What do you think of Hillary Clinton's claim that President Trump will purge staff after mid-term elections?
Being more financially than socially orientated, anything is possible under DT. In an answer to another question another contributor has pointed out a long list of the current president's achievements. I have taken the liberty to shorten the list to the significant items relating to your question:4. Ease burden of Obamacare 6. Freeze on federal hiring (except for the military) 21. Cutting federal regulations 23. Order that federal agencies have to eliminate 2 regulations for every 1 written 38. Signs order to prohibit govt control of education 41. Health care bill to replace Obamacare passes in the House 5-4-17 42. Congress no longer exempt from health care passes House 5-4-17 45. Pulls U.S. OUT of Paris Climate Accord 46. Stopped 800 of Obama's regulations that were never finalized 7-20-17 56. 12 1 2017 Ended Michelle Obama’s School Lunch Menu58. 12 23 2017 Ends Individual Mandate, effectively killing ObamaCare77. He has reversed all the over the top Obama EPA regulations 90. He has defunded the United Nations Population Fund (UNFP)94. Draining Swamp (Resignations)It is clearly showing the ever increasing trend for government to pull out of control functions, leaving the field to unsocial, efficient labor management schemes.Sure, those retrenchments will be catered for by the private sector again, but either at frozen wages or even lower ones, while the profits are rising with a lower company tax guaranteed.What we are witnessing is a drop in unemployment at no increase in buying power. The gap between haves and have-nots is widening.A nation is only at harmony, if social conditions are fair.A nation is only prosperous, if it can bank on a healthy future for generations to come.
If Hillary is elected, what can she do to stem the exodus of insurance companies from ACA exchanges without Congressional approval?
If she wanted to, she could probably move to allow the insurers in the exchanges to make more profit, and to have their way in other matters. Here is a part of a recent article in the Charlotte Observer: (emphasis is mine)Aetna’s about-face on the ACA, also known as Obamacare, comes less than a month after the U.S. Justice Department sued to block the company’s $37 billion purchase of Humana. The DOJ says the combination would harm competition for private Medicare plans and for ACA health plans. Aetna has said its revised stance on the ACA wasn’t prompted by the suit.It looks like Aetna had a fit of pique and decided to take it’s business elsewhere. I would hope that HRC would help move the ACA to a ‘single payer’ system, yeah, that means MEDICARE for all.If you look at the economics, the insurance industry really adds NO VALUE to the health care system, it only removes money from it, and decides what conditions that people will continue to suffer and die from. It’s job is to say NO where possible, and to cover as little as possible, and to make profits for their stock holders and executives’ multi-million dollar salaries. None of which actually CONTRIBUTES to overall health.In the case referenced… apparently AETNA had $37,000,000,000.00 sitting around somewhere (in cash or stock value) to spend on acquiring another billion dollar company, so they could make more billions of dollars. Again, none of which ADDS HEALTH or VALUE to the overall health of American citizens.There are millions of people employed in the health care industry. There are actuarial folks and millions of ‘claims processing’ folks who adjudicate the medical decisions, diagnoses, treatments and other factors - basically with the goal of SAYING NO!.Even though MEDICARE isn’t perfect, it has documented guidelines and prices for all covered diagnose and treatments and it PAYS THE BILL. Sure there are claims processing folks too, but it’s to keep the medical prices and costs in check and to prevent medical practice gouging - they are NOT incentivized to say NO to patients’ needs, as are insurance companies.The Insurance industry in the medical field is a net drain on health care delivery and a net increase in costs.It’s a business model that has outlived it’s usefulness and efficacy.Read more here: Aetna to quit most Affordable Care Act markets, joining major rivals
When will House Republicans make fools of themselves again by trying to repeal Obamacare for the 38th time?
Why not, it's their right. Oh wait, I get it.....
What would we be talking about today if Hillary Clinton had become President?
