American Politics during the Trump Presidency

[Big Boss Man]

Fairwarning. The writer of this article is very liberal. I have seen him speak publically on Dodd-Frank.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...110-story.html I hope you can get past the paywall.

[Big Boss Man]

The coverage of preexisting conditions was good in the abstract, but horrible in implementation.

Before Obamacare, people I know went to the County hospital and had surgery done. After the bill for the surgery came, they would just file bankruptcy. So in the end, taxpayers were paying for it anyway.

People were also using the emergency rooms as their primary healthcare providers.

Trump campaigned on repealing and replacing Obamacare. Anybody have a link to what they are thinking about to replace it?

[WorldTravel69]

The premiums are going up mainly in the states that have Republican Controlled government.

California has Democratic controlled government. So they set a limit on how much in the Insurance companies can raise the rates. 5% is all they can raise it.

Maybe you might think about moving.

You are technically correct that Obamacare cannot be outright repealed without being subject to a filibuster requiring 60 votes. However, any part of the law requiring taxpayer funds and imposing taxes can be repealed through a budgetary process known as reconciliation. This is the process that was used when Obamacare was originally passed. The senate version was passed with Senator Ted Kennedy's support. He died and Scott Brown was elected to replace him. When the house version passed, the Democrats no longer had a filibuster proof majority. In their infinite wisdom they rammed it through with reconciliation (which is not subject to filibuster rules).

The Republicans have already "repealed" Obamacare before and had President Obama veto it. Their repeal also used the reconciliation process. It removed the Medicaid expansion, federal subsidies, removed funding for the federal and state exchanges, eliminated the tax penalties for failure to obtain insurance, repealed the taxes to support it, etc... So essentially Obamacare would be in a comma, brain dead and incapable of any function. The laws enabling it would still be in existence, but no implementation to operate.

I was never a supporter of Obamacare and was proved correct. My premiums will go up 35% next year and I am one of the fortunate ones. With that said, there were some provisions that made sense. The covering of those under 26 on their parents plan was a good idea and wasn't responsible for any of the cost problems. The coverage of preexisting conditions was good in the abstract, but horrible in implementation.

Mandating all kinds of minimum coverage was a primary cost driver. When you remove choice and actuarial basis, it is no long insurance. Is it any surprise to have a death spiral. Health insurance needs to go back to actually being insurance instead of some socialist utopian dream of social justice.

[Dickhead]

Actually I was just typing too fast and meant not enough to PREVENT repealing Obamacare. I am comfortable and fine with requiring a super-majority of states to ratify amendments. And I'm not real fond of two senators per state, but I can live with it. Even giving each state one senator provides some measure of protection for the less populous states, right? Just not as much. But I do believe in one person, one vote, so that's the issue I have with the Electoral College, since it's a national election. It was largely based on the time it took mail to be delivered.

While I do favor some form of national health insurance, which every civilized country seems to have, I was not fond of the individual mandate, and was well aware of the adverse selection that would occur. I will be blunt and say that it enabled me to retire early, but why did I deserve to retire early? I did not. I just got lucky because they did not put in any means testing, and because I am or was an accountant and understood how to game the law, and because I had made the decision to have Roth IRAs instead of regular IRAs. Of course, when I retired early (right at 55), that opened up a job for someone who most likely needed it worse than I did, so I don't feel inherently evil. I did put in my 40 years because I started working full time when I was 15.

My second-favorite judge (after the legendary Oliver Wendell Holmes) was Learned Hand, and he said: "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."

Now whether a given tax law is good or bad, that's another story for another day and another discussion board, probably.

Quote by: Judge Learned Hand
(1872-1961), Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals
Source: in the case of Gregory v. Helvering 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 79 L.Ed. 596 (1935)

[Spirit Rider]

I guess the Dems picked up 1 Senate seat and maybe 2 but one was still too close to call. So not enough to repeal the ACA, I wouldn't think

You are technically correct that Obamacare cannot be outright repealed without being subject to a filibuster requiring 60 votes. However, any part of the law requiring taxpayer funds and imposing taxes can be repealed through a budgetary process known as reconciliation. This is the process that was used when Obamacare was originally passed. The senate version was passed with Senator Ted Kennedy's support. He died and Scott Brown was elected to replace him. When the house version passed, the Democrats no longer had a filibuster proof majority. In their infinite wisdom they rammed it through with reconciliation (which is not subject to filibuster rules).

