Trump presidency

[Zohar]

Didn't you get the memo, Angua? They're just new at this! Cut them some slack!

This is not incompetence, it's active suppression of free speech. The website states that people's names and contact information will be shared publicly. It's bullshit.

[sardia]

Didn't you get the memo, Angua? They're just new at this! Cut them some slack!

This is not incompetence, it's active suppression of free speech. The website states that people's names and contact information will be shared publicly. It's bullshit.

Wow, instead of fixing their mistake, they double down by posting a disclaimer. I really hate this administration.

[KnightExemplar]

Wut?

(And is he using the same "transparent" as when defending his "open" family member? Really, I don't think Trump can substantiate his claim to "know the best words"...)

Why don't we put millions of dollars of expensive, valuable solar panels on a security device designed to protect us from drug dealers and criminals.

I mean, holy fuck. The point of a wall is to be cheap and hard to get around. If you put valuable things on a wall, it will be stolen.

[Dauric]

Wut?

(And is he using the same "transparent" as when defending his "open" family member? Really, I don't think Trump can substantiate his claim to "know the best words"...)

"This wall is a tremendous wall. And when I said I want a wall you could see through, these guys delivered. This wall is so see-through you might think it didn't exist, but it does let me assure you, it's a great wall!"

Translation: "I couldn't get Mexico or Congress to pay for the wall, but when Melania read me "The Emperor's Clothes" one night at beddie-bye time I had a tremendous idea for a wall, one that would separate my patriotic supporters from those terrorists that write fake news. Anyone who can believe in the wall believes in me and believes in America, anyone who questions the wall is a terrorist and needs to be locked up and executed. It'll be Tremendous."

[RCT Bob]

Wut?

(And is he using the same "transparent" as when defending his "open" family member? Really, I don't think Trump can substantiate his claim to "know the best words"...)

And I'll give you an example. As horrible as it sounds, when they throw the large sacks of drugs over, and if you have people on the other side of the wall, you don't see them -- they hit you on the head with 60 pounds of stuff? It's over. As cray as that sounds, you need transparency through that wall. But we have some incredible designs.

What the hell does this reasoning even mean? Who can even throw 60 lbs bags over a wall that's several metres high?

[EdgarJPublius]

Two words: Drug Catapult

[DavidSh]

What the hell does this reasoning even mean? Who can even throw 60 lbs bags over a wall that's several metres high?

In Highland games, there is an event for throwing a 25kg (56lb) ((4 stone)) weight for maximum height, one-handed. World record is about 20 feet high.

[Magnanimous]

If you put valuable things on a wall, it will be stolen.

Exactly what I was thinking. Solar panels are good targets for thieves. I'm assuming the panels will be in arrays north of the wall... putting them literally ON the wall isn't worth the risk.

[Mutex]

But why have them anywhere near the wall? Just build a solar farm somewhere...

[sardia]

If you put valuable things on a wall, it will be stolen.

Exactly what I was thinking. Solar panels are good targets for thieves. I'm assuming the panels will be in arrays north of the wall... putting them literally ON the wall isn't worth the risk.

Why do we play this game? We know he's a salesman/hype man. All he does is spit random words together and everybody else is forced to read the orange tea leaves.
No wait, this could be a trial balloon. If we don't yell at him, he'll actually take this seriously.

Note: Trump campaigned confirmed before that they would purposely leak false information to the press just to get the media talking about them positively. Example was the rumor that Trump would moderate on immigration during his inauguration speech.

[Soupspoon]

In Highland games, there is an event for throwing a 25kg (56lb) ((4 stone)) weight for maximum height, one-handed. World record is about 20 feet high.

Which us why they added ditches in front of Hadrian's Wall, which was never taller than 20 feet, to prevent Irn Bru smuggling into Roman Britain... Although nobody realised the inherent vulnerability to the much easier to lob Deep Fried Mars Bar, which had already started to bring down the Roman Empire from its peak.

They later built the Antonine Wall, but that included half of Glasgow, and it is suspected that this was just a deliberate act to allow the Roman influence to mix with the Caledonian society and create the cultural fusion that is the Deep Fried Pizza. From then on, the decline was inevitable.

[HES]

But why have them anywhere near the wall? Just build a solar farm somewhere...

Which is exactly the same reason that solar roads are a stupid fucking idea. Put it somewhere that its useful!

[ObsessoMom]

A transparent wall with solar panels? Sounds to me as if Trump is conflating two of the nuttier proposals:

A one-way Plexiglass wall, allowing the US to see into Mexico but not vice-versa

A hyperloop transportation system (train), powered by several solar farms along the way (This proposal would also turn the area around the border into a "shared co-nation between Mexico and the United States," which I can't imagine is what Trump has in mind.)

