Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Amperzand]

And my mother got her cancer treatments payed for by Obamacare. :V Different experiences, I guess.

[Zangi]

I don't think health insurance is going to go back to the way it was before Obamacare anyways.  They ain't got any compelling reason to take you back on at what you had before and it is very unlikely that repealing Obamacare will have a follow-up that would do that. 
Cause: Mission Accomplished, we have struck the beast down!  *Totally forgets about the whole health insurance issue unless it is to say how bad Obamacare was, because the market will totally fix itself.*

[nenjin]

And my mother got her cancer treatments payed for by Obamacare. :V Different experiences, I guess.

And this is one of those awkward political moments where no one is right, no one is wrong and no one knows how to respond, and we probably need to see more of this than what is currently being shoveled at us.

[smjjames]

I thought Obamacare was done because the market wasn't (bbcode is a PITA to do on mobile) fixing itself?

[mainiac]

And this is one of those awkward political moments where no one is right, no one is wrong and no one knows how to respond, and we probably need to see more of this than what is currently being shoveled at us.

No it's not.  He is wrong.  People have their personal experiences but the singular form of anecdotes isn't data.  Sucks that the insurance markets is horrible.  Doesn't mean that I have the slightest bit of respect for him pinning the blame for sixty years of stagnation and corruption on a law that just started pushing back against these problems a couple years back.

[Frumple]

I thought Obamacare was done because the market wasn't (bbcode is a PITA to do on mobile) fixing itself?

Eh, sorta'. One of the goals involved was making the situation re: accurate market forces somewhat less freakishly warped, yeah. Lotta' other stuff going on, though, not just that... the ACA was, to a large extent, just kinda' throwing every conceivable thing the folks involved could get through at the wall and seeing what stuck.

I got a little screwed by it, myself, but that's mostly because florida's legislature is a piece of shit, not so much the act itself. Near as I've heard anything regarding the national level, the ACA has... really kinda' improved things. Substantially. Folks are still falling through cracks, but there's less of them and they tend to be not quite as deep.

I'm not sure that's entirely speaking in its favor, as you probably could have just literally taken an axe to the medical fields' upper managements and improved things as well, but... still. It's less shit than it was. Not a high bar, that, but it's now a higher one.

[Zangi]

I thought Obamacare was done because the market wasn't (bbcode is a PITA to do on mobile) fixing itself?

Depends on which sort of politician you ask...

[mainiac]

as you probably could have just literally taken an axe to the medical fields' upper managements

Interesting...

[nenjin]

And this is one of those awkward political moments where no one is right, no one is wrong and no one knows how to respond, and we probably need to see more of this than what is currently being shoveled at us.

No it's not.  He is wrong.  People have their personal experiences but the singular form of anecdotes isn't data.  Sucks that the insurance markets is horrible.  Doesn't mean that I have the slightest bit of respect for him pinning the blame for sixty years of stagnation and corruption on a law that just started pushing back against these problems a couple years back.

It's the consequences of governance, one way or another. These things matter to people. What I'm getting at is, appreciating the larger picture and giving a shit about someone outside of your personal sphere of experience is what we need more of. Half of the problem of politics is the inability by your average human being to lose something because someone else gains. When you put it to someone as "Would you be willing to pay more for insurance so someone who needs cancer treatments can get coverage", you're asking someone to altruistically give up something for the betterment of society as a whole. That basic principle of civics is rarely addressed these days, because people aren't allowed to confront each other anymore because it's just too toxic and angry. Not entirely unlike the pugilism you practice here, by doubling down on it. I was annoyed about parts of the mandate but I've come to terms with them. My rates went up too but I'm not going to shout at people who lost something way more significant in it and correctly point to the law as the actual thing that made it happen. That's not how you get people on board. That's how you drive them away, by continually trying to act as if they're stupid. Stupid or not, they're the electorate and they're what you have to work with.

[RedKing]

Been playing with the numbers, and it's going to be *very* close on whether or not there's a brokered convention. I think the Midwest (and Ted Cruz) is going to be just enough to prevent Trump from clinching. With possibly a huge shout-out to John Kasich and Pennsylvania.

See, there's really only three big blocks of delegates left on the table: New York, California and Pennsylvania.

New York, Trump is polling about 60%, but it's a proportional-by-CD allocation. I have to think there are some Hispanic boroughs in NYC that will break against him, as well as some of the areas around Manhattan. So he'll get a lion's share, but not the full sweep. Kasich will likely be shut out, as there's a 20% threshold.

