Thought for the Day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I’m not sure Americans even give a damn anymore about the message of any party. We’ve become tribal. We vote lifestyle. Just keep us entertained and we’ll vote for you.

---

I think people have forgotten the connection between policies and their lives. Maybe it's the lag in the time it takes for a law to have effects. One example is how Obamacare has become more popular the more time passes since its enactment. As Stavros says jobs and wages are extremely important bc that is what the voters told us and it is crucial to their well-being. At the same time, any action by the government in this regard facilitates jobs rather than directly creates them, which again leaves voters without a clear understanding of cause and effect.

As Stavros pointed out, cutting taxes, which will be a part of Trump's tax reform is not likely to create jobs. There's never been any evidence that unemployment numbers are sensitive to a lower corporate tax rate or that corporations increase wages in response to greater profits. Stronger unions should be a priority, although I don't know enough about the national labor relations act to know in what ways it has not served employees well enough. The way in which we try to stimulate jobs is going to be as important as putting it on the agenda. A lot of the things Republicans do give lip service to the cause but do not have much impact on employees (protectionism without improving labor conditions, tax cuts that improve profitability but which do not provide an incentive for a larger workforce). The fact that it is very difficult to measure economic effects of policies (and lag time which allows politicians to sometimes reasonably blame their predecessor) aids them in paying lip service without showing results.

I think one problem we'll find is that our priorities will start to shift as we see what sorts of policies are enacted by Trump. Who would have ever thought that not building a wall would be a relevant position. Or not attempting to void the citizenship of naturalized citizens by finding trivial, technical failures in their applications for citizenship from decades ago. I haven't read Trump's new tax proposals yet, but I've heard two provisions are lowering the corporate tax rate to 15% and eliminating the estate tax. The estate tax at the federal level is only imposed on estates larger than 5.45 million for individuals or 10.9 million for couples with the unified credit. It would be nice if we could convey that this has no salutary purpose except to enable people to inherit very large estates tax free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I’m not sure Americans even give a damn anymore about the message of any party. We’ve become tribal. We vote lifestyle. Just keep us entertained and we’ll vote for you.

---

This question -do political parties matter?- cuts to the heart of the debate which is also part of the question, what is the modern state for?

It could be that just as globalization appeared to some to make the 'modern nation-state' redundant in theory and practice, the conflict in Iraq and Syria is also about the legitimacy of the modern state as the expression of 'who the people are, and what they want'. Not least because in the Middle East, the identity of the state and its boundaries were made by the British and the French, and the Arabs have had to live with that without regard for their own needs or desires.

The modern state has given a few people staggering wealth and power, but it has also been forced through popular revolt, to concede power and wealth to the broader mass of people without whom there would be no food, no clothing, no shelter, and no hope. I can see how a global economy in which we all participate blurs the boundaries, but there are cultural differences between the British and the Japanese, and it is still up to us to decide how we bake the cake and distribute the slices, we are still states wit constituents, rather than a collection of markets with customers.

For the same reason, for all their imperfections, I don't see political parties ceasing to be the primary vehicles for the expression of difference and diversity, but history shows that just as most people most of the time are not obsessed with politics so people with ulterior motives can hi-jack a party and use it for their own selfish purposes.

So it may be that the names and the affiliation of the parties in the USA -Democrat, Republican, Progressive can change -one thinks of the radical difference between the Party of Lincoln and the Party of GW Bush- but will parties be replaced by a loose coalition of like-minded people who select an individual to be their voice, much as Truman suggested to Eisenhower that he run on the Democrat ticket in 1952, and the current Why's Leader and Daughter No 1 are fringe Democrats and fringe Republicans or frankly not that interested in party compared to money?

It may appear that sectional interests have replaced broader national interests, but that is also because in the absence of strict rules on who can represent the Republican Party in public office, anyone claiming to be a Republican can put their name forward, with the additional observation that if that candidate insults and abuses fellow-candidates and even states publicly he might run as an independent if the party rejects him, the party could have, even should have denied him the right to stand in their name. If you are going to have political parties, they should have rules, a members register, clear financial regulations, a programme etc -perhaps it has been the absence of a clear structure that enabled a maverick to enter the party and win the nomination even though he did not believe in most of its policies.

