The popular benefits of Obamacare won't work without the mandate as long as we still have private, for-profit insurance companies. To keep the pre-existing conditions portion without the mandate would mean Republicans would just write a big fat check to the insurance industry to placate them.
You're right, of course - the whole point is that making everybody buy insurance uses the young and healthy people to subsidise the older and sicker ones.
I'm guessing the likely outcome is the Republicans will move to replace Obamacare with Tom Price's (Health & Human Services) plan, or something close to it. Which will make insurance more expensive for the "older/sicker" demographic, get rid of Medicaid, and other assorted bad things.
Still, that does show the debate has permanently moved. Even "repealing Obamacare" involved immediately replacing it with something else that does most of the same things (not allowed to reject for pre-existing conditions, etc.).
It would have been better had Obama not set up a convoluted system tied into the insurance industry in the first place (something else he lied about and liberals instantly forgave him for), but it is what it is. And even Trump (or perhaps especially Trump, given his populist base) can't go back to where it was before.
@jjstraka34: To be fair, even if you believe Comey acted inappropriately, the FBI is bigger than one man, and he will not be there forever. Let's not lose faith in an entire arm of the government just because of one person.
The popular benefits of Obamacare won't work without the mandate as long as we still have private, for-profit insurance companies. To keep the pre-existing conditions portion without the mandate would mean Republicans would just write a big fat check to the insurance industry to placate them.
You're right, of course - the whole point is that making everybody buy insurance uses the young and healthy people to subsidise the older and sicker ones.
I'm guessing the likely outcome is the Republicans will move to replace Obamacare with Tom Price's (Health & Human Services) plan, or something close to it. Which will make insurance more expensive for the "older/sicker" demographic, get rid of Medicaid, and other assorted bad things.
Still, that does show the debate has permanently moved. Even "repealing Obamacare" involved immediately replacing it with something else that does most of the same things (not allowed to reject for pre-existing conditions, etc.).
It would have been better had Obama not set up a convoluted system tied into the insurance industry in the first place (something else he lied about and liberals instantly forgave him for), but it is what it is. And even Trump (or perhaps especially Trump, given his populist base) can't go back to where it was before.
How in the hell was Obama supposed to get something that bypassed the insurance industry through the Senate he had?? I agree single-payer would have been ideal, but our country long ago decided that we'd let these insurance companies run roughshod over us. There is simply no willingness to try something different among the public, mostly because of years of right-wing propaganda. He couldn't have gotten it passed, and this was the way to get the most people actually covered while removing the repulsive component of preexisting conditions. You'll recall just what a slog it was to get THIS relatively conservative bill through Congress. We have a borderline evil system of how we provide medical care in this country. Obama could not abolish private insurance companies. We worship corporations in this country, and they had to be placated and given their money to get people covered. If we were starting from scratch (or any other sane Western Democracy) we wouldn't be having this conversation. But we are what we are.
Tom Price's plan isn't just "bad", it's a catastrophic death blow to one of the defining aspects of the American social contract: the promise that your health care needs will be basically taken care of when you retire.
@jjstraka34: To be fair, even if you believe Comey acted inappropriately, the FBI is bigger than one man, and he will not be there forever. Let's not lose faith in an entire arm of the government just because of one person.
I actually feel any reasonable person would have lost faith in the FBI sometime around the early 1960s, and that was 20 years before I was even born. J. Edgar Hoover's name is still on the headquarters, and he is without question one of the most repulsive actors in American history. The idea that it's had some radical shift from when it was actively working against Civil Rights (every American should do themselves a favor and read about COINTELPRO) seems naive to me. They are what they have always been, a borderline (often times well past borderline) authoritarian law enforcement organization.
It's not coincidence that Rudy Giuliani was on TV days before the Comey letter grinning like the Cheshire Cat about how they had a "surprise" coming. He was plugged into his former contacts and underlings in the NY office. It's been widely documented that Comey probably only released the letter in the first place because rogue, rabid anti-Clinton elements in the New York office were going to start leaking a bunch of BS. They had, in fact, used a book written by a Breitbart editor as the basis for an investigation into the Clintons, and were laughed out of the room by the Justice Department when they suggested bringing a case on what they presented. But again, these are the kind of things we simply don't talk about, or, if they come to light at all, get revealed years down the line when the damage has already been done.
