The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[Tara]

This is the same person that brags about declining to appear on a talk show he was never invited on in the first place, so um FAEK NOOZ!!!!!!!!!!

[Volphied]

Trumpcare is out and here are the reviews:

Quote

The proposal defunds Planned Parenthood. No federal funding can be made, either directly or indirectly, by Medicaid to a healthcare organization that “provides for abortions,” other than those done in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother. That’s Planned Parenthood. It’s proper to note that Planned Parenthood doesn’t use federal funds to pay for abortions, as that’s already against the law. This measure shuts down funding for the organization just because it uses other funds to cover those procedures.

The bill effectively shuts down private health insurance coverage for abortion. According to a House Ways and Means Committee digest, the measure forbids spending federal tax subsidies on health plans that include coverage of abortion, even if the customer doesn’t get an abortion. This would dramatically shrink working Americans’ access to insurance-covered abortions, or would lead to insurers dropping abortion coverage from their plans, or both. Customers could buy separate policies to cover abortions, but couldn’t use the federal subsidy to help pay for them. Insurers likely would charge hugely discouraging premiums for such policies, as the market for them would be tiny.

The individual and employer mandates are eliminated. They’re not repealed exactly, but the penalties are repealed, which amounts to the same thing. Without a requirement that individuals carry health insurance, the insurance markets are almost certain to collapse. The repeal is retroactive back to the beginning of 2016, but the real problem is in the market starting this year. Individuals would be able to drop their coverage immediately, which will wreak havoc with the market starting right now. Aetna’s chairman and chief executive, Mark Bertolini, said recently that the individual market was entering a “death spiral” in which healthier customers dropped coverage, leaving sicker customers who know they need insurance facing an ever-increasing rates. This provision will do much to guarantee that will happen.

Essential health benefit rules are repealed. As of Dec. 31, 2019, ACA rules that required qualified health plans to provide hospitalization, maternity care, mental health services and other benefits would be sunsetted at the federal level. States would have the authority to set them instead. The impact on private, non-Medicaid plans would therefore vary by state. If a state removes maternity benefits, for example, that’s likely to make maternity coverage, among other services, immensely expensive, if available at all.

Income-based premium subsidies would be replaced by age-based subsidies, which will hurt working-class families in many states. Under the ACA, subsidies to help individual buyers afford premiums and (for poorer households) deductibles and co-pays were based on household income. The GOP measure will base them on the buyer’s age, instead, with older buyers receiving more help than younger. The GOP plan limits subsidies to $4,000 per individual; under the ACA, which also keys subsidies to the cost of benchmark insurance plans in the buyer’s home market, the subsidies theoretically could be several times higher. No family could receive more than $14,000 in subsidies, and no more than five family members could be eligible for subsidies.

As we reported last week, this scheme would reduce subsidies to many of the people who need them the most, while awarding them to recipients who don’t need them. “People who are lower income, older or live in high-premium areas would be particularly disadvantaged,” the Kaiser Family Foundation observed after examining an earlier draft. The new draft retains those features. Some modest means-testing of the subsidies — an idea tossed around within the GOP caucus last week to quell complaints that the change would make the rich richer — appears to be incorporated into the fiscal provisions of the proposal.

The Medicaid expansion is killed. As of Dec. 31, 2019, the Medicaid expansion is repealed. Traditional Medicaid will be block-granted, a system almost certain to result in less federal funding for the joint state-federal program than it would have received, over time. The neediest and sickest Americans will increasingly be on their own, as states get less federal help to provide them with medical services.

All of Obamacare’s taxes are repealed, another boon for the rich. Everything from the tax on tanning salons and medical devices to the surcharge on high-income taxpayers will be gone. As we explained earlier, this amounts to an enormous tax cut for the wealthy — at least $346 billion over 10 years, every cent going to taxpayers earning more than $200,000 ($250,000 for couples). The proposal would sharply raise the limits on contributions to tax-advantaged Health Savings Accounts — another gimme for the rich.

