Atheistforums.com

Humanities Section => Political/Government General Discussion => Topic started by: Sylar on March 01, 2017, 09:24:13 PM

Title: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Sylar on March 01, 2017, 09:24:13 PM
I came across an article today that I'd like to share; it details what a strategy to defeat Trump would entail.

Below is an excerpt of article:

Quote from: What Hasn’t Worked

So far, Trump’s opponents have used three relatively ineffective strategies.

Attempting to portray Trump as temperamentally unfit for the presidency, the approach primarily adopted by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, clearly didn’t work. Continued attacks on Trump’s character, intellect, or ignorance about government are a waste of energy at best and counterproductive at worst, since they could simply amplify the class resentments between Middle America Trump supporters and the coastal and urban elite.

Attacks on Trump’s conflicts of interest have also failed, and will keep failing until or unless they are tied to particular actions that are seen to harm his supporters. Until then, his supporters will simply that assume all politicians are corrupt and that Trump’s wealth somehow insulates him from such conflicts.

Since Trump’s inauguration, the opposition has taken a third approach: arguing that Trump has broken American democratic norms. Given what has happened with similar leaders in other countries, this line of attack is unlikely to have much effect on Trump’s political standing (at least in the short term, and unless he ventures much, much further from such norms).

Understanding Trump’s Pillars of Support

The loyalty Trump has earned from some of his supporters may be virtually unbreakable, resulting from appeals that Democrats cannot and should not seek to match. But to win in the 2018 midterms and the 2020 presidential election, the opposition does not need to convince everyone who voted for Trump. It does not even need to convince most of them. Democrats just need to peel away Trump’s marginal voters without losing the support of the majority of Americans who voted for other candidates. To do so, they need to understand the four reasons those marginal voters supported Trump: heightened partisanship (which led Trump to receive the support of 89% of registered Republicans); hostility to the Washington establishment; Trump’s rhetorical abandonment of the normal tropes of Republican politics; and his image as a successful businessman. The first two of these are probably nonstarters for Democrats, but the third and fourth represent vulnerabilities they could exploit.

Trump took advantage of the fact that standard elements of the Republican catechism, particularly support for tax cuts on the wealthy and lower spending on almost everything except defense, had little popular appeal, even among Republican voters. Republican majorities in Congress remain at least rhetorically committed to that agenda, however, and Trump’s cabinet nominees, who for the most part are traditionally conservative Republicans, are likely to want to move it forward, despite its lack of appeal to his voters. Trump’s image as a businessman who can “get things done” and who was not captive to normal politics helped him get elected, but is fundamentally at odds with both that agenda and the chaos of his initial weeks in office.

This creates an enormous opportunity for those opposed to Trump: Every time he proposes a conventional Republican policy, win or lose, Trump will be pushing ideas that his supporters mostly oppose and that seem like exactly the sort of generic Republican they rejected by electing him. Whatever type of policy he pushes, if he is seen to fail, the opposition will get a double triumph, on the issue and by showing that his aura of competence is a false one. The less Trump seems to be someone who can get things done, the less his marginal voters will believe in him. The less they believe in him, the weaker he gets. The weaker he gets, the more likely his next defeat becomes, weakening him still further and creating a vicious cycle that might lead to his political collapse. (A similar cycle, beginning with American struggles in Iraq and intensified by the effects of Hurricane Katrina and the financial crisis, is what caused George W. Bush to limp out of office, in 2008, with members of his own party keeping their distance from him.)

But for this to happen, the opposition needs to understand three things:

  • The opposition should focus on winning over the marginal Trump voter â€" not the fervent ones who appear at Trump rallies, but the ones who might be persuaded to switch their votes, or even to stay home on Election Day.
  • Marginal voters are generally characterized by exceptionally low levels of knowledge about politics and pay little or no attention to policy debates and the tactics used by the two parties.
  • This low level of knowledge about politics means that the president is often the only government official many voters can identify (in 2011 only 43% of voters could name the Speaker of the House; during the election only 40% of voters could name either candidate for vice president, with marginal voters disproportionately represented among those who could not). So voters tend to attribute all outcomes, positive or negative, to the president, regardless of what actually happened.

Read more: https://hbr.org/2017/02/if-democrats-want-to-challenge-trump-they-need-a-new-strategy

I especially enjoyed the insight about president being the end-all of outcomes. Success or failure, it's the president's fault regardless of the why.

ACA is an example of this. ACA was adapted from Republican health care plan, Romney's. The GOP worked tirelessly to block it, to make Obama fail at enacting health care legislation that they wanted to enact just so they can prevent him from scoring political victory. When they failed at blocking ACA, they inserted so many poison pills into the bill that resulted in higher premiums and higher deductibles, among other problems. Who gets the blame? Obama. It was a win-win situation for GOP -- they ensured Obama legislation would ultimately fail, and they reaped the political benefits of this failure being attributed to Obama.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: fencerider on March 02, 2017, 12:39:23 AM
there is no such thing as an attack on Trump's intellect. He really is that stupid.

Tax cuts on the wealthy has yet to produce any benefit for regular folk.

I read the ACA. Some things seemed kinda dumb until I learned that the idiot democrats allowed insurance companies to write most of it. The 80/20 rule for medical insurance is a good thing. It should also be applied to hospitals. Without prosecuting big pharma for profiteering and putting price controls on their crap, there will never be affordable health care. It is also about 90% improbable that we can have affordable health care while insurance companies are given a seat at the table when fixing the health care laws.

The investigation of Trump's connection to Russia that started before the election are still on going. Eventually Congress may become suspicious enough to order him to hand over his tax papers. Not going to count on that though. Paul Ryan said a couple weeks ago that he wasnt required to release his tax papers and that they wouldn't ask him to. If he is forced to release his taxes, it could be a game changer for his reelection
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Cavebear on March 02, 2017, 04:44:04 AM
Trump will collapse in a year.  His supporters just haven't have time to experience the reality of of it yet.  The terrible truth will sink in as they see his friends get richer as they get worse off.  And as they realize that Trump The Fake Billionaire is not their friend.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Sylar on March 10, 2017, 07:42:36 PM
Quote from: fencerider on March 02, 2017, 12:39:23 AM
there is no such thing as an attack on Trump's intellect. He really is that stupid.

Perhaps, but attacking him will do nothing to help us win an election. He was attacked the most during the campaign and because of that he received more on-air minutes than anyone else. He rode that wave to victory.

People think he's more trustworthy than MSM -- go figure, a pathological liar is more trustworthy than an entire class of journalists who are well-established in the profession, regardless of their own biases.

Quote from: fencerider on March 02, 2017, 12:39:23 AMTax cuts on the wealthy has yet to produce any benefit for regular folk.

Agreed. Trickle-down economics is a sham, and has been proven not to work over and over again. Supply-side economics ruined the balance in American economy since Reagan, and the only ones who benefited are the billionaires who fund GOP (Democratic party, too, if we're being honest here).

Quote from: fencerider on March 02, 2017, 12:39:23 AMI read the ACA. Some things seemed kinda dumb until I learned that the idiot democrats allowed insurance companies to write most of it. The 80/20 rule for medical insurance is a good thing. It should also be applied to hospitals. Without prosecuting big pharma for profiteering and putting price controls on their crap, there will never be affordable health care. It is also about 90% improbable that we can have affordable health care while insurance companies are given a seat at the table when fixing the health care laws.

In general, ACA is a solid piece of legislation but it does have shortcomings and rather than repeal and replace, we need to make it better, or transfer to a single payer health care system. GOP do not care about making it better, they worked tirelessly (a successful political strategy if I may add) to make sure the legislation will fail, but too bad now they are tasked with coming up with a better alternative. The problem is that there is no better alternative that satisfies the politics of GOP! The only better alternative is a single payer health care system -- the ACA-lite version they just released is just shy of political suicide; it preserves the fundamental architecture of the law, repeals typical conservative ideological bits (such as funding for Planned Parenthood), provides massive tax cuts to wealthy, delays cutbacks until 2018 or 2020 that may cost them dearly. Democrats need to capitalize on this law, if it passes, rather than attack character of Trump.

Quote from: fencerider on March 02, 2017, 12:39:23 AMThe investigation of Trump's connection to Russia that started before the election are still on going. Eventually Congress may become suspicious enough to order him to hand over his tax papers. Not going to count on that though. Paul Ryan said a couple weeks ago that he wasnt required to release his tax papers and that they wouldn't ask him to. If he is forced to release his taxes, it could be a game changer for his reelection

Some of Trump's tax documents were leaked, I thought, and that didn't help. People nowadays, especially those on social media, live in their own world -- they have tunnel vision, with news outlets and op-eds that confirm their own biases. If it's a news channel you do not like, you won't watch it, so instead you focus on a channel that's friendlier towards your own beliefs.

What I think is important to defeat him in 2020:

1) Winning local and state elections. In 2020, new census will be happening which means redistricting, and in 32 states (if I recall correctly) it is done by state legislatures. Having access to state legislatures means we can redistrict favorably to Democrats (now GOP has ~40-60 seats because of partisan gerrymandering). Winning state legislatures and governorships also means rolling back voter suppression legislation by GOP.

2) Making Trump plans fail in Congress, that means winning in 2018 midterms.

3) No cooperating with Trump admin or GOP controlled Congress in any manner whatsoever.

4) Encourage and increase voter turnout, especially in swing states.

As a person, I've never really been a fan of partisanship, especially on local and state elections. I've always been an independent who did some research about candidates or ballot measures, and then voted according to who I think will do a better job. That is still true locally, but on state level if it's not a Democrat it's not a good option. Lucky for me, I live in California so blue have upperhand here.

What do you think about this excerpt from the article? It aligns with my point #3:

Quote from: Trump-Specific Popular Policies
A perfect example of this is an infrastructure bill. Democrats have been trying to pass an infrastructure bill since early in the Obama administration. If Trump proposes one, should they cooperate with him to pass it â€" both because they actually support the policy and because they would get credit with voters for bipartisanship?

If marginal Trump supporters are the Democrats’ target, what will they think of this? Marginal voters pay little or no attention to politics, so they won’t give Democrats credit for being bipartisan. They probably won’t even know about it. Only 36% of Americans can correctly identify which party controls the House and Senate. Among registered voters, that number only increased to 41%. Marginal voters do, however, give credit to the president for all political outcomes. So if they see construction being done in their neighborhoods, or heavily broadcast on Trump-friendly media, they will give the credit to the president, regardless of whether the opposition cooperated.

On the flip side, if Democrats successfully block an infrastructure bill, marginal Trump voters are not likely to blame Democrats for that opposition â€" they will just blame the president for failing to get things done. This central insight was what drove Mitch McConnell’s (in my opinion, the finest Senate tactician since Henry Clay) strategy of uniform opposition, which helped lead to today’s unprecedented Republican dominance of all levels of government. If Democrats want to erode Trump’s base of support, popular policies that are unique to Trump are the ones they ought to oppose most strenuously.

Weak as they are, though, Democrats would have to ally with Republicans to defeat these policies. The Republican margin in both houses of Congress is small enough that Democrats don’t have to flip many Republicans to succeed. Successful opposition to any of Trump’s policies would, as long as Democrats stay unified, require joining with only one of many factions within a deeply fractured GOP (such as, in the case of an infrastructure bill, deficit hawks), and each new policy initiative opens up opportunities to ally with different factions. Trump’s own approach in the campaign means that he will have little or no ability to use party discipline to try to maintain the cohesion of the Republican caucus. He will have to rely on Republicans’ fear of being defeated in a primary by a candidate he supports, a fear that will ebb along with his popularity.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Sylar on March 10, 2017, 07:45:52 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 02, 2017, 04:44:04 AM
Trump will collapse in a year.  His supporters just haven't have time to experience the reality of of it yet.  The terrible truth will sink in as they see his friends get richer as they get worse off.  And as they realize that Trump The Fake Billionaire is not their friend.

It's already been established that Trump is a PR genius. Whatever he does, no matter how positive or negative the impact on his supporters is, he'll spin it and it'll come out positive. If it's negative, he'll minimize the impact until his supporters can confidently say "well, it doesn't matter because he did so, and so, and so, and so happens to be positive".

The strategy needs to break that confidence by making Trump fail at delivering what his marginal supporters expect.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 10, 2017, 07:50:51 PM
Until the D party purges itself of the Clintons and Obamas ... they are still going down.  Until you do that, you are bitches for Goldman Sachs, just like everyone else.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Sylar on March 10, 2017, 08:53:32 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 10, 2017, 07:50:51 PM
Until the D party purges itself of the Clintons and Obamas ... they are still going down.  Until you do that, you are bitches for Goldman Sachs, just like everyone else.

The D party likes to kiss us first ;-).
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Cavebear on March 14, 2017, 04:57:32 AM
Quote from: Sylar on March 10, 2017, 07:42:36 PM
Perhaps, but attacking him will do nothing to help us win an election. He was attacked the most during the campaign and because of that he received more on-air minutes than anyone else. He rode that wave to victory.

People think he's more trustworthy than MSM -- go figure, a pathological liar is more trustworthy than an entire class of journalists who are well-established in the profession, regardless of their own biases.

Agreed. Trickle-down economics is a sham, and has been proven not to work over and over again. Supply-side economics ruined the balance in American economy since Reagan, and the only ones who benefited are the billionaires who fund GOP (Democratic party, too, if we're being honest here).

In general, ACA is a solid piece of legislation but it does have shortcomings and rather than repeal and replace, we need to make it better, or transfer to a single payer health care system. GOP do not care about making it better, they worked tirelessly (a successful political strategy if I may add) to make sure the legislation will fail, but too bad now they are tasked with coming up with a better alternative. The problem is that there is no better alternative that satisfies the politics of GOP! The only better alternative is a single payer health care system -- the ACA-lite version they just released is just shy of political suicide; it preserves the fundamental architecture of the law, repeals typical conservative ideological bits (such as funding for Planned Parenthood), provides massive tax cuts to wealthy, delays cutbacks until 2018 or 2020 that may cost them dearly. Democrats need to capitalize on this law, if it passes, rather than attack character of Trump.

Some of Trump's tax documents were leaked, I thought, and that didn't help. People nowadays, especially those on social media, live in their own world -- they have tunnel vision, with news outlets and op-eds that confirm their own biases. If it's a news channel you do not like, you won't watch it, so instead you focus on a channel that's friendlier towards your own beliefs.

What I think is important to defeat him in 2020:

1) Winning local and state elections. In 2020, new census will be happening which means redistricting, and in 32 states (if I recall correctly) it is done by state legislatures. Having access to state legislatures means we can redistrict favorably to Democrats (now GOP has ~40-60 seats because of partisan gerrymandering). Winning state legislatures and governorships also means rolling back voter suppression legislation by GOP.

2) Making Trump plans fail in Congress, that means winning in 2018 midterms.

3) No cooperating with Trump admin or GOP controlled Congress in any manner whatsoever.

4) Encourage and increase voter turnout, especially in swing states.

As a person, I've never really been a fan of partisanship, especially on local and state elections. I've always been an independent who did some research about candidates or ballot measures, and then voted according to who I think will do a better job. That is still true locally, but on state level if it's not a Democrat it's not a good option. Lucky for me, I live in California so blue have upperhand here.

What do you think about this excerpt from the article? It aligns with my point #3:

I think that the major failure of the Clinton campaign was that they assumed they had the States to win the Electoral College by a wide margin.

And that the reason they didn't get that was that they they assumed voters were rational.  They aren't in the States where there are more Electoral votes than voters should have.  And those are the States Trump won.

Hey, even HE was shocked!

Basically, US elections favor low-populace States. 
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Sylar on March 14, 2017, 06:21:57 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 14, 2017, 04:57:32 AM
I think that the major failure of the Clinton campaign was that they assumed they had the States to win the Electoral College by a wide margin.

And that the reason they didn't get that was that they they assumed voters were rational.  They aren't in the States where there are more Electoral votes than voters should have.  And those are the States Trump won.

Hey, even HE was shocked!

Basically, US elections favor low-populace States.

I do not think there is a single major failure, but there are several failures all of which contributed to the loss. I do agree with you, though.

