PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[Senator Clay Davis]

I mean haven't we seen enough articles post-election of Trump supporters on edge that Obamacare will be repealed and they'll be ####ed with no insurance, no coverage or pre-existing, and (since many in coal) stripping protections for things like black lung?

Then again, lest we forget, these are the same people who "Want the goddamn government to take their goddamn hands of my goddamn medicare!". Maybe, just maybe, the biggest problem in America by far is the exceptionally poor education level of the majority of it's citizens, despite being the richest country on earth. I think that just might be a factor, one that since the GOP loves stripping education funding even more, might actually get even worse.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by New Era

Well that's a load of horse dookie. Americans aren't focused on putting food on the table. If they were they wouldn't give a rip about issues like abortion, gay marriage, guns, a wall, and so on. Americans are also extremely celebrity focused. They care more about hearing about the Kardashians than they do about understanding who is getting paid off in the laws passed by the states and the federal government. You're living in a fantasy world if you think Americans are anything but fame focused.




I will echo the sentiment of your friends on the state of healthcare and insurance. It has gone up in and the amount and quality of services has continued to drop. The problem is huge but it has been that way for the past two administrations. Things weren't much different under Bush, people were just more distracted by other things than having to worry about the increasing cost of health insurance and the loss of benefits.

I will also say, your friends are possibly idiots. If they are blaming this on Obama, they are idiots. "Obamacare" was not the president's fault. He didn't draft the bill. He didn't negotiate the bill. This all falls on congress. They were the clowns who put this mess together. They were the ones who negotiated it. If they truly believe Obamacare is at fault, then they have no one to blame but their representatives for putting together a law with many flaws and little teeth to keep the insurance companies in check.

Frankly, your friends sound like a lot of Americans. Uninformed rubes who like to complain about stuff they don't bother to even try and understand. And then when it comes time to fix the problem by turfing the idiots who put the legislation together, they get distracted by the presidential gong show and vote the same clowns back into congress. They want someone to blame, look in the mirror. The American electorate is the biggest problem in American politics. They are ignorant and easily manipulated. We are where we are because they don't understand their own form of government and how to fix it. You don't fix the problem by electing the same people over and over again. You also don't solve problems by not getting educated on the issues and making informed decisions. The vast majority of Americans get what they deserve.

I feel like this facebook thread is relevant (spoilered for swears). I suspect there are a lot of people in the USA that would prefer "ACA" over "Obamacare" without knowing they're the same thing.

NSFW!

[Senator Clay Davis]

Russian embassy in the UK tweeting out Pepe memes against Theresa May. Pepe might be in for a huge 2017



https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/s...39246214262784

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by speede5

One of these days all these celebrities will figure out people care more about putting food on the table then all the social causes. They live in their perfect worlds not worrying one iota about how to pay for their utilities, health care, etc. All while collecting their millions.

I don't have any love for Trump but the last people I'm interested in hearing from are all these celebrities. I want to hear how policies directly affect the middle class on down.

Heard some interesting 1st hand stuff on the weekend about how some friends of mine, and their employees have been almost crushed by Obamacare. They voted Republican even though they think he's a complete tool.

They are middle class family, and had a gucci healthcare plan before Obama, $4000 a year for amazing coverage, which has increased to $8000 a year, and has a $4000 deductible. Their for profit health care system can not handle the legislations of Obama's plan and it is crushing people.

To the americans on this thread, what are your experiences with healthcare?

Before the ACA, the only people with access to "Gucci" healthcare plans that were in any way affordable were people working for huge corporations. Being a woman, working for a small business entirely employed by and with women, our healthcare costs in the five years before the ACA went up 10-30% a year. (We were all of child-bearing age, and insurance companies take that into account. The year we had an employee have a baby, next renewal our plans all went up 30%.) The year the ACA went into effect, my boss discussed it with all of us, and we decided to swap it out and she continues to pay us an extra sum on our paychecks--and we each just shop for our own insurance via the marketplace. I make far too much to get any kind of subsidy, but I'm still paying $80 a month less than what our group plan would've cost back in 2010 (and I can only imagine that plan has gone up dramatically since then.)