If this happened it would actually be for the exact reason that Alexander Hamilton intended it to be. To prevent a dangerous demagogue from becoming President (his original implementation of the Electoral College has far more to do with this than whatever it has become as the country has expanded to 50 states). He believed Electors would be more informed and smarter than the average citizen and would likely make a better choice in this scenario.
That said, this is so not going to happen. I would relish it if it did, but I would also probably pass out from shock.
How in the hell was Obama supposed to get something that bypassed the insurance industry through the Senate he had?? I agree single-payer would have been ideal, but our country long ago decided that we'd let these insurance companies run roughshod over us. There is simply no willingness to try something different among the public, mostly because of years of right-wing propaganda.
Right-wing propaganda didn't prevent the single-payer option from being consistently the most popular option (with 60-odd percent support from the public and a healthy plurality even with Republicans, IIRC). The public has never been the problem with health care in the United States.
Beyond that, there's an argument to be had as to whether or not Obama could have passed a single-payer system (it's not like he got bipartisan support on the ACA anyway), but the matter I was referring to was that Obama lied and said he was (and later, had) fought for a single-payer option when it turned out he had done nothing of the sort. He gave that up without a fight while saying he was doing otherwise. By and large this was not held against him by Democrats.
If we were starting from scratch (or any other sane Western Democracy) we wouldn't be having this conversation. But we are what we are.
Americans aren't fundamentally different than anyone else, though. The "worship of corporations" isn't built into your DNA - it's a result of a set of historical circumstances and actors. That can change. It can be changed - if someone sells a narrative the public likes better than the current one. FDR did it; so did Reagan.
The very fact a world can be conceived where Bernie Sanders was nominated and won the election shows how much flexibility there is. Hell, a world can be conceived where Ross Perot won in 1992 and that's a lot less likely on the surface.
Tom Price's plan isn't just "bad", it's a catastrophic death blow to one of the defining aspects of the American social contract: the promise that your health care needs will be basically taken care of when you retire.
I wouldn't worry about it that much. The chances of the beloved, all-powerful Baby Boomers being turfed out without coverage is nil. So you've got three or four decades before that is even a vaguely feasible possibility.
And even if it did happen, if Republicans systematically alienate their most reliable voting bloc (old white people), then you can look forward to a lot of incoming Democrats who will happily fix things.
Again, I just find this "I wouldn't worry about it too much" attitude to be incredibly naive. Paul Ryan and Tom Price have a plan to privatize Medicare, they've had one for years. They've told us they are going to do it. The fact that they are going to mask it by phasing it out is possibly even more sinister, since they don't have the balls to do it outright. I'm not concerned specifically with the baby boomers, I'm concerned for everyone who has been paying into the system since their very first paycheck in high school.
The 111th Congress, the one which existed when Mr. Obama took office for the first time back in 2009, had Democrat majorities in both the Senate and the House. If they had really wanted single-payer at that time they could have done it by a simple majority vote.
If the Electoral College votes and no one attains 270 the election then shifts to the House of Representatives, as per the Constitution, where only a simple majority is needed to determine a winner. Given the current political party breakdown in the House it is pretty clear how things would turn out. This sort of election would still be perfectly legal, legitimate, and Constitutional even if the circumstances are highly irregular.
Looking at current Cabinet choices...well, let's just say that I thought crony capitalism in Washington, D. C. was bad enough already. Trump is doubling down on it.
Again, I just find this "I wouldn't worry about it too much" attitude to be incredibly naive. Paul Ryan and Tom Price have a plan to privatize Medicare, they've had one for years. They've told us they are going to do it. The fact that they are going to mask it by phasing it out is possibly even more sinister, since they don't have the balls to do it outright. I'm not concerned specifically with the baby boomers, I'm concerned for everyone who has been paying into the system since their very first paycheck in high school.
Don't worry about things you can't control
Don't worry about the "ifs" or the "whens"
Worrying and complaining accomplish nothing.
What does accomplish things, is planning and adapting to what is thrown, or maybe thrown at you.
