Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2019 5:08 AM
50 online now:
CosmicChimp, dwise1, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 46 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,610 Year: 3,647/19,786 Month: 642/1,087 Week: 11/221 Day: 11/36 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2728
29
3031
...
60NextFF
Author Topic:   The 2016 United States Presidential Election
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 665
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 421 of 892 (794300)
11-14-2016 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by Percy
11-14-2016 8:03 AM


Re: This too shall pass
Percy writes:

... insurance companies cannot exclude people for pre-existing conditions.

But this is one of most needed parts! Almost everyone gets to the point in their life when they will have a pre-existing condition and if insurance companies can exclude these people or charge them outrageous premiums, they are effectively being denied access to healthcare unless they can pay for it upfront. Now, I'm more in favor of a single payer system rather than the ACA setup, but Obama was trying to get something enacted with fixes to be made down the line later.

Edited by kjsimons, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Percy, posted 11-14-2016 8:03 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Pressie, posted 11-15-2016 6:30 AM kjsimons has not yet responded
 Message 425 by Percy, posted 11-15-2016 8:24 AM kjsimons has not yet responded

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 813
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 422 of 892 (794303)
11-14-2016 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by Percy
11-14-2016 8:03 AM


Re: This too shall pass
For instance, what will be the fate of the Affordable Care Act? Trump has said he'd like to keep only a couple parts of it, most significantly the part where insurance companies cannot exclude people for pre-existing conditions. But it's this clause that is causing so many insurance companies to withdraw from participation, because people can wait until they get sick before signing up. In those states that don't allow insurance companies to charge premiums commensurate with the pre-existing condition, insurance companies are withdrawing.

Which is why the mandate to buy insurance was necessary. So it ultimately makes no sense to remove the mandate but keep the pre-existing condition clause intact.

I honestly don't think the Republicans have a clue about the actual mechanics going on here. It was just political theater for them to make grandiose claims about how bad Obamacare is, but they have absolutely no sense of what to actually do to fix it. Unless their endgame is to simple make it worse to the point where it is totally non-viable and then repeal it. I wouldn't put that past them.

I think ultimately, if one wants a stop-gap fix, the mandate and the pre-existing condition clauses should stay, but they can adjust the actual policies to allow for cheaper types of insurance to be purchased. One of the things that Obamacare did was mandate that insurance companies have all types of things included in their policies, including preventative care testing and so forth. While this is generally a good idea, it caused premiums for many to skyrocket since someone who may have bought a cheaper plan that only covered emergency type care and had a higher deductible, but was a lot cheaper on a monthly basis.

Obviously, a lot of those 'bargain basement' policies also had issues as well. But something is better than nothing. And that may incentivize young people to purchase insurance if they can get a plan that is cheaper than the penalty. Even if it doesn't provide the best coverage. But at this stage, that may be the only alternative. The Republicans certainly aren't going to be passing universal healthcare anytime soon.

Or maybe Trump has a plan to get Mexico to pay for our healthcare. They are paying for his YUGE wall afterall. Maybe they are feeling generous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Percy, posted 11-14-2016 8:03 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Percy, posted 11-15-2016 8:33 AM Diomedes has responded

  
dronestar
Member (Idle past 418 days)
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 423 of 892 (794347)
11-14-2016 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by nwr
11-10-2016 4:54 PM


Re: The Clinton Machine: More dead horse-beating ALERT
nwr writes:

Irrelevant. Clinton did not invade. Clinton did not order an invasion.

It’s always entertaining when somebody repeatedly defends Hitler, Hillary.

