at a reasonable cost for your insurance, who do you think should pay it?
Thank you
Perhaps you would help me understand what you want Marty:
– what do you think is the expected cost of your healthcare for a year? I mean ‘expected’ in the technical sense – averaged over all scenarios, including ones where you develop an expensive disease.
– do you think an insurer should be obliged to renew your coverage next year at about the same price even if you’ve got sicker? If so, please add enough on to cover their expected future losses in this case.
– what do you think a fair amount extra for an insurer to charge, to cover all its costs, including the cost of working out how much to charge you in the first place, and to make a profit?
– now that you’ve arrived at a reasonable cost for your insurance, who do you think should pay it?
Thank you
Yes, Max can sum it up. I’ve missed him.
And thank you, Pro Bono, because getting to the bottom of what Marty wants on this subject makes me blue.
Especially when the subject of health insurance gets tangled up in his mind with some mythical “American way of life”, as if we’ve all been yeoman farmers on our own since the cavalry wiped out the Native Americans and stole their lands for us to take for FREE, and “the government doesn’t owe me healthcare”.
I presume he means that for Medicare as well, and will mean it for Medicaid too as he reaches nursing home age.
Christ, I have friends with parents who have purchased long-term nursing home care coverage in the private market, as I have as well, with exploding premiums over the years who are turned down when they come of age and can’t function any longer alone they try to collect what they paid for.
Good questions. I would add this one: “Why does a pool of insured, relatively healthy people owe Marty anything, given the high cost of his age-related and pre-existing conditions ?”
That’s how insurance works. When Marty figures that out, perhaps he can explain it to Paul Ryan.
High-risk pools don’t work. Especially at the paltry levels conservatives are willing to fund such schemes at the state level.
You can’t make a profit caring the infirm elderly. It’s not a business model. It’s a rat hole.
Ayn Rand would step over them. Which, of course, is why she signed on to her hubby’s Medicare account on the sly, after having her fun with Nathaniel Brandon.
Let’s put it his way, if you have a bad ticker and the big one comes along, how is a heart attack any different if you have it while standing astraddle the boundary line between two states?
Also, if the government doesn’t owe anyone healthcare, then revoke this law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
Yes, Max can sum it up. I’ve missed him.
And thank you, Pro Bono, because getting to the bottom of what Marty wants on this subject makes me blue.
Especially when the subject of health insurance gets tangled up in his mind with some mythical “American way of life”, as if we’ve all been yeoman farmers on our own since the cavalry wiped out the Native Americans and stole their lands for us to take for FREE, and “the government doesn’t owe me healthcare”.
I presume he means that for Medicare as well, and will mean it for Medicaid too as he reaches nursing home age.
Christ, I have friends with parents who have purchased long-term nursing home care coverage in the private market, as I have as well, with exploding premiums over the years who are turned down when they come of age and can’t function any longer alone they try to collect what they paid for.
Good questions. I would add this one: “Why does a pool of insured, relatively healthy people owe Marty anything, given the high cost of his age-related and pre-existing conditions ?”
That’s how insurance works. When Marty figures that out, perhaps he can explain it to Paul Ryan.
High-risk pools don’t work. Especially at the paltry levels conservatives are willing to fund such schemes at the state level.
You can’t make a profit caring the infirm elderly. It’s not a business model. It’s a rat hole.
Ayn Rand would step over them. Which, of course, is why she signed on to her hubby’s Medicare account on the sly, after having her fun with Nathaniel Brandon.
Let’s put it his way, if you have a bad ticker and the big one comes along, how is a heart attack any different if you have it while standing astraddle the boundary line between two states?
Also, if the government doesn’t owe anyone healthcare, then revoke this law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
You can’t make a profit caring the infirm elderly. It’s not a business model.
Or people with chronic conditions. Or people who didn’t grab the lucky genetic gold ring. Or people who are prone to being dependent on chemicals of various kinds and legalities.
Or people who work in dangerous occupations. Or people who live in less-than-healthy environments. Or people who don’t have good access to, or can’t afford, healthy food.
Basically, the only people who provide a reliable positive ROI for health insurers are healthy young people with good genes, no bad habits, and who work nice safe indoor white collar jobs.
And they don’t want to play unless they have to.
You can’t make a profit caring the infirm elderly. It’s not a business model.
Or people with chronic conditions. Or people who didn’t grab the lucky genetic gold ring. Or people who are prone to being dependent on chemicals of various kinds and legalities.
Or people who work in dangerous occupations. Or people who live in less-than-healthy environments. Or people who don’t have good access to, or can’t afford, healthy food.
Basically, the only people who provide a reliable positive ROI for health insurers are healthy young people with good genes, no bad habits, and who work nice safe indoor white collar jobs.
And they don’t want to play unless they have to.
About that heart attack.
I wouldn’t want to live in a state with conservatives in charge of my health insurance scheme who say, no matter what the issue, “I say it’s spinach and to Hell with it!”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/spinach-becomes-beating-heart-tissue-in-the-hands-of-these-scientists-2017-03-27?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Iceberg lettuce is cheaper for those cut-rate insurance “products”, although soon there won’t be anyone left to pick either.
About that heart attack.
I wouldn’t want to live in a state with conservatives in charge of my health insurance scheme who say, no matter what the issue, “I say it’s spinach and to Hell with it!”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/spinach-becomes-beating-heart-tissue-in-the-hands-of-these-scientists-2017-03-27?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Iceberg lettuce is cheaper for those cut-rate insurance “products”, although soon there won’t be anyone left to pick either.
Also, I do not wish to speak for Marty, but I think what he wants is to have access to medical care at a price he can afford.
Which is not an outlandish wish.
I don’t disbelieve him when he says the ACA hasn’t been a good deal for him, it hasn’t been a good deal for everyone. It has for a lot of people, but not everyone.
So, we have more work to do.
Also, I do not wish to speak for Marty, but I think what he wants is to have access to medical care at a price he can afford.
Which is not an outlandish wish.
I don’t disbelieve him when he says the ACA hasn’t been a good deal for him, it hasn’t been a good deal for everyone. It has for a lot of people, but not everyone.
So, we have more work to do.
getting to the bottom of what Marty wants on this subject makes me blue.
And Marty is a “conservative” who is “reasonable” enough to engage with us commies.
Now for something completely different:
Given that McConnell will go nuclear the minute He, Trump gets a chance to nominate a replacement for Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, or Kagan, what do the Democrats have to lose by filibustering Gorsuch now?
–TP
getting to the bottom of what Marty wants on this subject makes me blue.
And Marty is a “conservative” who is “reasonable” enough to engage with us commies.
Now for something completely different:
Given that McConnell will go nuclear the minute He, Trump gets a chance to nominate a replacement for Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, or Kagan, what do the Democrats have to lose by filibustering Gorsuch now?
–TP
“Also, I do not wish to speak for Marty, but I think what he wants is to have access to medical care at a price he can afford.”
I get it.
He’ll have it with Medicare, though Tom Price and Paul Ryan have other plans. It’s not going to happen between now and then.
I and his government owe it to him, unAmerican as it seems.
I promise we won’t nationalize the shoe industry.
“Also, I do not wish to speak for Marty, but I think what he wants is to have access to medical care at a price he can afford.”
I get it.
He’ll have it with Medicare, though Tom Price and Paul Ryan have other plans. It’s not going to happen between now and then.
I and his government owe it to him, unAmerican as it seems.
I promise we won’t nationalize the shoe industry.
Also, I do not wish to speak for Marty, but I think what he wants is to have access to medical care at a price he can afford.
Which is not an outlandish wish.
It’s hard to disagree with Marty, if this is what he wants, or with you, russell, that it’s not an outlandish wish.
The frustrating part is that Marty doesn’t want to be a part of any reasonable system that would make what he reasonably wants happen for him. And that leads us back to to the problem of “almost half the country.”