The reason Obama adopted a Republican-designed health care plan in lieu of a single-payer option was because he was attempting to reach out to Republicans. He went out of his way to appeal to the GOP early on, including bringing Republicans into his own cabinet even in his first term--notably keeping Robert Gates from the Bush administration. Obama had the ability to push through a hard-left agenda, but chose the middle road even when he did not have to.
The effort failed. The GOP still treated him as a radical leftist, even when he endorsed their own ideas. The opposition to Obama was never about what Obama actually did.
The reason Obama adopted a Republican-designed health care plan in lieu of a single-payer option was because he was attempting to reach out to Republicans. He went out of his way to appeal to the GOP early on, including bringing Republicans into his own cabinet even in his first term--notably keeping Robert Gates from the Bush administration. Obama had the ability to push through a hard-left agenda, but chose the middle road even when he did not have to.
The effort failed. The GOP still treated him as a radical leftist, even when he endorsed their own ideas. The opposition to Obama was never about what Obama actually did.
And that's why Obama is a disappointing president to the left. He's basically been a Republican in office. He forgave Wallstreet with the bailout and his policies and so forth seemingly to pander to conservatives who always hated and refused to work with him. The only one who gave in to that was Obama, the Republicans never gave back when he compromised.
I always cringe when I hear family talk about how much better Bush was over Obama, when the Obama presidency was basically just an extension of the Bush one.
But I was rather happy to read two things about FI & neighbours this week, but conflicted about Iceland for the first:
- Finland is the second most popular Scandi-nations amongst peers for business, after Sweden - when the question was if the nationals " are difficult to do business with" on average.
But it seemed Iceland was excluded from this survey quoted, which rather enrages me. Iceland is and must be organic part of the Nordic cooperation! I don't care if they were to trade but a cod for a reindeer - Iceland matters.
What pleased me and amused me that only 3% ot the Finns find the Swedes a "difficult business partner" whereas as many as 11% thought the same in reverse. I do believe the Danes were more favorable to us, marginally!
- Finland has the best preteen son-to-father relationship in the WHO study, where nine out of ten Finnish boys feel they can easily talk with their father about "difficult topics."
At teen it is still amongst the top three, but I am pleased to say Iceland was acknowledged in this survey, and topped us there - because it still was marginal, as opposed to indicating Finnish boys fall out with their dads - just Iceland should be there.
Obama had the ability to push through a hard-left agenda, but chose the middle road even when he did not have to.
The effort failed. The GOP still treated him as a radical leftist, even when he endorsed their own ideas. The opposition to Obama was never about what Obama actually did.
That is why his Administration was ultimately a failure. Truthfully, even though I disagree with many of his political positions my advice to him would have been "why are you compromising and reaching out? If you want x then do x".
@ThacoBell is correct--Obama's terms in office weren't so much Obama's terms in office as they were Bush's third and fourth. In some ways, many Democrats are still too naive, politically, or perhaps I should use the adjective "trusting"--they think the Republicans want to "play nicely" and get along, as if everyone is in the same kindergarten class.
While I agree that Obama's biggest flaw was spending 6 years trying to convince people trying to destroy him to like him, I think the idea that he was Bush's next term is absurd. He 's the one who had to clean up (to the extent possible) the biggest foreign policy blunder in half a century and worst economic crash in 80 years. He's conducted himself as a total gentleman in the face of irrational vein-popping hatred on the right, and hasn't had a whif of what would typically be viewed as a scandal. The fact is, Barack Obama, by virtue of being black, intrinsically knew that he'd have to be twice as statesmanlike and twice as clean scandal-wise to really get the acceptance of THIS country. And while I lament how many things turned out, I also absolutely understand the calculation that went into why.
I'd like to make a comment on one of the liberal themes I hear so much about. As a point of reference, I'm a fiscal conservative but I don't tow the Republican party line in any way. I'm just curious about the liberal view of taxing the rich. What I wonder is how many liberals actually know how the taxation system works. The current system we have is a tax on income, not a tax on wealth. If I had a trillion dollars already and didn't do anything with it except hide it in my mattress I wouldn't pay a dime in taxes on it. There is no tax on wealth. A huge income tax increase on the wealthy would only deter them from investing their wealth in this country. I honestly want to hear from a liberal opinion how my logic is flawed in this regard.
