Finally. Good riddance to Obamacare.

[Revoltingest]

Right, because after 2 decades of cost going up, it would have just magically stopped.

Huh?
You're the one claiming that the alternative to Obamacare would've been higher cost inflation.
I'm challenging that presumption as not only unevidenced, but not a likely system response.

We were spending 13% of gdp on healthcare in the late 90's, 17% in 2008 and 18% in 2015. Looks to me like the trend simply continued after Obamacare.

This failure to address costs is inexcusable.
But in fact, Obamacare intended increase in several areas.

Health care has to redistribute the cost. It's the nature of the beast.

It doesn't have to.
A better way is to subsidize low income types using tax revenue, which is progressive.
Using health care pricing imposes the cost burden on all healthy members, regardless
of ability to pay. This is why so many have lost their insurance...Obamacare raised
prices beyond what is affordable.

And I'm still waiting to hear what the republican plan is. Now Trump is promising lower cost, lower deductibles and health care for everyone.... sounds like a fantasy.

I'm waiting too.
We shall see.

Right, and who does? Trump?

We won't know until he does something.

 

[Underhill]

Huh?
You're the one claiming that the alternative to Obamacare would've been higher cost inflation.
I'm challenging that presumption as not only unevidenced, but not a likely system response.

Then you misunderstood me. I never said it was higher, only that it didn't change much.

This failure to address costs is inexcusable.
But in fact, Obamacare intended increase in several areas.

Of course he did. He also intended there to be a public option which went away in an attempt to bring in moderate supporters.

It doesn't have to.
A better way is to subsidize low income types using tax revenue, which is progressive.
Using health care pricing imposes the cost burden on all healthy members, regardless
of ability to pay. This is why so many have lost their insurance...Obamacare raised
prices beyond what is affordable.

That is the entire point of insurance. To spread the cost of health care over the population. The biggest problems with Obamacare are that a) it kept profit in the equation and b) it didn't spread the cost out nearly enough because the punitive side was relatively mild.

I'm waiting too.
We shall see.

We won't know until he does something.

Right, so you are skeptical of Obama's ability, but are willing to wait and see with Trump. I think you are in denial about your republican proclivities.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is the entire point of insurance. To spread the cost of health care over the population. The biggest problems with Obamacare are that a) it kept profit in the equation and b) it didn't spread the cost out nearly enough because the punitive side was relatively mild.

If it were just "insurance", there wouldn't be the intentional subsidy of a high cost group by a low cost group.
But whatever the label, it needn't drive public policy.
If the goal is to provide health care to those who can't afford it, then this is a burden
best born by the population in general in a manner which is based upon ability to pay.
I'm surprised that I've so few allies on the left regarding this.

Right, so you are skeptical of Obama's ability, but are willing to wait and see with Trump. I think you are in denial about your republican proclivities.

What proclivities do you think I claim?
I have few & low expectations, so the "denial" charge is strange.

 

[Underhill]

If it were just "insurance", there wouldn't be the intentional subsidy of a high cost group by a low cost group.
But whatever the label, it needn't drive public policy.
If the goal is to provide health care to those who can't afford it, then this is a burden
best born by the population in general in a manner which is based upon ability to pay.
I'm surprised that I've so few allies on the left regarding this.

Umm, most of the left would agree with that. Myself included.

What proclivities do you think I claim?
I have few & low expectations, so the "denial" charge is strange.

I think you claim none, but your denial is a tad bit soft as you seem to favor the republicans in virtually every discussion we have.

 

[Revoltingest]

Umm, most of the left would agree with that. Myself included.
I think you claim none, but your denial is a tad bit soft as you seem to favor the republicans in virtually every discussion we have.

To criticize Obamacare's failings is favoring Republicans?
You ought to think of issues independent of partisan politics,
& beyond the linear political spectrum.

 

[Underhill]

To criticize Obamacare's failings is favoring Republicans?
You ought to think of issues independent of partisan politics,
& beyond the linear political spectrum.

No, to complain that Obama has no experience creating systems while the alternative offers nothing more (and in some ways much less) is.

It's a subtle difference, but you do it consistently enough that it is clear who you favor in most of our discussions. Whenever I point it out, your response is always the same... I'm no republican.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, to complain that Obama has no experience creating systems while the alternative offers nothing more (and in some ways much less) is.

In this context (but a different thread), I'd proposed a company which has much experience in health care system design & analysis.
ACA Replacement
Will Trump use them?
Unlikely.
But Obama's inexperience was a problem

It's a subtle difference, but you do it consistently enough that it is clear who you favor in most of our discussions. Whenever I point it out, your response is always the same... I'm no republican.