 1.      The resolution that Hillary enthusiastically supported and cheered others to join her was:

quote:
H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
Yea D Clinton, Hillary

Just threatening a sovereign nation is a Crime Against Peace:

quote:
A crime against peace, in international law, refers to "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing".[1] This definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter. This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a crime against peace. It can also refer to the core international crimes set out in Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression) which adopted crimes negotiated previously in the Draft code of crimes against the peace and security of mankind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_peace

Hillary ENTHUSIASTICALLY supported the attack:

quote:
In 2002, Senator Clinton voted in favor of the authorization to use force in Iraq. In addition to this vote, Senator Clinton gave a 20 minute speech in which she stated that Saddaam Hussein was rebuilding his WMD stockpile, pursuing nuclear weapons, and giving aid and comfort to terrorists. She stated that left unchecked, he would continue to do this and would likely destabilize the middle east which would affect American security. http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/...on/Views/The_War_in_Iraq

Hillary certainly had NO REGRET about authorizing the attack afterwards:

quote:
in December of 2003, Senator Clinton spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations the day after Saddaam Hussein was captured and noted that she supported giving President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq and that she felt this was the right vote. By April of 2004, Senator Clinton was stating that while she did not regret giving the President the authority to use force, she did feel that the administration was not prepared for the aftermath and that he cut off attempts by inspectors. http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/...on/Views/The_War_in_Iraq

It was only until Hillary thought about running for office did she start changing her tune:
1.

nwr writes:

I was against Clinton in 2008, but not because of her vote. I was against her, because she was still defending that vote when should have been obvious by then that her vote was a mistake.

2. After no weapons of mass destruction were found, Hillary continued to enthusiastically FUND the murder of dark-skinned women and children for years, until suddenly she felt it was not a good idea to FUND murdering dark-skinned women and children while running for office.

3. Results of the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq that Hillary supported (until she decided she will run for office):
• up to a MILLION innocent Iraqi civilians murdered, INCLUDING WOMEN AND CHILDREN. (If I use an incorrectly labeled photograph, then I guess those deaths didn’t really happen.)
• 4,500 Americans killed (far larger number permanently wounded)
• trillionS of dollars of US taxpayers' money wasted
• anti-American extremism in reaction to the invasion and occupation which has spread and DIRECTLY produced the group ISIL.

4.   Use of an incorrectly labeled photo? Considering that Hillary’s actions caused the countless dark-skinned murder of women and children in Iraq, Lebanon, Honduras, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Afghanistan, Syria, Israel, and Yemen (not one comment from my recent post Message 257 huh?), and considering that the US is the worlds largest supplier of small weapons of mass destruction (that Hillary has supported, Message 257), I find all the indignant BS about me using a mere incorrectly labeled photo, yet giving Hillary’s lifetime of criminal actions a pass, specifically disgusting (but from war-crime supporters, typical).

Hyroglyphx had it absolutely right about your glaring hypocrisy:

Hyro writes:

You, sir, embody the duplicitous and ugly nature that is found within the Democratic Party. If ANY Republican candidate has done the things that she's done, you'd be morally outraged... But because it's your darling, you'll happily turn a blind eye while still asserting that you have the moral high ground.

The best they had on Trump was that he commented on grabbing a chick's pussy (WHOA! STOP THE PRESSES! WHAT A SCANDAL!!) and he wants to vet the Syrian refugees that SHE FUCKING CREATED!?

As Stein said:

quote:
The best way to solve the immigration crisis is to stop causing it with disastrous trade & military policies that turn people into refugees.

— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) October 31, 2016


Way to keep defending Hitler, Hillary. Kudos nwr, . . . kudos.

Edited by Admin, : Fix links.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by nwr, posted 11-10-2016 4:54 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1998
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 424 of 892 (794400)
11-15-2016 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 421 by kjsimons
11-14-2016 10:23 AM


Re: This too shall pass
qskjsimons writes:

But this is one of most needed parts!

Yip. When I was 20, I didn't have anything wrong with me. And I paid and a I paid and I paid every month. For 30 years. That's why I took out health insurance at a young age.

When I turn 80, everything will be wrong... I won't be able to pay.

That's when the health insurance (which I paid for) is supposed to kick in. Just do my teeth when an have a tooth ache. Just do my heart when I get a heart attack. Pay it all.

