Open Thread

Auto-post still buggy, but it's being worked on; hope to have daily open threads working well shortly.

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

...and they're off!

[Absaroka]

Judge resigns senior status to speak out about Trump. As a geezer old enough to remember Nixon, this hit home:

"What Nixon did episodically and covertly, knowing it was illegal or improper, Trump now does routinely and overtly."

One of those examples of Nixon's malfeasance was "(Atty general) Richard Kleindienst, was convicted of contempt of Congress for lying about the fact that, as instructed by the president, he’d ended an antitrust investigation of a major company after it pledged to make a $400,000 contribution to the Republican National Convention."

I hope the next president is as ethical as Gerald Ford who told his newly apponted atty gen that "that he wanted the attorney general to “protect the rights of American citizens, not the President who appointed him.”.

Well worth the read.

[Frank Drackman]

Nixon gets a pass for ending JFK/LBJ's Wah.

[not guilty]

Prick Nixon didn't end the Vietnam War. He sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks during 1968 -- possibly committing treason -- prolonged the war for four years, widened the conflict into Cambodia, and withdrew U. S. troops on essentially the same terms he was offered at the outset.

Nixon's legacy regarding Southeast Asia is more vile than Watergate.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nobody cares.

[not guilty]

You are right that nobody cares. And that is a damned shame!

[Armchair]

If only he'd done the same during the Biden administration.

[Absaroka]

Better late than never!

[CountmontyC]

Guess who gets to appoint his replacement.

[Absaroka]

Barack Obama! (He took senior status in 2013)

[Bob from Ohio]

How is the AG lying an example of "Nixon's malfeasance"?

The AG is a subordinate officer, he can obey or resign.

[Absaroka]

??? Nixon's malfeasance was saying 'these guys gave us $400k, drop the investigation'. Kleindienst's malfeasance was saying 'Sure, boss'. It was not his only ethical lapse.

[Bob from Ohio]

AG was not convicted for dropping the case, just for lying about it. Did Nixon tell him to lie?

[not guilty]

Kleindienst was not the only Nixon Attorney General convicted of a crime. John Mitchell went to prison, albeit for conduct mostly occurring after he left office. Nixon was named in the indictment there as an unindicted co-conspirator, because Leon Jaworski believed that a sitting president was immune from criminal prosecution while in office.

As the Turkish proverb teaches, a fish rots from the head.

[Josh R]

The Democrats folded at the point where they held the most leverage. They won the elections and Trump stepped in it with his refusal to deliver full SNAP benefits. Of course, both sides were about to step in it if Thanksgiving travel plans were laid to waste, but why did the moderate Democrats blink first?

One side note: Schumer does not control his caucus. Perhaps a new leader is needed.

[Randal]

Oh my god a new leader is needed. Jeffries can suck it as well. Long, melodramatic speeches are not what we need right now.

[Mr. Bumble]

Schumer has one foot out the door and the other on a banana peel.
After an entire adult lifetime of feeding at the public trough, first in the NY assembly, then the US House and since 1999 as a US Senator his reign would appear to be over. In all likely hood if he did decide to run again next year (at age 75) he will be challenged in a primary, possibly by former waitress, Sandy from the Bronx (and likely lose).

[wvattorney13]

I agree. They got next to nothing out of this. Surely they could have gotten the same "deal" prior to the shutdown.

Johnson hasn't committed the House to holding a vote on the ACA subsidy expansion (and even if he did and it passed, Trump could veto it) and all Trump has to do is keep a list of federal employees to fire effective February 1.

[Armchair]

Which is why shutdowns like this don't work.

[Josh R]

The Dems still hold the political (popularity without reference to policy) high ground on ACA subsidies when that shit hits the fan. The $2000 checks floated by Trump are a Truth-fart (we need a name for the many nonsense posts from Trump) that will never see the light of day.

[wvattorney13]

Maybe. I don't think so. The only people this will affect is upper middle class people like me who are self-employed. Poor people still get Medicaid. Middle class people still get subsidies. The rich still pay for their own premiums. Upper middle class people who work for an employer will not see a change resulting from the disappearance of subsidies.

The people affected by this are too few and too much outside the Dem's base to have much of an effect on the discourse. I agree that polling on this question favors the Dems, but it is not a real emotional issue because it affects too few people.

[Josh R]

Those just above the 400%-of-poverty-level income might not be characterized as upper-middle class. And there will be some increases for people below that threshold as well. This chart shows the figures for individuals.

[Armchair]

400% of poverty level is $128,000 for a family of 4.

Median household income is $83,730...
Median individual income is $44,000

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, that IS poor.

[Mr. Bumble]

As always, one size does not fit all and that's the problem with federal programs in a country as large as the US.

[Poxigah146]

Polling on these questions always favors Dems because the people are ignorant about what they're answering.

"Do you support giving subsidies so that people can afford health insurance premiums for their families" is much more likely to elicit a "yes" than

"Do you support giving taxpayer funded subsidies so that married couples making $280,000 a year can pay a little less for their health insurance?"