[Edited to add: Actually, several of the proposals have solar components.]

[Magnanimous]

Which is exactly the same reason that solar roads are a stupid fucking idea. Put it somewhere that its useful!

I was assuming that the wall would require electricity for cameras and lights, and whatever else they decide to tack onto this mess. If they're using the power for something completely different, this is definitely pointless.

[KnightExemplar]

If you put valuable things on a wall, it will be stolen.

Exactly what I was thinking. Solar panels are good targets for thieves. I'm assuming the panels will be in arrays north of the wall... putting them literally ON the wall isn't worth the risk.

I mean, there are crooks on the US-side of the border too.

[RCT Bob]

If you put the panels directly north of the wall, wouldn't they be in the shadow of the wall in the winter and as a result have a lower energy output? Unless of course he stands by the transparent wall idea, although even if you use glass you're going to lose power because glass isn't transparent to all wavelengths. And didn't Trump say he wanted a wall made out of steel and concrete before?

If Trump doesn't mean a glass wall for transparency but more something like this:

wouldn't it be even easier to smuggle drugs through there?

[Soupspoon]

That's why you add auto-tracking gigawatt laser turrets atop the wall/fence/death-zone, every five metres!

[HES]

Solar-powered auto-tracking gigawatt laser turrets, naturally.

[Zamfir]

To stay with the Russian theme of his presidency, I suggest Tesla Coils from Red Alert.

[Sableagle]

Wut?

He keeps using lots of words. I do not think they mean what he thinks they mean.

And there is a very good chance we can do a solar wall, which would actually look good. But there is a very good chance we could do a solar wall. You have to be able to see through it. In other words, if you can't see through that wall — so it could be a steel wall with openings, but you have to have openings because you have to see what's on the other side of the wall.

"Wut?" indeed.

I can think of one better place for solar panels: on everybody's homes, starting with poor neighbourhoods in regions where extreme heat and cold are life-threatening if the power goes out.

Socialism, I tell you. What's next, socialised healthcare?

[KnightExemplar]

wouldn't it be even easier to smuggle drugs through there?

Anyone with $1000 to spare can smuggle drugs across the border rather easily. Its the year freaking 2017, its extremely cheap to get an autonomous drone to fly drugs over the border.

If you're feeling confident and don't care about noise, you can get a gas-powered drone that flies at 62 miles an hour, 15-mile range and 5-kilo payload capacity.. One kilo of cocaine is roughly $1800 from Columbia, and $20,000 in Texas, so your drone pays for itself 10x over in just one trip.

The wall does jack diddly shit against drug dealers. We live in an age of autonomous flight.

To stay with the Russian theme of his presidency, I suggest Tesla Coils from Red Alert.

We need to replicate the Iron Curtain, to make all of our troops invincible for 30 seconds.

[Sableagle]

If you're feeling confident and don't care about noise, you can get a gas-powered drone that flies at 62 miles an hour, 15-mile range and 5-kilo payload capacity.. One kilo of cocaine is roughly $1800 from Columbia, and $20,000 in Texas, so your drone pays for itself 10x over in just one trip.

Huh.

yeair! is the next generation quadrocopter solution.

A 4.859 * 10^-27 molar solution. The homeopathy crowd will love it.

[cphite]

Wut?

(And is he using the same "transparent" as when defending his "open" family member? Really, I don't think Trump can substantiate his claim to "know the best words"...)

And I'll give you an example. As horrible as it sounds, when they throw the large sacks of drugs over, and if you have people on the other side of the wall, you don't see them -- they hit you on the head with 60 pounds of stuff? It's over. As cray as that sounds, you need transparency through that wall. But we have some incredible designs.

What the hell does this reasoning even mean? Who can even throw 60 lbs bags over a wall that's several metres high?

My best guess is that he heard about "Coyotes" involved in smuggling and then did research by watching some old Roadrunner cartoons...

[trpmb6]

My best guess is that he heard about "Coyotes" involved in smuggling and then did research by watching some old Roadrunner cartoons...

Those were the best Looney Toons. Anyone know where I can watch old Coyote vs Road Runner skits?

[sardia]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/p ... efect.html
Healthcare bill dies as 2 more senators come out against it, leaving GOP with only 48 votes.

Is this like a temporary thing or will it come back next month like the House bill did?

[Liri]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/politics/health-care-overhaul-collapses-as-two-republican-senators-defect.html
Healthcare bill dies as 2 more senators come out against it, leaving GOP with only 48 votes.

Is this like a temporary thing or will it come back next month like the House bill did?

