Print

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

[mainiac]

Her proposition probably don't even account for the inflation since this law passed.

The tax credit was in fact indexed to inflation last year.  I know this because instead of "probably" researching this I actually googled that shit.

(because the trending news are currently focused on Trump engaging in open civil war with the rest of GOP, and also on fake Clinton scandals, to avoid looking "partisan"), but it's there.

Because that's what people read. 

[Rolan7]

... it would bring millions out of poverty and reduce poverty for millions more, as well as benefit millions more during the period where kids are among their most needy. I'd call that pretty major, personally. Also politics that isn't little, a change with substantial vision, and damned good justification. The income dependency is because it's intended to especially help the kids (and their families) in the worst conditions, while still incentivizing work (i.e. you might actually get the republicans to let it through). The current credit is both smaller and doesn't kick in at all until a certain point.

In a complete vacuum it looks like a big deal. To me, who is used to a flat tax exemption on salary per child (increase with the number of child), plus an allocation per children, plus subsidized child care, plus cheap childbirth due to free healthcare, plus free quality education, it seems like a tiny handout. Let's not even talk about the help you can get when your children are disabled.


And yet for us the current situation isn't too good : children are still expensive, education is not what it could be, healthcare is getting more expensive,....

*sigh* Yeah, it does suck that we aren't close to a proper European system for welfare or health care.  They clearly work a lot better.

Incremental improvement is our only chance at this point, though.  I mean, at least she's getting seriously accused of pushing for single-payer....  So that might have a chance, if we do well enough in Congress!

Not on day one, though.  *Some* pragmatism and patience is necessary, though we may disagree about how much.

Her proposition probably don't even account for the inflation since this law passed. Trump proposition of restoring import tariffs sound better honestly.

Well that first part sure seems fair /s
As for tariffs, I agree that they sound a whole lot better.  It seems like the obvious fix for our trade problems.  But I respectfully disagree, after reading up on it, the evidence suggests that we wouldn't do well in the resulting trade war.
Sorta like Brexit:  We may have a right, but it would just hurt us worse.

But to be fair it is policy that Trump has actually been relatively clear about!

[mainiac]

But to be fair it is policy that Trump has actually been relatively clear about!

Has he?  What level does he want the tariff at?  What goods does he want to include or exempt?  All countries or just some?

[Phmcw]

The tax credit was in fact indexed to inflation last year.  I know this because instead of "probably" researching this I actually googled that shit.

Couldn't find it, but then how the hell is it a round number?

*sigh* Yeah, it does suck that we aren't close to a proper European system for welfare or health care.  They clearly work a lot better.
Incremental improvement is our only chance at this point, though.  I mean, at least she's getting seriously accused of pushing for single-payer....  So that might have a chance, if we do well enough in Congress!
Not on day one, though.  *Some* pragmatism and patience is necessary, though we may disagree about how much.

You are not making incremental changes for the better. You are cementing a status-quo.

Also we didn't get a "progressively better" system. We made the establishment cave through force,and then they took back some ground. They took back way too much ground actually, our system won't last ten more years at this rate.

[mainiac]

Couldn't find it, but then how the hell is it a round number?

Because they just indexed it so it wont stop being a round number until next year.

You are not making incremental changes for the better. You are cementing a status-quo.

Every good change ever has come from incrementalism.  Abolition, suffrage, civil rights, progressive taxation, social security, medicare, medicaid, S-CHIP.  Every one of these was watered down in the first draft and improved later on.  And currently we are in the middle of Obamacare which was watered down at first but which can be improved right now.  And this clinton tax credit is an example of "improved later on".  You just keep making additions and fixes and eventually you fix the problem.

Hell Bernie Sanders was calling for a "revolution" and he was still talking about incremental changes.

[Frumple]

But to be fair it is policy that Trump has actually been relatively clear about!

Has he?  What level does he want the tariff at?  What goods does he want to include or exempt?  All countries or just some?

Relatively clear, m. For trump. Looks like he's mentioned 35% for mexico and 45% for China recently, as well as a general 20% to everything back in 2011. No mention of goods exemption at all, from what the check noticed.

