ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Affordable Care Act , AHCA , donald trump , health care issues , health insurance issues , obamacare , Trumpcare

Reply
Old 6th July 2017, 02:16 PM   #201
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,490
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
<snip>

I didn't expect intellectually dishonest talking points from Republicans at all.

No need for a qualifier. Republican talking points tend to be dishonest without any obfuscation or embellishment.

They just lie, and their supporters love it.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 02:53 PM   #202
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I think most Trump supporters voted for an improved health care system with better coverage and lower premiums.

That was what he promised them.

Giving the wealthy a big tax cut wasn't a prominent part of Republican campaign rhetoric.
Elections are always a tradeoff for voters: voting for any candidate gives some of what they want, some of what they don't want. The interesting question is about what factors take priority.

For example, people want X and Y, are they willing to vote for a candidate that is Pro X but anti Y? Yes, if they value X more than Y.

In this scenario, it's possible that yes, voters want tax cuts for the rich, and also better healthcare. When it comes down to the crunch, they learned they could only pick one, and begrudgingly voted for tax cuts for the rich OVER better healthcare. (because they will be rich soon, all Americans are just temporarily indisposed future billionaires, and healthcare expenses will not be an issue anymore)
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 03:38 PM   #203
Civet
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,182
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
When it comes down to the crunch, they learned they could only pick one, and begrudgingly voted for tax cuts for the rich OVER better healthcare.
Maybe, but I'm not convinced of that. I'm not sure that Trump supporters do accept that they have to pick only one of those two things. I think they think it's entirely possible that we could somehow have really great health insurance for everyone more cheaply than with Obamacare and still cut taxes a lot. Not sure how they think it would work, probably some form of trickle-down economics.
Civet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 04:19 PM   #204
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by Civet View Post
Maybe, but I'm not convinced of that. I'm not sure that Trump supporters do accept that they have to pick only one of those two things. I think they think it's entirely possible that we could somehow have really great health insurance for everyone more cheaply than with Obamacare and still cut taxes a lot. Not sure how they think it would work, probably some form of trickle-down economics.
Yes, there's probably a significant segment that believe tax cuts for the rich will make everybody richer, and so therefore, health insurance will become more affordable for all through that process.

What I'm really alluding to is the present situation where the mutually exclusiveness of those two outcomes (lowering taxes for the rich is not compatible with expanding access to healthcare) is becoming clearer and clearer every day. People will fall back on their priorities.

This is the importance of wedge issues: it forces voters with many complex goals to boil their vote down to one issue that the Republicans can say they own. Pro life. Low taxes. Christian license. Everything else (jobs, healthcare, Russian assault on Western democracies) becomes subordinate when it comes time to pull the lever.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 04:49 PM   #205
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Yes, there's probably a significant segment that believe tax cuts for the rich will make everybody richer, and so therefore, health insurance will become more affordable for all through that process.

What I'm really alluding to is the present situation where the mutually exclusiveness of those two outcomes (lowering taxes for the rich is not compatible with expanding access to healthcare) is becoming clearer and clearer every day. People will fall back on their priorities.

This is the importance of wedge issues: it forces voters with many complex goals to boil their vote down to one issue that the Republicans can say they own. Pro life. Low taxes. Christian license. Everything else (jobs, healthcare, Russian assault on Western democracies) becomes subordinate when it comes time to pull the lever.
Just as an interesting example. I have a friend who quite correctly pointed out that the economy was the number one answer (84%) when Americans are asked "Among the following, which are important issues in this election?"

Where she went wrong, was misinterpreting the most common issue as the most important issue for 'voters'.

If people are asked to rank their answers, a different outcome emerges, and we start to see partisan clusters. Republicans think the economy is important. But they think sticking it to Obama is more important. So an economic trainwreck might still be acceptable, when it comes time to vote for a congresscritter in 2018.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by blutoski; 6th July 2017 at 04:51 PM.
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 03:08 AM   #206
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,825
Study finds under the Senate GOP health bill, "every state except Hawaii would have fewer jobs and a weaker economy," by 2026.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 04:20 AM   #207
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,987
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
#Fakenews

