Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[whodean]

Sitting at SunTrust waiting for the Braves and Brewers to start.

Isn't STP a kickass experience? I live a mile and a half away, we walk there.

One of these days maybe the Braves will be good again.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ame]https://twitter.com/illucifer/status/877423525665136640[/ame]

[Jeff Buchanan]

That made me laugh!

[Jeff Buchanan]

On the post from the Robert Costa tweet above.....

I may not understand the context but I don't believe it is at all beyond Congressional historical precedent for even the President's own party members to "defy" the WH.

Moreover, I really do not think that Trump comes close to representing R ideals (historically speaking.... and this has been discussed thoroughly here).

Frankly, today's Rs are a disjointed political organization without a road map or clearly articulated agenda other than what comes from it's various factions, the Freedom Caucus in particular.

If the Ds could step up to the plate and offer a moderate set of planks to their party's platform, without the unappealing (to most conservatives) far left social agendas and then put up reasonable candidates, including Presidential, that can lead and articulate a decent message, Trump and probably most of the freedom Caucus could be swept out of office.

I await that day but I'm not holding my breath.

[Da Geezer]

(1) Frankly, today's Rs are a disjointed political organization without a road map or clearly articulated agenda other than what comes from it's various factions, the Freedom Caucus in particular.

(2) If the Ds could step up to the plate and offer a moderate set of planks to their party's platform, without the unappealing (to most conservatives) far left social agendas and then put up reasonable candidates, including Presidential, that can lead and articulate a decent message, Trump and probably most of the freedom Caucus could be swept out of office.

1) Republicans seem "disjointed" because they are a national party, and the US is a diverse nation. Republicans believe in:

a) Cutting taxes for working folks and cutting the rate of increase in government spending.
b) disbursing power whenever possible. ( this gives rise to mistrust of bureaucracies)
c) Emphasizing the individual over the collective.

2) Could you give me what the Democrat Party stands FOR (other than income redistribution)? And one reason the Freedom Caucus publically opposes Trump at times is that their seats are so safe. The idea that these fellows could lose their seats is simply silly. BTW, they are in the same position as urban Democrats, like the Black Caucus, in that the CBC seats are safe too. In general, the safer the seat, the easier it is for the holder to be "radical".

[froot loops]

On the post from the Robert Costa tweet above.....

I may not understand the context but I don't believe it is at all beyond Congressional historical precedent for even the President's own party members to "defy" the WH.

Moreover, I really do not think that Trump comes close to representing R ideals (historically speaking.... and this has been discussed thoroughly here).

Frankly, today's Rs are a disjointed political organization without a road map or clearly articulated agenda other than what comes from it's various factions, the Freedom Caucus in particular.

If the Ds could step up to the plate and offer a moderate set of planks to their party's platform, without the unappealing (to most conservatives) far left social agendas and then put up reasonable candidates, including Presidential, that can lead and articulate a decent message, Trump and probably most of the freedom Caucus could be swept out of office.

I await that day but I'm not holding my breath.

They have bigger fish to fry than worrying about some election off in the distance, the Senate health care bill a steaming pile of bullshit.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Kasich has come out against the healthcare bill...placing increased pressure on Portman, I would imagine.

[hack]

If the Ds could step up to the plate and offer a moderate set of planks to their party's platform, without the unappealing (to most conservatives) far left social agendas and then put up reasonable candidates, including Presidential, that can lead and articulate a decent message, Trump and probably most of the freedom Caucus could be swept out of office.


Could you give me what the Democrat Party stands FOR (other than income redistribution)?


Here it is right here. Political parties shouldn't be, quote/unquote, positioning themselves somewhere on the spectrum in order to attract votes. That's the mentality that brought us these awful cynical politics we now have. They should be coming up with solutions to problems and making forceful arguments in favor. If those solutions happen to be hard left or hard right, so be it. Make the case. I know that's a bit earnest, without any degree of earnesty in this particular system, it's a bad system.

Geezer is ultimately right there. The Rs don't stand for anything either. Neither party believes in anything but power. People know it, and that's why someone like Trump can come in and hijack the system. I think the Ds need to ignore any sort of American punditry about the horserace and go the full Bernie, both on policy and the earnestness with which it should be approached.