Of course, when we remember that it was novakant who brought up the problems of “half of Americans”, and that it’s novakant who wouldn’t have voted for Hillary Clinton because “she is a hawk” (thereby placing novakant within that half) then we truly can begin knocking our heads against the wall, this time for a whole different reason.
Time to distract myself.
Also, I do not wish to speak for Marty, but I think what he wants is to have access to medical care at a price he can afford.
Which is not an outlandish wish.
It’s hard to disagree with Marty, if this is what he wants, or with you, russell, that it’s not an outlandish wish.
The frustrating part is that Marty doesn’t want to be a part of any reasonable system that would make what he reasonably wants happen for him. And that leads us back to to the problem of “almost half the country.”
Of course, when we remember that it was novakant who brought up the problems of “half of Americans”, and that it’s novakant who wouldn’t have voted for Hillary Clinton because “she is a hawk” (thereby placing novakant within that half) then we truly can begin knocking our heads against the wall, this time for a whole different reason.
Time to distract myself.
Basically, the only people who provide a reliable positive ROI for health insurers are healthy young people with good genes, no bad habits, and who work nice safe indoor white collar jobs.
And, even then, if they are in sufficient numbers that the very few who end up in unlikely, debilitating accidents of some sort don’t use up all the collected premiums.
The thing about insurance is, you don’t want to get your money’s worth out of it. Losing money on insurance is good, like not having to use your flotation device during a trans-Atlantic flight.
Basically, the only people who provide a reliable positive ROI for health insurers are healthy young people with good genes, no bad habits, and who work nice safe indoor white collar jobs.
And, even then, if they are in sufficient numbers that the very few who end up in unlikely, debilitating accidents of some sort don’t use up all the collected premiums.
The thing about insurance is, you don’t want to get your money’s worth out of it. Losing money on insurance is good, like not having to use your flotation device during a trans-Atlantic flight.
Also, I do not wish to speak for Marty, but I think what he wants is to have access to medical care at a price he can afford.
Which is not an outlandish wish.
Although, unless he is fabulously wealthy, the range of medical care he can get will be limited. Last week I had a nuclear stress test to identify — or more likely, rule out possibilities — why my blood pressure has become erratic on the high side. Gamma-ray cameras are expensive. Producing technetium-99m is expensive. Paying radiology techs to administer the tests and radiology specialists to analyze the results is expensive. About all you can say about them is that they’re cheaper than the alternatives for diagnosing certain problems.
Also, I do not wish to speak for Marty, but I think what he wants is to have access to medical care at a price he can afford.
Which is not an outlandish wish.
Although, unless he is fabulously wealthy, the range of medical care he can get will be limited. Last week I had a nuclear stress test to identify — or more likely, rule out possibilities — why my blood pressure has become erratic on the high side. Gamma-ray cameras are expensive. Producing technetium-99m is expensive. Paying radiology techs to administer the tests and radiology specialists to analyze the results is expensive. About all you can say about them is that they’re cheaper than the alternatives for diagnosing certain problems.
Oh dear
Oh dear
Pro bono’s questions get at what I think is one of the major overlooked problems of health insurance.
At some age expected health care costs start to rise faster – maybe much faster – than income. So, for insurance to be available at a sensible price when you get to that age – let’s arbitrarily call it age 50 – you have to have some arrangement whereby money was put aside to cover part of the price while you were younger.
We could say that you just have to save the money, but that won’t help those with really serious problems that arise later. And how much is it reasonable to ask workers to save, anyway?
Another way is for policies to carry a guarantee of reasonable renewal premiums, which of course costs money and means that the 25-year-old is paying a premium in excess of what is “actuarially fair” for that year. This is because the 25-year-old is buying not just insurance but an option to buy it in the future. The option costs.
The trouble here is that there is no assurance we will stick with the same insurer for decades. Likely we won’t. So why should insurer B honor an option we bought from insurer A? The only reason I can think of is that this option is a mandatory part of a young person’s policy. Then things will tend to balance. Insurer B will not have to honor some of its own options in exchange for having to honor some of A’s. I suppose you could even have some way for payments to flow among insurers for this, but maybe not.
This, I guess, is what Obamacare gets at with the 3-1 limit on how much premiums can increase based on age, which appears to be the source of many of the complaints.
In any case, what this means is that health insurance, unlike other kinds, needs to be based on a lifelong arrangement, not purchased anew every year or two. We can try to do this with private insurance, as Obamacare does, or recognize that it may be better to just let the government handle it.
After all, you can’t make this work with private markets without a lot of rules and regulations, so there will inevitably be a lot of government involvement in any sensible national system.
Further, because health care is expensive, some will need help to be able to afford it. More government, with subsidies and so on.
Could it be that a tax-funded single-payer system would really be simpler, and work better?
Pro bono’s questions get at what I think is one of the major overlooked problems of health insurance.
At some age expected health care costs start to rise faster – maybe much faster – than income. So, for insurance to be available at a sensible price when you get to that age – let’s arbitrarily call it age 50 – you have to have some arrangement whereby money was put aside to cover part of the price while you were younger.
We could say that you just have to save the money, but that won’t help those with really serious problems that arise later. And how much is it reasonable to ask workers to save, anyway?
Another way is for policies to carry a guarantee of reasonable renewal premiums, which of course costs money and means that the 25-year-old is paying a premium in excess of what is “actuarially fair” for that year. This is because the 25-year-old is buying not just insurance but an option to buy it in the future. The option costs.
The trouble here is that there is no assurance we will stick with the same insurer for decades. Likely we won’t. So why should insurer B honor an option we bought from insurer A? The only reason I can think of is that this option is a mandatory part of a young person’s policy. Then things will tend to balance. Insurer B will not have to honor some of its own options in exchange for having to honor some of A’s. I suppose you could even have some way for payments to flow among insurers for this, but maybe not.
This, I guess, is what Obamacare gets at with the 3-1 limit on how much premiums can increase based on age, which appears to be the source of many of the complaints.
In any case, what this means is that health insurance, unlike other kinds, needs to be based on a lifelong arrangement, not purchased anew every year or two. We can try to do this with private insurance, as Obamacare does, or recognize that it may be better to just let the government handle it.
After all, you can’t make this work with private markets without a lot of rules and regulations, so there will inevitably be a lot of government involvement in any sensible national system.
Further, because health care is expensive, some will need help to be able to afford it. More government, with subsidies and so on.
Could it be that a tax-funded single-payer system would really be simpler, and work better?
what do the Democrats have to lose by filibustering Gorsuch now?
Not a darned thing. And if they cave and earn the undying enmity of a base that appears to be waking up, then they might as well pack it in for 2018 and beyond.
what do the Democrats have to lose by filibustering Gorsuch now?
Not a darned thing. And if they cave and earn the undying enmity of a base that appears to be waking up, then they might as well pack it in for 2018 and beyond.
This, I guess, is what Obamacare gets at with the 3-1 limit on how much premiums can increase based on age..
Good points all, Byomtov.
I suspect Marty, being no spring chicken, is caught at the outer edge of this actuarial spectrum where, even under the ACA, he is getting dinged the most and getting the least bang for the buck.
We could fix that, but “tort reform”, HSA’s, and “selling insurance across state lines” won’t get us anywhere close.
This, I guess, is what Obamacare gets at with the 3-1 limit on how much premiums can increase based on age..
Good points all, Byomtov.
I suspect Marty, being no spring chicken, is caught at the outer edge of this actuarial spectrum where, even under the ACA, he is getting dinged the most and getting the least bang for the buck.
We could fix that, but “tort reform”, HSA’s, and “selling insurance across state lines” won’t get us anywhere close.
Then there’s this. I’m not sure how to take this. Is working with Ds an idle threat to get the Rs in line? Is it just more rhetorical flailing about? Or is it a real consideration, and, if so, what does that potentially mean for other matters?
Then there’s this. I’m not sure how to take this. Is working with Ds an idle threat to get the Rs in line? Is it just more rhetorical flailing about? Or is it a real consideration, and, if so, what does that potentially mean for other matters?
