Trump Administration Meltdown Thread...

Post by **Shirley** » Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:18 pm

Ryan wrote:She's way closer to Stewart than any of the others. It's "Oh fuck this shit" vs. "Wow, can you believe this shit?". A subtle difference that leads to a huge stylistic difference. We watch every week and I find her filling that gap that Angry Jon left.

Agreed. Trevor Noah isn't getting it done (he was a poor choice). Colbert is doing OK, but his old show's format was much better (and funnier) for political commentary.

HaulCitgo · Post by **HaulCitgo** » Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:59 pm

I like Trevor Noah. Doing a good job. Colbert sucks now and hes long since changed his style back to his old show trying to find viewers. The british guy on HBO is probably best now. That said, a much easier gig.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:05 pm

But the hair!

And just checked in on the president's twitter - the leader of the free world has retweeted Fox and Friends, the Drudge Report and has used an emoji. (It's an American flag, but still...)

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:33 pm

I know it has been common around these parts to bash CNN, but I have to say (and I said this last month), they are straight up trolling the WH these days. The chyron they are rotating under Spicer during the briefing is alternating calling them out on Trump's tweet about how jobs numbers may have been phony in the past but not now, the fact that the press weren't allowed to accompany Tillerson on his trip because "there's not enough room on the plane, Trump campaign told Flynn was a foreign operator (or something like that, I didn't write it down.)

Pretty damn funny.

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:34 pm

Oh, there it is "Trump's Fired Advisor Worked as Foreign Agent."

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:49 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote:Oh, there it is "Trump's Fired Advisor Worked as Foreign Agent."

Speaking of Flynn, at the time the WH said Flynn wasn't fired, he resigned due to the media unfairly attacking his character. Now, Pence and Spicer are saying this revelation reinforces Trump's decision to fire Flynn. This story should be a huge deal, but I fear it gets washed out in the deluge of shit coming out of the WH. Either Trump knew his National Security Advisor was illegally acting as a foreign agent for a highly controversial Turkish President, or Trump was shockingly negligent in vetting his National Security Advisor. Think about it, a NSA who is illegally acting as a foreign agent, unregistered as required by law, and Team Trump didn't know? Holy fuck.

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:29 pm

John Oliver's show is outstanding for the deep dives into relatively unknown issues.

Post by **Shirley** » Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:48 pm

HaulCitgo wrote:I like Trevor Noah. Doing a good job.

He's gotten better, but he's still not great. His correspondents are really good though.

For me, a big part of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart was that Stewart honestly knew so much about what he was talking about. He was a comedian, yet no guest could get over on him. He really did his homework. The Daily Show wasn't just funny, I learned from it.

On the other hand, I have a hard time taking serious the political satire of Noah, a guy who moved to the US 6 years ago. I KNOW that when he makes a political joke that's anything deeper than making fun of Trump's latest Tweet, it's something a writer wrote. Noah couldn't have come up with it himself. I don't want to learn from a guy who's just repeating info he learned earlier that day.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:13 pm

Giff wrote:John Oliver's show is outstanding for the deep dives into relatively unknown issues.

And there are times when Oliver makes jokes because he thinks he has to. Like he'll get to a horrible point about what the coal industry has done to West Virginia and then will add an aside based on a photo he shows.

His show really does more hard research n those issues than most news shows would.

EnochRoot · Post by **EnochRoot** » Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:15 pm

Shirley wrote:
HaulCitgo wrote:I like Trevor Noah. Doing a good job.
He's gotten better, but he's still not great. His correspondents are really good though.

For me, a big part of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart was that Stewart honestly knew so much about what he was talking about. He was a comedian, yet no guest could get over on him. He really did his homework. The Daily Show wasn't just funny, I learned from it.

On the other hand, I have a hard time taking serious the political satire of Noah, a guy who moved to the US 6 years ago. I KNOW that when he makes a political joke that's anything deeper than making fun of Trump's latest Tweet, it's something a writer wrote. Noah couldn't have come up with it himself. I don't want to learn from a guy who's just repeating info he learned earlier that day.