My parents in the early 2000s simply didn't carry insurance, my dad is self-employed, owns his own business, so there's no "employer match" for healthcare costs. For him and my mother to get insurance in 2002, it would've cost them $1300/month (both had pre-existing medical conditions), which was just unreasonable. Now my mom has a plan through the ACA and my dad has hit an age where he can use Medicare, so they're now both comfortably covered for health insurance for a fraction of the cost well before the ACA existed.

Stop blaming the ACA and poor people for insurance costs. Blame insurance/pharma/etc lobbyists, and blame the legislators who allow them to continue bending Americans over the barrel.

The ACA is far from perfect, but 20 million people now have insurance that never had insurance before, people who were unable to get it due to health problems now have insurance. There are literally people who would have died before the ACA came into play, due to a lack of access to affordable healthcare. We need to fix healthcare in the US as it's still horribly broken, but pulling the rug out from millions of people is not the way to do it.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Someone posts clip from 3-hour, televised award show attended almost entirely by celebrities, watched by millions of people, and featuring the same number of speeches by celebrities it features every year.

Response?
"Nobody cares what celebrities have to say!"

... sure. Meanwhile, a billionaire celebrity is days away from inauguration.

Sounds like we're overestimating Americans a little bit.

Exactly, all this whining and complaining about "I just wish celebrities would stay out of politics" rings pretty hollow when you consider the current President-Elect is currently executive producer on a reality TV show.

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I have not had any direct non-monetary experience with the ACA, as I get my health insurance through my employer.

That said, my share of the health insurance premiums and drug costs have been going up every year (and without any wage increases in the interim), and the list of fully covered drugs seems to be reduced each year (although I don't pay too much attention to this). The overall deductibles have been steady, but my employer is really pushing people to stop using a PPO and instead use Health Savings Accounts and a High-Deductible Health Plan. From what I can tell, only young and very healthy employees are going that route.

On the monetary side of the ACA, I'm extremely displeased with paying an additional Medicare tax and the 3.8% tax on my net investment income, both of which are imposed as a result of the ACA. If the US wishes to provide access to health insurance to everyone, then everyone should pay something for that access---this "just tax the "rich"" stuff is nonsense.

You do realize that many of the people benefiting from the ACA are people who cannot afford healthcare any other way? Like full stop, without the ACA these people are relying on emergency room visits for their healthcare needs as they do not have the money to afford it. You have people in this country who regularly are deciding whether to buy groceries, put gas in their car to get to work, or buy their medications? Because they can't afford all three, due to wages in this country being so obscenely low that even someone working full time often can't make ends meet.

Either way we as a society are going to pay for these people to obtain healthcare. We can pay a small fee toward medicare so they can have access to preventative measures to screen for cancer early, to catch a cold before it becomes pnemonia, to give them vaccines so they don't get the flu and end up hospitalized--we can pay for the lower preventative costs, or we can pay for their ER visits when they have pnemonia, when they have stage 4 cancer, when they have the flu so bad that they're on death's door.

Access to healthcare is treated as a privilege in the US and that's incredibly appalling to me. People will cling to their fricking firearms as a Human Right, but if you're accidentally shot by someone, who cares if you have any ability to treat it?

[photon]

What the incoming secretary of health's proposed replacement looks like:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...cconnell-trump

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

*snip*

The ACA is far from perfect, but 20 million people now have insurance that never had insurance before, people who were unable to get it due to health problems now have insurance. There are literally people who would have died before the ACA came into play, due to a lack of access to affordable healthcare. We need to fix healthcare in the US as it's still horribly broken, but pulling the rug out from millions of people is not the way to do it.


*snip*



Access to healthcare is treated as a privilege in the US and that's incredibly appalling to me. People will cling to their fricking firearms as a Human Right, but if you're accidentally shot by someone, who cares if you have any ability to treat it?

