The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fergies Gum said:
The effects of a huge spending bill will take a long time for people to start seeing the effects of it.
Click to expand...

Not from the infrastructure but from the business and jobs that the investment would bring. Whether the GOP will back mass spending is another matter.
 
Ubik said:
"Beauty contest."
Click to expand...

Again, not mounting a defense of the repeal. But as someone who thinks more of market-based solutions to issues, I sympathize with Ryan's broader point (not that he's making one, but I'm at least extending his). Nothing that I might tell you about a solution to particular problem is likely to sound as compelling or painless as "the government will do it".

If we can be hypothetical for a second: what if I ran a huge model and came to the conclusion that it's likely that if ACA ran for 20 years it would add $15 trillion to the debt (again, all hypothetical). So I conclude that benefits must be reduced or taxes increased. But the tax increase would creep you over about broadly taxing 40% of the total economy and create a significant drag on growth. How does one sell this nugget now, politically? "I need to go and cut benefits from poor, sick and old people"... It could be the truest thing in the world, and you'd still have a hell of a time selling it.
 
MTF said:
Again, not mounting a defense of the repeal. But as someone who thinks more of market-based solutions to issues, I sympathize with Ryan's broader point (not that he's making one, but I'm at least extending his). Nothing that I might tell you about a solution to particular problem is likely to sound as compelling or painless as "the government will do it".

If we can be hypothetical for a second: what if I ran a huge model and came to the conclusion that it's likely that if ACA ran for 20 years it would add $15 trillion to the debt (again, all hypothetical). So I conclude that benefits must be reduced or taxes increased. But the tax increase would creep you over about broadly taxing 40% of the total economy and create a significant drag on growth. How does one sell this nugget now, politically? "I need to go and cut benefits from poor, sick and old people"... It could be the truest thing in the world, and you'd still have a hell of a time selling it.
Click to expand...

Firstly, voters don't always vote on economic issues. Secondly, voters are often misinformed about the data underlying government policy, which has made it easier to cut welfare and create migration as a wedge issue in the UK, where voters overestimate the welfare budget and grossly overstimate the section that goes to unemployment (not pensions), and also hugely overestimate the number of migrants. (The same over-estimation was recently found in all developed countries). Thirdly, in the specific case of the US, many people including those earning well below median income sincerely believe that any government intervention is necessarily evil, so highlighting the government rather than healthcare aspect (Obamacare vs ACA, for example), makes the policy much more palatable. Indeed, a large number of people believe they have no obligation to help any others (I know anecdotes about internet comments aren't exactly peer-reviewed science but you can see these comments under every healthcare sob-story).

Governments have reduced welfare spending in many countries and been re-elected, they have presided over jobs losses and lived to fight another day, some have survived recessions. As long as the popular narrative is that the govt is doing the right thing, policies can be passed.

OTOH, it is indeed tougher to attack something as universal and also well-established as the NHS without a really long effort, compared to something more diffuse like the ACA. In that sense, it is true that a govt trying to reduce services from a long-standing, universal system will feel a heavy sting.
 
House Republicans would let employers demand workers’ genetic test results


A little-noticed bill moving through Congress would allow companies to require employees to undergo genetic testing or risk paying a penalty of thousands of dollars, and would let employers see that genetic and other health information.

Giving employers such power is now prohibited by legislation including the 2008 genetic privacy and nondiscrimination law known as GINA. The new bill gets around that landmark law by stating explicitly that GINA and other protections do not apply when genetic tests are part of a “workplace wellness” program.

The bill was approved by a House committee on Wednesday, with all 22 Republicans supporting it and all 17 Democrats opposed. It has been overshadowed by the debate over the House GOP proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but the genetic testing bill is expected to folded into a second ACA-related measure containing a grab-bag of provisions that do not affect federal spending, as the main bill does.


...
The ACA allowed them to charge employees 50 percent more for health insurance if they declined to participate in the “voluntary” programs, which typically include cholesterol and other screenings; health questionnaires that ask about personal habits including plans to get pregnant; and sometimes weight loss and smoking cessation classes. And in rules that Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued last year, a workplace wellness program counts as “voluntary” even if workers have to pay thousands of dollars more in premiums and deductibles if they don’t participate.

Despite those wins, the business community chafed at what it saw as the last obstacles to unfettered implementation of wellness programs: the genetic information and the disabilities laws. Both measures, according to congressional testimony last week by the American Benefits Council, “put at risk the availability and effectiveness of workplace wellness programs,” depriving employees of benefits like “improved health and productivity.” The Council represents Fortune 500 companies and other large employers that provide employee benefits. It did not immediately respond to questions about how lack of access to genetic information hampers wellness programs.
Click to expand...
 
berbatrick said:
Firstly, voters don't always vote on economic issues. Secondly, voters are often misinformed about the data underlying government policy, which has made it easier to cut welfare and create migration as a wedge issue in the UK, where voters overestimate the welfare budget and grossly overstimate the section that goes to unemployment (not pensions), and also hugely overestimate the number of migrants. (The same over-estimation was recently found in all developed countries). Thirdly, in the specific case of the US, many people including those earning well below median income sincerely believe that any government intervention is necessarily evil, so highlighting the government rather than healthcare aspect (Obamacare vs ACA, for example), makes the policy much more palatable. Indeed, a large number of people believe they have no obligation to help any others (I know anecdotes about internet comments aren't exactly peer-reviewed science but you can see these comments under every healthcare sob-story).