Noah is a whiff. It's not that he's not good at what he does, but you can't expect a foreign-born guy to successfully judge America and its political leaders.

His ceiling, in this format, is that of foreign correspondent. It sucks, but the bias is there, and it's real. He's not authentic, where not American may as well be un-American.

Post by **brian** » Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:10 pm

The Sybian wrote:
Nonlinear FC wrote:Oh, there it is "Trump's Fired Advisor Worked as Foreign Agent."
Speaking of Flynn, at the time the WH said Flynn wasn't fired, he resigned due to the media unfairly attacking his character. Now, Pence and Spicer are saying this revelation reinforces Trump's decision to fire Flynn. This story should be a huge deal, but I fear it gets washed out in the deluge of shit coming out of the WH. Either Trump knew his National Security Advisor was illegally acting as a foreign agent for a highly controversial Turkish President, or Trump was shockingly negligent in vetting his National Security Advisor. Think about it, a NSA who is illegally acting as a foreign agent, unregistered as required by law, and Team Trump didn't know? Holy fuck.

This is the problem with someone who lies repeatedly and brazenly. A lie coming from someone who lies once in a blue moon is news. When you lie about literally everything what can you do?

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:50 pm

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:09 pm

So the CBO scored the "TrumpRyanCare" bill....and it says that 24 million people will lose their insurance, in addition to $285 billion tax cut for the top 2%.

And, man, does Paul Ryan have a RANDIAN-FREEDOM BONER!

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said Monday that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office "validated" House Republicans' bill to repeal Obamacare with a report estimating that the bill would reduce the federal deficit while leaving millions more people uninsured.

"I think if you read this entire report, I'm pretty encouraged by it and it actually exceeded my expectations," Ryan told Fox's Bret Baier.

He said that the CBO's score for the bill is "encouraging" and gives legislators "even more room to work on, to make good fine-tuning finishing touches" on the legislation.

"Of course the CBO is going to say, if you're not going to force people to buy something they don't want to buy, they won't buy it," Ryan said. "That's why you have those uninsured numbers, which we all expected."

So hey, you're gonna die from a eminently curable disease, but my god, think how free you'll feel as you do! Huzzah!

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:59 am

You just know the spin will be that the CBO is filled with Obama appointees with their own agenda.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:55 am

Pruitt wrote:You just know the spin will be that the CBO is filled with Obama appointees with their own agenda.

When in reality:

rass · Post by **rass** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:08 am

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:31 am

In my opinion, healthcare is the first issue that has come up that has a real possibility to hurt Trump with his supporters. (As awful as his immigration policies and plans to decimate federal agencies are, those proposals are likely very popular among people who voted for him.) If the Democrats are smart, they will put forward their own proposals on how to expand upon the improvements made by the ACA, instead of just playing defense. Examples would be things like Medicare/Medicaid expansion or even a public option. Obviously they don't have the votes now, but I think offering concrete proposals would help with the 2018 midterms. Unfortunately, I don't have much faith in the Party to do this, but maybe they'll exceed my low expectations.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:32 am

Is Trump personally writing for Breitbart now? Ryan doesn't know how to win? Hilarious.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:41 am

The Sybian wrote:Is Trump personally writing for Breitbart now? Ryan doesn't know how to win? Hilarious.

My uninformed guess is that Bannon's fingerprints might be on that.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:55 am

sancarlos wrote:
The Sybian wrote:Is Trump personally writing for Breitbart now? Ryan doesn't know how to win? Hilarious.
My uninformed guess is that Bannon's fingerprints might be on that.

"Guess?"