President Trump has promised better coverage for less money which will lead to 4%+ growth on average
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 04:30 AM   #208
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,261
Wasn't the ACA a republican plan anyway?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 05:24 AM   #209
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,893
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Wasn't the ACA a republican plan anyway?
It went by Romneycare before Obama tried to use it as the basis of bipartisan healthcare reform.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 06:39 AM   #210
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,261
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
It went by Romneycare before Obama tried to use it as the basis of bipartisan healthcare reform.
I don't recognise the bolded word in reference to US politics.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 07:24 AM   #211
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,880
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I don't recognise the bolded word in reference to US politics.
It means both sides refuse to work with the other side!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 07:44 AM   #212
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,173
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
It means both sides refuse to work with the other side!
I'll admit it, I'm a registered Democrat, but it's not both sides. It may appear that way to people on the other side of the pond, but... In practice it has worked differently:
Quote:
Some Republicans are admitting they may have to move to a plan B: working with Democrats. Link
Note the above: "may have to?" Quite a different attitude than the other side has.
Quote:
Congressional Democrats emerged from blistering losses in the election assessing the damage but pledging, at least for now, to try to find ways to work with President-elect Donald Trump. Link
Quite a bit different than the GOP reaction to the election of Barack Obama.
Quote:
Before the health care fight, before the economic stimulus package, before President Obama even took office, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, had a strategy for his party: use his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down, take advantage of the difficulties Democrats would have in governing and deny Democrats any Republican support on big legislation. Link
As McConnell told the Republican House caucus before Obama was even sworn in: "If he's for it we're against it."
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 08:29 AM   #213
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,825
Clickhole is giving the Onion a run for it's money with this story.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 08:33 AM   #214
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,825
And in non-satirical news: Republican lawmakers buy health insurance stocks as they surge during Obamacare repeal effort.

Quote:
Just as the House Republican bill to slash much of the Affordable Care Act moved forward, Rep. Mike Conaway, a Texas Republican and member of Speaker Paul Ryan’s leadership team, added a health insurance company to his portfolio.

An account owned by Conaway’s wife made two purchases of UnitedHealth stock, worth as much as $30,000, on March 24th, the day the legislation advanced*in the House Rules Committee, according to disclosures. The exact value of Conaway’s investment isn’t clear, given that congressional ethics forms only show a range of amounts, and Conaway’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

It was a savvy move. Health industry stocks, including insurance giants like UnitedHealth, have surged as Republicans move forward with their repeal effort, which rolls back broad taxes on health care firms while loosening consumer regulations which prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for medical treatment. UnitedHealth has gained nearly 7 percent in value since March 24.

He wasn’t the only one. As the health care system overhaul advanced last month on the other side of Capitol Hill, Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma purchased between $50,000 to $100,000 in UnitedHealth stock.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 10:02 AM   #215
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,392
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 10:35 AM   #216
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,893
yep, for some bizarre reason, politicians can insider-trade to their heart's content.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 11:12 AM   #217
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Give me a few minutes and I'll go back and edit my post, too.
Dude, no. I edited my post in less than a minute after I initially made it. The original post was at 4:39 PST, the edit was at 4:40 PST.

Your post came almost 30 minutes AFTER that - at 5:08 PST.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 11:16 AM   #218
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I'm not really finding much about this and I'm really not too clear on what is meant anyway. I did find this on a Kaiser website from last year:


I don't understand what the recommendation is. Kaiser says almost all persons with income of 138% of the federal poverty level are not eligible for subsidized marketplace coverage. Why should the provision be changed?
Because eligibility for ACA subsidies is done on an annual basis, whereas eligibility for Medicaid is done on a monthly basis. There is a fair bit of variation in implementation by state, of course. But in many states, there's a disconnect. A person may be eligible for Medicaid one month, then ineligible... the next... but not reach the minimum threshold for ACA over the course of the entire year.

It's also complicated by ACA plans generally having annual accumulators (deductibles and out of pocket maximums). Adding/Dropping coverage resets those accumulators in most states.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 02:08 PM   #219
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,189
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
So Republicans main argument is that Premiums have risen after Obamacare was enacted, despite the fact that they would've risen even if it wasn't enacted? Or that Obamacare didn't insure everyone, even-though it wasn't supposed to, so it's better to just stop trying to give Americans healthcare and return poor Americans their hard-fought freedom of living without healthcare insurance?

I didn't expect intellectually dishonest talking points from Republicans at all.
Krugman points this out as well:

Quote:
How do Republicans argue against this success? You can get a good overview by looking at the Twitter feed of Tom Price, President Trump’s secretary of health and human services — a feed that is, in its own way, almost as horrifying as that of the tweeter in chief. Price points repeatedly to two misleading numbers.

First, he points to the fact that fewer people than expected have signed up on the exchanges — Obamacare’s insurance marketplaces — and portrays this as a sign of dire failure. But a lot of this shortfall is the result of good news: Fewer employers than predicted chose to drop coverage and shift their workers onto exchange plans. So exchange enrollment has come in below forecast, but it mostly consists of people who wouldn’t otherwise have been insured — and as I said, there have been large gains in overall coverage.