Agree with all of what you've posted, just quoted relevant parts:

First paragraph: In a functioning democracy, where elected members are working towards the greater good of the country as a whole, the flaws of ACA as is exists should be discussed and solutions to help improve it should be recommended. Not what garbage that the GOP is pushing regarding repealing it. Oh and BTW, GOP being the party of "fiscal responsibility"... repealing ACA will cost $350 B (http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/04/news...epeal-deficit/). Funny how the supposedly "patriotic" party decides to put party first rather than country. Yet another example to add to the pile that the GOP doesnt care about country, just their self interests.

Second paragraph: It absolutely boggles my mind that healthcare is treated as a privilege. The whole "bootstraps" mentality just ignores the fact that for a vast majority of poor people, upward mobility is a pipe dream. Yet, they're demonized as welfare queens and the idea that they somehow dont deserve it. I read an article on facebook about how many GoFundMe's start with the sentence "Usually I am not the one to ask for favors" or "My family always believed in hard work to get through tough times" etc. With a proper healthcare system (one that is not bogged down by threats of repealing), these people dont have to resort to such drastic measures that hit their sense of self worth. They should be able to go to work, and not have a fear that missed work due to them or their kids being sick, means lost wages. And they shouldnt fear that getting better after a major illness or cancer means financial ruin.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

You do realize that many of the people benefiting from the ACA are people who cannot afford healthcare any other way?

There is a significant difference between not being able to afford healthcare (with the implication being that they cannot afford any healthcare at all) and not being able to afford a small health care premium.

Quite simply, if something is completely free to you, you likely have no concern for its costs or its use, and are completely insulated from the costs that are incurred by others to provide you with the item that you so freely use and consume---all of which leads to excess use of the item by the free user.

In this respect, I propose that everyone should be required to pay something for health insurance. Make it a sliding scale based on taxable income, with a minimum payment of $12 due from everyone, perhaps. But to expect--or better yet, demand--that primarily the "rich" should pay the health care bills of "society" is crazy.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

. . . without the ACA these people are relying on emergency room visits for their healthcare needs as they do not have the money to afford it.

People have, and find, money to purchase and consume the things that they find necessary or enjoyable. If people wish to spend their scarce dollars on consumables in such a way that cause them to be unable to pay for healthcare when they need it later, well, that's on them.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

You have people in this country who regularly are deciding whether to buy groceries, put gas in their car to get to work, or buy their medications? Because they can't afford all three, due to wages in this country being so obscenely low that even someone working full time often can't make ends meet.

If only there was a way people could enhance their skills to obtain a higher-paying job than the one that they currently have....

Or, if only there was a way people could move to a place that offered public transportation, thereby negating the need to own a car and pay for all of the costs that go with one....

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Either way we as a society are going to pay for these people to obtain healthcare.

I agree that "we as a society" do pay, and should pay, for everyone in the society to obtain healthcare.

I just believe that "we" means "everyone," and not "that "rich" group of people over there..."

Originally Posted by wittynickname

We can pay a small fee toward medicare . . . .

As things are now, there is no "small fee" being paid by the alleged wealthy-enough-to-pay-for-another's-Medicare.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

There is a significant difference between not being able to afford healthcare (with the implication being that they cannot afford any healthcare at all) and not being able to afford a small health care premium.

Quite simply, if something is completely free to you, you likely have no concern for its costs or its use, and are completely insulated from the costs that are incurred by others to provide you with the item that you so freely use and consume---all of which leads to excess use of the item by the free user.

In this respect, I propose that everyone should be required to pay something for health insurance. Make it a sliding scale based on taxable income, with a minimum payment of $12 due from everyone, perhaps. But to expect--or better yet, demand--that primarily the "rich" should pay the health care bills of "society" is crazy.



People have, and find, money to purchase and consume the things that they find necessary or enjoyable. If people wish to spend their scarce dollars on consumables in such a way that cause them to be unable to pay for healthcare when they need it later, well, that's on them.