I'd wager that it's a sure thing.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:21 pm

Joe K wrote:In my opinion, healthcare is the first issue that has come up that has a real possibility to hurt Trump with his supporters. (As awful as his immigration policies and plans to decimate federal agencies are, those proposals are likely very popular among people who voted for him.) If the Democrats are smart, they will put forward their own proposals on how to expand upon the improvements made by the ACA, instead of just playing defense. Examples would be things like Medicare/Medicaid expansion or even a public option. Obviously they don't have the votes now, but I think offering concrete proposals would help with the 2018 midterms. Unfortunately, I don't have much faith in the Party to do this, but maybe they'll exceed my low expectations.

Unfortunately, concrete proposals don't win elections. 6 years of screaming about Obamacare being a total disaster, skyrocketing costs, nobody anywhere was able to keep their doctor and "our plan will be way better" is a hell of a lot more successful. I saw an interview with a woman who is 100% confident "Trump's plan" will be great, because Trump said he has the best plan, and why would he say that if it wasn't true? No matter what happens, she will believe she is better off under Trump, because that is what Trump said.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:32 pm

The Sybian wrote:I saw an interview with a woman who is 100% confident "Trump's plan" will be great, because Trump said he has the best plan, and why would he say that if it wasn't true? No matter what happens, she will believe she is better off under Trump, because that is what Trump said.

Those people aren't going to vote Democrat no matter what, and they are "only" thirty percent of the voters. So they wouldn't be the target of a message.

I think if the Dems could coalesce around a health care message, that would be great. But is it improve the ACA with a public option and better subsidies, which is what Hillary was pushing, or scrap it and go to single payer, which is what Bernie was pushing? Joe, would you rally behind a message of "improve the ACA by adding a public option and increasing subsidies"?

I myself would like to see those two points, plus a third - expand Medicare to cover age 55 and up, and pay for that by raising the cap on FICA.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:37 pm

If the GOP passes this and gets destroyed in the midterms, it will basically sum up the American voter. In 2010 expanding health care access was the primary reason the Dems get slaughtered in the midterms. In 2018 contracting health care access will be the primary reason the GOP gets slaughtered in the midterms. Americans just cannot figure out what they want, and likely won't settle on something until it's far too late to matter.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:06 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:
The Sybian wrote:I saw an interview with a woman who is 100% confident "Trump's plan" will be great, because Trump said he has the best plan, and why would he say that if it wasn't true? No matter what happens, she will believe she is better off under Trump, because that is what Trump said.
Those people aren't going to vote Democrat no matter what, and they are "only" thirty percent of the voters. So they wouldn't be the target of a message.

I think if the Dems could coalesce around a health care message, that would be great. But is it improve the ACA with a public option and better subsidies, which is what Hillary was pushing, or scrap it and go to single payer, which is what Bernie was pushing? Joe, would you rally behind a message of "improve the ACA by adding a public option and increasing subsidies"?

I myself would like to see those two points, plus a third - expand Medicare to cover age 55 and up, and pay for that by raising the cap on FICA.

I agree that Medicare expansion is a good idea. As for single payer vs. public option, I think single payer would be a better system. But a public option would be a significant improvement over status quo and perhaps a good way to get more politicians and voters comfortable with the idea of single payer. I also think that the vast majority of Sanders backers would support such a proposal, even if they viewed single payer as the ultimate goal. Either way, I think it's important that the Democrats offer something, as it would be a mistake to cede the entire terms of the healthcare debate to the GOP.

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:33 pm

Forgive me my ignorance, but isn't most of this a moot point if insurance providers aren't decentralized and regulated? And by proxy hospitals/care providers? Everyone seems to be treating the symptoms and not the problem. Yes, it's bad that many Americans are uninsured, but isn't the reasoning rooted in the fact that its 97$ for a box of nitrile gloves, a simple Xray now runs you $1000, and you get a bill for 4 different agencies every time you use a hospital/medical service?

Pharma gives a lot of money to politicians, medical practitioners make Pharma a lot of money. What politician on either side is going to destabilize that?