The tax repeal, the Brookings Institution has reported, will make it impossible to pay for any Obamacare “replacement” — which still isn’t on the horizon. It also will exacerbate the fiscal problems of Medicare, by hastening the exhaustion of the program’s trust fund by four years, to 2025.

Times like these I'm really happy to live in one of the many countries with universal health care. Next month my grandmother is having eye surgery to restore her failing sight, and she will have to pay ZERO for that. If a poor post-communist country can afford this, then why can't the richest country on earth? Oh right, because it's scary SOSHULISM.

[KHCast]

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

So basically...it's not even a healthcare plan.

[Tani Coyote]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/new-details-emerge-on-gop-plans-to-repeal-and-replace-obamacare/2017/03/06/04751e3e-028f-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?utm_term=.af4a359b90d5

“We will not support a plan that does not include stability for Medicaid expansion populations or flexibility for states,” Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Cory Gardner (Colo.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)."

If this bill goes to the Senate as is and no Democrats break ranks, it fails 48-52.

While our goal in 2018 is to replace a lot of these moderate Republicans with even friendlier Democrats, it's hard to deny their usefulness in limiting the worst of the Trump era.

Now granted, their opposition is only on the Medicaid expansion, but that was the largest contributor of the healthcare expansion. The GOP is going to do some damage in all likelihood by repealing several parts of the bill, but key parts - expanded Medicaid, preexisting conditions, staying on parents' plans - remain intact.

As it's not a full on repeal, they're only turning the clock back a little on the day the USA has single payer. They're probably screwed the next time the Democrats sweep both chambers, now that obstructionists like Lieberman are no longer there to serve as a fifth column.

The bill is also being attacked on the right from Senators like Rand Paul, who dislike the income tax credit idea. They're even worse than the rest of the GOP in this regard, but for now we can class them as useful idiots. If their pet peeves keep the bill from passing at all, they are continuing the status quo, which is the best option at present.

[Volphied]

51 minutes ago, Gregg (Ogilvie) said:

While our goal in 2018 is to replace a lot of these moderate Republicans with even friendlier Democrats, it's hard to deny their usefulness in limiting the worst of the Trump era.

Nice optimism. But experience tells me that "moderate" Republicans will eventually fall in line. Example: the confirmation hearings.

Turns out that elections have consequences.

[CleverSonicUsername]

Nobody knew healthcare was so complicated.

Edit: My "favorite" part is how if you have a two month gap in coverage, you pay a 30% surcharge on premiums for a whole year. Yeah there's no tax penalty, but now if you go off insurance and want coverage you pay a penalty on top of your premium, and that goes right into the insurer's pockets.

This fuckin proposal, man.

double edit: Meanwhile, noted shithead Jason Chafftez has suggested people just not buy an iphone so they can pay for insurance. I guess it's just that easy!

[KHCast]

That's almost as smug as Microsofts "if you don't want a drm machine we have a system for that, it's called the Xbox 360" shit lol.

[Volphied]

4 hours ago, CleverSonicUsername said:

double edit: Meanwhile, noted shithead Jason Chafftez has suggested people just not buy an iphone so they can pay for insurance. I guess it's just that easy!

He's just repeating Fox News propaganda, where shitting on poor people was perfected.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Probably would have been more accurate to call it TrumpDontCare.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/03/sex_offender_bans_are_based_on_bad_science.html

Hooray, the Supreme Court is just as open to alternative facts as Trump himself is.

They continue to cite an incorrect "80% of sex offenders repeat their crime" statistic, when the Justice Department - you know, the guys who actually monitor criminals and stuff - find it to only be around 3.5%.

In this case, it was used to justify banning sex offenders from any site with underage users (completely ignoring not all sex offenders committed their offense against an underage person). Thus far there have been thousands of convictions under the law in North Carolina alone.

Sadly, few will come out to protest this decision, because social conditioning makes it so that the moment you argue laws regarding sex offenders, age of consent, etc. could possibly be revised, you're treated as if you are endorsing rape, pedophilia, whatever. Funny how many are so quick to attack those who argue the slippery slope of gay rights leading to legalized paraphilias, but fall silent when they have to address the issue of actual people whose lives are ruined by traditionalist laws regarding sex and crime.

