jimjam wrote:I just have time for one, as you know, my favorite: Ever since he was a presidential candidate, President Donald Trump has been promising the American people a “TERRIFIC,” “PHENOMINAL” and “FANTASTIC” new health care plan to replace the Affordable Care Act. ( )
But, in the 3½ years since he set up shop in the Oval Office, he has yet to deliver.
And that makes him unique in what way? We can go back to the 1980s and hear politicians making the same promises. Do I think he's full of shit on that? Of course. I've thought he might be able to repeal ObamaCare, and hoped for as much. I've never believed for a second that he could deliver a policy of lower prices with the ability to buy with pre-existing conditions. Why? What the American people want is not possible. Either the people MUST accept rationing, constrained choices, mandatory purchasing by state governments, selling insurance across state lines, substantially higher costs, etc., or they can continue to be disappointed by politicians.
If you feel betrayed, that is your personal issue; and, in part, because you choose not to really delve into this stuff with a serious or inquisitive mind, and rather just vent your spleen here. Running to keep the weight off and then drinking beers and smoking cigars on your veranda lamenting the shape of fat people won't make you any healthier either. Maybe it'll make you feel good about yourself. However, to understand why politicians cannot deliver, you must understand economics.
I don't know if you have the bandwidth or inclination (from years of debating with you, I'm inclined to think you don't), but I like listening to Viva & Barnes on Sunday afternoons (attorneys lean liberal), your evening around 7. It's interesting to hear lawyers banter about these questions.
Trump is not conning me, because I know you cannot mandate selling insurance with no pre-existing conditions economically. When people cannot make an economic argument, they often abandon economic arguments and make a moral arguments. Freiheit and Barnes talk a bit about the mandate and why Trump is for it in the foregoing video. Barnes indicates that Trump is in support of it because of polling. However, the average person does not have a background in economics, and easily falls for the argument that no pre-existing conditions is a rational basis for selling insurance.
It does make the Barrett nomination interesting, in part according to Barnes too, because she has ruled that mandating the sale of insurance with no pre-existing conditions is beyond the power of Congress to legislate. That's a somewhat complicated question. In upholding ObamaCare, Roberts characterized the mandate as nothing more than a tax. Barrett will likely be attacked on her ruling, but a proper response can be that Congress can simply punitively tax insurers who discriminate on pre-existing conditions. By contrast, Ruth Bader Ginsberg did something utterly confounding: she voted with Roberts, and then dissented on her own vote. This is the problem of letting advocates on to the court. They simply lack the internal self-consistency required by economics, and much of law.
It may seem paradoxical, but the courts have upheld the mandate to purchase car insurance. However, it's the police power of the state, not the federal government. Imagine if they hadn't, but they allowed you to purchase car insurance with no pre-existing conditions? You could get in a car accident on Monday, purchase insurance on Tuesday and file a claim, leaving the insurance company and all the previous premium payers liable for your car repair bill. Once the car is repaired, you could simply cancel the insurance. It's simply not economically possible to run things that way. It would not make insurance affordable. It would simply destroy the insurance market. That's Congress' goal, by the way (in case you didn't know). They just need to fool stupid people, and luckily for them there are many many stupid people.
Trust me. I live in California. In the infinite wisdom of the legislature, over a decade ago they required utilities to purchase gas and electricity on the spot market, banning them from securing long-term contracts, but regulated the amount they could charge consumers. Traders simply gamed the system, driving prices through the roof and bankrupted our largest Northern California utility, Pacific Gas & Electric Company. A school friend of mine's father was the CEO at the time. If marginal price is less than marginal cost, you reach the shutdown point. You may understand it. You may not understand it. It may hurt your feelings. It may make you think someone is immoral, greedy, racist, or some other unflattering characterization. No legislature can change market forces forever. When they make something like that a matter of law, traders will game the system and drive up energy prices while shorting utilities. Remember Enron?
jimjam wrote:Fuck the privacy act.
It's the law. If you want to repeal the Privacy Act, let your Congressman know. The law has to apply equally to everyone in America, so be careful what you wish for.
jimjam wrote:For about the 10th time ……. If he has nothing to hide …. let us see the returns..... obviously he has LOTS to hide and we want to see it.
Again, for about the 10th time, that's not an argument with any legal standing. I understand you aren't a fan of the Bill of Rights, but the Fourth Amendment is pretty clear.
4th Amendment wrote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It's clearly restated with respect to the Privacy Act. In fact, the Privacy Act was passed because of political abuse. From the legislative history of the Privacy Act, they passed it precisely to defeat someone like Nixon--to prevent precisely what the Democrats are trying to do to Trump.
Legislative History of the Privacy Act of 1974 wrote:If we have learned anything in this last year of Watergate, it is
that there must be limits upon what the Government can know about
each of its citizens. Each time we give up a bit of information about
ourselves to the Government, we give up some of our freedom. For
the more the Government or any institution knows about us, the more
power it has over us. When the Government knows all of our secrets,
we stand naked before official power. Stripped of our privacy, we lose
our rights and privileges. The Bill of Rights then becomes just so
This is why Surveillance Capitalism is becoming such an issue, and why giving all your personal information to Facebook, Twitter, and others is such a dangerous thing.
annatar1914 wrote:You don't have to like President Trump; but his opposition is a gaggle of venal, stupid, arrogant, and gerontocratic misfits who have well overstayed their time at the Washington trough;
Is that ever an understatement.
Beren wrote:Well, in my opinion Hillary Clinton was demonized and screwed by "the Russians", however, jimjam doesn't care about her.
Julian Assange may be a lot of things, but he's not exactly a friend of Russia either. He says that Russia was not the source of Clinton's emails, and he vaguely hinted after Seth Rich's death that it was Rich, and that Rich paid with his life for providing that information to WikiLeaks.
What we have in the US is an establishment Civil War, where the principals--the long-standing wealthy and powerful--are reasserting that the professional political class are not principals. They are agents. The behavior of the Clintons, and their general contempt for the law--more or less flaunting their non-prosecution agreements in the public's face--undermined the legitimacy of government. They are really the ones who took her out.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden