+ Reply to Thread
Page 1491 of 1491 FirstFirst ... 491 991 1391 1441 1481 1488 1489 1490 1491
Results 37,251 to 37,265 of 37265

Thread: Election 2016

  1. #37251
    Let's go Rangers! RhodyYanksFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    lil'rhody

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    Not yet. I'll get to it.
    It's embedded in this article, which is also worth reading.

    http://www.vox.com/2017/1/17/1430469...ring-education

    Betsy DeVos was asked a basic question about education policy — and couldn’t answer

  2. #37252

    Re: Election 2016

    Maybe if we didn't have all these females attracting bears with their periods, we wouldn't need guns in schools.


  3. #37253

    Re: Election 2016

    The Franken video is more disqualifying than the others I've seen. I don't expect her to agree with Sanders when it comes to education. In fact, I expect her to have wildly different views about the direction the agency should take, to the extent that she has that discretion.

    I do think you need to know about the relevant issues, even though no one could be expected to know the entire field. Honestly, as long as someone has the capacity and willingness to soak up information on a technical or policy issue quickly and make a top-level sound decision would be good enough for me. But I'm not sure she has that ability.


  4. #37254

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by ZYanksRule View Post
    Yeah, so what's happening here is anti-intellectualism. Trump and his supporters don't want people with experience in these positions because those who had experience "failed" us so badly.

    It's all a crock of BS in my opinion, but this is their attempt to destroy the establishment. It's a little bit anarchist, frankly, but they want people with no experience to try to fix the "problems" that have been created. And we're seeing that throughout the incoming administration.
    The funniest part is that states that Trump won have the highest rates of enrollment in the ACA. I know you were talking about education, but this little fact is relevant to your statement, too. They screwed themselves and everyone else.

    The anti-intellectualism is so disturbing.
    Black Lives Matter.

  5. #37255

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jlw1980 View Post
    The funniest part is that states that Trump won have the highest rates of enrollment in the ACA. I know you were talking about education, but this little fact is relevant to your statement, too. They screwed themselves and everyone else.

    The anti-intellectualism is so disturbing.
    Even in those states, it's probably possible that not a single Trump voter enrolled in the marketplace.

    Anyone know if higher numbers of enrollment would have an effect on non-ACA premiums within a state? Or how the decision to expand Medicaid (or not) would affect them?

    It looks like quite a few Trump states are seeing huge increases in ACA costs:

    http://time.com/money/4535394/obamac...s-2017-states/

    Alabama: 36%

    Individual plan premiums from Blue Cross Blue Shield—the only company offering individual plans in the state in 2017—will rise an average of 36% next year. Roughly 165,000 Alabama residents bought insurance through the marketplace in 2016. The new price hikes come on the heels of BCBS increasing premiums 28% from 2015 to 2016 for individual plans purchased through the marketplace.

    Georgia: 32%

    Humana sought a price increase of a whopping 65% for individual plans sold on the marketplace in 2017, while other insurers planned smaller increases ranging from 7% to 44%. Altogether, the price increases will average 32% for 2017, according to ACASignups.net.

    Illinois: 44%

    Throughout Illinois, the price of health care premiums will increase 40% to 50%, on average, for plans purchased on the individual marketplace. Average price increases for mid-level Silver and the lowest-price Bronze plans are both increasing 44% for coverage in 2017.
    For an example of how the increases translate to monthly bills for those purchasing insurance on the marketplace, a 21-year-old nonsmoker in Illinois will see the monthly premium for a Silver Plan rise 36% next year, from $229 to $312. That's the equivalent of paying nearly $1,000 extra for the year, from $2,748 in 2016 to $3,744 in 2017. The price increase would be higher for an older (presumably less healthy) individual, especially if that person is a smoker.


    Minnesota: 50% to 67%

    "Rising insurance rates are both unsustainable and unfair,” Minnesota Commerce Commissioner Mike Rothman said in late September, while releasing the details of individual health plan increases purchased on the marketplace. “Middle-class Minnesotans in particular are being crushed by the heavy burden of these costs. There is a clear and urgent need for reform to protect Minnesota consumers who purchase their own health insurance.”
    He said that the individual marketplace was "on the verge of collapse," and that the "rates insurers are charging will increase significantly to address their expected costs and the loss of federal reinsurance support." The result is that premiums for the estimated 250,000 Minnesotans who buy individual insurance will rise 50% to 67% in 2017, though many of these individuals will receive subsidies to offset the price hikes. If individuals in Minnesota earn $47,520 or more annually, or families earn $97,200 or more, however, they are on the hook for the entire price increase if they're insured through the state marketplace.

    Nebraska: 35%

    Individual health insurance rate increases range from 12% to 50% for Nebraskans purchasing on the marketplace in 2017, for an average premium increase of about 35%.

