Beyond that, there is a 100 percent chance that Hillary, if elected, will have the opportunity to select at least one more Justice.
I hope you're right. An editorial in today's NYT (A Coup Against the Supreme Court) says that a sizeably worrisome portion of the Republican Party is determined to thwart any Supreme Court nominations by a Democratic president.
Now that the election is over there's little point in conducting a negative campaign against the losing candidate, especially one directed at people who voted for her only because of the horror inspired by her opponent. I do agree with one of the points that it makes little sense to draw conclusions from considerations that carry little weight, such as politicians acting like politicians.
In a couple months Trump will be president, and that seems a more relevant topic. Wall Street seems to like him. Will he build "the wall"? What will be his policy with Russia? With Israel?
This was a lie, as the US ambassador was of course there,...
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.
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. It will be interesting to see how Trump handles this, because it is this part of the Affordable Care Act that is most likely to cause its eventual failure.
I ran a testcase through the government website last night to see how much ACA insurance costs. A person with $40,000 of annual incomes pays a 2.5% penalty for non-participation, or $1000. This helps fund the subsidies for people who can't afford insurance.
ACA insurance for this person costs as little as $2400 after a $600 subsidy. The copay was $30. There are higher tiers that provide better coverage at greater cost.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
I should have phrased that better, let me try again. I didn't mean to imply anything about where the funding for healthcare came from. The message I was trying to communicate is that in the US it's "No workie, no insurance," and many employers, especially small employers, don't provide health insurance anyway. And if you don't have a job then of course you don't have insurance, either. But much of Europe has universal health care, as does Canada.
The ACA (aka Obamacare) is an improvement over what came before. A few years ago I investigated what it would cost to replace my work-provided health insurance, and the answer was around $13,000/year. Obamacare tends to cost between $2500 and $5000 (after subsidies, as NoNukes points out), depending upon region and coverage level. There's a table of costs for the "Silver" level at this webpage that's interesting to peruse.
But it's still a case of haves and have-nots. The haves work for companies that provide healthcare, and the have-nots work for companies that don't provide healthcare or they're are not employed or in the family of someone employed. If the have-nots want insurance then they have to pay for it out of their own pockets.
But the haves don't have it as good as they used to. Until a couple decades ago companies that provided healthcare paid 100% of the insurance costs, but then they began asking employees to contribute part, and then a greater part, and then an even greater part, until in my last year of employment I was paying $5000/year for my company provided healthcare.
1) You did not mention the subsidy in your post. Thanks for clarifying.
You're very welcome!
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.
Isn't the higher subsidy in your neck of woods offset by the higher insurance costs? Anyway, maybe you have some unique situation in your area, but for most of the country I think the net cost is about the same within a relatively narrow range for the same coverage level.
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.
After Trump won my thinking was to wish him all the best in his presidency and to hope that it was successful, but now I'm seeing worrisome signs. The dropping of Governor Christie as head of the transition team was welcome given BridgeGate, but with the appointment of Steven K. Bannon as "chief strategist and senior counselor," and with the departure from the transition team of Mike Rogers and Matthew Freeman, who were advising on national security matters, there is now a much more insular and paranoid transition group.
Similarities to pre-WWII Germany are again apparent. When Hitler first became Chancellor in 1933 (a compromise appointment by president Hindenburg) he quickly consolidated power by purging the government of opposition voices. Trump seems to be doing this within his own team even before he takes power.
I'd like to give Trump a chance. I'm against the "Not My President" movement - it's much too sooon, and it's contrary to American principles of democratic government. But the early signs are already not encouraging.
Most people's inclinations lean toward compromise and accommodation, but this stands at odds with the lessons of history, and with the lessons of a recent weekend evening, which I expect are a "writ small" version of what will be our future. As is his habit, Trump struck out at those who would dare criticize he and his at the conclusion of a performance of "Hamilton" (‘Hamilton’ Cast’s Appeal to Pence Ignites Showdown With Trump).
The lesson of history is that one must stand up to bullies. One must stand up to them early and often, else at some point one will be staring up in confused bewilderment at a face of contorted hate and anger while fending off jackbooted kicks. The LGBT, Black and Muslim communities already understand this, but that's only where it starts, because it must always start somewhere. Before long the rest of the nation becomes corralled into helping carry out the discriminative and destructive policies that become more and more extreme and that at some point begin transforming beyond the country's borders into campaigns of aggression.
Germany didn't stand up to Hitler when he began discriminating against Jews. After all, Hitler did have grievances, and who couldn't understand that. And the world didn't stand up to Hitler when he began taking the Sudetanland and Austria and Czechoslovakia. After all, Hitler did have grievances. And then Hitler took Poland and France, and by then it was too late.
Trump has his own "grievances." There are always grievances. The lesson of history in combatting men settling grienvances is to stand up to them early and often and now, and so it must be with Trump. He may not have a grand plan in the form of a Mein Kampf, but he's capable of carrying it out all the same.
A week or so ago I said that I stood behind Trump because he won the election fair and square and deserved to be given a chance to carry out his vision. I've reconsidered. I'm still opposed to the "#NotMyPresident" movement, but only because it should be a "#NotAPresident" movement. Trump isn't a leader, he's a bully with a small and mean-spirited agenda of hate and exclusion. He should not be head of the nation and by the nature of our power of the free world, and we should guide our actions to deny him this role at every turn. We must fight him in the streets, we must fight him on the beaches, we must fight him in the halls of Congress, and yes, we must even fight him in the theaters.*
Anyone who watches NFL games has noticed the increasing presence of the military. Very similar productions are invariably followed. It is announced that the somethingth unit of the somethingth military group will be presenting the flag, usually one that covers half the field, and to please rise for our national anthem. A statement of sacrifice is made, and jets often fly over. Seals or rangers parachute into the stadium.
These are not spontaneous outpourings of national appreciation for our military. They are paid for by the military, and over the last couple years they have become more and more prominant and elaborate. Now the TV networks no longer break away during these ceremonies, so I assume the networks are now being paid, too.
A growing military presence in daily life accompanied the rise of facism, along with diminishing respect for and faith in democratic institutions, a factor partially explaining the election of Trump. We can't take democracy and our Bill of Rights for granted. Threats will be made (have already been made). People will be arrested or disappear. Attitudes people are willing to express will change. In the coming years we must resist every impulse to not follow our consciences or speak our minds.
™ Version 4.2
