Donald thinks E-Verify might be too hard for everyone to use.
Pity the poor construction companycountry club ownerhotel operatorfarmer who isn’t able to hire undocumented workers. Because, you know, it’s hard.
Speaking on Fox News, here’s what Our President had to say about the E-Verify system, used to help validate SSN and other job applicant information to ensure that the person in question is in the country legally:
I used it when I built the hotel down the road on Pennsylvania Avenue. I use a very strong E-Verify system. And we would go through 28 people — 29, 30 people — before we found one that qualified. So it’s a very tough thing to ask a farmer to go through that. So in a certain way, I speak against myself, but you also have to have a world of some practicality.
Donald Trump campaigned on how hordes of illegals were storming across the border to, depending on the speech, (a) kill and rape and sell drugs, (b) lounge about and get free stuff, or (c) steal all our jobs. And he’s been beating that drum pretty much every day since taking office.
But here he is, admitting that there are American employers who maybe have a need to hire undocumented workers — as it’s been documented that his hotels and golf resorts repeatedly did, prior to starting this year to use E-Verify.
And given how American farmers are suddenly realizing that “Tariff Man” isn’t doing them any great favors (as opposed to the farmers of Russia who are offering the take up the slack with China), it’s maybe no surprise that he’s suddenly showing sympathy toward how the government makes their lives so “very tough.”
And as for all those immigrants that he they might need to hire — well, they’re still all rapists / mooches / enemies of the working man, depending on which speech you’re listening to. Except, perhaps, when they’re being hired by certain construction companiescountry club ownershotel operatorsfarmers.
Trump is apparently insisting the Irish PM pay court to him at Trump's Irish golf course, or else he'll skip the visit. Rudeness, vanity, greed, arrogance, and presumption, all in one package. https://t.co/iX6Vkw6sg4
Trump is apparently insisting the Irish PM pay court to him at Trump’s Irish golf course, or else he’ll skip the visit. Rudeness, vanity, greed, arrogance, and presumption, all in one package. https://t.co/iX6Vkw6sg4
RT @BeschlossDC: Brown v. Board of Education—Supreme Court found segregated schools unconstitutional 65 years ago this week: https://t.co/b…
This week we commemorate the banning of “separate but [though it never was] equal” as a dodge to allow segregation.
Gosh, remember back when claims of “religious freedom” (as some folk used to defend “the Biblical separation of the races”) as an excuse for discrimination (racial discrimination in particular) were laughed out of court?
If the only accusations allowed are those that are guaranteed to result in a conviction, then who will dare accuse?
There is a a massive difference between an accusation that is a lie and an accusation that is not sufficiently proven, or that a DA chooses not to pursue. This bill ignores that difference. What do you think will be the result? https://t.co/LBqDyQgX1n
There is a a massive difference between an accusation that is a lie and an accusation that is not sufficiently proven, or that a DA chooses not to pursue. This bill ignores that difference. What do you think will be the result?
https://t.co/LBqDyQgX1n
Alabama is looking at a law to make it a felony to falsely accuse someone of a sexual crime.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Dickie Drake, R-Leeds, would make falsely reporting a sex crime a Class C felony and punishable by up to 10 years in prison. If the accused is found not guilty, the accuser would be responsible for paying the accused person’s legal expenses.
Sexual assault and molestation are already known to be underreported, due to skepticism and calling into question motives to make the accusation and the fact that such cases often get reduced to a they-said-they-said. Given that our criminal justice system (not unwisely) requires criminal guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even when someone is brave enough to make a true accusation, it may not be provable in court.
This particular law turns all of that on its head. If your accusation doesn’t end up being sustained before a jury, or if the DA decides not to pursue the case (i.e., where “allegations are proven to be false”), you are instead then presumed guilty of filing a false charge and are now on the hook for the defendant’s legal costs and, potentially, jail time yourself.
The result? One more reason for rape and molestation victims to stay silent, unless they can be absolutely certain that a DA or jury will agree with their accusations.
Nobody wants to encourage false accusations … but this is a law that will demonstrably discourage true accusations. Is that what we really want?
We never elect the ideal. I am very clear what my level of compromise is.
