Books Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
Time for a fresh Triump thread, now that the man is in office. There is bound to be much to discuss.
His first act is to enable the loss of cheap healthcare for the poor.This is the first betrayal of the working class.
He said he would do it. But of all his pledges, to prioritise the one that hurts the poor the most?
I just hope he concentrates on Putting America First and leaves the rest of us alone.
Thanks for that EM.
M Courtney - I suggest being cautious about accepting the media's interpretation of President Trump's actions.
Do you have any more information about the ending of Obamacare? What do you mean by "the poor"? Working but on low wages? Or the unemployed inhabitants of the post WW3 zones of derelict cities of the USA?
My understanding of Obamacare is hazy but I know it hit many blue collar families, not poor enough to be exempt from paying for their health cover, when their health insurance premiums doubled on the introduction of Obamacare. It certainly seems to be widely unpopular, including amongst small businesses who found they could not afford the compulsory cover for their older employees.
Donald Trump said that nobody would loose existing cover. Does your information cover whether that applies or not?
I'm interested to know more, as a bystander.
If you look at the projected costs (trillions) of Obamacare over the next 10 years ANY administration that was not involved in its creation would review it. Obamacare was under attacked long before Trump came onto the scene, and ANY Republican President would almost be obligated to follow the direction of congress.
It doesn't matter what Obamacare is, it was trying to overcome a system in equilibrium, the US health system is what it is, a function of the society.
Making any changes were never going to be perfect. And Obamacare is far from that. Now that Obama can cannot control the message (and hide the true costs) it makes sense to review it. Value for money has to be part of any government expense.
Just look at any number of independent articles, and many people realise Obamacare has to be changed. Whether they will get rid of it completely requires legislation not an executive order. Obamacare is an Act.
I too would like to know more about Obamacare. Instinctively it seems to me like a good policy, and I don't understand the fuss about it, nor why many are so keen to repeal it. After being delighted that Obama was elected, and sadly disillusioned by his failure to achieve much of anything positive after 8 years in office, it seems to me that Obamacare is about the only positive legacy he has.
But I acknowledge that my view of Obamacare is simply an uninformed and instinctive one from the other side of the Pond, so I would really welcome an objective explanation of what it achieves and why it has critics.
Can Bobby Charlton and Arthur Scargill now be retired from the list of most implausible hair styles?
M. Courtney. I find it difficult to understand what Obamacare is all about, however companies that previously gave employees cover found it cheaper to stop the cover and pay the fine - law of unexpected consequences I suppose. It is horrendously complicated you can read an explanation of it here.
M Courtney "His first act is to enable the loss of cheap healthcare for the poor."
I think you have accepted something from the MSM as being a fact. Almost *anything* the MSM says about President Trump has been altered from the reality and cannot be relied on.
A brief report that I saw said that he issued an order that US government agencies cease further implementation of the Obamacare program. Not exactly the same thing as "his first act is to enable the loss of cheap healthcare for the poor."
Thanks for the link. I feel better-informed. On balance, it still seems to me that Obamacare is a good thing, though not without its issues.
geronimo, Martin A
I recall reading in quite a few places that American healthcare costs do not look like good value when compared like for like to other countries. Hollywood makes movies about heroic drug smugglers ....
Bureaucrats seemed to have driven implementation of affordable healthcare and I read several blogs by "primary healthcare practitioners" which detail a simply astonishing (staggering even) level of documentation ( treatment categories jumped from 14k to 140k i.e. 10 fold) - as I understand it rules designed to guide the clinical progress of a patient are positively byzantine and the procedures prescribed impenetrable in many cases and quite predictably also slooow to implement in a time critical environment.
Just taking a trivial look around the system is scary and the one thing that is clear is that the main winners are the bureaucrats, closely followed by the insurance companies and big pharma. It looks - in my opinion - as if clinicians and patients actually got quite low priority.
What is far more important and will be a litmus test of the new administration - is what is proposed to replace / amend the "Obamahcare" system. Will it be straightforward to understand, fair, cost effective and acceptable to most Americans?
From what I've read about Obamacare, admittedly very little, is that it was never popular with a large proportion of Americans and that promises about existing cover not going up in cost were soon found to be economic with the actuality. There were also other unexpected consequences as geronimo says.
