Trump as tragicomedy
Moderator: Global Moderator
- Kriegsspiel
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
A good metric for judging presidents?
https://twitter.com/bansisharma/status/ ... 3368580097
Sorry it's twit-based.
https://twitter.com/bansisharma/status/ ... 3368580097
Sorry it's twit-based.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Kriegsspiel,
1. Can’t think of one great president whose historical stature rested upon his relationship with the Supreme Court. Can you?
2. What is surprisingly missing from banisharma’s own analysis is the disappearing role of Congress. I find it amazing that our most republican of branches could simply go missing in action in such a discussion.
1. Can’t think of one great president whose historical stature rested upon his relationship with the Supreme Court. Can you?
2. What is surprisingly missing from banisharma’s own analysis is the disappearing role of Congress. I find it amazing that our most republican of branches could simply go missing in action in such a discussion.
“Groucho Marx wrote:
A stock trader asked him, "Groucho, where do you put all your money?" Groucho was said to have replied, "In Treasury bonds", and the trader said, "You can't make much money on those." Groucho said, "You can if you have enough of them!"
A stock trader asked him, "Groucho, where do you put all your money?" Groucho was said to have replied, "In Treasury bonds", and the trader said, "You can't make much money on those." Groucho said, "You can if you have enough of them!"
- Kriegsspiel
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Sorry, I didn't mean it in the sense of "if you had one metric and one metric only to judge presidents, how is this one?" How much weight should this metric be given, maybe if you're lured into a political discussion. Obama fares very badly, much worse than any recent president. So I guess if you don't like him, it seems like a great stat to know.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Actually, I suspect that Obama regards his poor percentage with SCOTUS as a badge of honor. He probably told his attorney general and solicitor general to go out and "push the envelope" by taking as many cases as possible to the high court, on the plausible theory that at least some of these defeats would pave the way for future liberal victories. This could have been particularly true after Democrats lost control of the Senate and the House.
Perhaps more lasting raps on Obama's presidency might be:
1) His penchant for signing as many overreaching executive orders as possible, (how many were there?).
2) His penchant for approving secret drone strikes in the global war on terror. I think most Americans have known idea how many of these attacks were conducted across the Middle East. Particularly problematic is the decision to kill the Muslim imam al-Awalki, who was an American citizen.
3) Failure to close down Guantanamo. Regardless of what you think of Obama, his failure to carry out his campaign promise to shut the facility down on his first day in office looks to be either the lowest example of weakness or the highest example of mendacity (take your pick).
Perhaps more lasting raps on Obama's presidency might be:
1) His penchant for signing as many overreaching executive orders as possible, (how many were there?).
2) His penchant for approving secret drone strikes in the global war on terror. I think most Americans have known idea how many of these attacks were conducted across the Middle East. Particularly problematic is the decision to kill the Muslim imam al-Awalki, who was an American citizen.
3) Failure to close down Guantanamo. Regardless of what you think of Obama, his failure to carry out his campaign promise to shut the facility down on his first day in office looks to be either the lowest example of weakness or the highest example of mendacity (take your pick).
“Groucho Marx wrote:
A stock trader asked him, "Groucho, where do you put all your money?" Groucho was said to have replied, "In Treasury bonds", and the trader said, "You can't make much money on those." Groucho said, "You can if you have enough of them!"
A stock trader asked him, "Groucho, where do you put all your money?" Groucho was said to have replied, "In Treasury bonds", and the trader said, "You can't make much money on those." Groucho said, "You can if you have enough of them!"
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
More winning!!!! Some people aren't comfortable with winning, but for those that are.....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ariff-deal
https://www.wsj.com/articles/us-eu-agre ... 1532524795
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ariff-deal
https://www.wsj.com/articles/us-eu-agre ... 1532524795
-
- Full Member
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:30 pm
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Given the way the Democratic Party is going, the slogans for the next presidential campaign should be MAGA vs MALV.
MALV=Make America Like Venezuela
MALV=Make America Like Venezuela
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Winning is fine with me. The economy sure looks to be improving in the past year and a half. Can't complain at all.clacy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 25, 2018 8:08 pmMore winning!!!! Some people aren't comfortable with winning, but for those that are.....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ariff-deal
https://www.wsj.com/articles/us-eu-agre ... 1532524795
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
The economy has been "improving" by most metrics since 2010, hasn't it?...Don wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:14 pmWinning is fine with me. The economy sure looks to be improving in the past year and a half. Can't complain at all.clacy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 25, 2018 8:08 pmMore winning!!!! Some people aren't comfortable with winning, but for those that are.....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ariff-deal
https://www.wsj.com/articles/us-eu-agre ... 1532524795
And what if we have another recession before Trump's tenure is over? Does he own that too?
I only ask this way because I feel like I'm seeing moving goalposts on what indicates economic health or economic "Improvement."
