Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 504519)

That's total BS. It's folks like you, bourgeoisie, nihilists, partisans, trying to speak on behalf of the working class.

Screw that, we all know what Dude speaks on behalf of the working class.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 504518)

I see from a good source on Twitter that the Republicans' plans for the ACA threaten:

12 million new Medicaid recipients
9 million on subsidies
52 million with pre-existing conditions

Odd that our conversation focuses so much on the 9 million, and so little on the other 64 million. It's almost as if the conversation is not animating by the actual effects on real people, but on the notion that someone without money is getting something they don't deserve.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 504497)

That ratio doesn't tell you anything at all -- it's apples and oranges. One is a cost and the other is a change in a rate of increase, and different people are spending the money in each case.



I believe what I said is that you were repeating a trope that explained the way a lot Trump voters think, and I still think that's true.



The ACA did a bunch of things all at once. If you are going to pretend that the things that raised revenue and saved money didn't exist, then you're never going to admit that the whole thing worked from a budget perspective. I don't get why you're so insistent that those other parts of the ACA didn't exist, or that they're not important, or something.

I decide to but a new house, and sell the one I own now. You tell me, you can't afford that house! It's much too expensive. I say, yeah, it's a lot of house, but if I sell the one I'm in then I can afford it. You reply, this deal really isn't about the old house, it's about the new house, and you can't afford the new house.

I get it. You don't like the new house. Stop pretending it has anything to do with the budget.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 504507)

The only people complaining about the ACA are Republicans, and they're doing it for partisan reasons. Normal people care about their healthcare, not about the ACA, and they have all sorts of complaints. They want the government to make the healthcare system work better. Unfortunately for them, Paul Ryan and Republicans on the Hill are more interested in cutting taxes for the wealthy, and have an ideological opposition to using the government to make the healthcare system work better.

If I did this kind of politics for a living, I would be appealing to Trump to protect ordinary people from Paul Ryan and the House Republicans.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 504521)

Nihilist? My immediate family member with a chronic illness, one requiring significant management (w/o which this person dies horribly) might disagree.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 504525)

If you can't get a Lebowski reference you can't speak for the working class.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 504523)

Except you're underwater on the first house.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 504524)

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 504525)

If you can't get a Lebowski reference you can't speak for the working class.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 504529)

Because the Coen brothers are nothing if not the spokesmen of the proletariat.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 504532)

Of all of Trump's appointees so far, the one that worries me the least is Tillerson at State, because he seems the most likely to be practical and competent and not an ideologue.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 504532)

Of all of Trump's appointees so far, the one that worries me the least is Tillerson at State, because he seems the most likely to be practical and competent and not an ideologue.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 504533)

Don't really have an opinion about the man, but "long time oil exec" doesn't really scream "qualified to be our top diplomat" to me.

ETA: And I'm not sure oil interests need an even more prominent say in our foreign policy.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 504534)

What do you base this on? I don't have a feel for the man yet.

I certainly have a distaste for some of how Exxon Mobil has conducted its business, including its current dispute with the Mass. AG, but the CEO may or may not have much to do with that.