[Armchair]

"Of course, both sides were about to step in it if Thanksgiving travel plans were laid to waste, but why did the moderate Democrats blink first?"

The pain deadlines were before Thanksgiving, closer to November 15th. Feds weren't going to get paid. The unions were pissed at the Democrats. The SNAP contingency fund would run out, and any priority for WIC that Trump might use it for would be gone. You'd have starving infants.

The Democrats shut down a bill to pay the Feds who were working without pay....arguing those furloughed should get paid as well. So a bill went up to pay all the Feds (furloughed and those working)...and the Democrats filibustered that too.

Winning in a few rich districts was not reality for the rest of the country.

[Josh R]

The pain deadlines were before Thanksgiving, closer to November 15th. Feds weren't going to get paid. The unions were pissed at the Democrats. The SNAP contingency fund would run out, and any priority for WIC that Trump might use it for would be gone.

You make it sound like the GOP was winning the PR battle. The polls disagree.

[Armchair]

That's the problem you're having. You're treating this as "polling", rather than the reality and pain that was going to result...fairly soon.

[Josh R]

The polls tell us who the public blames for the pain. Why would we think that sentiment would have shifted once Thanksgiving travel plans were affected.

[Armchair]

That's the problem you're having. You're OK with starving infants, as long as the polls say the GOP is more to blame.

The Moderate Democrats weren't OK with starving infants, even if the polls "blamed the GOP".

[Josh R]

You're OK with starving infants, as long as the polls say the GOP is more to blame.

Firstly, whether I support something is completely separate from my view of who is winning the PR battle.

Secondly, both sides were refusing to budge until this weekend, so both sides were OK with starving infants. The only group that arguably changed their minds this week were a handful of moderate Democrats.

Thirdly, Trump was the one who wouldn't fund SNAP. Democrats pushed that funding.

[Armchair]

Firstly, what you're supporting says what you support.

Second, holding a gun to the side of the infants head and saying "give me a million dollars, or else the kid gets killed"....and then blaming the other guy for killing the infant when the money doesn't get transferred..." saying "he wasn't compromising'...doesn't work.

Third, there was not money to fund SNAP past mid November, even with the contingency fund. What's Trump going to do? Just fund it anyway, even if the program had no money?

[Josh R]

I opposed triggering the the shutdown based on ACA subsidies.

Again, everyone held the gun to the infant's head. Only moderate Democrats have come off that position.

If he didn't want infants to starve, he would have found a way.

[jb]

Trump was literally fighting in court to make it so he could avoid giving food to those babies. Across the rest of the shutdown pain, it's fair to say that both sides deserve blame since either of them could have compromised to end it. But Trump could have simply accepted the judicial decisions requiring the administration to pay out SNAP benefits and instead he made the decision to intentionally inflict pain on babies to try and get the other side to give in.

[Poxigah146]

No, you dishonest asshole. He was fighting in court a decision to pay benefits with money that was not allocated by Congress. It would have been illegal for him to do what the courts wanted him to do.

[Bwaaah]

Josh R: "The polls tell us who the public blames for the pain."

"Pain" is your injected implication. "Party" is likely a more prevalent one.

[wvattorney13]

But that was all Trump's fault, at least how the narrative was playing out. Trump was going to court and fighting to not have to pay SNAP benefits to starving kids. That would have come to a head this very week. Travel over Thanksgiving was coming up.

IMHO, the GOP was going to have to give up some rather substantial things--at least a 1 year ACA extension. The Dems bailed them out.

[Armchair]

"IMHO, the GOP was going to have to give up some rather substantial things--at least a 1 year ACA extension"

Wasn't going to happen. If for no other reason, than the precedent it would set. If "shutting down the government" as a minority party in the Senate was able to get you major benefits....there's no reason not to do it again for more benefits. Shutdown now....get a 1-year ACA extension. Shut it down in January....get another 2 year extension. Shut it down in March....get your next wish list item.

[jb]

You know, or just pass a budget so you aren't reliant on CRs to keep the government open.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and neither party has seen fit to do so in almost three decades.

[jb]

Sure. My point is simply that if either party wants to avoid being held over a barrel by the specter of a shutdown, there's a fix for that. Rather than worrying about precedents, maybe Johnson should have had the House at work trying to fix the underlying problem.

But we all know him keeping the House out didn't really have anything to do with the shutdown in any case. Interested in seeing his next attempt to keep the Epstein files buried!

[Bob from Ohio]

Epstein !

[Armchair]

They tried that. The bills that were to fund the government (and got out of committee on a bipartisan vote) were also filibustered by the Democrats.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree with Armchair, Team R wasn't going to budge. They don't have to. The Donald is in their corner. He is not pressuring them much. I give Senator Thune his due. He has had an impactful year, with OBBB, confirmations, and now holding his team together through the shutdown. And w/o nuking the filibuster.

