Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Iuz the Evil]

It also turns Medicaid into a block grant, which I've discussed in depth earlier in this thread. Something not getting enough press, as it's a long term disaster for every state in the nation and will be brutal for vulnerable populations.

[Old Man]

Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten that it basically kills Medicaid.  Good catch.  Updating.

[Lord Liaden]

Okay, here's what I still have trouble grasping: what exactly is the problem the Republican party sees with Obamacare? I mean, apart from it having been instituted by Democrats. What are the substantive issues which they believe have to be corrected? Has anyone articulated them in a coherent manner? Or is it wholly dogma-driven?

 

Can anyone explain, or point me to a source that does? Rationally, I mean?

[Iuz the Evil]

So here's the scope of Medicaid coverage presently:

 

74,424,652 individuals were enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP in the 51 states reporting June 2017 data. 68,608,208 individuals were enrolled in Medicaid and 5,816,444 individuals were enrolled in CHIP (please see contextual information below regarding CHIP enrollment). Nearly 16.6 million additional individuals were enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP in June 2017 as compared to the period prior to the start of the first Marketplace open enrollment period (July - Sept. 2013), in the 49 states that reported relevant data for both periods, representing over a 29 percent increase over the baseline period. (Connecticut and Maine aren't included because they did not report data for both periods).

The basis for objection is in part, most commonly, that health care is not an enumerated right or function of United States government. And if that is the perspective, then the largest source of coverage being governmental coverage is inherently undesirable.

 

I understand the logic behind the position, although I reject it as derived from what I believe is a deeply flawed premise.

[Ternaugh]

Okay, here's what I still have trouble grasping: what exactly is the problem the Republican party sees with Obamacare? I mean, apart from it having been instituted by Democrats. What are the substantive issues which they believe have to be corrected? Has anyone articulated them in a coherent manner? Or is it wholly dogma-driven?

 

Can anyone explain, or point me to a source that does? Rationally, I mean?

 

It was pushed through by Democrats led by President Obama.

 

It gives medical care to lazy, undeserving people*.

 

It forces taxes on the wealthy.**

 

It tries to make young people, who will always be healthy, and will live forever, buy unnecessary healthcare.***

 

It impinges on the rights of for-profit corporations to make religiously-inspired decisions for their workers.****

 

It kicked their dog.*****

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Defined as "that guy over there, but my benefits are earned and shouldn't be taken away."

 

**"Have a Koch and a smile" tax plan, or more locally, "kiss Sheldon's ring".

 

***Learning that we're only immortal/For a limited time

 

****Great news! Closely-held corporations can still discriminate!

 

*****No dogs were harmed in the making of this post.

[Iuz the Evil]

So one more time, 74+ million folks depend on Medicaid. Including a disproportionate number of children and the elderly in case that matters to anyone.

 

The proposed change will dramatically restrict access to care, coverage, and will be catastrophically expensive at a local level. I hate a lot about this Administration and political cycle, if they pull this off it may be the biggest "F-U" to the citizens of this country in my lifetime. And I'm 47.

 

I'm 'the Evil' and this is WAY outside my comfort zone.

[Ranxerox]

I'm 'the Evil' and this is WAY outside my comfort zone.

 

Does this make you feel inadequate? Are you suffering a crisis of identity?

[Michael Hopcroft]

It also turns Medicaid into a block grant, which I've discussed in depth earlier in this thread. Something not getting enough press, as it's a long term disaster for every state in the nation and will be brutal for vulnerable populations.

Which would essentially eliminate my health care at a time when I need it as much as I ever have. As I get older, my body is starting to wear out, and I still have my mental health to worry about.

 

I'm also about to start training as a Peer Counselor, and this would kill any prospect I would have of getting a job in that field.

 

I try very hard not to make my personal interests a significant factor in what I advocate, but in this case it's too hard not to.

[megaplayboy]

Trump's UN statements went over so well with North Korea that Kim Jong Un is calling him a "dotard" and the Norks are threatening to test an H-Bomb "somewhere over the Pacific".  Translation: they're contemplating field-testing a "live" ICBM.  To call that bugf*ck insane is likely a mild understatement.  Can our current president please shut the hell up now before a full on nuclear exchange gets under way?

[Lawnmower Boy]

Trump's UN statements went over so well with North Korea that Kim Jong Un is calling him a "dotard" and the Norks are threatening to test an H-Bomb "somewhere over the Pacific".  Translation: they're contemplating field-testing a "live" ICBM.  To call that bugf*ck insane is likely a mild understatement.  Can our current president please shut the hell up now before a full on nuclear exchange gets under way?

