Author Topic: The Trump Cabinet And Appointees  (Read 14073 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The Trump Cabinet And Appointees
« Reply #75 on: November 29, 2016, 04:44:53 PM »

Offline BDeCosta26

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1314
  • Tommy Points: 232
Man, if there is one good thing that could come from this presidency, it would be the repeal of the disaster that is the Affordable Care Act.

Get it done, Republicans.

ACA is not a disaster. Here's what it gives us:

-20 million more Americans are insured (the uninsured dropped from about 15% of population to 10%).
-Much of this increase in insurance is from an expansion of Medicaid to Americans in the lowest income brackets.
-Much of the increase appears to have occurred in states that expanded Medicaid (meaning if the states that did not expand Medicaid had expanded it, even more Americans would be insured).
-Health care prices are rising at some of the slowest rates in years.
-Premiums are rising at some of the slowest rates in years.
-The CBO has estimated that ACA will lead to trillions of $$$ in deficit reduction.

I don't know the details. What is it about the ACA that is decreasing prices and premiums and leading to deficit reduction?

The idea is that, because the uninsured end up using the medical system anyway and get such high bills they can't possibly pay it, the "uninsured care pool" reimburses the providers. But that costs way more than that pool has money for, and the Feds pay the difference (more or less). Hence, if more people were insured, the costs of that care would shift to them and away from the government.

Least that's how I see it. The for-profit health care system doesn't make much sense to me, man.

Re: The Trump Cabinet And Appointees
« Reply #76 on: November 29, 2016, 05:01:54 PM »

Online hpantazo

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17211
  • Tommy Points: 3481
Ever been harassed to buy/sell Amway products? The daughter in law of the founder of the "Jehovah's witnesses" of businesses was just named as the Secretary of Education. Betsy Devos.

She has no teaching experience, never attended a public school (grammar, middle, high school, college), never put her own children in public school, never worked in a school environment, supports for profit education, and donated almost $10m to the Trump campaign.

hmmm

I really don't know anything about this woman or the policies she supports, so I can't speak to your larger point here.

But I have to wonder why you would feel someone who has never attended public school, nor sent her children to public school, to be ill equipped to hold the position of Secretary of Education.

My point was to be taken as a whole. She doesn't have relevant experience to make decisions regarding public education.

You can't get close to being a principal, let alone a superintendent, without a ton of experience in public education.

She does appear to have one attribute relevant to Trump: she donated a ton of money to his campaign. Good thing Trump is a maverick that doesn't dole out favors for campaign contributions.

So, it seems your issue with the fact she has never worked in school administration in any form. I would surmise that is a valid criticism.

But the fact someone didn't attend public school themselves isn't really relevant. You aren't suggesting a private school education is somehow inferior, are you?


I think the point is that she has no experience in any form regarding the public school system, which she will be in charge of. It is a disgrace to hire someone with such lack of experience or knowledge of the school systems that she will be influencing, which will affect the lives of the majority of our future generations.

Could you imagine picking a Secretary of Defense that didn't have relevant experience with the military or a Secretary of State that hadn't been out of the country? I don't think that would happen, unless someone owed someone a favor.
Does her qualifications really matter?   I thought Trump and many Republicans want to abolish/dismantle the Department of Education.  In a couple years, it will probably just be a conduit to give federal funds to the states to use as they please.
Qualifications do matter if you are going to debate the topic but I wouldn't put it past the republicans to avoid any debate. 

On the general matter of qualifications, we just picked a president with no qualifications so this is consistent.  :(


Trump and many Republicans have long wanted to dismantle the Dept of Education because they want a larger low educated working class population who are willing to work the low income jobs in their companies , and who are easier to manipulate for votes.

Most republicans won't openly admit this of course, but there was a US president decades ago who had openly stated this as a long term goal for viability of our economy. They believe the economy does not work if too many people have a higher education and want higher paid, cushier jobs.

Re: The Trump Cabinet And Appointees
« Reply #77 on: November 29, 2016, 05:05:06 PM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8864
  • Tommy Points: 547
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
Man, if there is one good thing that could come from this presidency, it would be the repeal of the disaster that is the Affordable Care Act.

Get it done, Republicans.