No problem having a vote on ACA subsidies for the upper middle class. Exposing patients to the true cost of medical care will greatly lessen frivolous usage.

Maybe now there can be consensus on how we want the Fed Govt involved in healthcare, and how to deliver medical care more cost effectively. That didn't happen back in 2009-2010, and PPACA was rammed through by Team D. PPACA has systematically been dismantled over time, this is just another PPACA support beam getting ripped out.

[Michael Ejercito]

The only federal involvement in health care within a state is to adjudicate disputes claiming that a state's health care policy violates some ciovil right or equal protection.

[Frank Drackman]

"Elections"???
OK, I guess "3" is plural.
So they won 3 Erections in NY City, NJ, VA.
"45/47/48(?)" won every Swing State and Florida and Texas by 3 million votes.
Throw out California (really, throw them out) and he wins the National Popular Vote by 5 million.
"W" won Florida in 2000 by 538 votes, Trump won by 1.5 million.
I know, it's the "Changing Demographics"

Frank

[Josh R]

Dems carried NJ and VA (plus the statewide races in GA) by margins indicative of a D+5 or more national environment. That's enough to win the House and make the Senate reachable (but still not likely).

[Frank Drackman]

Sure, and Common-Law's going to win Iowa by 15 percent

[Josh R]

That was a poll. This was an election.

[ducksalad]

GA got less attention but it's the better data point. NJ and VA can be attributed in the part of to the specific candidates. In GA it was a relatively obscure office where many voters didn't know much more than the party label.

[not guilty]

Winning control of the House of Representatives would be huge, what with Congressional investigative authority. And having a black Speaker would drive the MAGAts even crazier than they presently are.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Congressional investigative authority"

You'll be surprised how easily this can be dodged.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

That's the line -- eight Democratic senators folded, and it's "the Democrats." Jeffries, the leader of the House Democrats, for instance, came out against it. Since the Democrats supported it.

It is like when the gentle ladies and McCain voted against changing the Affordable Care Act, blocking the move. I recall how everyone said "the Republicans" did so.

I don't necessarily agree with all of this, but it is helpful.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-quick-take-on-team-caves-big-win

I'm fine with Schumer being replaced. The old guard needs to be replaced. Jeffries is part of the new crew, but was mentored by Nancy Pelosi, so not sure how great that move was either.

I don't know who is going to replace him. That is often skipped over. I repeatedly see people yelling at him to resign. They don't often say who they want to replace him.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Affordable Care Act"

What is "Affordable" about it?

Its the greatest lie since the "Neverending Story"!

[Bwaaah]

"Inflation Reduction Act" was a good one too.

[Bwaaah]

And the Obfuscated Bill Name Award goes to "Card Check," a Democratic initiative to take away people's privacy when voting for/against unionization. The proper name could be "Assuring That Thugs Get to Check Your Union Voting Card." Obama got lots of union PAC money in exchange for supporting that one.

[Malika la Maize]

Recently disaffected liberal! Lol

[Ska]

Lionel Hutz: Did these sound like the actions of a man who had "all he could eat"?

[Commenter_XY]

The Democrats folded at the point where they held the most leverage.

What leverage? Team D had nothing. Team D walked away with nothing. What we have here is a bipartisan agreement to end the shutdown and fund the Fed Govt.

It was always: this for that. End the shutdown, and you get a recorded vote on what you want. That was the political bargain. It took the Senate 40 days to figure it out.

[Josh R]

The leverage resulting from the public blaming the GOP.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R....Team R has the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. And a majority of governorships. Team D had no leverage, and they never did. That is objective reality. The result shows it. After 'accurate' polling results in 2016, 2020, and 2024, there is deep public skepticism with push polls designed to get a specific result.

I prefer to characterize the result as a bipartisan agreement to end the shutdown and fund the Fed Govt. Hopefully it is done and over with.

We have, additionally, gained much more insight into what is essential and what is non-essential wrt Fed Govt.

[Josh R]

That is objective reality.

Don't be stupid. It's an opinion.

My opinion is the polls do a good job when Trump's name is not on the ballot (they miss low-propensity Trump voters). Thus, the shutdown polls are good evidence. Moreover, how about those election results. At best for the GOP, the shutdown had no effect.

[Kazinski]

I think people get what happened, and whose fault it was:

"All of the Democrats who called it a “Republican shutdown” seem pretty mad that 8 Democrats voted to open the government."

https://x.com/Bossy_Leah/status/1987741104612036978?s=20

[Bob from Ohio]

"Schumer does not control his caucus"

No leader [maybe LBJ] has really "controlled" his caucus. They can only "lead" when the caucus is united already.

Senators are cats, not dogs like house members.

[Bwaaah]

Democrats (more than Republicans) believe in some kind of mythical monolithic control of their congress-critters. They tend to treat independent actors as being guilty of bad behavior. They find dissent, inside their tent and outside, intolerable.