The US system offers anyone the opportunity to become President, as also appears to be the case in France given that Macron has no solid party affiliation and has invented his own vehicle- Eisenhower did not emerge from the political system or party, the same I believe is true of Ulysses S. Grant; Clint Eastwood was elected Mayor of Carmel by the Sea and Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor of California, both of them vaguely associated with the Republicans although Schwarzenegger is married to a Kennedy but neither with a strong party background.

If there is already some flexibility in the opportunities the US political system offers potential leaders at the local, state or national level, how on a day to day basis is politics to be organized given the complexity of the economy and society? I see the reasoning behind the 'tribal' concept, whether it is the lobby for Wall St, the Fossil Fuel industry, Gay Rights, or a Vegan Diet, but if the US allows itself to become atomized to the point where politics is just an anarchic life and death struggle of the fittest, the richest will always win and the poorest will always lose.

Don't allow yourselves to be sold out by the very same class of political activists who want to end political debate by demonizing citizens because of the colour of their skin, their religious belief, or their sexual orientation. Social divisions run the risk of making the US as a unit difficult to manage to the extent that secession of states could become the 'big thing' in the future. Why should 'liberal' California subsidize segregation in Alabama and Louisiana, or trigger-happy Texans be allowed to holiday in Colorado with their weapons on display?

E Pluribus unum should mean what it says, and not just be an aspiration.

Thank you Stavros for yet another thoughtful post.

Quote:

---

It may appear that sectional interests have replaced broader national interests, but that is also because in the absence of strict rules on who can represent the Republican Party in public office, anyone claiming to be a Republican can put their name forward, with the additional observation that if that candidate insults and abuses fellow-candidates and even states publicly he might run as an independent if the party rejects him, the party could have, even should have denied him the right to stand in their name. If you are going to have political parties, they should have rules, a members register, clear financial regulations, a programme etc -perhaps it has been the absence of a clear structure that enabled a maverick to enter the party and win the nomination even though he did not believe in most of its policies.

---

There is a large segment of the GOP base that will tell you they are staunch conservatives, who believe themselves to be be dyed in the wool republicans and will even repeat the conservative lines on about diminishing the role of government, reducing social safety nets, cutting regulatory agencies and taxes on business. Yet when push comes to shove these same people demand the government keep its mits off their medicare, they rise against threats to social security, they want government aid should a tornado reduce their town to rubble, they complain that government should be more vigilant if there’s lead, or mercury or arsenic in their water, and they obsess over politicians being bought off by powerful, wealthy interests that get tax breaks and regulatory reductions in return.

What binds these people together may be disguised as a political philosophy, but is isn’t one: it’s a commitment to a brand, a resentment of the other (the other ethnicity, the other religion, the other political party, the other sex, the other sexual orientation etc.) and a naturally human inability to admit one’s political commitments were mistaken. Trump depends on this latter human foible every time he utters a blatant lie; e.g. he was never a birther, Obama had him wiretapped and spied on him through the microwave, he (Trump) had the largest inauguration audience in history, etc.

I believe modern media encourages and amplifies these commitments we all have to political brands. Once we post our opinion and our whole world of friends, relatives and acquaintances see it; it’s difficult to go back on it. All day talk radio, twenty-four hour cable news networks (Fox and MSBN), social media (facebook and twitter) not only serve to polarize and divide us, they have also been co-opted by governments and organizations who invent fake news both to influence us and to win our clicks simply make money.

