SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This is a great discussion but input the influence of Hillary receiving $2.8 million from the health care industry when calculating what she does as president to 'fix' and ''revise' the law with Congress.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
That is a drop in the bucket in terms of people the Clintons will be paying back.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Implementing a public option for only the counties where no one is willing to offers coverage would make providers happy and not upset carriers. Getting the 19 states to expand Medicaid would please carriers (Medicaid is 70% administered by private carriers) and some providers (though some won't want the low reimbursement patients). Expanding subsidies/ - both premiums and cost sharing to those working 60 hours and facing double the premiums won't find any objections among those donors.
However I'll give you that price controls for drug companies is likely to be frown upon. Then again maybe she holds a personal grudge with all of those former GOP congressmen responsible for Medicare D given executive jobs at these drug companies.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well Tauzin (LA) was one of those and his special exemption for Pharma was given the Ol' ole' by Obama all the same.Implementing a public option for only the counties where no one is willing to offers coverage would make providers happy and not upset carriers. Getting the 19 states to expand Medicaid would please carriers (Medicaid is 70% administered by private carriers) and some providers (though some won't want the low reimbursement patients). Expanding subsidies/ - both premiums and cost sharing to those working 60 hours and facing double the premiums won't find any objections among those donors.
However I'll give you that price controls for drug companies is likely to be frown upon. Then again maybe she holds a personal grudge with all of those former GOP congressmen responsible for Medicare D given executive jobs at these drug companies.
BFS I always enjoy your ACA posts, you put a lot of thought into it.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
She supports Medicare buy in at 50, and Medicare negotiating for drug pricing. She'll appease the providers by going nowhere near single payer. I could see her supporting a public option on the Exchanges. But the companies should fear not under Clinton, a republican oligarch at heart. One who supports children's rights, but one nonetheless.
Sand
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Different thing. Tauzin got a legislated immunity for PharmaFrom government attempts to negotiate drug prices. Onama ratified this by getting a commitment from Pharma for its support of the ACA which was a major turning event. And btw David Axelrod's brother's ad firm got a huge advertising contract on the back end to promote the ACA, but the commitment was obviously considered valuable by Obama in its own right because suddenly a big block of resistance ebbed away.
Mary's deal was a different thing and as we know several others got something similar.
Tauzin went on to be the head of the actual Pharma trade association. I think he just stepped down this year.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't agree. I think Trump really does want to be liked- or at the very least admired and respected. I think it's a key to his behavior.
HellToupee
Footballguy
I think the thing that gets under my skin the most about Hillary is her changing accents
squistion
Footballguy
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
And if it wasn't for twitter you would never, ever be posting in any of these threads.And if it wasn't for that, you would vote for her.
squistion
Footballguy
I see this was your first post in 3 hours. Did you get just get up from your nap?
Rove!
Footballguy
This year we have seen:
credibility of the press destroyed
credibility of the FBI destroyed
credibikity of the DNC destroyed
credibikity of the Democratic Party destroyed
credibikity of the Republican Party destroyed
credibikity of our nation on the world stage severely damaged...
freedom of speech damaged
and we still have at least another four years to go in this national nightmare
credibility of the press destroyed
credibility of the FBI destroyed
credibikity of the DNC destroyed
credibikity of the Democratic Party destroyed
credibikity of the Republican Party destroyed
credibikity of our nation on the world stage severely damaged...
freedom of speech damaged
and we still have at least another four years to go in this national nightmare
Gr00vus
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Only the Republican Party and the DNC (in part). The rest isn't close to being true. But thanks for yet another false equivalency argument. Hey I don't blame you; if I was a conservative right now, I'd cling to those too. "Both sides are really bad" is eminently preferable to the truth, which is embarrassing and shameful for your side (but not for the rest of us.)
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Bruce Dickinson
Footballguy
It was weird watching Trump's prospective VP resort to not defending his record at all, and in many cases flat-out lying about what Trump said rather than try to sort it out. And that was considered the smart, winning strategy.
