Prelude to the Apocalypse

[Bitter Almonds]

It was slim pickin's from the start.

[BryanM]

(Ted Cruz would be the republican nominee if Trump didn't run. I hope all you anti-Trumpers reflect on that and realize we are rather blessed in that regard.)

Nah, it would be Jeb Bush in the absence of Trump. Cruz was just the most resilient in the face of Trump's heckling because he burrowed deep into the religious right and used them as a meat shield.

(It didn't take Trump's heckling for people to realize that Jeb is 100% bitch made and that they don't like him. Trump didn't do a single thing to that man.)

(Jeb is awful and didn't want to win. The early polling was nothing but an illusion based on name recognition and would have melted away instantly after the first debate irregardless.)

(It's similar to the illusion of Clinton's strength. Obama got 50.01% in Florida and won? Hillary will get 47% in Florida and lose.)

[BulletMagnet]

Okay, here we go again...

The point here is that he by all accounts should have never made it this far, yet he clearly had a plan to do so the entire time. He understands politicians better than they understand themselves, so who's to say that he wouldn't use this skill of his once he's elected?

This only holds the least amount of water if you buy the line that "understanding politicians" (or, as Trump has put it elsewhere, "making deals") is 1) An all-encompassing skill set that will grant immense benefits in absolutely any situation, even if you have no firsthand knowledge whatsoever of the actual subject you're negotiating, and 2) Is the only characteristic that actually matters in a leader. Again, the only things Trump has proven himself adept at during this election are hyping himself up, getting others to do a lot of additional hyping for him for free, and blaming everybody else for absolutely everything that's gone wrong in connection with him. If you think that's all it takes to make a great (or even minimally functional) President, then vote away; I can only hope the rest of the country has set its own bar for suitability considerably higher.

A tenet of economic theory, my friend. One that I even mostly agree with, but a theory nonetheless. You could pretty easily create an economic model in a vacuum where this would be true, albeit it would be one without things such as outsourcing and a global economy.

Someone might want to alert Trump, who is, may I remind you, proposing by far the largest upper-end tax cuts in the nation's history, and still insisting that it'll bring in so much money we won't know what to do with it all; before you dart back to his mealy-mouthed "well, it'll probably be watered down eventually" excuse for a dodge, I'll be (re-)addressing that further down.

I don't think anyone is going to say that one is always inferior to the other, moreso that one is more capable of serving more people better most of the time.

Once again, someone tell both Trump and his party (government is always the problem, never the solution, remember?), who both insist that all the current system needs (aside from deep-sixing Obamacare) is more "market freedom" to fix everything (funny how the already-generous amount of "freedom" given to health providers to do what they please in pursuit of profit, consequences for others be damned, has greatly stifled competition instead of kindling it...again, not that actual numbers or real-life results matter, only Skynet cares about anything other than self-pleasuring narrative).

This is one of those things, much like illegal immigration, where we're left to trust statistics that probably don't cover the entire scope of the issue, either out of negligence, support of an agenda, or whatever other reasons.

Give me a break: no matter how picky anyone gets with the data, the problem barely exists to the point that it can even legitimately be called a "problem", yet a sizable portion of the population (many of whom fall squarely into Trump's reactionary camp) is willing to deliberately disenfranchise millions of their fellow citizens in order to foil the nefarious theoretical (now here's a place where the term is truly warranted) misdeeds of quite literally a handful of largely-imaginary would-be election-stealers. And if the official numbers make that idea seem crazy, then the official numbers must be wrong, of course! That's not an argument, or even a legitimate point of view; that's willful self-delusion. And that is a fact.

No more beating around the bush, okay? Politics is appearance. You just happen to dislike Trump's appearance and have a strong preference for the appearance of being reasonable.

Oh, grow up - the whole "it doesn't matter who's in office, they're all the same, who cares, it's all just for show" nose-in-the-air bullshit is a big part of what's gotten us into the mess we're in, and allows the following...

As the good Bryan pointed out, this is more or less irrelevant, as they stick to airing that which sells.