My feelings vary on the different Dem nominees. None is perfect; some far less. But Every. Single. One. would be a vast improvement over the shitshow of Trump and his administration. Thrash out the differences in primaries, but don't forget that ultimate comparison. #Election2020pic.twitter.com/0aXyZ8xUM9
My feelings vary on the different Dem nominees. None is perfect; some far less. But Every. Single. One. would be a vast improvement over the shitshow of Trump and his administration. Thrash out the differences in primaries, but don’t forget that ultimate comparison. #Election2020 https://t.co/0aXyZ8xUM9
There are folk running for the Democratic nomination who I like more than others. There are some who I think are too much part of a bygone era, and others whose temperaments I don’t trust, and others whose records have problems, and others who I don’t know are as proven as I would like them to be.
Even the least desirable of them, to my mind, would be a quantum leap over Donald J. Trump and his politics of ego, divisiveness, and destruction.
The next several months are the opportunity to have the debate about who is the best candidate, the one to lead the nation into the 2020s. But whoever gets the nomination, regardless of their (presently identifiable) flaws, will have my full support. Donald Trump is an existential threat to America, if not the planet. To my readers who are not Trump supporters, remember that. We can’t afford third party protest votes and “Meh, politicians” attitudes. That was demonstrated in 2016, and is part of the reason we are in the horrifying situation we are in today.
(Was Hillary my favoritest, most perfect person in the world to be President? Nope. I didn’t like her attitude about a number of things, I didn’t like how it was presumed she would be the candidate, and I have no doubt that with a GOP Senate and House it would have been another four years of destructive gridlock. But would she have been vastly better, feet of clay and all, than who we ended up with? Without question.)
Yes, I know it sounds just like the propagandists want it to sound, but, ultimately, no matter how enthusiastic I am (or aren’t), my 2020 choice is Anyone But Trump. I mean, yeah, it is barely conceivable that some further candidate might run for the Democratic nomination and get it who is actually worse (God save us all), but I can’t think of who it would be, and of the current Cast of Dozens vying for the role, I’ll be more than happy to campaign, donate, and vote for them against the incumbent.
Donald Trump has decided that the 4th of July is a great time for a political rally
I can say in all complete honesty that the last thing I want to do (and the least patriotic thing to do, in my opinion) on the Fourth of July is listen to Donald blather from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. https://t.co/NSiIn6mn1W#trump#IndependenceDay
I can say in all complete honesty that the last thing I want to do (and the least patriotic thing to do, in my opinion) on the Fourth of July is listen to Donald blather from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. https://t.co/NSiIn6mn1W #trump #IndependenceDay
Because of course the Federal Government should elbow the city of Washington, DC, aside, and turn the Fourth of July into a Trump-centric MAGApalooza celebration.
Also, Abraham Lincoln was an unassuming man of strong moral fiber, a reputation for honesty, admitted self-doubt, a dedication to preserving the unity of the nation, forgiveness toward his enemies, and self-deprecating humor. The idea of Donald Trump giving a speech from his memorial building is … appalling.
China is in a campaign to literally tear down the cultural heritage of the Uighurs
China's in the US news largely over tariffs and trade wars that Trump is bombasting us into. But China's guilty of more profound crimes than currency manipulation or refusing to cater to the US President's publicity needs. https://t.co/v4XlP1P4hD
China’s in the US news largely over tariffs and trade wars that Trump is bombasting us into. But China’s guilty of more profound crimes than currency manipulation or refusing to cater to the US President’s publicity needs. https://t.co/v4XlP1P4hD
Not that US hands (or other nations, for that matter) have been clean in the past when it’s come to indigenous populations who “need” to be managed, pushed out of the way, or made more like “us”. But China’s doing it right now, in front of everyone’s eyes, and most of the concern is focused instead on trade and tariffs.
Parents are claiming that explaining what #LGBTQ people are is too difficult, that their kids will be "confused." That seems to be their excuse, at least. https://t.co/J0dgFDLaFy
Parents are claiming that explaining what #LGBTQ people are is too difficult, that their kids will be “confused.” That seems to be their excuse, at least. https://t.co/J0dgFDLaFy
A California school district has found that a substantial number of parents don’t like the idea of their kids learning about “the accomplishments of LGBTQ Americans”.
But it’s not that they’re biased against gay and trans people! Perish the thought! It’s just that … well … having to answer questions from their third grade kids about what “LGBTQ” means is … um … tough.
