Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Hank Chinaski]

I know balance requires the one who is no worse than hillary would ask for advice before tweeting, but doesn't having a chief of staff who actually understands the military (and I have heard good thing about him) lessen the chance of a wild hair bombing/war? Again, assuming sebby's bastard prez bothers to ask.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I know balance requires the one who is no worse than hillary would ask for advice before tweeting, but doesn't having a chief of staff who actually understands the military (and I have heard good thing about him) lessen the chance of a wild hair bombing/war? Again, assuming sebby's bastard prez bothers to ask.

I think that depends entirely on who the military person actually is.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think that depends entirely on who the military person actually is.

he was following orders.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I know balance requires the one who is no worse than hillary would ask for advice before tweeting, but doesn't having a chief of staff who actually understands the military (and I have heard good thing about him) lessen the chance of a wild hair bombing/war? Again, assuming sebby's bastard prez bothers to ask.

I think it would if Trump used his chief of staff the way other President did, but it sounds like that job doesn't manage access to him, so I'm not sure how much difference it will make. McMaster's competence is reassuring in the way you suggested.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think it would if Trump used his chief of staff the way other President did, but it sounds like that job doesn't manage access to him, so I'm not sure how much difference it will make. McMaster's competence is reassuring in the way you suggested.

Isn't the best predictor of how Kelly will do as CoS the job he did at DHS? What do people think of his tenure there? I know it's only 6 months, but won't he be lucky to get 6 months in this job?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

On Thanksgiving, 2013 I was told that I had a stage 4 lymphoma wrapped around my spine that had already crushed most of two vertabrae and that I had one chance in 8 of making it through the six month treatment program I was going to be put on. During those months, I was resuscitated twice as a result of heart failure and also survived a near brush because of kidney failure. After I completed the initial treatment, I then got a two year course of immunotherapy. I am now told I have about one change in 8 (they seem to like the 1/8 odds for me) of have a recurrence within 10 years.

The total bills for this were substantial. If insurance is only available to me with a lifetime cap, that insurance will likely be useless. If insurance companies are allowed to exclude coverage for a preexisting condition, and can define that to include a recurrence of a prior cancer (it's almost certainly still in my body today), the coverage will be useless for my biggest worry. If essential health benefits can exclude some major expenses associated with cancer care, including new secondary and tertiary treatments coming down the pike, or the immunotherapy course I had after the initial cancer (which is not standard protocol but dropped the likelihood of recurrence from north of 50% to 12%), I could have big problems.

The healthcare debate is not a bunch of statistics for me. I'm one of the stats. I look hard at how each bill will affect me. I'm always going to be able to afford insurance, and will always buy the best I can find, but there are provisions that have been advocated in one bill or another that could result in insurance becoming less than fully useful for me. If I were on the policy I was on before Romneycare in Massachusetts, I would have a big problem, and that was a biglaw level insurance policy.

When we hit budget debates, I'll be back to stats, the personal impact on me of what the Rs propose will probably be positive, and I'll be worried about how it affects all of us more broadly and it will be more academic. But the healthcare debate is deeply, deeply personal. Republican proposals have had elements that could, in many very foreseeable circumstances, have some pretty dire consequences for me and my family.

Let me know if you ever want to follow cancer twitter. It has been a very happy place today.

What is amazing to me is that after hearing that story, Republicans would look you dead in the face and mouth, "So?" while voting for a bill that would complete fuck you and many other people over.

I hope you're that 1 in 8, but even if you are, I hope you continue kicking ass on behalf of the many people who need actual healthcare coverage. You are a fantastic advocate.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The Dems probably have more dumb voters than the GOP.

This is absolutely hilarious.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

What is amazing to me is that after hearing that story, Republicans would look you dead in the face and mouth, "So?" while voting for a bill that would complete fuck you and many other people over.

I hope you're that 1 in 8, but even if you are, I hope you continue kicking ass on behalf of the many people who need actual healthcare coverage. You are a fantastic advocate.

TM

Thanks. I really think the fact that these bills have such minimal support comes from so many people realizing the reality of these issues, and the way in which all the Republicans proposals are totally divorced from that reality. I have found that every conversation with supporters of Republican proposals trails off into their own personal ideology, while the same conversations with almost everyone else, right, left or center, comes back to real people with real issues.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Super interesting about what voters want.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Super interesting about what voters want.

The question people keep raising about that kind of analysis is how it applies in swing districts. If you don't look at the whole national picture, but instead focus on the 30 seats most likely to swing the house, you can get a very different picture. If you look at the analysis that's been done by Third Way you'll see how they pick it apart.

And note its possible both approaches are right - one may be more likely to win us the Senate (Third Way's analysis has been almost entirely house-focused) or the Presidency and the other the House. And somewhere you have to focus in on candidates. For example, Jon Tester is our candidate for Senate in Montana. No analysis should change that, he knows what he is doing, and he don't need no berniesplaining about how to do it. Nor is there any point in trying to argue Dems should run a moderate candidate in Vermont because that's what works best in swing districts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Trump in a sentence:

"Trump may not have a coherent ideology, but this is because he’s a simpleton, and his instinctive need for dominance is routinely manipulated toward the end of maximal partisan confrontation."

Chait

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The question people keep raising about that kind of analysis is how it applies in swing districts. If you don't look at the whole national picture, but instead focus on the 30 seats most likely to swing the house, you can get a very different picture. If you look at the analysis that's been done by Third Way you'll see how they pick it apart.

And note its possible both approaches are right - one may be more likely to win us the Senate (Third Way's analysis has been almost entirely house-focused) or the Presidency and the other the House. And somewhere you have to focus in on candidates. For example, Jon Tester is our candidate for Senate in Montana. No analysis should change that, he knows what he is doing, and he don't need no berniesplaining about how to do it. Nor is there any point in trying to argue Dems should run a moderate candidate in Vermont because that's what works best in swing districts.

Yes, agreed. Although it also looks like swing districts follow the top of the ticket, as some voters get excited, some stay home, and some change their vote. You don't see many congressional districts making what look like independent choices.

[ferrets_bueller]

A pair of random thoughts on last week:

Shouldn't there be a Saturday Night Comic Emergency Commission that could compel a live show in times of epic comic potential as was spewing from The White House? A repeat of a Kaine-Pence debate, after The Mooch? Really?

Shouldn't Nation Public Radio shed its reputation as a com-symp radical anarchist tool of the left by sponsoring a poetry reading, on a regular basis, to America's youngsters? And couldn't that show be "The Mooch Talks To Yutes"? I envision a dramatic reading of "Bannon Autoeroticon," Rymes With Reince," and the instant classic "CockBlock".

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

A pair of random thoughts on last week:

Shouldn't there be a Saturday Night Comic Emergency Commission that could compel a live show in times of epic comic potential as was spewing from The White House? A repeat of a Kaine-Pence debate, after The Mooch? Really?

Shouldn't Nation Public Radio shed its reputation as a com-symp radical anarchist tool of the left by sponsoring a poetry reading, on a regular basis, to America's youngsters? And couldn't that show be "The Mooch Talks To Yutes"? I envision a dramatic reading of "Bannon Autoeroticon," Rymes With Reince," and the instant classic "CockBlock".

You really need a live show, since it's hard to write a script all week that will still be relevant on Saturday night.

Apropos of which, who will be the next WH communications director?

[ferrets_bueller]

Mooch, we hardly knew ye.