...to hold as much sway over the country as it does. And even with that profit-driven monkey wrench jamming up the gears, I'll ask it yet again: do you think everything would have turned out exactly the same at the turn of the century if Gore was elected instead of Bush (something tells me you weren't nearly as concerned with interventionism then...just a guess)? Would the past eight years have been identical under McCain and/or Romney? Is Trump seriously the only one you think will actually do anything "different" from anyone else, since otherwise it's just "appearance", and not large-scale decisions that affect millions, if not billions, of people? Have you been living on the same planet as the rest of us?

You'll have to give a specific example here, because if you're talking about his tax proposal he is doing something very simple: overselling the cuts so they can be brought to a level where he wants them/thinks they will pass. Don't have to be a card carrying member of the dealmaker's association to figure this out.

You didn't even attempt to address the actual query I offered in the paragraph you quoted, so I'll post it again:

Trump's entire campaign is built on the idea that his sheer magnificence and unparalleled desire to Make America Great will propel him over and above the usual fray and allow him to defy any and all of the normal rules; whatever the problem that's plagued the country for decades if not centuries, he'll just pull some incredible "deal" out of his back pocket that no other schmuck could ever have come up with, and make everything wonderful in record time! So what's the deal with him suddenly planting his feet firmly on the ground and essentially passing the buck to the usual suspects if his numbers turn out to be contradictory garbage after even a cursory glance? What happened to "screw all of those losers, I can and will do better"?

I'll even condense it for you in hopes of soliciting a legitimate answer: Trump claims that he'll get things done by refusing to play by the rules, but then proceeds to blame those same rules for forcing him to put out crazy numbers. How does this even begin to add up?

We do all know there's a difference between filing personal bankruptcy and business bankruptcy, right?

Yes, we do, but again, you're not addressing the reason I bothered to reference them at all: the fact that in all but one of those cases (the earliest, the Taj Mahal, which was mentioned in the Politifact segment you quoted) he had no personal stake in the bankruptcy, and instead left others holding the bag. So how are we supposed to take him seriously as the damn-the-torpedoes, no-punches-pulled candidate again?

Stones, glass houses, etc.

Once more, sorry, but for all the posturing and flip-flopping the other candidates have done and continue to do, none of them are even close to Trump when it comes to jarring 180-degree turns in his official stance as soon as any notable objection is raised to the one he had beforehand (notable examples coming up below). I repeat: not even close - and somehow his followers still praise him as the only candidate who's "true to himself"! Are you getting an idea of how bewildering all of this is for anyone else to watch, over and over again?

Cooperating with Russia to restore sovereignty to Syria = telling everyone to fuck off? This is literally the opposite of interventionism.

First off, is Syria seriously the only place that registers on your end when it comes to foreign policy? I don't think you've mentioned any other spot on the planet yet. Second, if you really think I was pulling your leg before, here he is saying (specifically on trade, in this case) the USA should adopt a "screw the agreement we signed, we don't like it anymore, and if you don't like it, screw you too" angle on international diplomacy, and here are a couple of instances of his advocacy for spreading the nukes around. Third, the effort to topple Assad wasn't started by the US; we simply had three choices, namely support Assad, support the rebels, or do nothing. Obama kinda-sorta sided with the rebels; Trump advocates siding with Assad (and as I said earlier, neither is a particularly "good" choice, as even Trump has admitted, nor are either "non-interventionist", which he hasn't acknowledged). Fourth - and here's the real kicker - back in 2011 he was all for intervention in Libya. And before you say anything else, answer me this: would you give any other politician the same credit for "hindsight" as you are undoubtedly planning to bestow upon Trump? Moreover, why?

You seem to think that Hillary can be guilt-tripped by her party when her party is literally the reason she is the candidate. Unless you can provide any evidence to the contrary, you have to see this as Hillary having the party under more or less complete control.

The easiest one-word bit of evidence I can call to mind is "Bernie"...and, more importantly, the tangible effect he's had on her stances so far, and will continue to have even after he drops out, as she attempts to win over his supporters for the general election (if nothing else they're more likely to grudgingly turn out for her than anyone left over from the GOP field, who are all flocking to Trump no matter how scathingly they badmouthed him earlier on). Who among Trump's bygone punching-bag opponents can you say has influenced him at all, for better or worse?