ACA is not a disaster. Here's what it gives us:

-20 million more Americans are insured (the uninsured dropped from about 15% of population to 10%).
-Much of this increase in insurance is from an expansion of Medicaid to Americans in the lowest income brackets.
-Much of the increase appears to have occurred in states that expanded Medicaid (meaning if the states that did not expand Medicaid had expanded it, even more Americans would be insured).
-Health care prices are rising at some of the slowest rates in years.
-Premiums are rising at some of the slowest rates in years.
-The CBO has estimated that ACA will lead to trillions of $$$ in deficit reduction.

I don't know the details. What is it about the ACA that is decreasing prices and premiums and leading to deficit reduction?

The idea is that, because the uninsured end up using the medical system anyway and get such high bills they can't possibly pay it, the "uninsured care pool" reimburses the providers. But that costs way more than that pool has money for, and the Feds pay the difference (more or less). Hence, if more people were insured, the costs of that care would shift to them and away from the government.

Least that's how I see it. The for-profit health care system doesn't make much sense to me, man.
Yup, I think that's it.  The principle is that we have to be "all in" for the system work properly.  Instead of dismantling ACA, we should be shoring it up to get the remaining people covered.

Re: The Trump Cabinet And Appointees
« Reply #78 on: November 29, 2016, 05:29:25 PM »

Offline guava_wrench

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9931
  • Tommy Points: 777
Ever been harassed to buy/sell Amway products? The daughter in law of the founder of the "Jehovah's witnesses" of businesses was just named as the Secretary of Education. Betsy Devos.

She has no teaching experience, never attended a public school (grammar, middle, high school, college), never put her own children in public school, never worked in a school environment, supports for profit education, and donated almost $10m to the Trump campaign.

hmmm

I really don't know anything about this woman or the policies she supports, so I can't speak to your larger point here.

But I have to wonder why you would feel someone who has never attended public school, nor sent her children to public school, to be ill equipped to hold the position of Secretary of Education.

My point was to be taken as a whole. She doesn't have relevant experience to make decisions regarding public education.

You can't get close to being a principal, let alone a superintendent, without a ton of experience in public education.

She does appear to have one attribute relevant to Trump: she donated a ton of money to his campaign. Good thing Trump is a maverick that doesn't dole out favors for campaign contributions.

So, it seems your issue with the fact she has never worked in school administration in any form. I would surmise that is a valid criticism.

But the fact someone didn't attend public school themselves isn't really relevant. You aren't suggesting a private school education is somehow inferior, are you?


I think the point is that she has no experience in any form regarding the public school system, which she will be in charge of. It is a disgrace to hire someone with such lack of experience or knowledge of the school systems that she will be influencing, which will affect the lives of the majority of our future generations.

Could you imagine picking a Secretary of Defense that didn't have relevant experience with the military or a Secretary of State that hadn't been out of the country? I don't think that would happen, unless someone owed someone a favor.
Does her qualifications really matter?   I thought Trump and many Republicans want to abolish/dismantle the Department of Education.  In a couple years, it will probably just be a conduit to give federal funds to the states to use as they please.
Qualifications do matter if you are going to debate the topic but I wouldn't put it past the republicans to avoid any debate. 

On the general matter of qualifications, we just picked a president with no qualifications so this is consistent.  :(

What drives me crazy about the Trump cabinet so far (and, honestly, a lot of conservative appointees in the past) is that it's not enough just to underfund a department, but they also have to put someone in charge who fundamentally doesn't even believe in the department. An example would be the EPA. It would be one thing to say "hey, you know a lot about the environment, science, etc; I believe in small government, so you get 25% of the required budget. Figure out what is important and do your best." Same could be said for education, healthcare, public health, etc. Instead, it's "Hey, we are going to underfund this department, and, also, make sure what little money does go to it is poorly spent."

Re: The Trump Cabinet And Appointees
« Reply #79 on: November 29, 2016, 05:30:29 PM »

Online hpantazo

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17211
  • Tommy Points: 3481
Man, if there is one good thing that could come from this presidency, it would be the repeal of the disaster that is the Affordable Care Act.

Get it done, Republicans.