I would add:
I do hope this loss was a wake up call for DNC to get off its ass and start implementing strategies that work.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Cavebear on March 18, 2017, 04:16:38 AM
Quote from: Sylar on March 14, 2017, 06:21:57 PM
I do not think there is a single major failure, but there are several failures all of which contributed to the loss. I do agree with you, though.

I would add:
  • Friendlier relations with Cuba alienated Cubans in Florida, where more than half voted for Trump.

  • Comey letter in last week of election negatively affected Clinton.

  • Spread of click-bait fake news websites on social media, most of which vilified Clinton based on no facts at all.

  • Obama's neglect of state Democratic parties played large role in loss of state legislatures, congressional seats, and ultimately swing states.

  • Clinton herself was disliked -- I personally disliked her, she came off as smug and insincere to me, even though I ended up voting for her (my vote doesn't matter - CA).
I do hope this loss was a wake up call for DNC to get off its ass and start implementing strategies that work.
''I most understand the idea that Hillary Clinton was smug.  She thought she had the election won.

Well, I did too.  She thought the voters could not really go for Trump; an idiot, sociopath, compiracy-minded lunatic who can't tell what is in his self-oriented mind from reality.

Election night was a shock to me.  I expected an easy Clinton win.  I consider that the electoral college is completely out of balance.  Trump didn't get more votes than Clinton (though he thinks he did).  He has little connection to reality.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Unbeliever on March 21, 2017, 06:28:09 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 02, 2017, 04:44:04 AM
Trump will collapse in a year.  His supporters just haven't have time to experience the reality of of it yet.  The terrible truth will sink in as they see his friends get richer as they get worse off.  And as they realize that Trump The Fake Billionaire is not their friend.
Nah, I expect him to throw them just enough bones to keep them giving him the benefit of the doubt, and keep them blaming the democrats.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Drew_2017 on March 21, 2017, 11:04:54 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 02, 2017, 04:44:04 AM
Trump will collapse in a year.  His supporters just haven't have time to experience the reality of of it yet.  The terrible truth will sink in as they see his friends get richer as they get worse off.  And as they realize that Trump The Fake Billionaire is not their friend.

I didn't vote for Obama but I did hope he was successful. I did vote for Trump and I hope he is successful. A successful president is good for the country. Isn't the good of the country more important than politics?
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 21, 2017, 11:56:32 PM
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 21, 2017, 11:04:54 PM
I didn't vote for Obama but I did hope he was successful. I did vote for Trump and I hope he is successful. A successful president is good for the country. Isn't the good of the country more important than politics?

No, being right, and pissing on your enemies, that is what is important (sarc).
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Sylar on March 22, 2017, 12:57:34 AM
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 21, 2017, 11:04:54 PM
I didn't vote for Obama but I did hope he was successful. I did vote for Trump and I hope he is successful. A successful president is good for the country. Isn't the good of the country more important than politics?

The term 'successful' is a relative term. Successful at what? Trump's agenda contradicts Obama's, so if one wished Obama to be successful in his endeavors, one cannot wish Trump to be, because that is a contradictory position to take. If one supported ACA, one cannot support its repeal -- in other words.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Cavebear on March 22, 2017, 03:02:22 AM
Quote from: Sylar on March 22, 2017, 12:57:34 AM
The term 'successful' is a relative term. Successful at what? Trump's agenda contradicts Obama's, so if one wished Obama to be successful in his endeavors, one cannot wish Trump to be, because that is a contradictory position to take. If one supported ACA, one cannot support its repeal -- in other words.

Yeah, Obama had goals.  Trump has opposite goals.  You can't really hope for both sensibly. 

I AM hoping Trump GROWS into the job.  Some unlikely Presidents have (Truman comes to mind as does Teddy Roosevelt).  But I doubt that Trump is capable of much change.  Trump is a real WYSIWYG.

BTW, the week's Congressional inquiries and new stuff coming out on the news channels suggests Trump is involved directly or indirectly with Russian involvement.  I suspect he will be impeached, and for the 1st time in our history, for very good reasons.

It is never a good thing for a President to be impeached, but I think it is going to happen.  Yeah, I'm a Progressive and all that, but this isn't politics.  I suspect Trump is contaminated by Russian influence and we simply can't have that. 

I don't like Pence politically either, but I think he is clear of that. 
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: SGOS on March 22, 2017, 06:28:08 AM
Quote from: fencerider on March 02, 2017, 12:39:23 AM
It is also about 90% improbable that we can have affordable health care while insurance companies are given a seat at the table when fixing the health care laws.
The reason people so widely support universal healthcare is because of insurance company shenanigans to begin with.  I think Obama didn't want to be the heavy and step on corporate toes, which would not be fun for the president.  His solution was to bring the problem into the solution.  But you just can't get rid of the problem by making the problem the solution. 

Obama wanted healthcare to be a part of his legacy, but he wanted it on his resume so bad that he was ready to trick Americans into an inferior product, something that was not at all remotely like the universal health care that the country was expecting.  People opened their arms to Obama when he showed interest in addressing the problem.  The country had finally reached a critical mass that would embrace European style universal coverage, and the debates in Washington, along with the payoffs from insurance companies to key members of congress, began to take place.  Yeah, the Republicans opposed Obama and healthcare and the Democrats supported it (at least when in front of TV crews).

And when the future for Average Americans started looking brighter and the country was finally chanting, "Healthcare!  Healthcare", the Democrats pulled a bait and switch, and instead of creating universal healthcare, passed a law forcing everyone to buy insurance from insurance companies (Remember insurance companies? They were the  companies that were consuming American paychecks, sometimes at a rate higher than a home mortgage).  I remember that turning point when people began to understand what was really coming to them.  Obama defended the Democrats new direction by claiming universal health care was only one small part of a health care bill.  He was in Montana at a town hall meeting with Montana Senator, Max Baucus (D), who had received something like 1.5 million dollars from the health care industry over the years.  He also chaired a vital committee that the bill would have to get through.

One small part of health care?  Well maybe, if an only IF universal coverage actually represented 5%, rather than 90% of what people thought they were getting.  In fact, it wasn't one small part, but Obama reinforced the impression of the insignificance of universal coverage by making the "itty bitty" sign between his thumb and forefinger. 

But universal coverage isn't "one small part."  It's basically the totality of the thing, not some insignificant "teeny weeny".  However, short term (the next 7 or 8 years), Obama received a personal benefit.  Health care!  At last!  Some people called it a baby step on the way to real universal coverage and hailed Obama as getting ball rolling, but it wasn't a baby step as much as a tactic to reinforce an already failed system.  It was a step backwards that actually undermines the concept of national healthcare, and will set healthcare back another 30 years and make it that much harder to pass the next time, when people (and politicians) remember the bitter taste left in their mouths from ACA and how poorly received a "healthcare" bill could be.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 22, 2017, 07:12:21 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 22, 2017, 03:02:22 AM
Yeah, Obama had goals.  Trump has opposite goals.  You can't really hope for both sensibly. 

I AM hoping Trump GROWS into the job.  Some unlikely Presidents have (Truman comes to mind as does Teddy Roosevelt).  But I doubt that Trump is capable of much change.  Trump is a real WYSIWYG.

BTW, the week's Congressional inquiries and new stuff coming out on the news channels suggests Trump is involved directly or indirectly with Russian involvement.  I suspect he will be impeached, and for the 1st time in our history, for very good reasons.

It is never a good thing for a President to be impeached, but I think it is going to happen.  Yeah, I'm a Progressive and all that, but this isn't politics.  I suspect Trump is contaminated by Russian influence and we simply can't have that. 

I don't like Pence politically either, but I think he is clear of that.

Contaminated by Saudi influence?  By Israeli influence?  Impeach them all.  Start with that coup leader, George Washington.  Washington spoke British English (if we had tape recorders back then) ... clearly a British double agent (as was Franklin).  Jefferson was a French double agent.

So ... going back to McCarthy are we?  Gotta arrest all the gays ... and other degenerate elements in the US ... for making America's vital juices ... weak (sarc).
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 22, 2017, 07:15:11 AM
Quote from: Sylar on March 22, 2017, 12:57:34 AM
The term 'successful' is a relative term. Successful at what? Trump's agenda contradicts Obama's, so if one wished Obama to be successful in his endeavors, one cannot wish Trump to be, because that is a contradictory position to take. If one supported ACA, one cannot support its repeal -- in other words.

War in Syria increasing, not decreasing (see Syria shot down Israeli jet).  War coming soon in Korea (special ops currently training to take out NorK nuclear program).  The only agenda is the MIC agenda.  Domestic politics is mere distraction.

And no, unfortunately, the ACA was one of the first term reasons I opposed Obama .. for signing it, he didn't write it.  Those who wrote it, many got forced out in the 2010 elections.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: SGOS on March 22, 2017, 10:18:41 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 22, 2017, 03:02:22 AM
It is never a good thing for a President to be impeached, but I think it is going to happen.
It would be a hard sell with a Republican Congress.  A simple majority is required of the house, but 2/3 of the Senate has to be on board.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Drew_2017 on March 22, 2017, 10:38:50 AM
Quote from: Sylar on March 22, 2017, 12:57:34 AM
The term 'successful' is a relative term. Successful at what? Trump's agenda contradicts Obama's, so if one wished Obama to be successful in his endeavors, one cannot wish Trump to be, because that is a contradictory position to take. If one supported ACA, one cannot support its repeal -- in other words.

I measure a candidacy in two broad categories; the prosperity of the nation and the security of the nation. Issues like same sex marriage and gender neutral bathrooms are of little importance to me.   
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 22, 2017, 01:17:53 PM
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 22, 2017, 10:38:50 AM
I measure a candidacy in two broad categories; the prosperity of the nation and the security of the nation. Issues like same sex marriage and gender neutral bathrooms are of little importance to me.

I am pro-gay ... so same sex marriage ... yay for the team.  But single-issue-voters ... that is a problem, gay or straight.  If we liberated every Black person, gave them a billion dollars each, put them at the head of every corporation ... as compensation ... that would be fine for them ... but I don't think in the short run, it would lead to anything but chaos.  Society is a competitive game that plays for keeps, and only idiots play fair when it is for keeps.  Don't come to a gun fight with a knife.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Sylar on March 22, 2017, 08:36:36 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 22, 2017, 07:15:11 AM
War in Syria increasing, not decreasing (see Syria shot down Israeli jet).  War coming soon in Korea (special ops currently training to take out NorK nuclear program).  The only agenda is the MIC agenda.  Domestic politics is mere distraction.

Syria didn't shoot down an Israeli plane - Israel denied it and I trust Israel more than Syria.

Anyways, I think the point you are making is that foreign policy is more important than domestic policy, and I disagree. Domestic policy is more important electorally speaking; foreign policy only matters when it's contextualized in how it impacts constituents. People simply care about how their daily lives are impacted, not about what happens 2, 3 thousands miles away.

No objection to who sets foreign policy agenda, though.

Quote from: Baruch on March 22, 2017, 07:15:11 AMAnd no, unfortunately, the ACA was one of the first term reasons I opposed Obama .. for signing it, he didn't write it.  Those who wrote it, many got forced out in the 2010 elections.

I used ACA as an example to illustrate the contradiction between hoping Obama succeeds and hoping Trump succeeds, for it translates into supporting ACA and supporting its repeal.

ACA is imperfect legislation because Dems always try to play a fair game. They take government seriously. They seek to govern. One of the characteristics of government is compromise. GOP seeks to rule. They do not believe in government. Let me illustrate. The characteristics of a law is that it passes Congress and is signed by president, then a couple of years later Congress passes a technical fix to said law, and more changes a few years later down the road when it is reauthorized. That's similar to a tech company rolling out a new product, then repeatedly rolling out fixes, patches, updates, etc. to fix any loopholes or unforeseen problems/bugs.

When Bush's Medicare Part D plan had a disastrous rollout, Democrats bailed it out (http://"http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/how-democrats-saved-bushs-medicare-drug-program"). When Obama's health care legislation passed through, GOP pointed at the problems and screamed "repeal and replace" for six straight years while doing all they can to discredit/destroy/defund the law (http://"https://thinkprogress.org/blow-by-blow-a-comprehensive-timeline-of-the-gops-4-year-battle-to-kill-obamacare-5dd069a5518a#.nc3ixegpm"), ignoring both liberal and conservative fixes. Some fixes just required a simple language change, like the glitch about the family of an employee with employer coverage losing government healthcare subsidies. GOP wanted to hurt the president and in the process hurt millions of Americans. They did so attacking what essentially is a Republican health care law (ACA largely based on Romney MA health care plan), just because this health care law is an achievement for the Obama administration. Never in the history of the United States do I recall such opposition to a piece of legislation, or perhaps I am just not knowledgeable enough.

Now the repeal and replace effort culminated in Trumpcare, a worse version of ACA. Instead of fixing imperfect law, they made it even worse.

I may not consider ACA a top piece of health care legislation, or a stepping stone towards single payer, but it surely beats the hell out of any GOP proposals and it adds some safeguards for those most vulnerable.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 22, 2017, 09:14:32 PM
"ACA is imperfect legislation because Dems always try to play a fair game. They take government seriously." ... D masturbation, Ds are the Master Race stuff.  Go tell that to LBJ or Jefferson Davis.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Sylar on March 22, 2017, 09:41:42 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 22, 2017, 09:14:32 PM
"ACA is imperfect legislation because Dems always try to play a fair game. They take government seriously." ... D masturbation, Ds are the Master Race stuff.  Go tell that to LBJ or Jefferson Davis.

Hardly -- it's just my opinion about state of contemporary D party. The entire Democratic program hinges on a functioning federal government, so a working government is in their best favor and that's why they practice it honestly. They are unelectable otherwise. GOP spent 8 years stonewalling and were awarded 3 branches of government.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 22, 2017, 09:42:56 PM
Quote from: Sylar on March 22, 2017, 09:41:42 PM
Hardly -- it's just my opinion about state of contemporary D party. The entire Democratic program hinges on a functioning federal government, so a working government is in their best favor and that's why they practice it honestly. They are unelectable otherwise. GOP spent 8 years stonewalling and were awarded 3 branches of government.

Exactly ... your point?
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Sylar on March 23, 2017, 02:50:59 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 22, 2017, 09:42:56 PM
Exactly ... your point?

The point is ACA had no hope of ever being a success with all GOP hurdles in past 8 years, yet you are blaming Obama and those who drafted ACA. Sure, they did not write 100% foolproof legislation, but it is the job of our elected officials to fix existing legislation rather than to inform us of its shortcomings, then spend 6 years not only doing nothing to fix it but also making sure it fails even further.

Which brings us to my OP:
-President gets blamed for everything and anything during his tenure.
-Democrats must ensure Trump fails at all costs because, well, president gets blamed for everything and anything.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 23, 2017, 07:07:45 PM
Quote from: Sylar on March 23, 2017, 02:50:59 PM
The point is ACA had no hope of ever being a success with all GOP hurdles in past 8 years, yet you are blaming Obama and those who drafted ACA. Sure, they did not write 100% foolproof legislation, but it is the job of our elected officials to fix existing legislation rather than to inform us of its shortcomings, then spend 6 years not only doing nothing to fix it but also making sure it fails even further.

Which brings us to my OP:
-President gets blamed for everything and anything during his tenure.
-Democrats must ensure Trump fails at all costs because, well, president gets blamed for everything and anything.

But you are describing, not proscribing.  The fact that the US electorate is worthless .. has nothing to do with the ACA.  They want a free lunch, and they want it now.  But things are only free, to the extent that you enslave others.  This is why it is populist to rob and kill brown people.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: trdsf on March 24, 2017, 12:11:38 AM
Right now, the best way to defeat Asshole is to just let him be Asshole.  You already have the previously-unthinkable happening: Republicans openly disagreeing with their own president.  And the more the orange shitgibbon shoots off his mouth, the less worried I become.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 24, 2017, 12:24:17 AM
Quote from: trdsf on March 24, 2017, 12:11:38 AM
Right now, the best way to defeat Asshole is to just let him be Asshole.  You already have the previously-unthinkable happening: Republicans openly disagreeing with their own president.  And the more the orange shitgibbon shoots off his mouth, the less worried I become.

