Senate The US Politics discussion

So what's your replacement idea? Declaring something dead doesn't really accomplish much.

 

Truxit?

 

@keynote23
I said before in another thread. Go find it.

 

I didn't say it was. I said it was vulnerable to the same sort of dysfunction because of its dependence on unwritten elements.

Your analysis of the American system sounded very much like someone who has never actually spent much time here, doesn't have easy access to speak to a wide swath of Americans on a regular basis, and has minimal to no lived experience.

I wonder why that is. Hmmmm.

 

wow, you're insufferable.

 

No, it is being polite.

[edit]

Here, wasn't that hard. Took me a few minutes. From the popular thread on reforming the US:

 

Had no reason to visit, even though I'm part American (a quarter, I believe)

I did in a previous job; usually on international schemes/programs, but learned a lot about domestic and social programs being carried. Especially anti-poverty work. Oh, had access to focus and polling group data - including private (the sort of material banks and corporations carry out); digesting public opinion was apart of my job. Guess the Americans I spoke to, weren't as optimistic as the rest of you?

I don't secretly hate Americans, if that's what you're implying. I know some folks here get upset when foreigners commit on your politics.

 

LOL! I bet Trump loved that.

 

*Gets out binoculars*

Time to go looking for a black swan...

 

How many Mooches is this guy?

 

Does he do the Fandango?

 

John Bolton's SuperPAC paid Cambridge Analytica over $800,000
http://www.ksdk.com/article/news/na...n-800000-to-cambridge-analytica/507-531467715

Botlon also aided an FBI-investigated Moscow Banker, and the NRA, in advocating for a "2nd Amendment for Russia"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-gun-rights-video_us_5ab45053e4b054d118e15380

Bolton sure does have his fingerprints all over all of today's controversies, doesn't he?



Some good news, Elizabeth Warren introduces a new healthcare bill, the Consumer Health Insurance Protection Act
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...protection-act_us_5ab247a7e4b0decad045af6b?vf

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced a bill Wednesday aimed at dramatically increasing the affordability and reliability of health insurance plans available on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces.

The legislation, called the Consumer Health Insurance Protection Act, would offer people buying health insurance on their own more financial assistance ― and allow more people to qualify for that assistance. Nobody would have to pay more than 8.5 percent of income on premiums.

Warren does not envision this new plan as an alternative to more ambitious proposals. She remains a co-sponsor of the single-payer legislation introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

But as Warren made clear in a January speech before the consumer group Families USA, she understands that enacting a single-payer plan would be difficult ― and that, as a result, private insurance probably won’t disappear overnight. And so she also wants to focus on what can be done right away to subject the industry to the type of stringent consumer protections she has already successfully championed in the financial sector.

“So long as private health insurance exists, we should require these companies to provide coverage that is at least as good and priced as reasonably as the coverage offered by our public health care programs,” Warren said in January.

Sanders is actually a co-sponsor of the Warren bill, as are Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris (Calif.), Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) and Tammy Baldwin (Wis.).

Baldwin’s presence is particularly noteworthy as she faces a tough re-election battle this November in a state that Donald Trump won.

The consumer advocacy organizations Families USA, Public Citizen, Consumers Union and Community Catalyst have also endorsed Warren’s bill.

The legislation consists of policies that try to achieve four major goals: increase insurance affordability; provide consumers with new protections; safeguard the ACA from Trump administration attempts to unravel it; and ensure private insurers’ participation in the ACA marketplaces. Some of the provisions apply to all private insurance plans, including employer-sponsored coverage, while others fall on ACA plans alone.

Spoiler: more of the article

In the affordability category, which features the biggest changes to the health care system, Warren would increase the subsidies available to Americans buying health insurance plans on the ACA’s marketplaces. Currently, low- and middle-income individuals buying ACA plans for themselves and their families are entitled to subsidies offsetting their premiums that are based on the cost of the “silver,” or second-least expensive plans.

