Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Joe Walsh]

There seem to be a lot of people who consider themselves on one team or the other, and see their team's wins as their own wins, just like sports fans do.

[Old Man]

I also have to say I'm disappointed by the comments from Democratic party officials in the aftermath of their loss in the Georgia special election. Their emphasis sounds to me very much like, "What strategy do we use to beat the Republicans and regain power?" I don't get any sense that they're thinking, "How do we regain the support and trust of our voters that we've obviously lost?" No consideration of their past and present conduct, or their obligation to good governance and serving the public, whether or not they're the governing party.

 

++.  The reaction seems to have been "Well it's a deep red state, we couldn't have won anyway," rather than actually looking at their platform (such as it is).  The Democrats are in real danger of becoming the Not-Trump party, and failing to actually offer anything concrete to voters.  Labor and Christianity have been left behind by both parties, for example; it would not be difficult to reach out to those demographics, for starters.

[DShomshak]

Well, a lot depends on understanding what particular segments of the population consider important. For decades, the American Left has been baffled why so many lower-income white people vote Republican and for pro-rich, pro-corporate policies that don't help the non-rich. For instance, why so many working-class white people are anti-union. But as I've heard from multiple sources, Left and Right, for many white conservatives the pocketbook issues are *not* the most compelling. It *really truly deeply* matters to them whether, say, a candidate supports the social primacy of Christianity and the Bible. That's an existential issue; tax rates and social services are negotiable.

 

Liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans care deeply about particular cultural issues that the other side finds incomprehensible or actively malignant. Some people, such as political psychologist Jonathan Haight, suggest that the Left needs to learn to talk the language of the right, such as loyalty, patriotism and respect for authority -- the way some on the Right have learned to coopt classically liberal tropes of oppressed victimhood.

 

I think it's probably too late for that. But I hope I'm wrong.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Iuz the Evil]

Pretty solid summary of key provisions in the Healthcare bills: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/22/533942041/who-wins-who-loses-with-senate-health-care-bill

[Pattern Ghost]

I almost clicked on that link, then I lost my nerve.

[IndianaJoe3]

I almost clicked on that link, then I lost my nerve.

 

There's a Photoshopped version of Paul Ryan's presentation that summarizes it accurately. 

[Pattern Ghost]

There's a Photoshopped version of Paul Ryan's presentation that summarizes it accurately. 

 

Pretty much as expected, thanks.

[Iuz the Evil]

I'll admit I didn't see this coming. The level of sheer hostility toward the most vulnerable Americans made me pause.

 

Eliminating mental health as a required Medicaid benefit (suck it up, Foster kid), massive cuts and block grant plan for Medicaid as a whole, eliminating pre-existing condition protections (opioid addiction is a pre-existing condition?), more than doubling (from 6%-16% of income) insurance costs for folks in their early 60s... it goes on and on.

 

Apparently society has a very limited role in protecting it's citizenry, but hey tax cuts for the wealthy so good times.

 

It's actually appalling, I was getting pretty jaded but Jesus Christ! I will literally (yes, literally) have people dying in the streets that my programs serve if we implement this as written.

 

In short: Yikes. I know California will try to limit the pain, and supplement on a State level, but these are deep cuts. Probably will need to dump 3-4M from Medicaid rolls and cut into essential benefits.

 

No bueno.

[Joe Walsh]

Behold: America, the shining city on a hill.

[Heroic Halfwit]

 

The right-wing trolls, who have a near-genocidal hatred for the poor, are probably having a field day. They live under the delusion that people are most likely to improve their condition if nobody helps them. I remember a quote from someone who stated that compassion itself is merely an insidious form of contempt.

 

 

I think this qualifies as a personal attack made with knowledge of its falsehood.  You may suffer from a condition, but that does not necessarily qualify you to give a diagnosis to people many of whom I suspect you have never met or observed.  

 

Speaking as a "right-wing troll" there is a vast difference between compassion and governmental welfare programs.  What we know from the data is that governmental welfare programs are remarkably poor at alleviating poverty.  Some of the glaring problems with the current welfare state is the "penalty for success" where a person who does well and gets promoted makes x$ too much and ends up losing benefits resulting in a net wealth loss of -2x$ and tends to keep the person in a perpetual dependent state upon government.  By marked contrast venture philanthropy programs are significantly better at alleviate poverty for example "micro lending."

 

The numbers of homeless are difficult to accurately count and many municipalities go to some draconian measures to ensure that, e.g. Guilliani's "deportation program" where city officials literally transported homeless persons out of the jurisdiction to dump them somewhere else, rather like Barrack Obama's various immigration/refuge/asylum programs.

