Senate The US Politics 2.0 Discussion Thread

Just read Trump had another loony rally last night. Can't wait for the cliff notes version of all the crap he said.

Only thing I've read is he said something about Lebron James getting sex reassignment surgery.

 

This is what a Yale law school grad, who goes on to work as a venture capitalist, sounds like when they try to turn right-wing populist. It's a shame it's such an easy gimmick in all the ways that really matter.

 

Asset forfeiture? Wow. And lets not get started on how THAT has worked out for the "war on drugs". Nothing like incentivizing law enforcement with fabulous prizes by wrecking the lives of people that dared to grow a few pot plants on their patio. Sorry, I cant go anywhere near that idea. Establishments will do what they feel is best for them and their business. Thats fine if you feel the way you do and support policies like that. I dont.

Yes, your kids need measles, mumps, etc vaccines to go to school. Those have been around forever. Yet, each state(some more than others) has ways for parents to opt out for various reasons. The religious one is the trickiest. I wonder what would prevent people from suddenly deciding to turn/join <insert religion here that forbids vaccinations> just to get out of it? Not sure if this is a legit concern or not. We are in uncharted territory here for sure. If they enacted a mandatory vaccine requirement to basically do anything, does it stop with Covid vaccines? Is the flu shot on the list too? Its a valid question. What comes next?

 

It's the same script as always but apparently this time he tried to get the audience to boooo the women's Olympic soccer team because they lost and he hates losers (and women), and then complained about the Cleveland Guardians name change.

Still no "I declare myself Emperor and will be reforming this republic into the first Imperial States of America".

 

Yeah I didn't say anything about utilizing asset forfeiture to enforce pandemic mandates. That's your twisted little read on it. What I said was we could use a tried and true approach (revenue sharing) to get local law enforcement on board with some of the enforcing. You're just horrified by that because it could actually work.

"If they start requiring a polio vaccine what's next? Measles? Smallpox? How far does it go?"

Those have been around forever but you do realize there was a time when they hadn't been or at least vaccines for them were a new thing.



This is one of those situations where we have to trust the experts in determining what is and isn't worth mandatory status.

 

Unsurprisingly, that's not true. There are several states where there are no ways to 'opt out' when sending kids to school. There are no non-medical exemptions for the vaccines required for school in California, New York, Mississippi, West Virginia, Connecticut, and Maine. And Virginia is most of the way there, as the only vaccine that has an opt-out is the HPV vaccine. That's more than 20% of the United States.

Make the flu shot free and accessible to everyone, then yes. We would benefit significantly from everyone getting that one each year, too. There was no reason *before* now that there shouldn't have been a social expectation to get that vaccine either, but I do acknowledge that cost and accessibility are limiting factors for some people.

 

To no one's surprise, the big conservative push to end the extra unemployment benefits in conservative-controlled states has resulted in... little to no actual change in filling job positions. Unemployment claims in Florida have actually gone up. Here in Central Florida, "Help Wanted" signs are still just as prevalent as they've been, almost a month after the extra benefits ended. In one case, I had neglected to bring a lunch and rushed to a local fast food place, to find (after waiting at the drive thru for a few minutes) that... the place was empty. Evidently some businesses are resorting to just temporarily closing if they can't staff a shift.

Come the end of the month, the Federal eviction moratorium will expire. Florida right now has some of the worst housing costs in the nation, so this is going to be a disaster. For those of you that are aware that eviction proceedings actually can take months to go through, the moratorium only applied to the final step - meaning that the people already in danger of eviction will be evicted immediately.

And to no one's surprise, Florida's big game plan to deal with the Delta variant surge is to... encourage people to get vaccinated. But if you don't, that's okay too! DeSantis is more interested in telling you all the things that he won't do, while he does what he does best is these situations - run out the clock and do nothing.