If we're all about rolling back the overreach of the police state, that includes cases like this. Laws should be based on science and evidence. It's the same reason we'll be in support of mass rollback of laws regarding marijuana, but be more in favor of softer reforms for much more dangerous addictive substances like cocaine and heroin.

11 hours ago, Volphied said:

Nice optimism. But experience tells me that "moderate" Republicans will eventually fall in line. Example: the confirmation hearings.

Turns out that elections have consequences.

Actually, no. It's pretty standard procedure for the Senate to confirm most nominees near-unanimously both in committee and on the floor.

That system has only recently broken down.

The Senate isn't called the world's greatest deliberative body without good reason. It's historically been very diplomatic. This probably owes a lot to its original goal of balancing power between the slave and free states so as to avoid a war (which only broke down when we grabbed so much land from Mexico it was hard to keep the balance).

[Volphied]

11 hours ago, Gregg (Ogilvie) said:

Actually, no. It's pretty standard procedure for the Senate to confirm most nominees near-unanimously both in committee and on the floor.

I was more referring to the fact how many Republicans made a big show about how they disagree with Trump, before rubber stamping everything he asked them for. There's no such thing as a "moderate republican", and you should not base your hopes on them resisting Trump's destructive agenda.

Anyway, Ryan and co. are certain that Trumpcare will soon become law:

Quote

House speaker, Paul Ryan insisted the healthcare bill would earn enough support to pass the House.

“This is the beginning of the legislative process; we’ve got a few weeks,” Ryan said. “We will have 218 when this thing comes to the floor; I can guarantee that.”

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell called the bill a “dramatic improvement from the status quo” and said he anticipates the Senate will take up the bill before mid-April if the House is able to pass it in the next few weeks.

The White House has also come out wholeheartedly behind the legislation. In a tweet on Tuesday morning, Donald Trump described it as “our wonderful new Healthcare bill”.

In the afternoon, he further praised the bill while meeting at the White House on with the congressional whips assigned to rally support. “I am proud to support the replacement plan released by the House of Representatives,” Trump said. “It follows the guidelines I laid out in my congressional address.”

Republicans will fall in line. As always.

[Candescence]

It's not gonna be remotely that simple. The moderates are cringing because they know it'll screw over the people the ACA helps and that will spell big trouble during the midterms and the next presidential election - they know that, unlike during the election where GOP candidates were terrified of speaking out against Trump to avoid pissing off the base, they're stuck between a rock in a hard place, and either outcome can easily fuck over their electoral chances during both upcoming elections. The hardcore conservatives/right-wingers hate that it doesn't go nearly far enough, consequences be damned - there's no way to please both factions.

The Dems aren't gonna vote for this bill, and it'll only take three Republican votes against it in the Senate to shoot it down and humiliate Trump and Ryan. It took several years for the GOP to finally come up with a "repeal and replace" plan, and that's partly because they're so hopelessly divided that it's virtually impossible to create a bill that'll unify the entire party around it. They had bigger majorities before Trump was elected, and they still couldn't do shit.

[Patticus]

The fevered nightmare of a mad god that is Donald J. Trump met with the Russian ambassador during the campaign, back in April.

Quote

The meeting was, essentially, a throw away line—color—in a larger story about Donald Trump’s confounding affinity for Vladimir Putin. Meeting, apparently briefly, the Russian ambassador wouldn’t have been a particularly big deal if Trump didn’t make it so by being generally unforthcoming about his dealings and interactions with Russia. Trump likely could have gotten away with not recalling the meeting, writing it off as an oversight, if Trump associates one-by-one hadn’t gotten dinged of late for being misleading about their interactions with the Russians. “I have nothing to do with Russia,” Trump said in February. “Haven't made a phone call to Russia in years. Don't speak to people from Russia.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/07/trump_met_russian_ambassador_kislyak_during_campaign_in_april_2016.html

Although it's unlikely the meeting was anything nefarious, Trump did lie about never meeting with the Russians. Taken with the numerous other current and former Trump staffers who also met with the Russians and lied about it, and Trump's own history with the country, it cannot simply be dismissed as a one-off.
 