 

For the leftists out there, please explain to me how any of your proposals are actually going to work economically?  Obama Care was an idea with good intentions, but look at the results.  Many people are now without any options because the insurance companies couldn't turn a profit under the Affordable Care Act.  Many others, like me, found their premiums increased over 150%.  In October, when open enrollment is scheduled there is only 1 provider who might be participating, all of the others have all ready announced their withdrawal.

 

Greed is good for social policy.  Not because Greed is a virtue but because it is a readily accessible nearly universal motivator of individual behavior.  Want people to work harder?  Offer time and a half.  Want people to save money?  Offer higher interest rates or tax exemption on savings.  Want people to spend more money?  Lower prices, lower interests rates, expand credit.

 

Systems that rely on the "fundamental goodness of people" simply will not work reliably enough for a nation as large, complex and interdependent as the United States.  Sure, you might find a tribe in the Amazon of no more than a couple of hundred people where generalized reciprocity works, but if you want to have electricity, indoor plumbing, etc. it's simply not going to happen.

 

For those that disagree with the Republican healthcare plan, please explain to me how I'm supposed to comply with the Affordable Care Act when no insurer will do business in my county?  

[Ranxerox]

 

For those that disagree with the Republican healthcare plan, please explain to me how I'm supposed to comply with the Affordable Care Act when no insurer will do business in my county?  

 

I'm going to need a bit of information before I take a stab at answering your question.  What state do you live in?

[Lord Liaden]

What can I say, universal health care works in my country. It doesn't work perfectly. There are flaws that certainly could and should be improved, and many Canadians talk about reforming elements of it. But no one is denied basic health care because they can't pay. No one here seriously suggests the system should be scrapped. None of us want to change to any of the American models. And we devote a smaller fraction of our GDP to health care costs than the United States does.

 

A system that relies on "the fundamental goodness of people" can work. Whether a particular formula works is an entirely different discussion.

[Iuz the Evil]

Government run healthcare, in the form of public mental health systems in California, measurably perform better in terms of access, timeliness, and outcomes than private sector counterparts.

 

That's a fact. Part of my job is the data analysis for those programs in my region. They generally serve 40+% of eligible populations for serious mental illness, versus private sector plans serving 5-6% of eligible population (with moderate or lower levels of mental illness).

 

That's the case across the board. Better targeted treatment options for specific needs, better outcomes for patients.

 

I would jump at the chance to enroll my own kids into that service model instead of the private insurance plan we have (Kaiser). But that's not an option, because of means testing.

 

I'm all for single payer. The profit motive in our healthcare system makes for a model that prioritizes insurance company profits over access and quality of care. I don't even see how that's debatable at this point.

 

Also, Medicaid is the largest insurance plan in the country. Incredible numbers of people depend on this for basic access to care (including medically necessary specialty care).

 

But the mythical benefits of privatization for all things is strong in our culture. Be a while yet before we get there I fear, but in the meantime I'll do my part to mitigate the disaster of this plan coming out of Washington.

[Lord Liaden]

Privatization tends to deliver services more efficiently in terms of economic bottom line. But it does this because its priority is profitability, not serving the public (which is what all capitalism is necessarily based upon). Private companies will eliminate elements of their business which aren't profitable whenever possible. This frequently has a negative impact on people who use those services. OTOH serving the public is (in principle) the priority of government, at least representative government.

[Iuz the Evil]

Privatization tends to deliver services more efficiently in terms of economic bottom line. But it does this because its priority is profitability, not serving the public (which is what all capitalism is necessarily based upon). Private companies will eliminate elements of their business which aren't profitable whenever possible. This frequently has a negative impact on people who use those services. OTOH serving the public is (in principle) the priority of government, at least representative government.

Exactly this. I like the efficiency of the private sector for cost containment. There are things I agree are best privatized.

 

But I am not a fan of turnkey solutions to complex problems, and blanket privatization is a terrible idea. Unless you are in favor of an ambulance refusing to transport you because they don't carry your insurance. Or a for profit insurance carrier review and denial of your access to care.

 

Healthcare is complicated. Simple solutions are often the wrong ones. Local government in particular is typically motivated to meet the needs of their constituents. Others may have different perspectives, I just don't see how this serves the public interest in any meaningful, inclusive way.

[DShomshak]

Several years ago when the ACA was plodding through Congress, All Things Considered ran a series of reports on the health care systems of 6 different countries. Canada, UK, Germany, Switzerland, Japan and the US.

 

Canada and the UK are single-payer. It was either Germany or Switzerland, IIRC, that had pretty strict regulations about what plans must cover, and mandated that everyone had to buy health insurance, but let providers compete within those boundaries. I seem to recall Japan being even more free-market, though I can't recall the details.