Anytime you accuse me of being Republican, I will deny it.
(Because I'm not one, & I have very big differences with them.)
Sometimes I'll agree with a Pub, & sometimes with a Dem.
Why don't you call me on it when I support something Obama did?
Is it necessary to put me in some ill fitting slot?

 

[Underhill]

In this context (but a different thread), I'd proposed a company which has much experience in health care system design & analysis.
ACA Replacement
Will Trump use them?
Unlikely.
But Obama's inexperience was a problem

No, it really wasn't. Why? Because he was intelligent enough to know where to look for help. He also had a understanding of the needs of real people in the lower tiers of society. Neither of which can be said of Trump.

Anytime you accuse me of being Republican, I will deny it.
(Because I'm not one, & I have very big differences with them.)
Sometimes I'll agree with a Pub, & sometimes with a Dem.
Why don't you call me on it when I support something Obama did?
Is it necessary to put me in some ill fitting slot?

Nope, however it is necessary to give you crap for agreeing with them.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it really wasn't. Why? Because he was intelligent enough to know where to look for help. He also had a understanding of the needs of real people in the lower tiers of society.

We hear about his vaunted intelligence, but there's no evidence that he's smarter than the average
bear. His grades are still secret, his performance before & during office weren't stellar. But let's say
he has the typical smarts of a law school graduate. More is required than that...otherwise we could
just have candidates submit IQ test scores, & pick th the top one.

Where his lack of experience at designing things & then
seeing how they perform really hurt most noticeably.....
- Obamacare incentivized the young to drop out, yet depended upon them to subsidize the others.
- His HARP plan to help troubled homeowners excluded the ones in trouble, & became useless.
Lack of experience is not cured by having advisers.
This is because he wouldn't be able to discern which advice is best.
It's like saying a symphony conductor depends solely upon the musicians playing the instruments.

Neither of which can be said of Trump.

It's great sport for Democrats to claim their candidates are geniuses, & that Republicans are all dullards.
But this is just partisan propaganda.
I see no reason to claim that Obama is smarter than Trump.

But just as Obama's lack of experience in business hindered khim,
Trump's lack of experience in politics will be troublesome too.

Nope, however it is necessary to give you crap for agreeing with them.

I can accept that.
That dirty feeling I get when occasionally siding with a Dem or Pub should be exploited.

 

[Underhill]

We hear about his vaunted intelligence, but there's no evidence that he's smarter than the average
bear. His grades are still secret, his performance before & during office weren't stellar. But let's say
he has the typical smarts of a law school graduate. More is required than that...otherwise we could
just have candidates submit IQ test scores, & pick th the top one.

Where his lack of experience at designing things & then
seeing how they perform really hurt most noticeably.....
- Obamacare incentivized the young to drop out, yet depended upon them to subsidize the others.
- His HARP plan to help troubled homeowners excluded the ones in trouble, & became useless.
Lack of experience is not cured by having advisers.
This is because he wouldn't be able to discern which advice is best.
It's like saying a symphony conductor depends solely upon the musicians playing the instruments.

It's great sport for Democrats to claim their candidates are geniuses, & that Republicans are all dullards.
But this is just partisan propaganda.
I see no reason to claim that Obama is smarter than Trump.

And you say you aren't a fan of Trumps...

The guy has no tact. He lies constantly and obviously. He is either incredibly stupid or incredibly... unbelievably obtuse. His polling numbers have dropped 15 points since the election and he hasn't even been sworn in yet. It doesn't bode well for his capability as president.

Obama, by comparison composed himself with dignity. Was intelligent enough to pick his battles. He lacked experience, but he didn't make a fool of himself in spite of that. That alone puts him leagues ahead of Trump. It isn't a partisan thing.

There is no doubt that Republicans have a knack for picking guys who, at the very least, appear to be simple in their mannerisms. I think it is part of the whole 'anti intellectualism' movement. Trump takes this notion to a whole new level.

But just as Obama's lack of experience in business hindered khim,
Trump's lack of experience in politics will be troublesome too.

I've yet to see any evidence that Trumps business experience will avail him of anything. We shall see.

I can accept that.
That dirty feeling I get when occasionally siding with a Dem or Pub should be exploited.

I do know that feeling.

 

[Revoltingest]

And you say you aren't a fan of Trumps...

Let's say someone offered you a choice of cutting off your index finger or your pinky.
You'd pick loss of the pinky.
But this doesn't mean you're a fan of having pinky fingers cut off.

The guy has no tact. He lies constantly and obviously. He is either incredibly stupid or incredibly... unbelievably obtuse. His polling numbers have dropped 15 points since the election and he hasn't even been sworn in yet. It doesn't bode well for his capability as president.

Even smart people can have problems controlling their behavior....
- Obama stutters badly without his teleprompter.
- Bill Clinton can't resist illicit trysts.
- Trump lacks speech impulse control.
I expect his presidency to be dangerous.
But then, Hillary posed this risk too....& more so, IMO.