They don't. So, people don't take out health insurance. That's about it.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by kjsimons, posted 11-14-2016 10:23 AM kjsimons has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 425 of 892 (794405)
11-15-2016 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 421 by kjsimons
11-14-2016 10:23 AM


Re: This too shall pass
kjsimons writes:

But this is one of most needed parts! Almost everyone gets to the point in their life when they will have a pre-existing condition and if insurance companies can exclude these people or charge them outrageous premiums, they are effectively being denied access to healthcare unless they can pay for it upfront.

The current system has done little to solve the problem of insurance dividing the nation into haves and have-nots. The haves work for companies that provide healthcare, the have-nots for companies that don't.

The gap between the haves and have-nots has been shrinking for a long time, ever since companies that provide healthcare began insisting that their employers share in the increasing costs. I would estimate that employees of companies that provide healthcare now pay between $2000 and $5000 annually, depending upon the generosity of the company and the healthplan options selected by each employee.

This isn't that different from Obamacare, where health insurance costs between $2500 and $5000 annually, depending upon geographic region and selected options, but there is one big difference: if you decline insurance from a company that provides healthcare you likely get money back, as much as $2500/year. And then if you have no insurance (say, from a spouse's company insurance) you pay the 2.5% penalty. On a salary of $40,000/year that penalty is $1000 and leaves you $1500 ahead. But if you have no company health insurance (say you're a hairdresser) then you just pay the penalty, and now you're $1000 behind.

About preexisting conditions, if people can wait until they, for example, have cancer before signing up for insurance, and if insurance cannot by law turn them down or charge a higher premium, and if insufficient numbers of healthy people sign up, then insurance companies will cease offering policies in those regions of the country where such laws apply. Which is exactly what is happening.

So what will Trump do about Obamacare? Well, ironically, he says he wants to keep the provision about preexisting conditions, the very provision causing the most problems.

An affluent compassionate society does not let people suffer or die depending upon their wealth, and I'm not sure how the Republicans or Trump feel about that. If they believe that other people shouldn't pay for your healthcare then there's quite an argument yet to be had. But if they believe as Democrats do that no one should be denied healthcare simply because they can't afford it then we still don't have such a system. The US is unique among western societies in providing healthcare through employers. I don't know how we get from where we are to where we have to be, which is universal healthcare, but we have to find a way.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by kjsimons, posted 11-14-2016 10:23 AM kjsimons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by NoNukes, posted 11-15-2016 12:02 PM Percy has responded
 Message 433 by caffeine, posted 11-15-2016 2:51 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 426 of 892 (794406)
11-15-2016 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by Diomedes
11-14-2016 11:26 AM


Re: This too shall pass
Diomedes writes:

For instance, what will be the fate of the Affordable Care Act? Trump has said he'd like to keep only a couple parts of it, most significantly the part where insurance companies cannot exclude people for pre-existing conditions. But it's this clause that is causing so many insurance companies to withdraw from participation, because people can wait until they get sick before signing up. In those states that don't allow insurance companies to charge premiums commensurate with the pre-existing condition, insurance companies are withdrawing.

Which is why the mandate to buy insurance was necessary. So it ultimately makes no sense to remove the mandate but keep the pre-existing condition clause intact.

I'm against mandating the purchase of insurance. I'm also against the penalty.

I'm for universal healthcare and for everybody paying for everybody's healthcare. That means funding it out of taxes (both personal and business) and have the government pay. If that's what the Republicans mean by a single-payer system then I'm for it, and they can get the insurance companies on their side by having them administer the system. The insurance companies will make money through administration, and they can offer additional coverage options, like gap insurance and additional coverage.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Diomedes, posted 11-14-2016 11:26 AM Diomedes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by jar, posted 11-15-2016 8:59 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 428 by Diomedes, posted 11-15-2016 10:51 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 429 by NoNukes, posted 11-15-2016 11:44 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 432 by 1.61803, posted 11-15-2016 1:15 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(4)
Message 427 of 892 (794409)
11-15-2016 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Percy
11-15-2016 8:33 AM


Re: This too shall pass
Regarding what I would consider reasonable coverage.

