[RedSpawn]

kenberg, on 2017-July-20, 08:42, said:

For those of us who cannot keep up with the dodging, I would like it very much if journalists or others who are in a position to push a bit would ask every Senator and every Representative, D, R, I, whatever, to answer some questions. I will not worry for the moment about the exact phrasing. The idea is that everyone would go on record answering something like the following:

If you could design and pass a bill exactly as you think best, who would receive Medicaid and what medical costs would it cover? One could supply specific choices such as

Everyone.
No one.
All children in famines with an annual income income of less than x
All members of a family with an income less than y
All people with an income less than z, but there would be a time limit
It would, or would not, cover birth control.
It would, or would not, cover medical needs arising from stupid behavior, with examples of what would not be covered. Breaking a leg while sky diving?
Etc.

I think it is fair, desirable even, to pin our representatives down to what they would consider ideal, even if this means that they have to then cooperate and compromise with others with different ideals.

On one day Trump said that the House plan was great, on another day he called it mean. Of course this need not be inconsistent, possibly he thinks it's great to be mean. Trying to make any sense at all of what Trump says is a fool's game. Some on this thread don't have a problem with that. I have a big problem with it, but I recognize reality. At least some Senators and some Representatives might be willing to express in a clear manner what they would see as a really good result. Something other than just "Anything, as long as we can call it repeal and replace". I hope that at least some have a higher standard.

You do realize that some politicians would claim "entrapment" with such policy questions. Ambiguity is a politician's best friend.

We would hope politicians have a higher standard for health care in America but you see they tried to pivot with "Repeal" and "Replace Later". No deal!

[barmar]

ldrews, on 2017-July-20, 08:08, said:

So, how many lives are you willing to gamble by putting the President in a personally frustrating condition? If providing pussy to the President will save lives, then I say provide pussy. How about you, are you willing to potentially sacrifice those lives to uphold your sense of morality?

Isn't there something critically wrong with having to make a decision like this? How can we possibly have elected someone to such an austere office, then have to consider distracting them with prostitutes to avoid them doing something incredibly stupid?

[barmar]

ldrews, on 2017-July-20, 08:44, said:

You must live in a fantasy world. The probability of the 25th Amendment being used to remove Trump from office is extremely remote. You would have to convince Pence and the Cabinet to initiate such an action. Pence seems very supportive of Trump. And it would be a very long, drawn out process, during which time Trump is still the one making the decisions. I suggest you look for a more practical solution to your angst.

Exactly. There's virtually zero possibility that the 25th Amendment would ever be used to declare POTUS mentally or emotionally unfit. Its only practical use is during periods of physical infirmity, e.g. while undergoing surgery.

The exception might be if the President volunteered his unfitness. For instance, if their spouse or child died and they realized they were too emotional while grieving to govern properly. But both the scenario and such a reaction seem very unlikely in the case of Trump.

[RedSpawn]

barmar, on 2017-July-20, 09:46, said:

Exactly. There's virtually zero possibility that the 25th Amendment would ever be used to declare POTUS mentally or emotionally unfit. Its only practical use is during periods of physical infirmity, e.g. while undergoing surgery.

The exception might be if the President volunteered his unfitness. For instance, if their spouse or child died and they realized they were too emotional while grieving to govern properly. But both the scenario and such a reaction seem very unlikely in the case of Trump.

Agreed. America is not in the business of removing disliked Presidents through Constitutional Amendments. Let the Trump/Russia collusion investigation continue and file charges or articles of impeachment when a solid case can be built.

[ldrews]

barmar, on 2017-July-20, 09:46, said:

Exactly. There's virtually zero possibility that the 25th Amendment would ever be used to declare POTUS mentally or emotionally unfit. Its only practical use is during periods of physical infirmity, e.g. while undergoing surgery.

The exception might be if the President volunteered his unfitness. For instance, if their spouse or child died and they realized they were too emotional while grieving to govern properly. But both the scenario and such a reaction seem very unlikely in the case of Trump.

What he said.

[ldrews]

barmar, on 2017-July-20, 09:40, said:

Isn't there something critically wrong with having to make a decision like this? How can we possibly have elected someone to such an austere office, then have to consider distracting them with prostitutes to avoid them doing something incredibly stupid?

Yes, what is critically wrong is delegating so much power to government if the first place. And the world's history of leaders appears to be much the same, they all use their positions to gratify their personal desires. But are we even accusing Trump of such activity while he is President? Not to my knowledge. Do you have other information?