On more anecdotal grounds, Hillary has at least shown herself occasionally willing to say "I screwed up" and change course - the point I made a few posts ago, about Trump denying he ever used a fake name to do publicity despite having admitted it in court years earlier, is the equivalent of Hillary still insisting that she did dodge those bullets on the tarmac. If she ever said something like that she'd be burned at the stake; Trump, despite his insistence that not only did Hillary only get where she is because of the "woman card", but women have it easier then men in general, gets a pass, especially from those wanting to see him in the nation's highest office, on a statement just as insultingly, pitifully ludicrous.

Ignore the pundit talk as best as you can, but there you go.

Those are seriously the best you could come up with?

First off, the ZDNet article says right at the top that the two of them "normally occupy starkly contrasting positions on pretty much any issue", and notes how much of an anomaly their convergence on that particular type of visa is (and how they oppose it for completely different reasons and propose completely different solutions). The Atlantic writeup, on the other hand, is quite simply an infuriatingly incompetent piece: Trump hasn't supported single-payer health care in years (feel free to add that one to his list of especially notable reversals), has abandoned the idea of self-funding his campaign and is now courting mega-donors (there's another!), and - most frustratingly - Trump did not oppose the Iraq war from the beginning, and only started to come out against it for purely personal economic reasons (that one's not just a flip-flop, but a flat-out lie). And again, any other things both happen to be for or against, they occupy those positions for totally different reasons and would address them in completely different ways. Whoever typed up that mess should be fired immediately.

Sorry again, but unless the word "outsider!" gives you an instant boner you're not going to support both Trump and Sanders in any meaningful capacity.

Newsflash: I'm not a Republican, and neither are many Trump supporters.

First off, I really doubt that too many people are flocking to Trump because they're upset that Obama (let alone Bernie ) just wasn't liberal enough for their liking. Second, yet again you're evading the actual reason I mentioned it: Trump's "debt plan", by any measure you can throw at it, from either side of the political spectrum, would have a catastrophic effect on the economy in both the short and long term. The solution to past incompetence is not an even greater degree of incompetence with shinier wrapping paper around it.

Cruz was just the most resilient in the face of Trump's heckling because he burrowed deep into the religious right and used them as a meat shield.

...right up 'til all those "values voters" showed once and for all how little any of their much-ballyhooed "values" (except the racist ones the movement was actually built on) truly inform their lives, and voted Trump!

[quash]

This only holds the least amount of water if you buy the line that "understanding politicians" (or, as Trump has put it elsewhere, "making deals") is 1) An all-encompassing skill set that will grant immense benefits in absolutely any situation, even if you have no firsthand knowledge whatsoever of the actual subject you're negotiating, and 2) Is the only characteristic that actually matters in a leader.

It is an important skill to have in any political capacity. His method of "playing to one's fantasies" is a clever way of getting the most important parts of his proposals while satisfying the other side.

Again, the only things Trump has proven himself adept at during this election are hyping himself up, getting others to do a lot of additional hyping for him for free, and blaming everybody else for absolutely everything that's gone wrong in connection with him. If you think that's all it takes to make a great (or even minimally functional) President, then vote away; I can only hope the rest of the country has set its own bar for suitability considerably higher.

He destroyed the Republican party in under a year. He has Hillary Fucking Clinton shaking in her boots at the prospect of losing a national election. You are definitely not giving him enough credit for how he's managed to control the media narrative in a way where even with all the negative press on him, he's practically guaranteed to win.

Lucky for you, I'm registered in California so my vote doesn't matter.

Someone might want to alert Trump, who is, may I remind you, proposing by far the largest upper-end tax cuts in the nation's history, and still insisting that it'll bring in so much money we won't know what to do with it all

And Hillary wants to continue the overall trend of raising taxes. What good is that going to do at this point? It's just going to maintain the status quo of lining pockets and the ever-expanding size of the federal government.

Pull the rug out from under them and we'll see budget reform real quick. I don't think a high income tax cut is a good strategy in the long term, but current federal spending cannot be maintained even with tax increases.

Once again, someone tell both Trump and his party (government is always the problem, never the solution, remember?), who both insist that all the current system needs (aside from deep-sixing Obamacare) is more "market freedom" to fix everything (funny how the already-generous amount of "freedom" given to health providers to do what they please in pursuit of profit, consequences for others be damned, has greatly stifled competition instead of kindling it...again, not that actual numbers or real-life results matter, only Skynet cares about anything other than self-pleasuring narrative).