I know that's dumbing it down, but the money has to come from somewhere. Anthem isn't losing it's ass on this stuff.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:39 pm

Certainly makes sense to me. Cut out the insanely profitable middleman and those cuts more than fund the simplified equation.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:07 pm

Health insurers are already heavily regulated, and from what I have read, health insurers are not insanely profitable. I think the bigger problem are providers and drug makers and medical device makers. You get bills from 4 different agencies because that is how the providers have structured themselves, not the insurers. It isn't the insurers setting the prices on nitrile gloves or x-rays, that's the hospitals.

Of course, drug companies and device makers and hospitals charge what they do because insurance companies are willing to pay it. But I don't know if that is because insurers have too much market power, or too little market power.

I like the idea of a public option, and also allowing importation of approved drugs from Canada and the EU, and also allowing (and insisting) that Medicare negotiate drug prices. Those are all things that can bring costs down.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:50 pm

Kushner Family Finalizing Mega-Deal With Chinese Company

Nothing to see here - more smears from the failing New York Times.

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:57 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:Health insurers are already heavily regulated, and from what I have read, health insurers are not insanely profitable. I think the bigger problem are providers and drug makers and medical device makers. You get bills from 4 different agencies because that is how the providers have structured themselves, not the insurers. It isn't the insurers setting the prices on nitrile gloves or x-rays, that's the hospitals.

Of course, drug companies and device makers and hospitals charge what they do because insurance companies are willing to pay it. But I don't know if that is because insurers have too much market power, or too little market power.

I like the idea of a public option, and also allowing importation of approved drugs from Canada and the EU, and also allowing (and insisting) that Medicare negotiate drug prices. Those are all things that can bring costs down.

I'll admit I don't even know where to start on getting accurate information on this stuff, but that doesn't pass the smell test for a second. Someone is getting fucking rich, and insurance companies are in the thick of it.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 3:10 pm

BSF21 wrote:I'll admit I don't even know where to start on getting accurate information on this stuff, but that doesn't pass the smell test for a second. Someone is getting fucking rich, and insurance companies are in the thick of it.

Think of it this way - when you read an article talking about how gloves cost a hundred bucks, or how much an MRI costs, or the latest insane price increase for a drug, think of who is paying for that - it's usually health insurers. Based on articles I have read over the years, their profit margins are in the range of 5-10%. That is not that high. Their executives make millions, of course, but that is because executives in every big business make millions. They have no more shame than anyone else.

The ACA included a requirement that health insurers spend at least 85% of their receipts on actual health care or other improvements. There is no similar requirement on drug makers or device makers or hospitals.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 3:27 pm

Odds any Democrat will use the estimates on how many people will use coverage as part of a "the Republicans are the death panels they warned you about" response to America?

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 3:28 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:
BSF21 wrote:I'll admit I don't even know where to start on getting accurate information on this stuff, but that doesn't pass the smell test for a second. Someone is getting fucking rich, and insurance companies are in the thick of it.
Think of it this way - when you read an article talking about how gloves cost a hundred bucks, or how much an MRI costs, or the latest insane price increase for a drug, think of who is paying for that - it's usually health insurers. Based on articles I have read over the years, their profit margins are in the range of 5-10%. That is not that high. Their executives make millions, of course, but that is because executives in every big business make millions. They have no more shame than anyone else.

The ACA included a requirement that health insurers spend at least 85% of their receipts on actual health care or other improvements. There is no similar requirement on drug makers or device makers or hospitals.