“selling insurance across state lines” = “race to the bottom”
“selling insurance across state lines” = “race to the bottom”
There’s mentions on my twitter feed that the Rs don’t have to votes to do away with the filibuster rule for SCOTUS nominees, or at least not for Gorsuch. Not sure I believe it.
There’s mentions on my twitter feed that the Rs don’t have to votes to do away with the filibuster rule for SCOTUS nominees, or at least not for Gorsuch. Not sure I believe it.
Is working with Ds an idle threat to get the Rs in line? Is it just more rhetorical flailing about?
On his track record so far, both.
Is working with Ds an idle threat to get the Rs in line? Is it just more rhetorical flailing about?
On his track record so far, both.
I promise we won’t nationalize the shoe industry.
Or what’s left of it anyway.
I promise we won’t nationalize the shoe industry.
Or what’s left of it anyway.
Two items:
every other advanced country in the entire world has some form of universal healthcare
those countries, many of which get better results overall, have lower healthcare costs.
Given that (and sure, argue the assumptions), my inclination is to just outsource US healthcare to some other country.
Put a 10% “agency fee” on top, and US citizens are STILL getting a bargain.
Every 5 years or so, open it up for bidding: Canada, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, UK, all those guys…see who is offering the best plan at the lowest price. Why, a “great negotiator” ought to valuable for stuff like that, AND I bet there’s some entrepreneurial countries that would LOVE to help us out.
And no, I *don’t* like reinventing the wheel, why do you ask?
Two items:
every other advanced country in the entire world has some form of universal healthcare
those countries, many of which get better results overall, have lower healthcare costs.
Given that (and sure, argue the assumptions), my inclination is to just outsource US healthcare to some other country.
Put a 10% “agency fee” on top, and US citizens are STILL getting a bargain.
Every 5 years or so, open it up for bidding: Canada, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, UK, all those guys…see who is offering the best plan at the lowest price. Why, a “great negotiator” ought to valuable for stuff like that, AND I bet there’s some entrepreneurial countries that would LOVE to help us out.
And no, I *don’t* like reinventing the wheel, why do you ask?
…ETA, on the downside, I’m not sure that ANY other country would want to deal with the Trumpista mental health issues.
…ETA, on the downside, I’m not sure that ANY other country would want to deal with the Trumpista mental health issues.
And if they cave and earn the undying enmity of a base that appears to be waking up…
the segment of the ‘base’ named ‘cleek’ is fine with Gorsuch. not because i think he’d be good for liberals, but because i know we’re never going to get anyone better out of Trump (and he could do a lot worse).
and when you get right down to it, we don’t actually have much say in the matter. McConnell will probably just eliminate the filibuster if they try. this is not a battle the Dems can win. so, if y’all are preparing to throw yourselves into volcanoes when the inevitable happens and Gorsuch gets sworn in, don’t save me a spot in line.
yes, it will change the court for a generation. that’s the cost of losing the election. maybe next time, the left will deign themselves to vote.
And if they cave and earn the undying enmity of a base that appears to be waking up…
the segment of the ‘base’ named ‘cleek’ is fine with Gorsuch. not because i think he’d be good for liberals, but because i know we’re never going to get anyone better out of Trump (and he could do a lot worse).
and when you get right down to it, we don’t actually have much say in the matter. McConnell will probably just eliminate the filibuster if they try. this is not a battle the Dems can win. so, if y’all are preparing to throw yourselves into volcanoes when the inevitable happens and Gorsuch gets sworn in, don’t save me a spot in line.
yes, it will change the court for a generation. that’s the cost of losing the election. maybe next time, the left will deign themselves to vote.
also, selling insurance across state lines won’t fix the problem of locales having too few plans to choose from. insurance companies vary their plans from county to county – they pick their own markets.
telling them they can also sell in the next state isn’t going to make them offer plans in places they don’t want to do business.
also, selling insurance across state lines won’t fix the problem of locales having too few plans to choose from. insurance companies vary their plans from county to county – they pick their own markets.
telling them they can also sell in the next state isn’t going to make them offer plans in places they don’t want to do business.
McConnell will probably just eliminate the filibuster if they try. this is not a battle the Dems can win.
Time will tell. Others, hardly berniebro types, strongly disagree.
But nice to know you’re all in favor of a retrograde Senate rule that has historically been used by conservatives when in the minority to block progressive legislation. And look at all the good stuff it did for the country when used by the GOP during the Obama presidency! Must have made you glad all over.
I admit this is unduly sarcastic, but hey, if your going to gratuitously hand out snide brickbats, go pout in the corner, and blame (always) the “left”, you might as well be subject to a few yourself.
Fair is fair. Have a nice day.
PS: I have voted straight Dem since 1972 (when, cough, cough, organized labor and many mainline Dems bailed out for Nixon-maybe before your time), even for the turkeys.
McConnell will probably just eliminate the filibuster if they try. this is not a battle the Dems can win.
Time will tell. Others, hardly berniebro types, strongly disagree.
But nice to know you’re all in favor of a retrograde Senate rule that has historically been used by conservatives when in the minority to block progressive legislation. And look at all the good stuff it did for the country when used by the GOP during the Obama presidency! Must have made you glad all over.
I admit this is unduly sarcastic, but hey, if your going to gratuitously hand out snide brickbats, go pout in the corner, and blame (always) the “left”, you might as well be subject to a few yourself.
Fair is fair. Have a nice day.
PS: I have voted straight Dem since 1972 (when, cough, cough, organized labor and many mainline Dems bailed out for Nixon-maybe before your time), even for the turkeys.
This is worth reading on the topic of selling insurance across state lines.
Be sure to follow the link in the third paragraph as well.
This is worth reading on the topic of selling insurance across state lines.
Be sure to follow the link in the third paragraph as well.
But nice to know you’re all in favor of a retrograde Senate rule
i know you’re smarter that this.
we’re going to lose this one. the numbers don’t add up to a win. even Lemieux knows that:
sure, make noise. but it’s not going to stop Gorsuch. and holding the inevitable loss out as a reason to go all emo about the Dems is just silly.
But nice to know you’re all in favor of a retrograde Senate rule
i know you’re smarter that this.
we’re going to lose this one. the numbers don’t add up to a win. even Lemieux knows that:
sure, make noise. but it’s not going to stop Gorsuch. and holding the inevitable loss out as a reason to go all emo about the Dems is just silly.
nice link, byomtov .
Be sure to follow the link in the third paragraph as well.
and don’t forget to come back for the fifth pp!
nice link, byomtov .
Be sure to follow the link in the third paragraph as well.
and don’t forget to come back for the fifth pp!
sure, make noise. but it’s not going to stop Gorsuch.
Let’s see, I say. I don’t think they should rubber stamp him either. They inevitably will win probably (even if they can filibuster Gorsuch). But I’m tired of Democrats giving it to them.
That doesn’t mean that if, say, my Senator Warner, who is good on most issues, but not always reliable on some, votes for Gorsuch, I’ll be in favor of primarying him. But I have asked him to vote No.
Let’s be @ssholes for a change. I know, coming from me, you say, Of course, sapient would feel that way! But let’s just make them suffer. They’re complicit with the Russians, which is the only reason they won. Let’s stand together and tell them to fnck off.
And be sure to thank them if they do something right, even for the wrong reasons, like standing against Trumpcare. Thank you!
sure, make noise. but it’s not going to stop Gorsuch.
Let’s see, I say. I don’t think they should rubber stamp him either. They inevitably will win probably (even if they can filibuster Gorsuch). But I’m tired of Democrats giving it to them.
That doesn’t mean that if, say, my Senator Warner, who is good on most issues, but not always reliable on some, votes for Gorsuch, I’ll be in favor of primarying him. But I have asked him to vote No.
