This is what I am listening to right now. Their concert this last Friday was amazing.
In a half-baked policy paper released on Thursday, the House speaker, Paul Ryan, trotted out washed-up ideas for “improving” the country’s health care system that would do anything but. For example, the paper calls for reducing spending on Medicaid, which now provides insurance to more than 74 million poor, disabled and older people. Many millions of them would be cast out of the program. The Republican plan would also force most people who don’t get their health insurance through an employer to pay more by slashing subsidies that the A.C.A., or Obamacare, now provides. The proposal would allow families to sock away more money in health savings accounts, which may sound good at first but would primarily benefit affluent people who can afford to save more.
If even half of these assertions are true, this modification of Obamacare looks like a disaster for the stereotypical Trump voter. And, just so no one is misled, I am not trying to set up an “I told you so” taunt. I’d much rather that the Trump voters force their President to actually work for his voters.
Notwithstanding the possibility that I likely will financially benefit from the repeal of Obamacare, 45 is clearly NOT creating a society in which I want to live.
And I will not be appeased until 45 actually starts helping people (other than himself) — and yes, I want him to help people even if that help is a financial drain on the affluent portion of society.
A great article in the NY Times asserts that a fundamental overhaul of the United States tax law is impeded by the global disruptions that would flow from such an overhaul.
It’s daunting to think that a society can’t change because of inertia, but I can definitely see the point that the United States economy is more like a huge cruise ship than a nimble little speed boat.
I just finished reading the order. It was clearly a rush job on the part of the Ninth Circuit, but it was well drafted. The panel of judges clearly anticipated that their order would be taken up by the USSC. Because of their diligence, I don’t think that a divided USSC wants to take up review of what is effectively a preliminary injunction. I suspect that the USSC will let the Federal District Court in Seattle actually try the case through to a permanent injunction.
The one really interesting take away from the decision was the court’s decision to focus on 45’s “Muslim Ban” rhetoric (yes, I have taken to referring to him as “45”; get over it).
By characterizing this as a Muslim Ban and a “campaign promise kept”, 45 has basically hung himself on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I’m not sure how to handicap what will happen next, but my suspicion is that this won’t be taken up by the USSC right now.