If you live in the U.S. you know the rural areas are emptying out. The few plants and factories there are cutting back and hiring less, if not closing down entirely. What corporate executive wants to live in and have his children educated in rural Iowa? Farming was once the primary activity in most of these areas, and most jobs were farming related. But farms have become automated and taken over by big corporations. We don’t need lots of manpower to sow, fertilize, poison and reap anymore; we need machines that take up the whole road as they’re driven from one farm to the next. Kids are moving to the cities, where the jobs are, where the culture is that they yearn for. Yet these rural areas have disproportionate political power because of gerrymandering and an outdated electoral college. I read today that 98% of the people who voted for Trump are still solidly behind him__yet his approval rating is at 42%, the lowest ever for a president at this point in his first term. How the fuck did he win the election? I hope all green democrats who just couldn’t compromise themselves and vote for Hillary are happy with what’s Trump’s doing with the EPA, the National Monuments and the Park Service.

See how tempting it is to thrash out at the other. I just succumbed. How do we break these ties to our political philosophies that get reinforced everyday by our constant awareness of current events and breaking news? Notice my ties are to a political philosophy. They are reinforced by actual events. Their ties are to a brand, and they’re reinforced by a constant stream of lies. I’m sure if you ask them, I’ve got it exactly backward.

Difference and the division of society into 'us' and 'them' does not have to be entirely negative, as there have always been differences and divisions. The assumption behind the liberal democratic state where power is diffused from the centre through local government, is that such differences and divisions can be managed without the country collapsing into civil war. This also means the citizen can be/should be given a stake in the operational aspects of government, and use it to ensure the political class does not just loot the treasury, lock up people it doesn't like and shut down newspapers, schools and societies that threaten its leadership, as happens these days in Turkey.

From this perspective, the 2016 election was either an aberration and politics will return to normal in due course, either before the present incumbent is impeached or resigns, or in 2020; or that this is the beginning of the end of a long period in American politics since the Civil War when the foundations of the political system were not seriously challenged from within. The negative long term impact on this is where difference and division becomes so unfair that the alienation of citizens from the political system undermines its integrity, and thus the Union, with secession becoming the hot topic over the next 25 years. But even if you take this present situation as an aberration, returning to normal appears to mean returning to a Congress where parties are divided and a decline in bi-partisan agreement makes decision making difficult, on some issues almost impossible.

A popular and effective President could make the difference whereas in the present situation the focus on using public office for private gain, an indifference to the costs of government, and the lack of interest in the quality of life for citizens, suggests that a deeper rejection on conventional politics could follow the current experiment. On the one hand you have a President who can barely spell and doesn't read documents, who makes his mind up based on what the last person said to him and has no strategy for any policy, and on the other a Republican party which sees his administrative incompetence as the means to control policy making, yet as health care showed, cannot even agree amongst itself and is also reluctant to call the President to account.

If the centre falls apart, as Yeats put it, anarchy is the result, and people out there in rural areas or urban areas may decide if government doesn't work, then they will go their own way. When they see tax cuts being implemented to benefit the people at the top, they may wonder what the state is for, if they think they are getting a raw deal and see no benefit in either tax cuts or whatever economic growth takes place.

So far the trend toward an insular nationalism has failed in the Netherlands as it look set to fail in France, with the real outcome of Brexit unsure not least within the UK itself where there are tensions in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I don't see American nationalism being a solution, it has always been something romantic and theatrical, so that these are worrying times all over the place, particularly with the absence of leadership, give that over here, we no longer see the USA as a trustworthy ally, indeed, no longer see it as a defender of liberty and human rights, a topic which the present administration seems to regard as an irrelevance. But that's me, seeing a glass half empty, others may not be so concerned.

As an outsider I don't know if I will ever be able to understand the mess that health care in the US appears to be. The link below is a biased, and angry assessment of the latest version of a 'Health Care Act' to get through the House of Representatives that may not make it through the Senate. The author, for example, states-

If there has been a piece of legislation in our lifetimes that boiled over with as much malice and indifference to human suffering, I can't recall what it might have been. And every member of the House who voted for it must be held accountable.