California is winner-take-all by district (which, because 159 of its 172 delegates are awarded by CD, makes it essentially a proportional election). Cruz would, I think, do well in Northern California and Hispanic areas of Southern California. Trump will win the whiter parts of Southern California. But essentially it'll be about a 60/40 split.

Pennsylvania is winner-take-all, and Kasich is within a couple of points of Trump here. My gut says that Cruz and establishment backers do some strategic voting here and put Kasich over the top, denying Trump any of those 71 delegates.

That leaves him to scrape out delegates wherever he can, and a lot of the remaining states are "Heartland" states where Cruz has been winning.

I think it plays out like this:

4/5:
Wisconsin -- Cruz win

4/19:
New York -- Trump win

4/26:
Connecticut -- split decision (proportional)
Delaware -- Trump win
Maryland -- Trump win
Pennsylvania -- Kasich win
Rhode Island -- split decision (proportional)

5/3:
Indiana -- Trump win (could be a surprise -- if Kasich wins Pennsylvania, he might have enough momentum to carry Indiana. Its also an open primary, s could be a lot of crossover voting.)

5/10:
Nebraska -- Cruz win
West Virginia -- Trump win

5/17:
Oregon -- Cruz win

5/24:
Washington -- Trump win

6/7:
California -- Trump win, but no sweep
New Jersey -- Trump win
Montana -- Cruz win
New Mexico -- Cruz win
South Dakota -- Cruz win

I think at this point, Trump finishes up about 50-100 delegates shy of the nomination. Now, there are some wildcards out there like Colorado, North Dakota and Wyoming, whose delegates are in a weird "vote however the hell you want" status, and if those delegates could make the difference, Trump's campaign will probably promise them all gold-plated blowjobs for life. Which could create controversy all its own if Trump squeaks out a win through "unbounded" delegates who aren't bound to the results of their statewide primary/caucuses.

I think Kasich will drop after 5/3 if he doesn't win Indiana, and may stay on to the convention if he does.
On the other hand, if Trump wins Pennsylvania, that may be enough to knock Kasich out and to put Trump over the top after the 6/7 primaries.

[Strife26]

Woohoo, North Dakota matters (kinda, sorta, not really)!

[mainiac]

That basic principle of civics is rarely addressed these days

No it's practiced a lot.  The thing is that people like to shove it into situations where it doesn't belong.

There were a class of people that were made worse off by Obamacare.  Almost everyone of them was very, very wealthy.  Like more then $250k/year.  There are probably a few scattered examples of people under that made worse off but it takes some sort of extraordinary circumstances.  The republicans were trying to run stories of people hurt by Obamacare, they aren't doing that any more.  They stopped because they kept getting embarrassed by the fact that they would advertise some sob story, people would find out more about the person and then they would discover the person thought Obamacare was hurting them but actually Obamacare was helping them or would be if they weren't stubbornly refusing to use it.

There is a time in politics as in any other civil discussion for both sides to reach out and understand the other.  The problem is that sometimes people fetishize this to such an extent that they dont bother to look at the facts of the matter.  If someone is insisting on a view despite evidence, engaging in denialism, then you dont blame the other side.  Misapplying blame isn't encouraging civil discourse.  You are encouraging people to be ignorant by saying that ignorance is a form of knowledge.  It's not.  Ignorance is ignorance.

Want civil discourse?  That's great.  Encourage it, dont reward ignorance.

[Vector]

I agree with this notion.

[nenjin]

You are encouraging people to be ignorant by saying that ignorance is a form of knowledge.  It's not.  Ignorance is ignorance.

Where did I say ignorance is knowledge? I didn't. I'm not a Know-Nothing.

You cannot educate people you put on the defensive though. For example, by calling them stupid and ignorant. We've had this go-around before. You seem to believe the thermonuclear option in dealing with the opposition is the only option because they're immune to facts. I'm saying, put two average people on either side in the room and if they pool their experiences and accept people have had different experiences, whatever the facts are, it's a better place to start teaching people facts than after you've called them stupid and ignorant, or referencing the fact they've been stupid and ignorant before so they're probably stupid and ignorant now. I work with stupid and ignorant people day in and day out. And you know what? Treating them like they're stupid and ignorant would make it impossible for either of us to do our jobs. So I treat them with respect despite their stupidity and ignorance. And we get things done.

[mainiac]

You cannot educate people you put on the defensive though. For example, by calling them stupid and ignorant.

I only put it in those terms you came in here all sanctimonius.  Which is a fine example of why your holier then thou art attitude isn't doing what you claim it is.

And it's not my job to educate people.  I discuss politics because I it amuses me.