The subsidies get steadily smaller as a person’s household income approaches 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Above that income threshold, which is $48,560 for an individual and $100,400 for a family of four, ACA marketplace consumers are not entitled to any federal help.

As a result, some middle-class consumers buying their coverage on the ACA marketplaces have taken a major financial hit from rising monthly premiums in the ACA plans.

By switching to a system where premiums are capped as a percentage of income, Warren would insure that no household is without protection from premium increases. Basing the subsidies on the cost of the more expensive “gold” plans would also allow families to buy more generous coverage at the same cost or stick with a less generous plan and pocket the savings.

Another feature of Warren’s bill aimed at enhancing affordability is a provision capping out-of-pocket costs on prescription drugs at $250 per month that would apply to all private plans. Since the clause targets a small subset of consumers with exceptionally high drug costs, and ACA consumers are already protected with an annual cap on out-of-pocket spending, the number of people who would save money from the provision is likely minor but still significant.

The legislation would also introduce new rules designed to protect consumers from insurance plans that prove unreliable and inadequate. All private insurance plans would be required to spend 85 percent of their premium dollars on paying out insurance claims ― subjecting them to a tighter standard than the one that already applies to ACA plans. They would also be barred from changing the kinds of drugs that they cover in the middle of the year, as well as how much of those drugs’ costs are born by consumers.

Consumers would also be shielded from the effects of an insurer dropping a plan during their course of treatment. And insurers would have to notify consumers if a plan no longer covered a particular doctor.

The bill’s provisions protecting the ACA from Trump administration sabotage include increased funding for outreach and education about enrollment in ACA plans, and tightening rules requiring coverage of “essential” health benefits, which the administration is trying to water down. Like other legislation under serious consideration in Congress, Warren’s bill would also reinstate the federal government’s cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers, which subsidize limitations on out-of-pocket costs for low- and middle-income consumers. (Trump discontinued them in October.)

Finally, Warren would “call [the insurers’] bluff” by requiring insurance companies that bid on Medicare Advantage and Medicaid contracts to offer plans on the ACA marketplaces in parts of the country with limited insurance industry competition. New York already has a similar regulation in place.

Since Warren’s bill has not yet been scored by the Congressional Budget Office, it is not clear how much it would cost. The most expensive part of the legislation is the component increasing subsidies for ACA marketplace plans.

A 2015 Urban Institute study that assessed the cost of a plan with several similar features, including switching to a gold plan benchmark for subsidies, found that it would cost $221 billion over a 10-year period.

​

 

Nice way to slip this in on a Friday night.

What a hateful piece of ****. Screw you, Donald. And you never even served.

 

It is stupid. Trump is so desperate to please his rabid base.

Personally, I was disgusted over how this transgender boy has been treated in his wrestling contests. He should be competing with boys if he wishes. If not, well, it's wherever he wants to wrestle. This is why I don't know how to feel about sports, but don't take my word for it. All I could do was track half well. Anyhow, on the serious topic, banning all those people from the military is insane. The reason I respect the military is because many good people come out of it who are able to help other people with PTSD. I certainly don't always agree with where our leaders send our troops. However, I admire the leadership qualities exhibited by certain vets. Plus, we really need to treat our homeless veterans better. I've been on certain tours of hospitals with friends. I'll leave it at that. Of course, the way the U.S. has treated certain vets since the Vietnam War has been disturbing, if it wasn't always that way. I suppose my respect mainly comes from the fact that I could never be in the military. I mean, listen to how I talk on the JFC. Lol. I'm very disobedient. But I feel we should value the wisdom of certain vets who actually give a damn about their fellow humans enough to start charities and the like.

Check out the Fishbowl Radio Network to hear one vet, Rick, who opposes Trump's policies. He stands up for equality for all.

 

Public opinion polling necessarily asks pretty narrow questions. Answers are highly dependent on framing effects. It's useful, but no substitute for robust, free-form conversation with someone, or getting a sense of people's feelings over repeated, long term interactions.