More market freedom would help; it would even help Obamacare.

As much as I do support the idea of individual mandate healthcare, Obama was forced to rush it through congress and ended up implementing it at a time when the economy was too weak for it to work how it should.

Give me a break: no matter how picky anyone gets with the data, the problem barely exists to the point that it can even legitimately be called a "problem"

Admittedly, the majority of voter fraud that we know occurs is done via absentee ballots. Even so, I'm still all for increasing accountability in state voting systems; ID laws is but one way of doing that.

yet a sizable portion of the population (many of whom fall squarely into Trump's reactionary camp) is willing to deliberately disenfranchise millions of their fellow citizens in order to foil the nefarious theoretical (now here's a place where the term is truly warranted) misdeeds of quite literally a handful of largely-imaginary would-be election-stealers.

How does this disenfranchise people, exactly? The vast majority of the adult population has a driver's license, and even those who don't surely have SOME method of ID; assuming, of course, that they're supposed to be here.

Even then, if ID's became mandatory for in person voting, wouldn't it make sense to make it easier for people to get ID's?

And if the official numbers make that idea seem crazy, then the official numbers must be wrong, of course! That's not an argument, or even a legitimate point of view; that's willful self-delusion. And that is a fact.

I never said the statistics were flat out wrong and I never said it's been proven to be a serious problem. I did say that the current scope of the statistics we have is pretty narrow and doesn't really give us much to work with either way.

Oh, grow up - the whole "it doesn't matter who's in office, they're all the same, who cares, it's all just for show" nose-in-the-air bullshit is a big part of what's gotten us into the mess we're in, and allows the following...

That... is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that much of what politicians tell the public is designed to (staying consistent with a theme here) play to people's fantasies.

Not to say that there isn't a lot of backdoor corroboration, but there are definitely ideological clashes, as well.

I'll ask it yet again: do you think everything would have turned out exactly the same at the turn of the century if Gore was elected instead of Bush (something tells me you weren't nearly as concerned with interventionism then...just a guess)?

9/11 still would've happened. We still would've invaded Afghanistan. Iraq probably wouldn't have happened. The crash of 08 still would've happened. Arab Spring may have gone differently and we may still have had Saddam, Ghaddafi, etc. in power.

Would the past eight years have been identical under McCain and/or Romney?

Not identical, but the major events would have likely still happened. Social climate of the country wouldn't have changed as much, economy would still suck though.

Is Trump seriously the only one you think will actually do anything "different" from anyone else

Yep. Bernie would if he could, but he's busy creating a hopefully formidable third party.

Still, Trump is facing an uphill battle on virtually all fronts. I'm not expecting him to change everything just the way he wants it, but I am expecting him to change the overall direction of the federal government.

Trump claims that he'll get things done by refusing to play by the rules, but then proceeds to blame those same rules for forcing him to put out crazy numbers. How does this even begin to add up?

Well, if he were really the maverick we all wished he was, he'd just put it in an EO and be done with it. But he knows he's going to have to have some semblance of cooperation within his party as well as from the Democrats to get more than a few things done, so maybe he's not quite the madman we've all been lead to believe?

First off, is Syria seriously the only place that registers on your end when it comes to foreign policy? I don't think you've mentioned any other spot on the planet yet.

Did you miss my sidebar with Skykid about the South China Sea?

Syria is the single most contentious spot on the planet right now. What the US does or doesn't do there is going to determine a lot moving forward.

Second, if you really think I was pulling your leg before, here he is saying (specifically on trade, in this case)

Bernie wants to pull out of trade agreements too. He probably wouldn't put it so bluntly but, hey, that's why one is going to be President and the other is going back to square one.

and here are a couple of instances of his advocacy for spreading the nukes around.

One thing he is right about is that the US can't afford to maintain military presence in many parts of the world.

I mentioned this earlier, but nuclear deterrence really isn't what it used to be. The main thing preventing all out war these days is economic expansion through global trade. That same reason is also why countries such as China are looking to have small, controlled conflicts which would never get to the nuclear stage anyways.

