Home Artists Posts Import Register

Content

 

Hey Guys and Gals,

I hope you’re doing well! I meant to get this post up yesterday (and intend on doing the Weekend News Blasts on Friday afternoons/evenings moving forward when/where possible), but my plane back to San Francisco from LA was slightly delayed, I got home, and I was just exhausted. Turns out an intensive dinner conversation with Dave Rubin followed by three hours on the air with Joe Rogan takes so much out of your mind that you want to sleep for a long time. And that’s what I did. I’d rather do these posts right than rush them, which is the entire motto of Colin’s Last Stand. Less is more, doing nothing is sometimes better than doing something poorly, and your time is important. Expect to hear all of that often in the months and years ahead.

Anyway, the cadence of the Weekend News Blasts will be a little different. I want to squeeze some otherwise interesting things in here, too -- science and space news, for instance -- as well as some long-form stuff to watch, in addition to your normal news items.

As always, keep the conversations raging in the comments (and elsewhere). I’ll see y’all back here on Monday; in the meantime, enjoy your weekend. -Colin

Trumpcare Unceremoniously Dies: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_AMERICA_REACTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-24-17-56-36

This is kinda what I saw happening. This bill made no real sense. Indeed, a hidden level of after-the-fact genius was shown with Obamacare and how it was forced through, even at great political cost. Trumpcare didn’t seem to solve any problems, and actually made them worse. Politically, it wasn’t prudent. The aforementioned genius comes into play when you realize the old rule about government programs: Once they’re rammed through, even if doing so costs you everything, it’s going to be next to impossible to get that thing off the books. This is also the experience of Social Security with FDR and Medicare with LBJ.

“Repeal and Replace” has become a vacant war chant. In reality, Obamacare is probably never going anywhere. Instead of repealing and replacing, they need to heavily amend. Open up interstate commerce, play around with the individual mandate, and do what they can to stem the death spiral’s tide. I don’t think Obamacare should have ever existed, but now that it does, smart politics says you fix it and not destroy it. Ideology has to be separated from reality, here, if the Republicans want to get other things that are so necessary and pertinent through, like tax reform, which is at the very, very top of my personal agenda.

To wit: Was it worth the Democrats losing a generation’s worth of support to get Obamacare through? It’s still hard to know for sure, but I’d say no. Still, it’s a proximity bomb that will be going off over and over again in Trump’s face. The not-so-small victory for the GOP here is that they absolutely dominate federal, state, and local governments because of Obamacare. Seems like a small price to pay to get the rest of their agenda through, but that’s just the overly-pragmatic side of me talking.

Washington Tames Trump: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-obamacare-future-236490

This pretty much feeds directly into the above story, so there’s not much more to say here, other than that, in fairness to Trump, this happens to every President. I have no idea why he was in such a rush for such a heavy lift when he could have easily focused on other, easier tasks first, and gotten his feet wet. Word is that Steve Bannon is the man behind the scenes this time around that read the tea leaves all wrong, and they might not be able to regain all of that expended political capital, especially with how wounded this now leaves Paul Ryan, their most important ally or adversary.

The outsider approach is novel in Washington, but this also feeds the old adage that Washington is unchangeable. What happens when an immovable object meets an unstoppable force? We may find out over and over again in the years to come.

Trump’s Failure Hurts Tax Reform: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d6b3f963391a4b9486bc847a7f286a55/failure-health-bill-hurts-prospects-tax-overhaul

This one really hurts, because this is where I’m totally behind Trump. The tax code is a fucking disaster. Trust me: This isn’t a talking point for me. I owned a business, and I had employees. Taxation at the federal level, with all of the red tape and hoops and bullshit, is anti-business and utterly out of control, to its very core. We easily have some of the most onerous taxation laws and rules in the modern world, as anyone who was in my position could attest.

Tax reform must happen, and I think could happen, and I’d even say it will happen. I know a lot of the focus now is where the $1T in tax cuts that Trumpcare would have rolled in will now go or come from, but that’s less important. What they need to focus on is cutting spending significantly, and then cutting taxes commensurate to spending cuts, with enough left over to service and pay down the debt. Everyone should be paying less, across the board, including businesses.

I think they have this one in the bag, even if they don’t have momentum. This is why they should have started here. When push comes to shove, there are few people in the United States who want to pay as much in taxes as they pay now. I sure as hell could use a break.