ACA is not a disaster. Here's what it gives us:

-20 million more Americans are insured (the uninsured dropped from about 15% of population to 10%).
-Much of this increase in insurance is from an expansion of Medicaid to Americans in the lowest income brackets.
-Much of the increase appears to have occurred in states that expanded Medicaid (meaning if the states that did not expand Medicaid had expanded it, even more Americans would be insured).
-Health care prices are rising at some of the slowest rates in years.
-Premiums are rising at some of the slowest rates in years.
-The CBO has estimated that ACA will lead to trillions of $$$ in deficit reduction.

I don't know the details. What is it about the ACA that is decreasing prices and premiums and leading to deficit reduction?

The idea is that, because the uninsured end up using the medical system anyway and get such high bills they can't possibly pay it, the "uninsured care pool" reimburses the providers. But that costs way more than that pool has money for, and the Feds pay the difference (more or less). Hence, if more people were insured, the costs of that care would shift to them and away from the government.

Least that's how I see it. The for-profit health care system doesn't make much sense to me, man.
Yup, I think that's it.  The principle is that we have to be "all in" for the system work properly.  Instead of dismantling ACA, we should be shoring it up to get the remaining people covered.

That's basically it. We need to be all-in to make the system work, AND, its set up to keep the for-profit health care system making huge profits long term. There are no alternative proposals to provide the majority of the population with affordable health care because there are too many special interest groups who have a strong influence on policy because health care is such a huge money maker. There is no need to have such exorbitant fees for all procedures spanning simple visits to ER stays to birth. The only reason is to keep the huge profits coming in. It shouldn't cost $500 dollars to have a nurse examine a foot callous and remove it with a freezing spray. It does. It shouldn't cost thousands of dollars for a brief visit to the doctor to check up on your kid when he/she has a fever and a stomach ache, but it does.



Re: The Trump Cabinet And Appointees
« Reply #80 on: November 29, 2016, 06:04:33 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12521
  • Tommy Points: 1321
I predicted 2 things immediately after the election:
1. That there will be no wall (and if any semblance of such is built, it will not be paid for by Mexico). 
2. That ACA will not be repealed. Once the republicans realize that there are no credible obstacles to repeal, they then actually will see that they have to figure out what to do in its place.  As a result, they will realize that it sounds great to say "repeal it on Day One" but its going to end up a whole lot better to "fit" it.  They'll find the right spin for the fix and they'll be able to keep the components of it that people like.


Just thinking that I may be wrong about both if there is a way Trump can name the wall "Trump Wall" or rename healthcare "Trumpcare".   These results would trump everything.

Re: The Trump Cabinet And Appointees
« Reply #81 on: November 29, 2016, 06:25:36 PM »

Offline blink

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5976
  • Tommy Points: 340
Steve Mnuchin expected to be named treasury secretary

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/29/503755613/trumps-potential-treasury-secretary-headed-a-foreclosure-machine

In another of the endless line of contradictions between what Trump said, and what he is now doing, Trump is expected to appoint Steve Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury.  After relentlessly harping on Clinton's connection to the big banks, and Goldman Sachs in particular, who does Trump choose for Treasury Secretary?  One of the biggest big bank insiders from that same Goldman Sachs.  So much for draining the swamp and waging war against big banks.  Trump is such a fraud. 

"During the depths of the financial crisis, Mnuchin was looking to make profits from the ruins of the housing bust. In 2009, he put together a group of billionaire investors and bought a failed California-based bank, IndyMac. It had been taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. after its sketchy mortgage loans went bad.

Mnuchin and his partners bought IndyMac on the condition that the FDIC agree to pay future losses above a certain threshold. They renamed the bank OneWest Bank and, after running it for 6 years, they sold it last year for a profit, estimated at close to $1.5 billion.

Kevin Stein of the California Reinvestment Coalition, a housing advocacy group, says that profit was made on the backs of suffering California homeowners. "In essence what they did is they bought a foreclosure machine," he says."
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 06:32:50 PM by blink »

Re: The Trump Cabinet And Appointees
« Reply #82 on: November 29, 2016, 07:32:37 PM »

Offline kraidstar

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2051
  • Tommy Points: 521
Man, if there is one good thing that could come from this presidency, it would be the repeal of the disaster that is the Affordable Care Act.