To paraphrase Harry Enten, "I'm not predicting anything anymore."

[RCT Bob]

My best guess is that he heard about "Coyotes" involved in smuggling and then did research by watching some old Roadrunner cartoons...

Those were the best Looney Toons. Anyone know where I can watch old Coyote vs Road Runner skits?

Try Youtube. I'm sure a lot of them are on there.

[Zohar]

So now they're going to try to repeal The Affordable Care Act now with a two-year delay and take the next two years to figure out WTF they want. I'm worried this will succeed - they can easily say "Oh with the old bill we lost 22 million insured people but now we're gaining 10 million insured people!" because they're starting off at -36 million or however many people got their insurance through The Affordable Care Act.

I'm not fluent in politics - do they need 51 (or 50+tie breaker) votes to repeal, or do they just need a majority? And does a repeal have to go through the house as well?

[trpmb6]

I'm not fluent in politics - do they need 51 (or 50+tie breaker) votes to repeal, or do they just need a majority? And does a repeal have to go through the house as well?

I have heard conflicting reports on this. My understanding is that they can only repeal the parts that deal with revenue generation using reconciliation (the 50 vote threshold) (This has been done in the past already for things like the medical device tax). But for things dealing strictly with policy you would need a 60 vote threshold.

Either way if you repeal the key parts dealing with revenue and spending you pretty much kill the law. It would leave in place things like kids who are 26 and under can be on your parents plan and pre-existing conditions. But the republicans weren't going to get rid of those popular provisions anyways.

[cphite]

I'm not fluent in politics - do they need 51 (or 50+tie breaker) votes to repeal, or do they just need a majority? And does a repeal have to go through the house as well?

I have heard conflicting reports on this. My understanding is that they can only repeal the parts that deal with revenue generation using reconciliation (the 50 vote threshold) (This has been done in the past already for things like the medical device tax). But for things dealing strictly with policy you would need a 60 vote threshold.

The 60 vote threshold is a rule of the Senate, not actual law. They could, in theory, decide to bypass it and require only a simple majority. The danger is that once they do this, the other party will almost certainly do the same thing once they take control of the Senate.

Either way if you repeal the key parts dealing with revenue and spending you pretty much kill the law. It would leave in place things like kids who are 26 and under can be on your parents plan and pre-existing conditions. But the republicans weren't going to get rid of those popular provisions anyways.

The really sad part is that there are changes they could make that would actually help, that aren't going to be made because they're obsessed with something massive that "repeals" The Affordable Care Act...

For example, eliminating the minimum coverage requirements - which would allow people to select smaller plans with lower premiums, if they wanted to do so. Allow insurers to offer plans across state lines - which would increase insurance pools and also increase competition. Create a public option. Etc.

[KnightExemplar]

So now they're going to try to repeal The Affordable Care Act now with a two-year delay and take the next two years to figure out WTF they want. I'm worried this will succeed - they can easily say "Oh with the old bill we lost 22 million insured people but now we're gaining 10 million insured people!" because they're starting off at -36 million or however many people got their insurance through The Affordable Care Act.

I'm not fluent in politics - do they need 51 (or 50+tie breaker) votes to repeal, or do they just need a majority? And does a repeal have to go through the house as well?

They need 51 while following the rules of the Senate for Reconciliation. Any bill passed through Reconciliation has a 20-hour limit for debate, and therefore is not subject to a Filibuster (a Senator who purposefully takes up an infinite amount of time, preventing the "debate" period from ending).

Under normal rules, it takes 60 votes to shut up a fellow Senator, because under the rules of the Senate, all Senators are allowed to muse on a subject as long as they deem necessary. In the House, Debate is strictly limited and time is cut up into very precise sections for each member, ensuring equal time for debate.

------------

So basically, if they keep the bill strictly related to budgetary matters, the Senate has a 20-hour limit on debate and therefore the Filibuster technique will not work. If the bill is NOT strictly about the budget, then the Democrats will complain and the Senate will be forced to allow infinite debate.

The really sad part is that there are changes they could make that would actually help, that aren't going to be made because they're obsessed with something massive that "repeals" The Affordable Care Act...

For example, eliminating the minimum coverage requirements - which would allow people to select smaller plans with lower premiums, if they wanted to do so. Allow insurers to offer plans across state lines - which would increase insurance pools and also increase competition. Create a public option. Etc.

The main problem is that the #1 cost driver of "minimum coverage" is the forced acceptance of patients with preexisting conditions.