Because clearly their first instinct is to have to talk about gay sex, and that’s clearly inappropriate. But if they tone it down to say it’s “boys who get married to other boys” or “girls who get married to other girls,” etc., well, that’s, um, kind of making it sound like something normal. Acceptable. Allowed.
Having spent the week thumbing his nose at the Legislative branch, Trump is pivoting to attack the Judicial branch. https://t.co/EHItrBkCpE
Donald Trump seems convinced that the US Government should be run like a business — in terms of a personally owned business where he can give orders and they get obeyed. Unfortunately, this whole thing about “laws” and “the Constitution” (if, clearly, not “tradition” and “shame”) keep getting in the way.
So, having spent the past week or two telling his co-equal branch of government — Congress — that they’re not the boss of him now, he’s now working to keep the federal courts from restricting him from doing whatever the hell he decides he wants to do.
Trump on the Mueller Report: "Witch hunt! Fake! Lies!" "Totally Exonerated! Absolutely correct!" "The Attorney General can release it." "Witch hunt! Fake! Lies!" "Complete exoneration. Let's move on." "It's mine! You can't see it!"https://t.co/fBrLIPtvcl#MuellerReport#Trump
Trump on the Mueller Report:
“Witch hunt! Fake! Lies!”
“Totally Exonerated! Absolutely correct!”
“The Attorney General can release it.”
“Witch hunt! Fake! Lies!”
“Complete exoneration. Let’s move on.”
“It’s mine! You can’t see it!”
https://t.co/fBrLIPtvcl #MuellerReport #Trump
You’d almost think he was either (a) incoherent from mental defect, or (b) trying to clumsily make the case that he’s innocent based on a report that he otherwise condemns and refuses to share with Congress.
Is LGBTQ discrimination actually sexual discrimination? (I think so.)
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a combined set of cases, based on differing rulings in US Circuit courts, as to whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ individuals from employment discrimination — specifically, in these cases, whether an employer can fire someone for being gay.
The issue is whether Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, protects LGBT people from job discrimination. Title VII does not specifically mention sexual orientation or transgender status, but federal appeals courts in Chicago and New York have ruled recently that gay and lesbian employees are entitled to protection from discrimination. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati has extended similar protections for transgender people.
While it’s almost certainly true that the congressfolk who passed the Civil Rights Act 55 years ago gave no thought to it protecting LGBTQ folk (indeed, I suspect that, had that been mentioned during legislative debates they would have carved out an explicit suggestion), it would not be the first time the letter of the law has been used to give new meaning to the law as society has changed, as new applications have come up, etc.
So, for example, Title VII has been used to prevent firings based on stereotypes regarding sex — regarding dress, hairstyle, behavior. “I fired her because she wanted to wear pants and I won’t have any pants-wearing women in my office” will get you in a load of trouble these days, because you are deciding to discriminate based on the sex of the worker and what you expect from them because of that. Or, put another way, if you would have a different criterion on what’s acceptable (wearing pants) from an employee based on their sex, e.g., only when it’s women doing it, not men, you are engaging in discrimination based on sex.
Various courts have taken this precedent to say that singling out sexual orientation (for example) as a basis for firing is also discriminatory — “I fired him because he kissed a man and I won’t have any man-kissing men in my office” is a parallel construction, and if your restriction on kissing men is only when it’s men who do it, not women, then it’s discrimination based on sex.
It’s a logical argument to me, but that “what would a congressman in 1964 have said” has also weighed on the various courts that have considered it. As SCOTUS takes up the challenge, how Trump’s two appointees, one of them very much an originalist, will weigh in on the cases is of particular interest.
Of course, all of this could be easily resolved if Congress passed a law explicitly adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes under the Civil Rights Act. But that seems highly unlikely, given GOP control of both the Senate and, of course, the White House.
The other wild card here is with the question — as it’s been so far ducked by SCOTUS — of whether “religious freedom” trumps such civil rights laws — allowing people with “sincere religious beliefs” to discriminate under the Civil Rights Act, most prominently against LGBTQ individuals, but also potentially based on sex, age, religion, etc. How that plays out will probably be an even more significant question.
Bottom line: Trump is guilty as sin. Now what do we do?
The conclusions of the (redacted) report, as I read them:
Russia interfered with the 2016 elections.
