President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Liberal people should reject it as a matter of principle. But dammit, if we get *something* passed on health-care, no matter how bad, we can use it as a wedge to work toward single-payer because there's no *way* the Republicans would have the balls to roll back a health-care initiative...

 

There's no way to maintain the private health insurance industry (which is very large) and extend coverage to as many people as possible without the mandate. Otherwise, you have to go to single-payer, Medicare for all or whatever you want to call it.
The ACA was an effort to extend coverage while maintaining insurance companies' role in the system. If the Republicans cut millions of people off from coverage, they'll own the results. I think it was Josh Barro of Business Insider who noted that Obamacare's main political problem was that most people were satisfied with their coverage and were leery of change. That's still true, except now there are more people covered and they will not like change at all.

 

It’s time to retire the tainted term ‘fake news’

 

Trump: All the dress shops in DC are sold out thanks to me!
DC Dress Shops: Nah, we have plenty left.

http://theslot.jezebel.com/contrary-to-trumps-claim-the-dress-shops-in-d-c-are-d-1790977646

 

Public health is a thing.

 

Thing is, if you decide you don't want to pay for health insurance, and you fall in the shower and smack your skull and are in the hospital for 2 weeks of tests and treatment and can't pay your $300,000 bill, who do you think is going to have to pay more so you can thumb your nose at the mandate?

 

I make $60,000 with no kids and I rent. You make $60,000 with no kids and you pay a mortgage.

Who pays a lower effective tax rate?

I make $60,000 with no health insurance and I pay the penalty. You make $60,000 with health insurance and you don't pay the penalty.

Who pays a lower effective tax rate?

 

Yes, yes, we all read the talking points.

There are numerous solutions to that problem that don't set extremely dangerous political precedents

 

An incentive is not a de facto penalty, even if some amount of rules lawyering and oversimplification can make them seem as such.

 

What is the dangerous political precendent that you fear? Affordable health insurance for everyone?

 

I don't understand what this has to do with your question about the difference between health insurance and mortgage interest.

 

I'm not sure what to tell you.

In both cases, we've (the collective we) have identified a financial behavior which we deem beneficial for society as a whole, and those that choose to take part pay a lower tax rate.