BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 1107 Pages +
  • « First
  • 261
  • 262
  • 263
  • 264
  • 265
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?

#5241 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,224
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2017-March-13, 09:38

View PostVampyr, on 2017-March-13, 00:47, said:

What changes?


Certainly there are many, and it would be good to discuss them as objectively as possible.

Here is an article about the impact of the change in immigration policy.

https://www.washingt...m=.7fafba06b2ce

The first thing I noticed, although unimportant, is that the returnees were flown from El Paso to Mexico City. I have been in El Paso, and I have walked across the bridge into Juarez.Cheaper and easier if the idea is to end up in Mexico. But I suppose the return point has to be Mexico City so that's where it is.

I also noted:
"Since President Trump took office in January, the number of U.S. government flights landing in Mexico City loaded with deportees has jumped from two a week under President Barack Obama to three, Mexican officials said. "

One could say that"Oh, it's just a minor change in the Obama policy. Two planes, three planes, what does it matter?" But it's a fifty percent increase in the number of returnees. And presumably will get larger. Much more importantly, I think it changes expectations.

What will be the effect?

Quote

"A lot of these people ran businesses in the U.S. and did well," said Andrew Selee, vice president of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. "In the same way that in the United States we saw a wave of Mexicans who became part of the American culture and changed it, we're now seeing a wave of Mexicans moving back who are integrating American culture into Mexico."


Is "integrating American culture into Mexico" a good thing or a bad thing? Views differ. But for the people being sent back, they are not happy about it.


For the U.S. I think the fundamental change is the rejection of the view that people who have crossed the border illegally are being mistreated when they are sent back.


Immigration has always been a complex issue. My father was an immigrant but I had to work at it to think of him as one. In high school I knew a kid who came from Latvia as a DP (displaced person) after WWII but I did not much think about that either. When I wen to college (the Univ of Minnesota) my horizons broadened considerably. The "brain drani" became a big issue. Young people came to the U.S. to study and often did not want to go back. I see an echo of that in the comments about how sending the undocumented immigrants back might, in the long run, be good for Mexico:

Quote

At the same time, though, there will be more English-speaking Mexicans entering the workforce who've honed their skills in the United States, a development that in the long run could position Mexico to be a stronger player in the global economy, analysts say.


Good for Mexico, at least maybe so, but not something that the returnees want. .

Here is another thing I have noticed. We act as if the alternatives are to let the illegal immigrants stay or else to shut off Mexican immigration. Wait. We could return illegal immigrants but increase our willingness to accept legal immigrants, could we not? We no longer seem to be capable f finding a sensible middle policy on things.


I favor not jumping, or at least not jumping too quickly, to conclusions about motives. I can recall when Americans of Italian descent were strongly asserting that the Mafia did not exist, that any reference to the Mafia was simply an expression of American bigotry. Well, no. I can simultaneously believe that The Godfather had some basis in fact, still believe that immigration from Italy to the US is a good thing, and still believe that the immigration should be through the legal channels. We need a rational immigration policy that serves our needs, the needs of the "poor and huddled masses yearning to be free", and one that treats legal immigration differently from illegal immigration. If someone comes here illegally, we get to send them back. Yes we can make exceptions, but the idea that being able to get here illegally confers a right to stay here is an odd notion.

At any rate, this is one change. I will probably comment on others later. Time now to play a few hands.
Ken
0

#5242 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2017-March-13, 09:48

View Postkenberg, on 2017-March-13, 09:38, said:

We act as if the alternatives are to let the illegal immigrants stay or else to shut off Mexican immigration. Wait. We could return illegal immigrants but increase our willingness to accept legal immigrants, could we not?

