I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But, but, but.... Identity politics!! All lives matter!!

All funk matters. But some matters more than others. Here's eleven minutes of cosmic space disco funk by Parliament. Pay attention, because you can't afford free speech. Amen to that. "Funkentelechy." The Daily Dose. Is it too real for you? It's not real enough. Sit back, close your eyes, and let it happen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFalZJ5eEwY

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Which party promises jobs will come back, if only we vote them in?

Both.

This was one of the few cornerstones of Trump's campaign that wasn't completely based on racism and sexism, and even it was racist to the extent it was part of his rationale for "immigration reform."

Hillary was also guilty of this, but at least she didn't promise people she would chase all the brown people out so that poor whites could start flipping burgers and cutting lawns.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Actually, the major problem with the mandate right now is that it doesn't hurt enough. Which is one of the contributing reasons that the rates went up this enrollment period and some insurers left some markets. A lot of healthy people opted to take the minor hit than get health insurance.

Frankly, if I were to mess with it, I'd get rid of the "stay on your parents' insurance until 25" to get a hold of those young healthy lives for the ACA risk pools. Probably would see a drop in rates in a lot of markets if the penalties were incentive enough for the 20-24 year old set to buy insurance.

What we need is a single, national risk pool. That would require repealing McCann-Ferguson, but that massive chunk of protectionist legislation should never have been enacted in the first place.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

On the one hand, Gen. Mattis seems like a competent, experienced individual Trump might actually listen to.

On the other hand, some civilian oversight is a good thing and it sounds like Mattis wants war with Iran.

Otherwise, remember when Hillary was going to be more war-like than Trump??

He would also keep Gitmo open. He's a big fan of Gitmo.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Okay, I think we've taken this conversation as far as we can. I appreciate the back-and-forth.

I will say this: It is absolutely infuriating that it is up to minorities to figure out the best way to point out racist shit they experience to fragile white people. White people do racist shit (whether it's intentionally racist or whether it is the more "polite" type of racism--whatever that means) that results in serious problems and minorities have to massage the message in such a way that white people don't feel like they're being accused of being racist for them to even listen. That shit is absolutely infuriating. Especially when we are all trying to figure out the best way to tackle the problems facing uneducated, ignorant, white people who live in areas of the country with dying industries. We need to understand them and cater to them and help them, while they point at blacks and Mexicans and Muslims and gays and accuse us of causing their problems.

TM

You can ignore the "polite" racism. That's one-percenter bullshit. People in this country are racist because they are racist. Whites in the vast majority simply believe that this great nation was built for their benefit, based upon their twisted interpretation of their Protestant hypocritical God, who is not the God of the brown and black people.

I sit and listen in public places all the time, more and more than I did when I first moved down here, to white, unemployed folks living on disability and SNAP and one form or another of hustling, talking about how it's the blacks and the Hispanics, all of them living on welfare, who are destroying this country.

Federal benefits and state benefits and all the freebies in the world are just fine, as long as they are being paid to uneducated or undereducated whites who would rather sit in bars all day long than hold down any job.

The only way to change things is to figure out a way to get the white folks who don't believe that to fucking cowboy up and start getting in the face of every racist they hear talking about how lazy and shiftless blacks are, and how the messkins are stealing the jobs of decent (read: white) folk and call them on their bullshit.

We need to get into arguments, lose friends, and maybe be willing to take a punch or two, and throw a punch or two.

And that's what living in the South has taught me.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I apologize. Please accept this as a peace offering.



TM

Where's the mayo?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

And the fact of the matter is we do have an answer for these people: move.

Katrina destroyed large parts of New Orleans, which is basically a soup bowl, with a negative sea level and an altitude below Lake Ponchartrain on the other side. How many people did you see arguing against rebuilding?

Besides, rural America doesn't need to be depopulated. In fact, moving everybody from rural areas to urban areas would hasten a ton of health and environmental problems far more quickly than petrochemicals.