@Balrog99: One liberal policy to address that is the "estate tax," which would impose a tax on large inheritances. That would be based on wealth rather than income. Some conservatives call it a "death tax" because it sounds worse.
Increasing capital gains taxes would also affect wealth rather than income. Some folks make money by trading stocks rather than working, and a strong capital gains tax would make sure they pay taxes on their primary income source, even if they aren't working for a salary.
For what it's worth, whether you tax total wealth or you tax yearly income, rich people will have the same incentive to hide it away, in another country if necessary, and avoid getting taxed.
I'm not sure what you mean by "investing their wealth in this country." Investing outside the country wouldn't protect you from an income tax.
I consider capital gains tax as basically the same as income tax. In that case it's your money doing the work instead of you. Same basic principal though.
My point is there is nothing forcing the wealthy people to live here so they can move to a more wealth friendly country to avoid the 'death tax'. Unless the entire world played by the same rules you can't get at already acquired wealth without outright stealing it from them...
I consider capital gains tax as basically the same as income tax. In that case it's your money doing the work instead of you. Same basic principal though.
My point is there is nothing forcing the wealthy people to live here so they can move to a more wealth friendly country to avoid the 'death tax'. Unless the entire world played by the same rules you can't get at already acquired wealth without outright stealing it from them...
No, there is indeed nothing "forcing" them to do anything. The use the roads we all pay for, the services we all pay for, to help run their businesses. If they decide to move their jobs overseas so they can make even more money they will never spend, there is nothing in our current system that will stop them. But I'm not going to respect them for doing so. Large corporations already pay next to nothing in taxes. Trump himself hasn't paid federal income taxes in years. Romney paid a similarly low rate on his capital gains. What you are talking about to me sounds more like blackmail. The rich saying give us more and more tax cuts, or we'll go someplace that does. For people who espouse patriotism at every turn, it seems quite the opposite to me. That said, taxes are about 10th on my list of worries under the Trump administration.
When I say that Obama's terms were essentially Bush's third and fourth, I mean that the majority of Obama policies were actually just continuations of Bush policies.
I agree--Mr. Obama was not plagued by personal scandals while presiding from the Oval Office.
I disagree that he cleaned up any foreign affairs matters, though. Under his Administration, the IS has continued to thrive despite ramped-up drone strikes and the redeployment of military forces and Putin was pretty much allowed to do whatever he felt like doing--just ask people from Ukraine.
Most people misunderstand taxes, especially at the Federal level. Your city and State taxes really do go towards projects like school maintenance, road repairs, city beautification, etc. At the Federal level, though, the government doesn't need your money and does not spend only what it brings in; instead, the government prints whatever money it needs then controls inflation by shrinking the money supply via taxation. The IRS could close its doors tomorrow and the government would not shut down.
Did anyone notice that the British Parliament passed the Investigatory Powers Bill, giving police and intelligence agencies there new authority to obtain all sorts of e-communication data? If you browse or shop a retailer's web portal, they are required to keep all your information for at least one year and they have to turn it over to law enforcement officials whenever requested.
I'm not trying to annoy you. A lot of liberal policies go against human nature and yet they always seem surprised when they don't work out as intended. Unless every person in the world is exactly the same (which is impossible) there is no 'fairness'. The best we can hope for is to give everybody the same opportunities. What people do with those opportunities is up to them.
I can agree with liberals that not everybody has those same opportunities yet, but humanity is making progress in that regard. I'll even give kudos to liberals for advancing that progress.
It seems to me that it must be very frustrating to be a liberal. The changes you want will happen but it'll probably take a lot longer than you'd like...
I'm not trying to annoy you. A lot of liberal policies go against human nature and yet they always seem surprised when they don't work out as intended. Unless every person in the world is exactly the same (which is impossible) there is no 'fairness'. The best we can hope for is to give everybody the same opportunities. What people do with those opportunities is up to them.
I can agree with liberals that not everybody has those same opportunities yet, but humanity is making progress in that regard. I'll even give kudos to liberals for advancing that progress.
