moving this over from the trump thread, so as not to thread jack...
It's hard for me to respond to this because you provide no evidence for your sweeping generalizations.
The ACA was largely modeled from a Heritage Foundation policy proposal and a health care exchange created by Governmor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. https://www.politifact.com/fac...
Yes, the Republicans sought to remove the individual mandate embedded in the ACA and SCOTUS upheld that decision. IIRC however, enrollment in the ACA did not drop sharply because of that removal because most individuals who got health insurance via the ACA saw it as a good deal and stuck with it.
Even before removal of the mandate, individuals could refuse to get health insurance by paying a penalty to the IRS instead.
As for the 9% uninsured number that westslope is promoting, that number fell to 7.9% by 2022.
That linked page also notes that in the decade before enactment of the ACA, the uninsured percentage was around 15%.
Let's understand that some of that 7.9% are people who refuse to get health insurance out of personal choice. Others can't afford private healthcare policies via the ACA and live in states refused to allow expansion of Medicaid as offered under the ACA. Those states are run by Republicans:
Ten statesâAlabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyomingâhave not expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act to individuals with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level.
Key Findings
Researchers find that the uninsurance rate would drop by 25% if the 10 states expanded their Medicaid programs.
Women of reproductive age would see a large reduction in uninsurance (a drop of 31%), compared to older women (drop of 23.2%) and men (drop of 22.4%).
Non-Hispanic Black women of reproductive age would see a 51.3% reduction in uninsurance.
Non-Hispanic Black adults would see the largest reduction in the uninsured rate of any racial or ethnic group (43.2% reduction).
Young adults ages 19 to 24, the age group with the highest uninsured rate, with nearly one in five individuals uninsured (19.9%) would see the greatest decrease in the rate of uninsurance (a drop of 32.4%).â¯
Many states that previously expanded Medicaid found new spending on expansion is outweighed by long-term savings in healthcare expenditures and new revenue.
State spending on Medicaid in the remaining 10 states would increase by $1.5 billion (an increase of 3%).
Federal spending on Medicaid in these states would increase by about $24 billion (an increase of 17.5%).
And if you think the GOP is going to provide more money to ACA programs to make sure everyone is covered, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
"There are valid reasons why democrat run cities are a mess."
Many red-state cities have higher crime and murder rates, and higher poverty rates.
Someone else can respond to the rest of your generalizations.
This is the Trump thread, remember? So let's stick to talking about the senile, mascara-wearing narcissist facing 91 counts of indictment.
How is it hard to respond? Do you not see what is right in front of you?
You are focusing on ACA, which was under Obama, and neutered by the republicans. It never had a chance to work.
Trade wars have not only continued, but amplified under Biden (recent increases in tin tariffs, EV tariffs...) and not just against China, but also EU. Where is the diplomacy that promised improved relations with China? The supply chain is just as reliant as ever on China...the changes in sourcing that have been done by and large simply shifted production to other Asian nations, while still sourcing parts from China...this makes us even more vulnerable.
Fiscal policy - if you are not concerned about the national debt, which grew by more than 50% since the pandemic to over $34T (over $260,00 per taxpayer), then I suppose things look ok. Not to mention too much of the spending has been $ out the window. Where did the trillions of stimulus spending go? While there were many who needed the funds during the pandemic, most of the trillions went to consumer retail goods. Now the $2t+ in excess savings is gone and credit card debt is ramping up. Sure, it gave us economic growth, but so does spending $ to dig a whole in the desert and then filling it back up.
Foreign Policy - the world is even less safe now than it was 4 years ago. It may not be the direct fault of the US, but where is our global leadership to keep peace? The middle east is a mess and will likely be for decades because of what happened in Oct and Israel's response. Weâve told Israel âto be carefulâ but Netanyahu gives us the finger while we keep funding his bombs.
Immigration â more of a mess than foreign policy. No leadership from Washington in how to manage the flood of migrants. Just look at the example of the rio drownings. Itâs a blame game, not letâs use this unfortunate event to coordinate strategy on how to make sure this doesnt happen again...and find ways to share the burden equitably, while reducing the ownership by border states. Again, everything is a problem because of the other team, with no focus on consensus or ultimate resolution...and this could be why trump gets elected. It also points to how biden and the democrats contribute to the divisive politics that is hurting this country.