Get it done, Republicans.

ACA is not a disaster. Here's what it gives us:

-20 million more Americans are insured (the uninsured dropped from about 15% of population to 10%).
-Much of this increase in insurance is from an expansion of Medicaid to Americans in the lowest income brackets.
-Much of the increase appears to have occurred in states that expanded Medicaid (meaning if the states that did not expand Medicaid had expanded it, even more Americans would be insured).
-Health care prices are rising at some of the slowest rates in years.
-Premiums are rising at some of the slowest rates in years.
-The CBO has estimated that ACA will lead to trillions of $$$ in deficit reduction.

I don't know the details. What is it about the ACA that is decreasing prices and premiums and leading to deficit reduction?

The idea is that, because the uninsured end up using the medical system anyway and get such high bills they can't possibly pay it, the "uninsured care pool" reimburses the providers. But that costs way more than that pool has money for, and the Feds pay the difference (more or less). Hence, if more people were insured, the costs of that care would shift to them and away from the government.

Least that's how I see it. The for-profit health care system doesn't make much sense to me, man.
Yup, I think that's it.  The principle is that we have to be "all in" for the system work properly.  Instead of dismantling ACA, we should be shoring it up to get the remaining people covered.

That's basically it. We need to be all-in to make the system work, AND, its set up to keep the for-profit health care system making huge profits long term. There are no alternative proposals to provide the majority of the population with affordable health care because there are too many special interest groups who have a strong influence on policy because health care is such a huge money maker. There is no need to have such exorbitant fees for all procedures spanning simple visits to ER stays to birth. The only reason is to keep the huge profits coming in. It shouldn't cost $500 dollars to have a nurse examine a foot callous and remove it with a freezing spray. It does. It shouldn't cost thousands of dollars for a brief visit to the doctor to check up on your kid when he/she has a fever and a stomach ache, but it does.


Dollars spent per capita on health care:

Canada $4600
France $4400
England $3400
'Murica $9100

How's that for fiscal responsibility? And our life expectancy is lower.

Anybody who really cares about saving the country money should be demanding universal health care.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective

Re: The Trump Cabinet And Appointees
« Reply #83 on: November 29, 2016, 08:01:23 PM »

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3915
  • Tommy Points: 403
I predicted 2 things immediately after the election:
1. That there will be no wall (and if any semblance of such is built, it will not be paid for by Mexico). 
2. That ACA will not be repealed. Once the republicans realize that there are no credible obstacles to repeal, they then actually will see that they have to figure out what to do in its place.  As a result, they will realize that it sounds great to say "repeal it on Day One" but its going to end up a whole lot better to "fit" it.  They'll find the right spin for the fix and they'll be able to keep the components of it that people like.


Just thinking that I may be wrong about both if there is a way Trump can name the wall "Trump Wall" or rename healthcare "Trumpcare".   These results would trump everything.

You're right about 1 but wrong about 2.  They're even going to cut health insurance deductions for companies, so businesses can only write off $8,000 per individual or $20,000 per family.  The idea is that nobody can offer too nice of a health insurance plan.  It's just a hand out to not specifically businesses, but poorly run businesses who want to cash out. 

Our tax dollars are about to stop paying for the majority of people's health benefits so we can give tax cuts to the richest people in the country.  Why is anybody defending this? 

Re: The Trump Cabinet And Appointees
« Reply #84 on: November 29, 2016, 08:35:38 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12327
  • Tommy Points: 360
Ever been harassed to buy/sell Amway products? The daughter in law of the founder of the "Jehovah's witnesses" of businesses was just named as the Secretary of Education. Betsy Devos.

She has no teaching experience, never attended a public school (grammar, middle, high school, college), never put her own children in public school, never worked in a school environment, supports for profit education, and donated almost $10m to the Trump campaign.

hmmm

I really don't know anything about this woman or the policies she supports, so I can't speak to your larger point here.

But I have to wonder why you would feel someone who has never attended public school, nor sent her children to public school, to be ill equipped to hold the position of Secretary of Education.

My point was to be taken as a whole. She doesn't have relevant experience to make decisions regarding public education.