No doubt, there are still countries we really don't want to have nukes, but those are mostly the countries that have relatively little to lose. Japan or South Korea? I would be surprised if they didn't already have a few warheads stuffed away somewhere.

One thing I do disagree strongly with that article on is nuclear allies being less cooperative. If anything, they would be more cooperative because they still require other means of defense and particularly in East Asia, projection.

Third, the effort to topple Assad wasn't started by the US; we simply had three choices, namely support Assad, support the rebels, or do nothing. Obama kinda-sorta sided with the rebels

We may not have started it, but we certainly didn't help by sticking our nose where it absolutely did not belong.

The right choice was to leave it the fuck alone and let Russia take care of it.

Trump advocates siding with Assad (and as I said earlier, neither is a particularly "good" choice, as even Trump has admitted, nor are either "non-interventionist", which he hasn't acknowledged).

It is the only good choice at this point. It restores Syria's sovereign government (whether we like Assad or not, our plan to get rid of him clearly backfired and now things are far worse) and even improves a strained relationship with Russia.

Fourth - and here's the real kicker - back in 2011 he was all for intervention in Libya. And before you say anything else, answer me this: would you give any other politician the same credit for "hindsight" as you are undoubtedly planning to bestow upon Trump? Moreover, why?

Nah, Trump was full of shit here lol. He wasn't the one examining intelligence and he probably didn't know/care about the larger implications of what was happening there.

The easiest one-word bit of evidence I can call to mind is "Bernie"...and, more importantly, the tangible effect he's had on her stances so far, and will continue to have even after he drops out, as she attempts to win over his supporters for the general election

Once she's in office, do you really think she's going to care about Bernie supporters liking her or not? She can get the ball rolling on Syria and Iran in no time; Obama is already setting the stage for her by sending US forces to Syria later this year.

(if nothing else they're more likely to grudgingly turn out for her than anyone left over from the GOP field, who are all flocking to Trump no matter how scathingly they badmouthed him earlier on)

Not one Bush has endorsed him. I don't think Cruz or Rubio have or will. I was surprised to see Karl Rove swallow his pride, though I doubt this was a decision he made willingly. But yeah, of course Republicans are going to endorse him for the most part. They still want to win, and screwing Trump over at the convention would be downright suicidal.

Didn't I call this, by the way? The Republican party is a little too easy to read at times. Democrats, on the other hand, are facing a serious implosion, and I can't really tell which way it's going to go. Depends on how serious Bernie and his supporters are.

On more anecdotal grounds, Hillary has at least shown herself occasionally willing to say "I screwed up" and change course - the point I made a few posts ago, about Trump denying he ever used a fake name to do publicity despite having admitted it in court years earlier, is the equivalent of Hillary still insisting that she did dodge those bullets on the tarmac.

Equivalent, huh? I guess there's no lie too big or small for the Clintons.

First off, the ZDNet article says right at the top that the two of them "normally occupy starkly contrasting positions on pretty much any issue"

I ask you to ignore the pundit talk, and look at what you do...

and notes how much of an anomaly their convergence on that particular type of visa is (and how they oppose it for completely different reasons and propose completely different solutions).

They're still the only candidates that see it as an issue. They're among the only people in the public sphere right now that would even dare to speak about it.

Note I said they wanted to fix the same problems, not fix them the same way.

As for Iraq, he was against the war after it had already started. He is lying about publicly opposing the war before it started, but for all we know he may have been against it and just didn't speak about it.

Sorry again, but unless the word "outsider!" gives you an instant boner you're not going to support both Trump and Sanders in any meaningful capacity.

All it takes is a vote. Enough people don't want to see Hillary win badly enough that they will either abstain or vote for Trump. Democrats only have themselves to blame for this.

yet again you're evading the actual reason I mentioned it: Trump's "debt plan", by any measure you can throw at it, from either side of the political spectrum, would have a catastrophic effect on the economy in both the short and long term. The solution to past incompetence is not an even greater degree of incompetence with shinier wrapping paper around it.

Unfortunately our federal spending apparatus is out of control, and nothing short of starving it for fuel is going to change that at this point. There's a lot, I mean a fucking lot of waste in federal spending that has needed to be fixed for years, but our endless pampering of the political class, appetite for military intervention, and brazen disregard for budget accountability has ensured that it'll stay that way for as long as it can still, in the loosest sense of the word, work.