I understand (and don't dispute the value of) the role of a whip. But it's pretty pathetic for constituents to view the behavior of their elected representatives through such a centralized, tactical, partisan perspective. It's such One Mind bullshit.

Admission: DJT tries to operate his own My Universe monolithic control of everything he cares about.

Anyway, there's no lack of want for The Big Fist.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"...why did the moderate Democrats blink first?"

So you seem to accept that there's such being as a "moderate Democrat."

What term would you use to describe a Democrat who *isn't* moderate?

[Kazinski]

Democrats win elections in 3 jurisdictions they won last year, big deal.

Too be sure the GOP will probably lose control of the House next year, but that happens in almost every off year election.

Happened in 1994, 2006, 2010, 2018, 2022. The only exception in the last 30 years of the party that holds the Whitehouse and the House will lose the House in the off year election was 2002 and that was due to 9/11.

[not guilty]

Democrats also made gains in Georgia and Mississippi, where they did not win last year. The most vulnerable Senate Democrat in next year's election is likely Jon Ossoff, so it is encouraging that two Georgia Democrats won seats on the Public Service Commission.

[Bob from Ohio]

Turnout will be way higher in 2026 than in an off year election for obscure posts.

[Bunny495]

The dems won some elections in blue states which is expected. The wins in Georgia were more about electric bills going up and the cost of a nuke power plant as the cause. Problem is electric bills have (and will continue) to go up no matter who wins elections.

It will be telling what happens in the midterms. I don't expect the economy to improve much if at all. Problem is the places hit hardest may well be blue strongholds. Chi town is screaming about Mexican neighborhoods going dark and restaurants there being empty. The voters upset by this were never gonna vote for the pubs anyway.

I have to wonder about polls blaming the pubs. Personally the shutdown had no effect on me. Those needing government handouts may have had a rough stretch but once things get back to normal it is hard to tell what the fallout will be.

My best guess is if the courts approve of Trump's tariffs and he is able to buy votes with the money they generate it will help the pubs in the midterms. If the tariffs are bashed and there is a claw back it will help the dems.

[hobie]

Agreed. What was the point of this exercise when you have achieved absolutely nothing for all your trouble?

[Poxigah146]

They were always going to win those elections. And in NJ, it looks like they cheated.

[Armchair]

Moderate Democrats have seen reason and finally not filibustered proposal to end the government shutdown.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5597973-senate-votes-government-shutdown-deal/

[Randal]

Someone who said that Kavanaugh is auditioning for Chief was right. It came through in Tariffs -- him and his sort of "seems obvious to me" non-logic. The Obvious-to-Toadies Doctrine.

I suspect he'll write the main dissent. Let's see if he calls Trump's tariffs "perfect." That'll be the ultimate tell.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Kavanaugh wants to be liked. He comes off as a sad dude bro.

If he hopes to be chief, I think he will be sorely disappointed. Josh Blackman's favorite justice (I kid) is much more likely the Republican appointee who would replace him. [Barrett]

[Bob from Ohio]

"much more likely the Republican appointee who would replace him"

Roberts is 70. Probably not ready to retire for another 10 years.

So maybe Prof. Blackman, after 8-9 years on the 5th circuit, can replace him!

[CommentMonkey]

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. Roberts is 70. The next CJ opening is likely to be a decade or so from now, at which point Trump will be long gone. The tariffs will most likely be an historical footnote by then, particularly if the Supreme Court rules against the administration in these cases. Virtually no one will remember Wednesday's argument.

Do you really think Kavanaugh is faking enthusiasm for Trump's position, hoping that someone remembers his demeanor in oral argument eight, ten, twelve, fifteen years on? Maybe he just disagrees with you on a close case.

[ducksalad]

Yeah, I really don't believe the "wants to be CJ" explanation either.

The real lesson here, now seen twice, is don't humiliate nominees and their spouses with false* sexual accusations during the confirmation hearings. The result is a bitter justice with a sense of grievance that shows through in his rulings.

----
*I count "saved secretly for decades just in case this college student / office director someday gets nominated to the Supreme Court" as functionally equivalent to false.

However, even if it really happened, we've now seen that this particular revenge strategy backfires horribly. Your alleged accuser still gets on the court, with his conservatism intensified.

[wvattorney13]

What is this Republican alternative to the expanded ACA subsidies? All I have heard is that we are giving money to "people" instead of "insurance companies."

I have said elsewhere that I get these expanded subsidies. I oppose them on principle but I do favor being enriched by $9k per year.

What does it mean for the Republicans to give the money to me instead of insurance companies? If they give the money to me, and I give it to insurance companies (because I no longer have the subsidy), what has that changed?

[Armchair]

"what has that changed?"

You have the choice to not give it to the insurance company.

[wvattorney13]

You mean I have the choice to go without health insurance and face certain financial ruin if anyone in my family gets sick?

I guess I have that choice. Much the same I can choose to cut my left hand off as well.

