2020: Polls Already Busy!

[tango]

Part of me hopes he does win another term, even if only to watch the silly frings of the left get even sillier.

When people claim that, for instance, the kids from Covington Catholic have turned to little demons thanks to two years of Trump I wonder just what kind of power they think he must have. You know, these kids have grown up just fine under 6-7 years of G W Bush, then eight years of Obama, and in just two years Trump has turned them into entitled brats.

What's also interesting is seeing the mismatch between levels of acceptance when a policy is presented with "what do you think of this idea" and "what do you think of this idea presented by Donald Trump". I know parts of the right did that too, particularly with the (un)Affordable Care Act but still find it interesting.

 

[Albion]

Wasn't the Affordable [sic] Care Act opposed for very specific reasons relating to the dangerous provisions included in the act?

I recall that quite clearly and so must Obama, considering how he lost his cool over it, after having invited Republicans to offer their input about the legislation so that all sides supposedly could find a way to work together.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Wasn't the Affordable [sic] Care Act opposed for very specific reasons relating to the dangerous provisions included in the act?

I recall that quite clearly and so must Obama, considering how he lost his cool over it, after having invited Republicans to offer their input about the legislation so that all sides supposedly could find a way to work together.

After two years in control of the presidency, the house, and the senate Republicans did not manage to "repeal" the Affordable Care Act nor did they come up with a replacement for it. Whatever faults it is alleged to have it is evident that Republicans could not correct them even when they had complete control of the legislative and executive branches of government and in recent time alleged control of the judicial branch too. So why complain about the act when nothing better could be legislated by the "conservatives" in congress nor proposed by the "conservatives" in the white house. It looks like former President Obama did a better job than the republicans have done so far.

 

[Albion]

After two years in control of the presidency, the house, and the senate Republicans did not manage to "repeal" the Affordable Care Act nor did they come up with a replacement for it. Whatever faults it is alleged to have it is evident that Republicans could not correct them even when they had complete control of the legislative and executive branches of government and in recent time alleged control of the judicial branch too.

Lets be serious now. If they had had a safe majority rather than a paper thin one and John McCain voting with the democrats in order to spite the president for Trump not having worshipped at McCain's shrine during the election campaign...repeal and replacement would have gone through.

The myth that although they had all the voting power anyone could need but still were so confused, unprepared, or insincere that they did not follow through is just that--a myth, albeit a popular one in certain quarters.

 

[tango]

After two years in control of the presidency, the house, and the senate Republicans did not manage to "repeal" the Affordable Care Act nor did they come up with a replacement for it. Whatever faults it is alleged to have it is evident that Republicans could not correct them even when they had complete control of the legislative and executive branches of government and in recent time alleged control of the judicial branch too. So why complain about the act when nothing better could be legislated by the "conservatives" in congress nor proposed by the "conservatives" in the white house. It looks like former President Obama did a better job than the republicans have done so far.

It was very disappointing to see the Republicans take control of everything and look forward to their proposals for a better option, only to get little more than "er, get rid of it".

The "Affordable" Care Act is a disaster for the self-employed. It imposes crushing effective marginal tax rates on self-employed people on a low income who have medical requirements and, for the ultimate irony, has a nasty trigger once your income goes over 400% of the federal poverty level that can potentially cost you five figures.

One standing principle of mine where economics is concerned is that there should never be any point, anywhere on the economic scale, where earning more money leaves you worse off than before you earned it. The "Affordable" Care Act creates just such a problem, in the form of a very vicious step down at 400% of federal poverty income. It's actually a pretty powerful disincentive to grow a business past about 350% of federal poverty income, unless you can surge past 400% and add another $10-15,000 in income on top, all in one hit.

It also creates all sorts of weird wrinkles where projected income is concerned, especially for the self-employed whose income is often less predictable than employed people.

As you say, it is very disappointing that the Republicans were apparently unable to come up with anything better than this disaster.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It was very disappointing to see the Republicans take control of everything and look forward to their proposals for a better option, only to get little more than "er, get rid of it".

It isn't likely to be repealed now, not with a Democrat controlled house.

 

[tango]

It isn't likely to be repealed now, not with a Democrat controlled house.

No it isn't, which is a shame since it's such a horrendous mess.

 

[psalms 91]

Maybe now they will concentrate on fixing it which is what they should have been doing to begin with but because it was Obamas they wanted to totally destroy it

 

[Josiah]

Those 28% of independents are the ones who could shift it to 68D-29R or 40D-57R, or anything in between. Chances are they aren't going to be impressed with a candidate they see as a bit of a nutjob, so the new trendy "gimme my free stuff" candidates may yet face an uphill struggle. My guess is the independent voters are the ones likely to get stuck with the bill for the free stuff so they'll probably have a very different stance on it.

I agree.... Of course, Dems need to get 12,000,000 fewer "independents" to vote with them than the Republicans do.

Where we are "at" politically, both parties are moving further and further away.... just one reason why more are becoming "independent." It MAY turn out that the electorate will "fear" a RADICAL Communist/Socialist/New Green Deal radical leftist more than Trump (whom they've come to tolerate, even love to hate). MANY an unliked candidate has won simply because they seemed better (and safer) than the alternative. MANY a president has been chosen simply because he was preceived as "the lesser of two evils."




In MY view, Trump has not proven to be as bad as I feared he would be (and why I did not vote for him).... that said, he was disappointed in terms of getting things done. BUT I very much appreciate his Supreme Court appointments (other than making war - or not - the appointment of these judges may just be the most important thing a president does), and he probably will get two more appointments if he wins re-election. THAT ALONE perhaps could be reason to re-elect him. At this point, I'm undecided.



- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

It was very disappointing to see the Republicans take control of everything and look forward to their proposals for a better option, only to get little more than "er, get rid of it".

But it was required, procedurally, that they vote to repeal the existing law and then, separately, vote in a replacement. It was not possible to switch from one to the alternative in one vote. When McCain killed the first of these steps with his unexpected No vote, for which he had to get up out of the proverbial sick bed, the second step became moot.

 

[Albion]

Maybe now they will concentrate on fixing it which is what they should have been doing to begin with but because it was Obamas they wanted to totally destroy it

No, the idea from the start was to have it be unsuccessful so that they could then campaign on replacing it with Socialized Medicine which is what they wanted all along but realized that the American people woulnt go for it in one big gulp. And you see that that IS what they are beating the drum for right now.

 

[tango]

Maybe now they will concentrate on fixing it which is what they should have been doing to begin with but because it was Obamas they wanted to totally destroy it

Truth be told, since it seems to do little other than exchange one set of intolerable issues for another perhaps the best thing to do is scrap it and start over. As far as I can see the "A"CA has been very good for people of limited means with health problems, while being a disaster for the self-employed on slightly above average incomes. Key problems with any replacement for it is avoiding people ending up totally uninsured, while at the same time the very concept of "insurance" as used in the context of health in the US covers all sorts of things that are nothing to do with insurance.

Of course when insurance pays bills and people don't see the bills, it's hardly surprising that the bills rise, which causes insurance to rise, and makes even the thought of being uninsured increasingly worrying. It seems to me that, at least from the perspective of people buying their own insurance, the ACA would be better called the Unaffordable Votes Act, because it seems to do little more than drive up the price of insurance, then offset it by throwing tax credits around like candy, then presenting the spectre of the Nasty Republican Party wanting to do away with the tax credits that will make health insurance totally unaffordable for anyone except the wealthy.

 

[psalms 91]

I think the time for us to join the rest of the industrialized world and provide health care for all is long overdue and would have happened long ago if it wasnt for the powerful lobbys

 

[Albion]

Since we would be paying for and trying to provide the health care for a large chunk of the population of the world, not merely our own citizens, that idea might be worth a second thought.

For starters, explain how more than a doubling of the national debt in short order would be manageable, considering that both political parties have talked as though the debt we are carrying now is dangerous and harmful to the country.

 

[tango]

I think the time for us to join the rest of the industrialized world and provide health care for all is long overdue and would have happened long ago if it wasnt for the powerful lobbys

Do you really want the same people who run the DMV to be responsible for your health care?

Once you see the results of something like the NHS you see it isn't the land of milk and honey it's often made out to be. Yes, it's good that you can have treatment for major conditions without going bankrupt over it but some of the incompetence within the NHS is truly mindboggling. Just wait until you find you miss your appointment because you can't find a parking space, or you're in hospital overnight but can't sleep because someone else in the ward has their TV on loud (apparently their right to watch TV beats your right to sleep, even in the small hours of the morning). Or when you see the bathroom that is apparently cleaned every day featuring the same bar of soap that hasn't moved for two weeks - the cleaners dusted around it but nobody figured it was time to throw it in the trash.

If you're really lucky you go into hospital with kidney stones and come out in a box, as happened to a guy I loosely knew. Or you go in for a routine treatment, contract MRSA while in hospital and end up spending weeks fighting the hospital-acquired infection.

 

[Josiah]

Do you really want the same people who run the DMV to be responsible for your health care?[

Ahhh....

 

[Josiah]

Do you really want the same people who run the DMV to be responsible for your health care?[

Ahhh....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0woPde7OE1k


Liberals idea of health care...




.

 

[psalms 91]

Do you really want the same people who run the DMV to be responsible for your health care?

Once you see the results of something like the NHS you see it isn't the land of milk and honey it's often made out to be. Yes, it's good that you can have treatment for major conditions without going bankrupt over it but some of the incompetence within the NHS is truly mindboggling. Just wait until you find you miss your appointment because you can't find a parking space, or you're in hospital overnight but can't sleep because someone else in the ward has their TV on loud (apparently their right to watch TV beats your right to sleep, even in the small hours of the morning). Or when you see the bathroom that is apparently cleaned every day featuring the same bar of soap that hasn't moved for two weeks - the cleaners dusted around it but nobody figured it was time to throw it in the trash.

If you're really lucky you go into hospital with kidney stones and come out in a box, as happened to a guy I loosely knew. Or you go in for a routine treatment, contract MRSA while in hospital and end up spending weeks fighting the hospital-acquired infection.

This sounds like what happens now

 

[NewCreation435]

I noticed Beto O'Rourke is now running as a Democrat. He reminds me of Bobby Kennedy in some ways. People seem excited about him though I don't know much about him

 

[tango]

This sounds like what happens now

Don't expect it to get better if the government takes over providing healthcare. You'll just get a different type of ineptitude paired with stonewalling when it all goes wrong.

In England for a long time the focus was on patient choice. The idea was that you could choose which hospital treated you, you could choose your surgeon, you could choose all sorts of things. But as one group said, most people would rather just be given an appointment at a clean, local hospital with a good rate of success than be given the choice between the hospital with a bad rate of MRSA infections, the hospital that never seems to be cleaned properly, and the hospital that will probably do a good job but is a seven hour drive away, meaning a logistical headache to get there and back. My dentist wanted me to have a badly broken tooth extracted but the local hospital had one of the worst rates of MRSA infections in the country so I decided against it.