|
I've asked this before but I've never gotten a clear answer. Would the passing of the AHCA (or whatever the Senate version ends up being) lead to a situation worse than pre-Obamacare days or would it simply be setting the clock back 10 years in the amount of un/underinsured people. Or would it be slightly better in some superficial ways but still real bad depending on where you live? I'm trying to put how bad the medical insurance situation was in the 2000s into perspective because I was growing up at the time totally ignorant that there was even a problem until like 2009. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jun 13, 2017 |
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
glowing-fish posted:He was on a Wu-Tang album at one point, but that was just because at the time, that was a group of people who could give him validation. Reason I ask is because Up Like Trump just came on and I was thinking about if he would have it in his music library. It's about him but also it's rap and I can't really imagine him liking the genre.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I think the idea that bad ideas die when exposed to light has been pretty firmly debunked at this point. gently caress anyone who gives Alex Jones air time. This right here. Don't humanize this sack of ballsweat, and don't give him a platform to make him appear legitimate. Dude's responsible for the continual harassment of Sandy Hook families because of his "process." gently caress him, and gently caress Megyn Kelly for letting him in the door.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I think single payer is the only ethical form of health insurance, but I also think unethical health insurance isn't the same as putting people in death camps for being Jewish. You know, it really feels like you're grasping for some distinction that doesn't exist and that would be meaningless even if it did. The ACA is far from perfect, but it significantly increased health care coverage in the US and many people now rely on some aspect of it to survive or to maintain a reasonable quality of life. That is the status quo. The Republican plan is to remove elements of the ACA that people rely on, which is going to directly result in many people dying or having their quality of life drastically reduced. Like, that's it. This isn't just a policy that's going to have unfortunate consequences, because those consequences are the point. The fact that Republicans aren't doing this with the specific goal of killing people is irrelevant, no matter how badly you want it to matter. These are not the kind of choices that our elected representatives are supposed to be making and there's really no equivalent to this in recent memory. They are attempting to pass legislation that is going to directly result in tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths. Shimrra Jamaane posted:I've asked this before but I've never gotten a clear answer. Would the passing of the AHCA (or whatever the Senate version ends up being) lead to a situation worse than pre-Obamacare days or would it simply be setting the clock back 10 years in the amount of un/underinsured people. If we're going by the CBO report for the House bill it's first the latter, then the former. Depending on how bad they want to gently caress pre-existing condition protections it could potentially be bad for a lot of people who aren't expecting to be affected. People forget that having healthcare through your employer in pre-ACA days was not always all that great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I've asked this before but I've never gotten a clear answer. Would the passing of the AHCA (or whatever the Senate version ends up being) lead to a situation worse than pre-Obamacare days or would it simply be setting the clock back 10 years in the amount of un/underinsured people. Or would it be slightly better in some superficial ways but still real bad depending on where you live? It would probably be worse just because healthcare expenses have continued to climb dramatically, even though that's not Obamacare's fault. It's capitalism's fault. I'm generally pro capitalism (with a robust welfare state), but it clearly has no answers to healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Maybe. That's not the situation we're in though. Trump is clearly capable of making policy decisions, the problem is just that the decisions he makes are bad. That's not disability. An automatic tennis ball throwing machine can make decisions if you put a list on the wall in front of it. Shimrra Jamaane posted:I've asked this before but I've never gotten a clear answer. Would the passing of the AHCA (or whatever the Senate version ends up being) lead to a situation worse than pre-Obamacare days or would it simply be setting the clock back 10 years in the amount of un/underinsured people. Or would it be slightly better in some superficial ways but still real bad depending on where you live? Much much worse if you're poor and on Medicaid, because it changes Medicaid from a defined benefit program (i.e., if you're on Medicaid, you get X types of care as your right, period, and if you're denied that care you can fight it) to a block grant program (the states get X amount of dollars, the need is X+Y, it's up to the states to decide whether to put in Y dollars themselves or just let folks die; you individually have no federal rights, just state level rights).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Spicer re: the reports of Trump wanting to fire Mueller: https://twitter.com/GlennThrush/status/874461313937887232 You'll note this statement does not say "Trump is not considering firing Mueller.