Second, he points to the 28 million U.S. residents who remain uninsured as if this were some huge, unanticipated failure. But nobody expected Obamacare to cover everyone; indeed, the Congressional Budget Office always projected that more than 20 million people would, for various reasons, be left out. And you have to wonder how Price can look himself in the mirror after condemning the A.C.A. for missing some people when his own party’s plans would vastly increase the number of uninsured.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/o...obamacare.html

Republicans can't argue against the ACA, or for their own piece of legislation, in good faith and have to lie or mislead in order to not come off as completely abhorrent. It's no wonder that so many Republicans and republican leaning people remain uninformed about what exactly the Republicans in congress are trying enact: the less they know the better.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 02:47 PM   #220
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,173
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Because eligibility for ACA subsidies is done on an annual basis, whereas eligibility for Medicaid is done on a monthly basis...A person may be eligible for Medicaid one month, then ineligible... the next... but not reach the minimum threshold for ACA over the course of the entire year. It's also complicated by ACA plans generally having annual accumulators (deductibles and out of pocket maximums). Adding/Dropping coverage resets those accumulators in most states.
I was responding to your suggestion that the minimum FPL requirement (133%) for individual market eligibility be removed. Kaiser says almost all people with incomes below 138% of poverty are not eligible for subsidized Marketplace coverage so why is this important? How many people does this effect?

As was pointed out, you claim ACA to be a disaster based on 42 counties out of 3,007 having no coverage available (next year?) while ignoring the fact that millions of people have gained coverage thanks to ACA. It's seems as though your argument is based on trying to find anything and everything wrong with ACA while ignoring everything right.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
There is a fair bit of variation in implementation by state, of course. But in many states, there's a disconnect.
If the problem is a result of states varying in how they implement ACA that's not a federal problem. Are they red states?
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 02:56 PM   #221
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,189
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
It's seems as though your argument is based on trying to find anything and everything wrong with ACA while ignoring everything right.
It's funny because first Republicans whined about how the ACA was going to far and was another steppingstone towards full blown marxist-leninist totalitarianism. Now they are complaining that the ACA is a failure because it hasn't solved all of the problems and issues with the American healthcare system even-though nobody really expected, or even argued, that it was going to do so.

It's almost like they are arguing that ACA didn't go far enough in reforming the American healthcare system, which is a completely reasonable point to make considering that many of the problems it's facing now will only become worse over time unless something is done.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2017, 10:42 AM   #222
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,825
I shared my toddler's hospital bill on Twitter. First came supporters — then death threats.

Quote:
The attacks became increasingly personal and increasingly violent. Strangers were telling me it would have been cheaper to make a new kid, as if anyone in the history of the world could ever replace this bright light of mine, the boy who loves animals and can’t keep himself from kissing babies and always wants to sleep with one arm wrapped around my neck.

I was offered a .22 bullet, although I’m still not sure whom he meant it for, me or my child. One man took me up on the challenge I’d posed in the thread and declared that my son just wasn’t worth keeping alive anymore. There was even a percentage of the comments dedicated to the belief that I was a foreigner or, worse, a terrorist, which is when I started asking news outlets to use my full name: Alison, not Ali, since people seemed unable to believe that I was, in fact, a white chick from New Jersey.

The worst were the ones who attacked on the genetic front. Heterotaxy has no known cause, but in our case it was due to a genetic glitch, a previously unknown fault in the code of my own humanity that I passed down to my son. I don’t think I’ll ever come to terms with the fact that it was me who slipped the poison into his DNA, with knowing that his children (if he ever has them) will stand in front of this same 50-50 firing squad. It’s been my own private heartbreak. Now strangers were tearing barely healed scabs off those old wounds and I was running out of hands to stanch the bleeding.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2017, 04:39 AM   #223
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,997
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I think most Trump supporters voted for an improved health care system with better coverage and lower premiums.

That was what he promised them.

Giving the wealthy a big tax cut wasn't a prominent part of Republican campaign rhetoric.
You think they actually believed that rhetoric? It was like the wall all metaphor, this is what republicans have been clearly intending since the beginning. And those counties that don't have an individual market will be so much less of a problem when they lose all health care providers.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2017, 05:38 AM   #224
Armitage72
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,724
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
So Republicans main argument is that Premiums have risen after Obamacare was enacted, despite the fact that they would've risen even if it wasn't enacted? Or that Obamacare didn't insure everyone, even-though it wasn't supposed to, so it's better to just stop trying to give Americans healthcare and return poor Americans their hard-fought freedom of living without healthcare insurance?