[BryanM]

Hillary Clinton, raise taxes on the wealty? Fucking hilarious.

As ridiculous as a republican lowering taxes on the poor.

The #1 tax poor people have to pay is rent.

[BryanM]

Hillary Clinton to Join Cast of All-Female 'Ghostbusters' on 'Ellen'

And then there’s “The Angry Video Game Nerd,“ a misogynistic web show whose sycophantic Wikipedia entry made me pine for hemlock in my coffee.

A little more context here: James Rolfe declared he's not going to see the movie. The reasons he gave are:

* Trailer looks bad.
* No connection to the original series.
* If you keep giving them your money for shit you don't want, they'll keep making shit you don't want.

So the internet was flooded with people calling him a woman hater. Because apparently actors are to blame for the decisions of the producers?

This is an example of the "intersectionality" they keep talking about. You have the internet shills on the payroll of Hillary's super PAC on one hand, trying to desperately keep the zombie of identity politics (of whom Trump is the god emperor of) alive. Then you have the huge corporations trying to turn a big profit on some flick on the other.

Perhaps this is what it felt like to be a hardcore Star Wars fanboy or fangirl, when they realized it was nothing more than a product to sell plastic toys of gungans to 6 year olds.

[Mischief Maker]

He destroyed the Republican party in under a year. He has Hillary Fucking Clinton shaking in her boots at the prospect of losing a national election. You are definitely not giving him enough credit for how he's managed to control the media narrative in a way where even with all the negative press on him, he's practically guaranteed to win.

George Bush jr. won against two vastly better qualified candidates by calling them nerds. The fact that it's (sadly) an effective strategy doesn't make it admirable.

[quash]

Hillary Clinton, raise taxes on the wealty? Fucking hilarious.

That's what she's saying, at least. Who knows if that would end up being the case.

The #1 tax poor people have to pay is rent.

Why do you think I was railing against SV's real estate practices earlier? They've turned the housing market into a casino that mostly benefits foreign investors.

Again, for all this talk about concern for the poor, when push comes to shove nobody does anything. This is why, especially as someone who grew up poor (both parents were literally in the lowest income bracket in the country for my entire childhood), the grandstanding on things such as rent control makes me highly skeptical.

It is because of groups like ACORN that subsidized housing was never able to take off in SV; their model of subsidy was little more than a way of funding their organization at the expense of landlords and taxpayers. Other groups who had funded housing subsidies (such as Catholic Charities) were able to do so while still ensuring revenue for landlords, which is why they still have some active housing subsidies in the area (though because it's more costly to operate, they can only do it in so many places at once).

Regardless, there really is no saving SV or California as a whole at this point. The state government is too fucked in too many ways that it's now pricing out both big businesses and the 1%. Only a matter of time before the SV bubble bursts yet again, and this time it's going to be a bloodbath.

[quash]

George Bush jr. won against two vastly better qualified candidates by calling them nerds. The fact that it's (sadly) an effective strategy doesn't make it admirable.

https://youtu.be/LibRNYJmZ-I

[Rob]

That video is 15 minutes of what Mischief Maker just said in one line.

[quash]

That video is 15 minutes of what Mischief Maker just said in one line.

Not really. There's so much to analyze in how Trump has ran his campaign that it will be studied for years to come. Other politicians, including many Democrats, are already taking pages from his playbook.

[BryanM]

There's really nothing to analyze.

"We need to build a wall!" <- He won the turd sandwich primary right here. That was all it took. I didn't need to look at the polling that came afterward, I already knew.

And he'll defeat Hillary Clinton exactly for the same reasons his identical clone predecessors, Reagan and Bush #2, did.

Those tweets tho. Much to entertain.

[quash]

"We need to build a wall!" <- He won the turd sandwich primary right here.

Technically true, but that was just one element of his overall campaign strategy of dividing and conquering candidates.

[antron]

Again, for all this talk about concern for the poor, when push comes to shove nobody does anything. This is why, especially as someone who grew up poor (both parents were literally in the lowest income bracket in the country for my entire childhood), the grandstanding on things such as rent control makes me highly skeptical.