The RNC President is JEB.  The Bush family is royal, not the Trump family.  Obama is related to Cheney ... a Fifth column.  Like the Republican created Al Qaida and ISIS, the barbarian horde that is the Tea Party, went rogue in 2016 ... as the actual Bernie-Bros nearly went rogue on the DNC.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Cavebear on March 24, 2017, 03:20:56 AM
Quote from: Baruch on March 22, 2017, 07:12:21 AM
Contaminated by Saudi influence?  By Israeli influence?  Impeach them all.  Start with that coup leader, George Washington.  Washington spoke British English (if we had tape recorders back then) ... clearly a British double agent (as was Franklin).  Jefferson was a French double agent.

So ... going back to McCarthy are we?  Gotta arrest all the gays ... and other degenerate elements in the US ... for making America's vital juices ... weak (sarc).

Not a single thing you posted had ANYTHING to do with what I wrote.  Why do you do that? 
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 24, 2017, 07:41:50 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 24, 2017, 03:20:56 AM
Not a single thing you posted had ANYTHING to do with what I wrote.  Why do you do that?

I directly quoted your post ... it included ...
"I suspect Trump is contaminated by Russian influence and we simply can't have that."

You are a conspiracy theorist ... of the D-party meme of the moment.  Obama met with the Russians as part of his duties, so have D party members.  Are you calling for their impeachment, or only the current President or R party members?  Inconsistent, and paranoid.  While the clear influence of foreign powers (the horror, clutching my worry beads) is all over ... see Israel or Saudi Arabia.  But you consider those POS as our allies, I suppose?  If they are foreign, then they are opponents (not enemies).  The "Russia Is Evil" meme ... we have seen before.  It was wrong then and wrong now.  They are opponents, same as men playing poker.  But for some people, it is like playing cards in the old West ... if we don't like the hand we are dealt, lets shoot the other guys at the card table, swipe up the kitty, jump on our horse, and vamoose before the Sheriff catches us.   People have been calling for genocide of the Russians, ever since De Tocqueville correctly labeled the US and Russia as hegemons.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Cavebear on March 24, 2017, 08:45:05 AM
Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2017, 07:41:50 AM
I directly quoted your post ... it included ...
"I suspect Trump is contaminated by Russian influence and we simply can't have that."

You are a conspiracy theorist ... of the D-party meme of the moment.  Obama met with the Russians as part of his duties, so have D party members.  Are you calling for their impeachment, or only the current President or R party members?  Inconsistent, and paranoid.  While the clear influence of foreign powers (the horror, clutching my worry beads) is all over ... see Israel or Saudi Arabia.  But you consider those POS as our allies, I suppose?  If they are foreign, then they are opponents (not enemies).  The "Russia Is Evil" meme ... we have seen before.  It was wrong then and wrong now.  They are opponents, same as men playing poker.  But for some people, it is like playing cards in the old West ... if we don't like the hand we are dealt, lets shoot the other guys at the card table, swipe up the kitty, jump on our horse, and vamoose before the Sheriff catches us.   People have been calling for genocide of the Russians, ever since De Tocqueville correctly labeled the US and Russia as hegemons.

Are you spinning out of control again?  I said I "suspect".  Meaning an idea worth considering.  I have no conclusions about that, just concerns that may or may not be shown accurate,. 
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: SGOS on March 24, 2017, 08:46:44 AM
Congress votes on 'repeal and replace' today. In spite of the media hype about it being in trouble, I'm betting it passes.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Cavebear on March 24, 2017, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: SGOS on March 24, 2017, 08:46:44 AM
Congress votes on 'repeal and replace' today. In spite of the media hype about it being in trouble, I'm betting it passes.

I'll bet it is  delayed again.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on March 24, 2017, 10:06:37 AM
Personally I doubt that the Rs will impeach Trump. Another thing many people miss is that our law doesn't allow for the prosecution of a sitting president so he can't be put on trial as a sitting president. If he's impeached his lacky from Indiana will most certainly pardon him which also insulates him from prosecution.
Now, if he serves out a full term and is defeated in 2020 he then becomes a private citizen again and CAN BE prosecuted for all kinds of shit..
He might become the first former president to ever go to prison. Just the thought of that gives me a hardon to almost hope he's not impeached.   
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 24, 2017, 12:57:47 PM
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 24, 2017, 10:06:37 AM
Personally I doubt that the Rs will impeach Trump. Another thing many people miss is that our law doesn't allow for the prosecution of a sitting president so he can't be put on trial as a sitting president. If he's impeached his lacky from Indiana will most certainly pardon him which also insulates him from prosecution.
Now, if he serves out a full term and is defeated in 2020 he then becomes a private citizen again and CAN BE prosecuted for all kinds of shit..
He might become the first former president to ever go to prison. Just the thought of that gives me a hardon to almost hope he's not impeached.

Arrest all living former Presidents for war crimes ... send to The Hague for trial and punishment.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 24, 2017, 12:58:15 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2017, 07:41:50 AM
I directly quoted your post ... it included ...
"I suspect Trump is contaminated by Russian influence and we simply can't have that."

You are a conspiracy theorist ... of the D-party meme of the moment.  Obama met with the Russians as part of his duties, so have D party members.  Are you calling for their impeachment, or only the current President or R party members?  Inconsistent, and paranoid.  While the clear influence of foreign powers (the horror, clutching my worry beads) is all over ... see Israel or Saudi Arabia.  But you consider those POS as our allies, I suppose?  If they are foreign, then they are opponents (not enemies).  The "Russia Is Evil" meme ... we have seen before.  It was wrong then and wrong now.  They are opponents, same as men playing poker.  But for some people, it is like playing cards in the old West ... if we don't like the hand we are dealt, lets shoot the other guys at the card table, swipe up the kitty, jump on our horse, and vamoose before the Sheriff catches us.   People have been calling for genocide of the Russians, ever since De Tocqueville correctly labeled the US and Russia as hegemons.

(http://i.imgur.com/COnc57H.jpg)
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 24, 2017, 01:00:34 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 24, 2017, 08:45:05 AM
Are you spinning out of control again?  I said I "suspect".  Meaning an idea worth considering.  I have no conclusions about that, just concerns that may or may not be shown accurate,.

Dissimulation ... as a D nut ... you probably think that Trump gets signals direct from Putin thru his tooth fillings ;-)  Which day of the week do you worship the D-President, God of the Week?  As bad as any sports fan fanatic ... oh, I did see that thread where the Baseball Klavern met.  You were in attendance ;-)
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on March 24, 2017, 01:58:50 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2017, 12:57:47 PM
Arrest all living former Presidents for war crimes ... send to The Hague for trial and punishment.
No, we like war too much as long as it's not in our front yard killing our perfectly manicured lawns and upsetting the bird baths.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: trdsf on March 24, 2017, 02:41:00 PM
Well, the best strategy today for the Dems in the AHCA vote is to just sit there quietly and let the GOP consume itself in recriminations.  Right now 36 GOP reps have declared against, and 22 were enough to stop the bill.  First Asshole tweets to 'pass it or be stuck with Obamacare forever', then he attacks the so-called "Freedom" Caucus for not blindly backing it, then he lets it be known that he doesn't like the AHCA anyway... so I guess it's okay for him to not support what he's demanding his party support.

Paul Ryan is reported to be at the White House, ahead of the vote scheduled for 3:30pm EST, explaining (probably in words of one syllable and maybe with puppets) that the votes aren't there.  And wouldn't it be interesting to be a fly on the wall in that little tete-a-tete.

I'll be over here, making popcorn.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: SGOS on March 24, 2017, 02:51:08 PM
Quote from: trdsf on March 24, 2017, 02:41:00 PM
Right now 36 GOP reps have declared against, and 22 were enough to stop the bill.
I didn't realize that many Rs opposed the bill, so I'm considering dropping my offer to takes odds on its passage.  Although, I do think many of those 36 were just using a negotiating tactic.  Republicans are very good at lining up.  Well, at least when it comes to opposing Democrats.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: trdsf on March 24, 2017, 03:16:35 PM
Right now, both The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/322903-the-hills-whip-list-where-republicans-stand-on-obamacare-repeal-plan) and the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/20/us/politics/100000005000041.mobile.html) have 42 no/likely no (The Hill has 36 definite 6 likely, the NYT has 33 definite, 9 likely).  The Hill has 33 uncertain to the Times' 46, and 105 yes/likely yes to the Times' 149.  The only way to salvage the vote is not only to re-convince half the noes, but hold all the undecideds.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 24, 2017, 04:21:30 PM
The bill won't pass. It's not Draconian enough.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: SGOS on March 24, 2017, 05:42:22 PM
Yep, it was such a lost cause that they didn't even bother to vote.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: PopeyesPappy on March 24, 2017, 06:42:34 PM
Quote from: SGOS on March 24, 2017, 05:42:22 PM
Yep, it was such a lost cause that they didn't even bother to vote.

Drump is blaming the Dems for the Republican failure to get this passed despite their control of the house, senate and presidency. He says he is going to wait for the ACA to implode so the Dems will have to come to him to fix it.

That being said that the Dems did admit during the campaign there were problems with the ACA. Most of us know that. The republicans tried but couldn't get their plan through their own party. Know I'd like to know the democrat's plan to fix it. I don't expect them to produce one though. The next time I expect any of the Dems to even talk about fixing the ACA will be in the next election cycle. I don't expect to hear an actual plan then.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 24, 2017, 06:44:46 PM
Quote from: trdsf on March 24, 2017, 02:41:00 PM
Well, the best strategy today for the Dems in the AHCA vote is to just sit there quietly and let the GOP consume itself in recriminations.  Right now 36 GOP reps have declared against, and 22 were enough to stop the bill.  First Asshole tweets to 'pass it or be stuck with Obamacare forever', then he attacks the so-called "Freedom" Caucus for not blindly backing it, then he lets it be known that he doesn't like the AHCA anyway... so I guess it's okay for him to not support what he's demanding his party support.

Paul Ryan is reported to be at the White House, ahead of the vote scheduled for 3:30pm EST, explaining (probably in words of one syllable and maybe with puppets) that the votes aren't there.  And wouldn't it be interesting to be a fly on the wall in that little tete-a-tete.

I'll be over here, making popcorn.

It would be great, being a failure, that Rep Ryan resign from head of the House.  Would love to see his backside ... with switch welts.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 24, 2017, 06:46:21 PM
Quote from: SGOS on March 24, 2017, 02:51:08 PM
I didn't realize that many Rs opposed the bill, so I'm considering dropping my offer to takes odds on its passage.  Although, I do think many of those 36 were just using a negotiating tactic.  Republicans are very good at lining up.  Well, at least when it comes to opposing Democrats.

You haven't been paying attention.  Republicans like ACA just fine, it was, is, and will remain, a Trojan Horse Republican plan.  This is Kabuki, and you are completely fooled.  I don't know if Trump actually wants to change that, or is simply going along with the Smoke & Mirrors.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 24, 2017, 06:47:29 PM
Quote from: trdsf on March 24, 2017, 03:16:35 PM
Right now, both The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/322903-the-hills-whip-list-where-republicans-stand-on-obamacare-repeal-plan) and the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/20/us/politics/100000005000041.mobile.html) have 42 no/likely no (The Hill has 36 definite 6 likely, the NYT has 33 definite, 9 likely).  The Hill has 33 uncertain to the Times' 46, and 105 yes/likely yes to the Times' 149.  The only way to salvage the vote is not only to re-convince half the noes, but hold all the undecideds.

There will be a Peyton Place drama, to entertain the voters, every week.  Stay tuned ... same Bat Shit Time, same Bat Shit Channel.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 24, 2017, 06:49:28 PM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 24, 2017, 06:42:34 PM
Drump is blaming the Dems for the Republican failure to get this passed despite their control of the house, senate and presidency. He says he is going to wait for the ACA to implode so the Dems will have to come to him to fix it.

That being said that the Dems did admit during the campaign there were problems with the ACA. Most of us know that. The republicans tried but couldn't get their plan through their own party. Know I'd like to know the democrat's plan to fix it. I don't expect them to produce one though. The next time I expect any of the Dems to even talk about fixing the ACA will be in the next election cycle. I don't expect to hear an actual plan then.

You didn't nominate Bernie.  Bernie would have beaten Trump.  It is actually all the fault of the Dem primary voters.  But don't expect Single Payer from your psycho party of choice ... that would make Hillary and Barak cry.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 24, 2017, 06:51:10 PM
Meanwhile ... as your ACA district drops to just one provider, as that provider ups premiums and ups the deductible .. expect to file for bankruptcy ... oh, can't do that, Clinton and Bush Jr got rid of welfare and bankruptcy.  Fools!
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: SGOS on March 24, 2017, 09:01:55 PM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 24, 2017, 06:42:34 PM
Drump is blaming the Dems for the Republican failure to get this passed despite their control of the house, senate and presidency. He says he is going to wait for the ACA to implode so the Dems will have to come to him to fix it.

That being said that the Dems did admit during the campaign there were problems with the ACA. Most of us know that. The republicans tried but couldn't get their plan through their own party. Know I'd like to know the democrat's plan to fix it. I don't expect them to produce one though. The next time I expect any of the Dems to even talk about fixing the ACA will be in the next election cycle. I don't expect to hear an actual plan then.

They will spin it to their constituents as "we tried", and blame the Democrats.  But most of all it will give them the excuse to do what politicians like to do most (nothing), especially if it's the least bit controversial, and not repealing ACA or leaving their fingerprints on it, they can blame Obama for his "curse on the American people" for as long as their supporters cheer when they do.  It should work out well for them.  Do nothing but still get to bitch about liberals.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Sylar on March 24, 2017, 09:22:25 PM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 24, 2017, 06:42:34 PM
Drump is blaming the Dems for the Republican failure to get this passed despite their control of the house, senate and presidency. He says he is going to wait for the ACA to implode so the Dems will have to come to him to fix it.

That being said that the Dems did admit during the campaign there were problems with the ACA. Most of us know that. The republicans tried but couldn't get their plan through their own party. Know I'd like to know the democrat's plan to fix it. I don't expect them to produce one though. The next time I expect any of the Dems to even talk about fixing the ACA will be in the next election cycle. I don't expect to hear an actual plan then.

I hope Democrats do not put any plans out. If they fix it, Trump will take credit, so screw that.

Next election cycle it is.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 24, 2017, 10:10:11 PM
Quote from: Sylar on March 24, 2017, 09:22:25 PM
I hope Democrats do not put any plans out. If they fix it, Trump will take credit, so screw that.

Next election cycle it is.
Wrong answer. Healthcare is just an "issue," until you need it. The situation has to be remedied. But the Dracorian bill, that the Republicans put on the table, is exactly the opposite of what is needed. The  working poor can't afford to get sick, or they will be in debt for life(assuming anyone will help them). I don't care who tries to take credit for it, but for Christ's sake....
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Cavebear on March 24, 2017, 11:35:02 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 24, 2017, 08:49:10 AM
I'll bet it is  delayed again.

Got THAT ONE 100%
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Cavebear on March 24, 2017, 11:40:09 PM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 24, 2017, 10:10:11 PM
Wrong answer. Healthcare is just an "issue," until you need it. The situation has to be remedied. But the Dracorian bill, that the Republicans put on the table, is exactly the opposite of what is needed. The  working poor can't afford to get sick, or they will be in debt for life(assuming anyone will help them). I don't care who tries to take credit for it, but for Christ's sake....

The Republicans are discovering that real votes to pass something are different than votes in protest with no consequences.  Their question now is, can they govern?  The likely answer is that they are so fractured that they can't. 
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: trdsf on March 25, 2017, 12:34:27 AM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 24, 2017, 10:10:11 PM
Wrong answer. Healthcare is just an "issue," until you need it. The situation has to be remedied. But the Dracorian bill, that the Republicans put on the table, is exactly the opposite of what is needed. The  working poor can't afford to get sick, or they will be in debt for life(assuming anyone will help them). I don't care who tries to take credit for it, but for Christ's sake....
Granted, but while the ACA isn't perfect, it is functional.  It got me coverage for the first time in 15 years when it went active.  The alleged horrible premium increases that they wail about?  They affect only 3% of the population (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/09/us/politics/who-is-really-affected-by-rising-obamacare-premiums.html?_r=0).  The ACA is not imploding, collapsing, or 'entering a death spiral', and just holding the line until adults can be put in charge in Washington will be vastly better than trying to work out a replacement under the current regime, whom we know by their own actions are not in the slightest interested in any useful reform whatsoever.