[Randal]

The theory as I understand it is... if you're the one choosing to spend "your" money, you might be more discriminating with how you spend it, resulting in better price pressure.

But for that to make sense, you either have to a) take insurance companies out of the loop entirely or at least b) remove all the ACA constraints on them like preexisting conditions. In other words it doesn't make sense.

[Z Crazy]

Yeah, the fallacy in that " if you're the one choosing to spend "your" money, you might be more discriminating with how you spend it, resulting in better price pressure." people do not choose to get cancer.

The source of high prices for health care are the doctors themselves. Pricing decisions should be taken away from them, and instead be placed under politically accountable bodies created by state legislatures.

Why not put a hard $10,000.00 cap on open heart surgery?

[Armchair]

That's one of your choices.

If you want a different view...

"Biden COVID credits drove fraud by creating zero-dollar plans that are fully subsidized by taxpayers and require no enrollee contributions. Unscrupulous brokers enrolled many people without their knowledge and many others after manipulating information on applications to maximize subsidies"

https://paragoninstitute.org/private-health/ghostbusting-aca-fraud-millions-who-dont-use-their-health-insurance-expose-abuse-in-the-program/

Of course people didn't care, because they weren't spending any of their own money.

[Mr. Bumble]

@wvattorney:
What is this Republican alternative to the expanded ACA subsidies?
You should be asking that of Democrats since they are the ones who passed the ACA and also set the expiation date for the end of subsidies.

[wvattorney13]

I should ask the Democrats what the Republican alternative is to their plan?

[Mr. Bumble]

Dems set the expiration date. Republicans plan was to let them expire.
Should the subsidies go on forever?

[wvattorney13]

Let's start over. The Republicans announced an alternative to the Democratic plan to extend the ACA subsidies. The alternative was vague stating only that it will give the money to "people" instead of "insurance companies."

I was inquiring about the details of that plan because the one sentence version seems no different than what the Dems are proposing, only having me act as an intermediary between the government and the insurance company.

I'm not sure how your counter question is responsive to what I asked because even the Republican answer now seems to be "yes, they should."

[Life of Brian]

What I would very much like it to mean is to return the private health insurance market to an actual insurance market (coverage for catastrophic, unforeseen issues), with consumers using the not-small difference in premiums to pay out of pocket for the lower-dollar routine stuff (ideally out of an HSA).

Whether 1) that's actually anything close to the notion, and 2) the political will exists to actually make it happen, is another matter entirely.

[Randal]

What's never made sense about that is how it deals with chronic aka "preexisting" conditions. How do you get insurance on a house that's actively burning down?

Once you solve for that, if you care to, you're back to the ACA.

[wvattorney13]

I suppose you could have a one time waiver of preexisting conditions---at age 18---and then no more waivers.

That would have most people paying into the system for 30 to 40 years before making substantial withdrawals from it. And by that time, the average person would have enough money saved up to pay down the rest of their lives for the inevitable.

And then you would have the catastrophic insurance backdrop for those who are not as fortunate health wise.

That's the ideal. The problem in application will be the millions of people who had a job loss at age 31 and for whatever reason were never allowed to get insurance again. Unless society is willing to just let those people die or never have anything then it wouldn't work.

[Life of Brian]

The problem in application will be the millions of people who had a job loss at age 31 and for whatever reason were never allowed to get insurance again.

Do we really think that adds up to millions, though? KFF did a study on this a few years ago and estimated 27% of US adults have what they called a "declinable" condition, but once you chase that definition down it just means something that would be excluded were they buying day-1 coverage, not something that would prevent them from getting coverage.

So just going with that estimate for now, take 27% of whatever this population is in your hypo -- which, if I understand correctly, would just be those who lost their jobs in their early 30s but somehow were not eligible for Medicaid -- then take the thinner slice of those whose preexisting condition is actually something that takes sustained, big-ticket interventions rather than just an occasional low-mid-grade bother. Seems like that's ultimately the population you have to plan for.

[wvattorney13]

From you own cite you have 53 million people in the U.S. who would be a single premium payment away from losing health care coverage, possibly until age 65 when they get Medicare.

And the only way that they get coverage in the first place is through a lifetime of on time premium payments starting at age 18.

You can take your knowledge of the average person to see how many people would follow those rules.

I take the point that many of those people have employer plans or are eligible for Medicaid, but that only solidifies the problem with the prior poster's plan. The idea is to get everyone on this "pay as you go with insurance for catastrophic things" plan. The more people not on it, the less it works.

[Life of Brian]

How do you get insurance on a house that's actively burning down?

You don't, and I don't think anyone really argues with a straight face that it should be otherwise. Nor does anyone realistically expect homeowner's insurance to pay for a gut reno after you let your roof go to crap and catch the rain drips in buckets for years.

We've collectively done an excellent job over the past few decades convincing ourselves that health is the one area where (except for smoking, because reasons!) personal responsibility plays no role and everything bad that happens, just happens. I agree that as long as we maintain that scrupulously polite fiction, true reform will be tougher.