 

@Bilbo Fett - how is revenue sharing still not a huge problem? So, we’ll park sheriffs at every store front to police vaccine card checking? Or do you mean something else here? And, what are we doing about those who cannot get a vaccine? Do they have to bring papers too? And, here it is: religious exemptions? How does that work?

It doesn’t matter since I don’t see this ever flying. Businesses aren’t going to like it either as they potentially have to turn away customers. Ask bar, restaurant, theater, etc owners how that sounds after a year of being forcibly closed down. If you think this through and really dissect the mess it would create you’ll see why it’s just not feasible.

 

I see Help Wanted signs at almost every restaurant in California. Hearing the horror stories of things getting worse for workers now due to a seeming increase in insane customers, I don't think it's going to get better for the service industry soon unless they make big changes. And they're doing everything they can to avoid that.

 

That's it in a nutshell. Research into looking why people were abandoning those jobs revealed it was exactly for the reasons you specified.
But it's easier to find some anecdotal evidence from business donors touting "As soon as it ended, a thousand lazy people showed up to apply for a job, saying 'The government cut off my free money so now I have to work'", declare "It worked, crisis averted!" and move on, ignoring what's actually going on.

 

Your wish is granted.

 

Crooks and Liars - Fox News Hosts Promote Voting Ban On 'Childless' Liberals
Fox News hosts on Sunday discussed the idea that "childless" Americans should not be allowed to participate in society by voting.

The vast majority (67%) of 2020 voters didn't have children. Trump won childless men.


https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results/

This whole idea on the right is stupid and detestable. Voting is a right in our Constitution. I wonder if it's gonna join the ranks of Cruz and Carlson wanting to ban women in the military.

Which party is the one giving tax breaks to parents again recently? Not the Republicans, they all voted against it.

 

They want to ban women for anything besides procreation; we're rapidly approaching the time when they'll abandon all pretense and just come out and say it.

 

Next week they’ll say what they really mean; the left shouldn’t be allowed to vote at all.

 

I'm sure that's how a lot of them feel.

 

Yeah. I mean it goes to their nationalist "real america" beliefs. They don't think Dems or leftists or whatever are actual Americans. Therefore they don't deserve to participate in the democracy. Which is also probably why they think there was so much inherent fraud in 2020.

 

I seem to recall some GOP senator, a woman, just last winter, who was on TV arguing that only husbands should be allowed to vote. Which was exceptionally strange given that in her fantasy she wouldn't allowed to be a Rep. lol

This isn't a one off. It's not just Vance making this up on the spot. This is one of those deeply held beliefs of theirs that they usually keep quiet, but are finally feeling comfortable saying out loud in public.

 

Speaking of voting rights, has anyone been keeping up with the attack on them lately? There is this movement from this group that I just found out about called the Poor People's Campaign. They had a lot of big protests and made a lot of noise at the capitol. Well, hopefully it'll bring more attention to the issue. They also called out "centrist Democrats" as well.



Anyone aware of this issue? What do you think?

 

The healthcare policies being considered in the reconciliation bill... which should be prioritized?

Improving Obamacare
What’s the need? Millions of middle-income Americans buying private insurance through “Obamacare” ― that is, through HealthCare.gov and state-run exchanges like Covered California ― have historically qualified for minimal financial assistance and, as a result, struggled with premiums, copays and deductibles.

What’s the policy? The COVID-19 relief bill offered extra financial assistance, and it already seems to be boosting enrollment. But it’s a temporary measure that expires after next year. Democrats want to make that boost permanent, while shoring up the program’s financial health with some other changes.

What could it cost? Approaching $200 billion, maybe exceeding a bit, depending on details.

Who’s pushing for it? Everybody, but especially House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). She sees the Affordable Care Act as her legacy and sees these improvements as restoring the program to what she originally hoped it would be, before compromises necessary to get it through Congress in 2010.

What could happen? This feels like the surest bet on the list, because it’s got widespread support and no serious opposition. Besides, the last thing Democrats want is to have the temporary assistance expire without a replacement, hitting several million Americans with premium spikes right before the 2022 midterms.


Bolstering Home Care And Community Supports
What’s the need? A personal care attendant to help with cooking and hygiene. An agency to secure housing or a job. These “home and community-based services” can allow many senior citizens and people with disabilities to stay out of nursing homes and other large institutions. But government funds for them are limited.

What’s the policy? Democrats want a dramatic increase in funding, ideally enough to wipe out waiting lists that have hundreds of thousands of people on them. They also want to improve the quality of services, partly by raising wages for famously underpaid caregivers.

What could it cost? Biden in his budget requested $400 billion, a number that advocates embraced and cheered.


Who’s pushing for it? Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) and Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) are leading the charge in Congress, but it wouldn’t have gotten this far without outside advocates, especially the powerful Service Employees International Union.

What could happen? Democratic leaders have discussed scaling down the initiative significantly from the $400 billion ask. Given the pressure on every initiative, at least some reduction seems likely, though SEIU and its allies will fight for every dollar, and they have a lot of leverage.


Adding Benefits To Medicare
What’s the need? Medicare has some big gaps in its coverage. Among them is a lack of coverage for dental, vision and hearing.

Many seniors buy supplemental policies that cover some portion of these bills, or enroll in private “Medicare Advantage” plans that offer them as part of a full, private-sector alternative to the traditional program. But many seniors don’t have these supplements, which means they pay out of pocket ― or simply go without the services they need.

What’s the plan? Add some combination of dental, vision and hearing to Medicare ― and, if possible, add an overall cap on out-of-pocket expenses, which is something else private insurance now typically offers but Medicare doesn’t.

What could it cost? This is really hard to peg, because there are so many moving pieces. Does a reform include dental, vision and hearing, or just one or two? What does the benefit design look like and how much, if at all, would seniors have to pay on their own? But it’s not hard to imagine the full package hitting $400 billion over 10 years.

Who’s pushing it? The most vocal advocates are progressive leaders including Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

What could happen? This is a must-have to progressive leaders, in part because they see improving Medicare as a step toward “Medicare for All.” But Democrats could still decide to reduce the proposal’s budget impact. They could “sunset” some provisions, for example, financing them for only a few years on the theory that future lawmakers would never let the coverage lapse once it’s in place.

An alternative would be to delay the start of some or all new benefits, which might be necessary anyway because designing them from scratch takes time. But if that’s the way Democrats go, they might seek to offer some kind of smaller, temporary relief on these benefits.



Filling In The ‘Medicaid Gap’
What’s the need? Several million Americans living below or just above the poverty line have no access to insurance, because they live in a group of mostly Southern states where Republican lawmakers have refused to expand Medicaid eligibility, even though the federal government would cover most of the cost. These people fall into what’s come to be known as the “Medicaid gap.”

What’s the policy? In these states, the federal government would now take on the full cost of insuring these people either by standing up a new federally run insurance program that would offer them coverage or giving them subsidies to get private insurance through HealthCare.gov.


What could it cost? $400 billion? This is another difficult one to estimate, because so much depends on still-unresolved policy design questions.

Who’s pushing it? This idea got a big boost from the two Georgia Democratic senators (who campaigned on bringing Medicaid expansion to their state) and then from House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.). That weighed heavily with Biden, who is close with Clyburn and by all accounts is aghast that Republican officials in these states continue to block expansion.

What could happen? Dollar for dollar, this initiative may do more to reach the financially vulnerable ― and to reduce racial disparities ― than any other initiative. But the politics are complex because so many states have already expanded. Officials in those states may not like the idea of the federal government picking up the whole tab, rather than simply most of it, in other states. Some might even decide to drop coverage and let the feds take over.

A politically viable proposal would likely have to include financial incentives, maybe including some benefits for states that already expanded. That makes the whole initiative more expensive ― maybe a lot more expensive.


