Print

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

[smjjames]

He also says whatever's convenient over gay rights (low priority honestly) but also like... Literally everything else.  Even the wall.  Even immigrants.

If this was on the 2D left-right libertarian-conservative 2D grid, I'd be invoking old well-tread arguments and we could refine them through discourse.
This guy is *literally* nothing, stuff and air.

Back during the primaries, Nate Beryllium made a graph that charted all the Republican candidates on his Five-Ring Circus interpretation of the Republican party's factions, and while he put Trump closest to the the Tea Party ring he also put him entirely outside the graph in empty space. Oddly prescient, now.

I don't think it was prescient, he was as amorphous in his views as they are now.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It was a prescient identification of the amorphousness that would come to define him. At that time, Trump's new and improved BUILD WALL persona was shiny, untested, and not entirely out of the ordinary for someone previously of the other party making a Presidential bid (see: Romneycare and R-Money's positions on abortion in the 90s).

It wasn't yet clear that he intended to just do it constantly.

[Ghills]

Funnily enough and also terrifyingly, I think nuclear arms is Trump's most revised issue. First he wants America to have all the nukes, just the best nukes. Then he thinks not only should we have nukes, but all of our allies and all of our "allies" should have nukes so we don't have to defend them. Then we should nuke ISIS until the desert glows, and he's asking his military advisors if he really has to abstain from using them. Then nukes should be reduced.

What's next, is Trump going to unfurl a peace symbol banner over the White House and demand the immediate end of America's flirtation with death by nuclear fire?

I don't think we've seen nearly the end of Trump changing his mind.  Ex: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-vows-insurance-for-everybody-in-obamacare-replacement-plan/2017/01/15/5f2b1e18-db5d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html

President-elect Donald Trump said in a weekend interview that he is nearing completion of a plan to replace President Obama’s signature health-care law with the goal of “insurance for everybody,” while also vowing to force drug companies to negotiate directly with the government on prices in Medicare and Medicaid.

That's one of the staples the left's position on health, that the government should negotiate block drug purchases. There are good reason to do it and good reasons to not do it, but it's really amusing to see Trump come out with this.

I wonder what will happen when he starts butting heads with his Cabinet over something like this, where Trump can't back down without losing popularity and his advisors and Republican leadership have spent years digging into entrenched positions that oppose his. 

[smjjames]

It's also a wonderful bit of irony, the Republicans kept wanting to repeal Obamacare and nearly everything on it, and yet Trump is wanting to put things in that they've been trying to get rid of all this time.

Also, Rand Paul has said that his plan (or part of the many plans floating around) is to legalize inexpensive insurance, which makes no sense to me because that implies it's illegal to give inexpensive insurance atm.

[Ghills]

It's also a wonderful bit of irony, the Republicans kept wanting to repeal Obamacare and nearly everything on it, and yet Trump is wanting to put things in that they've been trying to get rid of all this time.

Also, Rand Paul has said that his plan (or part of the many plans floating around) is to legalize inexpensive insurance, which makes no sense to me because that implies it's illegal to give inexpensive insurance atm.

Affordable Care Act set minimum standards for coverage, which effectively outlawed a whole lot of 'catastrophic' plans that were basically scams that didn't really cover anything. 

Rand Paul probably wants to bring those back because !!free market!!  Nevermind that healthcare has inelastic demand and limited supply and the market can't work freely because it's not a standard good, !!free markets!! will solve all pricing issues because, naturally, all fees are only related to costs and every cost comes straight from government regulation. 

/sarcasm

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The irony is that it more resembles a free market under Obamacare. In the free-for-all it's a closed cartel of a few actors who can afford collusion and escallation, like the oil business. The loss of this to genuine competitive risk is exactly why the insurance companies are so against reform.

[Dostoevsky]

Also, Rand Paul has said that his plan (or part of the many plans floating around) is to legalize inexpensive insurance, which makes no sense to me because that implies it's illegal to give inexpensive insurance atm.

(Ghills has it, but I can provide a personal story version at least)

I was one of those folks who could not, in fact, 'keep their plan' under the ACA. Upon going to the marketplace, I found that the plans being offered were significantly more expensive, but had much better coverage. Only then did I read the fine print of my prior plan more carefully - turns out it was absolutely terrible and would have effectively bailed on me if I ever suffered something serious. Provisions like that (an upper cap on how much the insurance would cover) are, if I understand it right, not allowed under the ACA.

So I wouldn't be surprised if Paul's plan is to legalize the types of plans that are cheap but worth every penny (and not a cent more), so to speak.

These days I have an employer plan, which is both substantially cheaper and with better coverage than either of the private plans.

[Ghills]

I can agree with that, at least a bit. The problem is that "not beyond the usual for Trump" is still far into the realm of "something no president ever should do". Hell, it's probably also in the category of "something no one should ever do", too. We can argue about whether Trump is being an angry thin-skinned troll or a racist angry thin-skinned troll this time around but it's not worth it at all.

Please, for the love of everything good in this world, remember this. Any time you're in an argument regarding Trump and someone says "but Trump's exact words..." I want you to imagine this: that you made a deal with someone and got screwed over by it (even if only to a small intent) and then when you're pointing out how you got screwed over by it someone else adds "but the exact words of the deal..."

And I want you to nope out of that "Trump's exact words" argument as hard as you would out of that imaginary one. If possible, have mercy on everyone within earshot and brutally murder it before it even has a chance to take in its first breath by any means necessary. For your own sanity, and that of those around you.
...

* Caroline goes back to hiding in the bunker and staring out a peephole at the thread.

AMEN

Trump's exact words are not the point. They're bad pretty often! But not the point.  Nobody cares about them. Trump doesn't care, Republicans don't care, Democrats don't care, the people who voted for him openly admit they don't care.  Trump's actions are at best inappropriate and at worst potentially treasonous.

I do think Trump knows exactly what he's doing - he's using chutzpah, ego and other people's politeness to get money or fame.   He will use any attempt by other people to be normal against them, because he doesn't care about anything but getting ahead.

[Ghills]

The irony is that it more resembles a free market under Obamacare. In the free-for-all it's a closed cartel of a few actors who can afford collusion and escallation, like the oil business. The loss of this to genuine competitive risk is exactly why the insurance companies are so against reform.

Many parts of the ACA were taken from Republican proposals to increase healthcare coverage from before Republicans turned keeping people from getting sick into a partisan issue.

Also, Rand Paul has said that his plan (or part of the many plans floating around) is to legalize inexpensive insurance, which makes no sense to me because that implies it's illegal to give inexpensive insurance atm.

(Ghills has it, but I can provide a personal story version at least)

I was one of those folks who could not, in fact, 'keep their plan' under the ACA. Upon going to the marketplace, I found that the plans being offered were significantly more expensive, but had much better coverage. Only then did I read the fine print of my prior plan more carefully - turns out it was absolutely terrible and would have effectively bailed on me if I ever suffered something serious. Provisions like that (an upper cap on how much the insurance would cover) are, if I understand it right, not allowed under the ACA.

So I wouldn't be surprised if Paul's plan is to legalize the types of plans that are cheap but worth every penny (and not a cent more), so to speak.

These days I have an employer plan, which is both substantially cheaper and with better coverage than either of the private plans.

I always have to wonder if those people who complain about premium increases under ACA have checked whether they were getting worthwhile coverage before it.  I suspect they weren't and didn't know it.

[smjjames]

Also, Rand Paul has said that his plan (or part of the many plans floating around) is to legalize inexpensive insurance, which makes no sense to me because that implies it's illegal to give inexpensive insurance atm.

(Ghills has it, but I can provide a personal story version at least)

I was one of those folks who could not, in fact, 'keep their plan' under the ACA. Upon going to the marketplace, I found that the plans being offered were significantly more expensive, but had much better coverage. Only then did I read the fine print of my prior plan more carefully - turns out it was absolutely terrible and would have effectively bailed on me if I ever suffered something serious. Provisions like that (an upper cap on how much the insurance would cover) are, if I understand it right, not allowed under the ACA.

So I wouldn't be surprised if Paul's plan is to legalize the types of plans that are cheap but worth every penny (and not a cent more), so to speak.

These days I have an employer plan, which is both substantially cheaper and with better coverage than either of the private plans.

Yeah, it definetly has it's flaws.

Anyhow, why can't the politicians just amend and mold it instead of repealing it entirely? Use it as a base to work from. Of course though, that would require c o m p r o m i s e. Unless it's so complex that you can't change it a huge amount without repealing it entirely.

[Dostoevsky]

The compromise thing is a problem for the politicians who have spent six years on a crusade to kill it, yep. It's also the case that the vehicle they're using right now (reconciliation, to get the 50 vote threshold) can only target/affect certain parts of the ACA (reconciliation bills generally can't target discretionary spending and the like, only mandatory spending and revenue).

Using this reconciliation bill they can effectively tear out the heart of the ACA and send it into a death spiral, but using that device to effectively change it would be more difficult (though perhaps not impossible). Of course, they could use regular legislation - I could see the Senate reaching an actual bipartisan compromise, but the House has mostly been a scorched wasteland for years now (in my opinion) and I doubt they'd touch it.

As a reminder, the Democratic Senate passed the initial ACA with 60 Democrats, but then the House objected and wanted changes. Then they lost their 60th seat, so in order to placate the House Ds they passed a second bill - a reconciliation bill - making as many of the sought changes as they could while still only requiring 50 votes. So part of the ACA is from a reconciliation bill, part is from regular legislation.

[alway]

The real problem is it's been nearly a decade and Republicans still don't actually have a plan they support. Forget bipartisan agreement, the Republican party itself can't figure out what to replace it with that they would all agree to.

There simply is no further right-wing plan that isn't either an obvious and immediate disaster or simply keeping most of Obamacare, which they pledged not to do for the past 6 years. What it comes down to is the parts they dislike and are unpopular are in fact in place specifically because they support all the rest. They can get rid of those parts they dislike, but it will result in all the good parts which are wildly popular coming crashing down, tanking the entire individual insurance industry along with it.

Despite blustering on about it for over half a decade, they're still one good idea short of having a good idea.

[Sergarr]

Hey, guys and gals, remember when Trump promised a 35% tax on imports from Mexico? He's now threatening BMW with it. Economic warfare, ho, ho, ho!

[martinuzz]

Trump's first UK post-election interview: NATO is obsolete and "needs reform", Britain leaving EU is "smart", and "nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially".

The fucker really has the mental level of a toddler. Can't they put him in kindergarten and let grown-ups do politics?

[wierd]

Stay tuned viewers, for the amazing return of The Twilight Zone!



(as reported by the Scottish version of The Herald.)