Trump Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You are reading far too much into the future. Even if this does wind up leaving us with a national healthcare system, education is a separate battle altogether and nothing about these alternative systems championed by progressive Dems should be construed as a battle between "the individual" and the "collective".

Quite frankly, I think that kind of talk is demeaning to the history of the united states, where citizens have had to rise together as individuals in order to obtain the type of system we have today. The problem with viewing politics through such a Presidential centric lens is that you mistake the policy goals as top down directives that were passively accepted by the public once they got their free goodies.

While LBJ passed legislation, there were race riots. When FDR passed Social Security, elderly were dying of starvation. And the wave of new government intervention as ushered in by Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson went hand in hand with the 50+ years of labor riots and outright warfare in the streets.

National health care will be the law of the line not because of Obama or any other Democrat conspiracy. It will be because individual people will recognize that their best option is the government option and they will express that very loudly to their representatives.

I did not label it a conspiracy, nor a plot. It has been a prime agenda item for more than a generation. They deeply and truly believe it to be the best option for healthcare for the nation. The believed, and do believe, that the broadened coverage (more people covered) generated by the ACA to have been an improvement over the status quo ante. But I refuse to believe they are stupid. They would have had sense to know that expanded coverage had to be paid for by someone and that this would result in the increased premiums and deductibles we are noting today. Nor has it taken the Dems any time whatsoever to push for the enactment of a "public option" in markets where the number of insurers has dropped to one, undercutting competition.

I don't believe they had some nefarious plot in mind taken from some bad movie plot. I think they did this as a "best we can do so far" effort, knowing that the likely failures/cracks in the system would trend TOWARDS and not away from a national healthcare system. Since they believe that any other system is ultimately unfair and actively detrimental to many of our citizens, this isn't a plot but a process.

You are, also, very probably correct that such a government-run system will be a majority preference in the very near future -- polls already show nearly two-thirds in favor of government mandating health insurance in some form, with more than half believing that the system requires major changes -- and darn few of those calling for major change are thinking in terms of fee-for-service.

I do not own, nor seek to purchase, a tinfoil hat.

The GOP needs to repeal the ACA, effective about three years hence, and get HHS configured to run the new healthcare program. There are important questions to be answered, such as the German or Canadian model, the allowance or abolition of private doctoring and the like and these changes will not be well made "on the fly."

[Pannonian]

I did not label it a conspiracy, nor a plot. It has been a prime agenda item for more than a generation. They deeply and truly believe it to be the best option for healthcare for the nation. The believed, and do believe, that the broadened coverage (more people covered) generated by the ACA to have been an improvement over the status quo ante. But I refuse to believe they are stupid. They would have had sense to know that expanded coverage had to be paid for by someone and that this would result in the increased premiums and deductibles we are noting today. Nor has it taken the Dems any time whatsoever to push for the enactment of a "public option" in markets where the number of insurers has dropped to one, undercutting competition.

I don't believe they had some nefarious plot in mind taken from some bad movie plot. I think they did this as a "best we can do so far" effort, knowing that the likely failures/cracks in the system would trend TOWARDS and not away from a national healthcare system. Since they believe that any other system is ultimately unfair and actively detrimental to many of our citizens, this isn't a plot but a process.

You are, also, very probably correct that such a government-run system will be a majority preference in the very near future -- polls already show nearly two-thirds in favor of government mandating health insurance in some form, with more than half believing that the system requires major changes -- and darn few of those calling for major change are thinking in terms of fee-for-service.

I do not own, nor seek to purchase, a tinfoil hat.

The GOP needs to repeal the ACA, effective about three years hence, and get HHS configured to run the new healthcare program. There are important questions to be answered, such as the German or Canadian model, the allowance or abolition of private doctoring and the like and these changes will not be well made "on the fly."

There should be studies on what would be the most cost efficient method given the reality on the ground. Over here, other than how alien we find it that not everyone gets coverage, the aspect of American healthcare that most stands out is how astoundingly expensive it is to get a reasonable level of coverage such as we get here. It's increasingly becoming the case here too, as the Tories are starving the NHS for funds which subsequently drives patients to A&E, which is far more expensive per patient seen than previously available other care.

[HopAlongBunny]

PoltiFact on various claims during the repeal/replace mess:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...h-bill-stalls/

Obamacare is not in a deathspiral; it could be better

[a completely inoffensive name]

I did not label it a conspiracy, nor a plot. It has been a prime agenda item for more than a generation. They deeply and truly believe it to be the best option for healthcare for the nation. The believed, and do believe, that the broadened coverage (more people covered) generated by the ACA to have been an improvement over the status quo ante. But I refuse to believe they are stupid. They would have had sense to know that expanded coverage had to be paid for by someone and that this would result in the increased premiums and deductibles we are noting today. Nor has it taken the Dems any time whatsoever to push for the enactment of a "public option" in markets where the number of insurers has dropped to one, undercutting competition.

I don't believe they had some nefarious plot in mind taken from some bad movie plot. I think they did this as a "best we can do so far" effort, knowing that the likely failures/cracks in the system would trend TOWARDS and not away from a national healthcare system. Since they believe that any other system is ultimately unfair and actively detrimental to many of our citizens, this isn't a plot but a process.

You are, also, very probably correct that such a government-run system will be a majority preference in the very near future -- polls already show nearly two-thirds in favor of government mandating health insurance in some form, with more than half believing that the system requires major changes -- and darn few of those calling for major change are thinking in terms of fee-for-service.

I do not own, nor seek to purchase, a tinfoil hat.

The GOP needs to repeal the ACA, effective about three years hence, and get HHS configured to run the new healthcare program. There are important questions to be answered, such as the German or Canadian model, the allowance or abolition of private doctoring and the like and these changes will not be well made "on the fly."