If the GOP has a plan for reining in medical costs, as far as I can see it's to hope that we all die before we're old enough to qualify for Medicaid -- or at least what's left of it by the time they're done raping it.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Cavebear on March 25, 2017, 12:56:21 AM
Quote from: trdsf on March 25, 2017, 12:34:27 AM
Granted, but while the ACA isn't perfect, it is functional.  It got me coverage for the first time in 15 years when it went active.  The alleged horrible premium increases that they wail about?  They affect only 3% of the population (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/09/us/politics/who-is-really-affected-by-rising-obamacare-premiums.html?_r=0).  The ACA is not imploding, collapsing, or 'entering a death spiral', and just holding the line until adults can be put in charge in Washington will be vastly better than trying to work out a replacement under the current regime, whom we know by their own actions are not in the slightest interested in any useful reform whatsoever.

If the GOP has a plan for reining in medical costs, as far as I can see it's to hope that we all die before we're old enough to qualify for Medicaid -- or at least what's left of it by the time they're done raping it.

Yeah, the Republican plan is "If you are poor, its your fault.  Get sick and die.  But only after you stop working for us and as soon as possible, please."
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 25, 2017, 01:19:43 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 24, 2017, 11:40:09 PM
The Republicans are discovering that real votes to pass something are different than votes in protest with no consequences.  Their question now is, can they govern?  The likely answer is that they are so fractured that they can't.

This is why the "no confidence vote" that parliamentary systems, is such a good idea, unlike the American system.  When the legislature can clearly not govern (which has gone on for years now) ... we get to run elections again for all incumbents.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Cavebear on March 25, 2017, 01:50:59 AM
Quote from: Baruch on March 25, 2017, 01:19:43 AM
This is why the "no confidence vote" that parliamentary systems, is such a good idea, unlike the American system.  When the legislature can clearly not govern (which has gone on for years now) ... we get to run elections again for all incumbents.

Try convincing a Nebraska farmer that we should adopt the British system of government.    LOL!
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 25, 2017, 08:56:56 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 25, 2017, 01:50:59 AM
Try convincing a Nebraska farmer that we should adopt the British system of government.    LOL!

Shoot the colonials, until they swear allegiance to King George III.  Also the British have dropped that ancient rule, recently.  Their politicians are getting as evil as ours.  Thanks PM Cameron.  Now they are scheduling regular elections rather than ... have to have one every X years, but if things are buggered up, then call an election immediately.  Also not an election for the PM, you know, for the entire legislature, of which the PM is the head of the majority party (or party coalition).

Americans are stuck on Presidency because of Washington, and he has been dead since 1799.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: PopeyesPappy on March 25, 2017, 10:10:33 AM
Quote from: trdsf on March 25, 2017, 12:34:27 AM
Granted, but while the ACA isn't perfect, it is functional.  It got me coverage for the first time in 15 years when it went active.  The alleged horrible premium increases that they wail about?  They affect only 3% of the population (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/09/us/politics/who-is-really-affected-by-rising-obamacare-premiums.html?_r=0).  The ACA is not imploding, collapsing, or 'entering a death spiral', and just holding the line until adults can be put in charge in Washington will be vastly better than trying to work out a replacement under the current regime, whom we know by their own actions are not in the slightest interested in any useful reform whatsoever.

If the GOP has a plan for reining in medical costs, as far as I can see it's to hope that we all die before we're old enough to qualify for Medicaid -- or at least what's left of it by the time they're done raping it.

I'm skeptical of the affect only 3% of the population claim. They affect me, and I'm middle class so I don't see how they couldn't affect other middle income families.

I've been at my current job for 5 years. I'm lucky because I'm single, the company has decent medical insurance and pays 100% of the employees premiums. Those premiums have increased 300% in the five years I've been here. That increase affects every employee even if we don't pay them directly. There is less money available for salaries and other fringe benefits. There is less profit available for use by the impoverished American Indian tribe that owns us. The company pays nothing for dependent coverage. That 300% increase has put family coverage under our company policy out of reach for many of our employees. Those people are screwed.

My job is in no way guaranteed either. I could be out of work next month. I could probably go back to doing what I was doing before, but I'd be making half of what I make now. That would still be enough to make me ineligible for assistance under the ACA though. Five years ago I paid for my own health insurance. My policy was similar to what I have now. My annual premium was about $230 a month. A couple of weeks ago I pulled quotes for a similar policy. The monthly premium for someone my age 5 years ago was $967 a month. That's a 420% increase. A policy for someone my age now was over $1200 a month. That's a 522% percent increase in 5 years.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 25, 2017, 11:49:29 AM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 25, 2017, 10:10:33 AM
I'm skeptical of the affect only 3% of the population claim. They affect me, and I'm middle class so I don't see how they couldn't affect other middle income families.

I've been at my current job for 5 years. I'm lucky because I'm single, the company has decent medical insurance and pays 100% of the employees premiums. Those premiums have increased 300% in the five years I've been here. That increase affects every employee even if we don't pay them directly. There is less money available for salaries and other fringe benefits. There is less profit available for use by the impoverished American Indian tribe that owns us. The company pays nothing for dependent coverage. That 300% increase has put family coverage under our company policy out of reach for many of our employees. Those people are screwed.

My job is in no way guaranteed either. I could be out of work next month. I could probably go back to doing what I was doing before, but I'd be making half of what I make now. That would still be enough to make me ineligible for assistance under the ACA though. Five years ago I paid for my own health insurance. My policy was similar to what I have now. My annual premium was about $230 a month. A couple of weeks ago I pulled quotes for a similar policy. The monthly premium for someone my age 5 years ago was $967 a month. That's a 420% increase. A policy for someone my age now was over $1200 a month. That's a 522% percent increase in 5 years.

You must be a liar ... the Obama-bots gave free everything, not just free health insurance, to one and all, and we can't see that because the Republicans are evil Svengalis ;-)

In my case, I have always paid part of the premium, and my company paid part.  After ACA .. our plan changed, and my monthly contribution doubled, and the deductible doubled.  To the Obama-bots, that can't be blamed on the ACA and the super-Dems ... my employer is to blame (for reducing our Cadillac Plan as per requirements of the ACA).  Right now the ACA is crashing into failure ... just not immediately this week.  One insurance catchment area at a time ... until you have only one ACA insurer, then none.

The model for health insurance is a failure, mathematically.  It can only survive by direct Treasure subsidy to billions of dollars per year, same as Medicare and Medicaid.  Having private companies as intermediaries, only complicates it and makes it more expensive.  Single payer will be simpler and cheaper, but it will still fail.  Infinite money is necessary to cover hypochondriac ape men.  People don't understand that this kind of insurance makes no mathematical sense, because they don't understand how the FED/Treasury does what it does either.

Another POV ... that the actual cost, averaged, is about $1 per say, so if the evil government just would cut everyone a check for $365 per year, and regulate/strangle the pharma companies and the AMA (let doctors work for $15 per hour) and the hospitals ... then actual health care can be paid for, not just insurance.  This is the Socialist conspiracy theory model.  Which is actually fed by the fact that Big Pharma is evil.

And no, ACA may be renamed, but it won't be repealed.  The bipartisan position, is to destroy the American people.  We are the Vietnamese, and any President we have is LBJ.  The war is against most Americans and all other "little people".  I can't wait for the final extermination of humanity ... if I am right.  I hope I am wrong, but it increasingly seems I am right ;-((
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: reasonist on March 25, 2017, 10:39:10 PM
Quote from: fencerider on March 02, 2017, 12:39:23 AM
there is no such thing as an attack on Trump's intellect. He really is that stupid.

Tax cuts on the wealthy has yet to produce any benefit for regular folk.

I read the ACA. Some things seemed kinda dumb until I learned that the idiot democrats allowed insurance companies to write most of it. The 80/20 rule for medical insurance is a good thing. It should also be applied to hospitals. Without prosecuting big pharma for profiteering and putting price controls on their crap, there will never be affordable health care. It is also about 90% improbable that we can have affordable health care while insurance companies are given a seat at the table when fixing the health care laws.

The investigation of Trump's connection to Russia that started before the election are still on going. Eventually Congress may become suspicious enough to order him to hand over his tax papers. Not going to count on that though. Paul Ryan said a couple weeks ago that he wasnt required to release his tax papers and that they wouldn't ask him to. If he is forced to release his taxes, it could be a game changer for his reelection

Why not approach health care like ALL other developed countries that have universal health care? Privatized health care will never work because it is for profit. It's a business where shareholders have to be kept happy. That means to maximize profits and patient care suffers. It is impossible to have maximum profits AND the best care for the sick. It's either one or the other.
The US is spending almost 18% of it's GDP on health care (and yet has the lowest life expectancy, highest infant mortality and highest drug prices). That amounts to 3.5 trillion dollars a year! Canada and the EURO region spends 10.4% of their GDP on health care (France which has the best health care in the world spends 11.5). If the US would adapt universal health care it surely would bring down the percentage to international levels, say 11% average. That would mean savings of 1.3 trillion dollars a year!!!
The US is the ONLY developed country without universal health care and it shows. Double the money spent and less coverage and care. It just makes no sense at all! While systems in other (developed) countries are not perfect, they are still far superior to the US! Somebody has to have the balls to point that out in the public discourse!
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: PopeyesPappy on March 25, 2017, 11:53:40 PM
Quote from: reasonist on March 25, 2017, 10:39:10 PM
Why not approach health care like ALL other developed countries that have universal health care? Privatized health care will never work because it is for profit. It's a business where shareholders have to be kept happy. That means to maximize profits and patient care suffers. It is impossible to have maximum profits AND the best care for the sick. It's either one or the other.
The US is spending almost 18% of it's GDP on health care (and yet has the lowest life expectancy, highest infant mortality and highest drug prices). That amounts to 3.5 trillion dollars a year! Canada and the EURO region spends 10.4% of their GDP on health care (France which has the best health care in the world spends 11.5). If the US would adapt universal health care it surely would bring down the percentage to international levels, say 11% average. That would mean savings of 1.3 trillion dollars a year!!!
The US is the ONLY developed country without universal health care and it shows. Double the money spent and less coverage and care. It just makes no sense at all! While systems in other (developed) countries are not perfect, they are still far superior to the US! Somebody has to have the balls to point that out in the public discourse!

Implementing a single payer system in the US would probably be a lot harder than most think it would be. For one thing just eleminating the profits of the insurance providers, hospitals and drug companies might help bring down costs a little but it wouldn't be enough. We'd still be spending a lot more on healthcare than most other countries. Too much to afford.

Only 18% of American Hospitals operate as for profit enterprises. 20% are government facilities, and 62% of American hospitals operate as non-profits. So in 82% of our hospitals there are no profit margins to cut. The 18% that do operate as for profits average a little less than a 9% margin. That means the most savings you could see cutting the profits of hospitals would be 1.62% of the total. Reality is it would be a lot less than that because hospital revenue doesn't account for 100% of the total cost.

Insurance companies operate at a lower margin than hospitals. According to some sources as low as 3.3%. But once again health insurance revenues aren't even close to 100% of the total so zeroing out those margins altogether might save another 1.6% of the total. Best case scenario we'd probably be looking at a 3% savings by getting rid of hospital and health insurance profits. Maybe none at all if the government can't manage billing and payments at least as efficiently as the for profits.

US pharmaceutical companies averaged a 23.5% margin last year, but drug costs account for less than 10% of total healthcare expenditures. So at the most we'd be looking at a 2.35% savings off the bottom line. Add all those profits together and we'd be looking at a maximum savings of maybe 6%. That would have brought last years per capita healthcare expansive down from $10,335 to $9,715. It is something but not nearly enough to supply healthcare to Americans that don't currently get any without raising the overall cost.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Cavebear on March 26, 2017, 02:17:45 AM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 25, 2017, 11:53:40 PM
Implementing a single payer system in the US would probably be a lot harder than most think it would be. For one thing just eleminating the profits of the insurance providers, hospitals and drug companies might help bring down costs a little but it wouldn't be enough. We'd still be spending a lot more on healthcare than most other countries. Too much to afford.

Only 18% of American Hospitals operate as for profit enterprises. 20% are government facilities, and 62% of American hospitals operate as non-profits. So in 82% of our hospitals there are no profit margins to cut. The 18% that do operate as for profits average a little less than a 9% margin. That means the most savings you could see cutting the profits of hospitals would be 1.62% of the total. Reality is it would be a lot less than that because hospital revenue doesn't account for 100% of the total cost.

Insurance companies operate at a lower margin than hospitals. According to some sources as low as 3.3%. But once again health insurance revenues aren't even close to 100% of the total so zeroing out those margins altogether might save another 1.6% of the total. Best case scenario we'd probably be looking at a 3% savings by getting rid of hospital and health insurance profits. Maybe none at all if the government can't manage billing and payments at least as efficiently as the for profits.

US pharmaceutical companies averaged a 23.5% margin last year, but drug costs account for less than 10% of total healthcare expenditures. So at the most we'd be looking at a 2.35% savings off the bottom line. Add all those profits together and we'd be looking at a maximum savings of maybe 6%. That would have brought last years per capita healthcare expansive down from $10,335 to $9,715. It is something but not nearly enough to supply healthcare to Americans that don't currently get any without raising the overall cost.

I think you are ignoring the costs of uninsured people who routinely depend on Emergency Rooms for basic medical help.  That is a very expensive way to provide medical care to the poor.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: SGOS on March 26, 2017, 05:13:25 AM
If universal health insurance is too expensive for the government to provide, does it get cheaper because a corporation provides it?  The first issue, usually of interest to conservatives, is how does it affect your personal wealth and the wealth of others?  If you are paying $14,000/year and additional $3000 more in deductibles and co-pays to a corporation, does it cost you more to pay for healthcare in taxes than it does as corporate premiums?  Those who get insurance through their employers, might think it's not costing them a dime, but somebody is paying it.  And its a burden to whoever that is.

The second issue is insurer chiseling, refusing to pay certain things, and the numerous exceptions that are not covered because it drives down the corporate target for the annual increase in profits. 

Remember the feared "death panels" invented by the Republicans when health care started to gain traction?  Those things are not fabrications.  They already exist in the corporate accounting departments.  Of course it's an exaggeration, just as the idea of government death panels was in 2008.

According to the Republicans, it only exists when the government pays the bills.  This is a claim for which I have never seen an ounce of evidence, yet it concerns every insured paying for private insurance.  The government Death Panels were brought up continually throughout the 2008 campaign, but was never once supported.  It became an article of common knowledge based on repetition and gullibility.  And the odd thing is that it has always been a part of the corporate structure, but somehow gets ignored by those who are ideologically opposed to a government service.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Cavebear on March 26, 2017, 05:25:28 AM
Quote from: SGOS on March 26, 2017, 05:13:25 AM
If universal health insurance is too expensive for the government to provide, does it get cheaper because a corporation provides it?  The first issue, usually of interest to conservatives, is how does it affect your personal wealth and the wealth of others?  If you are paying $14,000/year and additional $3000 more in deductibles and co-pays to a corporation, does it cost you more to pay for healthcare in taxes than it does as corporate premiums?  Those who get insurance through their employers, might think it's not costing them a dime, but somebody is paying it.  And its a burden to whoever that is.

The second issue is insurer chiseling, refusing to pay certain things, and the numerous exceptions that are not covered because it drives down the corporate target for the annual increase in profits. 

Remember the feared "death panels" invented by the Republicans when health care started to gain traction?  Those things are not fabrications.  They already exist in the corporate accounting departments.  Of course it's an exaggeration, just as the idea of government death panels was in 2008.

According to the Republicans, it only exists when the government pays the bills.  This is a claim for which I have never seen an ounce of evidence, yet it concerns every insured paying for private insurance.  The government Death Panels were brought up continually throughout the 2008 campaign, but was never once supported.  It became an article of common knowledge based on repetition and gullibility.  And the odd thing is that it has always been a part of the corporate structure, but somehow gets ignored by those who are ideologically opposed to a government service.

Yeah, the corporations have to make a profit for the owners, the government doesn't. And the govt can specify (as in ACA) , that certain basic services like pregnancy and pre-existing conditions be included.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: reasonist on March 26, 2017, 07:36:23 AM
Simple math: the US is spending 18% of it's GDP on health care with miserable results. The countries with universal healthcare spend around 10-11% of their GDP and EVERYBODY is covered for EVERYTHING! In numbers, the US would safe 1.4 trillion dollars a year with the same concept.
Too bad for insurance companies and their shareholders. Taking care of the sick should never be a 'business' in the first place!
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 26, 2017, 09:14:03 AM
Quote from: reasonist on March 25, 2017, 10:39:10 PM
Why not approach health care like ALL other developed countries that have universal health care? Privatized health care will never work because it is for profit. It's a business where shareholders have to be kept happy. That means to maximize profits and patient care suffers. It is impossible to have maximum profits AND the best care for the sick. It's either one or the other.
The US is spending almost 18% of it's GDP on health care (and yet has the lowest life expectancy, highest infant mortality and highest drug prices). That amounts to 3.5 trillion dollars a year! Canada and the EURO region spends 10.4% of their GDP on health care (France which has the best health care in the world spends 11.5). If the US would adapt universal health care it surely would bring down the percentage to international levels, say 11% average. That would mean savings of 1.3 trillion dollars a year!!!
The US is the ONLY developed country without universal health care and it shows. Double the money spent and less coverage and care. It just makes no sense at all! While systems in other (developed) countries are not perfect, they are still far superior to the US! Somebody has to have the balls to point that out in the public discourse!

Yes, make an intelligent choice about private vs public sector.  Sorry, will never happen in the US.  The Americans are European rejects who got kicked to a new continent filled will hostiles.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 26, 2017, 09:16:20 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 26, 2017, 02:17:45 AM
I think you are ignoring the costs of uninsured people who routinely depend on Emergency Rooms for basic medical help.  That is a very expensive way to provide medical care to the poor.

That used to not happen.  Before the 1980s emergency rooms could refuse care.  It was government intervention that changed that ... for the worse.  The best cure for the poor is to not have any ... either achieve the American Dream, or export the poor to the British Navy for pleasure cruises on the HMS Bounty.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 26, 2017, 09:18:23 AM
Quote from: reasonist on March 26, 2017, 07:36:23 AM
Simple math: the US is spending 18% of it's GDP on health care with miserable results. The countries with universal healthcare spend around 10-11% of their GDP and EVERYBODY is covered for EVERYTHING! In numbers, the US would safe 1.4 trillion dollars a year with the same concept.
Too bad for insurance companies and their shareholders. Taking care of the sick should never be a 'business' in the first place!

One good thing, when heath care spending reaches 100% of GDP, there won't be any more money for wars ;-)  Also the EU vs US or Canada vs US comparison is apples and oranges.  Our nations are not similar.  I do wish the US were more like Canada ... but not going to happen, eh?
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: SGOS on March 26, 2017, 10:09:48 AM
I had never heard of identity politics or thought about it until someone mentioned it as a reason why Democrats have done so poorly in the recent elections.  The idea behind identity politics is noble, but as a political strategy, it might be questionable.  It may be the weakness of the ACA.  It benefits a selected group and ignores everyone from the lower middle class up.  The only benefit to the population at large was that it would supposedly lower the cost of medical care by keeping the poor out of the emergency rooms, but I don't know of any studies that show it has worked that way.

It has been said that Social Security, and Medicare are insolvent.  That may or may not be true at current funding levels. But insolvent is often just a synonym for "I don't want to pay for it," and things have a way of becoming affordable when you need them.  But insolvent or not, SS and Medicare are politically successful because everyone gets to participate in them, not just the very poor.  Take away a Republican's Social Security and he's not going to like it.  "Keep your Hands Off My Social Security" posters at T-Bagger rallies attest to its popularity.

Everyone would benefit from a single payer government operated health insurance not just the poor or the youth.  Consequently, it should be more popular as long as it costs less than private insurance.  And when people complained about how much healthcare would increase taxes (Which it would because there really are no free lunches), I never heard any figure, even from the loudest opponents, that put the tax dollar increase anywhere near the ballpark of the current private costs.  I would hear things like, "Healthcare would increase taxes by $2000 a year.  I'd say to Hell with Government Health care if private insurers would sell it to me that cheap.  Well, maybe not. There are actually two issues to consider, cost and quality, and private insurance is not that good at either.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: PopeyesPappy on March 26, 2017, 10:50:20 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 26, 2017, 02:17:45 AM
I think you are ignoring the costs of uninsured people who routinely depend on Emergency Rooms for basic medical help.  That is a very expensive way to provide medical care to the poor.

I ignored over use of expensive emergency room services because I was specifically addressing how much savings we could expect if we cut the profits of hospitals, insurance providers and pharmaceutical companies from the equation. The answer to that question is there is some potential for for savings there but probably not as much as some would like to think. Eliminating profits alone isn't going to save our healthcare system. We are going to have to find savings in other areas too.

Reducing use of emergency room services is an area that is certainly worth looking at but would it really help the overall picture? I don't know the answer to that, but one of the members at AF.com recently linked to a study that fond no it wouldn't. According to their conclusions the reason it wouldn't reduce overall cost is simple. Giving access to healthcare services to people who currently don't have it results in those people using more healthcare services. So even though they are using less expensive healthcare services they use so many services that it more than offsets any savings from using the more expensive emergency room services.

Another area of possible savings is the cost of medical malpractice. Aroura linked a Forbes article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2010/09/07/the-true-cost-of-medical-malpractice-it-may-surprise-you/#345e70902ff5) on AF.com that said total annual cost of malpractice was $55 billion. They say that was 2.4% of expenditures for the year. Eliminate that altogether and add it to savings from eliminating profits and we are still looking at maximum savings of less than 8.5% of the total.

Baruch suggested (sarcastically I hope, but with Baruch I never can tell) that we pay doctors $15 an hour. That wouldn't work but there are ways we could look into to reduce their overhead expenses. One of these would be to reduce the expense of their education. When many doctors graduate from school they have hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans they have pay for. If we could reduce that expense we could reduce what they have to charge in order to earn a living. Just letting the government pay for it isn't really a solution because it just moves the expense from one area of the economy to another. In order to make it actually work we have to reduce the total cost of a medical education. That is a separate problem that is every bit as hard as reducing the cost of medical care.

We have to reduce the overall cost of our healthcare system because the current model is not sustainable. Actually doing that though isn't as easy as just proclaiming we are going to go to a single payer system.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 26, 2017, 11:26:59 AM
The problem with all Socialisms .. is that when people realize that they won't benefit, but their neighbor will (instead of all benefiting) ... they aren't so keen on it, and try to escape it (Brexit).  And yes, knowing when I mean what I say, and am merely pulling chains (as opposed to calling people %&$^% like Etienne) or just covering a bitter pill with humor (Cavebear lost his during his Winter nap) is how I operate.

You want people to be healthy?  Forget tinkering with insurance.  Then vote for dictatorship by Jack LaLanne.  That guy was crazy healthy into his senior years.  Make him dictator, and you can all pull a boat, by your teeth, while swimming in frigid San Fran Bay.  Everyone runs 5K every day.  No alcohol, no drugs, no sex, no tobacco, no weed ... full HS athlete stuff, 24x7.  No more eating wrong ... it is health food 3x a day.  No more staying up late.  No more missing doctor appointments or dental appointments.  See you can have nice things .. if you simply will give up your stupid freedom your ridiculous individuality.  As many Europeans have tried, several times.  And yes, in a dicatorship, doctors and everyone else, will do what they are told, and payed what the dictator chooses to pay them.  They will be considered lucky if the get $15 per hour.  See y'all notice Shiranu's draconian SJW solutions .. but you just aren't Marxist-Leninist enough (unlike Etienne).  Think of Lenin as a health/fitness nut.  Of course once you have your chosen dictator (Emperor Haile Obama) ... you don't get to unselect him.  If you like your MIC dictator, you can keep your MIC dictator.  And there is plenty of freedom .. the freedom to obey.  This is what happens when people ignore Benjamin Franklin.  To gain a rising standard of living, or avoid a declining standard of living, y'all are willing to have a cage strapped to your face, with a crazed rat in it ;-(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzjaUsIjsN4
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: reasonist on March 26, 2017, 11:43:26 AM
Quote from: Baruch on March 26, 2017, 09:18:23 AM
One good thing, when heath care spending reaches 100% of GDP, there won't be any more money for wars ;-)  Also the EU vs US or Canada vs US comparison is apples and oranges.  Our nations are not similar.  I do wish the US were more like Canada ... but not going to happen, eh?

Why not? Same humans, same diseases, same cures (or not). The problem is that the health of your citizens has been politicized. Too many interest groups, too many corporations lobbying for profit. It has become a partisan issue.
There are still 27 million people uninsured in the US, a disgrace for the most powerful nation on Earth! Despite that, 18 trillion dollars are spent every year on health care. Double the percentage of the GDP other nations spend where everybody is covered! Why? Because none of the parties in power has/had the gonads to say to hell with big corporations in the health care business, we take over and save over a trillion a year and have everybody covered!
The events of last week alone show very clearly that the system is not working. Obamacare is not working in the long run and the GOP can't even agree internally on an alternative. The people, who suffer through their wallet or being untreated at all, are the ones who put these clowns in power positions. They deserve better.
If something works in all other (developed) countries maybe it's time to reconsider the approach and adapt a similar system? To treat the sick for profit, is sick in itself!
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 26, 2017, 11:47:15 AM
Reasonist ... Well I know you pretty well, that in the Common Interest ... along with Shiranu you would side with dictatorship of the virtuous (includes you and Shiranu virtue signaling each other like Shea L).  Can't have the dictatorship of the anti-virtuous, right?  It is a black/white open/shut case in your favor.  I keep confusing you with Unbeliever ... but you live in Austria, if I recall correctly, or hale from there.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: reasonist on March 26, 2017, 12:09:41 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 26, 2017, 11:47:15 AM
Reasonist ... Well I know you pretty well, that in the Common Interest ... along with Shiranu you would side with dictatorship of the virtuous (includes you and Shiranu virtue signaling each other like Shea L).  Can't have the dictatorship of the anti-virtuous, right?  It is a black/white open/shut case in your favor.  I keep confusing you with Unbeliever ... but you live in Austria, if I recall correctly, or hale from there.
I live in Canada for 36 years, originally from Austria.
Why does it have to be a dictatorship? You saying that France or Italy or Germany is a dictatorship? Why not copy what works everywhere else??? Is your mandatory car insurance dictatorship? If you don't have house insurance, it's your problem when it burns to the ground. If you have a heart attack and need emergency care, it's everybody's problem if you don't have coverage. Or maybe you get turned away and you die in a gully a slow death. That would be a choice too.
I know you well too, Baruch, and sometimes I question your logic. Especially when you claim that the US is different than any other country when it comes to health care for example. The only difference is greed and profiteering on the backs of the sick.
There should be only one overriding principle in every politicians decision making: What is best for the people!
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: PopeyesPappy on March 26, 2017, 12:44:10 PM
Alright, I'll try this one more time. Greed and profiteering are only part of the problem. A small part of the problem. Eliminating greed and profiteering completely, probably an impossible goal given human nature, wouldn't get us close to what most other countries spend on healthcare by itself. There are other issues contributing to cost, and they all need to be addressed. The black money hole that is our healthcare system took generations to dig. I doubt if it can be filled in overnight. Attempts to do so are more likely to end in disaster than success. We need to analyze the problem, come up with real solutions that don't include magic, i.e. simply declaring we are going to have a single payer system, and implement them over time. That will take years if not generations to do without running the risk of fucking everything up even worse than it is now.

According to the article I just read America spent $3.35 trillion on healthcare in 2016. According to them that's $10,335 per person. That's $3.35 trillion divided by everybody so it includes a bunch of people that needed reasonable healthcare, but didn't get it because they couldn't afford it. If they had gotten care the bottom line would have been larger. The article also said we could expect a 4.8% inflation rate for healthcare. Tie that to a 0.7% population growth rate and by 2050 we are looking at $20.9 trillion total and $50,886 each per year not including the percentage of people that don't get healthcare today. That is unsustainable so I guess we'd be safe calling it unreasonable.

So how do you determine what it would take to provide reasonable care for people? A large percentage of the cost is driven by care for old and dying people. A few years back we lost my 95 year old uncle. The bill for his healthcare the last for weeks of his life was probably more than the cost for the previous 95 years. Is that reasonable? Do we just tell our parents and grand parents sorry we can't afford you so just go home and die?

Do we just set an arbitrary number? Do we just say healthcare in Germany costs half of what it does here so we are going to set medicare taxes to raise $1.675 trillion (a huge fucking increase) and call it good? The revenue target might be reasonable, but I don't know if many of our healthcare providers could survive if we cut their revenues in half. I was at the smaller of our two local hospitals last Friday. While there I walked through the doctor's parking area. I was surprised by the large percentage of old Buicks and worn old Toyotas I saw. Our doctors and hospitals have to carry huge amounts of liability insurance to protect them. Many of the doctors graduate college with a medical degree and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of debt that most doctors in Germany don't have. How do we insure they make enough revenue to survive? Many healthcare providers, especially the young ones don't make so much money that they can afford to see their income cut in half. How do we protect them?

It's a complex problem. There is no easy way to implement a sustainable single payer system in the US without putting the health of our healthcare system at risk. It can be done, but it is going to require some fundamental changes in other areas such as education and tort reform. Changes like that take time and careful planning. I have my doubts whether or not our elected government is up to task even if they had the will.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 26, 2017, 01:21:31 PM
Reasonist - What is best for the people?  Move to Canada .. unfortunately we are sending you all of our Mexicans, and you are tossing them back, as too immature to catch and fry (fish).  Canada and the US are not alike, except superficially.  And no, Canada isn't an explicit dictatorship yet.  But all modern countries, including the US, are totalitarian since the middle of the 20th century.  You might not be aware of it .. because the symptoms happen to be things you favor.

Pops - People do magical thinking.  They don't reason, even the reasonable people don't, they rationalize their emotional sourced clap trap.  And then deny what they are doing, because their ego might get hurt.  And yes, legislation is always like working on a car, while it is moving down the highway.  The current situation is the result of 200+ years of accidents and road rage.  Think Road Warrior, but with nicer clothes.

Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: SGOS on March 26, 2017, 01:27:53 PM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 26, 2017, 12:44:10 PM
It's a complex problem. There is no easy way to implement a sustainable single payer system in the US without putting the health of our healthcare system at risk. It can be done, but it is going to require some fundamental changes in other areas such as education and tort reform. Changes like that take time and careful planning. I have my doubts whether or not our elected government is up to task even if they had the will.
Indeed, it's a complex issue with many factors involved.  There may be some that say a single payer insurance will solve all the problems, but I'm guessing most people realize there is more than that.  Obviously, we aren't going to address all the problems at once, and come up with a finalized plan with all the problems solved, but we should take steps, accept the fumbles and move forward. 

Our current political structure centers around congress doing something (albeit not very often), almost always in a partisan way, which will certainly not be perfect, and allowing the other side to do an "I told you so," and criticize.  Fixing the fumble is practically never the action taken.  The opposing side just points at it, and campaigns for the next election.  This helps preserve the status quo, a dynamic built into a corrupted self serving legislative body, without the good of the country as its primary goal.

Considering at how well we do this (doing nothing), the first danger of single payer I see would be passing it and then not taking additional steps.  Medical costs will go up since insuring everyone will drive up demand.  That's the human nature you referred to.  Doctors, hospitals, lawyers are going to want a bigger piece of the action.  I'm not sure how other countries deal with this.  God forbid we should actually go and ask them and get some advice and caution from our inferiors.  I don't mean they are losers, but that seems to be the typical egotistical American position.  We can't do it their way.  Heaven forbid!  Unfortunately the argument often ends there.  Not necessarily with that specific example of course.  What I'm saying is that arguments for preserving the status quo, a failing one at that, are often red herrings, and we need to evaluate those in ways not involving partisan ideologies.