You can't get close to being a principal, let alone a superintendent, without a ton of experience in public education.

She does appear to have one attribute relevant to Trump: she donated a ton of money to his campaign. Good thing Trump is a maverick that doesn't dole out favors for campaign contributions.

So, it seems your issue with the fact she has never worked in school administration in any form. I would surmise that is a valid criticism.

But the fact someone didn't attend public school themselves isn't really relevant. You aren't suggesting a private school education is somehow inferior, are you?


I think the point is that she has no experience in any form regarding the public school system, which she will be in charge of. It is a disgrace to hire someone with such lack of experience or knowledge of the school systems that she will be influencing, which will affect the lives of the majority of our future generations.

Could you imagine picking a Secretary of Defense that didn't have relevant experience with the military or a Secretary of State that hadn't been out of the country? I don't think that would happen, unless someone owed someone a favor.
Does her qualifications really matter?   I thought Trump and many Republicans want to abolish/dismantle the Department of Education.  In a couple years, it will probably just be a conduit to give federal funds to the states to use as they please.
Qualifications do matter if you are going to debate the topic but I wouldn't put it past the republicans to avoid any debate. 

On the general matter of qualifications, we just picked a president with no qualifications so this is consistent.  :(


Trump and many Republicans have long wanted to dismantle the Dept of Education because they want a larger low educated working class population who are willing to work the low income jobs in their companies , and who are easier to manipulate for votes.

Most republicans won't openly admit this of course, but there was a US president decades ago who had openly stated this as a long term goal for viability of our economy. They believe the economy does not work if too many people have a higher education and want higher paid, cushier jobs.

Come on, that's just not true.
This is an area where Rs have had a lot of forward, innovative thinking (e.g. Charter schools).

Slightly off topic but I'd love for either or both parties to be more innovative with their thinking, the way Romney was with Romneycare, for example, and the way conservatives were with cap and trade, spectrum auctions, and charter schools. Problems with all of these? Sure. But well intentioned and innovative. I'd like to see a lot more like this, frankly.
Celtics fan for life.

Re: The Trump Cabinet And Appointees
« Reply #85 on: November 29, 2016, 08:35:38 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12521
  • Tommy Points: 1321
Why am I getting more nervous about Trump's cabinet with each passing day?  I don't know if it's the appointments he's making or the perception I keep getting that he really has minimal idea as to what he's doing.  I can only point to two current appointees that really worry me as individuals (Bannen, and Ben Carson as HUD Sec), yet my anxiety rises daily.   If he selects Rudy G. as SoS, I may be in full-blown fear mode.  It's not that I've never liked Rudy, it's that watching him the past year I think he may be off his rocker.   Trump -- loose, impulsive cannon who just doesn't know enough; Carson -- absolutely nuts; Bannen -- extreme; Rudy -- Carson-esque in the crazy department.   

I disagree with a lot of Mike Pence's political views, but I am glad he is currently President in-Effect.  He seems at least like he's "hinged".

Re: The Trump Cabinet And Appointees
« Reply #86 on: November 29, 2016, 08:41:40 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12327
  • Tommy Points: 360
Why am I getting more nervous about Trump's cabinet with each passing day?  I don't know if it's the appointments he's making or the perception I keep getting that he really has minimal idea as to what he's doing.  I can only point to two current appointees that really worry me as individuals (Bannen, and Ben Carson as HUD Sec), yet my anxiety rises daily.   If he selects Rudy G. as SoS, I may be in full-blown fear mode.  It's not that I've never liked Rudy, it's that watching him the past year I think he may be off his rocker.   Trump -- loose, impulsive cannon who just doesn't know enough; Carson -- absolutely nuts; Bannen -- extreme; Rudy -- Carson-esque in the crazy department.   

I disagree with a lot of Mike Pence's political views, but I am glad he is currently President in-Effect.  He seems at least like he's "hinged".

I agree w a lot of this sentiment. Particularly the fear of Giuliani as SoS. Has seemed totally different this past year. And completely compromised by his foreign dealings.
Celtics fan for life.