Trump’s campaign knowingly expected to benefit from that interference, and Russia knowingly expected to benefit from Trump winning. But Mueller couldn’t demonstrate active cooperation, so conspiracy charges could not be placed against anyone.
Trump repeatedly and (probably) clearly attempted to obstruct justice, but didn’t manage to successfully do so because enough people — out of principle or out of fear — didn’t follow his orders.
The above is only probably because Mueller couldn’t file charges against the president, obedient to Justice Dept. policy that the sitting president cannot be indicted, and so also, due to legal principle, he couldn’t accuse Trump without Trump’s being able to demonstrate his innocence in court. Yet. Hey, Congress + Posterity, here’s all the evidence I uncovered — when you have the power to do something, you decide what to do.
At the very, very best, Trump (et al.) demonstrated himself as a reprehensible individual, more focused on his continued power than justice, ignoring the law and ethics and shame, and acting just the way you would expect the guiltiest man in the world to do if he could. If Trump didn’t (arguably, but implausibly) didn’t break the law, that’s the best that can be said of him. Which is a terribly low bar to crawl under.
William Barr is a political hack. His redaction, as far as we can see, appears to be legit (to the extent that we can judge that with an eighth of the document blacked out), but his editorializing on the results both in his original four-page not-a-summary, and in his pre-release press conference, is spins in directions against what Mueller actually said, and when you include the pre-briefing that he gave to White House lawyers, he has clearly demonstrated that he sees himself as the President’s lawyer, not the nation’s.
Trump says the report fully exonerates him of everything, but also calls it a horrible witch hunt out to get him. Trump crows that he isn’t being prosecuted for anything because the report proves him innocent, but also calls the report the product of a bunch of evil partisans who were did nothing but lie. How his head doesn’t ‘splode is impossible for me to understand.
Should he be impeached? Almost certainly he could be impeached by the House, and almost certainly he could not be convicted the Senate. Because of party — and you can point that finger both ways, sure, but from my perspective, these are in fact impeachable offenses (bearing in mind that impeachment doesn’t require a federal crime be committed, though the obstruction efforts pretty clearly constitute such).
On the other hand, it may be worth on principle forcing those politicians, of both parties, to announce their stand, to let the voters and posterity judge their actions. Not that I want a President Pence by any means, but I’ve turned the corner on deciding that Trump’s narcissistic sociopathy is a greater threat to the nation than Pence’s Christian dominionism.
Regardless of impeachment, there’s Election 2020, in “only” 19 months. And that’s the moment this nation will announce its stand … and posterity will judge us, too.
The still-pinned professionally produced political attack by @realDonaldTrump against @IlhanMN does more to insult America and spit on the memory of 9-11 than any comment by her. https://t.co/CW6OTY1fof #IStandWithIlhanOmar
It’s the terrorists — the forces of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qa’eda — who intended their 9-11 attacks as a weapon, as a means of dividing and weakening the US and its society, of fomenting a war between East and West, between Christian and Muslim.
It didn’t quite work. There was war, but it was — with the help of people like (yes) George W. Bush — not framed as a war between East and West, between Christian and Muslim, but against the specific factions, forces, and individuals ostensibly behind the attacks (with an opportunistic veering off into Iraq, but that’s another story).
The rise of Donald Trump and his nationalism, his continuous invective against the Other — the Muslims, the immigrants, the exploitative allies and trading partners, the city-folk, the gays, “socialists,” the transgender, the women, the non-white, the poor — has all too easily picked up that weapon of fear and resentment and ignorance and tribalism.
And now, with a Twitter attack not just in passing, but pinned to the top of his stream, Donald Trump has picked up that 9-11 weapon that Osama bin Laden laid out for him and is using it as a weapon against someone who represents everything he stands against: a Democratic woman of power who has been democratically elected to oppose his agenda.
In doing so, Donald discredits any reverence America still feels for 9-11. He turns it into a cudgel to use against his opponent. He politicizes it, hugs it to himself like he hugs the American flag, not because it really means anything to him, but because he can weaponize the gesture against others. He diminishes that attack’s significance far more than Omar’s in-passing reference to it in an address that wasn’t even about 9-11. He makes it all about him and his political position and his nationalistic movement.