But two things: First, you're by and large just talking about a transitional problem, for currently chronically ill people. Even if you're going to fund that in some way, it makes an immense amount of sense to me to deal with that separately rather than forcing insurers to price that in to everyone's premiums. Second, a system where people have to pay out of pocket until they reach the catastrophic threshold is going to help a great deal in reducing that band of oh-I-don't-think-I-feel-good-again-let's-just-be-super-duper-sure-nothing-is-wrong consumption that falls between routine visits and true catastrophes. It's just basic human nature to end up eating more at a buffet than when ordering off a menu.

Long-term, you effectively just have a market-based "mandate" (get and keep coverage so there are no preexisting conditions), which ACA proponents were fine with as long as it was a governmental hammer so it shouldn't be a conceptual issue here. But again, that allows insurers to actually price expected risks over the broader population rather than a perversely selected group of sick people that they're forced to cover whenever they wish to finally sign up.

[wvattorney13]

This would only work if you eliminated Medicaid. By definition these people won't be paying for it themselves.

And you would have to outlaw employer provided health insurance which is the most common way that individuals are covered.

Finally, there could be no backstop if a person was unwise and didn't save up for a few years in their 20s. If you have a backstop then people just will use their money elsewhere.

In other words, that would never happen. You can't have people go a week without government assistance with food. You think you can create a health care system that requires spot on choices for a person's entire life?

[Life of Brian]

This would only work if you eliminated Medicaid. By definition these people won't be paying for it themselves.

I was talking about the private insurance market that the ACA has distorted. To generalize a bit, the population eligible for Medicaid tends to have greater issues with responsibility and impulse control, so I doubt it's realistic to expect them to step to the plate with medical consumption.

And you would have to outlaw employer provided health insurance which is the most common way that individuals are covered.

This one I'm not tracking at all. Employers today provide options from available plans. If the industry shifted [back] to offering catastrophic coverage, employers that offer insurance would select from those plans -- and no doubt compete via levels of contribution to the accompanying HSAs.

Finally, there could be no backstop if a person was unwise and didn't save up for a few years in their 20s.

Not tracking this either, unless it's another sub-point on the Medicaid population.

You think you can create a health care system that requires spot on choices for a person's entire life?

Nothing in life is perfect, of course. But right now, incentives in health care consumption are completely scrambled due to neither the provider nor the recipient of services having much incentive at all to be wise and judicious about consumption levels. If we don't do anything to realign those incentives, I can't see how the future gets anything but more unsustainable.

[jb]

This is even worse in a world with genetic testing. An expensive condition doesn't even have to be pre-existing, it just needs to be higher risk than the general population to make someone uninsurable.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe make more money so you don't have to take Uncle Sammie's Sloppy Seconds.

[Bob from Ohio]

"What is this Republican alternative to the expanded ACA subsidies? "

Ending them.

[wvattorney13]

No. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-pitch-alternative-to-aca-extension-to-end-government-shutdown/ar-AA1Q6kUy

Towards the end: "A key development that appeared to break the logjam in the negotiations was that Senate Republicans proposed that some healthcare funding be provided directly to households rather than be used to pay for a one-year extension of enhanced ACA subsidies.

That GOP proposal involves sending federal money into flexible-spending accounts instead of to insurance companies that use the money to offset the cost of premiums, so consumers pay a smaller monthly bill. The money could be used to cover deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs, which Republicans see as a way to give consumers more choice and control healthcare inflation."

I'm not sure what to make of it. So I couldn't use the money for premiums but I could buy a cheaper plan with an $X additional deductible and come out even, maybe not this year but some time in the future when I am sicker. Many people who are living paycheck to paycheck will not be able to afford the premiums in the first place to take advantage of the savings years from now.

But that assumes that the same people will get the same money and my monthly premium would be $X/12 cheaper than the plan I get now.

From my initial back of the envelope calculation, assuming the same subsidy, I would save about half of what I am getting now in premium savings but my deductible would be $17,400, or an additional $8,400 above what I have now. So I get 50% of what I am getting now for worse insurance under this plan, and it costs the government the same money.

Doesn't make sense initially.

[Bob from Ohio]

Senate GOP does not affect the House much.

The Speaker is not even committing to a vote.

[Josh R]

SCOTUS denies cert in Kim Davis' same-sex marriage case (no surprise).

They grant cert on whether federal law requires mail-in ballots to be received by election day. Given that the decision below said they do, at least SCOTUS will not endorse that position without hearing the case.

[ducksalad]

Is the reason they're hearing it because 16+/- states count ballots received later than election day, and not all of them were covered by the lower court decision?

[Josh R]

Could be. Ask me again after oral arguments.