Joe Biden Regrets Not Running: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joe-biden-gop-health-care_us_58d58b51e4b03692bea610cc?wm8ega4hwlgmhd7vi&

This isn’t exactly a new story, but it reiterates an old line of thinking: Joe Biden would have easily beaten Clinton and Sanders in the primary, and probably steamrolled Trump. Given the options as they fell, I may have even voted for him, simply because I didn’t want to vote for Trump, and Johnson kinda fell off the cliff there near the end. I find him a reasonable and well-meaning man -- largely a moderate -- who I’d trust to do the right thing, even if I don’t agree with him politically. Principle and integrity, with a dash of decorum and decency, is what I look for in a president, right next to ideology. It’s why I couldn’t vote for Trump, even if I agree with a lot of his platform. He’s simply unfit for the office. Biden is the opposite.

If you guys want really interesting insight into Biden’s regret, watch one of the last episodes of The Circus’ first season, where they sit and talk to him for a while. You can see in his eyes and hear in his voice how much regret he had not running. But you have to feel for him as a man, and as a person. He’s experienced such devastating loss in his life. I dunno. I’ve kinda always liked Joe Biden, even if he is a gaffe machine.

Staunch Anarcho-Capitalist Goes to The Rubin Report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPoBGQ02JTI&ab_channel=TheRubinReport

I have to finish watching this video, but it’s a fascinating one. This dude, Bryan Caplan, is a Professor of Economics at a good university, and is extremely right-wing. I don’t believe in anarcho-capitalism -- privatizing the court system, as an example, is complete lunacy in my mind -- but this is why dialogue and listening to other ideas is important. Many of you might not agree with him (though some of you may!), but either way, it’s interesting to hear him speak about such interesting and out-there ideas with such confidence and conviction. Give it a watch/listen if/when you can. See where you fall.

Americans Like Science, Want to Pay For It: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/most-americans-science-and-are-willing-pay-it?tgt=nr

This isn’t a huge surprise to me, though I wonder, when it comes to brass tacks and when you figure out exactly what you’re paying for, if the answers would remain the same.

Still, even if I believe in small government and low spending and taxation -- and I do -- I think there is absolutely a place for science, technology, and all of the rest at the federal level. Going to the moon was something we did as a people, as a nation, as a society. There’s no shame in spending money on big projects that bring us pride, bind is together, and make us American.

Plus, this shit is relatively cheap and super fascinating! Perhaps we could, say, drop fewer bombs, occupy fewer countries, spy on fewer Americans, and maybe hire a couple of scientists to discover some cool shit, and bank the hundreds of billions in savings at the same time? Just some food for thought. =)

The Rogue Supermassive Black Hole: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravitational-waves-send-supermassive-black-hole-flying/

Yikes.

Comments

Lucas Gremista

Im hopeless with Trump, he needs to be impeached so America keeps growing, he will set us back a few years this way

Anonymous

JRE was awesome yesterday. Almost finished with it. So far so good sir!

Anonymous

Hi Colin. Thanks for the update ! Thoughtful as well and a great balance between length and contents. Keep it coming!

Anonymous

Thanks, Colin. Really enjoying these. Loved your JRE appearance.

Stephen Fontana

(posted here as I posted late on previous post) Hey Colin I have a question I would like to get your views on. To preface I am liberal in a social sense but like to think of myself as somewhat fiscally conservative. I am having a hard time, however, justifying not going to a single payer health care system due to my strong views on taking care of our weakest so that we may be our strongest. My question is, what damage will be done to us if we take a more socially liberal approach to our health care system, besides costing tax payers a little more? Shouldn't we prioritize our citizen's health and well being? Isn't the wage gap/shrinking of the middle class a direct result of NOT taking care of our weakest? As always, great work.

Anonymous

I'm happy you and Rubin support each other. I'm also a patron of the Rubin Report and will watch the latest interview when I can find the time.

Anonymous

You absolute rocked Joe Rogan.

Anonymous

I just can't believe in all the time they complained about the ACA; they had no plan of their own in the works. I realize this is an expensive and time consuming undertaking but they had years and years to do this.

Anonymous

Hi Colin, I really support your views and I supported you on KOF and this new project is simply amazing, I really envy you north Americans and all developed countries, how easy for you guys is to express your line of thinking and not being afraid of anything, I also think that the freedom you have sometimes you underestimate it, I'm from Colombia myself and here things aren't as bad as before but hell, we are still ages away from you guys, to much corruption and threaten to freedom of speech, anyhow, keep up with the amazing work, I myself am very invested in USA politics and history and I think this is a great place to learn

Anonymous

I recognize that this point has been hit on but I still just have a hard time wrapping my head around it so figured I'd throw it out there again

Anonymous

I guess first I have some questions for you Colin. You want more funding for science and technology, which is awesome and I agree with, but is it me or is that desire not shared among conservatives or the Republican Party? Also, would Trump's tax reform be similar to the Bush tax cuts that did not work? As a private citizen and not a business owner I don't mind taxes, as long as I feel they serve me well. How do you feel about a flat tax rate? That's all for now. Loved the post.