I think it is pathetic the republican choice seems to be trump...and almost equally pathetic that the democrats are unable to prop up a reasonable contender that isn't biden. It's not just about his age, though mostly, but also about his lacking leadership qualities. So while the democrats may have better intentions, their leadership and outcomes have not been anything to boast about.
I doubt we have very much to say to each other. You and I see American politics and world events very differently. You also have a bad tendency to move the rhetorical goalposts.
You make a lot of complaints about Biden's policies. But Trump's policies were incoherent and often contrary to their avowed purpose. And have you heard any policy proposals about a new Trump administration, or are we just hearing about revenge and retribution? You can cry all you want about Biden but a second Trump administration in 2020 would have made our problems far worse. Look at how badly he botched Covid and how many people died from his Covid stupidity, including his pushing of Ivermectin as a cure.
Briefly—
1. The ACA, which you think has never worked, is actually popular with Americans and recently hit record number of Americans covered. You proposed going "straight into" universal single-payer healthcare system in the US. I'm guessing you weren't paying attention when Bill Clinton attempted healthcare reform or when Barack Obama introduced the ACA. This country likely never will have universal single-payer healthcare: there are too many vested interests against it and Americans are deeply suspicious of such programs. Americans see them as opportunities for free-loaders and undeserving folks to get free stuff on the backs of hard-working Americans.
Passing the ACA alone was an enormous political struggle. It's not the end of the road. In contrast, the Republicans tried to destroy it even though they had no real plans for a replacement. Trump kept promising a new healthcare plan until it became a joke. GUESS WHAT: HE'S PROMISING THE SAME BULLSHIT AGAIN.
2. China is massively subsidizing its export sector to boost its economy and to wipe out nascent American competition in electric cars and solar panels. Biden is trying to push industrial policy to expand American manufacturing in those and other sectors through federal funding and tariffs. As for tariffs against the EU, provide evidence of such.
2a. No president controls the supply chains in global trade. Trump would have faced the same snarls and ensuing inflation. His confrontational tactics against China made matters worse for a number of groups including farmers exporting to China.
3. Gosh, I don't recall reading your concern about the federal deficit or national debt when Trump pushed through his massive tax cut for the rich. Trump massively increased the deficit with that tax cut even though the economy didn't need the stimulus at the time. Biden and the Democrats pushed through stimulus packages to pull the American economy after a giant Covid-induced hole.
Were you in some sort of f^&ing coma during Covid? Did you not understand that the US economy hit a massive wall when Covid shut everything down? Without significant federal stimulus, we'd still be in economic crisis. Look at the European economies who chose the path of austerity for evidence.
4. Do you seriously believe that Trump and the GOP would have been better at maintaining world order? Trump pretty much signaled to Putin that he did not regard Ukraine as an ally. He told the world that he took the world of Putin over his own intelligence community. He told the European Commission president that the US would not defend Europe if it were invaded.
According to the European Unionâs internal market chief, Thierry Breton, Trump told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in 2020 that âif Europe is under attack, we will never come to help you and to support you.â
As for Afghanistan. Trump pretty much opened the door to the Taliban to take over the country when his admin negotiated directly with them and excluded the Afghan government. Trump also set a hard date for American withdrawal without sufficient plans for building up the Afghan military to hold the country.
5. Immigration surges towards the US are not dependent on who is president or which policies in place. Immigrants are coming here because they are desperate to leave their home countries. The Biden administration has been slow to deal with the recent surge but I don't read about any coherent or feasible plan from Republicans or Trump.
Trump proposes putting immigrants into massive tent compounds prior to deportation, regardless of federal and international law. That will not stop immigrant surges towards the US.
moving this over from the trump thread, so as not to thread jack...
kcar wrote:
It's hard for me to respond to this because you provide no evidence for your sweeping generalizations.
The ACA was largely modeled from a Heritage Foundation policy proposal and a health care exchange created by Governmor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. https://www.politifact.com/fac...
Yes, the Republicans sought to remove the individual mandate embedded in the ACA and SCOTUS upheld that decision. IIRC however, enrollment in the ACA did not drop sharply because of that removal because most individuals who got health insurance via the ACA saw it as a good deal and stuck with it.
Even before removal of the mandate, individuals could refuse to get health insurance by paying a penalty to the IRS instead.
As for the 9% uninsured number that westslope is promoting, that number fell to 7.9% by 2022.
That linked page also notes that in the decade before enactment of the ACA, the uninsured percentage was around 15%.