Governments have reduced welfare spending in many countries and been re-elected, they have presided over jobs losses and lived to fight another day, some have survived recessions. As long as the popular narrative is that the govt is doing the right thing, policies can be passed.

OTOH, it is indeed tougher to attack something as universal and also well-established as the NHS without a really long effort, compared to something more diffuse like the ACA. In that sense, it is true that a govt trying to reduce services from a long-standing, universal system will feel a heavy sting.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking there are two different questions:

1) Who is paying for health-care coverage?
2) How efficient is the system? (Total cost of healthcare / quality of care)

Nowadays the discussion focuses almost entirely on distribution of costs, when a discussion about efficiency would be at least equally important. In reality both questions are intertwined, but it helps to discuss them (at least to some extend) separately to keep emotions in check.

The question of “who should pay for health-care?” is partly down to fundamental values. Most people agree, that everyone should have access to a certain minimum standard – what that means depends of the cultural values of a country. But there are also issues that everybody should agree up on: Any redistribution should be transparent, fair and create as little negative distortions as possible.

The second question is not discussed at all. It is not sexy to talk about substantial details; you can’t just throw a few sound-bites at someone (“You kill poor people” vs. “evil socialist”) and things are not black/white. Understanding the reasons in which areas different systems excel and why some systems are a lot more efficient than others would be key (e.g. Canada and Switzerland have roughly equal quality, but the costs in Canada are ~20% higher (age adjusted)). That’s the area where both parties should work together, but that is never going to happen. Neither party is willing to address this. The ACA only addressed the first question, while making a bad system even less efficient.
 
berbatrick said:
House Republicans would let employers demand workers’ genetic test results
Click to expand...
eed67b6bb3cc36a35d0a258e7c1d5777.jpg


Do they want the aryan race?
 
Il Prete Rosso said:
You'd need a Congress with balls to initiate that process. We all know they're not going to do that unless their hands are tied.
Click to expand...

Yeah and I still think it's less likely to happen than will. It's a long road to get to the point where they can impeach, but that feels like the end-goal with all the info that's coming out (maybe just wishful thinking on my part).
 
Ubik said:


They're just embracing the double standard now, tinpot autocrat style.
Click to expand...


And then everyone laughed... unbelievable.

Also seems that Tillerson is doing an Asia trip and not taking press, as is apparently the usual. And Spicer is saying the issue is the size of the plane... :wenger:

Has this transition caused the US Govt to forget how to Govt? Did they lose the keys to the bigger plane? Miss a lease payment? Did they lose their Germany hotel phone book? (Tillerson staying at a sanitarium)
 
Dwazza said:
It's all about insurance coverage. Genetic testing results allow insurers to reject claims on the basis of pre-existence. It's wholly unfair and imbalances the game in favour of a business that makes loads of money as is.
Click to expand...
The president of the poor :nervous:
 
That's standard practice apparently, just occurring later (and with far less organisation) than normal.
 
Obama to replace U.S. Attorneys
By JOSH GERSTEIN


05/15/09 08:34 AM EDT

President Barack Obama plans to replace a "batch" of U.S. Attorneys in the next few weeks and more prosecutors thereafter, according to Attorney General Eric Holder.

"I expect that we’ll have an announcement in the next couple of weeks with regard to our first batch of U.S attorneys," Holder said Thursday during a House Judiciary Committee hearing which stretched out over most of the day due to breaks for members' votes. "One of the things that we didn’t want to do was to disrupt the continuity of the offices and pull people out of positions where we thought there might be a danger that that might have on the continuity--the effectiveness of the offices.But...elections matter--it is our intention to have the U.S. Attorneys that are selected by President Obama in place as quickly as they can."
Click to expand...
 
Raoul said:
Bizarre to say the least. Churkin is actually the only one I previously thought actually might have died of natural causes.
Click to expand...





If there were no signs of foul play, you wonder why they are being so secretive.
 
Dwazza said:
It's all about insurance coverage. Genetic testing results allow insurers to reject claims on the basis of pre-existence. It's wholly unfair and imbalances the game in favour of a business that makes loads of money as is.
Click to expand...
Typical Republican discrimination against Hindus & Buddhists.
 
Sean's deep. Deep into Donald. How deep? Hear more at 10.

Maybe 10 is the answer. Who knows. Only Sean and Donald and the entire CIA.
 
Surprised to hear Jon huntsman picked as Russia ambassador. Couldn't have been farther from Trump's end of the political spectrum.
 
This will get more and more scrutiny in the coming weeks. Time for the congressional committee to subpoena his taxes.

 
That guy's only a week behind Rachel Maddow's expose on the property purchase. Was listed around $46M and suddenly this guy pays Trump $95M. I thought it was odd when it happened but now it looks very sketchy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.