If  you guys get nuked, with the radioactive mutants and the atomic zombies and whatnot, you better understand that we'll be building a wall on the southern border, and you're going to have to pay for it. 

[BoloOfEarth]

I'm not so worried.  Trump said he's going to "totally destroy" North Korea.  Which, given Trump's modus operandi to date, most likely means that he's going to become President of North Korea, then suck all that's good out of the country and destroy it from within.

 

And while he's gone to NK, we can get that wall built.  And add North Korea to that list of countries in the travel ban.  Just to be safe. 

[Lord Liaden]

Brinksmanship is an extremely dangerous game. If you make a threat of extreme consequences, you need to be prepared for your opponent to call you on it. If Kim Jong Un backs down, he'll look weak to his military and become vulnerable to overthrow. If he doesn't back down, and Trump doesn't follow through on trying to "destroy" Korea, he'll lose what credibility he may still have. What worries me is that Kim may be crazy enough to call, and Trump may be crazy enough to follow through.

[Cancer]

Brinksmanship is an extremely dangerous game....

Indeed. See History of Europe, 1914.

[Michael Hopcroft]

In other news, the latest GOP attempt to gut the ACA apparently does not have enough votes to be taken to the Senate floor. This attempt was especially dire, gutting Medicaid itself as well as the exchanges and other features of Obamacare. Since the temporary rule against filibusters ends on the 30th, this may have been the last chance to ram something through in this Congress.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Am I supposed to be surprised that the latest version of the GOP's "kill all the poor people" bill was announced non-viable and quietly aborted on a Friday afternoon?

 

Political theater is so predictable.

[Old Man]

I'm not counting it as aborted until 9/30 and possibly not even then.  As it stands I note that the bill would be a done deal if not for two GOP senators who happen to be women and one with a case of brain cancer (who is probably all out of f*cks as a result).

[Tech priest support]

Sen. McCain has announced he will vote against the Graham cassidy let the poor die bill. Looks like it's dead for now.

[Michael Hopcroft]

And now Donald Trump is lecturing NFL owners for not kicking anthem protesters out of the league permanently. This after he also demanded that ESPN dismiss one of their anchors for her scathing criticism of him. Given that he single-handedly sunk an entire league as an owner, I have no idea why the NFL should listen to him.

 

That said, I wonder if narcissistic billionaires tend to stick together....

[Tech priest support]

To a modern Republican marching in the street with swastikas is free speech, refusing to stand during the national anthem is a capital crime.

 

Police in America should be thanking their gods that the most prominent thing a black is doing in protest of police shootings of blacks is refusing to stand for the anthem.

[megaplayboy]

I don't think the average Republican is pro-swastika. That said, it seems overwhelmingly likely that this will increase the number of players taking a knee during the national anthem, not decrease it. And some of those players will be white.

[Lord Liaden]

The whole point of peaceful, lawful protest is to draw attention to issues and spark public debate that may lead to change.

 

I remember a remark by Edward Snowden: "People who don't care about the right to privacy because they have nothing to hide, are like people who don't care about free speech because they have nothing to say."

[Xavier Onassiss]

Funny how all these people with nothing to hide still close the stall when they're taking a dump.

[Michael Hopcroft]

NBA legend-in-the-making Stephan Curry has been banned from the White House. Curry's Golden State Warriors won the NBA title in 2017, and as such traditionally visit the White House for a photo op with the President. Curry publicly aired his uncertainty about whether he wanted to go, so the Administration took the question out of his hands.

 

The announcement was made from the resort where Donald Trump is doing what he does every weekend -- playing golf at one of his resorts..

[DShomshak]

Brinksmanship is an extremely dangerous game. If you make a threat of extreme consequences, you need to be prepared for your opponent to call you on it. If Kim Jong Un backs down, he'll look weak to his military and become vulnerable to overthrow. If he doesn't back down, and Trump doesn't follow through on trying to "destroy" Korea, he'll lose what credibility he may still have. What worries me is that Kim may be crazy enough to call, and Trump may be crazy enough to follow through.

To be fair to Donald Trump -- not a phrase I expect to use much -- there was an "If" in his threat.

 

At the moment, though, I trust the rationality of North Korea's leadership more than I trust the rationality of ours. Which is terrifying in itself.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Lord Liaden]

To be fair to Donald Trump -- not a phrase I expect to use much -- there was an "If" in his threat.

 

Only because his threat is based on circumstances which haven't developed yet... but are not unlikely to. He's drawn a clear cause-and-effect scenario.

 

 

At the moment, though, I trust the rationality of North Korea's leadership more than I trust the rationality of ours. Which is terrifying in itself.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

I wish I could share your trust.