Let's understand that some of that 7.9% are people who refuse to get health insurance out of personal choice. Others can't afford private healthcare policies via the ACA and live in states refused to allow expansion of Medicaid as offered under the ACA. Those states are run by Republicans:
Ten statesâAlabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyomingâhave not expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act to individuals with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level.
Key Findings
Researchers find that the uninsurance rate would drop by 25% if the 10 states expanded their Medicaid programs.
Women of reproductive age would see a large reduction in uninsurance (a drop of 31%), compared to older women (drop of 23.2%) and men (drop of 22.4%).
Non-Hispanic Black women of reproductive age would see a 51.3% reduction in uninsurance.
Non-Hispanic Black adults would see the largest reduction in the uninsured rate of any racial or ethnic group (43.2% reduction).
Young adults ages 19 to 24, the age group with the highest uninsured rate, with nearly one in five individuals uninsured (19.9%) would see the greatest decrease in the rate of uninsurance (a drop of 32.4%).â¯
Many states that previously expanded Medicaid found new spending on expansion is outweighed by long-term savings in healthcare expenditures and new revenue.
State spending on Medicaid in the remaining 10 states would increase by $1.5 billion (an increase of 3%).
Federal spending on Medicaid in these states would increase by about $24 billion (an increase of 17.5%).
And if you think the GOP is going to provide more money to ACA programs to make sure everyone is covered, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
"There are valid reasons why democrat run cities are a mess."
Many red-state cities have higher crime and murder rates, and higher poverty rates.
Someone else can respond to the rest of your generalizations.
This is the Trump thread, remember? So let's stick to talking about the senile, mascara-wearing narcissist facing 91 counts of indictment.
How is it hard to respond? Do you not see what is right in front of you?
You are focusing on ACA, which was under Obama, and neutered by the republicans. It never had a chance to work.
Trade wars have not only continued, but amplified under Biden (recent increases in tin tariffs, EV tariffs...) and not just against China, but also EU. Where is the diplomacy that promised improved relations with China? The supply chain is just as reliant as ever on China...the changes in sourcing that have been done by and large simply shifted production to other Asian nations, while still sourcing parts from China...this makes us even more vulnerable.
Fiscal policy - if you are not concerned about the national debt, which grew by more than 50% since the pandemic to over $34T (over $260,00 per taxpayer), then I suppose things look ok. Not to mention too much of the spending has been $ out the window. Where did the trillions of stimulus spending go? While there were many who needed the funds during the pandemic, most of the trillions went to consumer retail goods. Now the $2t+ in excess savings is gone and credit card debt is ramping up. Sure, it gave us economic growth, but so does spending $ to dig a whole in the desert and then filling it back up.
Foreign Policy - the world is even less safe now than it was 4 years ago. It may not be the direct fault of the US, but where is our global leadership to keep peace? The middle east is a mess and will likely be for decades because of what happened in Oct and Israel's response. Weâve told Israel âto be carefulâ but Netanyahu gives us the finger while we keep funding his bombs.
Immigration â more of a mess than foreign policy. No leadership from Washington in how to manage the flood of migrants. Just look at the example of the rio drownings. Itâs a blame game, not letâs use this unfortunate event to coordinate strategy on how to make sure this doesnt happen again...and find ways to share the burden equitably, while reducing the ownership by border states. Again, everything is a problem because of the other team, with no focus on consensus or ultimate resolution...and this could be why trump gets elected. It also points to how biden and the democrats contribute to the divisive politics that is hurting this country.
I think it is pathetic the republican choice seems to be trump...and almost equally pathetic that the democrats are unable to prop up a reasonable contender that isn't biden. It's not just about his age, though mostly, but also about his lacking leadership qualities. So while the democrats may have better intentions, their leadership and outcomes have not been anything to boast about.
Kurt... this is when you go from being conservative, to just being plain stupid.
If you really cared for a second about anything resembling the truth, you'd say "hmm...how could a guy who's been working in government his whole life get that kind of money?" Then, you'd realize you had access to his fucking tax returns (yeah... you know, the ones that every President shares when running for office... minus one). In a 2 second search, you'd find the following:
Bidenâs federal tax return for 2016, his last full year as vice
president, showed adjusted gross income of nearly $400,000 his
2017 federal tax return reported adjusted gross income of more than $11
million. His 2018 federal tax return reported adjusted gross income of nearly $4.6 million.