So creating smaller plans with lower premiums necessarily implies getting rid of preexisting-conditions coverage. There's all sorts of nonsense with minimum coverage right now. Getting a female's tubes tied is forced to be covered under the contraceptive coverage... but getting a vasectomy is not covered (despite a vasectomy being a much cheaper procedure). So, the current law encourages the more expensive female contraceptive care (Tubal ligation / Tubes Tied) over the cheaper male contraceptive care (Vasectomy)

And I guess it'd be nice if that area of the law were fixed, but its such a minor point of contention in the great scheme of things... that it kind of doesn't matter.

[trpmb6]

The really sad part is that there are changes they could make that would actually help, that aren't going to be made because they're obsessed with something massive that "repeals" The Affordable Care Act...

For example, eliminating the minimum coverage requirements - which would allow people to select smaller plans with lower premiums, if they wanted to do so. Allow insurers to offer plans across state lines - which would increase insurance pools and also increase competition. Create a public option. Etc.

The main problem is that the #1 cost driver of "minimum coverage" is the forced acceptance of patients with preexisting conditions.

So creating smaller plans with lower premiums necessarily implies getting rid of preexisting-conditions coverage. There's all sorts of nonsense with minimum coverage right now. Getting a female's tubes tied is forced to be covered under the contraceptive coverage... but getting a vasectomy is not covered (despite a vasectomy being a much cheaper procedure). So, the current law encourages the more expensive female contraceptive care (Tubal ligation / Tubes Tied) over the cheaper male contraceptive care (Vasectomy)

And I guess it'd be nice if that area of the law were fixed, but its such a minor point of contention in the great scheme of things... that it kind of doesn't matter.

To Cphite's point, the Cruz amendment was his take on the house provision to allow minimum coverage / catastrophic plans (the house simply gave the authority to the states to decide on how to handle that). As for plans across state lines, as long as the current bill requires reconciliation the across state lines thing will not happen (in this bill). It has to be handled completely separate. I believe there could be bipartisan support for allowing coverage across state lines. It makes perfect sense to me. I see no reason for anyone to oppose it, except maybe large states that already have very large pools.

Knight is exactly right. Tube ties and vasectomy procedures aren't the only examples, but they make for a decent one. I would take your example and go even further to note that vasectomy's are much less invasive, less risk of complications and more effective (though, the new laser techniques for doing a "tube tie" are much better than the old "tube tie").

[KnightExemplar]

The really sad part is that there are changes they could make that would actually help, that aren't going to be made because they're obsessed with something massive that "repeals" The Affordable Care Act...

For example, eliminating the minimum coverage requirements - which would allow people to select smaller plans with lower premiums, if they wanted to do so. Allow insurers to offer plans across state lines - which would increase insurance pools and also increase competition. Create a public option. Etc.

The main problem is that the #1 cost driver of "minimum coverage" is the forced acceptance of patients with preexisting conditions.

So creating smaller plans with lower premiums necessarily implies getting rid of preexisting-conditions coverage. There's all sorts of nonsense with minimum coverage right now. Getting a female's tubes tied is forced to be covered under the contraceptive coverage... but getting a vasectomy is not covered (despite a vasectomy being a much cheaper procedure). So, the current law encourages the more expensive female contraceptive care (Tubal ligation / Tubes Tied) over the cheaper male contraceptive care (Vasectomy)

And I guess it'd be nice if that area of the law were fixed, but its such a minor point of contention in the great scheme of things... that it kind of doesn't matter.

To Cphite's point, the Cruz amendment was his take on the house provision to allow minimum coverage / catastrophic plans (the house simply gave the authority to the states to decide on how to handle that).

The ACA already has minimum coverage / catastrophic plans defined.

The Ted Cruz's amendment drops the floor to the point where preexisting conditions aren't covered anymore. THAT is the point of debate. If preexisting conditions protection is dropped from most plans in the USA, then defacto the "Preexisting Conditions" rule is destroyed.

The entire debate always comes back to preexisting conditions, because that's where the money is. That's the primary cost driver.

[trpmb6]

My main issue with the health care debate is that everything centers around getting coverage for people. What the debate should really be about is what drives the costs for that coverage? It's one of the reasons I have such a disdain for the law. It doesn't address things like doctors over prescribing medication or requesting tests that may not be necessary. But why should the doctors care? They're going to get paid by the insurance no matter what.

A simple story from my experience. I had a really nasty ankle injury from soccer a couple years ago. I severely strained the tendon on the exterior side of my right ankle. The doctor knew I didn't break anything simply from the nature of the injury. And I was quite sure I didn't either (I could still stand on it). But he ordered an x-ray just to be sure anyways. I didn't think too much about at the time because i had (and still have) amazing insurance coverage through my wife's company. I knew I wouldn't pay a dime for that x-ray so I didn't say no, let's not do it. Unless you have a patient focused plan where you have to decide if it's worth doing that you won't see health care costs go down.

