Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[BoloOfEarth]

To be clear, I didn't take your post to mean that I thought you agreed with that position, LL.  To the contrary, I expected based on your wording (and the exclamation point after "logical") that your viewpoint differed markedly from it.

 

Personally, I've always felt that I'm a very rich person.  That has nothing to do with my income or assets, and everything to do with the family and friends and coworkers I have.

[Pariah]

What would the country be like if teachers made NBA player salaries and vice versa?

 

(Seriously, what would it be like? I'd love to know. "I'm ready for my $36M extension now.")

[Sociotard]

I think it would look like tens of thousand students trying to get something from one teacher. I mean, a quick google says 3.1 million teachers vs 301 NBA players.

 

I know, I know, you weren't serious.  Still, there's a reason we don't pay teachers much. We need too many of them.

[Pariah]

Sadly, you are correct.

[Lord Liaden]

No disrespect intended, but those responses reinforce my original point. When we talk about a disparity in how the work of teachers and professional athletes is perceived, our immediate response is to refer to equalizing salaries. Like that's the sole or most appropriate measure of how much each contributes to society. I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about respect. (Personally, if money is to be the standard, I do think professional athletes are grossly overpaid for what they contribute, and would like to see that money spread around more. But I always say, the correct price for something is whatever people are willing to pay for it.)

[TheDarkness]

Don't mean to pick on you, specificially.  But, I only hear this about Republicans who go against their party.  Would the feelings be the same if a Democrat who felt this was a good bill and supported in contradiction to his party?  Usually, when that happens "traitor" and "sell-out" gets thrown about, in general (not necessarily here)

 

It isn't like the Republicans are any better.  And I am not too sure whether my own feelings would be consistent in the past (though these days I find myself disagreeing with both parties on too many things). But, it is something that draws my curiousity.

I think one of the reasons you hear this more about Republicans is that, since a while before the Tea Party came around, it has been fairly common for GOP members who go against the party to be labelled as RINOs and face running against other Republicans seeking to replace them. There really isn't an equivalent that is nearly as common for the Democrats as the RINO label, and that seems to be entirely a purity test. Heck, the last Democrat I can even remember being called a traitor with any frequency was Lieberman.

 

Democrats, on a number of issues, have members who vote the other way. Gun control is one example. Health care was another, getting them on board for the ACA was a long process, and not all went with it. I think the main problem with the Democratic Party is that they concede influence in the name of getting along with people who only want to undo the programs the Dems are implementing, and thus allow things to creep into their legislature that is later used against them. They are not a party who can exert strong control on the voting of its members, but I don't think this is actually a bad thing. Their voting base is much broader, demographically, than the GOP, and so they have to play a broader game.

[TheDarkness]

No disrespect intended, but those responses reinforce my original point. When we talk about a disparity in how the work of teachers and professional athletes is perceived, our immediate response is to refer to equalizing salaries. Like that's the sole or most appropriate measure of how much each contributes to society. I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about respect. (Personally, if money is to be the standard, I do think professional athletes are grossly overpaid for what they contribute, and would like to see that money spread around more. But I always say, the correct price for something is whatever people are willing to pay for it.)

Agreed. This also leads to a backwards devaluing of something that is cheaper, even when it might be better. I think we all know some well paid slackers, and some poor people who work hard.

[BoloOfEarth]

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?  

 

When I was reading this article, it reminded me of your post, HH.  In particular, the bolded part below:

 

 

 

In interviews with NBC News, Democrats rattled off a list of ideas where they think common ground is possible.

 

Several members, including Manchin, have co-sponsored a bill that would add a cheaper catastrophic plan to the insurance exchanges, among other tweaks. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., recently introduced legislation that would allow people in counties with no insurers to buy from the same exchanges members of Congress use.

[Hugh Neilson]

What would the country be like if teachers made NBA player salaries and vice versa?

In addition to class sizes roughly equal to the stadium capacity plus the viewing audience, as was indicated above, it would mean tuition with a cost commensurate with those salaries.

 

Movie stars and athletes get paid huge amounts because they bring huge amounts of dollars in from the sports fans. If education brought the same huge dollars in, then teachers would demand, and receive, comparable pay.

 

It also bears noting that only a small fraction of actors or athletes pull down those bucks. What does the outfielder for the Toledo Mud Hens pull down? How much money does the piano player in the bar make? How many struggling actors are out there?