I don't think we should throw out single payer, or even the ACA, on the grounds that we will fumble and make mistakes, but it's getting kind of late in the game, and we should be taking actions, one issue at a time, but lets not wait around until someone comes up with a perfect plan that correctly anticipates all possible problems.  And yes, I expect some people will have to make concessions and sacrifices, although much of it would be the fake sacrifice of letting go of a some utopian ideology that wasn't all that hot of an idea in the real world to begin with.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: reasonist on March 26, 2017, 01:32:21 PM
Your numbers are correct. That proves my point though. Every other country can do more for half the cost. If the US would spend as much or as little as other countries, it would save 1.4 trillion! And again, there should be coverage provided by the government for everybody! Private insurers can be competing with the government, but they won't be competitive because as a corporation your one and only goal is to provide profits to shareholders.
Our doctors drive fancy cars, I know for a fact. GPs with a private office get $ 75 per visit and in the case like my own, he/she can see 40 patients a day easily and mine does. You do the math for the year. Yes, a receptionist and the office with waiting room and 4 small rooms for consultation cost money. But there are no poor doctors in the land. Hospital doctors make even more but also are under more stress.
And it should be treated the same as car insurance. Government first, then private insurers to compete. That is the only healthy environment for consumers. Adjust premiums to the brake even point, no profits, no losses. If private companies can compete, they will get business. If not, they are done. Doctors in return will sign up with whoever pays them more, government or corporations.
Yes, the elderly cost more money than the young. But that's why it's called 'insurance'. I pay fire insurance for my house all my life but never used it. So I pay for somebody else. If I don't have children, I shouldn't have to pay for the education of other people's children. If I don't drive a car, I shouldn't have to pay for roads, etc etc. same principle.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 26, 2017, 01:44:03 PM
The US can do more ... if we redirect savings from DoD to HHS.  Then the government can pay more of the bill.  And we can force payment for certain prices (as they do in Canada but not in the US).  But we won't do that.

The Athenian democracy didn't work very well, nor did the Roman republic.  Both were hell on their opponents, particularly the Roman Mafia.  The Athenians (and Spartans) were too busy banging each other (the guys were).  Greeks prefer sex to violence, Romans prefer violence to sex.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: reasonist on March 26, 2017, 02:48:06 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 26, 2017, 01:44:03 PM
The US can do more ... if we redirect savings from DoD to HHS.  Then the government can pay more of the bill.  And we can force payment for certain prices (as they do in Canada but not in the US).  But we won't do that.

Couldn't agree more. But why won't the US do that?

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/26/sotu-sanders-to-introduce-medicare-for-all-bill.cnn
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: PopeyesPappy on March 26, 2017, 03:14:41 PM
Quote from: reasonist on March 26, 2017, 01:32:21 PM
Your numbers are correct. That proves my point though. Every other country can do more for half the cost. If the US would spend as much or as little as other countries, it would save 1.4 trillion! And again, there should be coverage provided by the government for everybody! Private insurers can be competing with the government, but they won't be competitive because as a corporation your one and only goal is to provide profits to shareholders.
Our doctors drive fancy cars, I know for a fact. GPs with a private office get $ 75 per visit and in the case like my own, he/she can see 40 patients a day easily and mine does. You do the math for the year. Yes, a receptionist and the office with waiting room and 4 small rooms for consultation cost money. But there are no poor doctors in the land. Hospital doctors make even more but also are under more stress.
And it should be treated the same as car insurance. Government first, then private insurers to compete. That is the only healthy environment for consumers. Adjust premiums to the brake even point, no profits, no losses. If private companies can compete, they will get business. If not, they are done. Doctors in return will sign up with whoever pays them more, government or corporations.
Yes, the elderly cost more money than the young. But that's why it's called 'insurance'. I pay fire insurance for my house all my life but never used it. So I pay for somebody else. If I don't have children, I shouldn't have to pay for the education of other people's children. If I don't drive a car, I shouldn't have to pay for roads, etc etc. same principle.

It doesn't prove your point at all because you don't have a solution for getting US prices on par with other countries. Cutting profits doesn't get us there. Throwing 100% of our defense budget on top of getting rid of profits doesn't get us there.

QuoteIf I don't have children, I shouldn't have to pay for the education of other people's children. If I don't drive a car, I shouldn't have to pay for roads, etc etc. same principle.

I don't know if you meant this like you wrote it or not, but I disagree with it the way it is written. Educating the next generations is everybody problem due to the problems that arise from not doing so. And unless you live off the grid in a sod house you cut from the earth with stone tools you fashioned yourself and grow all your own food you use the roads to get things you need even if you never leave the house.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: reasonist on March 26, 2017, 03:49:46 PM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 26, 2017, 03:14:41 PM
It doesn't prove your point at all because you don't have a solution for getting US prices on par with other countries. Cutting profits doesn't get us there. Throwing 100% of our defense budget on top of getting rid of profits doesn't get us there.

The answer to your point lays in all the other industrialized countries that have universal healthcare. One would think it would be prudent to copy what's successful everywhere else. But obviously that's too obvious.


As to your other point, I was explaining how insurance is supposed to work. Surely the younger generation has to pay for the older. No guarantee that this younger generation ever sees their 401Ks either and yet they pay in as 'insurance'. One day this younger generation will be the older generation and the next generation will pay for them. That's how the system is supposed to work and it does in all other industrialized countries.
Bernie Sanders explains exactly my sentiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVoC8e6JjbA

Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: PopeyesPappy on March 26, 2017, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: reasonist on March 26, 2017, 03:49:46 PM
The answer to your point lays in all the other industrialized countries that have universal healthcare. One would think it would be prudent to copy what's successful everywhere else. But obviously that's too obvious.

You are waving that magic wand I mentioned earlier. We can't simply copy what other countries are doing because that would destroy our economy. We have to reduce costs before implementing anything resembling a single payer system with healthcare available to everyone. The only way the government could implement a single payer system without reducing cost first would be to at least double tax revenue. That would destroy our economy and probably wouldn't be enough to add those who are currently without coverage anyway. We can't simply tell the providers you have to take half of what you get now either. That would cause most of them would go out of business. 10% of our workforce would be out of work, and no one here would have healthcare because there wouldn't be anyone to provide it. Tax revenue would plummet. We'd go into a depression that would make the last one look like a Christmas party and we'd be lucky if the US didn't become a third world shit hole.

I'm not saying that we can't or even shouldn't have a single payer system with healthcare available for everyone. I believe that is the way to go. I'm just trying to get you to understand that any attempt to implement such a system without reducing the costs associated with our healthcare system is doomed to spectacular failure. Simply coping what they do in Canada, the UK, Germany or France isn't going to work.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 26, 2017, 09:58:38 PM
Quote from: reasonist on March 26, 2017, 02:48:06 PM
Couldn't agree more. But why won't the US do that?

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/26/sotu-sanders-to-introduce-medicare-for-all-bill.cnn

US =  evil rejects from European slums.  Think Gangs Of New York.  But I am resigned to be proud of my criminality, and that of my fellow citizens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHVUPri5tjA

I am not ashamed of my Irish ancestors ... or any other ancestors either.  Early version of D vs R.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 26, 2017, 10:03:34 PM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 26, 2017, 08:00:09 PM
You are waving that magic wand I mentioned earlier. We can't simply copy what other countries are doing because that would destroy our economy. We have to reduce costs before implementing anything resembling a single payer system with healthcare available to everyone. The only way the government could implement a single payer system without reducing cost first would be to at least double tax revenue. That would destroy our economy and probably wouldn't be enough to add those who are currently without coverage anyway. We can't simply tell the providers you have to take half of what you get now either. That would cause most of them would go out of business. 10% of our workforce would be out of work, and no one here would have healthcare because there wouldn't be anyone to provide it. Tax revenue would plummet. We'd go into a depression that would make the last one look like a Christmas party and we'd be lucky if the US didn't become a third world shit hole.

I'm not saying that we can't or even shouldn't have a single payer system with healthcare available for everyone. I believe that is the way to go. I'm just trying to get you to understand that any attempt to implement such a system without reducing the costs associated with our healthcare system is doomed to spectacular failure. Simply coping what they do in Canada, the UK, Germany or France isn't going to work.

Killing off most of the undesirables in war and plague ... reduces the problem considerably.  And yes, people resist being enslaved, unless they are Europeans ;-)  Canada is simply more European than the US.  That isn't a bad thing, just means they are different.  Free trade works fine, if everyone is an impoverished Chinese and we are all using just one currency, the Yuan.  After the war, only the Chinese will be left, so we will get there, just be patient ;-(
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: reasonist on March 27, 2017, 12:18:47 AM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 26, 2017, 08:00:09 PM
I'm not saying that we can't or even shouldn't have a single payer system with healthcare available for everyone. I believe that is the way to go. I'm just trying to get you to understand that any attempt to implement such a system without reducing the costs associated with our healthcare system is doomed to spectacular failure. Simply coping what they do in Canada, the UK, Germany or France isn't going to work.

Rather sooner than later you won't have a choice. It won't be without major adjustments, but better an end with pain than pain without end. :-)
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 27, 2017, 06:40:42 AM
Quote from: reasonist on March 27, 2017, 12:18:47 AM
Rather sooner than later you won't have a choice. It won't be without major adjustments, but better an end with pain than pain without end. :-)

i am not far from natural termination.  I certainly don't want to live forever always getting older.  Just ask my Mom in the nursing home ;-(  But better than putting her on an ice flow with the other Eskimos.

History requires major adjustments.  Turns out, when you come out of the Matrix, disorientation results.  Followed by reOrientation, Chinese style.  We won't be adjusting to turning into Canada.  Maybe turn into Mexico instead.  Gangs of Juarez.  Depends on what the Tongs/Triads of Beijing want.  The fantasy of the Progressives, and their Manifest Destiny ... laughable if it did't hurt so much.  We don't live in the world we want (good and bad thing) ... such a thing is a denial of empiricism, and a childish wish fulfillment.  Maybe Santa will come down from the N Pole to Canada (first stop along with Russia and Norway and Iceland) and drop off more toys for y'all.

Reality are the slums of London, and Oliver Twist.  You  get your bowl of gruel, and don't ask for more, punk!
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: reasonist on March 27, 2017, 10:36:07 AM
Quote from: Baruch on March 27, 2017, 06:40:42 AM
i am not far from natural termination.  I certainly don't want to live forever always getting older.  Just ask my Mom in the nursing home ;-(  But better than putting her on an ice flow with the other Eskimos.

History requires major adjustments.  Turns out, when you come out of the Matrix, disorientation results.  Followed by reOrientation, Chinese style.  We won't be adjusting to turning into Canada.  Maybe turn into Mexico instead.  Gangs of Juarez.  Depends on what the Tongs/Triads of Beijing want.  The fantasy of the Progressives, and their Manifest Destiny ... laughable if it did't hurt so much.  We don't live in the world we want (good and bad thing) ... such a thing is a denial of empiricism, and a childish wish fulfillment.  Maybe Santa will come down from the N Pole to Canada (first stop along with Russia and Norway and Iceland) and drop off more toys for y'all.

Reality are the slums of London, and Oliver Twist.  You  get your bowl of gruel, and don't ask for more, punk!
I sense resignation, Baruch. Spinoza would turn in his grave...
What strikes me as very odd is the apathy of the American people. You pay double for way less than the rest of the developed world for health care. You are the only country in the western world with an actual decline in life expectancy! You pay more than double for prescription drugs than say Canada or European countries. But then you Yanks think you are sooo different from the rest of the world. Something that works everywhere else cannot be done in the US? It'll wreck the economy by saving trillions at the same time? 
I don't want to live forever either Baruch and I am right behind you and Mike, but until I kick the bucket I should have proper care for a proper price. While your Mom pays twice as much for drugs than I, big Pharma made 40 billion in profits last year in your neck of the woods! All on the backs of sick people. That seems to be perfectly all right, I don't see people by the millions in the streets demanding a better bang for their buck. All I see is political infighting to keep pretty much the status quo or make it even worse (Trump). Bernie got it right, and he has the balls to point out the obvious. Spending 18% of your GDP on LOUSY health care and that only for a part of your population is sheer insanity and unsustainable! THAT will wreck your economy, not unemployed insurance workers.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: SGOS on March 27, 2017, 12:16:02 PM
Quote from: reasonist on March 27, 2017, 10:36:07 AM
I sense resignation, Baruch. Spinoza would turn in his grave...
What strikes me as very odd is the apathy of the American people. You pay double for way less than the rest of the developed world for health care. You are the only country in the western world with an actual decline in life expectancy! You pay more than double for prescription drugs than say Canada or European countries. But then you Yanks think you are sooo different from the rest of the world. Something that works everywhere else cannot be done in the US? It'll wreck the economy by saving trillions at the same time? 
I don't want to live forever either Baruch and I am right behind you and Mike, but until I kick the bucket I should have proper care for a proper price. While your Mom pays twice as much for drugs than I, big Pharma made 40 billion in profits last year in your neck of the woods! All on the backs of sick people. That seems to be perfectly all right, I don't see people by the millions in the streets demanding a better bang for their buck. All I see is political infighting to keep pretty much the status quo or make it even worse (Trump). Bernie got it right, and he has the balls to point out the obvious. Spending 18% of your GDP on LOUSY health care and that only for a part of your population is sheer insanity and unsustainable! THAT will wreck your economy, not unemployed insurance workers.
This makes a lot of sense.  I guess I need to go back and read the post that says "what works for other countries can't work here."  I've read it once, but I'm still not understanding why.  I remember a few politicians saying it won't work here, and when I would hear them say that, I would lean in close, because I expected a reason to follow, and I'm really interested in the reason, but they didn't give one.  People seem to be satisfied with that.

Insurance companies give a lot of money to our politicians.  I understand that.  They are lobbying to keep their profits up.  Our premier program, Medicare, even offered to everyone, won't kill them, because to be fully covered for the big medical problems you still have to buy private insurance out of pocket.  For me that's $200/month and has doubled in the last three years, and basic Medicare most people supplement with Part B (another $100 out of pocket) and/or Part D. I opt out of Part D, however.  Private insurers might have to tighten their belts, but that wouldn't put them out of business.  I don't know what other part of the economy would be hurt other than insurance companies.

Yes, there are other things we need to do in healthcare, although politicians don't like to do things.  Things that could be done are mostly political footballs to be used in campaigns in their view.  But they could be done.  A Canadian once told me, they went through pretty much the same debates before they passed their program, but we can't get past the debate.  It's become part of the status quo and a hot button issue to keep the voters riled up for election day.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 27, 2017, 12:51:14 PM
Some people are Europeans in Europe.  Fewer people are Europeans in Canada.  But even fewer people are Europeans in the US.  This isn't a matter of Platonic argumentation, it is cultural.  All Americans are millionaires or wanna-be millionaires.  We all want to pay more not less for everything.  A $100,000 Rolls is 10x better than a $10,000 used Ford.  If we attack the rich, we are being jealous peasants (aka Europeans).  We want to overpay, we believe in Lotto, and conspicuous consumption.  That the more toys you have when you die, the better.  And yes, there are bargain hunters (who follow fake marketing).  If we could clip coupons to bet 10 cents off of $100 of medical care, we would be all over that .. forgetting that the actual medical care is only worth $10 to begin with.  Americans are crazy optimists, not crazy pessimists.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Sorginak on March 27, 2017, 07:12:34 PM
Let us just be absolutely honest.

Americans want to be greedy.

There has to be something stated for a country that allows greed to drop its reputation in ratings.

When it comes to health care in America, we have created for ourselves a system whereby doctors are still getting paid despite people being unable to pay for health care.  Certainly, that keeps the doctors rich, but it bankrupts the country.  That is not how it should work. 

Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Sorginak on March 27, 2017, 07:23:09 PM
Okay, so my boyfriend has this to state: We don't have universal health care in America because insurance companies would no longer be in business. 
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: SGOS on March 27, 2017, 10:03:49 PM
Quote from: Sorginak on March 27, 2017, 07:23:09 PM
Okay, so my boyfriend has this to state: We don't have universal health care in America because insurance companies would no longer be in business. 
Yeah, that pretty much nails it.  Sign him up for the forum.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Cavebear on March 28, 2017, 02:51:24 AM
The idea that health care COULD expand to all absorb all resources IS a possibility.  That equally can't be allowed to happen. 
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 28, 2017, 07:24:49 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 28, 2017, 02:51:24 AM
The idea that health care COULD expand to all absorb all resources IS a possibility.  That equally can't be allowed to happen.