Here's the rub with that. Where do you cross the line of, entrusting your doctor with your care, and the doctor betraying that trust to make some extra money. I'm not saying all doctors do this. But, in my experience, money can be a compelling force in driving people to do unethical things.

[Zohar]

Honestly it's not just that - it's that the costs of any healthcare-related expenses in the US are artificially inflated way beyond their actual cost. The exact same procedure costs vastly more in the US than it does pretty much anywhere else, regardless of quality (before insurance, and often after insurance as well).

[trpmb6]

Honestly it's not just that - it's that the costs of any healthcare-related expenses in the US are artificially inflated way beyond their actual cost. The exact same procedure costs vastly more in the US than it does pretty much anywhere else, regardless of quality (before insurance, and often after insurance as well).

An acquaintance of mine (and forgive me because I'm relaying the particulars of this as told to me by a third person) apparently had some genetic tests done recently that totaled nearly $16,000. But after insurance refused to pay for it (claiming the testing was not medically necessary for some reason) the hospital reduced the bill to $100.

I don't know the particulars of that situation. Maybe the hospital realized they weren't going to get paid and just ate the cost. Or maybe the test really did only cost $100, and they tried to stiff the insurance company.

What I do know is, after having two kids, dealing with insurance and hospitals after a major visit is a PITA. And it's not like you get just one billing. You have different doctors who bill, the hospital bills. And it's all a flurry of adjustments and contractual rates etc. Even with our amazing insurance it was a pain. I can't imagine what it'd be like having a high deductible plan.

[KnightExemplar]

What the debate should really be about is what drives the costs for that coverage?

Such as the establishment of the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute? The part of The Affordable Care Act that created a government agency to help direct research towards effective medicine?

Believe it or not, there was none in the USA before the ACA. Drug companies researched drugs that were profitable (see male balding... huge $$$, but nothing that really improves health). Insurance companies researched procedures that were cheaper, but not better. Insurance companies want to find the cheapest solution without actually fixing any problem.

Such is the case of the free market. Chasing profits doesn't necessarily lead to improvements unless they're directed. We as a society had to create a research institution that specifically looks for better medicine.

----------

Anyway, the parts of the ACA which are designed to "fix the costs for the coverage" are so bloody obvious no one talks about them. Yeah, a research institution to actually research the problem. I think everyone agrees that's a good idea, right?

The discussion focuses on the parts that people disagree on. There's nothing to discuss when we (as a country) agree on an issue.

[elasto]

Honestly it's not just that - it's that the costs of any healthcare-related expenses in the US are artificially inflated way beyond their actual cost. The exact same procedure costs vastly more in the US than it does pretty much anywhere else, regardless of quality (before insurance, and often after insurance as well).

My wife had a cesarian in the UK (but not on the NHS), no insurance, total cost including a week's stay in hospital: under $5k

I had severe neurological symptoms in China, went to the local hospital, got a CAT or MRI scan (not sure which), no insurance, total cost: under $20

Neither political party in the US seems to have any interest in making root and branch changes to your healthcare system - there's just too much inertia and too many people are making obscene amounts of money with the status quo.

[trpmb6]

Anyway, the parts of the ACA which are designed to "fix the costs for the coverage" are so bloody obvious no one talks about them. Yeah, a research institution to actually research the problem. I think everyone agrees that's a good idea, right?

The discussion focuses on the parts that people disagree on. There's nothing to discuss when we (as a country) agree on an issue.

Agreed.

Also, your incessant desire to use bold letters is driving me bonkers. (Somewhat sorry, it finally got to me haha)

[KnightExemplar]

Anyway, the parts of the ACA which are designed to "fix the costs for the coverage" are so bloody obvious no one talks about them. Yeah, a research institution to actually research the problem. I think everyone agrees that's a good idea, right?

The discussion focuses on the parts that people disagree on. There's nothing to discuss when we (as a country) agree on an issue.

Agreed.

Also, your incessant desire to use bold letters is driving me bonkers. (Somewhat sorry, it finally got to me haha)

Are you saying you were finally emboldened to officially complain about the issue?

Anyway, a major point is that the ACA, for all of its flaws, contains a lot of good stuff. Mitch McConnell's current strategy, trying to repeal it without a replacement, is a major mistake. Throw away the ACA, and all the good stuff goes out the window too. Ex: the PCORI likely will lose funding, and will effectively cease to function. Its the worst of all worlds.

Republicans need to improve our society. Not just... delete laws because they're politically convenient.