On other fronts President Trump may have problems delivering on some of his promises, I can't see any closed steelworks re-opening during is first, or even second term. Some car plants might reopen/be built. Things like electronics though the tariff barriers would have to be very high to make home manufacture competitive. Despite what people say in surveys when it comes down to limited cash and purchases you go for a phone plus food rather than a phone and no food. One of the advantages China has in a lot of manufacturing is that when demand increases beyond capacity they have an almost limitless resource of very cheap labour to throw at the problem, the only thing that makes labour expensive is increased wealth. China has a long way to go before that solves President Trump's issue with China and the problem country moves elsewhere. I'm old enough to remember the days of "It's a cheap Japanese copy of a famous European brand" which now "It was an expensive Japanese product now manufactured cheaply in China"
Whatever Trump is, he understands business. It seems his primary economic push via regulation is to reduce energy costs. Energy costs for manufacture. When people say "Even China believes in Climate change"..."No shit Batman!", higher energy costs are always in China's favour until they decide they are "developed" and not "developing" (plus the added benefit of making green energy products, win-win). Trump made this point during election and was attacked by everyone for it.
What I haven't worked out how that balances out with closing the market. Closing the market always raises unskilled labour costs. Is he hoping for movement of labour? Factories returning to low cost areas? I have no idea.
He isn't stupid, he isn't an ignoramus. He isn't a caricature. He isn't any different than the rich and powerful people I have met. In fact he seems a little "better" because the his treatment of women, and respect of his family is actually better.
A quick google gave me this:DailyWire: 11 Biggest Problems With Obamacare
So, all that needs to be done is to fix those 11 problems! :) So, only the medium and small problems will be left! :)
Note number 4:"4. The co-ops are failing. There were 23 co-ops created under Obamacare and at least 15 of them have gone under as a result of Obamacare's risk adjustment program that compelled insurers with healthy customers to redistribute wealth towards those with sicker customers. ..."
I gather that changing the legislation would have been easier/quicker if there had been a bigger majority in the Senate (60/40, not 52/48) for the changes, but who knows what the future will bring?
I have seen reports of monthly premiums doubling, companies downsizing to get below the employment figure or hours worked for compulsorily membership of Obamacare, forced policy changes creating new 'old illnesses' which are not covered by the new policy and the forced change of the family doctor.
Isn't it also against the US Constitution, because it is a 'national solution' and not a 'state solution'? The same can be said for the 'Educational' Core Curriculum.
And have they fixed the software problems yet? :)
Two days after the inauguration, America to save, and Trump's media spokesman is complaining about media coverage on the size of the crowd. You would think there would be more significant news to report
What worries me is that the numbers quoted by the spokesman and the numbers quoted by the media do not match. The spokesman claimed that the crowd for Trump was the largest on record, which photos and data suggest was not the case.
Two days in, and The Trump administration is already producing lies. Will we have to fact-check everything for they publish for the next four years?
Agree with other non-Muggles here
The MSM seem to have gone the full David Icke ...masses of false narrative and gatekeeping
.so that we can't easily see which photos are almost true and which are fully deceptive,
The size of Anti-Trump crowds is just a side issue...I'm sure they were very big perhps bigger than Trump supporters for many technical reasons eg like Washington DC voted 90% for Hillary.However it's the Election Win that countsIt's a bit rich of MSM to bangon now , when previously they kept silent about how Trump's election rally crowds were massive compared to Hillary's.
I realised of course SJW/MSM craziness over Trump is what you see in the politics of Islamic nations.“Ah that politician built the roads and put in the electricityBUT BUT he once, once implied something slightly derogatory about the Prophet !STONE HIM, STONE HIM !”
Trump = “apostate” for being one that doesn't just roll over and except SJW-Mob groupthink.
All the Anti-Trump rally crowds lacked was the stones in their hands to complete their ritual stoning of Trump.
The Apostate model fits with the craziness our our MSM banging on about– The size of Anti Trump Crowds (when they previously kept silent about Trump rally crowd size)– How he can never be redeemed* cos he spoke crassly about Billionaire groupie women in a PRIVATE conversation (*even tho 97% of men excluding me have spoken similarly)
.. The intolerant SJW-mob forgotten the "He who is without sin" rule
Jan 22, 2017 at 1:54 PM | Entropic man
Perhaps if you want to do some fact checking, you could start with finding out who funded and co-ordinated all these demonstrations, and why? How much money had they "invested" in Podesta's corrupt campaigning for more corruption?