Caleb Greer

Something I've been pondering recently is whether a monopoly is an inherent evil that ultimately comes from pure capitalism, and is there any evidence to support that it would take advantage of a market in a malicious way. It's not that Standard Oil, for instance, was split up, but why and what exactly did they exploit or do to hurt consumers besides do business better than everyone around them? Was it simply precautionary? Could consumers regulate a company, even a monopoly, on their own without need of government intervention? Does a monopoly invite competition inherently if it becomes malicious by a disproportionate amount of businesses attempting to enter that market by selling cheaper, thus drawing people to their business, or getting bought out by the monopoly, leading to a win/win for that small company either way and making it a market that is profitable to enter because there is no competition? Does this then lead to the competition returning, and can a company only avoid this by maintaining a status quo of prices and attitude that lead them to beat out all of the competition in the first place? In conjunction with this, I also wonder if it's hypocritical to support competition and the free market without being ok with monopolies. It's strange to me that the process of capitalism and competition is inherently good, but the product of that competition--being the winner--is bad. It's a bizarre concept, and I've been thinking about both sides of monopolies. My instinct is to be against monopolies, but i wonder if that's hypocritical to pure capitalism, which I view as a good thing, as it is the ultimate result.

Anonymous

Is the end of this post missing?

Anonymous

On Patreon (Android) it ends with : "Given the options as they fell, I may have even voted for him, simply because I didn’t want to vote for" Reading the email from Patreon shows the full text.

Aaron Trahan @AaronMadeULaugh

On tax reform I believe that there should be a flat tax, with maybe different rates for different tax brackets and different types of income. It should simplify the tax code and be fair. Not sure if this is possible but it would be nice :)

Joshua Pierstorff

The one news story I want to know about is...what did Colin think about the Justice League trailer.

Braeden Burge

My thoughts exactly on the last story haha

Anonymous

That black hole story is pretty cool. Cant wait for the event horizon telescope to hopefully get its first photo of one in the next year or so.

Anonymous

Can we please dispense with the completely wrong notion that the law prevents you from buying healthcare across statelines? I've heard Colin repeat this line ad naseum and it's just false. Five states already have opened it up so you can sell across statelines but no insurers do it because it's insanely complicated. If it were to happen there'd be a race to the bottom - an insurer selling a plan based in a state with light regulations would sell that policy nationwide eliminating critical consumer protections many states have put in for their people. It's an insanely complicated process that ultimately hurts the insured if insurance companies can even wrap their head around how it'd work in practice.

Anonymous

I wouldn't say that 5 states now qualifies the statement as a completely wrong notion (not that it is a correct statement either). Same as marijuana is still largely illegal in this country. I would agree that the issue is a lot more complicated than it looks on paper

Anonymous

Thought this was a brilliantly articulated comment. For what it's worth, I think you are broadly correct, in that in markets which tend towards natural monopolies (like most utilities - energy, water, public transport etc), capitalism does not provide an optimal outcome as the owner of the monopoly maximises profit to the detriment of consumers. The typical response by governments is to regulate or nationalise - but in reality neither of these methods are particularly effective (regulators don't have sufficient information to be able to regulate and governments tend not to be able to operate commercial businesses efficiently). The reality is that any form of market has pros and cons - very simply capitalism encourages competition (which drives down prices and encourages optimal allocation of resources) but creates disparity in wealth (competition creates winners and losers) whereas a more "socialist" market run by the state ensures more equitable distribution of wealth but at the expense of lower total economic output (as lack of competition results in inefficient allocation of capital etc). To me there is no "right" answer - there is just a series of options which different people will prefer depending on their particular values and beliefs...

Anonymous

Science/technology news is always welcome.

Jay Mann

colin, please unblock me on twitter! @jaymann34

Anonymous

Colin, just got caught up on everything. Had no idea what had happened. Just noticed ps podcast was missing. Dug into why today, and holy crap. Anyway, after researching " The Tweet" clearly a joke btw, majority of responses from various places, I completely agree with your side/decision and made this my first patreon support. Good luck with this and I can't wait for what is to come. F-ing numbers, man.

Anonymous

Keep these news blasts coming! I subscribed mostly on pure faith in Colin but if this is the direction things are going, I'm all in.

Aaron Trahan @AaronMadeULaugh

Colin I just got done listening to you on Joe Rogan. I really loved it :) Feminism is trying to combat rape culture. I truly don't understand. Does it not exist? Even as a man I have seen and believe it is a problem.