[BoloOfEarth]

I think the general point is that our financial values are overall kinda screwy.  We (the general we, not necessarily us individuals here) think little of blowing hundred of dollars a year on movies, sporting events, and other forms of entertainment, but balk at increasing property taxes by similar amounts to increase funds for education or infrastructure needs that benefit most or all of society.

 

Because education does bring huge dollars in, though neither directly nor immediately.  Better educated students (on average) get better paying jobs and higher lifetime earnings. They invent / create things that grow the economy.  But since those benefits are indirect and delayed, teachers (who help make that happen) get little if any credit so they can't really demand pay increases.

 

Sure, only a portion of athletes and movie stars pull down huge salaries.  But we, the sports-event-attending / movie-watching public don't even bat an eye at those salaries.  And that, to me, is a bit screwy.

[Badger]

In addition to class sizes roughly equal to the stadium capacity plus the viewing audience, as was indicated above, it would mean tuition with a cost commensurate with those salaries.

 

Movie stars and athletes get paid huge amounts because they bring huge amounts of dollars in from the sports fans. If education brought the same huge dollars in, then teachers would demand, and receive, comparable pay.

 

It also bears noting that only a small fraction of actors or athletes pull down those bucks. What does the outfielder for the Toledo Mud Hens pull down? How much money does the piano player in the bar make? How many struggling actors are out there?

 

Well, for the outfielder it probably depends on whether he is on the MLB 40-man roster, or is MLB veteran hanging on, etc. (Toledo is a AAA team).  But, overall good point, lower levels get paid scraps  (by some arguments once all the time spent at the park is figured out, less than minimum wage even)

 

Until free agency most players even MLBers had to take winter jobs.

[Hugh Neilson]

I think the general point is that our financial values are overall kinda screwy.  We (the general we, not necessarily us individuals here) think little of blowing hundred of dollars a year on movies, sporting events, and other forms of entertainment, but balk at increasing property taxes by similar amounts to increase funds for education or infrastructure needs that benefit most or all of society.

There's typically a couple of weeks here in Edmonton where the phones at city hall ring off the hook with complaints split between a budgeted property tax increase and the failure to clear snow off the streets fast enough. The average person does not seem to perceive the connection between the two.

 

Because education does bring huge dollars in, though neither directly nor immediately.  Better educated students (on average) get better paying jobs and higher lifetime earnings. They invent / create things that grow the economy.  But since those benefits are indirect and delayed, teachers (who help make that happen) get little if any credit so they can't really demand pay increases.

Yes and no. If we triple the number of MDs, dentists or lawyers, will the average earnings of a newly graduated MD, dentist or lawyer remain stable, or will oversupply reduce either the percentage that find work in their field or the pay scale (or both)? Supply and demand have a significant impact. Meanwhile, I know a lot of successful businesspeople who either did not obtain post-secondary education or are not using those skills.

 

And we have to consider what they learned. Seen any job ads noting "a knowledge of Shakespearean quotes would be an asset", or "requires familiarity with Renaissance Italy" lately?

[BoloOfEarth]

The average person does not seem to perceive the connection between the two.

 

Yes.  People can be remarkably short-sighted on taking in the big picture, focusing instead on only those few details that directly pertain to them.

 

Supply and demand have a significant impact.

 

True, though I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  That we should not try to have an well-educated populace?  Overall, I'm guessing that supply and demand have had an impact on salaries all along... and they're still higher for better educated people.

 

Meanwhile, I know a lot of successful businesspeople who either did not obtain post-secondary education or are not using those skills.

 

And I know a lot of successful businesspeople who did obtain post-secondary education and are using those skills. 

 

Isn't anecdotal evidence fun?

 

And we have to consider what they learned.

 

Okay, lets consider that.  I'm guessing that you and I could agree that STEM education is certainly valuable toward future employment.  However, STEM teachers don't earn significantly more than their non-STEM colleagues.  In some cases, because of the way teachers' pay is set up, they're even paid less.

 

Edited to remove incorrect link re: STEM teacher salary.  When I find the correct one, I'll try and add it back in.  My apologies.