It seems to me that it must be very frustrating to be a liberal. The changes you want will happen but it'll probably take a lot longer than you'd like...
I honestly want to hear from a liberal opinion how my logic is flawed in this regard.
Other people responded to your other points, but I feel it's worth pointing out that the United States had a 90% income tax on the wealthiest people after WWII and this did not exactly harm it economically (that is, in fact, a huge understatement). The top marginal tax rate remained at 70% until Reagan cut them dramatically in the 80s, after which they rose again somewhat but not close to pre-1980s rate.
History shows that relatively few rich people are willing to leave a country over taxes, stop investing in it, or what-have-you. Ultimately their own country is what they know, and often where they love. And they still make money there - just not as much as if they weren't taxed.
A fine example of how rich people get what they want with taxes (especially now) is Trump's much lauded Carrier con-job. All through the campaign, he promised to punish companies who send jobs to Mexico. However, to get Carrier to keep roughly 750 of those jobs (and still outsource over 1000 more), he didn't, as he had promised the whole campaign, threaten them with a tariff. He got Mike Pence (who is stil governor of Indiana), to give them a massive multi-million dollar tax break. It wasn't some grand business move, it was Trump essentially being blackmailed by a corporation so he could get 48 hours of publicity. And everyone fell for it.
Comments
I'm guessing the likely outcome is the Republicans will move to replace Obamacare with Tom Price's (Health & Human Services) plan, or something close to it. Which will make insurance more expensive for the "older/sicker" demographic, get rid of Medicaid, and other assorted bad things.
Still, that does show the debate has permanently moved. Even "repealing Obamacare" involved immediately replacing it with something else that does most of the same things (not allowed to reject for pre-existing conditions, etc.).
It would have been better had Obama not set up a convoluted system tied into the insurance industry in the first place (something else he lied about and liberals instantly forgave him for), but it is what it is. And even Trump (or perhaps especially Trump, given his populist base) can't go back to where it was before.
Tom Price's plan isn't just "bad", it's a catastrophic death blow to one of the defining aspects of the American social contract: the promise that your health care needs will be basically taken care of when you retire.
It's not coincidence that Rudy Giuliani was on TV days before the Comey letter grinning like the Cheshire Cat about how they had a "surprise" coming. He was plugged into his former contacts and underlings in the NY office. It's been widely documented that Comey probably only released the letter in the first place because rogue, rabid anti-Clinton elements in the New York office were going to start leaking a bunch of BS. They had, in fact, used a book written by a Breitbart editor as the basis for an investigation into the Clintons, and were laughed out of the room by the Justice Department when they suggested bringing a case on what they presented. But again, these are the kind of things we simply don't talk about, or, if they come to light at all, get revealed years down the line when the damage has already been done.
That said, this is so not going to happen. I would relish it if it did, but I would also probably pass out from shock.
Beyond that, there's an argument to be had as to whether or not Obama could have passed a single-payer system (it's not like he got bipartisan support on the ACA anyway), but the matter I was referring to was that Obama lied and said he was (and later, had) fought for a single-payer option when it turned out he had done nothing of the sort. He gave that up without a fight while saying he was doing otherwise. By and large this was not held against him by Democrats. Americans aren't fundamentally different than anyone else, though. The "worship of corporations" isn't built into your DNA - it's a result of a set of historical circumstances and actors. That can change. It can be changed - if someone sells a narrative the public likes better than the current one. FDR did it; so did Reagan.
The very fact a world can be conceived where Bernie Sanders was nominated and won the election shows how much flexibility there is. Hell, a world can be conceived where Ross Perot won in 1992 and that's a lot less likely on the surface. I wouldn't worry about it that much. The chances of the beloved, all-powerful Baby Boomers being turfed out without coverage is nil. So you've got three or four decades before that is even a vaguely feasible possibility.
And even if it did happen, if Republicans systematically alienate their most reliable voting bloc (old white people), then you can look forward to a lot of incoming Democrats who will happily fix things.
I mean, they will seriously do ANYTHING to hold onto power. I WISH Democrats did stuff like this.