In other Russian news, several Russian diplomats and oligarchs have died "suddenly" since November, and several evidently had ties to the infamous Trump/Russia dossier:

Quote

A Ukrainian-born millionaire businessman with links to Donald Trump has reportedly died in unexplained circumstances. Alex Oronov, a 69-year-old naturalised American citizen who ran an agricultural business in his native Ukraine, died on 2 March, according to a Facebook post by Ukranian politician Andrii Artemenko. Mr Oronov is reported to have set up a secret meeting between Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen – to whom he had family ties - and Russian officials where a “peace plan” is said to have been hatched to give Russian President Vladimir Putin control of the Crimea. 

Mr Cohen is understood to have an extensive network of personal and business relationships in the Ukranian-American community – and his associates included Mr Oronov, a partner in the ethanol business the lawyer’s brother, Bryan, set up in Ukraine.

The “peace plan” meeting brought together Mr Artemenko, Mr Cohen and Felix Sater, an American-Russian long-time business associate of Mr Trump who is reported to have ties to the Russian mafia.

Details of this meeting are believed to have ended up on the desk of Michael Flynn, Mr Trump’s former security adviser who was forced to resign last month over his alleged secret dealings with Russian officials.

 

Quote

Conspiracy theorists have pointed to a number of recent deaths of Russian diplomats in the past four months.

Russia’s permanent ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, died last month in New York after suddenly becoming ill on his way to work the day before his 65th birthday. It was initially reported he had suffered a heart attack but an autopsy proved inconclusive.

The Russian Consul in Athens, Andrei Malanin, 55, was found dead on the floor of his apartment in Greece in January. Greek police said there was no evidence of a break-in and he was believed to have died of natural causes.

Russia’s Ambassador to India, Alexander Kadakin, 67, was reported to have died of heart failure in January after a “brief illness” according to Indian media.

Russian diplomat Sergei Krivov, 63, was found unconscious having suffered severe head injuries at the Russian consulate in New York on US election day. According to BuzzFeed, Mr Krivov was initially said to have fallen to his death following a suspected heart attack, but a subsequent report from medical examiners was inconclusive.

The Russian ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov, was assassinated in Ankara by a policeman at a photography exhibition on 19 December and another diplomat, Peter Polshikov, was shot dead in his Moscow apartment on the same day.

Former KGB chief Oleg Erovinkin, who was suspected of helping British spy Christopher Steele draft a dossier on Donald Trump, was found dead in the back of his car last Boxing Day. Mr Erovinkin was also an aide to former deputy prime minister Igor Sechin, who now heads up state-owned oil company Rosneft and is said to have been named in the dossier.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ukranian-businesman-russia-and-donald-trump-dies-michael-cohen-michael-flynn-donald-trump-vladimir-a7612866.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-diplomats-deaths-theories-putin-kremlin-a7602201.html

Quote

Oronov joins Erovinkin, Krivov, Karlov, Melanin, Chandelon, Polshikov and Churkin, who have all died since the dossier scandal became public just a few short months ago.

Sergei Krivov died in New York on election day at the Russian Consulate with his skull bashed in. Oleg Erovinkin was a former KGB general who contributed to the former MI6 agent’s dossier on Trump and Putin’s ties, and was found dead in the back of a car. Sergei Mikhailov was arrested for assisting the CIA, was seen dragged out of a meeting with a bag on his head in Moscow, and was then found deceased; Mikhailov was also a Russian intelligence agent.

http://bipartisanreport.com/2017/03/05/just-in-another-russian-with-ties-to-trump-is-dead-thats-8-so-far-details/

In another time, under different circumstances, it would be all too easy to dismiss the deaths as coincidences, and links between them as conspiracy theory bullshit. But this is Putin's Russia we're dealing with here - a place where loyalty to the regime is rewarded, and suspected treachery or dissent is dealt with brutally, oftentimes lethally.