[Sociotard]

That's an awfully myopic view on the effects of education. "Learn Thing X so you can do Thing X for a boss"

 

It's more like PE.  There aren't many jobs that require me to do push ups. The Military and pro sports . . . and I can't think of anything else. But there's lots that require me to lift 50 pounds.  And even outside of work, there are benefits to the skill of knowing how to stay healthy and strong.

 

Likewise, I might never have to show off my knowledge of Shakespearean passages, but I might find memorization useful. And deep reading. And the patience to sit through difficult text.

 

We go to Miyagi and wax his cars not because we hope to wax cars, but to learn Karate.

[BoloOfEarth]

Likewise, I might never have to show off my knowledge of Shakespearean passages, but I might find memorization useful. And deep reading. And the patience to sit through difficult text.

 

We go to Miyagi and wax his cars not because we hope to wax cars, but to learn Karate.

 

When I was going to college, and considering not finishing my degree, my dad pushed me to finish it even if I don't pursue a job in that field.**  When I pointed out that his degree was in agriculture, but his entire career was with an airline, he said, "You're not going to school to learn to do a specific job.  You're learning how to think."

 

Pretty wise man, my dad.

 

**And I didn't.  My degree is in technical writing, but for the past two decades my work has basically been computer programming.

[Lord Liaden]

That's an awfully myopic view on the effects of education. "Learn Thing X so you can do Thing X for a boss"

 

It's more like PE.  There aren't many jobs that require me to do push ups. The Military and pro sports . . . and I can't think of anything else. But there's lots that require me to lift 50 pounds.  And even outside of work, there are benefits to the skill of knowing how to stay healthy and strong.

 

Likewise, I might never have to show off my knowledge of Shakespearean passages, but I might find memorization useful. And deep reading. And the patience to sit through difficult text.

 

We go to Miyagi and wax his cars not because we hope to wax cars, but to learn Karate.

 

 

When I was going to college, and considering not finishing my degree, my dad pushed me to finish it even if I don't pursue a job in that field.**  When I pointed out that his degree was in agriculture, but his entire career was with an airline, he said, "You're not going to school to learn to do a specific job.  You're learning how to think."

 

Pretty wise man, my dad.

 

**And I didn't.  My degree is in technical writing, but for the past two decades my work has basically been computer programming.

 

Thank you, guys. This is a welcome departure from how so many people even on this thread are defining "success": Jobs. Earnings. Money. As I noted earlier, that's become so much the yardstick for accomplishment in our society, most of us don't even recognize, and rarely factor in, the unquantifiable, like fulfilling relationships, acts of kindness, peace of mind, spirituality. But the focus of even your observations is on the benefits of education. I'm a big proponent of that as leading to a more informed citizenry; but lack of education is often used to denigrate the many great benefits of life experience. Not that I'm saying anyone here has done that.

 

I just believe we would have a more balanced society if we had more balanced perspectives. YMMV.

[Heroic Halfwit]

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.

Insurers were pulling out of the state and federal exchanges while Obama was still in office so....

 

Also inconvenient fact, the Affordable Care Act, in the aggregate did nothing to slow the increase in premiums.  In fact, the rate of increase in global premiums increased.

 

So I reject your speculation that Obamacare is failing because "it's those darn Republicans!"  Insurance companies are leaving the exchanges because it is not profitable for them.

 

As there is no current Republican plan, but rather 1 plan proposed by the House and an as yet to be fully negotiated plan from the Senate, it is too early to make any definitive statements on "Republican Care" seeing as it doesn't exist yet.

[Old Man]

Insurers were pulling out of the state and federal exchanges while Obama was still in office so....

Yes, because GOP-controlled states opted out of the Medicaid expansion starting in 2012.

 

Also inconvenient fact, the Affordable Care Act, in the aggregate did nothing to slow the increase in premiums.  In fact, the rate of increase in global premiums increased.

 

Yes, because people in those states that opted out of the Medicaid expansion are not eligible for subsidies, which means they can't afford insurance, which means the risk pool is smaller than it's supposed to be, which means premiums go up for everyone.

 

So I reject your speculation that Obamacare is failing because "it's those darn Republicans!"  Insurance companies are leaving the exchanges because it is not profitable for them.

Yes, it is not profitable for them because risk pools are smaller than designed, and because constant chatter about repealing Obamacare drastically increases uncertainty. Uncertainty is a BFD in the insurance industry, for obvious reasons.