    Oklahoma: 76%

    Individual Obamacare premiums rose 35% in 2015. That sounds pretty steep, but it pales in comparison to the 76% price increase, on average, the Oklahoma Insurance Commission expects for individual premiums in 2017.
    According to HealthInsurance.org, "Oklahoma’s average rate increase for the individual market is by far the highest in the country for 2017."

    Pennsylvania: 33%

    Pennsylvanians who purchase individual Obamacare insurance without subsidies will pay 33% higher premiums, on average, for 2017. As a result, the cheapest plan from Geisinger for a 40-year-old nonsmoker will cost $441 per month next year, up from $247 in 2016. For the year, that's an increase of about $2,300, from $2,964 to $5,292.


    Tennessee: 44% to 62%

    For 2017, the state approved individual plan increases of 44%, 46%, and 62% from Humana, Cigna, and Blue Cross Blue Shield, respectively. The state's head insurance regulator approved the price increases in August after describing Tennessee's individual marketplace as "very near collapse."
    So I don't think you can necessarily say that these people are screwing themselves.


  6. #37256
    Time to reset the luxury tax melon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    ...

    She's not a terrific choice by any means. There are worse choices (in my opinion) in Mr Trump's proposed cabinet.
    Which brings me to this question:

    What are the odds that she doesn't get approved?
    Trade Ellsbury. Keep Gardner.

  7. #37257
    NYYF Legend

    Yankee Tripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Left coast

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    I've been on the fence about DeVos from the moment she was nominated.


    First, I don't see her pick as pay to play. It's not like she was a horse-show organizer who suddenly found himself running FEMA. She's been a member, and even chairman, of various foundations committed to education. The fact that she's an advocate for school choice should not be disqualifying. She has spent millions of dollars and countless hours devoted to education.


    I've long had issues with the Department of Education. Their mission is "to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access." Lets look at that mission, and how the Department operates.


    The Department does little to foster educational excellence. Curricula, standards, and teacher qualifications are (rightfully) determined at the state and local levels. Even accreditation is outside the sphere of influence of the Department. So, what exactly does the Department do to foster educational excellence? I'm sure there's something, bit it's not evident. THIS is why I don't think a professional educator is necessary to run the Department.


    As for equal access, what, exactly, does that mean? Do we have areas in the country where kids don't have access to K-12 education? Granted, we have some places that have terrible schools. Does "equal access" then mean that kids in these neighborhoods should have access to schools that don't suck? If that's the case, DeVos' advocacy of school choice would seem to be in bounds.


    In Colorado, our law gives families a lot of flexibility. Schools are geographically assigned....if you live in this neighborhood, here's the Elementary, Middle, and High Schools your kids will attend. But, if you're unhappy with one of those schools, you can transfer your kid to another school, in or out of the school district, by permit. Or, you can send him to a school-board-sanctioned charter school. So, we have a school choice system, not necessarily tied to a pay-to-attend OR to a religion-based school. The large downside to this model is that the school only provides transportation to the assigned school. If you get your kid into another school, you're responsible for getting him to and from the school, which puts low-income families at a disadvantage. Still, I have to think that the flexibility to send your kid to a non-neighborhood school better serves "equal access." Obviously, this is a state law, and has nothing to do with the federal Department of Education.


    On the other hand, her long advocacy of vouchers is problematic. A voucher system, on its own, won't pay for private schooling; it will only decrease the family's burden toward private education. This fails the "equal access" part of the mission and, long term, hurts the neighborhood schools by siphoning off the high-performing kids.


    DeVos flatly rejects the status quo of our educational system. To me, that's a plus. Our current model is getting more and more expensive, and is realizing less student achievement. I firmly believe the Secretary (whoever that might be) needs to shake things up. However, DeVos is a champion of religious-based parochial schools, vouchers, and grading individual schools, and I don't personally believe these are the best answers.


    Long story short.......I like the idea of someone running the Department who will not embrace the status quo, but I'm wary that DeVos' viewpoint will result in a course correction that exacerbates the problem, rather than improves upon it.
    I listened to about 2 hours of her testimony yesterday.

    After which I'm convinced she'd be nothing short of a disaster who is trying to further gut public education.
    Baseball is life;
    the rest is just details.

  8. #37258
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by melon View Post
    Which brings me to this question:

    What are the odds that she doesn't get approved?
    I'm guessing slim to none.
    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
    - Barry Manilow

  9. #37259
    Get Off My Lawn. Maynerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by RhodyYanksFan
    It's embedded in this article, which is also worth reading.

    http://www.vox.com/2017/1/17/1430469...ring-education
    Thanks. Yeah, it's disconcerting. Proficiency vs. growth is pretty basic, and it's a little scary that it needed to be explained to her.
    Quote Originally Posted by melon View Post
    Which brings me to this question:

    What are the odds that she doesn't get approved?
    Slim to none.