That won't literally happen, but it might get to 90%.  Quibble over percentages, while you are ripping the last bread crumb from your starving neighbor's fingers.  So who is it that allows X or disallows Y ... Obama in his Cheney bunker?
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Sylar on March 28, 2017, 05:25:33 PM
Not sure how reliable this is, considering it hasn't been picked up by major news outlets:

McConnell: ObamaCare 'status quo' will stay in place moving forward (http://"http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/326165-mcconnell-obamacare-status-quo-will-stay-in-place-moving-forward")

Quite surprising from the man who essentially founded modern obstructionist-partisan politics.

You know, wherever you stand on the issue of US health care, it is mind boggling that GOP spent seven years (since March 2010) complaining about ACA, meaning they had seven years to fine-tune their own plan. Instead, they put together a bill in a couple of weeks, blew it through committees, only to watch it die in the House for lack of votes. The incompetence is staggering.

I can only conclude from this that they never had a plan. It was always much easier to be against whatever Obama was for. If Obama said the sky was blue, they'd say it's red. In their moment of truth, they collapsed.

That is because ACA was a Republican plan. It was Newt Gingrich plan to stop "Health Czar" Hillary Clinton in the 90s from coming up with single-payer plan. It was an alternative that didn't get rid of insurance companies and allowed them to still make money, but gave a form of universal coverage. It was first tested in MA, by GOP governor Mitt Romney. And that's why Obama proposed it: he figured Republicans wouldn't vote against their own plan. But he was wrong; the fact that he agreed with them made it wrong.

And the problem now? Republicans came up with their best plan (ACA) and now have to oppose their very own plan, and have nothing further to propose. A classic hoist with your own petard.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Sylar on March 28, 2017, 05:30:37 PM
Quote from: Sorginak on March 27, 2017, 07:23:09 PM
Okay, so my boyfriend has this to state: We don't have universal health care in America because insurance companies would no longer be in business.

Yes, exactly. Money talks. Also, Ds are very keen on compromise, and just basically need to grow some fucking claws.

Our country pays more per capita for health care than most of western world (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita"), and it does so without a correspondingly good set of outcomes (life expectancy (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy), infant mortality rate (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate")). In other words, shit's not workin'.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Unbeliever on March 28, 2017, 05:41:06 PM
Quote from: Sylar on March 23, 2017, 02:50:59 PM
The point is ACA had no hope of ever being a success with all GOP hurdles in past 8 years, yet you are blaming Obama and those who drafted ACA. Sure, they did not write 100% foolproof legislation, but it is the job of our elected officials to fix existing legislation rather than to inform us of its shortcomings, then spend 6 years not only doing nothing to fix it but also making sure it fails even further.

Which brings us to my OP:
-President gets blamed for everything and anything during his tenure.
-Democrats must ensure Trump fails at all costs because, well, president gets blamed for everything and anything.
No one seems to remember what the GOP did to undermine the ACA:

Marco Rubio Quietly Undermines Affordable Care Act (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-obamacare-affordable-care-act.html?_r=0)

QuoteThe risk corridors were intended to help some insurance companies if they ended up with too many new sick people on their rolls and too little cash from premiums to cover their medical bills in the first three years under the health law. But because of Mr. Rubio’s efforts, the administration says it will pay only 13 percent of what insurance companies were expecting to receive this year. The payments were supposed to help insurers cope with the risks they assumed when they decided to participate in the law’s new insurance marketplaces.

Mr. Rubio’s talking point is bumper-sticker ready. The payments, he says, are “a taxpayer-funded bailout for insurance companies.” But without them, insurers say, many consumers will face higher premiums and may have to scramble for other coverage. Already, some insurers have shut down over the unexpected shortfall.

Then all everyone can talk about is that "premiums have sky-rocketed!" without asking why they did so.

Thanks Rubio!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AfZ4RV8vCQ
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 28, 2017, 06:46:45 PM
ACA like Solyndra, will continue natural decay, but also helped into the policy grave, by the anxious R party grave diggers.  You can't afford stupid, no matter how economizing you try to make it.  We are all the Queen of England, we are all entitled, we all deserve the Trillion Dollar Platinum Coin ... says right there in the preamble to the US Constitution.  Stupid.  Like a teen boy covered with zits, who believes he is entitled to date the Prom Queen.  None of you are equal to anyone else.  Equality = equally dead.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Sylar on March 29, 2017, 12:31:18 AM
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 28, 2017, 05:41:06 PM
No one seems to remember what the GOP did to undermine the ACA:

Marco Rubio Quietly Undermines Affordable Care Act (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-obamacare-affordable-care-act.html?_r=0)

Then all everyone can talk about is that "premiums have sky-rocketed!" without asking why they did so.

Thanks Rubio!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AfZ4RV8vCQ

Indeed; the article posted in my OP also touches about this subject. People always blame the president whether he was at fault or not -- and it is with this mindset that Democrats need to draft their strategy to win 2018 elections (and beyond).

Which brings me to:

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 24, 2017, 10:10:11 PM
Wrong answer. Healthcare is just an "issue," until you need it. The situation has to be remedied. But the Dracorian bill, that the Republicans put on the table, is exactly the opposite of what is needed. The  working poor can't afford to get sick, or they will be in debt for life(assuming anyone will help them). I don't care who tries to take credit for it, but for Christ's sake....

It is not that I'm a heartless asshole Solomon, or that I do not share your sentiment. I do.

But if we want a winning strategy, then Trump (first) and GOP (second) must fail. Say what you want about McConnell, but he is superb at political strategy -- and this is his.

I'm going to use words of someone unexpected to support this strategy. Trump writes in The Art of the Deal:

"You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on."

If Trump fails to deliver, the marginal voters that elected him will vote against him in 2020 (and against GOP in 2018).
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Sylar on March 29, 2017, 12:39:20 AM
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 22, 2017, 10:38:50 AM
I measure a candidacy in two broad categories; the prosperity of the nation and the security of the nation. Issues like same sex marriage and gender neutral bathrooms are of little importance to me.

Fair enough, and those two issues aren't what I'd prioritize either, in my effort to decide who to vote for.

But you see, I gave example of health care legislation, which is a major domestic policy. If it's of "little to no importance" to you as well, that's fine, though I would be surprised to learn so.

Even on economy and national security, Obama and Trump disagree so the contradiction remains.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: fencerider on March 29, 2017, 01:09:12 AM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 25, 2017, 11:53:40 PM
62% of American hospitals operate as non-profits....

Insurance companies operate at a lower margin than hospitals. According to some sources as low as 3.3%....

US pharmaceutical companies averaged a 23.5% margin last year...

Pappy really??? Apparently you never heard about a non-profit organization as one of the biggest ways to increase your bottom line. Come on now. The CEOs of non-profits are taking home as many billions of dollars as CEOs of for-profit business.

The 23% margin is figured out after the executive board members take their cut.

Medical insurance may be a really low margin because that was what the ACA was all about.


single payer will not work as long as the hospitals and big Pharma set the prices. Its easier said than done when everybody in Congress has been brown-nosin wall st for the last 40 years.

80/20 rule for insurance
80/20 rule for hospitals (80 for dr, nurse, and certified techs / 20 for profit and admin)
price control for pharmacy (say max charge 250% of production cost)
price control for medical school
price control for medical supply companies
easier path for foreign drs to certify in US
anti-trust lawsuite to break up AMA
.... and we should join the rest of the civilized world in sending people to prison who make a profit off healthcare (i.e. owners of hospitals, insurance, biotech)

Needless to say wall st has their hands so far up Congress they will never do it. Most likely there wont be any affordable health care for the US without a major change of attitude. I wonder what would happen if members of Congress were denied any kind of health insurance until they fix the system; whine like a bunch of babies?
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: trdsf on March 29, 2017, 01:17:44 AM
Quote from: Sylar on March 28, 2017, 05:25:33 PM
Not sure how reliable this is, considering it hasn't been picked up by major news outlets:

(snipperooski)
It's plausible; McConnell can certainly count votes and figure factions on his side of the aisle, and he's got no margin for error considering how closely divided the Senate is, and he certainly hasn't got any better ideas than Trumpcare with which to replace Obamacare.

I think the larger point is yes, the GOP spent seven years pissing and moaning about the ACA, and complaining about how it allegedly doesn't work when their own obstructionism is most of the reason for problems with the ACA... and what they've just learned is that it's a lot easier to piss and moan than it is to actually do.

And this was supposed to be the easy one for them.  Now they want to do tax reform?  Pass the popcorn, this'll be fun to watch.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 29, 2017, 02:21:37 AM
Quote from: Sylar on March 29, 2017, 12:31:18 AM
Indeed; the article posted in my OP also touches about this subject. People always blame the president whether he was at fault or not -- and it is with this mindset that Democrats need to draft their strategy to win 2018 elections (and beyond).

Which brings me to:

It is not that I'm a heartless asshole Solomon, or that I do not share your sentiment. I do.

But if we want a winning strategy, then Trump (first) and GOP (second) must fail. Say what you want about McConnell, but he is superb at political strategy -- and this is his.

I'm going to use words of someone unexpected to support this strategy. Trump writes in The Art of the Deal:

"You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on."

If Trump fails to deliver, the marginal voters that elected him will vote against him in 2020 (and against GOP in 2018).
You seem to have mistaken me for a Democrat. While I support more Democratic policies, than any other party, I would prefer not to sign-up with any particular group. It's not "the right thing to do," just because a party says it's right. I can think for myself.

If the Republicans were to, hypothetically, do a 180, and become the ones that represent me, then I would vote Republican.

It's running the country that matters. What you are advocating, is to continue this perpetual cycle of polarized obstructionism. We build it up, they tear it down.

But in the long run it's all moot. In the end, they had to face up to how grim the real-life consequences would be, if they implemented their draconian Trumpcare bill, and some of them didn't have the stomach for it. Others didn't think it was quite cutthroat enough. So Obamacare continues...
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Cavebear on March 29, 2017, 02:31:28 AM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 29, 2017, 02:21:37 AM
You seem to have mistaken me for a Democrat. While I support more Democratic policies, than any other party, I would prefer not to sign-up with any particular group. It's not "the right thing to do," just because a party says it's right. I can think for myself.

If the Republicans were to, hypothetically, do a 180, and become the ones that represent me, then I would vote Republican.

It's running the country that matters. What you are advocating, is to continue this perpetual cycle of polarized obstructionism. We build it up, they tear it down.

But in the long run it's all moot. In the end, they had to face up to how grim the real-life consequences would be, if they implemented their draconian Trumpcare bill, and some of them didn't have the stomach for it. Others didn't think it was quite cutthroat enough. So Obamacare continues...

I also consider myself of neither party.  I do vote Democratic mostly, but only because the  candidates are usually more aligned to what I want to see happen. 
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: SGOS on March 29, 2017, 06:49:30 AM
Quote from: Sylar on March 28, 2017, 05:25:33 PM
I can only conclude from this that they never had a plan. It was always much easier to be against whatever Obama was for.
Obstructionist politics is the new wave in Republican strategy.  What they don't realize is that it only works when you're not in charge.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: SGOS on March 29, 2017, 07:27:04 AM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 29, 2017, 02:21:37 AM
It's not "the right thing to do," just because a party says it's right.
I'm amazed when I watch friends of mine latch on to an absolutely horrible idea because it's being pushed by Democrats.  They act like they have thought it through and worked it out themselves, and they even give reasons why they support it.  But it starts to become clear that they aren't thinking for themselves when their supportive statements are nothing more than the half baked talking points handed to the public by party members in "bumper sticker format" on the evening news shows.

I expect this from Republicans, but when I see my friends doing it, it's a chilling dose of reality that tells me how much like sheep we are.  It's an ominous reminder that we the public will always be under someone else's thumb, and that we probably deserve to be there.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: PopeyesPappy on March 29, 2017, 08:22:12 AM
Quote from: fencerider on March 29, 2017, 01:09:12 AM
Pappy really??? Apparently you never heard about a non-profit organization as one of the biggest ways to increase your bottom line. Come on now. The CEOs of non-profits are taking home as many billions of dollars as CEOs of for-profit business.

The 23% margin is figured out after the executive board members take their cut.

Medical insurance may be a really low margin because that was what the ACA was all about.


single payer will not work as long as the hospitals and big Pharma set the prices. Its easier said than done when everybody in Congress has been brown-nosin wall st for the last 40 years.

80/20 rule for insurance
80/20 rule for hospitals (80 for dr, nurse, and certified techs / 20 for profit and admin)
price control for pharmacy (say max charge 250% of production cost)
price control for medical school
price control for medical supply companies
easier path for foreign drs to certify in US
anti-trust lawsuite to break up AMA
.... and we should join the rest of the civilized world in sending people to prison who make a profit off healthcare (i.e. owners of hospitals, insurance, biotech)

Needless to say wall st has their hands so far up Congress they will never do it. Most likely there wont be any affordable health care for the US without a major change of attitude. I wonder what would happen if members of Congress were denied any kind of health insurance until they fix the system; whine like a bunch of babies?

I have a pretty good idea how non-profits operate. I've worked with several over the years. The Southwest Research Institute (http://www.swri.org/) being one example. Yes these organizations turn a profit, but they aren't allowed to pay out those to investors. Instead those profits are reinvested in the organization and used for charitable work.

Yes there are some small savings that could be gained from limiting the compensation of executives. In the scheme of things those savings are small. Much smaller than the already small (but not insignificant) savings available from cutting profit margins. One reason for this that many fail to realize is much of the compensation these people receive is in the form of stock options. Stock options have very little effect on the bottom line of these companies because for the most part they don't cost the companies anything.

I've already discussed several of the increased cost drivers for the american healthcare system. Here are a few more. Most of these probably have more effect on the cost of US healthcare than executive compensation and corporate profits.

1.   Americans. On average we live less healthy life styles than “they” do. This leads to higher rates of chronic illness such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Chronic illnesses such as these require treatment more often and the treatment is expensive. It drives up costs. I’d like to say you can't fix stupid and we’re just fucked, but in this case I don’t believe that. Better education could fix a lot of this part of the problem. Unfortunately fixing our education system is a separate expensive problem. Plus we’re at least a generation away from raising a generation of kids that aren’t too stupid to take care of themselves enough to significantly lower rates of chronic illness. BTW our high rates of chronic illness is why life expectancy here is slightly lower than some other places.
2.   Our healthcare system may be broken, but the healthcare that is available in the US to those that can afford it is second to nowhere. Which brings us to expensive technologies and procedures. Americans are diagnosed and treated with expensive technologies and treatments more often than “they” are. An example of this is the use of MRIs in diagnostics. According to the OECD data Americans get MRIs twice as often as “they” do.
3.   Excessive administrative costs driven by regulation compliance and overly complicated government and insurance company billing systems.
4.     Fraud. Both in the form of people and insurers being billed for services not provided/needed, and hackers. I'm Running out of time here, but I'll expand on the last one later.
     
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: PopeyesPappy on March 29, 2017, 11:04:56 AM
OK then, Fraud. Hackers in particular are costing the US healthcare system billions. One form of this is the rapidly growing problem of ransomware. These are for the most part common criminals. Many of them are of the international variety. The expense here comes in the form of paying to get your data back, paying government fines for allowing your data to be breached (also part of the excessive administrative costs of dealing with government regulation) and trying to protect an aging and often cobbled together from disparate systems IT infrastructure.

Another hacker problem is international espionage. The fucking Russians, and probably others like the North Koreans and Iranians, are hacking into healthcare provider and insurance company billing systems for the express purpose of dicking around with the billing codes. Before you ask I don't know this for a fact. I've never seen it mentioned in the news, but I am being told this is true by people I've known for a long time that have a small company who are working with both the healthcare industry and the government to develop a solution for this problem. This company is being financed in part through investments by the healthcare industry. They are being told by the healthcare industry it is happening. The government is providing information on how it is happening. I doubt if the the healthcare industry would be investing millions in this small company in the hopes they can develop a solution for a problem that doesn't exist so I feel pretty safe assuming it is true.   