 

 

As there is no current Republican plan, but rather 1 plan proposed by the House and an as yet to be fully negotiated plan from the Senate, it is too early to make any definitive statements on "Republican Care" seeing as it doesn't exist yet.

It's funny that the Republicans have been promising to repeal Obamacare for eight full orbits but still don't have a plan. I'd be perfectly willing to give them another two years or four years to try and come up with one though.

[TheDarkness]

The claim that it's early in the GOP healthcare process is false. They've sworn to repeal since it was put in place, it's no one's fault but theirs if they didn't actually make a plan in all that time.

[Badger]

Yes, because GOP-controlled states opted out of the Medicaid expansion starting in 2012.

 

 

Yes, because people in those states that opted out of the Medicaid expansion are not eligible for subsidies, which means they can't afford insurance, which means the risk pool is smaller than it's supposed to be, which means premiums go up for everyone.

 

 

Yes, it is not profitable for them because risk pools are smaller than designed, and because constant chatter about repealing Obamacare drastically increases uncertainty. Uncertainty is a BFD in the insurance industry, for obvious reasons.

 

 

It's funny that the Republicans have been promising to repeal Obamacare for eight full orbits but still don't have a plan. I'd be perfectly willing to give them another two years or four years to try and come up with one though.

 

The Dems did a poor job in thinking possibilities over.  (seems there plan was once passed, opponents would magically bend over in full acceptance and submission. which has never happened in the history of ever).  Though I am pretty sure the premiums started going up as soon as the implication (no the vote actually), though not necessarily in a spike maybe until later. UNforutnately when Pelosi said "we had to pass it to find out what was in it, that wasn't a joke. 

 

And the GOP's plan was to hopefully never gain enough power to actually have to do anything.  They got "screwed over" with this Trump victory thing, too.

 

 

Note: though for me, the if you want to keep your doctor you can part came with the fine print "but you'll have to do all the paperwork yourself".  though the clinic my doctor is at, and my insurance company FINALLY got their differences worked out this year.

[csyphrett]

And one of the insurance companies pulled out because they couldn't merge with another company. That's something that should have landed someone in deep water.

CES

[TheDarkness]

UNforutnately when Pelosi said "we had to pass it to find out what was in it, that wasn't a joke. 

They all had the plan when she said that. Dems and GOP. Had the plan.

 

Her actual quote was along the lines of passing it would allow it to be viewed as what it is, as opposed to the rhetoric of it. If I recall correctly, the portion of her statement everyone likes to say isn't even the whole sentence it's from.

 

I have come to think that Dan Quayle was not an idiot for suggesting keeping an eye on asteroids, and, at best, just not the best orator, but again not a slobbering imbecile for his duck quote.

 

The moment I realized we were doomed was when Howard Dean's run was over for yelling like a middle aged man. I wasn't even a big fan of his, but that was why we decided he couldn't be president. He yelled like a man who is of the age able to run for president, ergo, it was over.

 

The false use of this Pelosi quote by a dishonest journalist was just playing on that same effect, tie something seemingly negative to a person and repeat it, forever. Like Dean and Quayle, this quote is neither damning nor particularly germane to the quality of the person who said it. It says a lot about the person who cropped the quote originally, and any who knowingly do so, but that's not anything new.

 

Not saying you were aware of this quote's lame history, just pointing it out.

 

Pelosi was actually making a salient point, that, at that point, all anyone was getting was rhetoric because, pre-vote, passing or opposing the bill had taken a much greater focus for politicians than the actual full content of the bill itself, which they did have access to and sufficient staff to have a grasp of if they did their jobs.

 

Short version: what you wrote is something she said, but minus the part that explains its meaning, which is actually in the original quote, in the same sentence. The popular quote, minus the actual meaning, was a hack job, done specifically to misinform.

 

Original quote:

 

 

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.“

[Heroic Halfwit]

[/quote}Yes, because GOP-controlled states opted out of the Medicaid expansion starting in 2012.

 

 

Please elucidate how Medicaid expansion was supposed to have the effects you describe.  Please also explain how the failure of a state to exercise an option granted under the governing statute is some kind of GOP conspiracy.

 

 

 

 

Yes, because people in those states that opted out of the Medicaid expansion are not eligible for subsidies, which means they can't afford insurance, which means the risk pool is smaller than it's supposed to be, which means premiums go up for everyone.