I wonder why we don't make academic or technical credentials an explicit requirement for immigration and just say something like: anyone who can credibly show they are strongly motivated to succeed is welcome here up to some reasonable annual limit. That would provide a strong incentive for acquiring useful skills that benefits everyone regardless of whether or not they emigrate.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#5243 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,703
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2017-March-13, 10:47

View Postkenberg, on 2017-March-13, 09:38, said:

I also noted:
"Since President Trump took office in January, the number of U.S. government flights landing in Mexico City loaded with deportees has jumped from two a week under President Barack Obama to three, Mexican officials said. "

One could say that"Oh, it's just a minor change in the Obama policy. Two planes, three planes, what does it matter?" But it's a fifty percent increase in the number of returnees. And presumably will get larger. Much more importantly, I think it changes expectations.

This might be the case. On the other hand it might be that twice as many Mexicans are trying to cross the border before "the wall" goes up and only half of the extra people are being caught, meaning a 50% increase in returnees and a 100% increase in illegal immigrants. Or it could be that Obama's administration efficiently booked 2 planes that exactly covered the demand and a small (say 5%) increase was enough to exceed capacity, with Trump's administration not being organised enough to adjust and instead ordering a whole extra plane (that is mostly empty). Without more statistics than this it is impossible to say precisely what is going on.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#5244 User is offline   jogs 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,316
  • Joined: 2011-March-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:student of the game

Posted 2017-March-13, 11:19

View Postawm, on 2017-March-12, 09:56, said:


His promised infrastructure bill is nowhere to be seen.


Obama made no effort to fix the infrastructure in 8 years.
Democrats are blocking Trump's cabinet appointments.

If the democrats ever wins back the White House, they better also win a majority in the Senate.
A republican majority would be able block every appointment.
0

#5245 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,678
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2017-March-13, 15:33

View Postjogs, on 2017-March-13, 11:19, said:

Obama made no effort to fix the infrastructure in 8 years.
Democrats are blocking Trump's cabinet appointments.

If the democrats ever wins back the White House, they better also win a majority in the Senate.

A lot of highways here were upgraded by the stimulus money used in 2009 and 2010 to get the economy back on track. The lift bridge here was upgraded in winter of 2014-2015.

The reason that none of the Trump appointments have been blocked by democrats is because of the changes to Senate rules in 2013 preventing filibusters of presidential appointments (except for appointments to the Supreme Court). The democrats changed the filibuster rule (with 3 democrats joining the republicans in voting against the change) because of the extreme blocking tactics used by McConnell and the republicans against Obama's appointments.

If you'll check, you'll see that the republicans do hold a 52-48 majority now, so have clear sailing on presidential appointments. The reason that Trump has fallen so far behind Obama in getting this done is his tardiness in vetting and putting forward nominees for approval.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#5246 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,519
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-March-13, 16:08

So, the Congressional Budget Office expects that AHCA would lead to 24 million more uninsured; would raise premiums by 10-15% in 2018. It would also raise deductibles. Changes is what ldrews wanted, change is what he'll get.

Except...I doubt many Republicans up for reelection in 2018 (and not in a safe seat) will vote for this. They really should have held the vote before the CBO report came out.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#5247 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,519
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-March-13, 16:14

P.S.: Some have said it's impossible to make suggestions for how to improve Obamacare. That is not correct. Many people have proposed a Medicare buy-in option for people aged 55 or older. This would take some of the most expensive patients out of the individual market, thus making premiums cheaper. And it would be affordable insurance for those of age 55-65 since Medicare is much more cost efficient than private insurance.

In fact, there was a candidate in the 2016 presidential election who supported this proposal. She lost, but I think the benefits are so overwhelming that it's still possible that at some point in the future (not 2017 or 2018, and not with Paul Ryan as speaker) Republicans will grudgingly agree that it is a good idea.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
1

#5248 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,284
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2017-March-13, 16:41

Sean Spicer today and Paul Ryan previously have both argued for market driven healthcare. I disagree.