Christopher Lee

Joe Biden would have won easily. He doesn't have baggage like Hillary and Trump. I would have voted for him even though I don't agree with him on everything politically. Watching him on The Circus definitely is heartbreaking. His son who passed away wanted him to run and he just couldn't emotionally handle it, now I'm sure he deals with the haunting feeling of letting his son down which is just fucking horrible.

Christopher Lee

I realized today that once you start putting out your historical/political videos that you're audience will grow considerably. My dad gives zero fucks about games but loves history and politics. Looking forward to sharing your work with my Dad.

Anonymous

I seen you on JRE. I really respect your views and what you are doing keep speaking your mind.

Anonymous

In the case of the above commenter (Lucas), impeachment is the process in which Congress would bring formal charges against the president, and if found guilty, would be removed from the presidency. Confusing the term a bit, is that impeachment is used to both refer to the entire process of bringing the charges as well as removing the president himself. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only presidents to be successfully impeached. Neither was removed from office, though, as they were acquitted of the charges. As I've heard Colin say in one of his videos, Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury related to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, not because of the scandal itself. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States</a>#Impeachment_of_a_U.S._President

Anonymous

Hi Colin, Regarding the story about the health care reform. My apologies, but I can't say that I can agree that "Obamacare" should never had existed. I think it was a great concept, but is obviously flawed. It just needs some tender loving care. It needs to be changed into something that works a bit more efficiently for everyone. If it was up to you, how would you handle healthcare? Would you reform the act? Or drop it and start over fresh? I would be very interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks, and have a great day!

Khalil Sadi

Great job Colin! Really love these bursts. There's always room for science. The Republicans have been chasing the Repeal and Replace truck for so long, when they actually get to it, they don't have a plan to set in motion. Just because Ryan and Trump want to rush something out of the gate, they think they can get the better of everyone. What they scorned Obama for when he tried to rush the ACA in the beginning, seems to be exactly what they ended up doing. As you said, the way to fix ObamaCare is to amend it, because the roots are so deeply ingrained already. As much as I don't like The Donald, his pragmatic approach to "take action now" is something I do like about him --although, I don't like the actions he takes. He was indeed trying to fulfill his campaign promises --even though he changes his mind every day. The problem is, he thought everything was going to be like taking candy from a baby. Guess not Donnie T. I agree with you in that he probably needed to start off with something a little smaller, especially considering he owns the House and the Senate. I feel ya on the taxes, I work as a freelancer and that in turn makes me a business. Taxes try to get you anywhere they can get their hands on. Biden would've been a great candidate, especially considering the choice of Hilarina Underwood or Donald Trump. I did like Bernie a lot (don't agree with his fiscal stance), but I think Congress would've blocked a lot of his fiscal moves in the end to balance it all out. As to Biden, he's a very charming guy. I think his gaffes are part of what make him endearing, and boy, that man can speak. I think he would've been great. Towards the end, anytime he did an interview, you could tell he was not happy about the decision he made, I just can't imagine the pain he must've been going through, for him not to take the jump. I'll have to take a look at the Rubin interview with Bryan Caplan. Really love what you're doing Col. Keep this shit up.

Anonymous

Really like what you're doing with these daily news bursts. Also, I know that a lot of people have asked you for book recommendations. I'd like to say in addition to that, recommendations on good historical/political documentaries would be welcome too.

Anonymous

Depending on Biden's running mate I would have voted for that ticket in a heartbeat. He would have been a shoe in.

Anonymous

Hello. Could Colin or anyone who knows explain to me WHY Obamacare doesn't work? What was before it that was better?

Anonymous

Or equally bad?

Anonymous

The healthcare mess is sooo confusing and complicated. I wonder what healthcare would look like if the government got out entirely? Would any cover pre-existing conditions? Would premiums skyrocket? I just wonder how much regulation is actually good and while I understand that mandating people into the system lowers the rates, why couldn't allowing free grouping do the same thing?

Anonymous

Rand seemed to have a much more open plan for healthcare, where is he now?

Anonymous

Relaxing on a Sunday morning with tea, my pup, and Colin's fantastic News Burst. Doesn't get any better. Keep it up, man.

Anonymous

These news blasts have been a huge positive for me this week. Very educational.

Anonymous

Pretty funny how people call it "TrumpCare" it should have been deemed "PaulRyanCare" ... Ryan is pretty much a globalist, RINO , Democrat sympathizer in many ways .

Anonymous

Despite being a libertarian I'd think about supporting a push for universal health Care, but first we need to cut our defense budget in at least half. I'm so frustrated with the GOP right now because they have no real interested in shrinking the federal government, just shifting where the budget is spent. Shrink the military to a reasonable level, stop dropping bombs on the other side of the globe, drop my federal income tax, and then I'd be willing to have a discussion about universal health care and increasing spending on the sciences.