    For some reason, the advice and consent of the Senate has become a rubber-stamp for Cabinet picks (if the same party is in the majority), and much more rigorous for Supreme Court picks. I honestly think it should be the other way around. The cabinet picks are going to create and execute policy. We should get that part right, and a pre-screening can tell a lot about the knowledge base on Day One. On the other hand, the Supreme Court needs to assess the arguments made before it, so the approval process should be knowledge of the law and judicial temperament, and not litmus tests on specific issues.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankee Tripper
    I listened to about 2 hours of her testimony yesterday.

    After which I'm convinced she'd be nothing short of a disaster who is trying to further gut public education.
    As much as I'm an advocate of drastic changes to our educational system, "gutting public education" is not a part of it. Her rejection of the status quo remains a plus (for me), but I'd prefer someone with a greater understanding of the basic foundation.


    Still not the worst nominee for the Trump cabinet.

    "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
    - President Barack Obama

  10. #37260
    Time to reset the luxury tax melon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    I'm guessing slim to none.
    What about Price?

    And if Rubio approves Tillerson, then he's also approved?

    Any nominees that will likely not get approved?
    Trade Ellsbury. Keep Gardner.

  11. #37261
    Get Off My Lawn. Maynerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by melon View Post
    Any nominees that will likely not get approved?
    I doubt it.


    The Republican Party never wanted Trump to get their nomination. They weren't at all happy about it when he locked it in, and I suspect a lot of the Party Machinery were amazed that he won the eventual election. So, now is the time to send a message to him that there needs to be some sort of partnership, and not an autocracy. Rejecting one or two of his marginal (at best) picks for the cabinet could send a signal to the Executive Branch that the Legislative Branch understands its roll and will seriously execute it.


    But, I fear they'll rubber stamp virtually everything, further diminishing the power and authority of the Legislative Branch. The Executive already holds too much power. It's going to get worse.

    "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
    - President Barack Obama

  12. #37262
    Let's go Rangers! RhodyYanksFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    lil'rhody

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    I doubt it.


    The Republican Party never wanted Trump to get their nomination. They weren't at all happy about it when he locked it in, and I suspect a lot of the Party Machinery were amazed that he won the eventual election. So, now is the time to send a message to him that there needs to be some sort of partnership, and not an autocracy. Rejecting one or two of his marginal (at best) picks for the cabinet could send a signal to the Executive Branch that the Legislative Branch understands its roll and will seriously execute it.


    But, I fear they'll rubber stamp virtually everything, further diminishing the power and authority of the Legislative Branch. The Executive already holds too much power. It's going to get worse.
    These Republicans in congress sold their souls to support Trump who they all know full well has no business being in power. They know how dangerous and insane he's acting but they are willing to go with it because they know he'll cut taxes and reduce regulation on businesses - which is all they've cared about for decades.

    People like Chaffitz who made a big stink about "I can't look my daughter in the eye and vote for that man" but then when the heat died down, voted for him. People like Marco Rubio who made a big stink about not trusting Trump with the nuclear codes, but ended up voting for him. Rubio who made a big stink this week in the Tillerson hearings, but I'm sure will vote for him in the end. They're all spineless and have sold out our future to a bigot despot just so they can give millionaire donors a tax cut.

  13. #37263

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jcarey View Post
    Maybe if we didn't have all these females attracting bears with their periods, we wouldn't need guns in schools.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LYySY-_JRE

  14. #37264

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    I doubt it.


    The Republican Party never wanted Trump to get their nomination. They weren't at all happy about it when he locked it in, and I suspect a lot of the Party Machinery were amazed that he won the eventual election. So, now is the time to send a message to him that there needs to be some sort of partnership, and not an autocracy. Rejecting one or two of his marginal (at best) picks for the cabinet could send a signal to the Executive Branch that the Legislative Branch understands its roll and will seriously execute it.


    But, I fear they'll rubber stamp virtually everything, further diminishing the power and authority of the Legislative Branch. The Executive already holds too much power. It's going to get worse.
    Don't know why. They spent years cultivating that base.

  15. #37265
    NYYF Legend

    ClownPickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego, CA

    Re: Election 2016

    At the very end of the hearing, Sen. Patty Murray, the ranking Democrat on the committee, allocated the small time she had left to Hassan, who proceeded to reference the 990 tax forms. DeVos then made an astonishing claim. These government tax forms, filed by her own mother’s foundation, were incorrect. For years. Many years. “That was a clerical error. I can assure you I have never made decisions on my mother’s behalf on her foundation’s board.”

    The idea that her own mother’s foundation would accidentally list her as a vice president for years as result of a clerical error is just not believable. The Democrats should go to town on this obvious attempt to mislead the Senate. This alone should disqualify DeVos, though there is a vast ocean of other reasons they could fish from.
    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/18/...to-the-senate/

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 35 users browsing this thread. (11 members and 24 guests)

  1. jcarey
  2. Maynerd
  3. KLJ

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts