Post-Trump GOP

[X Misn Tx]

I think the jump to universal coverage is too drastic. Extending Medicare down to 55 and allowing buy in would be a good way to think about it.

That doesn't deal with a 30-something couple with a kid who has a debilitating disease like spinabifida. And the primary caregiver can't changes jobs or they'll lose coverage for their child because there's no standard for preexisting conditions.

For me, this is a "think about the kids" situation.

And as this happens everywhere, employers are already covering someone like this. They're just changing people who don't want to be there at the job for people who do want to be there at their job.

Covering Preexisting conditions is more about how our job culture has changed now that people change jobs every 3 years now. The old pensions are gon . So people job hop now.

 

[iatrogenic]

That doesn't deal with a 30-something couple with a kid who has a debilitating disease like spinabifida. And the primary caregiver can't changes jobs or they'll lose coverage for their child because there's no standard for preexisting conditions.

For me, this is a "think about the kids" situation.

And as this happens everywhere, employers are already covering someone like this. They're just changing people who don't want to be there at the job for people who do want to be there at their job.

Covering Preexisting conditions is more about how our job culture has changed now that people change jobs every 3 years now. The old pensions are gon . So people job hop now.

another good reason employers should not be required to provide health insurance

 

[X Misn Tx]

another good reason employers should not be required to provide health insurance

you're playing chutes and ladders with universal healthcare there.

walk through how that plays out...employees have to be able to afford it on their own. employers have to pay them enough. many employers WON'T. what's the backlash?

Universal Healthcare.

 

[OUBubba]

you're playing chutes and ladders with universal healthcare there.

walk through how that plays out...employees have to be able to afford it on their own. employers have to pay them enough. many employers WON'T. what's the backlash?

Universal Healthcare.

The flip side of that argument is that universal coverage will allow people to afford health insurance. Take a knee procedure. At a physician owned hospital the medicare rate is about 5,600. That same procedure at a tertiary hospital has a medicare rate of 8,900. At a teaching tertiary hospital in the heart of the city that rate is 12,200.

The first place is making money at 5,600. If we can figure out how to create a world where everyone has a payer source we can all get it at 5,600. The cost shift to cover the uninsured care results in 8,900 and 12,200.

[all numbers approximate from years of work].

Also, I'm not sure how to get there.

 

[Garmel]

Nobody knows for sure, because this whole controversy could die down with other bigger and more pressing problems. (That's my hope not only for them but for the party in general.) However, there is no question that they took a massive risk that was easily avoidable. In fact, it's about the riskiest thing they could do.



Sasse didn't like Trump, but I've seen no evidence that Cassidy had an issue with him. But even if they didn't like Trump, you're talking about these guys like they're doped-up thugs waving a gun around police officers - so caught up in the emotion that they can't think straight about their own well-being. These aren't stupid or unhinged men. One has a Ph.D., and the other is a doctor. They aren't going to take the biggest risks of their careers just because they don't like somebody. They aren't that dumb.

And for guys who supposedly disliked Trump, they were quite supportive of him at other times as you can see from their voting records. They were not kneejerk Trump-haters.





At least in my experience, donors tend to throw money at people who support their policy agenda. Labor unions, trial lawyers, tech companies, Planned Parenthood, etc. (left-wing donors) tend to throw money at Democrats, because they are friendly to those donors' policy agendas. Insurance companies, construction companies, pharmaceutical companies, oil and gas companies (right-wing donors) tend to throw money at Republicans because they are friendly to those donors' policy agendas.

Ben Sasse and Bill Cassidy virtually never support the policy agendas of left-wing donors, but you think those donors are going to suddenly start throwing money their way just because they voted to convict Trump in an effort everyone knew would be fruitless? That's just not plausible and makes no sense at all. Suppose Barbara Boxer had voted to convict Bill Clinton. Do you think that right-wing donors would have suddenly flipped and started throwing money at her? Of course not. A friendly phone call and maybe a free dinner at Sizzler would have been about the most she could have hoped for.



This is a little like the donor thing. These guys will get media brownie points (at least compared to other Republicans) for about 2 weeks, and then the media will **** on them anytime it serves the Democrats' interests to do so. Very, very little gain for the amount of risk.



But it's beneficial to do it now in a way that it wasn't back then?



You could cry bribery. That wasn't my case, but it's what the impeachment managers basically went with. Some people bought it. Some didn't.



You're gonna jump down my throat on this, but you have a bit of derangement yourself on this. You can't accept that someone who's conservative can be adverse to Trump without it being in bad faith, and that just isn't true. It's not a mark on one's conservatism to be against Trump on something. He is not the embodiment of conservatism. It is possible to be pragmatic about him. It's possible to be supportive of him when he's doing the right thing and hostile to him when he's doing the wrong thing. That was largely my approach to Trump for the last five years, and of course, there's plenty of room for disagreement on what's right and what's wrong. It's not as simple as loving him or hating him.



It makes sense to have one, but it doesn't automatically become an emotional response if you don't. One can make the argument that he didn't meet the legal definition of incitement (and he didn't) but that he did incite in fact by what he did over the previous few months and by what he didn't do after the attack began. That's not emotional. It's still based on fact.