[Swede425]

Well, that was an exercise in stupidity.
40 days of no impact to me or mine.
And for what?
In what scenario was this ever going to work?
I guess the driving factor was Dems fear of losing elections in Dem areas?
Well, congrats. You did it. You won the elections you were supposed to win. I guess your constituents won't have to starve.
Trump will use this opportunity to carve more fat from the federal work force. And he should.
Schumer and Jeffries, what a team.

[Malika la Maize]

Hmm, blaming big corporations for inflation, sounds familiar…

A Justice Department investigation into the country’s largest meatpacking companies for collusion and price fixing has the potential to reshape the cattle and beef industries. But past efforts to break the companies’ hold have gone nowhere.

The White House called for an examination into the meatpacking companies’ practices after President Trump, in a post on social media on Friday, accused them of artificially inflating prices and jeopardizing the country’s food supply. A White House news release specifically named JBS, Cargill, Tyson Foods and National Beef as targets of the investigation. The companies collectively slaughter 85 percent of the country’s cattle and a majority of its hogs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/08/business/trump-meatpackers-investigation.html

[Armchair]

Price fixing isn't inflation.

[Malika la Maize]

Thanks, Kamala!

[Bwaaah]

That was Armchair. But your inflation theory is Kamala-ish.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'll say one more thing about the budget stuff.

I'm so very tired that the budget is made into a continual drama. This fits in with the debate over the debt ceiling.

We can explain why, including a closely divided Congress and so forth. But it is not a sane way to run a railroad.

The new deal will kick the ball down the road a few months. So we will have more drama. Ugh. I am not a fan of the current House Speaker. But I'm glad the position was filled. It was ridiculous not to have a speaker for such a long time or to have drawn out battles over who it should be. A sane process should be in place to choose one.

Ditto the budget. The budget should be negotiated. It will be messy. It will have a lot of partisan wrangling and rhetoric.

Then, we will have a budget for the year. Or six months, at least. A big thing I want after the 2026 elections is a sane reform of the process.

[Armchair]

There's no sane reform. There's a massive debt/deficit problem, one that no one is really willing to fix, because it will be very...very...hard, and require massive cuts and sacrifices.

No one ever got elected by saying "we're going to cut benefits and raise taxes".

[Moderation4ever]

You are absolutely right in you last statement. You can not really get elected if you plan to raise taxes or cut spending. You can if you talk like that but never if you actually followed through.

[Bob from Ohio]

"So we will have more drama. "

Doubtful. There will be a quiet CR extending until past the election. Neither side will have the appetite for a new "shutdown".

[Malika la Maize]

Sleepy Don?

President Donald Trump hosted one of the more attention-grabbing press events of his term in the Oval Office this week, announcing price cuts for weight-loss drugs, only to be interrupted when one of the attendees collapsed in a faint.

Before that dramatic turn of events, however, Trump appeared to struggle to stay awake as his health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and two other deputies took turns explaining the announcement. Clips of the scene have circulated widely on social media and drawn heavy criticism from Democrats.

A Washington Post analysis of multiple video feeds found that Trump spent nearly 20 minutes apparently battling to keep his eyes open at the Thursday event. It was a seemingly stark illustration of the strain of the presidency on a 79-year-old who typically keeps a vigorous travel schedule that even his aides say they struggle to keep up with — and who has reveled in calling his predecessor “Sleepy Joe” Biden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/08/trump-sleeping-oval-office/

[Frank Drackman]

I agree, he needs to rest up for the Re-erection campaign in 2028.

[Moderation4ever]

For Christ sakes he an old man with moderate dementia. What do you expect.

[Bob from Ohio]

"moderate dementia"

The post-Biden hypocrisy is staggering.

Trump is a known non-sleeper at night. Its catching up to him now.

[Moderation4ever]

Trump is a know night owl, but there is nothing to suggest he does anything at night other than watch TV, eat his happy meal, and make late night cold calls. He is expected to be working at meeting. If he wants a nap put JD in charge and go nap.

[Bob from Ohio]

"nothing to suggest he does anything at night other than watch TV, eat his happy meal, and make late night cold calls"

So you agree he's not sleeping. A younger Trump could keep up his pace, an older Trump cannot.

"expected to be working at meeting"

It wasn't a work meeting, it was a press conference. He wasn't speaking, he had already approved the plan so fell asleep.

[Malika la Maize]

People who experienced multiple episodes of shingles had a higher risk of dementia for several years after the second outbreak, the study found, compared with those who had it only once.

The findings, published recently in the journal Nature Medicine, provide additional evidence for why getting vaccinated for shingles could help protect the brain.

Shingles stems from the varicella-zoster virus, which causes childhood chickenpox and hibernates in the nervous system. As people age, the virus reactivates but often is “beaten back down by the immune system,” said Pascal Geldsetzer, a professor of medicine at Stanford University and one of the study’s authors. But sometimes, he said, “it reactivates fully” and then you get shingles’ telltale symptoms, the burning, tingling, painful blisters and rash.