As I have said repeatedly we, the United States of America, can't afford a single payer system until we can bring down the overall cost of healthcare. Last year the US spent as much on healthcare as the entire federal budget. Adding the millions of people that currently can't afford healthcare is going to add to drive per capita cost even higher. Reducing corporate profit margins could help a little, but not enough to make the system viable over the long term. Not even enough to make up the difference for providing healthcare to those that currently can't afford it.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Hydra009 on March 29, 2017, 12:03:28 PM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 29, 2017, 02:21:37 AMYou seem to have mistaken me for a Democrat. While I support more Democratic policies, than any other party, I would prefer not to sign-up with any particular group.
That's essentially why I threw in with the Dems - they more closely match my positions on the issues than any other party out there.

QuoteIf the Republicans were to, hypothetically, do a 180, and become the ones that represent me, then I would vote Republican.
As would I, but they're not going to, so I'm not going to.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: trdsf on March 29, 2017, 01:01:30 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 29, 2017, 12:03:28 PM
That's essentially why I threw in with the Dems - they more closely match my positions on the issues than any other party out there.
As would I, but they're not going to, so I'm not going to.
Funny thing is, the Republican Party that had room for Nelson Rockefeller, Lowell Weicker, Charles Mathias, John Anderson, Howard Baker, hell, even George Bush the elder before Reagan & Co made him drink the Kool-Ade, that was a party that I could (and did) occasionally support.

That became impossible after a) the drift towards being not merely conservative but genuinely reactionary set in, and b) they became more and more explicitly a fundamentalist christian party.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 29, 2017, 01:39:56 PM
I still have a great deal of respect for John McCain.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: PopeyesPappy on March 29, 2017, 02:04:55 PM
Last year the government spent $1.1 trillion on healthcare. The total cost of healthcare in the US last year was $3.33 trillion. Just for shits and giggles let's take a look at what it would take for the US government to raise the $2.2 trillion difference. This doesn't even take into account providing healthcare to those that currently don't have it.

This spreadsheet is a representative sample of 10,000 federal income tax paying households. There are about 137,910,000 federal income tax paying households in the US so if you multiple the taxes of these households by 13,791 you get a number close to what you would get from everyone.

(http://i.imgur.com/iU9uKHH.jpg)

The net federal tax rate across all households would have to go from the current average rate of 19.1% to 48.8% to raise an additional $2.2 trillion dollars. That's 48.8% on top of 15.6% social security and medicare taxes plus whatever you pay in state, local and sales taxes. We'd be looking at a averaged tax rate in the neighborhood of 70% just to pay for what we have now. That doesn't even include adding the people that don't have insurance now. Even lower income people would be have to be hit hard to raise that kind of revenue. Because while lower income households don't make much money there are a lot more of them. You can't drop their federal rate much more than 40% without pushing the higher brackets above 100%. There just aren't enough rich people to make up the difference...

edited to add the original starting point numbers.

(http://i.imgur.com/UKLgpAR.jpg)
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 29, 2017, 06:32:37 PM
Quote from: trdsf on March 29, 2017, 01:01:30 PM
Funny thing is, the Republican Party that had room for Nelson Rockefeller, Lowell Weicker, Charles Mathias, John Anderson, Howard Baker, hell, even George Bush the elder before Reagan & Co made him drink the Kool-Ade, that was a party that I could (and did) occasionally support.

That became impossible after a) the drift towards being not merely conservative but genuinely reactionary set in, and b) they became more and more explicitly a fundamentalist christian party.

In the 60s, the Republicans worked at getting moderates like Nixon in, and reactionaries like John Birch Society ... out.  William F Buckley tried to articulate an intelligent conservative position.  But with Watergate and the Southern Strategy, it was Strom Thurmond all the way down the shit hole.  Now that they are below the out house, fill it with dirt, before they climb out :-0

Pops ... don't worry, the Fed can just turn on the spigot to the helicopter money, give us all million dollar SNAP cards.  No need to raise taxes, why do you think we have wars of choice?
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Cavebear on March 31, 2017, 05:04:23 AM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 29, 2017, 01:39:56 PM
I still have a great deal of respect for John McCain.

I know what you mean,  McCain annoys me 80% of the time, but I know he means what he says.  Honesty matters.  I'll respect that more than 90% of the House and Senate members who won't say the sun rises in the East.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 31, 2017, 08:28:50 AM
Quote from: Baruch on March 29, 2017, 06:32:37 PM
In the 60s, the Republicans worked at getting moderates like Nixon in, and reactionaries like John Birch Society ... out.  William F Buckley tried to articulate an intelligent conservative position.  But with Watergate and the Southern Strategy, it was Strom Thurmond all the way down the shit hole.  Now that they are below the out house, fill it with dirt, before they climb out :-0
Can I get an AMEN?

Just to piss you off, I'm going to point out that the current economic prosperity(it's there - don't believe the hype), is due to Clinton's policies, nearly nullified by G.W.Bush, and recovered by drastic measures, taken early in the Obama administration.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: FaithIsFilth on March 31, 2017, 12:48:04 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 31, 2017, 05:04:23 AM
I know what you mean,  McCain annoys me 80% of the time, but I know he means what he says.  Honesty matters.  I'll respect that more than 90% of the House and Senate members who won't say the sun rises in the East.
The man is completely losing it. A couple weeks ago he accused Rand Paul of working for Vladimir Putin, with no evidence whatsoever to back up his statement. Very inappropriate behaviour, calling out someone as a traitor with nothing to back it up.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 31, 2017, 12:57:21 PM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 31, 2017, 08:28:50 AM
Can I get an AMEN?

Just to piss you off, I'm going to point out that the current economic prosperity(it's there - don't believe the hype), is due to Clinton's policies, nearly nullified by G.W.Bush, and recovered by drastic measures, taken early in the Obama administration.

If we look at the period from 1993 until now ... yes, Bill Clinton did a better job ... too bad he is an asshole.  I liked the guy in 92, voted for him.  He did some bad stuff along the way (NAFTA, abolish financial regs, pardon criminals) ... but then what President doesn't?  But Hillary isn't him.  George W/Dick ... a very bad pair.  Barak/Biden ... also bad, almost as bad as the prior pair.  Hank Paulson/Ben Bernanke ... saved the universe 2008/2009 ... to bad you have yet to pay for it.  It will be painful.  If you are a single issue voter (gays) then Barak is a god.  But I am not a single issue voter.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 31, 2017, 01:00:14 PM
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 31, 2017, 12:48:04 PM
The man is completely losing it. A couple weeks ago he accused Rand Paul of working for Vladimir Putin, with no evidence whatsoever to back up his statement. Very inappropriate behaviour, calling out someone as a traitor with nothing to back it up.

You are joking?  They are all all traitors.  Ask Hillary about that uranium deal with Russia ... or Biden family involvement in Ukraine.  All Americans are traitors.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Hydra009 on March 31, 2017, 02:30:29 PM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 29, 2017, 01:39:56 PMI still have a great deal of respect for John McCain.
He occasionally says things that make sense, like on torture and climate change.  And to his credit, he also backed campaign finance reform.  But his track record (http://www.pcworld.com/article/174280/mccain2.html) is not pretty.  He also voted badly in the latest ISP bill.  Even if I agreed with him on every other issue (which I don't, the guy wants to repeal Roe V Wade and has troubling foreign policy stances - supporting the Iraq War, joking about bombing Iran, etc), being against net neutrality is pretty much a deal-breaker.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: PopeyesPappy on March 31, 2017, 02:46:46 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 31, 2017, 02:30:29 PM
He occasionally says things that make sense, like on torture and climate change.  And to his credit, he also backed campaign finance reform.  But his track record (http://www.pcworld.com/article/174280/mccain2.html) is not pretty.  He also voted badly in the latest ISP bill.  Even if I agreed with him on every other issue (which I don't, the guy wants to repeal Roe V Wade and has troubling foreign policy stances - supporting the Iraq War, joking about bombing Iran, etc), being against net neutrality is pretty much a deal-breaker.

Just a technicality here but Roe v Wade can't be repealed. It can be overturned by SCOTUS or rendered obsolete through constitutional amendment, but congress doesn't have the power to repeal a decision of the courts.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Hydra009 on March 31, 2017, 03:01:06 PM
QuoteQ: Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America?

ROMNEY: Absolutely.

BROWNBACK: It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom.

GILMORE: Yes, it was wrongly decided.

HUCKABEE: Most certainly.

HUNTER: Yes.

THOMPSON: Yes.

McCAIN: A repeal.

GIULIANI: It would be OK to repeal.

TANCREDO: After 40 million dead because we have aborted them in this country, that would be the greatest day in this country’s history when that, in fact, is overturned.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate at Reagan library, May 3, 2007  (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/us/politics/04transcript.html)
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: PopeyesPappy on March 31, 2017, 03:07:38 PM
The only one that got it right was Tancredo.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 31, 2017, 03:31:03 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 31, 2017, 02:30:29 PM
He occasionally says things that make sense, like on torture and climate change.  And to his credit, he also backed campaign finance reform.  But his track record (http://www.pcworld.com/article/174280/mccain2.html) is not pretty.  He also voted badly in the latest ISP bill.  Even if I agreed with him on every other issue (which I don't, the guy wants to repeal Roe V Wade and has troubling foreign policy stances - supporting the Iraq War, joking about bombing Iran, etc), being against net neutrality is pretty much a deal-breaker.
I didn't say that I agree with John McCain, Brother, only that I respect him. He seems to me, to have impeccable character, and a respect for the real importance of the office.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 31, 2017, 03:48:44 PM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 31, 2017, 03:07:38 PM
The only one that got it right was Tancredo.
I hate the thought of destroying a healthy fetus. It is as natural as life itself, to feel that way. If we didn't have that pure and simple emotional reaction to the image, we would not be descendants of the evolved people, that we are descendants of. But here's another image...a government prohibiting a woman from choosing the path of her own life, by requiring her to be a mother. Who has more rights? The fully-realized-person who is impregnated, or the almost-realized-person fetus? I hate abortion, but the rights of the woman to her own body, and her own life, and her own reproductive destiny, has to trump the rights of the unborn fetus.

Just make the "morning-after-pill" available over-the-counter, and avoid the whole dilemma...
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 31, 2017, 04:09:12 PM
Quote from: Baruch
If we look at the period from 1993 until now ... yes, Bill Clinton did a better job ... too bad he is an asshole.
Yeah, but he got a BJ from Marilyn Monroe, under the Resolute Desk, right?

Quote from: BaruchI liked the guy in 92, voted for him.  He did some bad stuff along the way (NAFTA, abolish financial regs, pardon criminals) ... but then what President doesn't?
That's the most reasonable thing I've ever heard you say, about Bill Clinton.


Quote from: Baruch...George W/Dick ... a very bad pair.  Barak/Biden ... also bad, almost as bad as the prior pair... If you are a single issue voter (gays) then Barak is a god.  But I am not a single issue voter.
I think you know, that I could do a side-by-side comparison of Bush/Cheney and Obama/Biden, and demonstrate quite conclusively, that the latter is nowhere near the same league of incompetence, as the former. I'm certainly not a single-issue voter, but I think that Obama is the most unreasonably obstructed and maligned president, that I have seen, and at the same time the most intelligent, and even-tempered that I have seen.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: PopeyesPappy on March 31, 2017, 04:41:05 PM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 31, 2017, 03:48:44 PM
I hate the thought of destroying a healthy fetus. It is as natural as life itself, to feel that way. If we didn't have that pure and simple emotional reaction to the image, we would not be descendants of the evolved people, that we are descendants of. But here's another image...a government prohibiting a woman from choosing the path of her own life, by requiring her to be a mother. Who has more rights? The fully-realized-person who is impregnated, or the almost-realized-person fetus? I hate abortion, but the rights of the woman to her own body, and her own life, and her own reproductive destiny, has to trump the rights of the unborn fetus.

Just make the "morning-after-pill" available over-the-counter, and avoid the whole dilemma...

Sorry I didn't mean to make it sound like I agree with the sentiment. I don't. Just trying to say Tancredo is apparently the only one of our esteemed lawmakers quoted that was familiar enough with our laws to use the correct terminology for the process that would be required. . 
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Sylar on March 31, 2017, 05:12:58 PM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 29, 2017, 02:21:37 AM
You seem to have mistaken me for a Democrat. While I support more Democratic policies, than any other party, I would prefer not to sign-up with any particular group. It's not "the right thing to do," just because a party says it's right. I can think for myself.

If the Republicans were to, hypothetically, do a 180, and become the ones that represent me, then I would vote Republican.

I didn't mean to imply that you are Democrat, so my apologies for that.

I come off as heavily partisan, perhaps for good reason, but this is the first year I've registered as a Democrat (previously I never disclosed a party preference), so I can vote for Bernie in Primary.

I do agree with D Party on most issues, but I have voted for Republicans (usually in local or state elections) that made sense.

But sometimes the issues alone do not determine vote preference - political system should account for something. I think voting GOP, with the current stances it holds, in state elections right before a census is a huge mistake, regardless of who is running. That is because partisan gerrymandering is still legal, and it is done by state legislatures in most states. If we're going to have a gerrymandered House, I'd rather Democrats have upperhand.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 29, 2017, 02:21:37 AMIt's running the country that matters. What you are advocating, is to continue this perpetual cycle of polarized obstructionism. We build it up, they tear it down.

But in the long run it's all moot. In the end, they had to face up to how grim the real-life consequences would be, if they implemented their draconian Trumpcare bill, and some of them didn't have the stomach for it. Others didn't think it was quite cutthroat enough. So Obamacare continues...

I'm advocating a targeted strategy that includes obstructing this administration, yes, but you should take into account that D party is historically more inclined to compromise. Democrats depend on government working; now they can't do anything about executive actions, but they can oppose legislative action contrary to that formula.

Health care should be a bipartisan endeavor, but I do not trust GOP to come out with anything of worth.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Baruch on March 31, 2017, 06:09:59 PM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 31, 2017, 04:09:12 PM
Yeah, but he got a BJ from Marilyn Monroe, under the Resolute Desk, right?

That's the most reasonable thing I've ever heard you say, about Bill Clinton.

I think you know, that I could do a side-by-side comparison of Bush/Cheney and Obama/Biden, and demonstrate quite conclusively, that the latter is nowhere near the same league of incompetence, as the former. I'm certainly not a single-issue voter, but I think that Obama is the most unreasonably obstructed and maligned president, that I have seen, and at the same time the most intelligent, and even-tempered that I have seen.

Bill Clinton?  So did Jack Kennedy ... another sex predator.  Of course some women are sex predators too.  Cut their dicks off.

I have always been fair to the real Bill Clinton, he could have been a great saxophone player, but wanted to be President instead.  I blame that insane witch of a wife of his.

So ... Civics 101.  A good friend of mine would say ... every Administration, would have an opposing Congress ... that is what the founders intended, that the government would be hamstrung from screwing the People.  In your system, the President wins it all.  No Congress, no SCOTUS, no opposition from his own party.  Gets to be a tin god for 4 years (or 8 years).

The Democrats are crybabies, every year I have been alive.  Kennedy tried to be a real man, but failed to duck.  If LBJ was a real man, he would have drunk Vietnamese blood from Ho Chi Minh's skull, made Pol Pot look civilized.  Just another crybaby.  Truman would have drafted all the College students ... including Cheney.  Had to have the CIA kill his boss, to get the job he felt entitled too in 1960 election.  I still like Truman, but he was President before I was alive.

Nixon etc are assholes, all the way down.  Eisenhower loathed Nixon ... was forced to put him on the ticket, as an experienced politician.  Carter should have nuked Teheran ... another opportunity lost ... too bad that rabbit scared him out of the bayou.  Carter is a descent man, would be happy to shake his hand.  No other President since Eisenhower ... would I shake his hand.  No candidate since I have been voting ... would I shake their hand (or have a beer with) knowing what I know now.
Title: Re: Democrat Strategy vs. Trump
Post by: Cavebear on April 03, 2017, 02:56:28 AM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 31, 2017, 08:28:50 AM
Can I get an AMEN?

Just to piss you off, I'm going to point out that the current economic prosperity(it's there - don't believe the hype), is due to Clinton's policies, nearly nullified by G.W.Bush, and recovered by drastic measures, taken early in the Obama administration.

Clinton gave us a balanced budget, Bush brought us nearly to ruin again, Obama got us slowly out of it, and the Republicans want to repeat the crash.  Are voters insane?

Apparently.  Oh wait, most voters didn't vote for Trump.  And his approval rating is CRASHING!