Hmmm.... how could he have purchased a $3M house for cash in the fall of 2017?
It must be from a secret payment referenced in a text by his druggie son... that's gotta be the answer.
Important note.. if Donald Trump were buying that house, then you should REALLY ask questions. He reported a taxable LOSS of $12.8M in 2017. How does a guy who never makes any money live so large? Your "business genius billionaire" made $24M less than public servant Joe Biden in 2017. No wonder he wouldn't share his tax returns... they document his failures and illegal activities.
Joe Biden paid nearly $2.75million CASH for Rehoboth Beach house within weeks of Hunter sending 'threatening' text to Chinese business partner demanding to close $10million deal
DailyMail.com has discovered that then-private-citizen Biden, who had spent virtually all his adult life in public service, bought the home for slightly under $2.75million â in cash.
And making the transaction even stranger it was within weeks of a highly questionable text that Hunter had sent to Runlong 'Raymond' Zhao, an associate at Chinese oil giant CEFC asking to seal a deal worth $10 million a year.
Another wiff and a miss...
This from the same article: Property records show Joe's six-bedroom second property was purchased on June 8, 2017 for $2,744,001 â just seven weeks before his son's shakedown messages.
I guess the purchase must have been from proceeds from a previous shakedown? Maybe go look for a different connection as the timing on this one just doesn't add up.
Joe Biden paid nearly $2.75million CASH for Rehoboth Beach house within weeks of Hunter sending 'threatening' text to Chinese business partner demanding to close $10million deal
DailyMail.com has discovered that then-private-citizen Biden, who had spent virtually all his adult life in public service, bought the home for slightly under $2.75million – in cash.
And making the transaction even stranger it was within weeks of a highly questionable text that Hunter had sent to Runlong 'Raymond' Zhao, an associate at Chinese oil giant CEFC asking to seal a deal worth $10 million a year.
Looks like you are the only one having a problem with the phrase, so I guess that makes everyone else a Neocon by default?
There's nothing wrong with a speech trying to play on people's patriotism. All presidents have done it past & present. Some are just better at it than others. His speech wasn't a call to arms but a call to supply (continue to supply) arms and to support our allies. Are you against that? I'm flabbergasted that you miss these blatantly obvious nuances.
Btw it's a pretty broad stretch to make to say my "not having a problem with something" makes me a "Neocon". But if it makes you happy... think whatever you like.
Oh and....
"No it is not the messenger in this case. I would be on Trump as well for this if he would have said it in this context."
...if you can't condemn him for the failed insurrection or improper retention of classified materials... there is not a snowball's chance in hell you would have any issue with anything he says. Sorry but that last statement isn't the least bit credible.
At some point it's just not worth the effort to talk reasonably to people who refuse to recognize that Trump tried to overthrow our democracy. Someone might argue that the storming of the Capitol building was an attempt to stop a supposed crooked election that just got out of hand. But the creation of fake Electors and the attempt to get the Justice Dept. to declare the election results as suspect were serious and blatant criminal attempts to overthrow the will of the people.
I'd ask Kurt or other Trump supporters to state their opinions on those two acts alone but I doubt it'd be worth anyone's time. I'm sick of the GOP politicians and their bizarro world of fake patriotism. They're as cartoonish as the villains in Batman movies.
No it is not the messenger in this case. I would be on Trump as well for this if he would have said it in this context.
Perhaps you have come to misunderstand what a Patriot is. This may have worked mid last century as I was informed, but certainly not now. This is Neocon 101 stuff. Just because one calls themself a Patriot does not mean you're all for war because war is a cool thing to do. It is for our military, media, industrial complex and failing politicians to look tough and decisive. War gets votes. War sells news(papers) as well as bombs and missiles. Hearst built an empire on war. Remember The Maine ! ?
The present day Media without Trump to bash would go broke. They sure won't sell anything defending Biden. War is the next best thing for clicks.
But back to the phrase ... neocon 101. Since you find nothing objectionable or inappropriate with the phrase and its present context I will have to conclude that you are or support neocon activities, ideals and principals. I do not.
Sorry sir, table for one?
Looks like you are the only one having a problem with the phrase, so I guess that makes everyone else a Neocon by default?
There's nothing wrong with a speech trying to play on people's patriotism. All presidents have done it past & present. Some are just better at it than others. His speech wasn't a call to arms but a call to supply (continue to supply) arms and to support our allies. Are you against that? I'm flabbergasted that you miss these blatantly obvious nuances.