Let’s be @ssholes for a change. I know, coming from me, you say, Of course, sapient would feel that way! But let’s just make them suffer. They’re complicit with the Russians, which is the only reason they won. Let’s stand together and tell them to fnck off.
And be sure to thank them if they do something right, even for the wrong reasons, like standing against Trumpcare. Thank you!
sure, make noise. but it’s not going to stop Gorsuch.
I concur with Lemieux that logic and good politics favors the Dems invoking the filibuster.
Either the GOP goes nuclear or they don’t. That’s their choice. If they go nuclear, they get their way. If they don’t, Gorsuch joins Garland “on the bench” (sorry).
Whether the filibuster goes now or later is pretty much beside the point.
BUT IT SHOULD GO.
sure, make noise. but it’s not going to stop Gorsuch.
I concur with Lemieux that logic and good politics favors the Dems invoking the filibuster.
Either the GOP goes nuclear or they don’t. That’s their choice. If they go nuclear, they get their way. If they don’t, Gorsuch joins Garland “on the bench” (sorry).
Whether the filibuster goes now or later is pretty much beside the point.
BUT IT SHOULD GO.
oh sure, i’m not against making the GOP’s life miserable.
but, again, i’m not going to abandon the Dems if they fail to stop Gorsuch. the Dems ain’t got the votes. that’s our fault, not theirs.
oh sure, i’m not against making the GOP’s life miserable.
but, again, i’m not going to abandon the Dems if they fail to stop Gorsuch. the Dems ain’t got the votes. that’s our fault, not theirs.
but, again, i’m not going to abandon the Dems if they fail to stop Gorsuch. the Dems ain’t got the votes. that’s our fault, not theirs.
Totally with you on this.
but, again, i’m not going to abandon the Dems if they fail to stop Gorsuch. the Dems ain’t got the votes. that’s our fault, not theirs.
Totally with you on this.
nice link, byomtov.
I agree with cleek.
Take that!
nice link, byomtov.
I agree with cleek.
Take that!
but, again, i’m not going to abandon the Dems if they fail to stop Gorsuch.
Huh? I wonder who is making that argument? Look! Must be that scarecrow over there in the corner! Heap copious amounts of scathing disdain on him, quick!
Building alliances for a better future! You betcha’.
but, again, i’m not going to abandon the Dems if they fail to stop Gorsuch.
Huh? I wonder who is making that argument? Look! Must be that scarecrow over there in the corner! Heap copious amounts of scathing disdain on him, quick!
Building alliances for a better future! You betcha’.
Also, both you and sapient seem resigned to the fact that you figure a filibuster would crumble on the Dem side.
Is that how you see it?
You think Schumer can’t count votes?
I am not yet convinced.
Also, both you and sapient seem resigned to the fact that you figure a filibuster would crumble on the Dem side.
Is that how you see it?
You think Schumer can’t count votes?
I am not yet convinced.
I am not yet convinced.
I’m not convinced either, but I’m pessimistic.
In any case, I’m for “No.”
I wonder who is making that argument? Look! Must be that scarecrow over there in the corner! Heap copious amounts of scathing disdain on him, quick!
It’s not happening here and now in this thread, but you know it’s the [what shall we call it without being divisive, oh, I don’t know how -maybe someone should figure out a name for it] professional left, the “Bernie Bros”, etc. (not meaning Bernie primary voters).
You are not one of those, bobbyp.
I am not yet convinced.
I’m not convinced either, but I’m pessimistic.
In any case, I’m for “No.”
I wonder who is making that argument? Look! Must be that scarecrow over there in the corner! Heap copious amounts of scathing disdain on him, quick!
It’s not happening here and now in this thread, but you know it’s the [what shall we call it without being divisive, oh, I don’t know how -maybe someone should figure out a name for it] professional left, the “Bernie Bros”, etc. (not meaning Bernie primary voters).
You are not one of those, bobbyp.
i’m OK with it if the dem’s wave Gorsuch in and keep their powder dry for another day, and i’m OK with it if they make his life a living hell.
on the issue of SCOTUS noms, the (D)’s owe the (R)’s exactly nothing.
i’m OK with it if the dem’s wave Gorsuch in and keep their powder dry for another day, and i’m OK with it if they make his life a living hell.
on the issue of SCOTUS noms, the (D)’s owe the (R)’s exactly nothing.
At this point the only power the Democrats have in Congress is a spotlight, and that only if they stick together as they did on the AHCA.
I leave it to Chuck Schumer and his colleagues to decide strategy, but a filibuster against the Gorsuch nomination makes sense to me. Force the issue while the Garland nomination is fresh in everyone’s mind.
At this point the only power the Democrats have in Congress is a spotlight, and that only if they stick together as they did on the AHCA.
I leave it to Chuck Schumer and his colleagues to decide strategy, but a filibuster against the Gorsuch nomination makes sense to me. Force the issue while the Garland nomination is fresh in everyone’s mind.
it’s the [what shall we call it without being divisive, oh, I don’t know how -maybe someone should figure out a name for it]
professional left, the “Bernie Bros”, etc.How ’bout “Reagan Democrats”? Oh, right, those are folks whose asses we are supposed to kiss.
Sometimes I forget my Democrat p’s and q’s.
Old age, long memory.
it’s the [what shall we call it without being divisive, oh, I don’t know how -maybe someone should figure out a name for it]
professional left, the “Bernie Bros”, etc.How ’bout “Reagan Democrats”? Oh, right, those are folks whose asses we are supposed to kiss.
Sometimes I forget my Democrat p’s and q’s.
Old age, long memory.
Haha, bobbyp – I’ve never kissed the ass of a Reagan Democrat.
Haha, bobbyp – I’ve never kissed the ass of a Reagan Democrat.
Huh? I wonder who is making that argument?
lemme help.
And if they cave and earn the undying enmity of a base that appears to be waking up,
simple enough.
Huh? I wonder who is making that argument?
lemme help.
And if they cave and earn the undying enmity of a base that appears to be waking up,
simple enough.
Also, both you and sapient seem resigned to the fact that you figure a filibuster would crumble on the Dem side.
dude. wtf?
i haven’t said anything about the Dems not being able to sustain one. seriously, not a single word about it. this is literally the first time the thought has even crossed my mind. i actually assumed they’d filibuster for a while, for show. simply but if they keep it up too long, the GOP will eliminate the filibuster, because they can, and they want this seat (and the ones that will follow). they proved with Garland just how serious they are about taking over the Court.
if the Dems filibuster, they’ll kill the filibuster.
do i care about the filibuster? no. it’s stupid.
but filibuster or not, the result is: Gorsuch.
barring a child necrophilia scandal, Gorsuch is going to be the next justice.
Also, both you and sapient seem resigned to the fact that you figure a filibuster would crumble on the Dem side.
dude. wtf?
i haven’t said anything about the Dems not being able to sustain one. seriously, not a single word about it. this is literally the first time the thought has even crossed my mind. i actually assumed they’d filibuster for a while, for show. simply but if they keep it up too long, the GOP will eliminate the filibuster, because they can, and they want this seat (and the ones that will follow). they proved with Garland just how serious they are about taking over the Court.
if the Dems filibuster, they’ll kill the filibuster.
do i care about the filibuster? no. it’s stupid.
but filibuster or not, the result is: Gorsuch.
barring a child necrophilia scandal, Gorsuch is going to be the next justice.
barring a child necrophilia scandal, Gorsuch is going to be the next justice.
But given the general character of Trump nominees, why would you want to “bar” that?
I know Gorsuch seems a nice man (for certain qualities of niceness), but a Trump nominee without a serious scandal or two in his/her background would be an anomaly.
barring a child necrophilia scandal, Gorsuch is going to be the next justice.
But given the general character of Trump nominees, why would you want to “bar” that?
I know Gorsuch seems a nice man (for certain qualities of niceness), but a Trump nominee without a serious scandal or two in his/her background would be an anomaly.