Simply false.

 

Yes, it is not profitable for them because risk pools are smaller than designed, and because constant chatter about repealing Obamacare drastically increases uncertainty. Uncertainty is a BFD in the insurance industry, for obvious reasons.

 

Insurance is the business of uncertainty.  The you simply could not have had a sufficiently large enough risk pool to deliver on the Affordable Care Act's promises.  There are simply not nearly enough healthy people who would also avoid the moral hazard associated with purchasing a several thousand dollar a year asset and refrain from using it.

 

It's funny that the Republicans have been promising to repeal Obamacare for eight full orbits but still don't have a plan. I'd be perfectly willing to give them another two years or four years to try and come up with one though.

 

It's funny you jump to "a Plan" that doesn't exist.  I merely say that the statements you make about the dire predictions of the "Republican Care" are premature as there is in fact no plan.  Never judge a deal by preliminary negotiations.  Thought everyone knew that.

[Lord Liaden]

Except we weren't at the "preliminary negotiation" stage. There was a bill, passed by the House of Representatives, sent to the Senate to try to get it passed. The bill was explicit, the details were there to be read. If the Senate had passed it it would have been law, with due consequences. The fact that it didn't, and is being revised to try to make it palatable to more people, does not count as "preliminary negotiation."

[Lectryk]

 

[/quote}Yes, because GOP-controlled states opted out of the Medicaid expansion starting in 2012.

 

 

Please elucidate how Medicaid expansion was supposed to have the effects you describe.  Please also explain how the failure of a state to exercise an option granted under the governing statute is some kind of GOP conspiracy.

 

 

 

 

Yes, because people in those states that opted out of the Medicaid expansion are not eligible for subsidies, which means they can't afford insurance, which means the risk pool is smaller than it's supposed to be, which means premiums go up for everyone.

Simply false.

 

Yes, it is not profitable for them because risk pools are smaller than designed, and because constant chatter about repealing Obamacare drastically increases uncertainty. Uncertainty is a BFD in the insurance industry, for obvious reasons.

 

Insurance is the business of uncertainty.  The you simply could not have had a sufficiently large enough risk pool to deliver on the Affordable Care Act's promises.  There are simply not nearly enough healthy people who would also avoid the moral hazard associated with purchasing a several thousand dollar a year asset and refrain from using it.

 

It's funny that the Republicans have been promising to repeal Obamacare for eight full orbits but still don't have a plan. I'd be perfectly willing to give them another two years or four years to try and come up with one though.

 

It's funny you jump to "a Plan" that doesn't exist.  I merely say that the statements you make about the dire predictions of the "Republican Care" are premature as there is in fact no plan.  Never judge a deal by preliminary negotiations.  Thought everyone knew that.

 

 

 

 

The word 'conspiracy' was not used by Old Man.  But, the actions of fundamentally conservative bloc supporters (e.g.KochPAC, et al) do rise to the level of 'conspiracy' - the systematic support for candidates and legislative actions that will curtail expansion of services for the neediest and most under-represented segments of society, at the benefit of the richest can be argued to represent a conspiracy.

 

Insurance is not the business of uncertainty - it is the business of profiting from *your* uncertainty.  It is a very predictable business - the insurance provider always profits.   It did not make sense from a business standpoint to remain in markets where they could not earn a profit, and since they were not allowed to share costs across state lines (in some cases) the risk pools were kept artificially small, and therefore unprofitable.  And the current political rhetoric continues to exacerbate that uncertainty - why would a very profitable business opt to continue in a market that is so uncertain? 

 

The fact that the Republicans did not have even the broad strokes of a plan ready to go after 7 years of opposition is very telling of the ability to plan and foresight of the party (the same lack of ability applies to the Democrats, to be fair).  Over the course of seven years they could have constructed a frame work, filled in major chunks, done a lot of ground work that would have led to finalization of something within the six months of an entirely Republican controlled government.  They could have lined up support, they could have planned for the inevitable roadblocks, etc.  It appears they did none of that.

 

But, the fact that a bill has passed the House, and McConnell would have passed the Senate version and moved to reconciliation given his preference indicates we don't need to talk about the presence or lack of a plan, we have the factual changes they want to enact.

 

What the CBO has analyzed shows a uniformly bleak picture for those that the ACA covers, so it's not just Old Man's dire predictions.