[Tani Coyote]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/323082-trump-open-to-changes-to-obamacare-repeal-measure-conservatives-say

Trump is in favor of the tax credit replacing the mandates. So I guess calling it Trumpcare is a fair criticism now.

A garbage proposal overall (since the credit doesn't come close to paying for a lot of people's bills), but it's still better than what came before Obama in terms of incentives.

Let's note how much this whole situation highlights how BS the GOP's whole platform was on the issue, though. They're basically going to end up keeping the system, just defunding Planned Parenthood, repealing the tax increases, and eliminating mandates.

In short, it's just a bill that favors the rich and continues the personal irresponsibility of making insurance a choice. And yet people are buying that it's somehow better.

How long it will it be until "personal responsibility" advocates understand that the current system lets someone without a dime to their name nor insurance receive emergency care, thus causing the costs to be passed onto everyone else when they can't pay the bill? "Personal freedom" once again is shown to really mean being free to be a negligent jackass.

On 3/8/2017 at 3:53 AM, Volphied said:

I was more referring to the fact how many Republicans made a big show about how they disagree with Trump, before rubber stamping everything he asked them for. There's no such thing as a "moderate republican", and you should not base your hopes on them resisting Trump's destructive agenda.

Republicans will fall in line. As always.

I think you're letting pessimism talk.

This is the first Congress (a body which has been around for well over two centuries) where the Vice President had to vote to confirm a Cabinet nominee. There are moderate Republican votes. Many politicians who aren't Trump understand posture and policy are two separate entities. Indeed, most voters understand this; this is precisely why a lot of Trump's voters are shitting their pants that he's actually doing things he said he would.

Murkowski, Collins, et. al. are willing to work with the rest of the GOP on a lot of things as a matter of logrolling (this is Congress doing its job), but even they have limits. As mentioned, they are well aware of the benefits Medicaid expansion has on their constituents, and they're going to take that into account. As you said, elections matter.

We will most likely see a watered down repeal that still defunds Planned Parenthood and gets rid of mandates, but the Medicaid rollback probably isn't going to pass. I can see some Democrats breaking ranks to support the tax credits, as well, simply to soften the damage of the repeal; the alternative is a return to the status quo pre-Obama.

[Volphied]

In other news, Republicans are working hard to ensure that Gattaca becomes a reality.

Quote

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, HR 1313, 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 be folded into a second ACA-related measure containing a grab-bag of provisions that do not affect federal spending, as the main bill does.

“What this bill would do is completely take away the protections of existing laws,” said Jennifer Mathis, director of policy and legal advocacy at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, a civil rights group. In particular, privacy and other protections for genetic and health information in GINA and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act “would be pretty much eviscerated,” she said.

Employers say they need the changes because those two landmark laws are “not aligned in a consistent manner” with laws about workplace wellness programs, as an employer group said in congressional testimony last week.

[...]

While the information returned to employers would not include workers’ names, it’s not difficult, especially in a small company, to match a genetic profile with the individual.

That “would undermine fundamentally the privacy provisions” of those laws,” said Nancy Cox, president of the American Society of Human Genetics, in a letter to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce the day before it approved the bill. “It would allow employers to ask employees invasive questions about … genetic tests they and their families have undergone” and “to impose stiff financial penalties on employees who choose to keep such information private, thus empowering employers to coerce their employees” into providing their genetic information.

If an employer has a wellness program but does not sponsor health insurance, rather than increasing insurance premiums, the employer could dock the paychecks of workers who don’t participate.

The privacy concerns also arise from how workplace wellness programs work. Employers, especially large ones, generally hire outside companies to run them. These companies are largely unregulated, and they are allowed to see genetic test results with employee names.

They sometimes sell the health information they collect from employees. As a result, employees get unexpected pitches for everything from weight-loss programs to running shoes, thanks to countless strangers poring over their health and genetic information.