If the Electoral College votes and no one attains 270 the election then shifts to the House of Representatives, as per the Constitution, where only a simple majority is needed to determine a winner. Given the current political party breakdown in the House it is pretty clear how things would turn out. This sort of election would still be perfectly legal, legitimate, and Constitutional even if the circumstances are highly irregular.
Looking at current Cabinet choices...well, let's just say that I thought crony capitalism in Washington, D. C. was bad enough already. Trump is doubling down on it.
Don't worry about the "ifs" or the "whens"
Worrying and complaining accomplish nothing.
What does accomplish things, is planning and adapting to what is thrown, or maybe thrown at you.
The effort failed. The GOP still treated him as a radical leftist, even when he endorsed their own ideas. The opposition to Obama was never about what Obama actually did.
But I was rather happy to read two things about FI & neighbours this week, but conflicted about Iceland for the first:
- Finland is the second most popular Scandi-nations amongst peers for business, after Sweden - when the question was if the nationals " are difficult to do business with" on average.
But it seemed Iceland was excluded from this survey quoted, which rather enrages me. Iceland is and must be organic part of the Nordic cooperation! I don't care if they were to trade but a cod for a reindeer - Iceland matters.
What pleased me and amused me that only 3% ot the Finns find the Swedes a "difficult business partner" whereas as many as 11% thought the same in reverse. I do believe the Danes were more favorable to us, marginally!
- Finland has the best preteen son-to-father relationship in the WHO study, where nine out of ten Finnish boys feel they can easily talk with their father about "difficult topics."
At teen it is still amongst the top three, but I am pleased to say Iceland was acknowledged in this survey, and topped us there - because it still was marginal, as opposed to indicating Finnish boys fall out with their dads - just Iceland should be there.
Edit: then to ten, or spelling correction.
@ThacoBell is correct--Obama's terms in office weren't so much Obama's terms in office as they were Bush's third and fourth. In some ways, many Democrats are still too naive, politically, or perhaps I should use the adjective "trusting"--they think the Republicans want to "play nicely" and get along, as if everyone is in the same kindergarten class.
Increasing capital gains taxes would also affect wealth rather than income. Some folks make money by trading stocks rather than working, and a strong capital gains tax would make sure they pay taxes on their primary income source, even if they aren't working for a salary.
For what it's worth, whether you tax total wealth or you tax yearly income, rich people will have the same incentive to hide it away, in another country if necessary, and avoid getting taxed.
I'm not sure what you mean by "investing their wealth in this country." Investing outside the country wouldn't protect you from an income tax.
My point is there is nothing forcing the wealthy people to live here so they can move to a more wealth friendly country to avoid the 'death tax'. Unless the entire world played by the same rules you can't get at already acquired wealth without outright stealing it from them...
I agree--Mr. Obama was not plagued by personal scandals while presiding from the Oval Office.
I disagree that he cleaned up any foreign affairs matters, though. Under his Administration, the IS has continued to thrive despite ramped-up drone strikes and the redeployment of military forces and Putin was pretty much allowed to do whatever he felt like doing--just ask people from Ukraine.
Most people misunderstand taxes, especially at the Federal level. Your city and State taxes really do go towards projects like school maintenance, road repairs, city beautification, etc. At the Federal level, though, the government doesn't need your money and does not spend only what it brings in; instead, the government prints whatever money it needs then controls inflation by shrinking the money supply via taxation. The IRS could close its doors tomorrow and the government would not shut down.
Did anyone notice that the British Parliament passed the Investigatory Powers Bill, giving police and intelligence agencies there new authority to obtain all sorts of e-communication data? If you browse or shop a retailer's web portal, they are required to keep all your information for at least one year and they have to turn it over to law enforcement officials whenever requested.
I can agree with liberals that not everybody has those same opportunities yet, but humanity is making progress in that regard. I'll even give kudos to liberals for advancing that progress.
It seems to me that it must be very frustrating to be a liberal. The changes you want will happen but it'll probably take a lot longer than you'd like...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38303381
History shows that relatively few rich people are willing to leave a country over taxes, stop investing in it, or what-have-you. Ultimately their own country is what they know, and often where they love. And they still make money there - just not as much as if they weren't taxed.