American politics 2016: Lawyers, Guns, and D-Money

I....don't think he inherited it? After the FISA vote I knew he believed it.

also he "hates stupid wars," several of which he's prosecuted

as usual you are fudging a lot of facts

idk what else he could have done to try and close Gitmo, for example. No way does he want that open.

Writers are so often the worst judges of their own material.

xxpost

I am sure glad his grand bargain with Boehner fell apart. Not sure his pledge of civility and bipartisanship meant that proposed agreement

plz see my recent link on how he could've closed Gitmo by himself, Shakes, cuz i dont gaf anymore

Really?

Also I did not expect him to allow his Justice department to go after whistleblowers more than any prior administration in history. But yeah, some good accomplishments

Morbz I don't see any discussion of Gitmo in that intercept link, or are you referring to something else

yes something a few weeks ago

well it's not on this thread so idk what yr talking about

and you replied to it!

so Dubya wants to shut down Gitmo

oh that

yeah idk how compelling that legal reasoning is, certainly it would be immediately challenged/drag on for years/go to the supreme court

morbs, which presidents do you think have accomplished more than obama (or have a more morally admirable record) in the last 50 years?

kinda like asking me to choose among mafia chieftains, no lie

LBJ was our last liberal prez, so despite that little genocidal oopsie in Vietnam, him. And everyone else except maybe Reagan, Nixon and Clinton.

and that means nothing

you think Dubya was better than Obama = you are insane

i knew GOTCHA was coming

i dont care about ranking these shits; you are all fucking hobbyist fantasists

that's a GOTCHA? It was a bizarre omission on your part!

T/S: ILE film threads vs. ILE politics threads - which one makes you not want to live more

tbh i don't even think LBJ was better than obama, i oppose the drone campaign but i'm not sure how anyone could make the case that anything obama's done is worse than escalating a needless war for no reason and carpet bombing another country for three years straight.

you are all fucking hobbyist fantasists

sez the baseball fan

I thought you liked Poppy Bush.

austan goolsbee on sanders' single payer plan

2) Sanders is right that we shouldn't just think of his single-payer health plan as a $15 trillion tax increase. We should ask whether people would be better or worse off in total. But even by that measure, lots of low and middle income workers would, in fact, be worse off and paying higher taxes.

Sanders' basic argument against the newspaper articles characterizing his health plan as needing a $15 trillion tax increase has been that we shouldn't think about tax rates alone but should ask the broader question of whether people are better or worse as a whole after the program goes into effect. If a single-payer health plan lowers health costs overall then his reasoning says that the taxes we raise for the health plan will be less than what people currently spend on health care and if we concentrate those taxes on the rich, then a typical person could actually be better off after the tax than they were before.

As a theoretical matter, that's not wrong. We should try to make that kind of calculation when we think about government programs. The thing is, though, that argument does rely quite heavily on the economic notion of "pass-though". Oversimplifying here: the Sanders health essentially plan puts all current health costs onto the government but will pay for it with cost savings and with taxes including a payroll and income taxes around 9%. Doing that frees companies from their currently massive health care costs. The Sanders plan counts on the employers then passing all of that savings though to their employees in the form of higher wages (and not keeping part of it as higher profits). If the companies don't pass it on, then, for sure, workers will end up worse off because they will pay the 9% payroll and income taxes but not have higher incomes to compensate (remember that employers pay about 75% of the normal health insurance premium for their workers so their savings on the employee contribution for health care will not normally add up to anything close to the 9% tax hike they're paying. They need the employer to pass on the other 75% to them).

So you need to decide whether companies would pass through the savings to employees. Would they? Many economists trust that markets would pass it through. Ironically, many of the Democrats that, like Sanders himself, have called for a repeal of the "Cadillac Tax" on expensive health insurance plans have implicitly presumed the opposite. They fear that the Cadillac tax will lead companies to reduce or eliminate generous health care plans without raising employee's wages in return.

But even with complete pass through, there are some significant low and middle income groups that would face net tax increases under a Sanders health plan. Generally, people that currently pay less than 9% of their income on health insurance will be worse off under a plan with free health care but a 9% tax to pay for it. That makes me think the plan hasn't been well thought through.

Almost anyone with low or moderate income getting insurance through the Obamacare exchanges, for example, will have health premia capped at rates below the Sanders 9 percent tax. A typical non-smoking family of 4 making with an income of $50,000 per year would have to pay in excess of $1000 a year more in taxes under the Sanders plan than they pay now for health insurance in the exchange You can plug in different characteristics in the Kaiser Family Foundation premium calculator to see for yourself here or you could look at the JAMA stylized examples here http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1738900 (in real life, some of those people would have out-of-pocket expenses and deductibles when they get care, some of them would get help with those costs and we would need to weigh those against whatever co-pays they might have with a single payer plan but you get the idea).