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
moda0306 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:16 amThe economy has been "improving" by most metrics since 2010, hasn't it?...Don wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:14 pmWinning is fine with me. The economy sure looks to be improving in the past year and a half. Can't complain at all.clacy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 25, 2018 8:08 pmMore winning!!!! Some people aren't comfortable with winning, but for those that are.....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ariff-deal
https://www.wsj.com/articles/us-eu-agre ... 1532524795
And what if we have another recession before Trump's tenure is over? Does he own that too?
I only ask this way because I feel like I'm seeing moving goalposts on what indicates economic health or economic "Improvement."
The articles I linked and my post referenced the EU capitulating on tariffs. I see that as a good thing. There is no reason for us to elect leaders who won't try to get fair trade deals for the US. Free trade is a good thing, and we're finally moving in that direction after leaving a lot of money on the table for since WWII.
Half a billion $$ here and there adds up over time.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Stating that you're going to reach a trade deal doesn't seem to be to be a fundamental economic health measurement, though I realize that's not really what you were claiming. My question is more for folks who want to use certain popular economic indicators to claim Trump is a success...
I'm more talking about unemployment rate, workforce participation rate, GDP, stock market, real median wage growth.
Now all of these are improving under Trump... but they were also improving considerably under Obama.
Another one I'm sort of dumbfounded by is the almost complete silence of national debt hawks and inflation hawks. You hardly ever hear about that stuff anymore. Granted, I've decreased my amount of economic media intake considerably, but I simply don't see debates about this stuff any more. Inflation has been pathetically low since we heard the sky was falling in 2008-2011. And even with debt rising, interest rates have only recently seemed to have any sort of consistent upward trend, and we are still in the 1-3% range.
I'm more talking about unemployment rate, workforce participation rate, GDP, stock market, real median wage growth.
Now all of these are improving under Trump... but they were also improving considerably under Obama.
Another one I'm sort of dumbfounded by is the almost complete silence of national debt hawks and inflation hawks. You hardly ever hear about that stuff anymore. Granted, I've decreased my amount of economic media intake considerably, but I simply don't see debates about this stuff any more. Inflation has been pathetically low since we heard the sky was falling in 2008-2011. And even with debt rising, interest rates have only recently seemed to have any sort of consistent upward trend, and we are still in the 1-3% range.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
This issue is DOA for the time being. Who knows how the experiment ends, but there is going to be no serious budget reform for the foreseeable future, unless there is a crisis point that forces our hand.
R's will not concede on taxes and it's a losing issue for D's to push. D's will not concede on benefit reductions, and it's a losing issue for R's to push.
Trump will have his cake and eat it too, by lower taxes and increasing spending!
Simonjester wrote: just my opinion... but the real measure isn’t increased or decreased spending or total debt numbers, its the hopelessly difficult if not impossible measurement of "value in return for spending". much of what gets spent is bureaucratic overhead, government boondoggles, badly conceived social planing with costs that far exceed the dollars spent due to unintended consequences, and regulatory drag which also ends up costing far more than the dollars spent. measure how much value we get for the governments spending in those terms and you would have a interesting (and likely more accurate) picture of the economy and government performance.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
If I were to get unemployed again, this could wipe me out, unless I covert to gold coins, hide them, declare bankruptcy to wipe out medical debt.
"Also, Trump continues to do his best to sabotage the ACA, which would be fine if he had the great replacement that he promised. He does not."
"Also, Trump continues to do his best to sabotage the ACA, which would be fine if he had the great replacement that he promised. He does not."
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
If your insurance covers pre-existing conditions, then it isn't insurance. Maybe it's some kind of cost-sharing scheme, or maybe it's welfare, but we should be honest about it.MangoMan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:50 amThere is currently a lawsuit by the Attorneys General of 12(?) states to eliminate the pre-existing conditions clause of the ACA. Personally, while I think the ACA was a big, expensive lie and added thousands of needless regulations to healthcare, the elimination of pre-existing conditions was the one good thing to come out of it. But there is no doubt that this drives up the cost for everyone else. Socialism at its finest, and I hate Socialism, but it was a necessary evil.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
This is not a political question... if health insurance doesn't cover people with pre-existing conditions, what good is it? Everyone gets a pre-existing condition eventually. If you're only covered for things not likely to cause you expense, why insure those risks?
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
You insure against the risk of developing a condition.ochotona wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:14 amThis is not a political question... if health insurance doesn't cover people with pre-existing conditions, what good is it? Everyone gets a pre-existing condition eventually. If you're only covered for things not likely to cause you expense, why insure those risks?
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
It's not about politics. It's about the wrong system in place to serve patients.Desert wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:22 amI'm not crazy about the ACA either, but it's irresponsible to simply kill it without any substitute in mind. I think it's time to end the private health insurance system in our country and go to single payer. The present system with insurance companies and government both involved brings the worst of both worlds, unfortunately. But as long as insurance companies are raking in the profits, it will be politically difficult to change the system.