Jeremy Meyer

Obamacare absolutely will be repealed, Paul Ryan just got a bit too cute. It took the dems 13 months to squeak through that abomination. But all the heavy lifting for repeal needs to be done in the senate. If Schumer forces a filibuster on Gorsuch... These news bursts are going to get interesting.

Anonymous

Although I don't agree with you on Trump (and it baffles me that you left the party because of it), it's always nice to see your point of view and thoughts regarding politics. I liked the format of the post.

Timothy Monnig

Thanks for squeezing in a news blast for the weekend, Colin. With everything going on, I'm impressed that you are able to keep this up. So yeah, this week, loads to unpack...so first with the ObamaCare Repeal (sorry if this is a book, but I have a lot to say, and I love debate). I appreciate you asking the question as to whether or not it was worth it to Democrats to put all of their energy into healthcare reform at the expense of their party's future prospects, especially given the unrelenting assault from the right. The most optimistic of them probably thought if they were able to fix something as universally horrible as the rising cost of healthcare, which even before the law, was an unmitigated disaster, for individuals especially, (<a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/slower-premium-growth-under-obama/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/slower-premium-growth-under-obama/</a> ...although it's worth noting that broad assertion of this factcheck isn't true everywhere), then they would reap political benefit. Alas, this is not how things work, and after what I considered a pretty noble beginning, it quickly devolved into a partisan food fight (<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-real-story-of-obamacares-birth/397742/)." rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-real-story-of-obamacares-birth/397742/).</a> All said, I was very concerned at the time that the Democrats were spending all of their considerable political capital on Healthcare. Personally, I had hoped for more on environmental policy, given that public engagement in the issue had reached it's zenith around that time, but I can sympathize with the notion that those changes would represent an onerous burden on a recovering economy, so instead we got populist programs like Cash for Clunkers that tried to fix too much with too little, but were well-meaning. But I digress, more on those issues when they are relevant. Back to Obamacare, as I've watched this debacle, my mind keeps going back to a line of thought that considers just how impossible this task was for Congressional Republicans, even outside of the real legislative hurdles they faced, e.g. they had to structure a bill that concerned only the budgetary parts of the law, so they could pass it through Reconciliation (which requires simple majority, thus no Democrats). That left so much of the regulatory structure in place that imposed fiscal challenges on insurance providers, like the ban against pre-existing conditions , which, unsurprisingly, was enormously popular and, if struck, (though impossible at this stage) would cancel out the win of getting rid of the individual mandate. Any effort to do a total repeal and replace, favored doggedly by Rand Paul and the House Freedom Caucus, would require 9 Democratic votes in the Senate, basically impossible, given that House Republicans, especially, have spent the last 7 years excoriating the Democrats on this issue, as it played well to their base. The Democrats have a very bad map in 2018, so this issue might not be as dead as everyone seems willing to declare it, but Democrats had a good opportunity to gain seats this time, but failed (thanks largely to the Clinton enthusiasm gap). This will require Republicans, and Trump in particular, to stop fumbling the ball between now and then. In sum, I think that Ryan and his allies put together the best bill available, given their considerable restraints, and it sucked, because how could it not. This is could be a blessing for them: they can at least say they tried, blame the Dems, who mostly sat on their hands, let ObamaCare die on the vine by ignoring the structural deficiencies that they created during the roll out, and, and if the narrative is sustainable, make a total repeal electoral issue for 2018. If they took that zero-sum tactic, then there's no hope in them "fixing" the law, because that's tantamount to them saying it wasn't that bad in the first place (and fixing it is something that could garner bipartisan support in the last 3 yrs, as the law started to show it's warts, instead you had an enormously complex piece of legislation that had very few amendments, a rarity). Of course, never underestimate the power of spin, if they found the will to do suddenly do something they previously refused to do by fixing it, they could take a heroic stance (but they'll be stymied by the Freedom Caucus again). Also, don't underestimate an emboldened oppositions desire to show up (see Tea Party), and while I am annoyed as you that the Dems seem to have no regard for moderates, they are assuming the same calculus that allowed the right to storm the castle 6 years ago; we'll see if it works for them. IF the Republicans spin this right, it could be fine for them, but that's a really big IF, and there's no doubt that the current state of affairs is a huge black eye on the Party and the President. I haven't tuned into Fox News yet to see if and how this spun has begun, but the conservative print media is not giving them much air at the moment. This is all uniquely frustrating, since "fixing" the law, requires the Republicans to acknowledge how the original ACA contained some very clear wins for them that make a total repeal a challenge for them. Perhaps too much has been said of the ACA's similarities to the 1994 Heritage Foundation Plan designed as a counterpoint to the Clinton push for universal healthcare. It does not do this strictly but rather mimics the HEART plan introduced by 20 Senate Republicans, that the Heritage Foundation considered a bridge too far and ultimately didn't endorse (<a href="http://khn.org/022310-bill-comparison/)." rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://khn.org/022310-bill-comparison/).