Look, sapient, again you have decided to call me out on a post that wasn’t in response to you and regarding an unrelated matter (of course everything is related somehow) – I urge you to stop this as it amounts to harassment and would like the moderators to look into this behavior as it is part of a pattern, cf. the behavior towards Donald and NV.
Look, sapient, again you have decided to call me out on a post that wasn’t in response to you and regarding an unrelated matter (of course everything is related somehow) – I urge you to stop this as it amounts to harassment and would like the moderators to look into this behavior as it is part of a pattern, cf. the behavior towards Donald and NV.
But given the general character of Trump nominees, why would you want to “bar” that?
good point 🙂
But given the general character of Trump nominees, why would you want to “bar” that?
good point 🙂
OK, I had to do a text search to figure out what novakant was complaining about, because I’m not really following this thread so closely, but seeing this, I think it really is problematic to basically bring up any kind of issues you have with one person in a comment to another person. Please stop, sapient. Everyone is their own person, and it really diminishes things when you deny that.
And novakant, ‘oh dear‘ doesn’t really help much in identifying problematic behavior. I agree with you that it is not good to raise a complaint with one person when you’ve been talking about another person, but if you would have directly asked sapient to stop, this list might be more self managing. Asking the moderators (who aren’t really, we are just people who post OPs) do to something when you could have asked him directly to stop ends up dragging us into these complaints and I don’t think any of us really have time for that.
OK, I had to do a text search to figure out what novakant was complaining about, because I’m not really following this thread so closely, but seeing this, I think it really is problematic to basically bring up any kind of issues you have with one person in a comment to another person. Please stop, sapient. Everyone is their own person, and it really diminishes things when you deny that.
And novakant, ‘oh dear‘ doesn’t really help much in identifying problematic behavior. I agree with you that it is not good to raise a complaint with one person when you’ve been talking about another person, but if you would have directly asked sapient to stop, this list might be more self managing. Asking the moderators (who aren’t really, we are just people who post OPs) do to something when you could have asked him directly to stop ends up dragging us into these complaints and I don’t think any of us really have time for that.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/27/brexit-will-bring-four-types-of-market-distress-portfolio-manager.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cheadline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104367672&yptr=yahoo
and …………
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/trump-set-take-axe-climate-change-rules
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/tom-price-obamacare-explode
Meanwhile:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-twitter-rant-russia-health-care
The Russian people need to kill Putin. Then spread the pain to his conservative, nationalistic pigf*cker brothers and sisters in every other country across the globe.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/27/brexit-will-bring-four-types-of-market-distress-portfolio-manager.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cheadline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104367672&yptr=yahoo
and …………
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/trump-set-take-axe-climate-change-rules
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/tom-price-obamacare-explode
Meanwhile:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-twitter-rant-russia-health-care
The Russian people need to kill Putin. Then spread the pain to his conservative, nationalistic pigf*cker brothers and sisters in every other country across the globe.
lemme help.
Thank you, but no. Arguing that the Dems should filibuster and that it is good politics was not accompanied by any suggestion that I would or that others should “abandon the Dems” if they failed in the attempt. wtf back at you.
if the Dems filibuster, they’ll kill the filibuster.
They should, and we’ll see. There may be some old dogs who, when push comes to shove, don’t want to give up that bone. It’s a powerful cudgel.
do i care about the filibuster? no. it’s stupid.
You should and yes.
but filibuster or not, the result is: Gorsuch.
Likely, but still not dead certain.
lemme help.
Thank you, but no. Arguing that the Dems should filibuster and that it is good politics was not accompanied by any suggestion that I would or that others should “abandon the Dems” if they failed in the attempt. wtf back at you.
if the Dems filibuster, they’ll kill the filibuster.
They should, and we’ll see. There may be some old dogs who, when push comes to shove, don’t want to give up that bone. It’s a powerful cudgel.
do i care about the filibuster? no. it’s stupid.
You should and yes.
but filibuster or not, the result is: Gorsuch.
Likely, but still not dead certain.
dang
end.
dang
end.
And if they cave and earn the undying enmity of a base that appears to be waking up,
explain this.
And if they cave and earn the undying enmity of a base that appears to be waking up,
explain this.
italiexo!
italiexo!
A remarkable program, and a sad commentary on the state of our nation:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/health/medicaid-obamacare.html?emc=edit_th_20170328&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=36258294
how can one stop the italics deluge?
A remarkable program, and a sad commentary on the state of our nation:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/health/medicaid-obamacare.html?emc=edit_th_20170328&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=36258294
how can one stop the italics deluge?
how can one stop the italics deluge?
As another site I frequent is known to say, “There’s a preview button for a reason, dammit!”
how can one stop the italics deluge?
As another site I frequent is known to say, “There’s a preview button for a reason, dammit!”
you can usually stop italics from continuing into your comment with one of these:
</i></p></i></p>
you can usually stop italics from continuing into your comment with one of these:
</i></p></i></p>
There must have been more child necrophilia than anyone imagined:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/27/1647856/-MSNBC-Reports-Trump-Officials-Purging-Electronic-Devices-in-Advance-of-Expected-Subpoenas
There must have been more child necrophilia than anyone imagined:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/27/1647856/-MSNBC-Reports-Trump-Officials-Purging-Electronic-Devices-in-Advance-of-Expected-Subpoenas
But her emails.
But her emails.
Filibuster, sure. Maybe it gets nuked, that’s good too.
But, IN ADDITION, a minority of 20 senators (or less) can demand that Every.Single.Vote in the senate is a recorded roll-call vote.
That’s not Senate rules, that’s Constitution.
All it takes is ONE senator to withhold ‘unanimous consent’, moving every single tiny issue to requiring a vote (see above).
Plus a “move to adjourn” is always in order, also, too.
With a determined minority, nothing gets through the Senate without lots and lots of delay. Even without a filibuster.
Filibuster, sure. Maybe it gets nuked, that’s good too.
But, IN ADDITION, a minority of 20 senators (or less) can demand that Every.Single.Vote in the senate is a recorded roll-call vote.
That’s not Senate rules, that’s Constitution.
All it takes is ONE senator to withhold ‘unanimous consent’, moving every single tiny issue to requiring a vote (see above).
Plus a “move to adjourn” is always in order, also, too.
With a determined minority, nothing gets through the Senate without lots and lots of delay. Even without a filibuster.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ice-agents-shoot-chicago-man-acknowledge-wrong-person-article-1.3011036?cid=bitly
Under my Administration, patriotic jack-booted thugs with health insurance will conduct heavily armed law enforcement home invasions against Wayne LaPierre, Grover Norquist, Steve King, and Alex Jones.
Given these ilks’ previous right wing boasting regarding everything under the sun, my agents will open fire no questions asked and it will be four down and hundreds of thousands, minimum, to go.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ice-agents-shoot-chicago-man-acknowledge-wrong-person-article-1.3011036?cid=bitly
Under my Administration, patriotic jack-booted thugs with health insurance will conduct heavily armed law enforcement home invasions against Wayne LaPierre, Grover Norquist, Steve King, and Alex Jones.
Given these ilks’ previous right wing boasting regarding everything under the sun, my agents will open fire no questions asked and it will be four down and hundreds of thousands, minimum, to go.
The Republican healthcare plan:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/03/heritage-plan-conservative-alternative-aca-much-worse-ahca
The Republican healthcare plan:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/03/heritage-plan-conservative-alternative-aca-much-worse-ahca
I hope everyone is still minding the store:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/us/politics/health-care-obamacare-freedom-caucus.html
Under extreme pressure from conservative activists, House Republican leaders and the White House say they have restarted negotiations [on repealing the ACA].
I hope everyone is still minding the store:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/us/politics/health-care-obamacare-freedom-caucus.html
Under extreme pressure from conservative activists, House Republican leaders and the White House say they have restarted negotiations [on repealing the ACA].