IMHO the coverage for the US individual should be the same coverage the Congressmen want for themselves.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Percy, posted 11-15-2016 8:33 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 813
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 428 of 892 (794414)
11-15-2016 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Percy
11-15-2016 8:33 AM


Re: This too shall pass
I'm against mandating the purchase of insurance. I'm also against the penalty.

I'm for universal healthcare and for everybody paying for everybody's healthcare. That means funding it out of taxes (both personal and business) and have the government pay.

So am I. Problem is, that is not feasible, especially in the wake of the current political climate and the fact that the Republicans control the House, the Senate and the Presidency. So what I posited is what I consider the 'best case scenario' in light of the circumstances.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Percy, posted 11-15-2016 8:33 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 429 of 892 (794418)
11-15-2016 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Percy
11-15-2016 8:33 AM


Re: This too shall pass
If that's what the Republicans mean by a single-payer system then I'm for it, and they can get the insurance companies on their side by having them administer the system.

Don't republicans generally refer to systems like the ones we find through out the rest of the Western world as socialism? There is no way that the Republicans could be planning to enact any kind of single payer system.

An affluent compassionate society does not let people suffer or die depending upon their wealth, and I'm not sure how the Republicans or Trump feel about that

I hope they feel differently post-ACA. If they do we can chalk up the change to be based on the legacy of Obamacare. But I do recall prior to the ACA that republicans actually cheered the idea that folks not having coverage be allowed to just die.

http://abcnews.go.com/...a-of-letting-uninsured-patients-die

quote:
NN moderator Wolf Blitzer’s hypothetical question about whether an uninsured 30-year-old working man in coma should be treated prompted one of the most boisterous moments of audience participation in the CNN/Tea Party Express.

“What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself,” Paul responded, adding, “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risk. This whole idea that you have to compare and take care of everybody…”

The audience erupted into cheers, cutting off the Congressman’s sentence.

After a pause, Blitzer followed up by asking “Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” to which a small number of audience members shouted “Yeah!”


Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Percy, posted 11-15-2016 8:33 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 430 of 892 (794419)
11-15-2016 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Percy
11-15-2016 8:24 AM


Re: This too shall pass
On a salary of $40,000/year that penalty is $1000 and leaves you $1500 ahead. But if you have no company health insurance (say you're a hairdresser) then you just pay the penalty, and now you're $1000 behind.

Doesn't this calculation ignore the subsidy for folks making a certain amount. Also if your state adopted the federal offer, which was intended to be mandatory, then the hairdresser would have been covered and would not need to pay the penalty. Most of the reasons the ACA did not work as intended was due to republican obstructionism.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Percy, posted 11-15-2016 8:24 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by Percy, posted 11-15-2016 1:13 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 431 of 892 (794421)
11-15-2016 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 430 by NoNukes
11-15-2016 12:02 PM


Re: This too shall pass
Referring back to my full paragraph:

"This isn't that different from Obamacare, where health insurance costs between $2500 and $5000 annually, depending upon geographic region and selected options, but there is one big difference: if you decline insurance from a company that provides healthcare you likely get money back, as much as $2500/year. And then if you have no insurance (say, from a spouse's company insurance) you pay the 2.5% penalty. On a salary of $40,000/year that penalty is $1000 and leaves you $1500 ahead. But if you have no company health insurance (say you're a hairdresser) then you just pay the penalty, and now you're $1000 behind."

The insurance costs I cited that lie between $2500 and $5000 annually include the $50/month subsidy that someone earning $40,000 annually would receive in my neck of the woods. The $1000 penalty for not having insurance includes no insurance subsidy because there's no insurance to subsidize.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by NoNukes, posted 11-15-2016 12:02 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by NoNukes, posted 11-15-2016 2:57 PM Percy has responded

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2817
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 432 of 892 (794423)
11-15-2016 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by Percy
11-15-2016 8:33 AM


Re: This too shall pass
The Republicans can and will provide services that may in fact be exactly like Obamacare. It will be called,,,,wait for it............................... Trumpcare.