</a> This Bill never came to a vote, but it was generally acknowledged as a good starting point for legislation in 2009. At this point, the Public Option was very much on the table, and I suspect if Ted Kennedy were still alive at the time, this would be a very, very different law. Since the Democrats lost their 60 seat hold (emboldened opposition in the 3rd bluest state in the country) on the Senate, the public option was dropped, and Medicaid was expanded to pick up those people that everyone knew were too expensive to insure through the private market. This is an undeniable win for them. And of course, the Republicans aren't stupid, and they knew that you could still sit on a stool that had a leg cut off, but it wasn't very stable or comfortable. So 19 states refused the medicaid expansion, which created a coverage gap for lower income earners who couldn't get subsidies and wouldn't qualify to Medicaid (<a href="http://kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured-poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid/)." rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured-poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid/).</a> I would love to see a poll that compares how many of these people ended up voting for Trump; I suspect there's a statistically significant correlation, but that's just a theory. Then, as an appeal to States Rights conservatives, it was considered a giveaway to give states control over their own exchanges, but many refused, overburdening the Federal government to implement something in relatively short order, and the rollout was disastrous (it's my burden as a citizen positioned left-of-center that my faith in what the government ought to do is not consistent with what it can do or actually does; much like the center right must be burdened by the idea that free market thinking is not a panacea for every problem). Point for Republicans. And regarding the exchanges, as a free market instrument, they are laughable. Basic coverage requirements (which were necessary, my wife as a member of the individual market prior to the ACA could not buy a plan with maternity in TN; they did not exist) rendered all the plans the same, regardless of carrier, the only real choice, it seemed to us, was your network of doctors. (Tangent, I think interstate sales is a bit of a Macguffin anyway, since basically the same 8-10 insurance companies with offices or self-sustaining companies in every state, e.g. the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association is represented in 36 states. Different states have different regulations and different networks of doctors that need to be managed; these regulations would need to have some parity to between states to justify the cost of administering wider networks, and insurance companies would inevitably leave money on the table if it meant diminished out-of-network expense for consumers (in the event that they did they easy thing and merged their networks nationwide). Moreover, where is the impetus to unify the regulatory environment going to come from if not the federal government. If you return all regulatory power to the states, and it's cheaper to buy in Colorado than New York, due to differing regulatory burdens, then you'll starve the insurers in New York, who need to contend with a higher cost of living (<a href="https://www.aei.org/publication/the-pros-and-cons-of-selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines/)." rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.aei.org/publication/the-pros-and-cons-of-selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines/).</a> In short, the people that need to be on board here the most for this to work, the insurers, don't have a ton of incentive to do it. This is largely a theory of mine, but I haven't seen a lot of evidence that vindicates this idea.) And lastly, the dreaded individual mandate, the jenga block that no one wants to touch. This thing made the ACA instantly unpopular, but it was extremely necessary for the system to work as designed, since it was intended to offset the costs to they system presented by thousands of sick people that couldn't get/afford insurance. The mandate was rolled out slowly in the hopes reducing popular backlash, necessary, but unsurprisingly, the first people to get insurance and subsequent care were the sickest. What a shock, costs went up. Anyone considering this earnestly for two seconds should have been able to predict this. I presume capital infusions to insurers on top of the subsidies for the neediest people would have been the only way to offset their inevitable losses, since the pool of insured was not going to increase quickly enough. Smart people could see this law is primed to implode, and Congressional Republicans, as smart people, only needed to lean in and reclaim power. Nevermind, that this law is a vestige of free market approach, and fixing it is their best option, but one they won't likely take. To wrap up this diatribe, I encourage you to listen, if you haven't already, to Dan Carlin's most recent Common Sense podcast in which he, ostensibly a libertarian, questions the idea that healthcare belongs as a free market problem at all. I didn't agree with everything he said, but I found it very interesting and fair-minded. Again, thanks for the forum, and sorry for the book. Please also excuse the typos...

Timothy Monnig

P.S. I don't know how to do line breaks in these windows without hitting enter and I didn't want to experiment. Any help from the community is appreciated for the benefit of future posts...