Imo the time to abandon the Dems (those in elected office that is) is not when they fail to stop Gorsuch but when they don’t even try. The ‘abandoning’ should not be ‘staying home’ but stating unmistakably that giving up without a proper fight will be answered with looking for candidates with more backbone to replace them at the earliest opportunity and that the time for playing it safe and voting lesser evil is over. The only thing those guys fear is a challenge.
Imo the time to abandon the Dems (those in elected office that is) is not when they fail to stop Gorsuch but when they don’t even try. The ‘abandoning’ should not be ‘staying home’ but stating unmistakably that giving up without a proper fight will be answered with looking for candidates with more backbone to replace them at the earliest opportunity and that the time for playing it safe and voting lesser evil is over. The only thing those guys fear is a challenge.
The ‘abandoning’ should not be ‘staying home’ but stating unmistakably that giving up without a proper fight will be answered with looking for candidates with more backbone to replace them at the earliest opportunity and that the time for playing it safe and voting lesser evil is over.
Sometimes that’s wise, and sometimes it’s not. There are a lot of blue dog Democrats that helped us pass the ACA, among other things, who are now gone from Congress because they weren’t liberal enough. Now we have Republicans instead. It’s unfortunate that there are parts of the country where liberals can’t be elected, but that’s the country we have.
It’s a gamble, and a lot is at stake.
The ‘abandoning’ should not be ‘staying home’ but stating unmistakably that giving up without a proper fight will be answered with looking for candidates with more backbone to replace them at the earliest opportunity and that the time for playing it safe and voting lesser evil is over.
Sometimes that’s wise, and sometimes it’s not. There are a lot of blue dog Democrats that helped us pass the ACA, among other things, who are now gone from Congress because they weren’t liberal enough. Now we have Republicans instead. It’s unfortunate that there are parts of the country where liberals can’t be elected, but that’s the country we have.
It’s a gamble, and a lot is at stake.
You beat me to that one, countme. Everybody (on our side) should know the ACA is and has never been “based on the Heritage Plan”.
So, what is the GOP health care plan really about? I would agree with Mad Mike that it is about this.
(used preview!)
You beat me to that one, countme. Everybody (on our side) should know the ACA is and has never been “based on the Heritage Plan”.
So, what is the GOP health care plan really about? I would agree with Mad Mike that it is about this.
(used preview!)
“Don’t get sick.”
“Don’t get sick.”
sapient: There are a lot of blue dog Democrats that helped us pass the ACA, among other things, who are now gone from Congress because they weren’t liberal enough.
I’m trying to figure out who in particular you mean, sapient.
Reverting to my original question: do you imagine that if the Dems refrain from filibustering Gorsuch, then the Repuglicans might possibly refrain from going nuclear next time? Seriously?
Or, do you have a theory of the case that, by not filibustering Gorsuch, the Dems increase their likelihood to take over the Senate in 2018? If so, let’s hear it.
–TP
sapient: There are a lot of blue dog Democrats that helped us pass the ACA, among other things, who are now gone from Congress because they weren’t liberal enough.
I’m trying to figure out who in particular you mean, sapient.
Reverting to my original question: do you imagine that if the Dems refrain from filibustering Gorsuch, then the Repuglicans might possibly refrain from going nuclear next time? Seriously?
Or, do you have a theory of the case that, by not filibustering Gorsuch, the Dems increase their likelihood to take over the Senate in 2018? If so, let’s hear it.
–TP
Tony P, I’m for filibustering Gorsuch. I called both my Senators and told them to do that.
As to the Blue Dog Democrat comment, see people like this. They are not anyone’s favorite liberal, but now many of those seats are Republican? We had a Democratic majority in both houses, which is how health care was passed. These people screwed it up to a certain extent, but it wouldn’t have passed without them.
I am not a conservative Democrat, and I find them frustrating. At the same time, I’m not in favor of primarying anyone I don’t like in states where doing so might divide the party enough that a Republican is elected.
Tony P, I’m for filibustering Gorsuch. I called both my Senators and told them to do that.
As to the Blue Dog Democrat comment, see people like this. They are not anyone’s favorite liberal, but now many of those seats are Republican? We had a Democratic majority in both houses, which is how health care was passed. These people screwed it up to a certain extent, but it wouldn’t have passed without them.
I am not a conservative Democrat, and I find them frustrating. At the same time, I’m not in favor of primarying anyone I don’t like in states where doing so might divide the party enough that a Republican is elected.
It’s interesting that you attribute the loss of conservative Democrat seats to “liberal purity tests” rather than, say, post-census gerrymandering by the Republican state legislatures in the states where conservative Democrats are generally found.
It’s interesting that you attribute the loss of conservative Democrat seats to “liberal purity tests” rather than, say, post-census gerrymandering by the Republican state legislatures in the states where conservative Democrats are generally found.
It’s interesting that you attribute the loss of conservative Democrat seats to “liberal purity tests” rather than, say, post-census gerrymandering by the Republican state legislatures in the states where conservative Democrats are generally found.
The link I provided was to Senators, who aren’t affected by gerrymandering.
It’s interesting that you attribute the loss of conservative Democrat seats to “liberal purity tests” rather than, say, post-census gerrymandering by the Republican state legislatures in the states where conservative Democrats are generally found.
The link I provided was to Senators, who aren’t affected by gerrymandering.
The link I provided was to Senators, who aren’t affected by gerrymandering.
And I was thinking about Senators, because they’re the ones who will confirm Supreme Court nominees.
The link I provided was to Senators, who aren’t affected by gerrymandering.
And I was thinking about Senators, because they’re the ones who will confirm Supreme Court nominees.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/03/28/why-the-aca-matters/
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/03/28/why-the-aca-matters/
…and yet, you had been talking about the passage of the ACA when you asserted “There are a lot of blue dog Democrats that helped us pass the ACA, among other things, who are now gone from Congress because they weren’t liberal enough.”
Even allowing for your statement being strictly and only directed at the Senate, you still have provided exactly zero evidence of even one case of them falling because they were viewed as “not liberal enough”. Your link is certainly no help – all of the former members of that group either retired voluntarily or were defeated by Republicans in general elections.
So. Do you actually have any support for your, ah, “interesting” claim?
…and yet, you had been talking about the passage of the ACA when you asserted “There are a lot of blue dog Democrats that helped us pass the ACA, among other things, who are now gone from Congress because they weren’t liberal enough.”
Even allowing for your statement being strictly and only directed at the Senate, you still have provided exactly zero evidence of even one case of them falling because they were viewed as “not liberal enough”. Your link is certainly no help – all of the former members of that group either retired voluntarily or were defeated by Republicans in general elections.
So. Do you actually have any support for your, ah, “interesting” claim?
You can research it, NV, and draw your own conclusions. I’m not in favor of primarying my Senators if they fail to filibuster Gorsuch. I’ve told them what I want them to do, and I hope they do it.
So far, Warner has stood strong against the Russian interference, which I think is important. He votes, mostly, for what I believe, although I write to him frequently, and sometimes I take issue with his views. I tell him about it. I love Tim Kaine, and am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt most of the time.
I noticed that you were complaining about me in another thread. Quit baiting me, and interacting with me, if you don’t like me. You can use cleek’s pie filter if you want.
You can research it, NV, and draw your own conclusions. I’m not in favor of primarying my Senators if they fail to filibuster Gorsuch. I’ve told them what I want them to do, and I hope they do it.
So far, Warner has stood strong against the Russian interference, which I think is important. He votes, mostly, for what I believe, although I write to him frequently, and sometimes I take issue with his views. I tell him about it. I love Tim Kaine, and am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt most of the time.
I noticed that you were complaining about me in another thread. Quit baiting me, and interacting with me, if you don’t like me. You can use cleek’s pie filter if you want.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/devin-nunes-wont-reveal-sources-trump-surveillance-claims-to-rest-of-committee
Chalk David Nunes as another piece of vile Republican crap who will be holding up with the corrupt, traitorous trumpsters either in trump Tower or Mar-a-Largo when the Secret Service wrests control of the government from them and trump’s private security forces fight it out with the SS in pitched small-arms fire as the U.S. military is flown in to surround both places and place the lot of them under military arrest for selling America down the river.