I understand, and I realize that a lot of my evidence is anecdotal, but systemic change is needed across the board. The fact remains lawmakers on either side of the aisle have no incentive to do this. We can get all happy that more people have access, which they should, but it doesn't make it any more of a reasonable reality to anyone not in great health and young or working for a company that can work the system. Small businesses have no leverage and take on the brunt of the discounts that are given to big companies in order to get their business. Think about what kind of an account...Target?...is for a Cigna or a UH. Those are the people you know that say things like "oh yea, I've got great health insurance and I only pay 70$ a month for the whole family". That's structured on the backs of small business and individuals and it all flows from the top. It's trying to marry the concept that affordable healthcare should be a basic right and that private medicine can still be a profitable industry that proves most difficult.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 3:31 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:Think of it this way - when you read an article talking about how gloves cost a hundred bucks, or how much an MRI costs, or the latest insane price increase for a drug, think of who is paying for that - it's usually health insurers. Based on articles I have read over the years, their profit margins are in the range of 5-10%. That is not that high. Their executives make millions, of course, but that is because executives in every big business make millions. They have no more shame than anyone else.

Where does it stop being as simple as "I could either sell you a penis drawing for $5 or I could sell it to BSF for $5 and he can sell it to you for $8"? Like the middleman is here and making 5-10% profit, but on what overall gains or efficiencies?

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:52 pm

mister d wrote:
Steve of phpBB wrote:Think of it this way - when you read an article talking about how gloves cost a hundred bucks, or how much an MRI costs, or the latest insane price increase for a drug, think of who is paying for that - it's usually health insurers. Based on articles I have read over the years, their profit margins are in the range of 5-10%. That is not that high. Their executives make millions, of course, but that is because executives in every big business make millions. They have no more shame than anyone else.
Where does it stop being as simple as "I could either sell you a penis drawing for $5 or I could sell it to BSF for $5 and he can sell it to you for $8"? Like the middleman is here and making 5-10% profit, but on what overall gains or efficiencies?

I think health insurers do a couple different things that make that example inapplicable. The first is to spread risks/losses. Instead of having to pay you for $50,000 for a penis drawing, we can each pay $1000 to the insurer and the insurer pays for all the penis drawings we need that year.

The other thing they do is use market power to get a better deal than you would individually. Just like there is a discount insurance rate at a body shop, the rates charged to insurers are discounted compared to what you would get on your own.

When I was in that bike wreck in 2009, the sticker price on my hospital bills was $80,000. But my health insurance company only had to pay $28,000. If I was on my own, I probably could have gotten discounts off the sticker price, but I don't know if I would have gotten a 65% discount.

The other efficiency or convenience they add is by setting up networks to buy from. I wasn't really in a position to shop around for emergency rooms or compare prices or services. The health insurance had already done that. The buyers from the insurers are in a better position to know the market for emergency room services than most average schmoes are.

So it's not selling a penis drawing for $5 which is then resold for $8. You may like the penis drawing enough to pay $8, but the insurer knows the market and has the negotiating power to get the drawing for only $3, which it then resells to you for $4.

So then the question becomes whether the net benefits insurers add are outweighed by the inefficiency of having a middleman. On that, I have no real idea.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:13 pm

The only actual solution is a single payer system. It's not perfect but it is a heck of a lot better than what the country has. Especially when one considers there is already enough money in the socialized medicine system to achieve a good chunk of it...if you got rid of the lobbyists and extreme profit motivation of the industry.

All the GOP is doing is pushing everything down to the state level. A level that is not equipped and in many cases doesn't have the financial wherewithal to deal with these things (not just healthcare). In the end you are going to get an even larger split between the well being of the populace in the have and have not states.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:18 pm

So if health insurers margins are 5-10%, I would guess that the culprits are the health care providers chasing profits for shareholders. Am I right about this?

And if so, are these guys even being dragged into the debate?

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:54 pm

So...

Rachel Maddow Claims To Have Trump's Tax Returns

Unveiling in an hour!

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:42 pm

Pruitt wrote:So...

Rachel Maddow Claims To Have Trump's Tax Returns

Unveiling in an hour!

Dude. Just about to post this.

I'm eagerly awaiting the meltdown.

Get your fucking popcorn.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:46 pm

Well, maybe it's not going to be as big...I was hoping for a huge tax return dump. But, eh. I hope it has a money trail.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:05 pm

Poop!

Don;t subscribe to it and can't stream it.