 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

And they get upset when we compare them to Nazis...

[SenEDDtor Missile]

21 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

And they get upset when we compare them to Nazis...

I'm expecting them (white right) to "find" a gene that shows white people as being the only superior being worthy of high ranking jobs, while all minorities are inferior and must be removed to ensure the purity of the workplace.

And before someone tells me I'm overreacting again, remember that they support conversion therapy, deny climate change, and generally accept pseudo-science and religious mystical who doo over facts. I don't doubt them making shit up to grab power for their white man's fantasy land.

[KHCast]

On 3/9/2017 at 2:21 AM, Gregg (Ogilvie) said:

A garbage proposal overall (since the credit doesn't come close to paying for a lot of people's bills), but it's still better than what came before Obama in terms of incentives.

You're really quite the optimist no matter what huh lol? That's something I can appreciate in someone even if it's not something personally I tend to do 

 

Though in situations like this, personally to me the "it could be worse/better than nothing" line really stretches how far one needs to go to not just call it what it is. I mean, getting my balls sevearly kicked multiple times is better than getting killed, but it's by no means something to think of positively of and avoid just saying it's a bullshit outcome either way. This "plan"may be better than before Obamacare, but that's by no means the goal, and if that's all people can say, well that speaks for itself... plus I mean the incentives itself aren't really incentives to large portions of the community given the thing itself and what's being sacrificed.

[-Robin-]

House Intel Committee has demanded Trump and the DOJ to provide evidence of Obama wiretapping Trump Tower by tomorrow.

 

Time to put up or shut up.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

3 minutes ago, -Robin- said:

House Intel Committee has demanded Trump and the DOJ to provide evidence of Obama wiretapping Trump Tower by tomorrow.

 

Time to put up or shut up.

Trump: How dare you traitors talk to your president like that? I am the god emperor Trump; EVERYTHING I say is absolute fact!

[Rusty Spy]

16 minutes ago, -Robin- said:

House Intel Committee has demanded Trump and the DOJ to provide evidence of Obama wiretapping Trump Tower by tomorrow.

 

Time to put up or shut up.

Is he going to embarrass himself again and point to Breitbart as his evidence? Or is he going to go the religious route and demand everyone else prove that Obama DIDN'T wiretap him?

[Toa Axis]

4 minutes ago, Rusty Spy said:

Is he going to embarrass himself again and point to Breitbart as his evidence? Or is he going to go the religious route and demand everyone else prove that Obama DIDN'T wiretap him?

I see the latter being the most likely option.

[CleverSonicUsername]

3 hours ago, Rusty Spy said:

Is he going to embarrass himself again and point to Breitbart as his evidence? Or is he going to go the religious route and demand everyone else prove that Obama DIDN'T wiretap him?

Mark Levin, to be more accurate. It seems that's where this originated from.

[Tani Coyote]

On 3/12/2017 at 5:55 AM, KHCast said:

Though in situations like this, personally to me the "it could be worse/better than nothing" line really stretches how far one needs to go to not just call it what it is. I mean, getting my balls sevearly kicked multiple times is better than getting killed, but it's by no means something to think of positively of and avoid just saying it's a bullshit outcome either way. This "plan"may be better than before Obamacare, but that's by no means the goal, and if that's all people can say, well that speaks for itself... plus I mean the incentives itself aren't really incentives to large portions of the community given the thing itself and what's being sacrificed.

It's less that it's "the goal" and more that in spite of giving it their all, the GOP is not going to turn back the clock.

They may score some victories, but they're not going to succeed in restoring the status quo. In other words, it's a net defeat for the GOP and a net gain for the Democrats.

If the government taxes half your income, it sucks, but you are still far ahead of if you were jobless. Same principle. The GOP is gutting a lot of the bill, but parts of it are left intact; they are net losers in the arrangement.

Come the next Democratic legislative trifecta, we just might be poised to get single payer or something damned close, if the Medicaid expansion stays intact.