Believe me, these are true believing filth and won’t go easily. Most will have to be killed.
Nunes will come out on his knees begging for mercy. Take him out anyway.
trump, for his part, will be like King Kong, swinging from the ramparts at the pinnacle of trump tower and raging at his bloody doom, but instead of hiding behind Fay Wray, he’ll have each of his ten small fingers plugged into a beauty queen.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/devin-nunes-wont-reveal-sources-trump-surveillance-claims-to-rest-of-committee
Chalk David Nunes as another piece of vile Republican crap who will be holding up with the corrupt, traitorous trumpsters either in trump Tower or Mar-a-Largo when the Secret Service wrests control of the government from them and trump’s private security forces fight it out with the SS in pitched small-arms fire as the U.S. military is flown in to surround both places and place the lot of them under military arrest for selling America down the river.
Believe me, these are true believing filth and won’t go easily. Most will have to be killed.
Nunes will come out on his knees begging for mercy. Take him out anyway.
trump, for his part, will be like King Kong, swinging from the ramparts at the pinnacle of trump tower and raging at his bloody doom, but instead of hiding behind Fay Wray, he’ll have each of his ten small fingers plugged into a beauty queen.
OK Sapient, I’ve addressed NV in that thread and I’ll address you. Cool it. I don’t have much time to sort any of this out (the school year is starting here and my oldest daughter just left for college), and I suspect the other front pagers don’t either. That is all.
OK Sapient, I’ve addressed NV in that thread and I’ll address you. Cool it. I don’t have much time to sort any of this out (the school year is starting here and my oldest daughter just left for college), and I suspect the other front pagers don’t either. That is all.
Sorry to hurt your feelings, NV!
Sorry to hurt your feelings, NV!
Could I just re-suggest a solution? NV and I won’t interact? novakant and I won’t interact? Donald, you too?
I’m okay with not interacting with you folks.
Am I on the outs with anyone else?
Could I just re-suggest a solution? NV and I won’t interact? novakant and I won’t interact? Donald, you too?
I’m okay with not interacting with you folks.
Am I on the outs with anyone else?
Look sapient, not interacting is not going to work cause you’ll say something addressed to everyone else about someone like NV or Donald or novakant and they will feel they have to respond and you’ll say ‘but I wasn’t talking to them!’.
Try this. no more one line comments. (like the one above, can’t you see how that looks totally dickish?) Write about something and state your case, but just leave other people out of it. Let’s try that for a while.
If you want rules about how to make respectful comments, I can’t give them to you. You are on your own with that. But it is obvious you are pissing people off, so try to stop doing that and we’ll go from there.
Look sapient, not interacting is not going to work cause you’ll say something addressed to everyone else about someone like NV or Donald or novakant and they will feel they have to respond and you’ll say ‘but I wasn’t talking to them!’.
Try this. no more one line comments. (like the one above, can’t you see how that looks totally dickish?) Write about something and state your case, but just leave other people out of it. Let’s try that for a while.
If you want rules about how to make respectful comments, I can’t give them to you. You are on your own with that. But it is obvious you are pissing people off, so try to stop doing that and we’ll go from there.
The usual lies about the size of the tax code are arriving. Why does the House Ways & Means Committee lie to the American people?
The usual lies about the size of the tax code are arriving. Why does the House Ways & Means Committee lie to the American people?
the size of the tax code
someone get the Pope on the phone and tell him the Bible is too long. trim that mess!
the size of the tax code
someone get the Pope on the phone and tell him the Bible is too long. trim that mess!
Why does the House Ways & Means Committee lie to the American people?
1) Telling the truth doesn’t make for dramatic sound bytes.
2) Telling the truth would get you blasted by the far right talk machine, which likes the bigger number. (More dramatic, you know.)
3) Telling the truth shows how little you can do to reduce the total size. Makes you, as a Congressman, feel inconsequential. Which is almost as bad (maybe worse!) than not being re-elected.
Why does the House Ways & Means Committee lie to the American people?
1) Telling the truth doesn’t make for dramatic sound bytes.
2) Telling the truth would get you blasted by the far right talk machine, which likes the bigger number. (More dramatic, you know.)
3) Telling the truth shows how little you can do to reduce the total size. Makes you, as a Congressman, feel inconsequential. Which is almost as bad (maybe worse!) than not being re-elected.
Because Republicans are liars and cheats, among their lesser sins.
And because lying is a proven way and means of eliminating their own taxes.
Because Republicans are liars and cheats, among their lesser sins.
And because lying is a proven way and means of eliminating their own taxes.
Seriously! No one in the US likes New Testament Jesus and his “forgiveness” and “help the poor” and “meek inheriting the earth” pussy-a$$ crap anyway. Just combine it with Old Testament “Wrath of God” God with the smiting of the wicked and sinners who sin the wrong sin. Boom, at least 40% shorter and Murricans will think it more accurate to boot.
Michael Bay can direct.
Seriously! No one in the US likes New Testament Jesus and his “forgiveness” and “help the poor” and “meek inheriting the earth” pussy-a$$ crap anyway. Just combine it with Old Testament “Wrath of God” God with the smiting of the wicked and sinners who sin the wrong sin. Boom, at least 40% shorter and Murricans will think it more accurate to boot.
Michael Bay can direct.
Oh sure, way to give away the game Count. Next thing you’ll say the GOP doesn’t give a crap about the deficit and ruin that fun too. Harrumphs.
Oh sure, way to give away the game Count. Next thing you’ll say the GOP doesn’t give a crap about the deficit and ruin that fun too. Harrumphs.
beard with a fake cleek linked to this at his place:
http://resistancereport.com/resistance/crowdfunding-lawmakers-internet/
Now THAT is resistance.
beard with a fake cleek linked to this at his place:
http://resistancereport.com/resistance/crowdfunding-lawmakers-internet/
Now THAT is resistance.
Just started emailing that link out, Count! It’s a wonderful, creative idea.
Just started emailing that link out, Count! It’s a wonderful, creative idea.
I like that resistance report idea. But someone in the thread made a criticism that sounded possibly valid– that is, do you really think the slimy companies will sell the browsing history of powerful Congress scum to mere citizens for the purpose of embarrassing them? If there is juicy stuff in there they might find it more useful to keep it to themselves, maybe in exchange for favors. National security would be invoked. Or they might pretend to be decent corporate citizens, unwilling to sell info for partisan political purposes.
Still, there ought to be some way to make these scum accountable for something. Being accountable for war crimes will never happen, but something like this might be possible. I am guessing some Republican voters might not want their browsing history put up for sale to the highest bidder.
I like that resistance report idea. But someone in the thread made a criticism that sounded possibly valid– that is, do you really think the slimy companies will sell the browsing history of powerful Congress scum to mere citizens for the purpose of embarrassing them? If there is juicy stuff in there they might find it more useful to keep it to themselves, maybe in exchange for favors. National security would be invoked. Or they might pretend to be decent corporate citizens, unwilling to sell info for partisan political purposes.
Still, there ought to be some way to make these scum accountable for something. Being accountable for war crimes will never happen, but something like this might be possible. I am guessing some Republican voters might not want their browsing history put up for sale to the highest bidder.
Donald: … do you really think the slimy companies will sell the browsing history of powerful Congress scum to mere citizens for the purpose of embarrassing them?
We have already established what kind of companies they are. We are merely haggling about the price.
–TP
Donald: … do you really think the slimy companies will sell the browsing history of powerful Congress scum to mere citizens for the purpose of embarrassing them?
We have already established what kind of companies they are. We are merely haggling about the price.
–TP
TonyP–I bet they could get more profit from protecting their pet congresspeople than from selling their histories for a mere million.
TonyP–I bet they could get more profit from protecting their pet congresspeople than from selling their histories for a mere million.