People on Medicaid have caps on their health insurance cost at around 5% of income. So the working poor would face a net tax increase of 4% of their income. Kids with jobs but that can stay on their parents' health care plans up to age 26 under Obamacare would have to pay 9% of their income in taxes with Sanders' plan but without getting any upside from the government paid health care (though their parents would get some part of it back, depending on what they pay for the incremental coverage for the child).
I'm sure there would be other groups, too, if we worked through the numbers. His plan seems likely to hit a lot of people with tax hikes that it probably didn't intend to hit. If the employers don't pass on their savings to raise wages, it will hit all workers.

Isn't that 9% thing a red herring? Workers pay 2.2% in the Sanders plan, the other 6.6% is a payroll tax paid by employers who would no longer have to provide insurance for workers.

Isn't only using the "premiums" number also grossly misleading? Those are high deductible plans, and they have copays and coinsurance too. I don't think you have deductibles and coinsurance under single-payer. But yeah I guess a non-smoking family of four earning $50,000 a year who NEVER EVER ACTUALLY USE ANY HEALTH CARE SERVICES and buy the cheapest plan on the market would be a little worse off.

Just being able to live in a country where everyone was able to get health care based on their need for health care and not have to worry about whether they could afford it should be cause for joyous nationwide celebration. Because everyone needs health care and no one can predict or control how much health care they will need or when they will need it. That, and the fact that a single payer system done properly would not cost society a cent more than the train wreck we have now.

that goolsbee post was written before the sanders plan actually came out

ezra klein on bernie single payer plan

krugman:

My column and Bernie Sanders’ plan crossed in the mail. But the Sanders plan in a way reinforces my point that calls for single-payer in America at this point are basically a distraction. Again, I say this as someone who favors single-payer — but it’s just not going to happen anytime soon.

Put it this way: for all the talk about being honest and upfront, even Sanders ended up delivering mostly smoke and mirrors — or as Ezra Klein says, puppies and rainbows. Despite imposing large middle-class taxes, his “gesture toward a future plan”, as Ezra puts it, relies on the assumption of huge cost savings. If you like, it involves a huge magic asterisk.

Now, it’s true that single-payer systems in other advanced countries are much cheaper than our health care system. And some of that could be replicated via lower administrative costs and the generally lower prices Medicare pays. But to get costs down to, say, Canadian levels, we’d need to do what they do: say no to patients, telling them that they can’t always have the treatment they want.

Saying no has two cost-saving effects: it saves money directly, and it also greatly enhances the government’s bargaining power, because it can say, for example, to drug producers that if they charge too much they won’t be in the formulary.

But it’s not something most Americans want to hear about; foreign single-payer systems are actually more like Medicaid than they are like Medicare.

And Sanders isn’t coming clean on that — he’s promising Medicaid-like costs while also promising no rationing. The reason, of course, is that being realistic either about the costs or about what the system would really be like would make it a political loser. But that’s the point: single-payer just isn’t a political possibility starting from here. It’s just a distraction from the real issues.

But to get costs down to, say, Canadian levels, we’d need to do what they do: say no to patients, telling them that they can’t always have the treatment they want.

It should be noted that foreign single-payer systems are just as good or better than the US 'system' at delivering the outcomes people want.

neither of those are anti-single payer

Can certainly see how some of those details need to be explained, but I'm a little surprised by Klein's level of alarm - insisting the plan is "unrealistic" in the subtitle, the thing about hospitals closing, and the raising of income taxes on the wealthy (which is like 3.4-4% increase if you're making less than ten million dollars a year).

The thing I would say I'm most alarmed about in HRC's plan is nothing specific I can see about how the uninsured in states with right wing governors will ever get to go the doctor. At all.

In terms of the economics, I don't see anything in Clinton's plan to reduce insurance premium costs. Is that where people who are somewhat well off are primarily feeling it? I only see mention of reducing deductible and co-pay costs.

3.4-4% increase if you're making less than ten million dollars a year

And over $250K, of course.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-struggling-with-immigration-rules-and-cruelties-of-deportation/2016/01/18/5c2d4258-bba7-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html

White House defense of DHS Ice sending women & kids back to Central America, is not that convincing

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/06/ice_raids_on_central_american_families_are_not_what_obama_promised.html

You want smoke and mirrors, how about all these scare pieces about single payer that don't remind that single payer does not preclude you from going to a private doctor or dentist or whatever as need arrises, which is what my family in Australia and England do. Meanwhile, here in the states, I had to (ultimately successfully) waste hours and hours telling five different people that the $300 balance my good insurance stuck me with for taking my daughter in to a clinic for a mere strep swap was bullshit and possibly dishonest.