If only there was a way people could enhance their skills to obtain a higher-paying job than the one that they currently have....

Or, if only there was a way people could move to a place that offered public transportation, thereby negating the need to own a car and pay for all of the costs that go with one....



I agree that "we as a society" do pay, and should pay, for everyone in the society to obtain healthcare.

I just believe that "we" means "everyone," and not "that "rich" group of people over there..."



As things are now, there is no "small fee" being paid by the alleged wealthy-enough-to-pay-for-another's-Medicare.

I welcome you to try this game: http://playspent.org/

This is an unfortunate reality for many Americans.

[rubecube]

nm

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by New Era

Well that's a load of horse dookie. Americans aren't focused on putting food on the table. If they were they wouldn't give a rip about issues like abortion, gay marriage, guns, a wall, and so on. Americans are also extremely celebrity focused. They care more about hearing about the Kardashians than they do about understanding who is getting paid off in the laws passed by the states and the federal government.

Being fascinated with the follies and excesses of celebrities is not the same as looking to them for political or moral guidance. That's been true for decades. When McGovern campaigned with Warren Beatty and Barbra Streisdand at his side in '72, and was dubbed 'Hollywood's Candidate', he handed Richard Nixon one of the biggest landslides in presidential election history. Turns out most Americans think Hollywood political activists are narcissistic flakes.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

There is a significant difference between not being able to afford healthcare (with the implication being that they cannot afford any healthcare at all) and not being able to afford a small health care premium.

Quite simply, if something is completely free to you, you likely have no concern for its costs or its use, and are completely insulated from the costs that are incurred by others to provide you with the item that you so freely use and consume---all of which leads to excess use of the item by the free user.

In this respect, I propose that everyone should be required to pay something for health insurance. Make it a sliding scale based on taxable income, with a minimum payment of $12 due from everyone, perhaps. But to expect--or better yet, demand--that primarily the "rich" should pay the health care bills of "society" is crazy.



People have, and find, money to purchase and consume the things that they find necessary or enjoyable. If people wish to spend their scarce dollars on consumables in such a way that cause them to be unable to pay for healthcare when they need it later, well, that's on them.



If only there was a way people could enhance their skills to obtain a higher-paying job than the one that they currently have....

Or, if only there was a way people could move to a place that offered public transportation, thereby negating the need to own a car and pay for all of the costs that go with one....



I agree that "we as a society" do pay, and should pay, for everyone in the society to obtain healthcare.

I just believe that "we" means "everyone," and not "that "rich" group of people over there..."



As things are now, there is no "small fee" being paid by the alleged wealthy-enough-to-pay-for-another's-Medicare.

Serious question, have you ever been poor? Like actually poor, with zero family/friend support to fall back on, credit options exhausted or unable to qualify for?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Being fascinated with the follies and excesses of celebrities is not the same as looking to them for political or moral guidance. That's been true for decades. When McGovern campaigned with Warren Beatty and Barbra Streisdand at his side in '72, and was dubbed 'Hollywood's Candidate', he handed Richard Nixon one of the biggest landslides in presidential election history. Turns out most Americans think Hollywood political activists are narcissistic flakes.

Oh come on, there was more to that campaign being a disaster than celebrity endorsements. The whole Eagleton fiasco and that era's attitudes towards mental health were certainly bigger factors.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Being fascinated with the follies and excesses of celebrities is not the same as looking to them for political or moral guidance. That's been true for decades. When McGovern campaigned with Warren Beatty and Barbra Streisdand at his side in '72, and was dubbed 'Hollywood's Candidate', he handed Richard Nixon one of the biggest landslides in presidential election history. Turns out most Americans think Hollywood political activists are narcissistic flakes.