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Trump has no taste at all from what has been said about him. And I don't mean bad taste. He leaves questions of decoration to subordinates after telling them to make things look great and amazing. He likes Jean Claude Van Damme movies, but fast-forwards to the fights. He eats Wendy's hamburgers and KFC. He hires prostitutes just to pee on things out of spite and not any aesthetic interest in the act itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Sure, but the discussion was about the appointed federal judiciary pushing back against Trump, not elected state judiciaries. Appointed judges can be just as bad as elected judges. When the republicans wanted to challenge Obama's immigration EO they picked out a specific federal judge they knew would rule their way. There are a lot of crappy appointed state court judges. People just tend to think appointment is better because most people think of federal judges, who tend to be more qualified than state court judges regardless of how their rule, and have (arguably) higher standards of practice than most state court judges (I quoted you since it was the last post about it)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I've asked this before but I've never gotten a clear answer. Would the passing of the AHCA (or whatever the Senate version ends up being) lead to a situation worse than pre-Obamacare days or would it simply be setting the clock back 10 years in the amount of un/underinsured people. Or would it be slightly better in some superficial ways but still real bad depending on where you live? Healthcare has gotten WAY worse over the last 17 years, healthcare prices are nuts. Just buying insurance has doubled in price in the last 17 years and drug prices are 200+% and no everything is basically way worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Fart City posted:This right here. Don't humanize this sack of ballsweat, and don't give him a platform to make him appear legitimate. Dude's responsible for the continual harassment of Sandy Hook families because of his "process." gently caress him, and gently caress Megyn Kelly for letting him in the door. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:https://twitter.com/yashar/status/874451593017544704 At best she's doing the same validation poo poo that Jill Stein does for anti-vaxxers and at worst she's giving a huge platform for Jones to spread his insane bullshit even further.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
So with medicaid block grants I would imagine if you live in a nice blue state things might be ok because they'll try and make up the difference but if you live in say, Kansas, you are beyond hosed. Is that about right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:You know, it really feels like you're grasping for some distinction that doesn't exist and that would be meaningless even if it did. The ACA is far from perfect, but it significantly increased health care coverage in the US and many people now rely on some aspect of it to survive or to maintain a reasonable quality of life. That is the status quo. The Republican plan is to remove elements of the ACA that people rely on, which is going to directly result in many people dying or having their quality of life drastically reduced. I get that people are sick of this derail but that's why I deliberately used the most dramatic, honestly applicable, language. People have a natural reluctance to admit to themselves just how godawfully murderously bad the proposed Republican health care bill is, because it runs smack dab into the Just World fallacy and the belief in a rational and well-intentioned federal government. If this can happen, we're living in a universe run by captain planet villains but without captain planet. It's terrifying and the mind rebels from the admission. So I think it's actually really important to use dramatic forceful language to force people to come to terms with just how murderously bad it's going to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So with medicaid block grants I would imagine if you live in a nice blue state things might be ok because they'll try and make up the difference but if you live in say, Kansas, you are beyond hosed. Is that about right? For values of "you" equivalent to "I or someone in my family relies on Medicaid for health care coverage," then yes. If you're sufficiently middle or upper class enough that you and everyone you know has private care . . . well you might still be turbofucked depending on how badly the new bill screws up the health care market, but that's not predictable in the same way that the Medicaid cuts are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I get that people are sick of this derail but that's why I deliberately used the most dramatic, honestly applicable, language. People have a natural reluctance to admit to themselves just how godawfully murderously bad the proposed Republican health care bill is, because it runs smack dab into the Just World fallacy and the belief in a rational and well-intentioned federal government. If this can happen, we're living in a universe run by captain planet villains but without captain planet. It's terrifying and the mind rebels from the admission. So I think it's actually really important to use dramatic forceful language to force people to come to terms with just how murderously bad it's going to be. If it makes even people who agree with you about how bad it is argue with you about the terminology, I think it's safe to say it's more of a distraction than something that's going to wake people up.Anyone who doesn't already agree with you is going to think you're crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So with medicaid block grants I would imagine if you live in a nice blue state things might be ok because they'll try and make up the difference but if you live in say, Kansas, you are beyond hosed. Is that about right? Wealthy, blue states can potentially hold out longer, but they all (even California) ultimately rely on federal spending for these programs. The fact that several blue states are revenue neutral/positive for the federal government just means that their residents/businesses send the federal government more tax dollars, but the state doesn't actually have any access to that money. That's for Medicaid, though. Everything else is going to gently caress everyone equally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Maybe. That's not the situation we're in though. Trump is clearly capable of making policy decisions, the problem is just that the decisions he makes are bad. That's not disability. What if a doctor, after examination, said that his behaviors were the result of having the early stages of Alzheimer'd or another type of dementia? Because the early stages of Alzheimers can be marked by: Alzheimer's Association posted:In early stages of the disease, people may experience personality changes such as irritability, anxiety or depression. In later stages, other symptoms may occur, including sleep disturbances; agitation (physical or verbal outbursts, general emotional distress, restlessness, pacing, shredding paper or tissues, yelling); delusions (firmly held belief in things that are not real); or hallucinations (seeing, hearing or feeling things that are not there). https://www.alz.org/professionals_and_researchers_behavioral_symptoms_pr.asp Would you agree that early stage Alzheimer's was a cause under the 25th Amendment? (I am not saying that Trump has early stage Alzheimer's, we can change this to a theoretical president, but would you agree that early onset Alzheimer's was cause under the 25th Amendment?