Let's take a useful public need comparison - transportation. With transportation, the market provides a solution based on income levels, i.e., the wealthy can afford to drive Mercedes and own their own airplanes while the middle class can get a less costly car and lower classes get by with used clunkers and still lower classes with motorbikes, bicycles, the city bus, or their own feet. While this is not ideal for the lower classes, it has a degree of fairness if one is considering nothing but income levels.

But to adopt that same market-driven model to healthcare means that the city bus riders have no way to get healthcare other than city hospital emergency room charity. Medicaid, remember, is a government program. Everyone else gets to buy what they can afford from whomever is willing to provide a cheap healthcare insurance policy that covers only what the insurance company is willing to risk. The higher incomes get to buy the best policies and get the best care.

Here is the rub: when that used Ford driver needs an emergency appendectomy, he can't settle for cast on his arm or a box of aspirin. When healthcare is needed, it is as necessary to the poor, lower middle class, upper middle class, and the wealthy. The need is universal. Markets cannot address this equality of need combined with an inability to pay. That is because healthcare is not a commodity. Everyone has an equal need for protection.

And because everyone has an equal need, a basic level of healthcare should be considered a right - because it's right.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
1

#5249 User is offline   ldrews 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 880
  • Joined: 2014-February-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-March-13, 17:24

View Postcherdano, on 2017-March-13, 16:08, said:

So, the Congressional Budget Office expects that AHCA would lead to 24 million more uninsured; would raise premiums by 10-15% in 2018. It would also raise deductibles. Changes is what ldrews wanted, change is what he'll get.

Except...I doubt many Republicans up for reelection in 2018 (and not in a safe seat) will vote for this. They really should have held the vote before the CBO report came out.


So, the Republican plan, which is known as "Obamacare Lite", and is basically a continuation of the ACA with some modifications, is not good. Surprise, surprise! We are in a mess that appears to be unfixable.

How about actually fixing the health care situation. Of course that would require a consensus about what is the proper approach. Not likely to happen.
0

#5250 User is offline   ldrews 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 880
  • Joined: 2014-February-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-March-13, 17:33

View PostWinstonm, on 2017-March-13, 16:41, said:

Sean Spicer today and Paul Ryan previously have both argued for market driven healthcare. I disagree.

Let's take a useful public need comparison - transportation. With transportation, the market provides a solution based on income levels, i.e., the wealthy can afford to drive Mercedes and own their own airplanes while the middle class can get a less costly car and lower classes get by with used clunkers and still lower classes with motorbikes, bicycles, the city bus, or their own feet. While this is not ideal for the lower classes, it has a degree of fairness if one is considering nothing but income levels.

But to adopt that same market-driven model to healthcare means that the city bus riders have no way to get healthcare other than city hospital emergency room charity. Medicaid, remember, is a government program. Everyone else gets to buy what they can afford from whomever is willing to provide a cheap healthcare insurance policy that covers only what the insurance company is willing to risk. The higher incomes get to buy the best policies and get the best care.

Here is the rub: when that used Ford driver needs an emergency appendectomy, he can't settle for cast on his arm or a box of aspirin. When healthcare is needed, it is as necessary to the poor, lower middle class, upper middle class, and the wealthy. The need is universal. Markets cannot address this equality of need combined with an inability to pay. That is because healthcare is not a commodity. Everyone has an equal need for protection.

And because everyone has an equal need, a basic level of healthcare should be considered a right - because it's right.


Your entire approach is based on the assumption that health care is a "right" that the Federal government must satisfy. I strongly disagree. Not with my taxes! I have no objection to you banding together with like-minded people and providing such health care to whomever you want. Just don't require the people who do not want to join to help pay for it. And you may exclude such people from your services as well. We will wish you good luck.
0

#5251 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,519
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-March-13, 17:36

View Postldrews, on 2017-March-13, 17:24, said:

So, the Republican plan, which is known as "Obamacare Lite", and is basically a continuation of the ACA with some modifications, is not good. Surprise, surprise! We are in a mess that appears to be unfixable.