Do remember that Hillary Clinton was considered the worse candidate. How bad, evil, despicable etc, does that make her?
* Mecca * Thousands of True-Believers gather for the stoning of the Devil Ceremony
* Washington DC * Thousands of True-Believers gather for the stoning of the DevilTrump Ceremony
photo march of the females
Guido video compilation of MobLefties saying Trump wont be President
Finance? Who knows?
Why? Trump's reaction to the media discussion on the small size of his crowd demonstrates how much pride he has invested in numbers. The protesters turned out a bigger crowd than attended the inauguration. What better way to humiliate that blowhard?
1:54 PM Entropic man
The lefty MSM is at war with the new administration I don't know about the inauguration crowd size and I don't particularly care - beyond knowing that CNN et al are desperately looking to find ways to nettle / provoke the new administration and absolutely no opportunity will be passed up - and it really doesn't matter to many in the media if any criticism / sniping is true or not - they burned their professional credentials on the bridges last year.
I have seen enough demonstrations and the consequent media reports to know that at least half of the time everybody is absolutely lying their faces off - ditto for any disturbances.
What is alarming in my view is that crowd trouble is pretty obviously being funded by third parties on quite a large scale. George Soros is a bit of a bogey-man but he has not bothered to hide his support for BLM in particular.
I notice you jump from a dispute about numbers attending to quickly calling the new administration liars. That's pretty feckin rich when the antics of the lefty MSM - CNN in particular - leave no doubt whatsoever about who's addicted to telling porkies
I'm not much of a Trump fan but I am very cynical indeed about the tactics being deployed against him and wonder at the motivation behind all that. There also seems to be little coherence to the protests beyond partying / 'sleb spotting and for some at least the opportunity to be paid for making mayhem.
I find myself agreeing with tomo's post at 7.02pm and Entropic Man's at 1.24pm.
I do not like Trump, and I have no great hopes for his Presidency. The "Israel's best friend" act has already produced an Israeli policy of building 500 homes in the contested east Jerusalem, which doesn't look like a policy conducive to finding a peaceful solution to that country's problems.
On the other hand, I recognise a witch hunt when I see one, and there is no doubt in my mind again that the MSM have it in for him, and will hound him remorselessly, regardless of what he does or does not do. I prefer to judge him on his acts and omissions, not find fault regardless.
On the other hand again, the petulant and childish response of Trump and his team to MSM suggestions that many more people attended Obama's inauguration 8 years ago than attended his on Friday does not augur well. He's President of the United States for goodness' sake! Surely he should be capable of a dignified response (e.g. "yes my numbers were smaller, but I suspect many people stayed away because they were afraid of trouble - and they were right when you look at the disgusting behaviour of some of the protestors"). Or he could have just ignored it. His response makes him look like a petty schoolkid. Not a good start, and if he's always going to rise to the bait like this, then they'll finish him off.
Mark - both people and organisations are consistent.
That's how Donald Trump was before the election; that's how he is now.That's how the media were before the election; that's how the media are now.Neither were going to change suddenly on 21 January.
Despite the media going all out for Hillary he was elected. Now, he is far less vulnerable to whatever the media throws at him.
If I were president; I would not be tweeting with peevish sounding tweets. But I have to concede that Trump has talents and capabilities that I do not have and I would not take it on myself to tell him how to conduct himself.
It seems at the present time that the evidence is that we can place very little trust in the assertions we see in the majority of mainstream media. I cannot recall a time when my opinion of the MSM was overall at such a low point.
The other target of the MSM is Wikileaks - who are an existential and largely unspoken of threat to the narrative monopoly enjoyed by the MSM and their puppeteers. In Wikileaks case the tactics are simple omission and misrepresentation of the information Wikileaks has been publishing.
Mark Hodgsonhow does one evaluate what is good and bad in the Middle East when Israel dominates the Anglophone debate? I'm not condoning settlers - but the situation in the area is simply appalling and murderous tribal and religious strife could still explode big time (as if it weren't bad enough already). Iran vs. KSA is the big one. A conflagration would suck in the states to the north and the Russians - even more than now....
QOTD from the MSM ....
Rod Liddle in The Sunday Times apparently
I'm not sure about Donald Trump - but if these idiots are against him - maybe he's got a point
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.