Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 506194)

DJT already has other people handling his relationship with the Kremlin, so Huntsman is just for show. Contrast the sort of person he sent to Israel.

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 506195)

Serious question. Why am I wrong here?

The ACA was doomed the moment it added so many people with their conditions and costs without adequately adding premium and without reducing costs. The costs would have been reduced by limiting wasteful expenditures on end-of-life care. So called "death panels" would have decided - on behalf of taxpayer, not private money, - that paying millions for machines that go ping for a few weeks was asinine and cost ineffective.

But the Republicans in their fervor to be all things anti-Obama defeated the most fiscally responsible part of the Bill. Thus, it beacame a half assed project doomed to failure. We spend close to 20% of our GDP on health care, and over 75% of that on the last year of someone's life, i.e. the machine that goes ping when your grandparent is dying but may only add days to their life, but we added millions of sick patients without the ability to limit their care.

Do the math. Trump is right here about it expoding. Obama and Congress gave the doctors and insurance companies carte blanche to raise rates (or quit) 25% this year without recourse. And next year, etc. I may be wrong, but nothing I have read from either side - other than single payer - has proposed anything realistic on the cost side, so costs coninue to rise without equivalent revenues. Well, duh, Trump is right that that is unsustainable.

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 506195)

Serious question. Why am I wrong here?

The ACA was doomed the moment it added so many people with their conditions and costs without adequately adding premium and without reducing costs. The costs would have been reduced by limiting wasteful expenditures on end-of-life care. So called "death panels" would have decided - on behalf of taxpayer, not private money, - that paying millions for machines that go ping for a few weeks was asinine and cost ineffective.

But the Republicans in their fervor to be all things anti-Obama defeated the most fiscally responsible part of the Bill. Thus, it beacame a half assed project doomed to failure. We spend close to 20% of our GDP on health care, and over 75% of that on the last year of someone's life, i.e. the machine that goes ping when your grandparent is dying but may only add days to their life, but we added millions of sick patients without the ability to limit their care.

Do the math. Trump is right here about it expoding. Obama and Congress gave the doctors and insurance companies carte blanche to raise rates (or quit) 25% this year without recourse. And next year, etc. I may be wrong, but nothing I have read from either side - other than single payer - has proposed anything realistic on the cost side, so costs coninue to rise without equivalent revenues. Well, duh, Trump is right that that is unsustainable.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 506190)

Coltrane aka Young Sebby comes back, and you people are acting like it's no big deal? For shame!

So, Coltrane, you must be almost at the Swinging Free in the Hickey Freeman stage of development - how's that going? Do you like peaty single malt Scotch (excuse me, "Scots") yet? Catching the eye of the hot clerk at the Hyatt reception desk?

(Seriously, welcome back! Now we need Spanky to come by and talk about the Plantonic Ideal of Free trade.)

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 506163)

The people who are hurting Trump are the intel leakers, and Schumer, and Franken.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 506164)

Consider for a moment what will occur in this country if Trump were to be removed from office.

Perhaps there's a smooth transition to Pence. That's possible, maybe even likely.

But a just as likely scenario is a bit more disturbing...

What happens to the "movement" -- and yes, Trump has created a movement -- which would view his ouster as a coordinated attack by elites, or the "deep state," or the Establishment? And what happens to those last vestiges of trust in institutions existing in the population?

I'm sure you think we have ample enforcement to keep control under any circumstances. And on the surface, we do. Demonstration of brute force can compel the population to refrain from a certain narrow category of behaviors we all agree should be prohibited. But actual, meaningful control is very fragile, and the slide toward something like Brazil -- a govt that has power over perhaps half of its population, at best -- isn't a long one.

Our govt's coercive power is a lot like credit. It's all based on confidence, and in reality, much of it is a bluff. We are already destabilized. I'm not sure I want to know the wages of another Watergate ("Russiagate") occurring in our current tenuous position.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 506172)

Are you saying I can't carve out his corporate plan from his individual plan?

Segue: I do find it interesting that people always talk about poor rural whites voting against their self interest (which they do), when many urban/suburban upper-middle class voters do the exact same thing (I know I do). Trump's tax plan would benefit both of us significantly more than Clinton's would have.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 506205)

Oddly, this fear is receding in my view, as his evidence of his corruption and incompetence is mounting.

I also think evidence of a real movement is fading too. The Chan troll culture isn't going to stay with him as he actually has to do more than bloviate.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 506191)

Come on... We do not have anything close to fiscal moderation. Both parties spend like drunks. Medicare part d, defense budget, subsidies for ACA, countless administrative agencies... It's a fuckshow in terms of govt breadth and expenditure. .

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 506207)

You're arguing with a man who didn't know who Abby Huntsman is. He pays no attention.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 506206)

You're assuming we see our interests as lower taxes.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 506210)

No I'm not. There's no dispute that under Trump's proposed tax plan, high earners will see a financial benefit. But maybe your interests are purely altruistic. If so, welcome back Jesus.

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 506195)

Serious question. Why am I wrong here?

The ACA was doomed the moment it added so many people with their conditions and costs without adequately adding premium and without reducing costs. The costs would have been reduced by limiting wasteful expenditures on end-of-life care. So called "death panels" would have decided - on behalf of taxpayer, not private money, - that paying millions for machines that go ping for a few weeks was asinine and cost ineffective.

But the Republicans in their fervor to be all things anti-Obama defeated the most fiscally responsible part of the Bill. Thus, it beacame a half assed project doomed to failure. We spend close to 20% of our GDP on health care, and over 75% of that on the last year of someone's life, i.e. the machine that goes ping when your grandparent is dying but may only add days to their life, but we added millions of sick patients without the ability to limit their care.

Do the math. Trump is right here about it expoding. Obama and Congress gave the doctors and insurance companies carte blanche to raise rates (or quit) 25% this year without recourse. And next year, etc. I may be wrong, but nothing I have read from either side - other than single payer - has proposed anything realistic on the cost side, so costs coninue to rise without equivalent revenues. Well, duh, Trump is right that that is unsustainable.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 506211)

It's not altruism, it's thinking past the next tax bill.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 506211)

It's not altruism, it's thinking past the next tax bill.