The Republicans have already "repealed" Obamacare before and had President Obama veto it. Their repeal also used the reconciliation process. It removed the Medicaid expansion, federal subsidies, removed funding for the federal and state exchanges, eliminated the tax penalties for failure to obtain insurance, repealed the taxes to support it, etc... So essentially Obamacare would be in a comma, brain dead and incapable of any function. The laws enabling it would still be in existence, but no implementation to operate.

I was never a supporter of Obamacare and was proved correct. My premiums will go up 35% next year and I am one of the fortunate ones. With that said, there were some provisions that made sense. The covering of those under 26 on their parents plan was a good idea and wasn't responsible for any of the cost problems. The coverage of preexisting conditions was good in the abstract, but horrible in implementation.

Mandating all kinds of minimum coverage was a primary cost driver. When you remove choice and actuarial basis, it is no long insurance. Is it any surprise to have a death spiral. Health insurance needs to go back to actually being insurance instead of some socialist utopian dream of social justice.

[Tres3]

Well, call me whatever you want but the electoral college system will not change because that would require a constitutional amendmen.

Just as changing the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, so too would a change in the Senate that took away the two senators per state. There are pundits who think this system is elitist, but I do not think that they have read the Constitution or Federalist Papers. Democracy and majority rule is wonderful, but the founders also wanted to provide some protection for the minority. They deliberately included the requirement that a super-majority is required to amend the Constitution. The losers (I did not like Clinton or Trump) seem to always claim that the electoral college is archaic, but many historical events have proven the founders very wise. All one has to do is look at the many basket case countries that do not have a super-majority protection and/or an independent Federal Judiciary in their constitution. I think that the founders were very wise.

Tres3.

[Dickhead]

Well, call me whatever you want but the electoral college system will not change because that would require a constitutional amendment, and why would the less populous states vote to give up their disproportionate influence? But if you know the history behind it, you know it's not necessary any more. Personally, I would also like to see run-offs so that whoever eventually gets elected has a majority and not just a plurality. Any system that you can't explain to educated Europeans has got to be a little strange. I said the same thing when Benjamin Harrison was elected.

[Member #4112]

I looked this morning and they are still counting votes. We will see who ends up with what.

We get this whining from the loser about this issue every time it happens. If it was such a problem then why has it not been corrected before this election?.

Are you trying to tell me neither Trump nor Clinton had any idea the Electoral College was the determining factor and not the popular vote when this started? The main stream media sure as hell did as all I heard for months was how the Democrats had the advantage when it came to the Electoral College.

The unrest is in 25 cities, mostly Blue states and a lot of it is about no free college tuition, screw these spoiled rotten fragile little snow flakes - I paid for mine when I went and they can pay for theirs.

You did not see this type of conduct in 2012 or 2016 from the Republicans - so what's with all these cry baby Democrats?

Democrats had the advantage in the Electoral College and the main stream news media on their side and working with the DNC from the jump and they still lost.

Stop quibbling and making excuses - YOU LOST! GET OVER IT!

[Dickhead]

"It should be a popular vote always.".

Yep. And I would say that no matter who won or lost in the electoral college.

[WorldTravel69]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politi...-popular-vote/

There are riots going now around the country in all states.
Today I told high school kids marching down Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley shouting Fuck Trump. I yelled at them that this is a Blue Stats, that it was not the Bay Area and California that voted for Trump, but the Red States and go to the Red States and protest.

Jackson why are you so quite? How do the Independents feel?

I told you your political Threads would lose you members. You did not listen. I am sure you lost a lot of friends over it.

Trump talked about Rigged elections. Bull Shit, but check his taxes. Hundreds of people are suing for wages he said he would pay.
He says he is for bringing back the jobs. Meanwhile he has a workers strike at his Casino in Las Vegas.

It should be a popular vote always. As Andrew Jackson and Ben Franklin said. Watch what you are voting for. The Republic may be taken over for your not watching it, sort of.