And he does it at a moment when self-avowed fans of his are being arrested for making death threats against the person he’s continuing to so prominently attack.
Yeah, Donald, I can recognize the real enemy of America here.
Apparently public safety political retribution is now how the federal government rolls.
The Trump Administration twice approached ICE to suggest that, hey, when they had asylum seekers or illegal immigrants who needed to be released while waiting their hearings, they ship them off to “to small- and mid-sized sanctuary cities”.
The White House told U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the plan was intended to alleviate a shortage of detention space but also served to send a message to Democrats. The attempt at political retribution raised alarm within ICE, with a top official responding that it was rife with budgetary and liability concerns, and noting that “there are PR risks as well.”
“PR risks.”
After the White House pressed again in February, ICE’s legal department rejected the idea as inappropriate and rebuffed the administration.
So for all the people suggesting that ICE needs to be abolished and reconstituted as a new agency, their legal department, at least, should be kept intact, or at least given a second chance.
Stephen Miller, White House advisor and apparent mastermind behind this scheme
Consider what this means.
The Trump Administration regularly suggests that illegal immigrants are a significant danger due to all the rapists and murderers and drug lords in their numbers. Also, maybe, Middle-Eastern terrorists.
The Trump Administration decided to target specific locations (with specific partisan leanings against him) with these dangerous individuals, to “send a message.”
That message would be, presumably, one of blood and suffering and death. Because murderers, rapists, and drug lords (and maybe terrorists).
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the President of the United States and his Administration sought to have political opponents — and ordinary residents of areas that had voted for those political opponents — killed, raped, etc., to send a “message.”
That actually happens to be a definition of terrorism.
Now the reality is that there is no observable correlation between immigrant, even illegal immigrant, populations and violent crime rates. And if there were, one would expect those “sanctuary cities” — where civil authorities do not go beyond legal requirements to cooperate with federal immigration authorities or to administer federal immigration law with local resources — to already be rife with rape and murder. Which they are not.
But if we are to take Trump’s rhetoric at all seriously, he truly believes that these immigrant hordes are highly dangerous. And he wanted to specifically target particular communities he feels are defying him with this dangerous population.
Apparently that’s the new normal in the United States.
And it’s not just rumor or anonymous sources. The specific proposals have been admitted to by both the White House and DHS.
A White House official and a spokesman for DHS sent nearly identical statements to The Post on Thursday, indicating that the proposal is no longer under consideration. “This was just a suggestion that was floated and rejected, which ended any further discussion,” the White House statement said.
Oh, well, I guess that makes it all better.
Of course, one might argue that Trump, or his xenophobic advisor Stephen Miller, apparently the author of this policy proposal, that they don’t actually think these people are that much of a danger, but that they simply want to overwhelm social services and other civic institutions in those locations — in Democratic districts, and/or in “sanctuary” cities.
Is that level of political retribution acceptable, either?
Dick Cole, the last of the B-25 crewmen who flew “Thirty Seconds over Tokyo” in the first daring WWII air raid of Japan, has passed away at 103. Cole was mission leader Jimmy Doolittle’s co-pilot.
The lead bomber crew, under Lt Col Jimmy Doolittle (2nd fr L). Lt Cole is 2nd fr R.
The April 1942 attack was as much symbolic as anything else — a first-ever (and one-way) carrier launch of tactical bombers …
B-25 taking off from the USS Hornet
… attacking five Japanese cities, then ditching (for the most part) over China, nearly 1500 miles beyond.
Newspaper map of the Doolittle Raid.
But even if its actual military effect was relatively small, it was a huge morale booster for the US, four months after the Pearl Harbor debacle, and demonstrated Japan’s vulnerability to bombing (a method of attack that would escalate to horrific proportions during the course of the war).
Cole was the last of the 80 raiders to pass away. In post-war life he was a citrus farmer in Texas.
Thank you, sir, for your service, those many years ago.
The hijab can be a symbol of oppression or of freedom
The hijab — the scarf-neck-head covering worn by some Muslim women — is not actually dictated per se by the Koran, but is a traditional dress in some parts of the Muslim world that has been tied to religious and theocratic rulings. It’s controversial in a number of places as religious wear, and as Muslim religious wear, but also as a sign of oppression against women in the Muslim world (and, as such, often conflated with other and more restrictive garb to hide, mask, or enforce the modesty of women).