Not trying to be hostile, but you are making a big assertion, 'Dems knowingly passed legislation that could explode the health care system' and then trying to walk it back by stating they acted with good intentions. They needed to compromise to win red-state Dems, and they went with 1990s GOP policy. The crux here was making sure healthy people signed up in enough numbers to cover the cost of those with pre-existing conditions, which didn't happen. That's on the right-wing think tanks who came up with the policy, not the Dems for giving it a shot.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Not trying to be hostile, but you are making a big assertion, 'Dems knowingly passed legislation that could explode the health care system' and then trying to walk it back by stating they acted with good intentions. They needed to compromise to win red-state Dems, and they went with 1990s GOP policy. The crux here was making sure healthy people signed up in enough numbers to cover the cost of those with pre-existing conditions, which didn't happen. That's on the right-wing think tanks who came up with the policy, not the Dems for giving it a shot.

Perhaps I was wrong. To be fair, I cannot claim to know what was on their minds as they made their decision. I am not a telepath. I could well be projecting my own sense of "how could they really think it would work otherwise" onto those past decisions.

And there are strong similarities between elements of the ACA and the healthcare efforts enacted under Gov. Romney in Massachusetts -- a fact pointed up during the 2012 campaign. I am not personally aware of the basic elements in the ACA having been promulgated in "right wing" think tanks, but I also must note that I do not regularly read the policy papers put forward by such. So I defer to your knowledge (though a cite or two for me to check upon would not be thought amiss).


For a new healthcare plan to work, all citizens must receive adequate healthcare (the support for few or no exclusions/concept of health care as and individual right is a clear majority position). To do so, funds contributed by the relative healthy must be higher than that required for their care, in order to defray the costs of those who have fallen grievously ill and could never hope to afford the full cost of care for themselves.

The ACA has not, so far, managed to procure the numbers needed. What can be done to improve participation?

While wealth strongly correlates with health, those in good health exceed those who possess wealth. How can the system be crafted to tap into this properly?

What constitutes adequate healthcare and what, if any, limitations should be placed upon healthcare?

If the government runs healthcare, what mandates must exist for that healthcare to be administered fairly and effectively?

[HopAlongBunny]

Score one for the Republicans
They made good on their 2009 pledge to stop health-care:

http://www.theonion.com/article/gop-...ts-healt-55630

[a completely inoffensive name]

Perhaps I was wrong. To be fair, I cannot claim to know what was on their minds as they made their decision. I am not a telepath. I could well be projecting my own sense of "how could they really think it would work otherwise" onto those past decisions.

And there are strong similarities between elements of the ACA and the healthcare efforts enacted under Gov. Romney in Massachusetts -- a fact pointed up during the 2012 campaign. I am not personally aware of the basic elements in the ACA having been promulgated in "right wing" think tanks, but I also must note that I do not regularly read the policy papers put forward by such. So I defer to your knowledge (though a cite or two for me to check upon would not be thought amiss).

Your questions after this section deserve a separate reply. But as for sources, a couple of newspapers have attempted to dig into the history of the idea, usually pointing to the Heritage foundation as the platform which cultivated the idea in the early 90s.
1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001...41190920152366
2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot.../#405b35055fe9
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/he...ervatives.html

The smoking gun they like to point to is a publication from the Heritage Foundation in 1989: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/hl218.pdf
Admittedly, it does say "Nothing here should be construed to reflect the views of the Heritage Foundation". But the idea at least was floated around in those circles.

Also, while Hillary Clinton was pushing for HillaryCare after the 1992 election, Congress asked the Congressional Budgetary Office to begin considering the impact and treatment of an individual mandate as part of an alternative Congressional Reform package: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...orts/doc38.pdf

Yes, RomneyCare did make use of the mandate. In fact, during the second half of the Bush Administration, the individual mandate seemed like a bipartisan solution that both Conservatives and Liberals could embrace.
A bipartisan bill was proposed in the Senate in 2007 that essentially was the pre-cursor to the ACA, mandate included: https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-...334/cosponsors
Once Obama was elected however, well...suddenly the idea became a lot less palatable.

I wish I could dig into this deeper and make a more convincing case rather than just throw you a bunch of links, but later this week I will have some more free time to engage your reply a bit further.

[HopAlongBunny]

Back to the Future? Or The more things change...?

http://www.motherjones.com/media/201...e-10-takeaways

Racist, divided, with patriots and takers; full circle or business as usual?

[HopAlongBunny]

The Freedom Caucus makes a pitch to fix Obamacare real good:

https://wonkette.com/615068/revenge-...iacs-from-hell

Its exactly as bad as you would expect

[Strike For The South]

Just came over the wire that Goursch is being pushed through. Mitch McConnel really is such a shameless little troll. I guess this is the final chapter in Borks legacy? It's interesting though. The first two of these knock down, drag out fights came about in good faith. Bork and Thomas both had plausible reasons why they could be considered unqualified.

Borks views are extreme and very much outside of the mainstream, he also answered questions truthfully during his confirmation which didn't help. Now of course, as the executive you make the pick. However, while it is assumed that your pick will align with you ideologically, it is not necessarily assumed that they swing so far to one side. Bork was ideologicaly pure pick for a position which Before had been more measured and flexible. He was sort of the first shot of the moral majority which eventually would rain down a bunch of bullshit upon American government. Those people need to go away.

Of course there really isn't much to say about Thomas issue. If those allegations were proven, there should be no way he sits on the court.

After Thomas is when the Rs started blocking Clintons appointments, then the Ds did the same thing to Bush, and here we are today.