Timothy Monnig

To anyone intrepid enough to read my previous post, here is is with saner formatting: Thanks for squeezing in a news blast for the weekend, Colin. With everything going on, I'm impressed that you are able to keep this up. So yeah, this week, loads to unpack...so first with the ObamaCare Repeal (sorry if this is a book, but I have a lot to say, and I love debate). I appreciate you asking the question as to whether or not it was worth it to Democrats to put all of their energy into healthcare reform at the expense of their party's future prospects, especially given the unrelenting assault from the right. The most optimistic of them probably thought if they were able to fix something as universally horrible as the rising cost of healthcare, which even before the law, was an unmitigated disaster, for individuals especially, (<a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/slower-premium-growth-under-obama/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/slower-premium-growth-under-obama/</a> ...although it's worth noting that broad assertion of this factcheck isn't true everywhere), then they would reap political benefit. Alas, this is not how things work, and after what I considered a pretty noble beginning, it quickly devolved into a partisan food fight (<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-real-story-of-obamacares-birth/397742/)." rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-real-story-of-obamacares-birth/397742/).</a> All said, I was very concerned at the time that the Democrats were spending all of their considerable political capital on Healthcare. Personally, I had hoped for more on environmental policy, given that public engagement in the issue had reached it's zenith around that time, but I can sympathize with the notion that those changes would represent an onerous burden on a recovering economy, so instead we got populist programs like Cash for Clunkers that tried to fix too much with too little, but were well-meaning. But I digress, more on those issues when they are relevant. Back to Obamacare, as I've watched this debacle, my mind keeps going back to a line of thought that considers just how impossible this task was for Congressional Republicans, even outside of the real legislative hurdles they faced, e.g. they had to structure a bill that concerned only the budgetary parts of the law, so they could pass it through Reconciliation (which requires simple majority, thus no Democrats). That left so much of the regulatory structure in place that imposed fiscal challenges on insurance providers, like the ban against pre-existing conditions , which, unsurprisingly, was enormously popular and, if struck, (though impossible at this stage) would cancel out the win of getting rid of the individual mandate. Any effort to do a total repeal and replace, favored doggedly by Rand Paul and the House Freedom Caucus, would require 9 Democratic votes in the Senate, basically impossible, given that House Republicans, especially, have spent the last 7 years excoriating the Democrats on this issue, as it played well to their base. The Democrats have a very bad map in 2018, so this issue might not be as dead as everyone seems willing to declare it, but Democrats had a good opportunity to gain seats this time, but failed (thanks largely to the Clinton enthusiasm gap). This will require Republicans, and Trump in particular, to stop fumbling the ball between now and then. In sum, I think that Ryan and his allies put together the best bill available, given their considerable restraints, and it sucked, because how could it not. This is could be a blessing for them: they can at least say they tried, blame the Dems, who mostly sat on their hands, let ObamaCare die on the vine by ignoring the structural deficiencies that they created during the roll out, and, and if the narrative is sustainable, make a total repeal electoral issue for 2018. If they took that zero-sum tactic, then there's no hope in them "fixing" the law, because that's tantamount to them saying it wasn't that bad in the first place (and fixing it is something that could garner bipartisan support in the last 3 yrs, as the law started to show it's warts, instead you had an enormously complex piece of legislation that had very few amendments, a rarity). Of course, never underestimate the power of spin, if they found the will to do suddenly do something they previously refused to do by fixing it, they could take a heroic stance (but they'll be stymied by the Freedom Caucus again). Also, don't underestimate an emboldened oppositions desire to show up (see Tea Party), and while I am annoyed as you that the Dems seem to have no regard for moderates, they are assuming the same calculus that allowed the right to storm the castle 6 years ago; we'll see if it works for them. IF the Republicans spin this right, it could be fine for them, but that's a really big IF, and there's no doubt that the current state of affairs is a huge black eye on the Party and the President. I haven't tuned into Fox News yet to see if and how this spun has begun, but the conservative print media is not giving them much air at the moment. This is all uniquely frustrating, since "fixing" the law, requires the Republicans to acknowledge how the original ACA contained some very clear wins for them that make a total repeal a challenge for them. Perhaps too much has been said of the ACA's similarities to the 1994 Heritage Foundation Plan designed as a counterpoint to the Clinton push for universal healthcare. It does not do this strictly but rather mimics the HEART plan introduced by 20 Senate Republicans, that the Heritage Foundation considered a bridge too far and ultimately didn't endorse (<a href="http://khn.org/022310-bill-comparison/)." rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://khn.org/022310-bill-comparison/).