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:What if a doctor, after examination, said that his behaviors were the result of having the early stages of Alzheimer'd or another type of dementia? Because the early stages of Alzheimers can be marked by: I think if he had a period where was clearly unaware of where he was or what was going on (as Reagan did), that would be sufficient to at least start a conversation about the 25th, ideally with the intention of convincing him to resign, but even though I fully believe Trump is suffering from early stages of dementia, I don't think vague personality changes or odd behavior get there. If we're assuming Republicans are willing to stand up to him in some way, impeachment really is the best process since it's the most legitimate and he's providing reason to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I think if he had a period where was clearly unaware of where he was or what was going on (as Reagan did), that would be sufficient to at least start a conversation about the 25th, ideally with the intention of convincing him to resign, but even though I fully believe Trump is suffering from early stages of dementia, I don't think vague personality changes or odd behavior get there. If we're assuming Republicans are willing to stand up to him in some way, impeachment really is the best process since it's the most legitimate and he's providing reason to do it. So you don't think dementia makes a president unable to perform their duties as President?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:What if a doctor, after examination, said that his behaviors were the result of having the early stages of Alzheimer'd or another type of dementia? Because the early stages of Alzheimers can be marked by: Think about how hard it is to convince regular old people to give up driving and how hard it can be for their kids to get them to accept that they are living with diminished capacity, then consider the gap between Trump and a normal person. To put it in terms you can understand, it would be as hard as going to Illinois and not seeing the east coast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Harrow posted:So let's say Trump fires Mueller. What do you think the public opinion of that would be? I already see plenty of Twitter chatter pre-justifying his firing, saying he violated a code of conduct by having known Comey, therefore he must be fired. Think that'll catch on, or is this going to be one of those "a few loud voices on Twitter make it sound like it has popular support but to everyone else it looks as sketchy as it is" things? It depends if the acting head of the FBI agrees to fire him or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre We could actually be seeing history repeat itself, which is rare. A lot of Trump voters are old enough to remember Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre and it would definitely have an impact. With younger voters probably not as much, at least the historical impact would be mostly lost on them having never experienced it. If the acting head fires him straight out it's a massive scandal, but one that they can attempt to spin. If the acting head does not fire him and Trump fires him in response or he resigns the more people who do this before Trump finally finds someone to do it the more it literally looks like the SNM. It could be a real turning point not only because it looks incredibly shady but the threads to a president who was impeached and then retired in shame would be direct rather than just heavily inferred. Bonus points if more than five acting heads of the FBI are fired or resign so he can then outdo Nixon. Also, if it happened on any other day they could have literally done it on that day because this administration is tone deaf. However it most likely won't happen on Saturday because Trump will be out golfing and therefor not to be disturbed. What's very important is that the FBI is an intelligence and policing agency. Almost all intelligence agencies currently hate Trump but the FBI hasn't fully joined them yet because the FBI is historically conservative and historically enforces a sort of conservative orthodoxy. By firing the current head and then the last head of the FBI and if I'm right, firing his way down until he finds a crony to fire Mueller the FBI will most likely turn on him and the intelligence agencies will turn the leaks into floods to amp up the pressure on him. At least that's my take. I could be wrong. Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Jun 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:So you don't think dementia makes a president unable to perform their duties as President? I do, but it's as much a political question as it is a medical question. Removing a president for being old and behaving strangely would be perceived as a coup.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:It depends if the acting head of the FBI agrees to fire him or not. The problem with this argument is that we've already had a lot of direct parallels with watergate. The underlying alleged crime is even exactly the same -- theft of information from the offices of the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
birds posted:do you guys think donald trump likes rap music? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0oSxJFF0gg
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The problem with this argument is that we've already had a lot of direct parallels with watergate. The underlying alleged crime is even exactly the same -- theft of information from the offices of the Democratic Party. When I think about it I suppose I have to agree. However repeating the Saturday Night Massacre will definitely rile up -everyone-. Nixon did that when he was at about 25% (ish) approval rating after all. What's that old saying? "It's not the scandal, it's the cover up."