But yeah, it's like Trump thinks he's impressing people by lying. Combine it with Conway's campaign rhetoric strategy - which seems to be rooted in the ancient method of discourse I believe Plato called the "I know you are but what am I?" - they seem to think the burden of proof of their own statements is on their opponents.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
It's a manifestation of the "my team's losing so everything in the world is awful and it's someone else's fault" syndrome our political discourse all to often takes.
squistion
Footballguy
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Sorry TIm. I'm on your side more often than not in these political threads, but this argument here is absurd. Rising less than before <>reduced. Any rise greater than inflation is a rise in costs period.it's not that nuanced. I doubt I could explain this stuff to a second grader, but I know I can explain it to you. You simply don't want to accept that ACA has reduced costs. But if the rate of increase has been reduced, then ACA has reduced costs and Obama has kept his promise.
We're on the same side re. UHC in general I think, but the ACA was never designed to be more than a bridge, and has been hamstrung at every opportunity by the right....it's a stretch to call it an effective stopgap, let alone a success, and it certainly HAS failed to "reduce costs"
The Commish
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
A new term for him....let him go....will take a while to come up with his own personal definition.
The Commish
Footballguy
The original ACA was a public option....that's a significant shift and WAY more than just a bridge. It was actually a significant step in the right direction that Democrats in the Senate were unwilling to take because they were afraid they wouldn't be reelected. Had Obama fought for it (with his own party by the way) we may be able to label it a "design", but what was passed was nothing more than a heaping pile of #### with a cherry on top of preexisting conditions being removed.
Riversco
Footballguy
The democrats will never reform health care again because they will never win the House again. The GOP is very likely to defeat Hillary in 2020 and then they will control everything. We will get the GOP health care reform plan (whatever form that takes in 2021). The democrat health care plans are never going to get implemented. We will spend the next 4 years in gridlock and then some republican reforms will arrive early next decade when the republicans run everything.
Riversco
Footballguy
If you wanted a democrat version of national health care, the democrats needed to win the House in 2016. To win the House in 2016, they needed to shift to the right on several issues. They needed to become pro gun rights. They might even have needed to drop the push on gay marriage.
The democrats had a choice on health care:
1. defend their views on guns and gay marriage, which means they never win the House, which means the GOP will eventually get rid of Obamacare and we get a republican version of health care reform.
2. Surrender their views on guns and gay marriage, win the House, and implement a major overhaul of the health care system according to democratic values.
There was no third option here. The democrat party has made it clear that their views guns and gay marriage are more important issues than their views of health care. The democrat party is willing to let the GOP destroy Obamacare before compromising their views elsewhere. Its probably not a smart move but its one they've made nonetheless.
If the democrats want to defend their views on guns, gay marriage, abortion and health care without compromise, then they are a small tent party unable to win congress in an election and unable to push an agenda. You cannot govern when you have that many hot button issues.
The democrats had a choice on health care:
1. defend their views on guns and gay marriage, which means they never win the House, which means the GOP will eventually get rid of Obamacare and we get a republican version of health care reform.
2. Surrender their views on guns and gay marriage, win the House, and implement a major overhaul of the health care system according to democratic values.
There was no third option here. The democrat party has made it clear that their views guns and gay marriage are more important issues than their views of health care. The democrat party is willing to let the GOP destroy Obamacare before compromising their views elsewhere. Its probably not a smart move but its one they've made nonetheless.
If the democrats want to defend their views on guns, gay marriage, abortion and health care without compromise, then they are a small tent party unable to win congress in an election and unable to push an agenda. You cannot govern when you have that many hot button issues.
Riversco
Footballguy
Where Obama has hurt his party the most is that he added two NEW hot button issues to his party's platform: guns and health care. The democrats were able to build a governing coalition before Obama because those weren't such polarizing issues they are now. Before Obama, you had gay marriage and abortion as hot button issues but that was manageable. Obama doubled that and turned the party into more of a special interests party then a governing party.
If the democrats ever want to become a governing party again, they need to walk back their views on 2 of these. It is just simply too much.
If the democrats ever want to become a governing party again, they need to walk back their views on 2 of these. It is just simply too much.
The Commish
Footballguy
WARNING!!!! RANT ON THE MEDIA AND SIMPLETON THOUGHT BELOW WARNING!!!!
So, I went and looked at this tax form of Trumps from 1995 or whenever it was and I have a question. Why the #### is no one talking about the multi million dollar write off that Trump took that is SPECIFICALLY written into our tax code for real estate developers? Isn't THAT the kind of thing we should be discussing in this country? Instead, they are lazy and go with the class politics that are so stale and played out. Of course, it takes some skill to navigate the topic. Probably skill neither of them possess. I guess that's why?
So frustrating to see legit topics passed over for these stupid "oh look, he's using the tax code as it's designed for everyone to use" topics.
/rantover
Of course, this discussion shouldn't be about him taking the write off....I would if I were in his position. The discussion should be that it exists at all and for such a small group of people in a specific category. It's a perfect example of what's wrong with our tax code....doesn't get any better.
So, I went and looked at this tax form of Trumps from 1995 or whenever it was and I have a question. Why the #### is no one talking about the multi million dollar write off that Trump took that is SPECIFICALLY written into our tax code for real estate developers? Isn't THAT the kind of thing we should be discussing in this country? Instead, they are lazy and go with the class politics that are so stale and played out. Of course, it takes some skill to navigate the topic. Probably skill neither of them possess. I guess that's why?
So frustrating to see legit topics passed over for these stupid "oh look, he's using the tax code as it's designed for everyone to use" topics.
/rantover
Of course, this discussion shouldn't be about him taking the write off....I would if I were in his position. The discussion should be that it exists at all and for such a small group of people in a specific category. It's a perfect example of what's wrong with our tax code....doesn't get any better.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Because that's not the narrative Hillary's wants to drive and Hillary is 
the lead press on this. Hillary has zero interest in killing this provision for her benefactors. Who knows maybe ZFS Holdings and WJC LLC benefit from this.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
Sammy3469
Footballguy
I think you're way off base with this rant. There's numerous stories/theories out there both from the regular news media and the business media on what loopholes he actually used. Included in this is the theory he used a miswritten law that allowed him to deduct others (the banks) debt losses as his (this law was corrected in 2002 with Clinton voting in favor of removing it)
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-did-trump-pay-so-little-tax-2016-10
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
How sad is it that the message from the Republican Party is that we're not going to budge on getting health care for uninsured poor people until we strip gays of equal rights and have more mass shootings.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
So Clarence Thomas declared the provision null and void and Congress - including Hillary Clinton - in their wisdom passed a provision within a bigger jobs law allowing those who had taken advantage of the provision previously to keep taking advantage of it.
So Hillary herself helped ratify Trump's continued use of the loophole.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
The only way what I posted above is a "theory" is if the doc that's been provided is untrue. Then it's not even a theory it's just smear/mud/dishonesty. That line item is one thing and one thing only and it's granted ONLY to real estate developers. It's not even mentioned in the article you posted.
There may be millions of other theories and likely hundreds of other loopholes he used, but this one is certain and enough to get honest discussion started, but alas.....nothing.
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
Sammy3469
Footballguy
No...in 2001, the Court said the mis-written provision (the loophoole) stood. In 2002 Congess (including Clinton) voted to correct the provision to remove the loophole, but it didn't retroactively apply to people who had used it (my guess is there's a bunch of legal reasons why it couldn't retroactively apply).
Like any NOl, once you take a NOL its there until it's gone or expires.
The Commish
Footballguy
Well crap....Steven Rosenthal stole my thunder 
ETA: Went out to get details of the loophole to post and saw his article...oh well....
ETA: Went out to get details of the loophole to post and saw his article...oh well....
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
Democrats won on both of their previous 'special interests': gay marriage and abortion.
Now let's go over their current 'special interests':
Guns - want to do background checks on gun buyers - the horror!
Health care - want to make health care affordable to all Americans - the horror!
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I don't think once the USSC said the loophole didn't apply that it applied. The USSC fixed the glitch. Congress put it back in.
The Commish
Footballguy
This is her sweet spot...she needs to stay here...live here....don't ever leave here. She has another ad running here in the NC area about kids and healthcare. It's the only one I've heard that ends with "I have ALWAYS approved this message". It's her passion. There's no doubt she will try to do whatever possible for children.
The Commish
Footballguy
You left the generalization of Democrats wanting to do this and there is ZERO evidence they give a #### about affordability of healthcare. The democratic senators didn't care enough to pass the public option when they had a chance and Obama didn't care enough to make it more of an issue with those senators.
Maybe Hillary is more serious about it? Who knows. All we know is that in order to make it more affordable in any sort of meaningful way to the average tax payer, costs have to be addressed and that requires government intervention and the government siding with the electorate. I'm not holding my breath.
Jackstraw
Footballguy
America's loving grandma. I thought she would roll out with a pan of cookies. Pretty good.
- Status
Similar threads