He said it was fraud in public far more than he said it was fraud in court and therefore under oath and/or subject to penalties for frivolous pleadings and so forth (and sometimes affirmatively said that he WASN'T alleging fraud in court). Just think about that for a minute. I'm not necessarily saying it was all a big scam like Switzer is, but I think you're giving him the benefit of the doubt more than you should.



I'm saying that he did something that no other president had ever done. There wasn't a precedent for it. I'm not necessarily saying it was the worst thing a president had ever done. Honestly, I think that kind of judgment is stupid, because that really is a subjective. For example, Nixon was effectively removed. Did other presidents do worse things than he? Absolutely.

Derangement? I made it clear that Trump should be held responsible if there's something there. Here's a hint- there isn't.

Yes, they did not push the election fraud because they knew it wouldn't work and instead went with technicalities. It's impossible to prove without a forensic audit. Powell tried it and failed.

The same people who have been going after Trump since he came into office mysteriously wanted an impeachment using hare-brained logic. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. *snicker*

 

[OUBubba]

Unreal. Of course, what can I expect from the guy who thinks Trump lost because of tweets?

Derangement? I made it clear that Trump should be held responsible if there's something there. Here's a hint- there isn't.

Yes, they did not push the election fraud because they knew it wouldn't work and instead went with technicalities. It's impossible to prove without a forensic audit. Powell tried it and failed.

Just hold him to your Benghazi standard. He delayed response when the House GOP was requesting a response. People died.

 

[Garmel]

Just hold him to your Benghazi standard. He delayed response when the House GOP was requesting a response. People died.

Bubba, what did i tell you about listening to MSM narratives?

 

[OUBubba]

Bubba, what did i tell you about listening to MSM narratives?

What have I told you about ignoring facts?

 

[Garmel]

What have I told you about ignoring facts?

You don't have any facts to give.

 

[Garmel]

You kind of destroy your credibly, Bubba when your VP was bailing out domestic terrorists.

 

[OUBubba]

You don't have any facts to give.

-------
Lawmakers grill officials on Jan. 6 timeline for deploying National Guard to Capitol
Under oath testimony...

The commander of the D.C. National Guard testified that it took three hours and 19 minutes between the time National Guard assistance was requested and the time he got word the Pentagon had approved it.
-------
General: Pentagon hesitated on sending Guard to Capitol riot

That account was consistent with the recollection of Robert Contee, the acting chief of police for the Metropolitan Police Department, who told lawmakers last week that he was “stunned” by the delayed response. Contee said Sund pleaded with Army officials to deploy National Guard troops as the rioting escalated.

 

[iatrogenic]

you're playing chutes and ladders with universal healthcare there.

walk through how that plays out...employees have to be able to afford it on their own. employers have to pay them enough. many employers WON'T. what's the backlash?

Universal Healthcare.

Before the ACA existed, employers and employees typically shared the cost of health insurance. Often, the employer paid most or all of the cost. I'm not sure those same employers would balk at paying a higher salary to offset the cost shift to the employee. Some employers didn't provide health insurance before ACA, either.

If the individuals can't afford health insurance, the first backlash is lower demand for healthcare, which will result in lower incomes for healthcare providers. As a result, we could also see a combination of lower healthcare costs and fewer providers. We could also see individuals shifting their priorities from buying other "things" to buying health insurance. I don't think it automatically leads to universal healthcare. However, if it does, we will see lower healthcare costs and fewer providers, and the inevitable poor/inefficient service associated with central planning.

 

[Seattle Husker]

-------
Lawmakers grill officials on Jan. 6 timeline for deploying National Guard to Capitol
Under oath testimony...

The commander of the D.C. National Guard testified that it took three hours and 19 minutes between the time National Guard assistance was requested and the time he got word the Pentagon had approved it.
-------
General: Pentagon hesitated on sending Guard to Capitol riot

That account was consistent with the recollection of Robert Contee, the acting chief of police for the Metropolitan Police Department, who told lawmakers last week that he was “stunned” by the delayed response. Contee said Sund pleaded with Army officials to deploy National Guard troops as the rioting escalated.

Keep in mind, that's WHILE Donald Trump is literally watching the assault on his TV. Nobody has disputed that timeline, not even Trump himself. He literally called Senator Tuberville WHILE they were being evacuated to plot their next step in the Electoral College delay. Again, nobody has disputed these facts.

 

[OUBubba]

Keep in mind, that's WHILE Donald Trump is literally watching the assault on his TV. Nobody has disputed that timeline, not even Trump himself. He literally called Senator Tuberville WHILE they were being evacuated to plot their next step in the Electoral College delay. Again, nobody has disputed these facts.

It was like he was in Jerry's luxury box yukking it up. Sad.

 

[iatrogenic]

Trump is responsible for everything! Well, not the fantastic economy he created, the vaccine in record time, stopping illegal immigration, increasing wages for lower income earners, record setting stock markets, the lowest unemployment ever recorded for minorities, etc. He's not responsible for that. No Sir.