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Republicans would just get someone like Jared Kushner to step in and manage a senile Trump like Nancy did for Reagan. He's not leaving office before 2020 unless his grease-filled heart gives out or criminal evidence comes out that's so damning even Republican voters care. Btw, just being a senile crazy old coot won't alienate Republican voters, those are the Republican voters. Incoherent yelling about black people and Mexicans and kids these days ruining everything, spiced with conspiracy theories and bizarre half-remembered tidbits from breitbart articles match their inner monologue perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
So I guess the question is, when did Putin start bankrolling far left figures? This is obviously something that took a lot of cultivation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Republicans would just get someone like Jared Kushner to step in and manage a senile Trump like Nancy did for Reagan. You assume he's manageable. Better men than Jared Kushner have tried. You assume incorrectly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Called it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:So I guess the question is, when did Putin start bankrolling far left figures? This is obviously something that took a lot of cultivation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Ed Schultz has had a show there for a few years now THAT'S where he ended up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
I know a lot of people here don't like horseshoe theory, but the way the extremes of both sides get played over and over again by someone like Putin shows how there's something to it imo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
What's funnier? That conservatives are following a dementia patient into oblivion, or that they can't tell the difference between conservatism and the symptoms of dementia?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I know a lot of people here don't like horseshoe theory, but the way the extremes of both sides get played over and over again by someone like Putin shows how there's something to it imo. Horseshoe theory can be useful in a "lies told to children" sort of way for introducing people to the idea that people with different political views can have some overlap elsewhere. However it's too reductionist to be useful beyond the "lies told to children" tactic and falls apart when you use it to explain higher level concepts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
BRISTOL PALINS BABY posted:What's funnier? That conservatives are following a dementia patient into oblivion, or that they can't tell the difference between conservatism and the symptoms of dementia? How'd you post from the 80s? Tons of coke?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:Think about how hard it is to convince regular old people to give up driving and how hard it can be for their kids to get them to accept that they are living with diminished capacity, then consider the gap between Trump and a normal person. I am not arguing about the pragmatics of the law, just about what the law says. The 25th Amendment to the constitution does not say that it can only be activated in times of medical incapacity. It says "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", and that can include non-medical reasons. Using it for other reasons is not a coup, it is within the literal reading of the amendment. Unlike arguing whether there is a cultural distinction between the suburban areas East of the Mississippi river (there isn't), or whether terrain around 2000 feet tall that is covered with an network of freeways is mountainous (it isn't), this is something that seems pretty obvious from the amendment, as written.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I am not arguing about the pragmatics of the law, just about what the law says. The 25th Amendment to the constitution does not say that it can only be activated in times of medical incapacity. It says "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", and that can include non-medical reasons. Using it for other reasons is not a coup, it is within the literal reading of the amendment. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:In fact things get worse the longer we let things go. Just because we are locked into a billion deaths now doesn't mean we can't cause another few billion if we keep at it. Stop focusing on it like it's a bad thing because if you keep doing it you're not going to survive. Think of It as a new fresh start and a chance to get things right. Instead of focusing primarily on lowering greenhouse has emissions, we need to prepare our country to be able to survive the affects of it and still come out as the strongest nation on earth, the division that lack of resources will create, and the possibility of extreme mass migration must be heeded. Africa will have 2.2 billion people by 2050. We won't even hit peak Climate Change for a few more years. Where do you think all those people will go once the famines start?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
glowing-fish posted:What if a doctor, after examination, said that his behaviors were the result of having the early stages of Alzheimer'd or another type of dementia? Because the early stages of Alzheimers can be marked by: It might be. But practically speaking you can't diagnose that without actually examining someone. It's widely considered to be unethical to diagnose a public figure with a mental illness merely on the basis of his public appearances. So yeah, in a case where an actual medical doctor who has examined Trump is saying his decision making is impaired because he has dementia, that could be disability. Short of that the twenty-fifth amendment procedures are inappropriate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:48
|
|
