Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

The source for that was an interview with Juliette Kayyem, who walked it back afterwards. Still speculative - she isn't alone in speculating, but still speculative.

Of course, if there were a lefty equivalent of Fox, we'd be ignoring the walk-back and be demanding the immediate impeachment of Trump based on the information Flynn would be about to reveal.

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

Too many insurers are leaving. Here's one of a thousand articles: http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/24/inve...-act-insurers/

Also, Trump's going to simply let it languish. I could cite a thousand more articles about why doing nothing is worse than repealing and replacing.

The law was designed like a commercial loan. Needed to be extended or taken out with different financing. Nobody assumed a lender demanding the balloon, with no refi options available.

Re: Blood from a stone
 

If the infantry has nothing to trade, those agents might as well flip flapjacks.

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

From a Republican perspective, that has all of the advantages of opening yourself up to primary attacks from the right, while also not accomplishing anything big.

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

It's obviously not perfect, but it's not exploding. See this, for example:

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/27/521441...loding-its-not

I'm sure you can cite lots of article. There is a whole press-like industry built up to satisfy the need that conservatives have to believe and hear what you're saying.

Re: Bed Made
 

Of course. The Rs need to do something big for their base to win the primaries, but find a way to do it without losing the general election. Rock, meet hard place.

I have zero sympathy.

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

It's part of why the Republicans can't engage on healthcare policy. Every time they try to engage reality, even in the form of a CBO scoring by a hand-picked conservative, it's like hitting a brick wall for them. They can't believe everything chicken little said on Fox/Breitbart/InfoWars isn't true (and those three channels are getting increasingly close together and closer to the InfoWars space).

Tom Cotton, surprisingly, is right. What the Rs need is a lengthy hearing process discuss healthcare issues the way the Dems did during ACA. They need their 100 days of hearings. And they need conservatives to deal with reality in those hearings and try to figure out a policy that deals with reality, and, most importantly, get their constituents to deal with reality so they don't all get primaried if they do something rational.

It won't happen, of course. That's not how they do things. Remember, the biggest news in Tom Cotton's statement was that he acknowledged that the Democrats had a lengthy, information filled process - even though the country lived through almost 18 months of it, the Rs never admitted it and their base still believes the bill was rushed through in the dead of night (even a lot of Bernie supports have bought this rubbish).

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

[Losing my mind. Gotta remember where I left off after a quick vacation.]

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

I don't think you actually go to parties.

TM

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

My liver wishes you were correct.

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

There's no debate over the fact that many insurers have left, limiting plan choices, and that premiums are going up 25% this year.

You can cite the fact that this increase was anticipated, and suggest it's a one year thing. But if that rate of increase or anything close to it should become an annual thing... well, you do the compounding.

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

Trump makes the best political decision of his Presidency:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f185a5ef9f86

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

Look, you can actually do the research, but there's pretty clear consensus that the cost curve has been bent and ACA has something to do with that. Here, we had the lowest increase in premium this year of any time in memory. If you are in the ACA individual market place, you probably have options you didn't have before: the individual market place was pretty thin before ACA. Anyone here have any experience with it, other than in a COBRA context?

Note also, first reaction to the failed Republican bill: Republican states looking to opt in to Medicare expansion. Something's working...

But it's pointless talking to you, of course. TM, stop me.

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

Nah. It's actually fun watching someone who thinks their perception amounts to fact constantly run up against people who try to shake some actual reality into his head. It's never even a debate on opinion. He says "everyone knows and would mostly agree that X." You say, "uh...no. It's actually Y." He says something or cites to something that agrees with his outlook--not even his opinion. His outlook. And it's settled in his mind.

It's fascinating once you figure out that you shouldn't actually engage.

TM

Nothing to see here. No. Really. You can't see this.
 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...id=full-rss-di

TM

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

Some mix of amusing and disturbing. You'd hope a lawyer would have more ability to listen and process critically information. A continual reminder of the power of the foxified news outlets and how they make people dumber.

Re: Nothing to see here. No. Really. You can't see this.
 

I know that there is nothing to this investigation, because Sebastian keeps telling me so, and I don't understand why he would lie. But if it were not for Sebastian's reassurances, I would think that the whole thing is beginning to seem a little bit Watergate-y.

The Daily Dose is by Black Sugar. A nice mellow guitar groove called "The Loser."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUJXlqpV9yE

Re: Nothing to see here. No. Really. You can't see this.
 

I can't figure out Nunes for the life of me. Does he really think he isn't about to be thrown directly under the bus by the White House, every House Republican, and every prominent Republican senator? I mean, what are you doing, man? And how is it going to help you? You're fucking doomed.

TM

Re: Nothing to see here. No. Really. You can't see this.
 

It certainly seems like this will end his political career for the time being. Maybe he's been promised something for playing the patsy? A nice sinecure from Alfabank? A six month gig as Arnold's apprentice?

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

Look, I see the ACA has bent the cost curve some, and it's provided options where certain people had none. No shit it has some good elements.

I'm still skeptical. We've an aging population. Subsidies can only do so much.

I also don't even watch Fox.

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

I do. I paid for my family's policy out of pocket for a period of time, pre-ACA.

It was impossibly complex and expensive. There were options, but none that gave you even 75% of the coverage you wanted. This was the moment I concluded actual health insurance would be preferable to this TPA thing we instead have acquired.

But that's a third rail argument. No direct purchase system can even be discussed as an option.

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

There's a different exchange for each state. Some are in better shape than others. And the word "exploding" suggests a problem that can't be solved, a triumph of hyperbole over reality.

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

Of what are you skeptical? You seem to be suggesting that it's just too expensive to provide health care because lots of people are old.

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

What's the main driver of insurer exits? The pools are sicker than anticipated, translating to losses.

What happens to people more as they get older? Medicare doesn't kick in until one is 65. The Diabetes Belt alone could render that 25% increase a yearly thing.

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

Well, for Aetna it was wanting to merge with Humana. http://ktla.com/2017/01/24/federal-j...-of-obamacare/

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

You know what's (relatively) simple and covers pretty much everything you want? Medicare.

But we can't have that for everyone because it would mean no profits for insurance companies and providers get paid less...

More discussion about nothing
 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...-strong-part-2

TM

Re: More discussion about nothing
 

I loved John Dean's rant, when you said, pretty much "People! I've seen what a cover-up looks like. I was in the middle of it! This is it!"

Aca
 

Seems like if Obamacare fails it will be because this administration refuses to enforce the mandate.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...-death-spiral/

TM

Re: Alt-facts uber alles!
 

You liberals with your facts.

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

You know what's even cheaper than that, and gets insurers entirely out of the loop in terms of preventative and elective care decisions, while driving the costs down for those services? Actual insurance.

"Wait, that's crazy talk," you say. Well, yes -- yes it is. But as we currently live in a Bizarro Universe in which health care is tied to employment and our "insurers" are actually horribly run TPAs, this might just be the "lunacy" we're looking for. Really, considering what we have, any proposal judged absurd is probably far more fundamentally sound than fixes preserving anything close to the status quo.

But you're right. Our perceptions and expectations are so warped, and the systems in place to handle health care so fucked up, no normal fix could ever be implemented. Instead, the best suggestion is Medicare for all. (And seriously, that probably is the best suggestion.) How lazy, stupid, and fucked are we?

Re: Alt-facts uber alles!
 

Let's see what the 2018 and 2019 cost increases will be. If that 25% 2017 increase drops, you may have a case to be smug. If it remains static or climbs, well, "You liberals with your lack of math..."

Re: Aca
 

Actually, given 80% of plans are subsidized, if the premium increases significantly outstrip the new taxes used to cover the subsidies, and the GOP refuses to increase those taxes to adjust for those increases, doesn't that also put pressure on the program?

Re: Aca
 

Which will mean that enrollees are sicker than expected??

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

There is no such thing for health care. There's preventable death for people who can't afford to pay for the care they need or there's cost sharing - what we call health insurance.

It should be obvious that the best way to share costs is universally, with the lowest possible administrative costs - Medicare - but it's not because we prefer to pretend that markets are always best.

I don't think there's anything fucked up about it.

Re: Aca
 

I honestly do not understand your position. (And to be honest, I haven't really read anything you've written as it relates to healthcare, so maybe that's on me.)

It seems to me that no matter how complicated providing adequate healthcare coverage is, there are a few simple truths.

1. The more people covered, the lower the premiums--this means the most efficient model is probably universal healthcare
2. The fact that we don't have universal healthcare means that insurance companies must make profits in order to provide insurance, which creates incentives for them to fuck as many people as possible--this is why, before the ACA, there were caps and preexisting condition bars, etc.
3. We either decide that we are a society (a Capitalist one at that, which necessarily means there are winners and losers) and provide assistance to those who require it, or we decide we are a libertarian wet dream in which the government provides protection to the rich and infrastructure for their businesses only

Now, maybe you're a libertarian when it comes to healthcare, which means you will continue to be angry that we provide insurance coverage as a society to those who would die in the streets without it. If that's the case, I guess when premiums increase (even if they increase at a lower rate than they did before the ACA was implemented) you will side with Republicans and continue throwing fits because you will have to pay for some of that.

But I really want to understand what you think the right approach is. Because, unless you choose one (universal healthcare) or the other (government completely out of the healthcare "business"), everything in the middle will have problems. The question is, do you have any interest at all in figuring out how to solve those problems or do you just want to bitch about your taxes?

TM

Nunes
 

This shit is a joke. Nunes is a fucking stooge. Ryan is complicit in all of this shit for sticking with him. There is absolutely zero integrity in the Republican House. I truly hope the Senate acts with some.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...etapping-obama

TM

Re: Nunes
 

It is a sick fucking joke. If it is a cover up, it is the most ridiculous dumb-ass cover up of all cover ups. If, as Sebastian insists, there is no there there, it is a bafflingly desperate attempt to make sure that nobody finds that out. It is a complete breakdown of governmental process and integrity. But Sebastian will scour the internet and find an economist to tell us that (although he has no idea whether what he is saying is true or not) it is at least possible that everything is going to be o.k. What a fucking relief.

The Daily Dose is a Mohawks tune from 1968, that has that nice raw early funk feel to it. "Pepsi":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbwm8aNDgA0

Re: Nunes
 

We have a cycle. McCarthyism, Nixon, Gingrich, Trump. Once a generation the Republican party goes on a rampage trying to loot stuff, clamp down on their opposition, and go all-in for the mega-corporatist state full of corruptions and emoluments, the old military-industrial complex. Then the Dems painfully slowly clean up the mess, and then it all happens again. Sometimes it comes from the McCarthys or Gingriches or Ryans in Congress. Sometimes it comes from a Nixon or Trump in the White House.

The frightening thing about today is that there is both Ryan and Trump at the same time. No Eisenhower balancing McCarthy, no Scott balancing Nixon or Clinton managing Gingrich.

Re: Nothing to see here. No. Really. You can't see this.
 

New (admittedly completely unsubstantiated) theory is that Nunes actually engaged in the behavior he is currently supposed to be investigating while serving on Trump's transition team. This would explain a lot--like, "Dude, you need to shut this shit down because...well, take a look at this evidence that has your name all over it."

TM