Of course, all of it was accompanied with the standard weasel words, and I wouldn't exactly be surprised if he's contradicted some or all of it at some point. It is trump, after all. Lying is the slime's default state.

[Rolan7]

You are not making incremental changes for the better. You are cementing a status-quo.

Also we didn't get a "progressively better" system. We made the establishment cave through force,and then they took back some ground. They took back way too much ground actually, our system won't last ten more years at this rate.

Well it *is incremental* change for the better...  Maybe you think that cements the status-quo.  But if so, what do you propose instead?  You think Congress will pass legislation it doesn't support because of some riots, or because the president is an idealist?  We *tried* that!

I think this "cementation" idea is defeatist and ignores the hard-won progress we're seeing over the past years.  The Affordable Care Act (ironically bipartisan as it actually is) does protect people from the worst Insurance industry tactics, and reduces overall medical costs by insisting that people get coverage.  People are seeing that government involvement in health care protects them from the insurance companies.  We're getting acclimated to the idea of state-run health care, instead of trying to pass a complete revolution that people aren't ready for.

Congress and people in general didn't want single-payer, so it didn't matter that Obama did.  But we might get it in the next 4-8 years.  Change takes time.

Same with LGBT rights and religious liberty...

[Reelya]

The framework is already in place for a completely servicable single-payer system in the USA. Expand Medicaid and put in regulations requiring basic drugs to be bought in bulk from the cheapest providers. This is of course the biggest threat to the domination of the big health insurers, and why they fund politicians who block these actually sensible measures.

[TheBiggerFish]

Huh.  Never thought about that.

[sluissa]

You are not making incremental changes for the better. You are cementing a status-quo.

Also we didn't get a "progressively better" system. We made the establishment cave through force,and then they took back some ground. They took back way too much ground actually, our system won't last ten more years at this rate.

Well it *is incremental* change for the better...  Maybe you think that cements the status-quo.  But if so, what do you propose instead?  You think Congress will pass legislation it doesn't support because of some riots, or because the president is an idealist?  We *tried* that!

I think this "cementation" idea is defeatist and ignores the hard-won progress we're seeing over the past years.  The Affordable Care Act (ironically bipartisan as it actually is) does protect people from the worst Insurance industry tactics, and reduces overall medical costs by insisting that people get coverage.  People are seeing that government involvement in health care protects them from the insurance companies.  We're getting acclimated to the idea of state-run health care, instead of trying to pass a complete revolution that people aren't ready for.

Congress and people in general didn't want single-payer, so it didn't matter that Obama did.  But we might get it in the next 4-8 years.  Change takes time.

Same with LGBT rights and religious liberty...

Except for the few edge cases I've heard about, everyone seems to be complaining about the ACA. It's become a punch line among my conservative friends. And even most left leaning people I know are hesitant to give it much praise. Any time insurance or healthcare comes up in a negative light, "Well, that's Obamacare for you."

I won't deny there are improvements to the insurance system as a result of ACA. But most of those improvements are things people are likely never to see. What they do see is the increase in insurance rates as a result of it. The only people who seem to actually approve of anything it does are those who were directly affected by it, such as pre-existing condition people who couldn't get insurance before. Or those who take the time to sit down and study it and those are very few and very far between.

Now, a chunk of that is because of the gutting of the bill over the last few years. It can't do nearly as much as it promised to at the beginning. But another chunk of it is that it just was poorly designed from the outset. It left the execution of it, in many places, in the hands of people who had no desire to see it succeed for starters. It's a crazy hybrid plan that simply wasn't meant to survive long past birth without significant amounts of life support which it isn't getting and shouldn't have expected to get.

You could say it's an incremental to the next step, a fall we had to take in order to see the path in front of us, but I say it was a waste of time and money and the hurt from it is going to make people shy about trying anything more extensive for a long time.

[Reelya]

Well health insurance rising after the ACA is only relevant if that's a change from what would have occurred otherwise. So it's more difficult to determine the effects.