Re: The Trump Cabinet And Appointees
« Reply #87 on: November 29, 2016, 09:09:41 PM »

Offline BDeCosta26

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1314
  • Tommy Points: 232
Ever been harassed to buy/sell Amway products? The daughter in law of the founder of the "Jehovah's witnesses" of businesses was just named as the Secretary of Education. Betsy Devos.

She has no teaching experience, never attended a public school (grammar, middle, high school, college), never put her own children in public school, never worked in a school environment, supports for profit education, and donated almost $10m to the Trump campaign.

hmmm

I really don't know anything about this woman or the policies she supports, so I can't speak to your larger point here.

But I have to wonder why you would feel someone who has never attended public school, nor sent her children to public school, to be ill equipped to hold the position of Secretary of Education.

My point was to be taken as a whole. She doesn't have relevant experience to make decisions regarding public education.

You can't get close to being a principal, let alone a superintendent, without a ton of experience in public education.

She does appear to have one attribute relevant to Trump: she donated a ton of money to his campaign. Good thing Trump is a maverick that doesn't dole out favors for campaign contributions.

So, it seems your issue with the fact she has never worked in school administration in any form. I would surmise that is a valid criticism.

But the fact someone didn't attend public school themselves isn't really relevant. You aren't suggesting a private school education is somehow inferior, are you?


I think the point is that she has no experience in any form regarding the public school system, which she will be in charge of. It is a disgrace to hire someone with such lack of experience or knowledge of the school systems that she will be influencing, which will affect the lives of the majority of our future generations.

Could you imagine picking a Secretary of Defense that didn't have relevant experience with the military or a Secretary of State that hadn't been out of the country? I don't think that would happen, unless someone owed someone a favor.
Does her qualifications really matter?   I thought Trump and many Republicans want to abolish/dismantle the Department of Education.  In a couple years, it will probably just be a conduit to give federal funds to the states to use as they please.
Qualifications do matter if you are going to debate the topic but I wouldn't put it past the republicans to avoid any debate. 

On the general matter of qualifications, we just picked a president with no qualifications so this is consistent.  :(


Trump and many Republicans have long wanted to dismantle the Dept of Education because they want a larger low educated working class population who are willing to work the low income jobs in their companies , and who are easier to manipulate for votes.

Most republicans won't openly admit this of course, but there was a US president decades ago who had openly stated this as a long term goal for viability of our economy. They believe the economy does not work if too many people have a higher education and want higher paid, cushier jobs.

Come on, that's just not true.
This is an area where Rs have had a lot of forward, innovative thinking (e.g. Charter schools).

Slightly off topic but I'd love for either or both parties to be more innovative with their thinking, the way Romney was with Romneycare, for example, and the way conservatives were with cap and trade, spectrum auctions, and charter schools. Problems with all of these? Sure. But well intentioned and innovative. I'd like to see a lot more like this, frankly.

Not saying you in particular, CMan, but it's really hilarious how RomneyCare can be "innovative" or "groundbreaking", as it was called 10-15 years ago but somehow ObamaCare is an "absolute disaster", even though they're essentially the same thing.

Why do you think the GOP has no real "replacement" solution in place? Well, it's because they had one, but then all of a sudden Barack Obama wanted to implement it, and it became the "worst thing in the world". Obama should've pushed through single-payer, since the GOP clearly didn't give a dang about "bi-partisan compromise" the way Obama thought they would.

Re: The Trump Cabinet And Appointees
« Reply #88 on: November 29, 2016, 09:19:01 PM »

Offline BDeCosta26

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1314
  • Tommy Points: 232
Man, if there is one good thing that could come from this presidency, it would be the repeal of the disaster that is the Affordable Care Act.

Get it done, Republicans.

ACA is not a disaster. Here's what it gives us:

-20 million more Americans are insured (the uninsured dropped from about 15% of population to 10%).
-Much of this increase in insurance is from an expansion of Medicaid to Americans in the lowest income brackets.
-Much of the increase appears to have occurred in states that expanded Medicaid (meaning if the states that did not expand Medicaid had expanded it, even more Americans would be insured).
-Health care prices are rising at some of the slowest rates in years.
-Premiums are rising at some of the slowest rates in years.
-The CBO has estimated that ACA will lead to trillions of $$$ in deficit reduction.