You misread the CBO report (if you did, in fact, read it). CBO didn't claim 24 millions would lose insurance compared to now. CBO claims 24 millions would lose health insurance compared to status quo, i.e. Obamacare.

The CBO also says:

Quote

In CBO and JCT's assessment, however, the nongroup market would probably be stable under either current law or the legislation.

In other words, Obamacare is not, in fact, imploding. ldrews knows better than the CBO, of course. Who is more likely to make a well-educate guess, CBO or ldrews?
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#5252 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2017-March-13, 17:48

From Preet Bharara: A Prosecutor Who Knew How to Drain a Swamp. Fired!

Quote

Most Americans had never heard of Preet Bharara, Manhattan’s federal prosecutor, before he briefly took center stage in the drama over the Trump administration’s Friday order demanding the resignations of 46 United States attorneys.

Mr. Bharara alone refused to resign. He was fired on Saturday, and immediately cast as either a martyr for justice or a sanctimonious self-promoter, depending on one’s partisan inclinations. But New Yorkers, who have had a front-row seat to his work over the last seven years, know him for his efforts to drain one of the swampiest states in the country of its rampant public corruption.

Appointed in 2009 by President Barack Obama, Mr. Bharara quickly went after New York’s rancid political culture, where politicians of both parties have long treated anti-graft laws like suggestions and ethics rules like Play-Doh.

Mr. Bharara won convictions of more than a dozen lawmakers, culminating in 2015, when he brought down two of the state’s three most powerful politicians: Sheldon Silver, the Democratic former Assembly speaker, and Dean Skelos, the Republican former Senate majority leader. Both men have appealed their convictions, which included charges of bribery, extortion and money laundering.

Mr. Bharara also tangled repeatedly with the other member of that entrenched trio, New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo. He investigated Mr. Cuomo’s suspicious disbanding in 2014 of the Moreland Commission, an anticorruption panel that Mr. Cuomo had established a year earlier to address the epidemic of self-dealing in state politics. Mr. Bharara eventually decided there was not enough evidence to charge the governor with interfering in the commission’s work, but at the time of his firing, Mr. Bharara’s office was prosecuting two of Mr. Cuomo’s former advisers in a bribery and bid-rigging scandal.

Mr. Bharara was an equal-opportunity prosecutor. One of the first cases as United States attorney for the Southern District of New York involved bank-fraud charges against a top Democratic donor, Hassan Nemazee, who had ties to Senator Chuck Schumer, for whom Mr. Bharara had worked as chief counsel and who had urged Mr. Obama to hire him.

At the time of his dismissal, his office was in the final stages of a criminal investigation into the campaign fund-raising of New York City’s mayor, Bill de Blasio.

It’s standard practice for United States attorneys to be replaced when a new administration takes office — roughly half of those appointed by President Obama had resigned before last Friday — but Mr. Trump, as president-elect, had personally asked Mr. Bharara to stay on during a meeting at Trump Tower in November. So why fire him now?

It has been reported that Mr. Bharara’s office is investigating whether Fox News, essentially the propaganda arm of the White House, failed to properly alert its shareholders about settlements with employees who accused the channel’s former boss, Roger Ailes, of sexual harassment.

It may be a while before the full story comes out, or before the Southern District of New York sees another prosecutor as cleareyed about rooting out public corruption. In the meantime, Mr. Bharara deserves credit for leaving New York a little cleaner than he found it. “We are not trying to criminalize ordinary politics,” he said in a 2015 speech. “Just try not to steal our money.”

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#5253 User is offline   ldrews 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 880
  • Joined: 2014-February-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-March-13, 17:55

View Postcherdano, on 2017-March-13, 17:36, said:

Y
In other words, Obamacare is not, in fact, imploding. ldrews knows better than the CBO, of course. Who is more likely to make a well-educate guess, CBO or ldrews?


I am reading that premiums are soaring, deductibles are soaring, and insurance companies are rapidly exiting the ACA marketplace. Some states now have only 1 insurer left. How is this not imploding?

But then I am not an expert like cherdano, just a voter with an opinion. See you at the voting booth, just like last time.
0

#5254 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2017-March-13, 18:00

From Trumpcare: Fiction and Fact by Stephen Rattner

Quote

Watching administration officials play cat and mouse with Sunday talk show hosts is a hoary Washington tradition. But yesterday, Trump spokesmen offered a remarkably large number of flat out untruths as they attempted to defend the Republican health care plan.

Untruth #1:

“I firmly believe that nobody will be worse off financially in the process we are going through.” – Tom Price, Secretary of Health and Human Services, on Meet the Press.

Fact #1:

Millions of Americans will be worse off. For those currently purchasing insurance on the exchanges using Federal subsidies, that support will be replaced by tax credits that, for many, will be substantially smaller, as this chart shows:

Posted Image

For those in the 31 states and the District of Columbia that are participating in the Medicaid expansion, Trumpcare will provide far less Federal support, as the chart below indicates. After 2020, states will no longer be able to accept additional enrollees and no one who loses eligibility (such as by getting a higher paid job) will be able to return to the program even if their income drops. All told, the Administration plans to save $370 billion over the next 10 years from these cuts – which will surely make many Americans worse off.

Posted Image

Untruth #2:

“The fact that certain groups will pay less tax is not…central to the issue. We’ve done this in a fashion that allows the people who cannot afford health care now to afford it.”

—Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget on This Week

Fact #2:

That’s two misstatements in quick succession. The plan to repeal $600 billion of taxes that almost entirely benefit the wealthy is very much at the heart of the matter. Those revenues are currently being used to expand Medicaid for the poorest Americans and subsidize health insurance for families with incomes between $24,600 and $98,400 per year. Removing a large chunk of those subsidies surely makes health care less affordable for those with lower incomes.

Untruth #3:

“The number of individuals who actually got coverage through the exchange who didn’t have coverage before…is relatively small.”

—Mr. Price on Meet the Press

Fact #3:

What is he talking about? Of the 11 million people who are buying health insurance coverage through the exchanges, all but 1.7 million are receiving subsidies through Obamacare. As the drop in the total number of uninsured indicates, it’s impossible to imagine that most of them were previously buying unsubsidized insurance directly from providers.

Untruth #4:

“The President is focused on health care, not insurance coverage.”

—Mr. Mulvaney on This Week.

Fact #4:

President Trump was very clear during the campaign: “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” he said in an interview with the Washington Post on January 14. “Much less expensive and much better.” According to early estimates from Standard & Poor’s and Brookings, between six and 15 million Americans would lose insurance coverage under Trumpcare.

Even House Speaker Paul Ryan, appearing on Face the Nation, seemed to acknowledge that some who currently have health insurance would lose it. “I can’t answer that question,” he said. “It’s up to the people.”

Untruth #5:

“If you want to have coverage – and we think that everyone should have coverage – we’re providing you access to coverage.”

—Gary Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, on Fox News Sunday

Fact #5:

That’s technically true but of course, with or without any federal assistance, individuals are always free to buy health insurance. Mr. Cohn’s comment came in response to repeated questioning by host Chris Wallace about what would happen to the more than 20 million people who have gained coverage under Obamacare. As noted, it’s inconceivable that millions of Americans who are currently insured won’t lose their coverage.

Untruth #6:

“I love the folks at the C.B.O. … but sometimes we ask them to do stuff they’re not capable of doing and estimating the impact of a bill of this size probably…isn’t the best use of their time.”

—Mr. Mulvaney on This Week.

Fact #6:

Estimating the impact of proposed legislation is precisely what the Congressional Budget Office was set up to do back in 1974. And while the C.B.O.’s early estimates of the impact of the Affordable Care Act were, in fact, slightly optimistic, they were closer to the mark than many other forecasters, as this chart shows:

Posted Image

Evaluating complex policy proposals is, indeed, difficult but Mr. Mulvaney’s apparent preferred alternative – doing no impact analysis at all – makes no sense. Just because weather predictions are often wrong, would you not check the forecast before you venture outside?