Overall health spending rose by 5.3 percent in 2014, according to a report issued Wednesday by the Office of the Actuary at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. That contrasts with a 3.7-percent average inflation rate for health spending in the previous five years — and just a 2.9-percent growth rate in 2012.

That said, the higher health spending growth rate seen last year was still lower than in most years seen before the Affordable Care Act began being implemented in 2010, CMS noted. From 2000 to 2009, health-care spending grew by an average of 6.9 percent each year.

Here's a graph:

What is true is that Americans are paying more out of pocket for their medical care than ever before, partially due to the rise of high deductible plans, and drug prices for everything from insulin to EpiPens are skyrocketing. Additionally, the percentage of Americans’ income spent on healthcare is increasing.

On the other hand, total healthcare spending in the US is growing at the slowest pace in decades, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Also, the shift to high deductible plans has made insurance cheaper for employers, while recent changes to provider reimbursement have dragged down cost increases for private payers.

The dark blue line is inflation in costs to users of medical services. Those have spiked, but they're still below 2012, and the "spikes" in 2012 and 2016, are actually at the level of the "dips" in 2003 and 2006. i.e. health care costs to normal people are rising slower under Obama than Bush. The bottom light blue line is the increase in total medical spending across the nation. That's at almost historically low levels, and that's the part where your taxes are paying for it. i.e. Obamacare is saving your tax dollars, and the inflation in out of pocket expenses is actually relatively low.

[Sergarr]

Some Republicans are actually running back to Trump after denouncing him for the Pussygate. Wow. Ebat' kolotit', what the fuck are those guys made from, jelly putty?

EDIT: Oh. My. God. You can't make this shit up. What the hell:

Trump: Sure, I Deliberately Burst In On Naked Beauty Contestants

"Well, I'll tell you the funniest is that before a show, I'll go backstage and everyone's getting dressed, and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere, and I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it," Trump said. "You know, I'm inspecting because I want to make sure that everything is good."

"You know, the dresses. 'Is everyone okay?' You know, they're standing there with no clothes.

'Is everybody okay?' And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that. But no, I've been very good," he added.

Teen Beauty Queens Say Trump Walked In On Them Changing

Four women who competed in the 1997 Miss Teen USA beauty pageant said Donald Trump walked into the dressing room while contestants — some as young as 15 — were changing.
“I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, ‘Oh my god, there’s a man in here,’” said Mariah Billado, the former Miss Vermont Teen USA.
Trump, she recalled, said something like, “Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before.”
Three other women, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of getting engulfed in a media firestorm, also remembered Trump entering the dressing room while girls were changing. Two of them said the girls rushed to cover their bodies, with one calling it “shocking” and “creepy.” The third said she was clothed and introduced herself to Trump.

Can't make this shit up.

[mainiac]

But another chunk of it is that it just was poorly designed from the outset. It left the execution of it, in many places, in the hands of people who had no desire to see it succeed for starters. It's a crazy hybrid plan that simply wasn't meant to survive long past birth without significant amounts of life support which it isn't getting and shouldn't have expected to get.

It wasn't poorly designed.  They just had to pass an incomplete bill because Ted Kennedy died so the house had no choice but to pass the last version the Senate voted on without amendments or reconcilliation.  That was never, ever supposed to be a final draft of the bill.  This is why the language of the bill flatly contradicts itself at times, leading court cases including the big one that diluted the medicaid provisions.  They weren't even allowed to proofread the damn thing.

It's like commenting that someone's notes from class dont make for a very good term paper.

[Mephansteras]

Some Republicans are actually running back to Trump after denouncing him for the Pussygate. Wow. Ebat' kolotit', what the fuck are those guys made from, jelly putty?

I wonder if the flip-flopping will hurt them, or if the core Republicans just don't care that much as long as they end up however the voter wants them?

[mainiac]

I wonder if the flip-flopping will hurt them, or if the core Republicans just don't care that much as long as they end up however the voter wants them?

In a sane world flip-flopping is like the worst of all things to do.  But this is Trump's world now so it'll probably make them win.