Sounds like you would have greatly benefited from the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, uncle Sam would have paid most of your health insurance premiums, or let you on Medicaid without having disabled and destitute status.

[quash]

Being from California there was MediCal, which was pretty much a state-funded HMO for kids. Better than nothing, but it didn't cover anything more than basic check ups.

Haven't I said I support individual mandate? I just don't think it was passed at the right time because the economy was too weak and most people (who already couldn't afford health insurance) couldn't afford it. Had I still been a broke student when it was enacted, I would've been screwed.

[antron]

If you were broke you would have received free Medicaid. If healthy you could just view it as a pass. If you meant you just didn't have a lot of money you would have received subsidies.

You may have said you support the mandate but you also said nobody does anything for the poor when push comes to shove. I'm just pointing out that one party recently has.

[BulletMagnet]

You may have said you support the mandate but you also said nobody does anything for the poor when push comes to shove. I'm just pointing out that one party recently has.

It should also be noted that the other party is actively working, and has been for decades, to dismantle not only this latest such effort but pretty much every other one to come before it.

[antron]

H.R.5003 - Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016

http://m.cleveland19.com/19actionnews/d ... d=XLw9zmJy

What's really going to happen is kids are going to get kicked off the free and reduced lunch program

I try to understand where my lifelong Republican parents are coming from when they support a party like this. I can sort if understand the idea that entitlements breed dependence. But not when it comes to children. Even the children of deadbeat losers.

[Ed Oscuro]

"Entitlements breed dependence" is, like so many other slogans, also a testable hypothesis. I think it's already been tested, but people just don't want to believe the results.

Today's moment of Zen: Michigan Governor Snyder announces a "State of Energy Emergency" after the shutdown of a Detroit Marathon refinery, and the shutoff of a Wisconsin pipeline. An employee of GasBuddy.com says: That they chose the height of the summer driving season to schedule maintenance is "...interesting."

[quash]

If you were broke you would have received free Medicaid.

They had to expand MediCal to adults at some point precisely because Medicaid doesn't do anything for you in a state where the cost of healthcare is as high as CA's. Now, of course, they have to draw the line at ~16k a year for single adults to qualify, otherwise it'd be impossible to sustain.

You may have said you support the mandate but you also said nobody does anything for the poor when push comes to shove. I'm just pointing out that one party recently has.

I definitely still stand by that. My younger brother is getting screwed by ACA for exactly the reasons I outlined: making more than 16k a year (albeit he is barely making more than that) in a state where Medicaid may as well not exist.

If the fed intervened and forced states like California to allow people to purchase insurance from other states, it wouldn't be such an issue, and they wouldn't even have to repeal the ACA to do so. To give you an idea of how screwed CA is.

[antron]

Monthly premium for a private insurer bronze plan on California's ACA portal is around $50 (after tax credits for 20 year old with 16.5k income)

It's my understanding that the average American family pays about $1k per year extra in premiums to cover the medical bills of the uninsured.

[BryanM]

ACA could have and should have been, so, so much better.

A deductible of $6600 means that awesome bronze plan is the equivalent of paying $600 a year to not go to the doctor. Instead of paying $0 a year to not go to the doctor. To the average person in the average year.

It's great if you're a NEET living a life of poverty in a state that took the medicaid expansion. Or if you have a chronic life-long condition that sucks everything out of your bank account.

These for-profit health insurance companies. They're vampires. They're a cancer. Bernie Sanders has the right idea: They need to be brought to heel. They need to be killed. And their executives need to put to the guillotine.

Anything that falls short of that position, is the position of a radical anti-human sociopath. It's sad that the guillotine has become the humane way to go about this, now. But it's the only way to be sure.

[antron]

Correction: That $50 was for a silver plan. And in a cheap zip code that's just $40. Deductable is $75, covers > 90% of costs (this $16.5k income qualifies for an enhanced silver), with a $2.5k maximum out of pocket.

The bronze is $1 ???. Wow, is that right? Basically free no maximum catastrophic coverage that satisfies the individual mandate. $6.5k maximum out of pocket.

Numbers are basically unchanged for a 30 year old. If you are 60 you pay $16 for the silver (Uncle Sam pays $737!).