Take a look at Corbyn. He's a fucking loon on most of the issues, but look at how he interacts with people. He's genuine. Is a real person. If the Ds have someone who can be a fake real person as well as Trump can be, they could give that a shot too. I think people are real good at figuring out what they DON'T want, but it's harder to figure out what they Do want.

[froot loops]

If the Ds could step up to the plate and offer a moderate set of planks to their party's platform, without the unappealing (to most conservatives) far left social agendas and then put up reasonable candidates, including Presidential, that can lead and articulate a decent message, Trump and probably most of the freedom Caucus could be swept out of office.


Could you give me what the Democrat Party stands FOR (other than income redistribution)?


Here it is right here. Political parties shouldn't be, quote/unquote, positioning themselves somewhere on the spectrum in order to attract votes. That's the mentality that brought us these awful cynical politics we now have. They should be coming up with solutions to problems and making forceful arguments in favor. If those solutions happen to be hard left or hard right, so be it. Make the case. I know that's a bit earnest, without any degree of earnesty in this particular system, it's a bad system.

Geezer is ultimately right there. The Rs don't stand for anything either. Neither party believes in anything but power. People know it, and that's why someone like Trump can come in and hijack the system. I think the Ds need to ignore any sort of American punditry about the horserace and go the full Bernie, both on policy and the earnestness with which it should be approached.

Take a look at Corbyn. He's a fucking loon on most of the issues, but look at how he interacts with people. He's genuine. Is a real person. If the Ds have someone who can be a fake real person as well as Trump can be, they could give that a shot too. I think people are real good at figuring out what they DON'T want, but it's harder to figure out what they Do want.

I'm not sure that's true at all. The passage of the ACA was certainly not about maintaining power, Obama campaigned on it, they had a wave election and he convinced an awful lot of members of Congress to vote for it knowing that ultimately it may have been a walk the plank vote. And for some it turned out to be just that.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Premiums were skyrocketing and people were pissed off about healthcare BEFORE Obamacare existed, much as Republicans try to deny it.

[Jeff Buchanan]

........the Senate health care bill (is) a steaming pile of bullshit.

I think you are saying that the D's see the Senate HC bill currently out there and structured (in secret) by who knows who is the "big fish" that needs to be defeated.

As it stands right now, Mitch McConnell is not going to bring the bill, in its current form, to the floor for a vote. He'll lose.

I'm on Hack's side in this case: "the system is broken" and both the ACA and AHCA are examples. Garbage and both are far, far from addressing the question of fashioning a health care delivery system that is not overly advantageous to for profit stake holders within it and hugely disadvantageous to US Citizens who have to use the current HC delivery system to obtain care.

It is monumentally difficult to navigate the current system and I don't care if you are paying to use it out of pocket (the cash payers and there are plenty of them), partly out of pocket, (i.e., you have some insurance) or are getting fully subsidized (i.e., Medicaid or the VA). Stories abound about how inefficient and costly both commercial and state/federally provided HC is.

I believe that in the big picture of things, deciders have to grapple with the competing approaches to creating a less costly and more efficient HC delivery system in the US.

At the extremes are let capital markets create it or let the Feds create it. There's all kinds of middle ground and tons of examples world wide and even in the US of HC delivery systems that are working right now.

I am sick and tired of listening to all the talk about the ACA or the AHCA when those charged with creating a decent US HC delivery system can't come to grips with the concept that the current US model, taken as a whole, cannot be fixed. Huge waste of time for the Congress to be dicking around trying to look like they are doing something that is right.

It is going to take huge leap by government and leadership within it (and it sure as fuck isn't going to come from Trump) to shit can the current system and start from scratch.

Congress can either implement a Medicare for all approach or, as I believe is possible, create laws, regulations and incentives to encourage, perhaps force to some degree, stake holders, to build one that produces reasonable profits without screwing US citizens that need to use it.

[froot loops]

I'm not sure McConnell won't bring it to the floor Jeff. For 6th months the same type of logic tbat says he won't bring it to the floor, was the same that said the House bill was a zombie bill. Look for the moderates to get fig leaves before caving like what happened in the House. They are making the bet that the vote won't hurt them or that outright lying about what the bill does will convince voters.