And who established that frame? Who forwarded that frame? Who repeated and amplified that frame? The media was party to the last two. They were the ones who turned it into an issue of identity rather than a discussion of ideas. Just like blaming congress for the piece of crap the ACA is, you can blame the mass media for this failure. Since Watergate, the media has been garbage. It's been systemic, but they still deserve a massive piece of ownership of their own downfall as they never pushed back with enough force to those who opposed the facts.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Serious question, have you ever been poor? Like actually poor, with zero family/friend support to fall back on, credit options exhausted or unable to qualify for?

Under your definition of "poor," no.

Although I submit that your definition of "poor" would apply to no one, because if you can get into a college (and that isn't hard to do) and are "poor" (under the FAFSA metric), student loans are generously given.

Furthermore, your definition completely ignores whatever assets one may have.

[ResAlien]

What an adorably quaint idea of how the world works for the non silver spooned.

Assets? What the F are assets? Your post makes it seem like you can't grasp the very common reality of living hand to mouth for millions of people.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by New Era

And who established that frame? Who forwarded that frame? Who repeated and amplified that frame? The media was party to the last two. They were the ones who turned it into an issue of identity rather than a discussion of ideas. Just like blaming congress for the piece of crap the ACA is, you can blame the mass media for this failure. Since Watergate, the media has been garbage. It's been systemic, but they still deserve a massive piece of ownership of their own downfall as they never pushed back with enough force to those who opposed the facts.

I agree, the media is largely to blame.

I do want to point out that the vast majority of people in rural areas (more importantly, areas that have a disproportionate EC advantage) get their information from Fox News. Now you can agree, that at this point, Fox News is basically a propoganda arm for the GOP. How do you convince those guys to seek out alternative news sources? Furthermore, how do you make them understand that hey, news sources are supposed to deliver facts, no matter how uncomfortable they make you feel. How do you avoid them looking at sources that only confirm their bias?

But educate them you say! This is a group of people that would rather home school their kids rather than send them to public schools. And even in public schools, the GOP aims to strip them of funding. Heck, DeVos believes in charter schools rather than public schools!

How can you make such blind people see?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by New Era

No, they don't. Most people believe what they are told by a figure of authority. The vast majority of people are not equipped to come a conclusion of their own of whatvthey can believe. They need someone to tell them.

Which figure of authority told you that?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Trump will attempt to get his son-in-law into the White House in a senior adviser role. There are anti-nepotism laws in place, but it's doubtful it'll stop it from happening. Because if there's one thing Trump should be doing, it's creating even more conflicts of interest.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Which figure of authority told you that?

Milgram.

[photon]

The transition team says that the anti-nepotism laws only apply to cabinet level positions, so that law (like the conflict of interest laws) don't apply to the Banana Republic White House staff.

I found this one interesting, Trump's leaving the nuclear weapons without leadership, telling the current head and deputy (Obama appointees) they have to be out by the 20th.

According to an official within the Department of Energy, this past Friday, the President-elect’s team instructed the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration and his deputy to clean out their desks when Trump takes office on January 20th.

The NNSA is the $12 billion-a-year agency that “maintains and enhances the safety, security, and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.” It’s unclear when the two officials will be replaced.

Traditionally, all political appointees of an outgoing presidential administration turn in resignation letters effective on noon of inauguration day, January 20. But appointees in key positions—like the people who make sure our nukes work—are often asked to stay on in their roles until a replacement can be found and confirmed by the Senate, helping ensure a smooth transition and allowing our government to continue functioning. In fact, for the entirety of Obama’s first term and into part of his second, the NNSA Administrator remained a Bush appointee.

...

As far as I can tell, this is unprecedented—January 20 will mark the first time in the NNSA’s 17-year history that it will exist wholly without its appointed leadership. According to Bob Rosner, the Co-Chair of the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the former director of Argonne National Laboratory, the leadership vacuum won’t prevent the agency from fulfilling its essential duties. But it will leave it without an advocate as it tries to secure a budget from Congress, and unable to tackle any new initiatives whatsoever.

http://gizmodo.com/trump-just-dismis...nin-1790908093