</a> This Bill never came to a vote, but it was generally acknowledged as a good starting point for legislation in 2009. At this point, the Public Option was very much on the table, and I suspect if Ted Kennedy were still alive at the time, this would be a very, very different law. Since the Democrats lost their 60 seat hold (emboldened opposition in the 3rd bluest state in the country) on the Senate, the public option was dropped, and Medicaid was expanded to pick up those people that everyone knew were too expensive to insure through the private market. This is an undeniable win for them. And of course, the Republicans aren't stupid, and they knew that you could still sit on a stool that had a leg cut off, but it wasn't very stable or comfortable. So 19 states refused the medicaid expansion, which created a coverage gap for lower income earners who couldn't get subsidies and wouldn't qualify to Medicaid (<a href="http://kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured-poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid/)." rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured-poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid/).</a> I would love to see a poll that compares how many of these people ended up voting for Trump; I suspect there's a statistically significant correlation, but that's just a theory. Then, as an appeal to States Rights conservatives, it was considered a giveaway to give states control over their own exchanges, but many refused, overburdening the Federal government to implement something in relatively short order, and the rollout was disastrous (it's my burden as a citizen positioned left-of-center that my faith in what the government ought to do is not consistent with what it can do or actually does; much like the center right must be burdened by the idea that free market thinking is not a panacea for every problem). Point for Republicans. And regarding the exchanges, as a free market instrument, they are laughable. Basic coverage requirements (which were necessary, my wife as a member of the individual market prior to the ACA could not buy a plan with maternity in TN; they did not exist) rendered all the plans the same, regardless of carrier, the only real choice, it seemed to us, was your network of doctors. (Tangent, I think interstate sales is a bit of a Macguffin anyway, since basically the same 8-10 insurance companies with offices or self-sustaining companies in every state, e.g. the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association is represented in 36 states. Different states have different regulations and different networks of doctors that need to be managed; these regulations would need to have some parity to between states to justify the cost of administering wider networks, and insurance companies would inevitably leave money on the table if it meant diminished out-of-network expense for consumers (in the event that they did they easy thing and merged their networks nationwide). Moreover, where is the impetus to unify the regulatory environment going to come from if not the federal government. If you return all regulatory power to the states, and it's cheaper to buy in Colorado than New York, due to differing regulatory burdens, then you'll starve the insurers in New York, who need to contend with a higher cost of living (<a href="https://www.aei.org/publication/the-pros-and-cons-of-selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines/)." rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.aei.org/publication/the-pros-and-cons-of-selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines/).</a> In short, the people that need to be on board here the most for this to work, the insurers, don't have a ton of incentive to do it. This is largely a theory of mine, but I haven't seen a lot of evidence that vindicates this idea.) And lastly, the dreaded individual mandate, the jenga block that no one wants to touch. This thing made the ACA instantly unpopular, but it was extremely necessary for the system to work as designed, since it was intended to offset the costs to they system presented by thousands of sick people that couldn't get/afford insurance. The mandate was rolled out slowly in the hopes reducing popular backlash, necessary, but unsurprisingly, the first people to get insurance and subsequent care were the sickest. What a shock, costs went up. Anyone considering this earnestly for two seconds should have been able to predict this. I presume capital infusions to insurers on top of the subsidies for the neediest people would have been the only way to offset their inevitable losses, since the pool of insured was not going to increase quickly enough. Smart people could see this law is primed to implode, and Congressional Republicans, as smart people, only needed to lean in and reclaim power. Nevermind, that this law is a vestige of free market approach, and fixing it is their best option, but one they won't likely take. To wrap up this diatribe, I encourage you to listen, if you haven't already, to Dan Carlin's most recent Common Sense podcast in which he, ostensibly a libertarian, questions the idea that healthcare belongs as a free market problem at all. I didn't agree with everything he said, but I found it very interesting and fair-minded. Again, thanks for the forum, and sorry for the book. Please also excuse the typos... I have other thoughts on the remaining topics, but it would be a waste to go into those. Enjoy your Sunday, everyone!

Anonymous

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" --Ronald Reagan

Anonymous

Shout out for 50k YouTube subscribers and $40k/month on Patreon before opening for business. Congrats, Colin!

Kyle Goodrich

Colin, what do you think about Elon Musk's comments on Trump's NASA bill? see here: <a href="http://www.techtimes.com/articles/203038/20170325/spacex-s-elon-musk-trump-s-new-nasa-bill-does-nothing-for-mars-mission.htm" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://www.techtimes.com/articles/203038/20170325/spacex-s-elon-musk-trump-s-new-nasa-bill-does-nothing-for-mars-mission.htm</a>

Joseph Ady

Thats what happens when people know you are going to produce quality content!

OsmosisJones

"We estimate that it took the equivalent energy of 100 million supernovae exploding simultaneously to jettison the black hole,” DAMN. son. that's a lot of explosions.... Sephiroth ain't got shit on that!