 

All of them deliver better care at lower prices than the US. Our bizarre chimera of a system -- some socialized, some employer-provided, some pay it yourself and hope for the best, is uniquely bad.

 

I was dubious of the ACA from the start because it seemed to add another layer of Rube Goldberg complexity. But hacking away at the chimera in hopes of butchering it into something better doesn't seem plausible, either. More than that, I don't feel qualified to say.

 

Dean Shomshak

[megaplayboy]

We're going to wind up with Medicare for All, I think.  But this bill would bring a lot of suffering first before that happens.  

[Iuz the Evil]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/23/politics/dean-heller-health-care/index.html

 

Still likely to pass. Whatever his other record, I respect the choice to do what he feels is in the interest of his constituents despite an immeasurable level of pressure from his party.

 

Will be sad if this costs him his job in the election... assuming he doesn't cave to the pressure being brought to bear.

[Nolgroth]

For me, opening up the insurance market across state borders would have been a sufficient reform to Obamacare. I keep hearing that all of the insurance companies are pulling out of the program. If that is true, then Obamacare may well collapse under its own weight. I think if there were more options and a larger pool of competing insurance companies, the consumer would have better options. It's sort of like when auto insurance became mandatory. A lot of policies got real expensive until competition brought prices back down. In some case, probably lower than before the mandate.

 

Bah. Healthcare. Who would have thought healthcare could be so complicated?

[Old Man]

Two things are driving insurers out of Obamacare--states that chose not to expand Medicaid, and extreme uncertainty over whether the GOP will defund or repeal the ACA.  It's a classic example of sabotaging a government program and then claiming it doesn't work.

 

The age and income stipulations in this week's Republicare bill could quintuple my premiums next year, but it wouldn't be the first time I got screwed over by Congress directly.

[Ternaugh]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/23/politics/dean-heller-health-care/index.html

 

Still likely to pass. Whatever his other record, I respect the choice to do what he feels is in the interest of his constituents despite an immeasurable level of pressure from his party.

 

Will be sad if this costs him his job in the election... assuming he doesn't cave to the pressure being brought to bear.

 

Dean Heller is one of my senators. Trust me, it would be very surprising if he lost his job in his next election, considering that he was standing next to governor, Republican Brian Sandoval when he issued the statement. Sandoval was a realist, and accepted the Medicare expansion a few years ago. That drove the uninsured numbers from around 22% to about 11% here in Nevada. For me, 11% uninsured is still too high, but that's a fight for another day.

[Iuz the Evil]

Dean Heller is one of my senators. Trust me, it would be very surprising if he lost his job in his next election, considering that he was standing next to governor, Republican Brian Sandoval when he issued the statement. Sandoval was a realist, and accepted the Medicare expansion a few years ago. That drove the uninsured numbers from around 22% to about 11% here in Nevada. For me, 11% uninsured is still too high, but that's a fight for another day.

Well, I've since reviewed his record. I disagree with him on most everything and still... respect this as a tough call on behalf of those he represents.

 

Pleased that this won't cost him, even though I'd hope to fight him another day on another issue. Good for him.

[IndianaJoe3]

For me, opening up the insurance market across state borders would have been a sufficient reform to Obamacare

 

I don't think that would be a good idea. It would let insurance companies operate out of states with weak customer protection regulations.

[Nolgroth]

I don't think that would be a good idea. It would let insurance companies operate out of states with weak customer protection regulations.

 

Then there should have been more consumer protections built into Obamacare to begin with. Crossing state lines has worked for auto insurance and it can work for health insurance. What protections do those consumers have where insurance providers are pulling out? None. So, to me, it looks more like a poorly written, implemented and realized alternative to the healthcare system we had before. It could have worked. It could have worked well. It should have worked. It didn't; not as intended anyway. Now, in the meantime, those states with strong consumer protection laws still have citizens with jacked up premiums because there is a very small pool of competitors.

[Ranxerox]

The ACA was a mammoth piece of legislation with far reaching consequences.  There was never any way it was not going to have issues.  Bills of the magnitude always do.  They always have problems that we unforeseen at the time of their initial writing that need to be fixed later.  However, Barack Obama failed to make things magically better in his first two years of office, and disillusioned Democrats sat out the 2010 elections, allowing the Republicans to capture both houses of congress.  Since then they have been nonstop repeal and (maybe) replace, and have had less than zero interest in fixing the ACA into a better working healthcare plan.

 

Personally, I don't blame writers of the ACA or even the Republicans.  I blame the Democrats and Democrat leaning independents who sat at home on election day in 2010.  The system only works if we show up.