Finally, a reminder to Mr. Mulvaney: The current director of the C.B.O., Keith Hall, was picked by the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill and served in the administration of President George W. Bush.

Untruth #7:

“Obamacare…is blowing up our fiscal problem.”

—Mr. Ryan on Face the Nation

Fact #7:

The Affordable Care Act was crafted with a mix of tax increases and Medicare cost cuts alongside the new benefits in order to – shockingly – provide a modest amount of deficit reduction. Over its initial decade, the entire Obamacare package was projected to reduce the total deficit by $124 billion. In addition, in its most recent assessment, the C.B.O. said repealing Obamacare would increase the deficit by $353 billion between 2016 and 2026.

Furthermore, the net expenditures on coverage have been revised down several times. In 2010, the C.B.O. projected that benefit costs would total $132 billion in 2016; by last year, that estimate had been reduced to $110 billion.

Untruth #8:

“Obamacare is just not working. You know, in the last year alone, premiums are up 25 percent.”

—Mr. Cohn on Fox News Sunday

Fact #8:

That often-cited statistic applies only to individuals who buy unsubsidized insurance through the exchanges (1.7 million people) and those who get their insurance directly from providers (another six million Americans). These two groups account for just 3 percent of Americans.

And while by talking about “last year alone,” Mr. Cohn implies that this is the latest of a long string of large increases, in fact, premiums increased by 7 percent in 2016 and 2 percent in 2015.

Untruth #9:

“The people who are just above Medicaid but still have difficulty buying their own premiums will…have the ability to use [Health Savings Accounts] to pay for their…healthcare on a tax-advantaged basis.”

—Mr. Mulvaney on Meet the Press

Fact #9:

He is talking about people whose incomes are well below median levels and is offering them the opportunity to save money they don’t have and get the benefit of taxes they generally don’t pay because their incomes are too low. How does taking away the Obamacare benefits and giving them refundable tax credits of $2,000 to $4,000 per person replace subsidies that currently run to as much as $9,874 for older low-income individuals?

Untruth #10:

“I was on Obamacare when I was in the House. My family’s deductibles were over $15,000 a year.”

—Mr. Mulvaney on Meet the Press

Fact #10:

Mr. Mulvaney didn’t provide enough information for me to be sure but for one thing, the out-of-pocket maximum for a marketplace plan in 2016 was $13,700. For another, while Mr. Mulvaney is correct that senators and representatives are required to buy their insurance through the District of Columbia exchange, they get a pretty good deal.

According to Congressional Research Service, if they buy a gold plan, the government (meaning us taxpayers) paid up to 75 percent of the premiums. I went to the District of Columbia health care exchange and for a family of 5, like the Mulvaneys, the yearly cost of plans currently being offered is approximately $25,000. That would mean premium costs of just over $6,000 a year. The required deductibles range from zero to $2,000. So I have no idea where Mr. Mulvaney’s assertion came from.

Untruth #11:

Kentucky is a “textbook case of Obamacare’s failures.”

—Vice President Pence in Louisville on Saturday

Fact #11:

While not said on a Sunday show, Mr. Pence’s comment must be noted. In fact, Kentucky has seen the largest drop of any state in the uninsured rate under Obamacare, as this chart shows:

Posted Image

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#5255 User is offline   ldrews 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 880
  • Joined: 2014-February-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-March-13, 18:09

I agree with many of the posters here: The Republican/Trump health care plan won't fix the problems, may make them worse.

I propose that Trump and the Republicans back off and do nothing rather than make the situation worse. Let the current ACA program play out for a few more years and see how it does. What does anyone else think?
0

#5256 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,678
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2017-March-13, 19:07

View Postldrews, on 2017-March-13, 18:09, said:

I agree with many of the posters here: The Republican/Trump health care plan won't fix the problems, may make them worse.