Lowering The Medicare Age
What’s the need? Older Americans approaching retirement frequently struggle with the cost of their medical care, because they are starting to have the medical problems associated with age but are still on private insurance plans whose coverage is in many ways weaker than Medicare’s.

What’s the plan? Democrats want to allow older Americans to opt into Medicare before retirement, by reducing the eligibility age to 60, 55 or even 50.

What it might cost: It’s hard to say what this would cost, because it depends on not just exactly where that eligibility age ends up (60? 55? 50?) but also on the specific financing. What would premiums be and who would pay them? Also it would depend on interactions with employer insurance, since so many people in these age categories would still have jobs that offer benefits.

Who’s pushing it? This is also a progressive priority, with the same set of champions as other Medicare changes.

What could happen? This appears to be the least likely idea on the agenda to make it into final legislation. Doctors and hospitals would fight hard, because Medicare pays them less than private insurance. Effects on employer insurance would be a source of controversy.

The need also isn’t as urgent as it was before the Affordable Care Act improvements, since the 50-something and 60-something Americans struggling most with costs were those buying coverage through HealthCare.gov and the exchanges.

Still, progressives keep talking about it and the idea is quite popular, in part because it’s simple to explain and understand. It’s not crazy to think Sanders, Jayapal and their allies would find some way to get some version of the idea into a final spending bill.


Forcing Down The Price Of Drugs

What’s the need? America pays dramatically more for name-brand prescription drugs than any other developed country. This inflates costs for government and private insurers, and sticks individual consumers with pharmacy bills they frequently can’t pay.

What’s the plan? Give the federal government some kind of power to negotiate prices directly with manufacturers, just like the governments of other developed countries do, and then extend those negotiated prices to the private sector so that employers, insurers and individuals can all take advantage of them.

What it might cost? Done properly, this costs nothing. In fact, it saves money ― a lot of money ― because it would reduce what government programs spend on drugs.

An estimate of H.R. 3, the legislation House Democrats passed in 2019 and hope can be the basis for legislation now, suggested that price negotiation would free up more than $450 billion. And that’s on top of separate savings, approaching $200 billion, that the federal government could realize by reversing a regulatory change on drugs that the Trump administration enacted.

Who’s pushing it: Pelosi wants this badly. So do progressives like Jayapal and Sanders, and Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (R-Ore.). Another, unlikely source of support are some vulnerable, frequently conservative Democrats who know this is popular with constituents. A coalition of outside groups, including AARP and progressive groups like Social Security Works, are also pushing hard.

What could happen: This is the X-factor of the debate, because those savings from drug spending free up dollars that can ― and would ― go to other health initiatives. The need for that money, plus the idea’s deep, well-established popularity with the public, mean this kind of legislation has a better chance of passing than ever before.

Still, the pharmaceutical industry has possibly the most powerful lobbying operation in Washington. It’s especially influential with senators from Delaware and New Jersey, two states where it has a large presence. And Democrats have no votes to spare.

This is another idea that’s easy to divide up or downsize. H.R. 3 limited the number of drugs subject to negotiation; that number could get smaller. It set a price ceiling based on what other countries pay; that ceiling could be higher. And so on. But of course every dollar of savings that Democrats give up on prescription drugs is a dollar not available for other purposes.​

 

Yes, I know a few people that have been in protest with him and especially for this issue in particular. I work for an organization that's also concerned about the state of voting rights. He's a great guy.

 

Bar owners where I am are introducing vaccine requirements on their own, without government support. Also, it seems very common for people that don't understand how businesses work (like yourself) to think that they could survive if they have their revenues down by like a third for an indefinite period of time. Those businesses need things to get to where their revenues are back to normal sooner rather than later, and you keep advocating for things that will keep those revenues significantly lower than what they were pre-COVID. That's going to be untenable, but you think businesses can lose a significant amount of revenue and keep on functioning as they did before; that's now that works.

 

Well see, the first Reconstruction was only able to occur after the North won the Civil War. To quote Winston Churchill here, without victory there is no survival.