There is much less cooperation among the disparate private rent-seeking providers than there is among the disparate private rent-seeking providers in electrical power generation, transmission, and retail for example. And the outcomes for people's health are much worse. And electrical outcomes are pretty spectacular. The lights pretty much stay on.
So why is that?
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
I've found that insurance other than catastrophic is largely a joke. They claim to save you a lot of money, but when you go self-pay, you save that money anyway, often more.
A family member told me recently that his son needed an elbow popped back in. He paid the hospital some $350 at the time of service while they figured out what the bill would be. The bill was $3200 or so (highway robbery), but their policy is that self-pay patients get 90% off. NINETY PERCENT. So the hospital now owes him $30.
Insurance is useful in case we get cancer or something and rack up millions of dollars in bills. Other than that, self-pay is much better all the way around. I really don't know why they killed catastrophic insurance: it's the only useful kind.
A family member told me recently that his son needed an elbow popped back in. He paid the hospital some $350 at the time of service while they figured out what the bill would be. The bill was $3200 or so (highway robbery), but their policy is that self-pay patients get 90% off. NINETY PERCENT. So the hospital now owes him $30.
Insurance is useful in case we get cancer or something and rack up millions of dollars in bills. Other than that, self-pay is much better all the way around. I really don't know why they killed catastrophic insurance: it's the only useful kind.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
I agree, we don't want to give the government more control. But we need a profit-based system with groundrules crafted to narrow the vast existing territories for rip-off, abuse, and non-transparency.MangoMan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:36 amYou want to give the government more control over health care?! Because they've proven in the past how everything they do becomes less expensive and more efficient? There has to be a better way than the current, but I'm pretty sure making the govt the CEO is not the answer. If you don't believe me, ask one of our Canadian members.Desert wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:22 amI'm not crazy about the ACA either, but it's irresponsible to simply kill it without any substitute in mind. I think it's time to end the private health insurance system in our country and go to single payer. The present system with insurance companies and government both involved brings the worst of both worlds, unfortunately. But as long as insurance companies are raking in the profits, it will be politically difficult to change the system.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Even if their insurance premiums were greatly reduced?
Maybe that's the part I'm missing: these people all have insurance provided by their employer, and I never have. Having employers provide insurance is one of the worst all-round parts of this whole mess.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Agreed. It was a WW-2 era kluge that turned into a system, and you can tell it's screwed-up by looking at the outputs. More spend per capita by a factor of two over other developed nations, and worse outcomes. But the entrenched rent-seeking participants don't want change.
- Kriegsspiel
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
I feel like the surgical procedures are the things you SHOULD want to insure, and insurance companies would be equipped to handle. It's the things that you know you're gonna need/need RIGHT NOW (colonoscopies, birth control, diabetes medicine) that don't really need to be bought through insurance.
I mean, if we applied some actuarial science to health insurance, I'm guessing they'll find out that there's pretty much a 100% chance that a diabetic needs insulin, and that a 50 year old is going to get a colonoscopy. And if an insurance company wouldn't give you fire insurance if there was a 100% chance they'd have to pay out for it, why would a health insurance company? If someone came to an insurance company with a pre-existing condition like diabetes, why shouldn't either a) they pay for their own insulin, or b) they pay a higher premium to cover it, amounting to the same thing?
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Not insurance... but we need human life cycle health care financing for women and men coupled with highly competitive reverse auction features! Call it what you want, that is what we need
- Kriegsspiel
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Like, unlimited financing? Do we keep throwing money at people until the end of their life cycle, or do we need death panels to let us know when to stop throwing good money after bad. How much is a human life worth, anyway, and are they all worth the same?
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Also, why do we not have this financing for, say, food? Housing? Why not everything!Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:19 pmLike, unlimited financing? Do we keep throwing money at people until the end of their life cycle, or do we need death panels to let us know when to stop throwing good money after bad. How much is a human life worth, anyway, and are they all worth the same?
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Why not food, basic housing & healthcare?Xan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:35 pmAlso, why do we not have this financing for, say, food? Housing? Why not everything!Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:19 pmLike, unlimited financing? Do we keep throwing money at people until the end of their life cycle, or do we need death panels to let us know when to stop throwing good money after bad. How much is a human life worth, anyway, and are they all worth the same?
Like really why not?
Maybe they should be subsidized or guaranteed? Our government facilitated the genocidal capture of 2.3 billion acres of land and resources to basically be given to a relative few for them to market to others. It's not outside the realm of reason to suggest a basic floor on human dignity and survival as a sort of "citizen's dividend."
Although I agree with you that liberals should get more comfortable asking the questions about where the limits stop on government healthcare. Seems to me many other countries have found a decent balance.
I'd prefer similar benefit levels but perhaps less of a patchwork system. A 65+ senior has a lot of healthcare protection compared to a pre-Obamacare 60-year-old. I think there are ways we could level out benefits a bit.