I don't know the details. What is it about the ACA that is decreasing prices and premiums and leading to deficit reduction?

The idea is that, because the uninsured end up using the medical system anyway and get such high bills they can't possibly pay it, the "uninsured care pool" reimburses the providers. But that costs way more than that pool has money for, and the Feds pay the difference (more or less). Hence, if more people were insured, the costs of that care would shift to them and away from the government.

Least that's how I see it. The for-profit health care system doesn't make much sense to me, man.
Yup, I think that's it.  The principle is that we have to be "all in" for the system work properly.  Instead of dismantling ACA, we should be shoring it up to get the remaining people covered.

That's basically it. We need to be all-in to make the system work, AND, its set up to keep the for-profit health care system making huge profits long term. There are no alternative proposals to provide the majority of the population with affordable health care because there are too many special interest groups who have a strong influence on policy because health care is such a huge money maker. There is no need to have such exorbitant fees for all procedures spanning simple visits to ER stays to birth. The only reason is to keep the huge profits coming in. It shouldn't cost $500 dollars to have a nurse examine a foot callous and remove it with a freezing spray. It does. It shouldn't cost thousands of dollars for a brief visit to the doctor to check up on your kid when he/she has a fever and a stomach ache, but it does.

I just can't grasp how anyone thinks something as important and essential as health care should put profits above all else. It literally makes no sense to me, at all. Providing people with medical treatment isn't going to be a money making venture unless you screw a whole ton of people over in the process, and I've yet to hear one good argument as to why it's an employers responsability to provide their employees with health coverage.

I'm not saying it has to be European Style single-payer, but whatever the solution is has to seperate the employer/employee health coverage relationship. If that doesn't happen, employers will continue to look for the worst, cheapest plans just to meet the minimum coverage requirements and employees will have to pay more and more for treatment. Like H-Tanzo said, the way the system is set up allows drug and insurance companies to charge insane rates for basic treatments just because they can.

Seriously, who thinks it's okay to charge 300$ for an epi-pen with 1$ worth of medicine in it? Or charge someone 50$ for an aspirin at the ER? Nobody right? Well, if you think that's wrong, then you think the entire structure of US health care needs to change.

Re: The Trump Cabinet And Appointees
« Reply #89 on: November 29, 2016, 09:58:25 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34555
  • Tommy Points: -27847
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Steve Mnuchin expected to be named treasury secretary

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/29/503755613/trumps-potential-treasury-secretary-headed-a-foreclosure-machine

In another of the endless line of contradictions between what Trump said, and what he is now doing, Trump is expected to appoint Steve Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury.  After relentlessly harping on Clinton's connection to the big banks, and Goldman Sachs in particular, who does Trump choose for Treasury Secretary?  One of the biggest big bank insiders from that same Goldman Sachs.  So much for draining the swamp and waging war against big banks.  Trump is such a fraud. 

"During the depths of the financial crisis, Mnuchin was looking to make profits from the ruins of the housing bust. In 2009, he put together a group of billionaire investors and bought a failed California-based bank, IndyMac. It had been taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. after its sketchy mortgage loans went bad.

Mnuchin and his partners bought IndyMac on the condition that the FDIC agree to pay future losses above a certain threshold. They renamed the bank OneWest Bank and, after running it for 6 years, they sold it last year for a profit, estimated at close to $1.5 billion.

Kevin Stein of the California Reinvestment Coalition, a housing advocacy group, says that profit was made on the backs of suffering California homeowners. "In essence what they did is they bought a foreclosure machine," he says."

I'm honestly not sure what the best type of Treasury Secretary to pick is. An "insider" at least helps stabilize markets, I guess. It doesn't say much for "change", though.

It's definitely not a partisan pick, though:

Quote
He has strong ties to both George Soros and Democratic candidates. More than half of his federal-level contributions have gone to Democrats, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and $2,000 to California AG Kamala Harris’ US Senate campaign. And:

From 2003 to 2004, Mnuchin worked as chief executive of SFM Capital Management, which the Wall Street Journal reports is backed by Soros. He also worked for Soros Fund Management LLC, according to Bloomberg.

That's no surprise, because both Parties are neck deep in Wall Street money.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...