How much weight do studies like these put on the anticipated savings from single-payer that derive, not from reducing overhead and marketing and the administrative apparatus that's in place to try and deny coverage for strep swabs, but rather from the health benefits of the public having easier access to care at earlier junctures? My understanding has always been that this was one of the biggest fiscal (not to mention humanitarian) arguments for single-payer: if it doesn't cost you to go check out this cough or a weird feeling in your side, you're more likely to go check it out when it's comparably cheap and easy to address, rather than once it's developed into a major life-threatening condition requiring long-term high-tech treatment.

Thing is, I can't fathom how anyone would calculate that savings... so is it factored in at all?

White House defense of DHS Ice sending women & kids back to Central America, is not that convincing

not really sure why the feds are doing such a politically counter-productive action that doesnt really benefit anyone. except like 'rule of law' stuff that's casually brushed aside in other matters.

My column and Bernie Sanders’ plan crossed in the mail. But the Sanders plan in a way reinforces my point that calls for single-payer in America at this point are basically a distraction. Again, I say this as someone who favors single-payer — but it’s just not going to happen anytime soon.

I like Krugman but he is SO SO SO SO wrong about this being a "distraction." We should never, ever shut up about single payer, no matter the immediate odds, and suggesting otherwise is craven.

I get it, Sanders is promoting policies that may not be politically feasible right now, but saying "everyone just be quiet about it" is a good way to make sure the left stays asleep and NEVER gets these things done.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/01/20/palin-blames-son-s-violence-on-obama.html?source=TDB&via=FB_Page

someone make this deeply stupid person go away

offered w/out comment

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/20/sarah-palin-is-making-sense-really/

yeah i think krug is being too harsh. it's funny cause he and stiglitz would really be the perfect endorsement for bernie; they're the furthest left you can go in credible mainstream economics, would give him a much needed sheen of electability. but they're both tight with Clintons so it's just not gonna happen

I like Krugman but he is SO SO SO SO wrong about this being a "distraction." We should never, ever shut up about single payer, no matter the immediate odds, and suggesting otherwise is craven.

the majority of bernie sanders' platform is stuff that has zero chance of happening even were he elected, so if you just consider him a symbol of 'the left' it's good that a lot of this stuff is getting tv time.

otoh if you consider him an actual-political-candidate his whole campaign is super disingenuous. if only people who were disappointed w/ the obama presidency could have the chance to experience president sanders dealing w/ a republican congress.

the chance to experience president sanders dealing w/ a republican congress.

the main reason we have Sanders as our only alternative to Clinton is in part due to Sanders' poor grasp (or disregard) of 'political reality'. the realists saw the minefield they would be entering and stayed on the sideline. the Don Quixote aspects of Sanders are pretty prominent. so, he is our only alternative to Clinton and he will not succeed in his quest. I'm still glad someone is talking about the issues from a left-progressive perspective, so that perspective is at least given some airing out. he fills the need for a rallying point the left can attach themselves to.

sarah-palin-is-making-sense

We, you, a diverse dynamic, needed support base that they would attack.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/right-wingers-turn-on-criminal-justice-reform.html

Tom Cotton and others trying to kill bipartisan criminal justice reform bill

Cotton isn’t alone. Other Senate Republicans, including Sens. Jim Risch of Idaho and David Perdue of Georgia, also registered their strong opposition during the lunch, even as Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) vigorously defended the bill, which he helped negotiate. Risch stressed this message, according to one Republican source: Shouldn’t the GOP be a party of law and order?

how much of today's Obama-Sanders WH meeting is going to be about Bern opposing the FDA pick?

Sen Warren reports on toothless enforcement vs corporate crime:

In virtually all the cases she cites — from Standard & Poor’s delivering inflated credit ratings to defraud investors during the financial crisis, to Novartis giving kickbacks to pharmacists to steer customers to their products, to an explosion at a Bayer CropScience pesticide plant that killed two employees — the Department of Justice declined to prosecute individual executives or the corporations themselves, resorting to settlements with minuscule fines that barely disrupt the corporations’ business models.

The report also gives new meaning to the term “1 percent.”

JPMorgan’s settlement for giving conflicted advice to its clients over wealth management products was less than 1 percent of annual operating profits.

GM paid under 1 percent of company revenue to settle claims on the faulty ignition switch that killed multiple vehicle passengers.

For-profit college EDMC ripped off students with false promises of well-paying jobs, and paid below 1 percent of its student loan revenue over the period of violations....

Despite multiple promises by President Obama’s Department of Justice to stiffen enforcement of corporate misconduct, including a 2015 memo creating new guidelines for prosecutions of individuals, almost all major instances lead to toothless settlements, Warren writes. “Accountability has been shockingly weak.”

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/29/elizabeth-warren-challenges-clinton-sanders-to-prosecute-corporate-crime-better-than-obama/

State rep and Cruz campaign functionary lies pointlessly about military service, resigns

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/rep-graham-hunt-resigns-over-military-service-exaggerations/