I use the Mitt Romney bot version 2.0 as a example of flipflopping.

In the coming months Progressive will be flabbergasted at all the seemingly familiar policies that have been dry docked since Obamas first inauguration. Rebranded with the Trump seal of approval.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shortened long list of periods, which was messing with the display width.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Percy, posted 11-15-2016 8:33 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1600
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 433 of 892 (794428)
11-15-2016 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Percy
11-15-2016 8:24 AM


Re: This too shall pass
The US is unique among western societies in providing healthcare through employers.

Not exactly. Most European countries have a compulsory health insurance paid for by employers. The British system in which healthcare is paid for out of general taxation is quite unusual. The two enormous differences with health insurance here and in the US are:

1. The state pays health insurance for those not in empployment (including children and pensioners - so this actually the majority)
2. Health insurance companies are not permitted to make profit


This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Percy, posted 11-15-2016 8:24 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Percy, posted 11-15-2016 8:05 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 434 of 892 (794429)
11-15-2016 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by Percy
11-15-2016 1:13 PM


Re: This too shall pass
The insurance costs I cited that lie between $2500 and $5000 annually include the $50/month subsidy that someone earning $40,000 annually would receive in my neck of the woods.

1) You did not mention the subsidy in your post. Thanks for clarifying.
2) The subsidy for a person with spouse making 40,000 in my neck of the woods is about $500 dollars per month in my neck of the woods, which suggests that something is not all that general about your calculation. I'm not sure exactly where you live, but checking the amount for a person with spouse in New Bedford MA generated a 173 dollar subsidy amount for a similarly situated person.
3) You still did not mention the original mandate to cover the uninsured that most republican governors simply refused to adopt after the Supreme Court ruled that adoption was up to states.

I maintain that the ACA, while clearly less effective than a public option, was designed to be far more effective than what we see today, and that republic recalcitrance is largely the reason why things turned out much different. How the heck could Obamacare work with folks chipping away at it from day two of its introduction? As things were originally intended, there ACA insurance market was supposed to be such a large portion of the total market that companies could not avoid taking on the sickest folks with their pre-existing conditions.

Link to subsidy calculator:

http://kff.org/...tobacco%5D=0&child-count=0&child-tobacco=0

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Percy, posted 11-15-2016 1:13 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Percy, posted 11-15-2016 8:32 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1600
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 435 of 892 (794430)
11-15-2016 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by Percy
11-14-2016 8:03 AM


Re: This too shall pass
I'm just replying to your post because it's the most recent of a series. I'd just like to say that I see little point in characterizing the present and past candidates and presidents in the most extreme terms possible that arguably don't represent the truth (this isn't a comment about the Czech President - like I said, I'm just replying to your post because it's the most recent) . I'd be much more interested in a discussion about the implications of potential Trump policies and initiatives.

Being a foreign, my primary concerns are the actions the US is going to take on the world stage. On that front, we have Trump making a lot of noise about opposition to free-trade agreements in the election, but I can't help but suspect that was simply lying to get votes, especially since he picked as VP someone strongly in favour of TPP and TPIP.

Where I think a huge change from the Obama administration is coming is climate policy. Getting effective international agreements on emissions reductions and the like is notoriously difficult at the best of times - under a Trump presidency with a Republican congress, there isn't a scintilla of hope of the US agreeing to anything, nor of actually working to implement agreements already signed.

I'm also a little concerned that Trump's friends here in Europe seem to be the nationalist right who are currently working hard to abolish the European Union, and in some countries liberal, constitulational democracy while they're at it. I'm not sure how much difference it will make, but my fear is that governments like PiS in Poland may be a bit more emboldened in their depredations if the leader of the free world is giving them a cheerful thumbs up instead of raising concerns about the rule of law.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Percy, posted 11-14-2016 8:03 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
2728
29
3031
...
60NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019