I do not intend to participate in any discussion on the essence of the political issues at stake. Id just like to point out, from a purely mathematical perspective, that yesterdays results are very different from those of the Carter/Reagan 1980 election.

HRC won the popular vote with 47.7% vs 47.5%. Reagan got 50,7% vs Carters 41% (independent Anderson got 6,6%).

The following article models what the outcome would have been if only 1% of the vote would have been casted for HRC instead of for Trump. Such a shift would not have affected the outcome in 1980.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-points-makes/

[Local]

Trumps defeat of Clinton is on the order of magnitude of Reagan / Carter. Gentlemen look at the county map, the country is nearly all RED with only the liberal bastions on the east the left coast being blue with a couple of other states. Gentlemen look at the Electoral College, this was no close race, this was a repudiation of the last 8 years and the promise of 4 more of the same under Clinton.

I do not intend to participate in any discussion on the essence of the political issues at stake. I’d just like to point out, from a purely mathematical perspective, that yesterday’s results are very different from those of the Carter/Reagan 1980 election.

HRC won the popular vote with 47.7% vs 47.5%. Reagan got 50,7% vs Carter’s 41% (independent Anderson got 6,6%).

The following article models what the outcome would have been if only 1% of the vote would have been casted for HRC instead of for Trump. Such a shift would not have affected the outcome in 1980.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-points-makes/

[Member #4112]

Really sorry to hear he passed away.

Wish all our bothers the best in the coming year.

[Dickhead]

This liberal brother is going to be a gracious loser, and hope that Trump can indeed achieve some positive things for the US. I was sort of surprised, but not all that surprised. Hey, if the Cubs can win the World Series, anyone can win anything. I'm in Europe so I did not watch the election due to the time change, but I had a funny feeling when I woke up, and I dicked around for quite a while before checking the results. I heard the stock futures market took a huge dump overnight, as did the dollar, and the MX peso. But the stock market is way up as of this minute, and the dollar is up against the euro, and I don't care about the MX peso.

So to my conservative brethren, I say, congratulations on your victory. I guess the Dems picked up 1 Senate seat and maybe 2 but one was still too close to call. So not enough to repeal the ACA, I wouldn't think. As Daddy Rulz said, it will be fun to watch what happens. I won't be there and only care about what happens in the financial markets. After a nasty campaign with two rather unpopular candidates, at least the election did not end up in the House of Representatives. Obama has reached out to Trump. Trump was gracious to Clinton. That's not all that bad of a start, if you think about it. So best of luck going forward to both my liberal and conservative friends who will have to live under the results.

I just wish my conservative friend Punter 127 had hung around long enough to see it. For those who don't know, he passed away last month. He was a reasonable conservative, one you could talk to.

[Member #4112]

My liberal brothers on this board are a bit like the CNN talking heads this morning, they just can not rap their heads around the fact Clinton lost and Trump won.

Today these same liberal brothers are now calling some of Trump’s central themes of this campaign “hate”, the repeal of the catastrophe of ObamaCare and rescinding Obama’s executive orders which circumvented the legislative process.

Trump was both humble and conciliatory in his speech last night after winning the election. He called for unity and even complimented Clinton, but at no time did he retreat from his central campaign promises. We have yet to hear from Clinton. Tell me is it true she was in a state of shock, unable to address her followers, mumbling “but I’m entitled” over and over?

Trump’s defeat of Clinton is on the order of magnitude of Reagan / Carter. Gentlemen look at the county map, the country is nearly all RED with only the liberal bastions on the east the left coast being blue with a couple of other states. Gentlemen look at the Electoral College, this was no “close” race, this was a repudiation of the last 8 years and the promise of 4 more of the same under Clinton.

I am certain from now until January 20, 2017, Obama is going to have writer’s cramp signing all the blanket pardons he will have to issue before leaving office.

To paraphrase the immortal and conciliatory words of the liberal messiah, Barak Hussain Obama, after his election “We won, you lost, get use to it”.

[WorldTravel69]

From the cover of Time Magazine.

Canada has a matching service if anyone wants to leave the country. It is called MapleMatch.

http://www.maplematch.com/