As far as your long post on fundamentally changing the whole system instead of fixing the broken system, I like what you say, I just don't see the way forward for that. Right now that discussion, while it is important, it lacks the urgency of fighting the current situation. This bill will without a doubt affect a lot of low income households and the bill's passage is a lot closer than maybe you think.

[Jeff Buchanan]

....... I like what you say, I just don't see the way forward for that.

And therein lies the problem. Like Hack says, the system of our Democracy (or Republic as the case actually is) is broken. It's loaded with people who's motivation for any kind of change is, "what's in it for me."

Frankly, I don't think the American form of Democracy, with all the things that piss current observers off, is a whole lot different than what evolved into the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch probably twenty years or so after the Forefathers designed things.

I think Adams, Hamilton and Jefferson in particular would be dismayed at how government functions in 2017 if they could be around to witness the idiocy and lack of leadership.

Be that as it may, there was little hope after WWI and then there was Wilson, a sense of despair after the Great Depression and then there was the New Deal. With all of Europe in ruins after WWII along came The Marshall Plan.

I'd be remiss if I failed to mention Ronald Reagan whose most notable achievement was setting a strategic vision and then assembling the men who were responsible for bringing the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war between the super powers to an end and ultimately the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He was no "amiable dunce" as some have labeled him

What's lacking today are leaders like that who fashioned those highly successful programs in achieving their goals and make no mistake, all of them were wildly successful.

None of them, however, stood out before accomplishing the things they did ...... so, such men are out there, now, but I tend to agree with you seeing the way forward is hard.

[Ghengis Jon]

I'm betting McConnell brings it to a vote, especially if he does not have the votes. If the health care bill goes down in flames, the GOP simply has egg on its face for being incapable of delivering on one of it's fantasies/promises. If the bill passes, then the GOP owns Ryancare, something (amazingly) even worse than Obamacare. 20 million people losing coverage and the uber wealthy getting a big fat taxcut would not spell an easy election cycle in 2018 for the Repubs.

If the bill goes down, then perhaps there will be an actual chance for rebuilding from the ground up as Jeff suggests. If the Senate flips as well, there might actually be some partisan cooperation to get stuff done, instead of the infantile behavior we see today.

It would also be nice to have an actual leader in the WH. Might even be helpful.

If wishes were horses...

[Jeff Buchanan]

This is a really good piece that if you want to understand, in understandable terms, how fucked up the ACA and the AHCA really are, read this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448890/end-employer-based-health-plans

Executive Summary:

The Swiss have a HC delivery system a lot like the ACA ...... and very different at the same time. That is because the Swiss system has the teeth to make it work that the ACA, due to a crapload of compromises to try to make all the stake holders happy, lacks. Dumb. The AHCA is even worse in this regard and the article goes into detail on why.

Cliff Notes:

(1) There is no employer based coverage in Switzerland. Individual purchase only.
(2) The Swiss program makes it economically nonviable to not participate in it. Penalties for not buying HC insurance are steep for the Swiss and rigidly enforced.
(3) Prices for a particular HC procedure are both loosely regulated by the Swiss government and prices for every HC need are made available to the public.
(4) The wealthy in Switzerland pay more to make HC insurance affordable for the poor. That concept is carried out through federal regulatory authority on the Swiss Insurance industry.

My daughter lives in Switzerland. Her husband, who is Italian by birth, has dual Swiss and Italian citizenship. They are both healthy and rarely show up at a clinic looking for HC, despite, as my daughter has remarked, access is easy and everywhere. They have a high combined income but have no problem paying more for HC so that the poor don't have to pay as much.

The article goes into more detail about why the Swiss system works in Switzerland but trying to "Swissify" the US HC system probably wouldn't work. That my daughter and son-in-law are both politically Conservative but have a social conscience is good example of the difference between European Conservatism and the shitty American version of it or the twisted aspect of rugged individualism championed in this country by Conservatives. IMO, Americans need to get real about this kind of shit on a number of levels.