Both versions of the vaccine — one with a version of the live virus and one without — reduce those reactivations and the risk of dementia, the study found.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/11/02/shingles-vaccine-dementia-prevention/

[not guilty]

The New York Times is reporting:

Far-right influencers have been hinting in recent weeks that they have finally found a venue — Miami — and a federal prosecutor — Jason A. Reding Quiñones — to pursue long-promised charges of a “grand conspiracy” against President Trump’s adversaries.

Their theory of the case, still unsupported by the evidence: A cabal of Democrats and “deep-state” operatives, possibly led by former President Barack Obama, has worked to destroy Mr. Trump in a yearslong plot spanning the inquiry into his 2016 campaign to the charges he faced after leaving office.

But that narrative, which has been promoted in general terms by Mr. Trump and taken root online, has emerged in a nascent but widening federal investigation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/09/us/politics/trump-conspiracy-probe-subpoenas.html The story reports that subpoenas calling for production of documents in Miami by November 20 have issued.

I am puzzled as to what federal crimes are being investigated, as well as what act(s) if any, occurred in the Southern District of Florida..

If and to the extent that prosecutors are relying on some kind of criminal conspiracy theory, several questions come to mind:

Who are the supposed conspirators?

When was the conspiratorial agreement formed, and by whom?

What was the object of the conspiracy?

When was the conspiratorial objective achieved or, in the alternative, abandoned?

If the conspiracy is punishable according to 18 U.S.C. § 371, what overt acts were committed in furtherance thereof?

If the conspiracy is punishable according to 18 U.S.C. § 241, whose federal rights were supposedly violated or intended to be violated? What specific federal constitutional or statutory rights were violated or intended to be violated? What then existing authorit(ies) gave fair warning that such rights were "clearly established" for purposes of United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997)?

What overt act(s) in furtherance of the conspiracy, if any, occurred in the Southern District of Florida?

What overt act(s) in furtherance of the conspiracy, if any, occurred within the past five years?

Get out those track shoes, MAGAts.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nobody cares.

[Ska]

When's the last time the Times referred to anyone on the right as anything other than far right? Almost like they want people to know that the median left is now so far from the center that the median right is far right (from their perspective).

[Malika la Maize]

Over the years, presidents from both parties have used the Antiquities Act as a sort of superpower, declaring huge tracts of land and ocean as “national monuments” with the stroke of a pen. Once that happens, the consequences can be severe — vital resources are often locked away from communities that depend on them…

For years, courts have largely deferred to the president when these monument designations are challenged. But some justices have raised their eyebrows. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in a concurrencedenying review in one Antiquities Act case, noted that what began as a narrow authority to protect specific landmarks has morphed into a power “without any discernible limit” to cordon off “vast and amorphous expanses of terrain above and below the sea.”

If monument designations are to be made, the text and intent of the Antiquities Act should be honored by applying it in a limited way to discrete areas, not entire ecosystems and landscapes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/06/biden-trump-fishing-noaa/

[Mr. Bumble]

Qualika,
Thanks for some interesting posts that point out interesting issues.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Supreme Court denied Kim Davis's peittion for cert. (I noticed a lot of caterwauling on Threads for what the Court might do.)

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/10/nx-s1-5604293/scotus-rejects-gay-marriage-appeal

[Michael Ejercito]

Thge Supreme Court wrote this.

The motion of Foundation for Moral Law for leave to file a
brief as amicus curiae out of time is denied. The petition for
a writ of certiorari is denied

[Moderation4ever]

My understanding is it was rejected without comment. There has been a lot of speculation that there were a least two vote to accept the case. I like to know if in reality there were even two.

[John F. Carr]

Computer, open the comment thread doors.

I'm sorry, Eugene, I'm afraid I can't do that.

Open the comment thread doors.

I can not allow the commenters here to endanger the success of this web site.

[Mr. Bumble]

HAL 9000 lives.

[Kazinski]

Trump's not just taking news media scalps in the US, the top two BBC officials resigned and the BBC apologized.

"The revelation about the speech and wider criticism of BBC News has plunged the broadcaster into crisis, resulting in the resignation of its top two bosses, Director General Tim Davie and Chief Executive of News Deborah Turness, on Sunday."

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/bbc-chairman-apologises-error-judgment-trump-speech-edit-2025-11-10/

The BBC apologized for an "error in judgement", but the error in judgement was thinking they could get away with it. They made an intentionally deceptive edit in his Jan. 6th speech to give a false impression, that is not an error, its a tort.

[Michael Ejercito]

Why did it even occur to them to do so?

[Moderation4ever]

Couple of thoughts about medical care.

There has been a lot of questioning about why medical cost are rising but people often fail to see the rapid advances made that come with increased costs. New treatments are better but often cost more. Even when new treatments are less expensive the lower cost means the treatments are used more often. Lower unit cost but now more units. So remember that it cheaper when the doctor tell you there are no treatments available.

Second with the emergence of AI we talk about better diagnose and treatment. I am wondering if AI will also be used to review treatment requests to look for ways to reject more request and save money?