To me one of our greatest dangers is our moral arrogance that prevents us from finding pragmatic solutions to our problems. That moral arrogance is likely to kill us.

[awm]

To ask a somewhat speculative question, suppose that Mueller uncovers a smoking gun. Suppose the Trump campaign provided Russia with voter targeting data which they used to remove democratic voters from the registration rolls in key states, sufficient to swing the election. Suppose Trump has been laundering Russian money for decades, and has promised to end sanctions in exchange for the electoral help...

In this (perhaps far fetched) scenario -- do we think Trump will be impeached? Surely most Republicans won't believe the above story no matter how many mainstream news orgs report it. The Democrats are unlikely to control the Senate before 2020 and it only takes 35 senators to block removal from office (so even some moderate Republicans defecting won't be enough to remove).

I predict Trump stays in office through 2020 unless health issues happen or he voluntarily resigns (which seems not in his nature).

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-July-20, 08:44, said:

You must live in a fantasy world. The probability of the 25th Amendment being used to remove Trump from office is extremely remote. You would have to convince Pence and the Cabinet to initiate such an action. Pence seems very supportive of Trump. And it would be a very long, drawn out process, during which time Trump is still the one making the decisions. I suggest you look for a more practical solution to your angst.

You are not as informed as you think. There is the Pence bloodless coup provision in the 25th Amendment. From Time:

Quote

But there is another provision in the Amendment that has received much less popular attention — one that could allow Congress to play a role in removing the President. And no, it isn’t impeachment. Instead, a little-known provision in Section 4 empowers Congress to form its own body to evaluate the President’s fitness for office, eliminating the need for the Cabinet’s involvement in the process (emphasis ours):
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

So, Pence and a Democratic Congress could remove Trump if Congress flips in 2018.

I doubt anything like that will happen.

[billw55]

It is virtually certain that Trump will serve out his term. He won't resign, and there is virtually nothing that he could do to get enough R congressman to do it.

What happens after that is less certain. I give about even odds for Donald Sr. to seek another term. If he does not, one of his children probably will seek nomination. If they do they probably win it. In which case the general election likely hinges on a credible D candidate.

[RedSpawn]

billw55, on 2017-July-20, 14:18, said:

It is virtually certain that Trump will serve out his term. He won't resign, and there is virtually nothing that he could do to get enough R congressman to do it.

What happens after that is less certain. I give about even odds for Donald Sr. to seek another term. If he does not, one of his children probably will seek nomination. If they do they probably win it. In which case the general election likely hinges on a credible D candidate.

Are you serious?

If one of his children vies for the Presidential nomination in 2020, we might as well suggest that the White House has been co-opted.

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2017-July-20, 14:18, said:

It is virtually certain that Trump will serve out his term. He won't resign, and there is virtually nothing that he could do to get enough R congressman to do it.

What happens after that is less certain. I give about even odds for Donald Sr. to seek another term. If he does not, one of his children probably will seek nomination. If they do they probably win it. In which case the general election likely hinges on a credible D candidate.

Trump has already announced that he's running for reelection, and raised $10 million at his first fundraiser.

[Al_U_Card]

barmar, on 2017-July-20, 09:40, said:

Isn't there something critically wrong with having to make a decision like this? How can we possibly have elected someone to such an austere office, then have to consider distracting them with prostitutes to avoid them doing something incredibly stupid?

Those that believe that because they disagree or don't like someone, then that someone must be evil, stupid, crooked or some other pejorative term to justify the rectitude of their own position. Most politicians end up coming around to the realization that they can only contribute so much to the discourse but the influence and control of their backers need take precedence to service to the people. Just the way it is. Trump may be despicable, dislikable and disagreeable but he was legally and formally elected to serve (certainly not THE PEOPLE, but HIS PEOPLE) so he will do whatever he can to further his "agenda" (Which appears to be whatever suits him at the moment...)

The Deep State runs things such that the Corporate Elite gains and supports their existence and proliferation. Just look at the US since the end of WWII. A security state in which no common man is as secure as he once was. Trump is a sort of aberration but not unlike many of his predecessors in that august position. The last one to try and shake that yoke caught a bullet.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2017-July-20, 15:17, said:

Trump has already announced that he's running for reelection, and raised $10 million at his first fundraiser.

I think he has spent that already on lawyers' fees.

[blackshoe]

Hm. In what way is the Starr Report "salacious"?