I am implying you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about. People form other backgrounds and political systems often have interesting insights or observations.

What's idiotic is telling someone who personally knows dozens of Trump voters that they are all waiting to riot if he is impeached. Or implying that governmental system here has "collapsed" even though it literally has not and continues to function at the present hour. Your fantasies about what is happening here are wilder and stupider than anything you like to mock members of the "resistance" about.

 

The above is a goal without pathway little different than saying "we should just keep out stupid people". Without attachment to methodology, it is worthless. No different than saying "we should just make everyone rich" or "we should just make everyone nice".

People have some idea of what they want and don't want by and large. That's not the hard part. The hard part is making it a reality. With no realistic methodology to accomplish it in place a great idea accomplishes just as much as a dumb one. Nothing.

You're talking about the ideal you want to see. I submit that what's keeping people from changing is not that they don't want to change, it's because they don't see a clear path to doing so. The shifting of the existing power bases (political, communal, corporate, private interest, etc.) is not something many of them will accept (nor should this be interpreted as inherently evil or maliciously self-serving depending on the specific entity it's goals and the responsibilities it has undertaken to fulfill on behalf of it's given constituency).

To ELI5 it.

Dad comes home and tells his son he's stupid for not getting an A in school. "You should be getting A's. A's will be good for your future!"
Son says. "But I'm trying and this subject just isn't clicking with me"
"Well I got A's and so should you!"
"How?"
"I don't know. But get them. And if you don't, you're stupid and it's your fault because I told you to get them even if I don't have any clue how you can. It's still your fault so I have every right to criticize you."
"Thanks dad. Very condescending. I'm so clear on how I can fix this now."

 

@Jabba-wocky

An opinion is subjective - you either accept it or don't. Either way, I'm really not fussed; there a few people on JCC, whose opinions I hold very dearly - you're not one of them. if you're getting upset, over a foreigner commenting on US politics, then the problem lies with you. I am merely throwing stones in a vast ocean for my own amusement*.

*general description of the internet, btw the mods.

 

Given how Mueller has flipped Gates and has all this confession from the self-pled P-man (I have trouble recalling the spelling), I'm sure the investigator will announce some type of indictment for Trump, or at the very least something that shows he's guilty as hell. By then, Trump will want war to distract the country. I have a feeling that Ryan and McConnell want Pence to replace Trump, but they're too dumb to figure out how to, um, exact their so-called plan. Besides, McConnell may not be in the best health, and Ryan wants to quit, or so rumor has it.

 

I don't think any of us are "getting upset." Nor does the subjectivity of opinion have to do with the quality of one's analysis. The spate of commentary in reaction to your recent posts for multiple users instead reads to me as if your analysis or recommendations don't seem plausible to those with any lived experience. That's generally how we interact in topics where people analyze news events and offer their solutions for policy problems.

 

So the single neutral benevolent leader picks the president. Who picks the single neutral benevolent leader?

 

I think he's talking about a king or queen. The UK got lucky with Liz. So many Brit or Anglophile monarchists think rulers like her are inherent to the institution and ignore the fact that they very nearly had her fascist uncle as a king for 40 years.

 

Guess who wants the line-item veto back.

I doubt Congress will give it to him, but if it does, it'll be interesting to see how a much more conservative Supreme Court rules on its constitutionality. Oh, and I love how he keeps hammering to end the filibuster. McConnell at least is smart enough to understand that you just don't want to go there.

 

I more enjoy the fact that he keeps saying it in situations with razor thin votes that aren't even being filibustered. There's little clearer demonstration of not only how uninformed he is about the legislative process, but how he little he cares for the actual substance of things he flags as "important."

Also, though, I think this impotence is really the only reason McConnell doesn't get rid of the filibuster. That guy is an institutional arsonist, and he'd do something awful in a heartbeat if he thought there was advantage to gain.