Polling numbers....if they were cromulent, Hillary would be Prez elect.
The anti-Trump media are leading many by the nose, hoping to hobble him.
Will it work?
I doubt it.

Obama, by comparison composed himself with dignity. Was intelligent enough to pick his battles. He lacked experience, but he didn't make a fool of himself in spite of that. That alone puts him leagues ahead of Trump. It isn't a partisan thing.

I get that you greatly prefer Obama to Trump.
But I don't argue that.

There is no doubt that Republicans have a knack for picking guys who, at the very least, appear to be simple in their mannerisms. I think it is part of the whole 'anti intellectualism' movement. Trump takes this notion to a whole new level.

What is "intellectual" about Democratic candidates?
Obama is a stuttering mess without a script.
Hillary is a vapid bore even with a script.

I've yet to see any evidence that Trumps business experience will avail him of anything. We shall see.

Aye, the upcoming reality is worth far more than predictions....be they pie in the sky, or the latter falling.

 

[Underhill]

What is "intellectual" about Democratic candidates?
Obama is a stuttering mess without a script.
Hillary is a vapid bore even with a script.

Oh come on. Even you can't think there is no difference between Trump and Obama on that front. Trump is quickly becoming an embarrassment and he isn't even in office yet. Obama stuttered once in a while. Yeah, exactly the same...

Just Trumps tweets alone put him into a new category of tactless president that has never existed before. And that is saying something.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh come on. Even you can't think there is no difference between Trump and Obama on that front. Trump is quickly becoming an embarrassment and he isn't even in office yet. Obama stuttered once in a while. Yeah, exactly the same...

Duh!
Of course there are differences.
But I don't buy Democratic pretense of owning being intellectual.

Just Trumps tweets alone put him into a new category of tactless president that has never existed before. And that is saying something.

I've long said that Trump is a boor.
If you agree this, I'm not clear on why you're arguing the point.

 

[metis]

I've yet to see any evidence that Trumps business experience will avail him of anything. We shall see.

Good point.

Generally speaking, historically businessmen have not made for very good political leaders (as we've painfully seen here in Michigan with both the Flint water issue and the state taking over school districts and not improving anything), and probably part of that is that the process is different as are the expected outcomes. IOW, running a country or a state as if it was a business is quite misguided as neither the country nor the states are based on a business model. It is not the purpose of a governor or a president to put profits over people, for example.

On top of that, an authoritarian approach may work well for a business owner but not well for a politician in a democratic society. This is likely to be a major problem for Trump as we already are seeing his frustration with others who simply are not falling into line behind him. Any dissent from what he says leads to his attack-by-Twitter.

So, in short, I fully agree with you, but time will tell.

 

[Underhill]

Duh!
Of course there are differences.
But I don't buy Democratic pretense of owning being intellectual.

I never made that claim.

I've long said that Trump is a boor.
If you agree this, I'm not clear on why you're arguing the point.

I think 'a boor' is understating it a bit.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never made that claim.

True.
But Dems continually trumpet their superior intelligence, greater education, & decry anti-intellectualism as a Republican thing.
They have too high an opinion of themselves.

I think 'a boor' is understating it a bit.

You use your terminology, & I'll use mine.

 

[Underhill]

True.
But Dems continually trumpet their superior intelligence, greater education, & decry anti-intellectualism as a Republican thing.
They have too high an opinion of themselves.

Perhaps, but it is impossible to argue there isn't a lot of anti-intellectualism in the republican party.

You use your terminology, & I'll use mine.

Sure.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps, but it is impossible to argue there isn't a lot of anti-intellectualism in the republican party.

I see it in Dems too....simplistic & vapid sloganeering, ill considered ideas, poorly designed
programs, scientific ignorance, bigotry. I'm sure it's fun for them to wield insults like "anti-intellectual",
& it's an effective team building practice, but those in glass houses shouldn't throw epithets.

 

[Underhill]

I see it in Dems too....simplistic & vapid sloganeering, ill considered ideas, poorly designed
programs, scientific ignorance, bigotry. I'm sure it's fun for them to wield insults like "anti-intellectual",
& it's an effective team building practice, but those in glass houses shouldn't throw epithets.

No large group is perfect. But there are some glaring differences. Only one party is claiming global warming isn't real. Only one party clings to old values that don't work in a modern society. There's more but you know the drill.

 

[metis]

No large group is perfect. But there are some glaring differences. Only one party is claiming global warming isn't real. Only one party clings to old values that don't work in a modern society. There's more but you know the drill.

And it's also one party whereas most believed that Obama was not born in the U.S. and is not a Christian, plus where almost half do not accept the basic concept of evolution.