I know you think I'm a doddering old nut for arguing against agricultural subsidies for corporate farms and a return to family farming, but that move would do wonders for soil rehabilitation, water reclamation, lowering food prices, creating work for people in places where there never was and never will be a Zenith plant, and improve overall health in the US as people go back to eating ingredients instead of shit made out of hydrolyzed soy protein, CAFE-produced meat, and high fructose corn syrup.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

The question was how can a state law the limits the right to vote vary from state to state. The answer is that the constitution expressly allows it.

And the phrase "but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators" suggests that there is more room for federal intervention than current thinking allows for.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There is lots of other stuff in there that is very helpful - including provisions that are moving us from a service-based to outcome-based reimbursement scheme, which is the best bet for controlling care in the current system.

I'd have loved to have seen a public option, but having a public entity contracting wouldn't have significantly altered the price structure in health care. Public entities are already among the largest purchasers of healthcare in the US - why would adding another to the mix be hugely different? It might make some different, which is why I'd like it, but nothing radical.

The key way ACA planned to help the lower income seeking healthcare in particular was through subsidized insurance and an expansion of Medicaid. Of course, a lot of states have opted out of Medicaid expansion, to the disadvantage of their citizens, but there is a fair bit of subsidized insurance out there.

I won't pretend to have a lot of answers, but the reform I'd really like to see next would be to make the US part of a bigger market for drug approval and distribution - so we had, for example, a common drug market in the EU and US. Drug companies would have less hassle in approvals but we'd get the benefit of systems that have been much more successful at keeping drug prices down. I'd be hoping the larger market supported innovation, even if the approach took a lot of money out of the pharma pipeline.

Parts of TTIP might have set the stage for this, but with the TPP dead, we can be pretty certain that's going nowhere. And with Brexit we don't even know if EMA will continue to hold for the UK as well as EU.

I know a lot of people who qualified for subsidized plans. The subsidy is based on coverage at the Bronze Level. Coverage there is set like one would get for a HSA plan, without the income to fund the HSA. Why should someone bother paying even $75/mo. for a plan that doesn't pay any benefits until the insured has come $5700 out of pocket?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I know a lot of people who qualified for subsidized plans. The subsidy is based on coverage at the Bronze Level. Coverage there is set like one would get for a HSA plan, without the income to fund the HSA. Why should someone bother paying even $75/mo. for a plan that doesn't pay any benefits until the insured has come $5700 out of pocket?

Healthcare is really expensive, and the ACA didn't solve that problem, which is more like a fact of life. Blaming the ACA for this is kinda like blaming transportation funding bills for the fact that we're not all flying around in personal hovercraft.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Healthcare is really expensive, and the ACA didn't solve that problem, which is more like a fact of life. Blaming the ACA for this is kinda like blaming transportation funding bills for the fact that we're not all flying around in personal hovercraft.

Actually it's more like 80% of America had a Ford Pinto and you lot worried about getting the other 20% a tricycle, so now we all have just one roller skate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Actually it's more like 80% of America had a Ford Pinto and you lot worried about getting the other 20% a tricycle, so now we all have just one roller skate.

If that were actually true, that would be bad.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If that were actually true, that would be bad.

the worst of ACA ain't happening so "true" has no meaning. OAN how many conversations have you had with people reporting to you about why their HC is worse than it was? And if your answer to the question is "I did" , did you mention the option of HSAs?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Healthcare is really expensive, and the ACA didn't solve that problem, which is more like a fact of life. Blaming the ACA for this is kinda like blaming transportation funding bills for the fact that we're not all flying around in personal hovercraft.

I'm not blaming ACA for making healthcare too expensive for most Americans. I'm simply contesting the notion that it improved things, with a couple of admittedly important exceptions.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Actually it's more like 80% of America had a Ford Pinto and you lot worried about getting the other 20% a tricycle, so now we all have just one roller skate.

Try flipping the 80% and the 20% and you will be closer to accurate. Except that 30% still have the Pinto.