Btw it's a pretty broad stretch to make to say my "not having a problem with something" makes me a "Neocon". But if it makes you happy... think whatever you like. Is Biden now a Necon as well?
Oh and....
"No it is not the messenger in this case. I would be on Trump as well for this if he would have said it in this context."
...if you can't condemn him for the failed insurrection or improper retention of classified materials... there is not a snowball's chance in hell you would have any issue with anything he says. Sorry but that last statement isn't the least bit credible.
So what is your take on Biden's speech ? I offered mine which you criticized. You're turn.
First off, I didn’t see it live but did read it on WhiteHouse.gov.
I can’t speak to his delivery since I didn’t see him deliver it but only to content. And the gist of it is to convince the public that continued support of Ukraine is necessary as is our support of Israel. I only objected to your overreaction to the words: Arsenal of Democracy. Put into a little more context… the paragraph in his speech where he made his statement is found below along with the paragraph before it.
And let me be clear about something: We send Ukraine equipment sitting in our stockpiles. And when we use the money allocated by Congress, we use it to replenish our own stores — our own stockpiles with new equipment — equipment that defe- — that defends America and is made in America: Patriot missiles for air defense batteries made in Arizona; artillery shells manufactured in 12 states across the country — in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas; and so much more.
You know, just as in World War Two, today, patriotic American workers are building the arsenal of democracy and serving the cause of freedom. Call me crazy but I don’t see anything incendiary at all about it. Are you “triggered” by what is clearly an appeal to patriotism? I’m sure if it came out of Trump’s mouth (though he doesn’t understand patriotism) you would have no problem with it. In the end, it’s probably the messenger you have issue with… not the message.
No it is not the messenger in this case. I would be on Trump as well for this if he would have said it in this context.
Perhaps you have come to misunderstand what a Patriot is. This may have worked mid last century as I was informed, but certainly not now. This is Neocon 101 stuff. Just because one calls themself a Patriot does not mean you're all for war because war is a cool thing to do. It is for our military, media, industrial complex and failing politicians to look tough and decisive. War gets votes. War sells news(papers) as well as bombs and missiles. Hearst built an empire on war. Remember The Maine ! ?
The present day Media without Trump to bash would go broke. They sure won't sell anything defending Biden. War is the next best thing for clicks.
But back to the phrase ... neocon 101. Since you find nothing objectionable or inappropriate with the phrase and its present context I will have to conclude that you are or support neocon activities, ideals and principals. I do not.
So what is your take on Biden's speech ? I offered mine which you criticized.
You're turn.
First off, I didnât see it live but did read it on WhiteHouse.gov.
I canât speak to his delivery since I didnât see him deliver it but only to content. And the gist of it is to convince the public that continued support of Ukraine is necessary as is our support of Israel. I only objected to your overreaction to the words: Arsenal of Democracy. Put into a little more context⦠the paragraph in his speech where he made his statement is found below along with the paragraph before it.
And let me be clear about something: We send Ukraine equipment sitting in our stockpiles. And when we use the money allocated by Congress, we use it to replenish our own stores â our own stockpiles with new equipment â equipment that defe- â that defends America and is made in America: Patriot missiles for air defense batteries made in Arizona; artillery shells manufactured in 12 states across the country â in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas; and so much more.
You know, just as in World War Two, today, patriotic American workers are building the arsenal of democracy and serving the cause of freedom.
Call me crazy but I donât see anything incendiary at all about it. Are you âtriggeredâ by what is clearly an appeal to patriotism? Iâm sure if it came out of Trumpâs mouth (though he doesnât understand patriotism) you would have no problem with it.
In the end, itâs probably the messenger you have issue with⦠not the message.
Will it serve as a recruiting tool for potential terrorists ?
Diddums, the phrase "arsenal of democracy" has been around for over 80 years. Biden was not the first president since FDR to use it; I'll lay good money that Reagan did. It's not as if Joe Biden lit the Koran on fire and peed on it.
The phrase touches on America' willingness to support other democracies against violent attack. Our enemies, state-based and otherwise, already know this. The phrase "arsenal of democracy" is not going to shock anyone or whip them into a state of murderous frenzy any more than the phrase "truth and justice for all" would.
If the phrase has any effect, it will hearten our friends who worried during Trump's admin about our commitment to alliances and democracies.