But Donald, that’s long term profit. And these are strictly short-term guys.
But Donald, that’s long term profit. And these are strictly short-term guys.
Cards Against Humanity creator steps up to buy the data, should it become available.
http://resistancereport.com/news/cards-humanity-creator-just-pledged-buy-publish-congresss-browser-history/
Cards Against Humanity creator steps up to buy the data, should it become available.
http://resistancereport.com/news/cards-humanity-creator-just-pledged-buy-publish-congresss-browser-history/
I think this graphic is interesting. The Democrats are overwhelmingly assuming Republican party division in 2018. I tend to think that at the rank and file level that is probably not a good assumption for Democrats.
http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBz2A6F.img?h=208&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f
I think this graphic is interesting. The Democrats are overwhelmingly assuming Republican party division in 2018. I tend to think that at the rank and file level that is probably not a good assumption for Democrats.
http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBz2A6F.img?h=208&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f
someone get the Pope on the phone and tell him the Bible is too long. trim that mess!
The Holy Quran, although much shorter than the Holy Bible, is extremly redundant and I think about a third could be removed without losing any info.
The Bible could use some redundancy removal in the legal parts e.g. 3.Mose 15. Why repeat the ‘…shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening.’ in nearly every verse when once for all cases would be sufficient?
someone get the Pope on the phone and tell him the Bible is too long. trim that mess!
The Holy Quran, although much shorter than the Holy Bible, is extremly redundant and I think about a third could be removed without losing any info.
The Bible could use some redundancy removal in the legal parts e.g. 3.Mose 15. Why repeat the ‘…shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening.’ in nearly every verse when once for all cases would be sufficient?
“Why repeat the ‘…shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening.’ in nearly every verse when once for all cases would be sufficient?”
This proves the Bible was written by someone’s mother, not that these things don’t bear repeating
“Why repeat the ‘…shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening.’ in nearly every verse when once for all cases would be sufficient?”
This proves the Bible was written by someone’s mother, not that these things don’t bear repeating
Marty, I think it will again be about mobilisation, in particular of the Evangelicals. Their leadership has abandoned/lost any remnant of actual credibility with regard to the political process but they still have great influence over large parts of the ‘base’.
So, any ‘split’ would imo mainly manifest itself in evangelical footsoldiers staying home with disgust about the rank hypocrisy of their leaders that went from ‘Trump is still better than Hillary and thus the lesser evil’ (then) to outright defense of anything Trump and accomplices do (now). There are lots of evangelical pastors that did not join in this disgusting display but they are not the ones holding the large megaphones. If Trump keeps going the Trump way as before, he may lose quite a few reluctant supporters there. If Pence took the helm, this may not be so but then the GOP would lose less-religious supporters that were in for Trump the Populist not the GOP (who would have to topple The Donald for that*).
It all boils down to mobilisation in key voting locations and successful suppression** of the other side’s vote.
*unless they get him out with a face-saving ‘mission accomplished’ because he got bored or otherwise fed up with being POTUS.
**disenfranchising being only one part, spreading apathy or misgivings to keep the opposition home another.
Marty, I think it will again be about mobilisation, in particular of the Evangelicals. Their leadership has abandoned/lost any remnant of actual credibility with regard to the political process but they still have great influence over large parts of the ‘base’.
So, any ‘split’ would imo mainly manifest itself in evangelical footsoldiers staying home with disgust about the rank hypocrisy of their leaders that went from ‘Trump is still better than Hillary and thus the lesser evil’ (then) to outright defense of anything Trump and accomplices do (now). There are lots of evangelical pastors that did not join in this disgusting display but they are not the ones holding the large megaphones. If Trump keeps going the Trump way as before, he may lose quite a few reluctant supporters there. If Pence took the helm, this may not be so but then the GOP would lose less-religious supporters that were in for Trump the Populist not the GOP (who would have to topple The Donald for that*).
It all boils down to mobilisation in key voting locations and successful suppression** of the other side’s vote.
*unless they get him out with a face-saving ‘mission accomplished’ because he got bored or otherwise fed up with being POTUS.
**disenfranchising being only one part, spreading apathy or misgivings to keep the opposition home another.
I tend to think that at the rank and file level that is probably not a good assumption for Democrats.
the question should have been phrased better. some people are probably thinking about the divisions between congressional Republicans, not that the base won’t continue to vote GOP come hell or sexy daughter.
I tend to think that at the rank and file level that is probably not a good assumption for Democrats.
the question should have been phrased better. some people are probably thinking about the divisions between congressional Republicans, not that the base won’t continue to vote GOP come hell or sexy daughter.
Trump declares war!!! (…on the Freedom Caucus)
Trump declares war!!! (…on the Freedom Caucus)
I am not sure what this means :
“Their leadership has abandoned/lost any remnant of actual credibility with regard to the political process”
I am not sure what this means :
“Their leadership has abandoned/lost any remnant of actual credibility with regard to the political process”
Marty, e.g. some of the usual suspects praising Trump as a model Christian, The Lord’s Annointed, an example to follow on morals and an embodiment of family values.
Of course some ascribe the same to Ted Cruz and see The Donald as the embodiment of depravity instead. But those seem to have become a rarity since the election (and Cruz’ turnaround*). It’s quite funny to read what these faith leaders say about each other betting on different horses (metaphorically).
*at least one (iirc a head of one of those ‘Christian’ ‘colleges’) did a seamless transition from Eurasia to Eastasia after election day.
Marty, e.g. some of the usual suspects praising Trump as a model Christian, The Lord’s Annointed, an example to follow on morals and an embodiment of family values.
Of course some ascribe the same to Ted Cruz and see The Donald as the embodiment of depravity instead. But those seem to have become a rarity since the election (and Cruz’ turnaround*). It’s quite funny to read what these faith leaders say about each other betting on different horses (metaphorically).
*at least one (iirc a head of one of those ‘Christian’ ‘colleges’) did a seamless transition from Eurasia to Eastasia after election day.
I’m trying to figure out the longer-term implications (if any) of Trump’s lashing out at the Freedom Caucus over their opposition to the AHCA. ISTM those people represent (in congress, I mean) a good chunk of his base. Whose side do people who voted for both Trump and members of the Freedom Caucus take (if any)?
I’m trying to figure out the longer-term implications (if any) of Trump’s lashing out at the Freedom Caucus over their opposition to the AHCA. ISTM those people represent (in congress, I mean) a good chunk of his base. Whose side do people who voted for both Trump and members of the Freedom Caucus take (if any)?
Trump’s approval-disapproval spread is now 12 points (in the bad-for-Trump direction), which is unheard of in the modern era.
Trump’s approval-disapproval spread is now 12 points (in the bad-for-Trump direction), which is unheard of in the modern era.
Unheard of for a president this early in his term, that is.
Unheard of for a president this early in his term, that is.
hsh, Am I the only one who followed that link, and read the first sentence as talking about the Holy Freedom Caucus? (As opposed to the House Freedom Caucus, which is what it actually says.)
I suspect that Mark Sanford is correct that threats are “exactly the wrong approach” to the House Freedom Caucus members. But it’s Trump’s core style, so nobody should be surprised that he’s trying it.
I don’t see much chance of anyone in Trump’s operation having a clue as to how to go about primary-ing someone. But if he does manage to take out a couple of them, he will have done the nation a service in that, at least.
hsh, Am I the only one who followed that link, and read the first sentence as talking about the Holy Freedom Caucus? (As opposed to the House Freedom Caucus, which is what it actually says.)
I suspect that Mark Sanford is correct that threats are “exactly the wrong approach” to the House Freedom Caucus members. But it’s Trump’s core style, so nobody should be surprised that he’s trying it.
I don’t see much chance of anyone in Trump’s operation having a clue as to how to go about primary-ing someone. But if he does manage to take out a couple of them, he will have done the nation a service in that, at least.