Now, on to Biden, who is responsible for what? He shat himself again today?

 

[Garmel]

-------
Lawmakers grill officials on Jan. 6 timeline for deploying National Guard to Capitol
Under oath testimony...

The commander of the D.C. National Guard testified that it took three hours and 19 minutes between the time National Guard assistance was requested and the time he got word the Pentagon had approved it.
-------
General: Pentagon hesitated on sending Guard to Capitol riot

That account was consistent with the recollection of Robert Contee, the acting chief of police for the Metropolitan Police Department, who told lawmakers last week that he was “stunned” by the delayed response. Contee said Sund pleaded with Army officials to deploy National Guard troops as the rioting escalated.

Doesn't look like anything to do with Trump. The military was scared of optics.

"Mindful of criticism that the response to the demonstrations last spring was heavy-handed, military officials were also concerned that a substantial National Guard presence at the Capitol would look bad and might inflame the mob, Walker said.

“The Army senior leadership” expressed “that it would not be their best military advice to have uniformed Guardsmen on the Capitol,” Walker said."

 

[Garmel]

Trump is responsible for everything!

That's what TDS does to someone's brain.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Derangement? I made it clear that Trump should be held responsible if there's something there. Here's a hint- there isn't.

Yes, they did not push the election fraud because they knew it wouldn't work and instead went with technicalities. It's impossible to prove without a forensic audit. Powell tried it and failed.

The same people who have been going after Trump since he came into office mysteriously wanted an impeachment using hare-brained logic. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. *snicker*

This discussion is clearly at an impasse and no longer productive. I explained fairly rationally and respectfully why I think you're wrong about Cassidy and Sasse, and you basically just talk past my points without addressing them out explaining why you think they're wrong. Now Coach Switzer has jumped in, and it's turning into a ****-flinging fight in the monkey cage.

 

[Garmel]

I disagree. I have discussed every point you have made. However, you're right in saying this argument is going nowhere.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I disagree. I have discussed every point you have made. However, you're right in saying this argument is going nowhere.

What I think is funny is that you and I will fight pretty strongly over Trump and then like each other's posts in other topics. Compartmentalization is a good thing.

 

[Garmel]

What I think is funny is that you and I will fight pretty strongly over Trump and then like each other's posts in other topics. Compartmentalization is a good thing.

I think one thing that we can agree on is that we don't need Trump running in 2024(surprise!) but for different reasons. We don't need Trump entering office at age 78. The last year or so of Reagan and now Biden in office has really turned me off of having having guys near 80 in office. I'd rather see DeSantis who brings Trumpism without the age or big spending.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

I'm all on board with Trump developing a media platform that won't squelch conservative voices but i still think we need to jettison this chicken--- from party spaces until/unless he proves that he is here for the party and not Trump. Him doing the chicken --- move of trying to primary the seats we already have is pissing me off. If Trump wants to be of service to conservatives and the GOP, win back the senate seats he helped us lose. Win some of the other seats that Dems hold.

I might have to borrow a Dump Trump sticker from one of my liberal friends.

 

[OUBubba]

I'm all on board with Trump developing a media platform that won't squelch conservative voices but i still think we need to jettison this chicken--- from party spaces until/unless he proves that he is here for the party and not Trump. Him doing the chicken --- move of trying to primary the seats we already have is pissing me off. If Trump wants to be of service to conservatives and the GOP, win back the senate seats he helped us lose. Win some of the other seats that Dems hold.

I might have to borrow a Dump Trump sticker from one of my liberal friends.

He single handedly lost the Georgia senate race with his jack assery after the election.

 

[iatrogenic]

I thought he single handedly picked up seats in the House. ???

 

[Monahorns]

I wouldn't mind seeing Trump retire from politics. I prefer DeSantis right now and any others who align with him. Too much of Trumpism is tied in Trump's feelings.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Cross Matt Gaetz off the list for future leadership of the Trump supporters. Earlier today an article came out claiming he was considering leaving Congress to join Newsmax before his term ended.

Now this. Per Gaetz spokesperson the Congressman is a "subject of the investigation not the target."

Editorializing...this dude has been a loose cannon since he entered Congress. His multiple DUI's/speeding tickets, political antics like breaking into the SCIF, wearing a gas mask on the house floor, having a subreddit that was later banned write some legislation that he submitted in the House...the list goes on and on.

 

[OUBubba]

“Adopted” an adult male.

 

[OUBubba]

Nestor Is Not Going to Like This, But We’ve Got to Talk About Matt Gaetz and That Weird Tucker Carlson Interview

The lone "no" vote against human trafficking. That could leave a mark.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Nestor Is Not Going to Like This, But We’ve Got to Talk About Matt Gaetz and That Weird Tucker Carlson Interview

The lone "no" vote against human trafficking. That could leave a mark.

Did Gaetz intentionally try to make Tucker a witness by calling out that he brought this girl to dinner with Carlson and his wife? How often does TC have dinner with Gaetz that he wouldn't remember?

 

[OUBubba]

Lawt....[this could be a fake tweet]. If it's not, lol.