I propose that Trump and the Republicans back off and do nothing rather than make the situation worse. Let the current ACA program play out for a few more years and see how it does. What does anyone else think?

He can't do that. Trump has said that health care is broken and that he will fix it. He has control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, and the democrats are powerless to prevent him from implementing his solution -- one that will give better health care to all at lower prices. He's chosen the most talented cabinet in US history to help him do it.

Blaming the democrats won't work.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
1

#5257 User is offline   rmnka447 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,366
  • Joined: 2012-March-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Bridge, Golf, Soccer

Posted 2017-March-13, 19:31

View PostPassedOut, on 2017-March-13, 15:33, said:

A lot of highways here were upgraded by the stimulus money used in 2009 and 2010 to get the economy back on track. The lift bridge here was upgraded in winter of 2014-2015.

The reason that none of the Trump appointments have been blocked by democrats is because of the changes to Senate rules in 2013 preventing filibusters of presidential appointments (except for appointments to the Supreme Court). The democrats changed the filibuster rule (with 3 democrats joining the republicans in voting against the change) because of the extreme blocking tactics used by McConnell and the republicans against Obama's appointments.

If you'll check, you'll see that the republicans do hold a 52-48 majority now, so have clear sailing on presidential appointments. The reason that Trump has fallen so far behind Obama in getting this done is his tardiness in vetting and putting forward nominees for approval.

Sure, the Republicans can confirm the appointments, but the Democrats also have the right under Senate rules to hold up the vote on each appointment for 30 hours. The net effect has been that all of Trump's cabinet appointments haven't been confirmed yet. And normally, the Cabinet Secretaries have a big say in the appointment of people under them.

Although Republicans I'm sure didn't like many of Obama's cabinet appointments, they were at least courteous enough to let Obama get his governing team in place fairly quickly. So making any comparison between Obama and Trump on speed of appointments is comparing apples and oranges.
0

#5258 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,375
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2017-March-13, 19:53

View Postjogs, on 2017-March-13, 11:19, said:

Obama made no effort to fix the infrastructure in 8 years.


This is such a ridiculous statement. First, the stimulus package had over a hundred billion for infrastructure. Beyond that, Obama spent years trying to get an infrastructure bill as did democrats in the senate only to be blocked by Republicans at every turn.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
1

#5259 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,375
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2017-March-13, 20:00

View Postrmnka447, on 2017-March-13, 19:31, said:

Sure, the Republicans can confirm the appointments, but the Democrats also have the right under Senate rules to hold up the vote on each appointment for 30 hours. The net effect has been that all of Trump's cabinet appointments haven't been confirmed yet. And normally, the Cabinet Secretaries have a big say in the appointment of people under them.

Although Republicans I'm sure didn't like many of Obama's cabinet appointments, they were at least courteous enough to let Obama get his governing team in place fairly quickly. So making any comparison between Obama and Trump on speed of appointments is comparing apples and oranges.


Obama's appointees actually had relevant experience to the jobs they were appointed to do (unlike Trump nominees like Betsy DeVos, Ben Carson, and Rick Perry). They also had their ethics paperwork done before hearings began (unlike Trump nominees). And Obama nominees had a pretty long wait too, especially after Republicans took over the Senate. Beyond that, Trump hasn't even named nominees to a lot of positions, and some of these don't even require Senate approval.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
1

#5260 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2017-March-13, 20:04

Donald Trump is what we got when a lot of people who should have known better just said f*ck it, f*ck Hillary, f*ck the Dems, f*ck me.

Trumpcare is what we got when Paul Ryan decided to f*ck people who need health care the most.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

  • 1107 Pages +
  • « First
  • 261
  • 262
  • 263
  • 264
  • 265
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

152 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 152 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. Google