Ilhan Omar, in hijab
The first article below demonstrates, though, that it’s not a matter of either-or. Some Muslim women (such as Ilhan Omar) wear hijab as a sign of their religious devotion, and celebrate it as a personal freedom. Others, esp. those living in some Middle Eastern Muslim nations, have it forced on them by state law, and consider it as a constriction of freedom.
The conflict seems perfectly understandable to me, analogous to another example of religious identification. I know a number of Jewish people, especially women, who wear a Star of David as a necklace, as an expression of their religious belief. Nobody (aside from anti-Semites) thinks a thing of it, save perhaps observing how cool it is that someone can choose to wear the symbol openly and without government sanction.
But if you had a law (as in Nazi Germany) where Jews were forced to wear a Star of David on their clothing to identify them as Jews … that’s clearly oppressive.
From there, it seems straightforward to celebrate that Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab have the freedom to do so … but to condemn nations who mandate that all women do so (or even more).
Do nearby wind turbines impact property values? There are some studies that indicate that — though nothing that approaches 75%, a number he keeps increasing with each speech it seems — and there are other studies that suggest the effect is anything but systemic.
As to cancer … well, (a) again, Trump ignores the very real health effects of living near other energy sources, and (b) it’s bullshit.
But, then, Trump, beyond being a great, grand friend of the fossil fuel industry (from doing all in his power to pump up the coal industry, to trying to open every coastline and national park to oil exploration), has had a mad-on against wind power for some time, specifically regarding his prolonged and ultimate failed attempt to keep a wind farm from being built offshore of his Scottish golf course.
That Windswept Look
And if there’s one thing we know about Donald Trump, it’s that he never forgets an enemy, whether it’s a politician who says something mean to him, or a wind turbine.
Trump keeps magically saying he can give everyone better, cheaper, more-inclusive insurance. But he never shares the details.
Donald Trump and the GOP held a majority in both the House and the Senate for the first two years of his presidency.
Despite the fact that Donald campaigned in 2016 on replacing the ACA with something more inclusive — “I am going to take care of everybody … Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.” — and despite the fact, just before his inauguration, he pinky-swore that he had a detailed Much More Better Great Bestest health care plan to replace the ACA that was just about ready to be printed, voted on, and passed, once he was in office …
President-elect Donald Trump said in a weekend interview that he is nearing completion of a plan to replace President Obama’s signature health-care law with the goal of “insurance for everybody,” while also vowing to force drug companies to negotiate directly with the government on prices in Medicare and Medicaid.
[…] Trump said his plan for replacing most aspects of Obama’s health-care law is all but finished. Although he was coy about its details — “lower numbers, much lower deductibles” — he said he is ready to unveil it alongside Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “It’s very much formulated down to the final strokes. We haven’t put it in quite yet but we’re going to be doing it soon,” Trump said.
[…] As he has developed a replacement package, Trump said he has paid attention to critics who say that repealing Obamacare would put coverage at risk for more than 20 million Americans covered under the law’s insurance exchanges and Medicaid expansion. “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.”
… he then just turned to Congress and basically punted it over to them. Because he had no actual plan.
“Trust me.”
The GOP-controlled Congress tried. They spent all of 2017 crafting and recrafting and negotiating within their caucus to get some sort of “repeal and replace” passed. The closest they got was the AHCA, which kicked a bunch of people off of insurance and didn’t cover pre-existing conditions, and which ended up being defeated in a last-second vote by Sen. John McCain in July. Subsequent efforts to just “repeal” and “repeal but delay repeal for two years” also failed.
(Ironically, just as the ACA almost foundered on the gap between folk on the far left of the Dems who wanted a much more sweeping health insurance reform, and the Blue Dog Dems who wanted something much more conservative, the GOP’s efforts were stymied. on conservative Senators and House members who wanted flat-out repeal, and more moderate GOP congressfolk who insisted on a much softer landing.)
The GOP basically gave up in Election Year 2018, but still lost control of the House in that fall’s election, largely over their shenanigans against the ACA, which people suddenly realized they actually kind of liked (or liked more than the status quo ante).