But he does go on to examine its provisions and conclude:

It is no exaggeration to say that if it were to become law, this bill would kill significant numbers of Americans.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7718901.html

Well ,at least Paul Waldman , the American columnist for the UK `The Independent` as well as the US `The Washington Post` , took the trouble to read the bill unlike many of the Republican congressmen who voted for the thing . Shameful.

What's really bizarre is that Trump's support base (white working class and older people) would be among the main losers from this, yet 98% per cent of them still say they support him according to a recent poll.

He does a very good job of summarizing its many problems. It makes people with chronic conditions practically un-insurable and allows the sale of low quality insurance products that have coverage limits such as spending caps and don't cover the kinds of essential services insurance is supposed to cover.

As for new underwriting practices, the link below has a list of pre-existing conditions and the estimated premium hikes that come with them. Someone with a life long condition could shop for insurance that only covers emergency care or provides the most basic coverage so they are covered for something catastrophic. But it might not be worthwhile for someone with type 1 diabetes to pay for insurance that covers basic care or they just may not be able to afford it at all.

For those unfamiliar with our health care system, Medicaid is insurance that is provided to people below a threshold of income. It is administered by states but has usually received large amounts of federal funding. It provides for health insurance but has also provided supplemental income for those who are disabled or elderly and below a threshold of income. It remains to be seen exactly what relationship there will be between 880 billion dollars less funding and either qualifications or benefits but one can only imagine.

If new actuarial practices price a lot of people out of the market, as they would, these people might actually quit working in order to qualify for medicare disability. It may seem unlikely but if medical costs would bankrupt them, then they will do what's necessary to qualify for coverage. Medicare disability is non-means tested, which means someone who is disabled does not also have to be below a threshold of income to receive its benefits. Since Medicaid requires someone to be disabled and below threshold of income, Medicare fills the gap for people who have some means but are physically restricted.

So there is the possibility that a system that does not provide adequate coverage to a mass of people creates stress on other social welfare programs. But those too can be repealed.

http://time.com/money/4769050/ahca-p...ions-surcharge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

As for new underwriting practices, the link below has a list of pre-existing conditions and the estimated premium hikes that come with them. Someone with a life long condition could shop for insurance that only covers emergency care or provides the most basic coverage so they are covered for something catastrophic. But it might not be worthwhile for someone with type 1 diabetes to pay for insurance that covers basic care or they just may not be able to afford it at all.

---

This is not that clear. If someone has a major condition they may not get insurance that covers preventive care or typical doctor visits because it is cost-prohibitive. They may only purchase insurance whose services protect them against bankruptcy if their condition becomes life-threatening. When they get to this point they may not be able to renew their insurance at its current price for the next term because they would have a new pre-existing condition. So a diabetic (one pre-existing condition) would use insurance in case they need to be hospitalized but if they develop renal failure (another more costly pre-existing condition) because their care has been so poor, they are now priced out of the market. With renal failure they would at least qualify for one of the two types of disability coverage we provide.

Our health care system is not much of a system at all. With the new law, the regulations on private insurance are very limited, so what is left is for emergency care and assistance for the elderly, the poor, and the disabled. For those interested in reading and want a place to start, the substantial laws and programs that remain are EMTALA which mandates emergency treatment regardless of ability to pay, and Medicare and Medicaid, which include numerous and complicated qualifications and benefits that are too difficult to summarize here. A few other protections such as COBRA for continuation of insurance post-employment and HIPAA are fairly insubstantial.

The right is reacting to Trump's scandals by making up false scandals about those on the left. This is not new for them, but they usually have at least one or two facts they can use to stoke paranoia. However, the accusation that Susan Rice spied on Trump associates is based purely on the fact that she is known to have requested unmasking of identifying information for U.S individuals speaking to a subject of surveillance.

There is nothing out of the ordinary about this, and the accusation does not make a great deal of sense since the identity of the party being unmasked cannot be known until they are unmasked so it would not be a very effective way to target someone. It's amazing that the right's intentional spread of disinformation has not caused more harm than it has, because supposedly mainstream figures on the right are making shit up.