I didn't expect intellectually dishonest talking points from Republicans at all.

"If you can't fix everything, then don't fix anything" is a common excuse used to avoid taking action. You see it with climate change as well. "Why should we bother reducing emissions? That other country isn't doing it, so the problem will still be there."
"Perfect is the enemy of good", used as an excuse for apathy.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2017, 09:49 AM   #225
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
You think they actually believed that rhetoric? It was like the wall all metaphor, this is what republicans have been clearly intending since the beginning. And those counties that don't have an individual market will be so much less of a problem when they lose all health care providers.
One of the other conflicts that Republicans have been engaged in surrounding healthcare is that they don't like the way Medicare and Medicaid funding is organized. At the moment, there are strings attached, the states need to follow rules to use the funds.

The fight has been to loosen the federal enforcement, and allow the states to implement as they see fit. Federal cash, no strings attached. The big debate when it was first implemented was that in order for hospitals to qualify for operational funding, they needed to desegregate.

A lot of the political inertia in the USA right now is on a trajectory toward restoring segregation, it's just that the advocates know better than to be overt about it. The main buzzword is "state rights"
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2017, 09:59 AM   #226
Civet
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,182
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
You think they actually believed that rhetoric?
I think lots of Republican voters did. I believe that this is one of those issues where there's a significant difference between the goals of Republican office-holders and Republican voters. I'm not sure how many Republican voters are aware of that.
Civet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2017, 11:02 AM   #227
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Elections are always a tradeoff for voters: voting for any candidate gives some of what they want, some of what they don't want. The interesting question is about what factors take priority.

For example, people want X and Y, are they willing to vote for a candidate that is Pro X but anti Y? Yes, if they value X more than Y.

In this scenario, it's possible that yes, voters want tax cuts for the rich, and also better healthcare. When it comes down to the crunch, they learned they could only pick one, and begrudgingly voted for tax cuts for the rich OVER better healthcare. (because they will be rich soon, all Americans are just temporarily indisposed future billionaires, and healthcare expenses will not be an issue anymore)
*Gumble* Voters aren't voting for this. Politicians are voting for it. I would suggest that their motivations, and their value rankings, may vary from those of the average american.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2017, 11:07 AM   #228
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,687
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
One of the other conflicts that Republicans have been engaged in surrounding healthcare is that they don't like the way Medicare and Medicaid funding is organized. At the moment, there are strings attached, the states need to follow rules to use the funds.
....
Let's note once again that Medicare and Medicaid are entirely separate programs. Medicare is paid for by a federal payroll tax that goes into federal trust funds. The states don't have anything to do with it.
https://www.medicare.gov/about-us/ho...e-funding.html
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2017, 11:37 AM   #229
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,997
Originally Posted by Civet View Post
I think lots of Republican voters did. I believe that this is one of those issues where there's a significant difference between the goals of Republican office-holders and Republican voters. I'm not sure how many Republican voters are aware of that.
That is as dumb as thinking that he was going to build a wall. The wall was a metaphor after all. He should be taken serious and not literally after all.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2017, 12:34 PM   #230
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
*Gumble* Voters aren't voting for this. Politicians are voting for it. I would suggest that their motivations, and their value rankings, may vary from those of the average american.
I guarantee it, but, there's always going to be a disconnect, in a republic, so what are they up to, is a good question. Why do they think they will get re-elected, is the question. My fear is that they *are* well aligned, with consideration for prioritization and tradeoffs.

No candidate is not going to 100% align with every voter, and I hope voters understand that. There's no 'average american' because the Venn diagrams for the different values don't have great overlap. Maximizing a district's voter satisfaction is a Logistics and Game Theory exercise. If they guess right, they get re-elected.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2017, 12:56 PM   #231
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by Civet View Post
Maybe, but I'm not convinced of that. I'm not sure that Trump supporters do accept that they have to pick only one of those two things. I think they think it's entirely possible that we could somehow have really great health insurance for everyone more cheaply than with Obamacare and still cut taxes a lot. Not sure how they think it would work, probably some form of trickle-down economics.
It IS possible to have great health insurance at lest cost to everyone and cut taxes some (not necessarily a lot)... if we would actually look at cost-side controls as part of the solution.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2017, 01:14 PM   #232
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I was responding to your suggestion that the minimum FPL requirement (133%) for individual market eligibility be removed. Kaiser says almost all people with incomes below 138% of poverty are not eligible for subsidized Marketplace coverage so why is this important? How many people does this effect?
They're not eligible for marketplace coverage because they're below 138% poverty. There's a floor for the marketplace.