[Mischief Maker]

Spoiler

[quash]

The bronze is $1 ???. Wow, is that right? Basically free no maximum catastrophic coverage that satisfies the individual mandate. $6.5k maximum out of pocket

$1 a month for an HMO that isn't as good as the lowest of state-funded healthcare.

Better than nothing, still, but far from what could be considered an actual solution.

[antron]

I only have to show it's not a hindrance (screwing your brother).

But you can get a 4 out of 4 insurer for $5 if that helps.

[Ed Oscuro]

These for-profit health insurance companies. They're vampires. They're a cancer. Bernie Sanders has the right idea: They need to be brought to heel. They need to be killed. And their executives need to put to the guillotine.

I think the issue is the rigid system of draining value from all sources available, including from groups that should be considered partners and really the providers of the econo lotto winner's salary (or bonuses, or whatever form their compensation takes). That game in service of "creating wealth" always has infected the entire economy, but the population can't sustain it anymore. Either they are going to have to find a way to become actual vampires and cull the population the traditional way, or there's gonna be hell to pay. Hell, you don't even need a stock price to go warring against workers in the name of "the bottom line." I don't really see it, but I'm sure there are some good rationalizations for having a basket of different insurance pools (and, therefore, companies) to spread the risk around, instead of just one organization. Of course, those arguments won't work well for states without competitive insurance markets (or good healthcare providers, for that matter).

My favorite new med insurer trick: "Prior authorization." I'm sure that in many cases this makes sense and can even save lives, but when the insurance is just blatantly hoping somebody will let a prescription fall through the cracks, or whatever, it's not doing much good. I also consider the current system far too slow - a few dollars saved on a generic isn't worth delaying the patient's access to that prescription by days of their own productivity. We keep hearing that healthcare consumers (i.e., patients) don't care about cost expenditures, but insurance likewise doesn't need to care about the consumer's costs, true or otherwise, until that consumer dies or takes their business elsewhere. Of course, I've not got any idea how to fix that.

Our ol' fiend Tyler Durden takes a good swing at this idea that we can just take the money here and there. I think we're probably looking at a basic structural issue coming down the pipe, as Tyler says, "do the math." More, the same, or even fewer people + no money for all of them = you die.

[quash]

I only have to show it's not a hindrance (screwing your brother).

But you can get a 4 out of 4 insurer for $5 if that helps.

The issue arises if you actually have to use that insurance, which he has. He would have been better off if he hadn't been working and been covered under the state. Yet another example of how these programs designed for the poorest of people make life that much harder for those trying to move up.

I don't really see it, but I'm sure there are some good rationalizations for having a basket of different insurance pools (and, therefore, companies) to spread the risk around, instead of just one organization. Of course, those arguments won't work well for states without competitive insurance markets (or good healthcare providers, for that matter).

What is there not to see? People who aren't likely to use their insurance can choose a company that covers other people who aren't likely to use their insurance, which in a competitive market would (in theory) keep premiums low.

[BryanM]

But in practice would predictably go like any other financial instrument goes: collusion, monopolies, take overs, etc. This isn't cotton or bananas here. The only silver bullet is guillotines. Or barring that, silver bullets.

Carl's latest hot take has me vaguely sanguine. He's been a real north star this cycle, this pundit has.

Talking about bananas, it would be very weird indeed if this California debate between the superstars happens just because Clinton reneged on her deal. Christ, 2012 was as boring as watching paint dry compared to this.

You know how things have to continue to escalate to keep people's attention and interest? Just imagine what elections will be like 20 years from now.

[antron]

I only have to show it's not a hindrance (screwing your brother).

But you can get a 4 out of 4 insurer for $5 if that helps.

The issue arises if you actually have to use that insurance, which he has. He would have been better off if he hadn't been working and been covered under the state. Yet another example of how these programs designed for the poorest of people make life that much harder for those trying to move up.

All I was ever saying from the beginning is that the ACA benefits the poor. What was someone making $16k getting before the ACA? You sure wouldn't get something comparable to an enhanced silver plan for $40. Or catastrophic for $1. And if you had a condition you could forget it.

Your valid complaints existed before the ACA, and were much worse. Everything can be improved, but saying this wasn't a step in the right direction for the poor is unreasonable. In the silver example the federal government is paying $214 per month towards the premiums.