[Winstonm]

The rot starts: https://www.washingt...m=.eb58bf0a0feb

Quote

Some of President Trump’s lawyers are exploring ways to limit or undercut special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation, building a case against what they allege are his conflicts of interest and discussing the president’s authority to grant pardons, according to people familiar with the effort.

[y66]

The timing of McCain's medical problems which are quite serious feels like a plot twist in a greek tragedy about the hypocrisy of health care legislation and an incredibly vain and mean spirited politician whose gratuitous, boorish comments are his undoing.

[weejonnie]

The curse of modern democracy is 'bread and circuses' - politicians give the populace something that is nice and isn't affordable in the medium to long term - and then scream blue murder when a politician from another party realises this and, for the overall benefit of the country, has to take it away.

I am not American, however Obamacare seems to have fit this scenario perfectly. If Americans want 'free' healthcare then they are going to have to pay a lot more for it. The demand for 'better health' is infinite - regrettably the resources to provide it aren't.

In the UK we have a situation where many people require long-term care, for dementia. The costs and resources required are very large. However when one political party put forward a possible solution (a charge against the assets owned by the person) it was screamed down as a 'dementia tax'. In effect people were encouraged to vote for a system that allows other people to hand down their houses to their offspring. A similar situation occurred with 'Student fees' - a promise to let students have their university education 'free' instead of paying $12000 a year. This would cost $140,000,000,000 - and people voted for this party because it would benefit their own children, not realising that their, and their children's taxes would have to increase astronomically to pay for it.

What I would mention, as a viewer from afar, is that a) the anti-Trump faction in Washington seem to leak tons of information that they think would be embarrassing to the President and b) They haven't leaked anything about Trump and Russia (other than bigging up a social gathering with many world leaders as a 'secret second meeting'). The conclusion inevitably (as in the 'dog that didn't bark in the night') is that there is nothing there.

[RedSpawn]

weejonnie, on 2017-July-21, 05:28, said:

The curse of modern democracy is 'bread and circuses' - politicians give the populace something that is nice and isn't affordable in the medium to long term - and then scream blue murder when a politician from another party realises this and, for the overall benefit of the country, has to take it away.

I am not American, however Obamacare seems to have fit this scenario perfectly. If Americans want 'free' healthcare then they are going to have to pay a lot more for it. The demand for 'better health' is infinite - regrettably the resources to provide it aren't.

In the UK we have a situation where many people require long-term care, for dementia. The costs and resources required are very large. However when one political party put forward a possible solution (a charge against the assets owned by the person) it was screamed down as a 'dementia tax'. In effect people were encouraged to vote for a system that allows other people to hand down their houses to their offspring. A similar situation occurred with 'Student fees' - a promise to let students have their university education 'free' instead of paying $12000 a year. This would cost $140,000,000,000 - and people voted for this party because it would benefit their own children, not realising that their, and their children's taxes would have to increase astronomically to pay for it.

What I would mention, as a viewer from afar, is that a) the anti-Trump faction in Washington seem to leak tons of information that they think would be embarrassing to the President and b) They haven't leaked anything about Trump and Russia (other than bigging up a social gathering with many world leaders as a 'secret second meeting'). The conclusion inevitably (as in the 'dog that didn't bark in the night') is that there is nothing there.

Not only that....they have spent 7 months of kabuki theatre. We don't have a passable health care bill. There aren't any public hearings about possible solutions for the health care concerns. And somehow politicians found an extra $90 billion for our military for the House version spending bill. Politicians are also trying to further deregulate Wall Street through the Financial CHOICE Act.

Ugh!

[kenberg]

weejonnie, on 2017-July-21, 05:28, said:

The curse of modern democracy is 'bread and circuses' - politicians give the populace something that is nice and isn't affordable in the medium to long term - and then scream blue murder when a politician from another party realises this and, for the overall benefit of the country, has to take it away.

I am not American, however Obamacare seems to have fit this scenario perfectly. If Americans want 'free' healthcare then they are going to have to pay a lot more for it. The demand for 'better health' is infinite - regrettably the resources to provide it aren't.

In the UK we have a situation where many people require long-term care, for dementia. The costs and resources required are very large. However when one political party put forward a possible solution (a charge against the assets owned by the person) it was screamed down as a 'dementia tax'. In effect people were encouraged to vote for a system that allows other people to hand down their houses to their offspring. A similar situation occurred with 'Student fees' - a promise to let students have their university education 'free' instead of paying $12000 a year. This would cost $140,000,000,000 - and people voted for this party because it would benefit their own children, not realising that their, and their children's taxes would have to increase astronomically to pay for it.