It mostly affects people who are near the line, who would end up fluctuating between Medicaid and Marketplace plans. In some cases, there are people who may lose Medicaid coverage in some months, but not have reasonable access to other Marketplace plans - this means they end up with a disruption in their coverage. Not a big deal if the person is healthy, maybe, but it can be a serious problem if it interrupts care in progress.

Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
As was pointed out, you claim ACA to be a disaster based on 42 counties out of 3,007 having no coverage available (next year?) while ignoring the fact that millions of people have gained coverage thanks to ACA. It's seems as though your argument is based on trying to find anything and everything wrong with ACA while ignoring everything right.
Not *just* those 42 counties. There are hundreds more counties where there is only one carrier, so no competition at all. Most carriers have moved to very limited plan selections and closed networks. There are now fewer choices available than there were before. AND the cost keep going up. The millions who have gained coverage mostly gained it through expanded Medicaid, and that's facing cuts as well. I cant' recall off the top of my head, and my google-fu seems broken today, but I believe that a fairly large portion of the federal funding used to expand Medicaid is scheduled to sunset under ACA anyway. I'm not ignoring the things that went right... but those few things aren't sufficient to make it sustainable.

Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
If the problem is a result of states varying in how they implement ACA that's not a federal problem.
It's a variation in whether or not they expanded Medicaid, and how they planned for changes in income throughout the year. ACA didn't address that at all. Some states took additional measures to plan for income changes and to make sure there's a reasonable coordination between Medicaid and Marketplace. ACA didn't make accommodation for that, so yes, it's a federal problem.

Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Are they red states?
The prevailing political persuasion of the state is irrelevant.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2017, 02:12 PM   #233
Civet
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,182
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
It IS possible to have great health insurance at lest cost to everyone and cut taxes some (not necessarily a lot)... if we would actually look at cost-side controls as part of the solution.
True. I wasn't really thinking of that since I don't consider it politically realistic, but it's entirely possible that some voters were expecting some version of that.
Civet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2017, 06:33 PM   #234
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,085
100 000 voters decide election for Trump
Almost 3 million excess popular vote for Hillary
And 2 million lose insurance
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/am...ion/ar-BBE8DZj
Connections?
__________________
This is how politics goes
1 Republicans cut tax, let everything run down to barely working...8 years
2 Democrats fix public spending to normal...8 years

Rinse, repeat.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2017, 09:19 PM   #235
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,874
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
It IS possible to have great health insurance at lest cost to everyone and cut taxes some (not necessarily a lot)... if we would actually look at cost-side controls as part of the solution.
Cost side controls are not going to happen with the current regime in Washington.

American health care is full of vested interests with deep pockets. In this country money doesn't talk, it shouts. The needs of the average American get lost in the din.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 07:11 AM   #236
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,997
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
It IS possible to have great health insurance at lest cost to everyone and cut taxes some (not necessarily a lot)... if we would actually look at cost-side controls as part of the solution.
But there is too much money involved for that. It would be hurting the wealthy insurance and drug companies far to much to be doable.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 07:12 AM   #237
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,997
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Cost side controls are not going to happen with the current regime in Washington.

American health care is full of vested interests with deep pockets. In this country money doesn't talk, it shouts. The needs of the average American get lost in the din.
OF course money is speech after all. They need to have unlimited anonymous money into politics to make it work.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 11:15 PM   #238
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,687
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
.....
The prevailing political persuasion of the state is irrelevant.

Not necessarily. A different perspective:
Quote:
....Or consider the problem of counties with only one (or no) insurer, meaning no competition. As one recent study points out, this is almost entirely a red-state problem. In states with G.O.P. governors, 21 percent of the population lives in such counties; in Democratic-governor states, less than 2 percent.

So Obamacare is, though nobody will believe it, a well-thought-out law that works where states want it to work. It could and should be made to work better, but Republicans show no interest in making that happen.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/o...re-repeal.html
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 01:14 PM   #239
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Cost side controls are not going to happen with the current regime in Washington.
Yeah, I don't think it's just the current regime. I don't think anyone in politics is willing to touch it. Despite objections to the contrary, most democrat politicians are beholden to corporate interests too.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 01:17 PM   #240
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Not necessarily. A different perspective:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/o...re-repeal.html
The gaps are occurring in rural areas, regardless of the politics involved. The relationship at play that is providing your false correlation is that states with larger urban centers and fewer rural areas tend to lean more liberal. The percentage of people in areas without coverage is an effect of rurality rather than politics.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:52 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.