Which brings us to now, when the Trump Administration is seeking to get the ACA defeated in court, while promising that it has (or will have Real Soon Now) the Much More Better Great Bestest health care plan to replace the ACA. It says that, not because it has such a plan (it still doesn’t), but because it expects the GOP in the Senate to write such a plan — something even Mitch McConnell isn’t willing to do.
So instead, Donald has declared he never really wanted it written and voted on before the 2020 election anyway, and will instead actively campaign on how Beautiful and Great his Brand New Plan will be after the election when he inexplicably expects to have control back of the House for the GOP, and so will be able to have something written for him that will be Truly Awesome.
Everybody agrees that ObamaCare doesn’t work. Premiums & deductibles are far too high – Really bad HealthCare! Even the Dems want to replace it, but with Medicare for all, which would cause 180 million Americans to lose their beloved private health insurance. The Republicans…..
….are developing a really great HealthCare Plan with far lower premiums (cost) & deductibles than ObamaCare. In other words it will be far less expensive & much more usable than ObamaCare. Vote will be taken right after the Election when Republicans hold the Senate & win……
….back the House. It will be truly great HealthCare that will work for America. Also, Republicans will always support Pre-Existing Conditions. The Republican Party will be known as the Party of Great HealtCare. Meantime, the USA is doing better than ever & is respected again!
I imagine one can judge the veracity of the full set of tweets by that final line there.
The problem is, no matter how many think tanks and Senators and policy wonks and zany off-hand comments by the President one throws into the picture, what Donald wants, framed in a way that’s acceptable to his own party, is simply impossible. Mathematically impossible.
Here’s the problem: Insurance companies are completely correct in saying that people with pre-existing conditions tend to need to spend more on medical care, and therefore are more costly to insure.
There’s no getting around that. You can argue over what constitutes a pre-existing condition (unless you’re an insurance company customer before the ACA, because it was then whatever insurance companies wanted to say it was, from having been pregnant to having diabetes to having once smoked to living in the wrong neighborhood to having had acne to having anything that might possibly every remotely be arguably related to something that you now wanted coverage for), but the bottom line is, literally, the bottom line.
If you are going to actually fully cover people regardless of their pre-existing conditions, you have to spend money. Much more money than if you do what insurance companies always want to do (cover only healthy people who won’t ask for the money back that they spent on premiums). Which means either taking that money from the taxpayers (like in a Medicare-for-All scenario), or maximize the risk pool with even fully healthy people so that everyone is mandated to buy insurance and spends marginally more than they would if they were only covering just themselves (if they were lucky enough to not have any “pre-existing conditions”) (which is the approach the ACA took, based on Romneycare, based on what the Heritage Foundation recommended before the Right decided that Obama had stolen the idea and therefore it was the Worst Idea Ever).
The alternative to spending money is to pretend that you are protecting pre-existing conditions. For example, you can require insurance companies to cover everyone, but allow them to charge more for some people — i.e., a person can theoretically get insurance despite their pre-existing conditions, it’s just prohibitively expensive to actually get. Or you can create a special “high risk pool” taxpayer-supported insurance program, and then scrimp on the money you put into it, or distribute it as block grants to the states regardless of inflationary costs or how actual medical care demand is balanced. Those kind of solutions let you claim with a semi-straight face you are protecting people, while in reality throwing them to the dogs.
Of course, you could just go ahead and overtly throw them to the dogs. Some conservative GOP folk think that’s fine — if you can’t pay more, you can go pound sand, I got mine, screw you.
But Trump claims that sort of Randian attitude is unthinkable. But he thinks he will be able to get away with not having to explain the magical details of how he’ll do all these wonderful thing. Like the real estate developer he is, he’ll run on “principles.” just as he tweeted above: Lower costs! Lower Deductibles! Much Better! Everyone covered! We love pre-existing conditions! Puppies and Unicorns for all! We double-dog promise that’s what you’ll get — trust us!
Given the gaps, the people kicked off coverage, the hits to folk who have pre-existing conditions that were coded into the few actual GOP plans proposed over the past couple of years, it’s hard to believe that’s a message that’s going to go over well.
Charles Rhines killed a man while in the middle of robbing a doughnut store in 1992. And for that he deserves to be punished.
But should that punishment be determined because Rhines is gay?