What I would mention, as a viewer from afar, is that a) the anti-Trump faction in Washington seem to leak tons of information that they think would be embarrassing to the President and b) They haven't leaked anything about Trump and Russia (other than bigging up a social gathering with many world leaders as a 'secret second meeting'). The conclusion inevitably (as in the 'dog that didn't bark in the night') is that there is nothing there.

I will disagree with your last paragraph, but before I get to that I want to look for some common veiwpoints in the first three. I doubt we are in total agreement, but perhaps some common ground.


We are being told that under the new plan, one of them anyway, 12m people on Medicaid will be cut off. The figure is sometimes 15m, this includes people who are not yet on Medicaid but who will, or are expected to be, on the program in the future (near future, I suppose). The details keep shifting. Of course there are some on Medicaid who would stay on Medicaid. Of course being on Medicaid is good for the person on it, and of course it costs money. Hence my wish to have a little clarity as to just what Senators would see as the right balance. I would like a Senator to say "The bill I recommend would pay the medical cost for a child in such and such circumstances and not in the following other circumstances". I might agree, I might disagree, but I would know what level of support he thinks society should take on.

You mention college tuition. I was expecting to be responsible for paying my own, but this was helped immensely by an unexpected scholarship that I had not applied for and didn't know existed. My high school math teacher (maths teacher I guess you would say) was watching out for me. But there were still costs, I worked, and thereby hangs a tale. When I started in 1956 it was not all that hard to get part time work paying maybe $1.50 an hour. Sometimes $2.00 an hour. Tuition at the University of Minnesota was approximately $225 a year. You could rent a place for about $50 a month, less if you were hard up and not fussy. You can see how I could have taken care of that even without my good fortune with the scholarship. A friend went to Stanford, another friend went to MIT, their parents could pay for this. But paying your own way can be a good experience. I look back on this as a very important time of my life.. I am not all that interested in having my tax money send a kid to Stanford, but I very much would like it to be possible for him/her to have opportunities at level that I had. .The U of M was a very good place for a person interested in expanding his life. And it was affordable.

We can arrange help in medicine, education and elsewhere that will be good for the person helped and, as a whole, good for the country. We can do this while still recognizing that there are limits to what we can afford. Not all help is necessary or even desirable, but help can be, well, helpful. And good for us all.

So I agree that we have to look at costs while we look at intent. We might be somewhat in agreement on that.

Now to your last paragraph. I confess that I see Trump as truly repulsive, so there is some emotion in this. But I have come to see him as even worse than I thought he would be. As to specifically Russia, he sure acts as if there is "something there". I claim to be at least somewhat even handed in such pronouncements. During all the stuff about Hillary's emails I took the view that if I were she, I would instruct my staff to turn over every piece of email including recipes I had sent to Chelsea. I would make it clear that this should be done so thoroughly that there would be zero possibility of new emails surfacing later. She did not do this and it cost her greatly. I think history is repeating itself on a grand scale. Sometimes there is a there there.

[cherdano]

Why do people insist on sharing their views on topics where they don't know the facts?

weejonnie, on 2017-July-21, 05:28, said:

The curse of modern democracy is 'bread and circuses' - politicians give the populace something that is nice and isn't affordable in the medium to long term - and then scream blue murder when a politician from another party realises this and, for the overall benefit of the country, has to take it away.

I am not American, however Obamacare seems to have fit this scenario perfectly. If Americans want 'free' healthcare then they are going to have to pay a lot more for it. The demand for 'better health' is infinite - regrettably the resources to provide it aren't.

Obamacare includes tax increases that essentially pay for the entire cost.
In 2015, CBO analyzed the net effect of repealing Obamacare on the deficit:

Quote

Over the next decade, the uncertainty is large enough that repealing the ACA could reduce cumulative deficits—or increase them by much more than estimated” (p. 23).
With dynamic feedback, CBO and JCT estimate that repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over the 2016-2025 period.
– Excluding feedback, deficits would increase by $353 billion.
– Thus, incorporating feedback reduces deficits by $216 billion
The estimates include a high degree of uncertainty.

https://www.cbo.gov/...resentation.pdf

In other words, while the overall effect is uncertain, most likely Obamacare's tax increase are more than sufficient to pay for the cost, just as anticipated.

Basically, most of your post can be summed up by the following two sentences. "I am a conservative in the UK. Hence I believe that Obamacare is a bad thing."