As usual, the Republican Fake Perception Creation Machine would be out trying to impeach President Hillary for about a dozen fake Conspiracy Theories and Trash Talk. They would be wasting millions of tax payer dollars, as they proved they could during President Obama’s term, all for the purpose of defeating her the next elections.I’m amazed that the people are prepared to put up with this state of affairs, which is why Putin sees an opportunity to influence our elections without fear.I am not sure how long we can survive this self-destructive behavior. I’ve never seen such a lust for power, at any cost, and worst of all, the highest court in the land is spurring them on by allowing money a bigger say, than ever before, in our elections.Of course you’ll try and make the case that the other side does it too. Well, I’ve been watching the behavior of both sides and it is clear that the Republican Fake Perception Creation Machine is 10 times worse than anything the Democrats can muster.This is why Republicans love saying that “Democrats have no spine”.What they really mean is that Democrats will never stoop as low as they do, and so the saga continues!!!
Do you believe the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory?
Trump’s campaign was about slogans and vague grandiose promises, not policies nor plans.Thus it was in character that Team Trump had no input to the party platform at the republican national convention…..EXCEPT: He insisted on softening the pro-Ukraine/anti-Russian language.Why would he change that ONE item? An item that ALL of his supporters would not be pleased with? The hats may be red, but Trump supporters are not fans of Russia, nor Russian aggression.So he risks annoying his base with an action that has NO official consequences…party platforms are never enforced at all. They are as binding as corporate mission statements: not at all.The action was a purely symbolic, obvious (even to Trump) risk of angering the base, with no upside in regard to getting elected, which otherwise seemed to be all Trump cared about.To date, there has been no credible explaination for this change to the platform…move on, nothing to see there. Trump has denied he was behind the platform change, doesn't know how or why it happened. Several loyal republican conservatives have said that it was explicitly ordered by the Trump campaign, and one Trump insider has said this came from Trump himself, and it was not a request…Trump was insistent.At the time it made no sense at all. In light of current revealations, it becomes part of a pattern. It might have demonstrated to the Kremlin that Trump was willing to do their bidding even at the expense of his own popularity. In fact that is the only way I can see to make any sense at all of it. If Moscow WAS dealing with this populist that has a well known history of welching on contracts, they would be wise to conduct such a loyalty test.Explain this Platform change and show me Trump’s tax returns. Then maybe I'll be willing to extend the benefit of doubt. Otherwise I’ll make my best guess based on what Trump has publicly revealed about his profound lack of integrity.
What do you think would have happened if Bernie Sanders had received the Democratic nomination for president in 2016?
Looking back on it, the Democrats needed an unorthodox candidate to beat an unorthodox candidate.Bernie probably would have won, but it would have been close. The states in question would have been different. The populism of Bernie and Trump closed a kind of circle, so there would not have been the same Democratic drop off in the upper midwest, where Bernie did well in the primaries. Michigan and Wisconsin would have remained blue, as well as the Maine-2nd district electoral vote. He also would have much more easily carried New Hampshire, a state where neither Clinton ever did well.So the starting EV point would have been Bernie 226, Trump 189.It would have been more like the 2004 map. The big question for Bernie would be if he could carry 44 electoral votes electoral votes out of the 121 available from: PA, FL, OH, IA, VA, NC, NM, CO, NV. I think he could have, but not by a lot.However, since Bernie would have been stronger in the north, I think he would have had coattails that carried the senate seats in WI, PA, and MO - all of which were really close where Trump had coattails and Hillary had negative coattails. , There would have been a possibility of making things closer in the IN, FL, and NC senate races. So I think he could have helped the Democrats contest the senate better than Hillary did. The House probably would have remained Republican.With best possible outcome of 52–48 Democratic Senate and a Republican House, he wouldn’t have gotten much legislatively as president by this point. Would be really interesting what he’d have tried to do though. I suspect a lot of climate change oriented executive orders and such, beefing up of Obamacare through executive order & HHS, etc…With a Democrat as president there’d never have been a women’s march, probably not a #NeverAgain movment and probably not a #MeToo movement or at least smaller. Things like Charlottesville wouldn’t have happened. And we’d have gotten much better SCOTUS nominations.Odds are Bernie would be looking at trying not to lose too many Senate seats right now and the House would be a sure lock to remain Republican & grow the R majority there. Silver linings.