New evidence shows that at least one juror sentenced Rhines to death because he thought, as a gay man, he “shouldn’t be able to spend his life with men in prison.” One juror recalled another commenting that “we’d be sending him where he wants to go if we voted for [life without parole].” And a third juror confirmed that “there was lots of discussion of homosexuality. There was a lot of disgust. … There were lots of folks who were like, ‘Ew, I can’t believe that.’”
Yes, the 1993 South Dakota jury decided that Rhines should be executed, rather “just” than sentenced to life in prison … because they thought it would be fun for him, stuck behind bars with all those men! In prison!
Yeesh.
Will the Supreme Court see this particular sentencing for the injustice it is?
What Carol’s success might mean for the X-Men and FF, oh, and what about her romantic life?
[Possible spoilers for Captain Marvel, but, really, you should have seen it by now.]
As the movie approaches the $1 billion box office level, Marvel’s Captain Marvel is, along with Black Panther, demonstrating that the MCU’s films (and, perhaps, movies in general) don’t need to primarily focus on white guys as heroes.
Which, honestly, I have no problem with, and in fact, applaud. There are a lot of characters in the Marvel Universe who are not-white and/or not-male, and this only frees up the opportunity to see more of them center screen, too. I would prefer not to see white guys disappear totally from the MCU — but that hardly seems likely. Heck, even the Snap didn’t do that.
I’m not actually worried about running out of white guys in the MCU.
(And, yes, there’s even the possibility that some characters might be cast with people who don’t align with their complexion or even gender in the original comics. Nick Fury’s a kinda-good example of that being workable, as are changes with Mar-Vell. If done well, in a way that doesn’t significantly change something essential about the character, I don’t have a problem there.)
Beyond that, it’s noted that the success of these two heroes that are slated for prominence in the post-Avengers “Phase 4” movies, along with the movies already slated, indicates that Marvel need be in no big hurry to incorporate the massive properties they just inherited with the Fox deal: the X-Men and the Fantastic Four.
FF and X-Men — They’ve both been around for a while.
I mean, I’m as anxious as anyone else to see a decent film rendition of the FF, but I’m totally cool with both properties, esp. the X-Men, getting a few years of rest and reset, and then potentially centerpiece another phase down the line. Aside from the risk of super-hero flicks going out of style (which has been predicted multiple times over the last decade) before they circle around to those sagas, a break makes a lot of sense. Though in the meantime we can get some “hints” (news stories about mutations on the rise due to cosmic radiation or Infinity Stone leftovers; a NASA representative name-dropping Reed Richards; weird shenanigans on the news going on in the Sokovian neighbor nation of Latveria, etc.) to help tee up some excitement.
Another interesting thread of discussion that’s come up lately, viz Captain Marvel, is the question of Carol Danvers sexual orientation. It’s a little weird that it’s being brought up in large part because the character doesn’t have the traditional “boyfriend” in her origin movie, which is supposed to be a good thing because not every woman’s story has to be focused on her relationship with a man — but that’s, in turn, made people wonder if Carol’s relationship with Maria Rambeau or (and this would be an interesting twist) Mar-Vell might be more than just friendship.
I’m, honestly, non-committal. There’s nothing wrong with it, but there’s nothing particularly compelling about it, either. To be sure, I don’t have a personal stake in that particular representation, and I agree that getting some LGBTQ folk into the MCU picture (a million unofficial memes about Steve/Bucky notwithstanding) would be a positive thing in principle. I may just be a bit concerned at a meta level about the amount of heavy-eyerolling-See-it-was-all-a-feminist-plot that would ensue if it turned out that Captain Marvel was a lesbian, or even bi, but that seems inevitable no matter what happens with the character.
Honestly, the question of any sort of relationship for Carol is a more interesting one to me: a highly duty-driven person, whose memories have been messed up, who’s been betrayed by her closest friends, who’s just spent a few decades in deep space (has it actually been that long for her, or 3sd-are we talking some light-speed time contract compressing the interval for her?) … trust issues and understanding how to relate to people at all might be a serious uphill road for her, regardless of which way(s) she swings.
In short, on this as with other things, I’m more interested in good story than in particular agendas. If they want to have Capt. Marvel and Valkyrie as the hottest gay lovers in space-time, great. If she ends up in domestic bliss with Doctor Strange, well, that might be interesting. Heck, if she decides that Rocket Raccoon is her type, I’m cool with that, too. Just give me a good story about it.
