If you didn't read the newspaper, how many of the negative things you mentioned would actually impact your life? Would you even know who was president for the last 4 (or the next 4) based on the impacts to your life? I'd guess not.
Just live your life and be happy, vote when you can but don't let what you don't control make you sad.
I grew up and lived most of my life in America, then emigrated to a country with universal healthcare (the UK). When I developed a life-threatening condition which my US insurance would never have covered, the National Health Service saved my life.
These things don't matter until they really, really, really do. Having seen the grass on both sides of the fence, I can attest that it really can be meaningfully greener.
They are and we aren't fighting back tooth and nail to stop them.
We just let them do it because we (collective we) have grown so used to having it we can't remember what it was like before, people dying from treatable conditions because they couldn't afford it, average life expectancy been a whole decade lower (or more) etc.
We (again collective) won't realise what we had until it's gone.
My filthy tories voting friends do actually agree that police, nhs, fire services, etc are worth spending money on. I think the Tories have lost sight of what is important to their supporters.
I've gotten a pavlovian response to "good things", where I start imagining it already breaking down.
Like Obamas presidency. For every good he's done or tried to do, all the shit in the world that affects the US (and even things that are not real apparently) gets pinned on him, regardless of cause.
And sure, Obamacare probably has a lot of faults, but is that because of its concept, because of congressional gridlock, or compromises?
I won't argue either way, but it's always sad when something gets dismantled or at least scolded for reasons outside of its grasp.
I don't know enough about NHS to say, but spending £600M/year on management consultants doesn't sound like a healthcare problem.
I'm not religious, but it's the same with Islam being lumped together with extremists, Christianity being lumped in with crusades and westboro baptists and other lunatics, and both republicans and liberals being categorized by a few vocal idiots.
Sometimes you have to try to look objectively at something and the faults alongside it, and try to determine if they are one and the same. Sometimes it's worth fighting to improve something instead of just burning it to the ground, because there's a good chance the new foundation being built is worse than what you destroyed.
Long-term back pain that counted as a pre-existing condition for every insurance package I had, on the rare occasions when I could afford to be insured. That eventually degenerated into a couple of prolapsed disc that cut off the nerves to may legs, resulting in constant pain (the kind that leaves you screaming and writhing without a constant morphine drip) and making it impossible to walk, sit up, or go to the bathroom unaided. While not technically a life-threatening condition, my quality of life was low enough that I certainly would have committed suicide had it persisted indefinitely.
In the US, as I say, this would not have been covered by my insurance, and would have cost around $50,000 to fix. Completely infeasible for me to find that amount of money. The NHS did an excellent job of fixing it for free.
> "life-threatening condition which my US insurance would never have covered"
I wonder how is that possible? Insurance plans these days have to cover you even if you have a pre-existing condition, even the cheapest plans cover everything after a deductible, unless I am missing something
Thank Obamacare for that, and that only kicked in on 2011. Prior to that, insurance recission was a real and pervasive issue for those with preexisting conditions.
> You have to wonder how long 'Obamacare' is going to last now with a Republican president, congress and senate...
I don't think the Republicans have enough people in the Senate to block filibusters. So I assume the Democrats will use the filibuster to block repeals of the healthcare law.
Why in the world would the GOP ever leave the filibuster in place? Mitch will remove it at the beginning of the 115th Congress.
Boom. Now Obamacare can be repealed with simple majority. I bet you dollars to donuts that insurance prices, however, will not go back down to pre-Obamacare prices. Because profits.
The fact that prices went up at all shows there is a huge problem. We're already paying more than anyone else in the world, why can't we get something for our money instead of having to pay even more?
To give you an example - my dad had to take 2 boxes of Glivec per month to keep him alive(he was predicted to survive 3-6 months, thanks to Glivec he lived another 8 years). Glivec, last time I checked, is currently 12 thousand dollars a box in US. And sure, most health insurance in US would cover most of that. But if you have to take two $12k boxes per month, and insurer says they will cover $10k per box, you suddenly have to find $4k per month just to buy your life saving medicine. In effect sure, you have insurance, but unless you are rich, you are fucked. The whole idea of deductible on health insurance is pretty much a US-only invention, and it literally kills people who are in theory "covered".
As a fairly young US citizen I'm curious, I thought that most health care plans have an out of pocket maximum that is usually in the low to mid thousands per year. Would this situation not be one that limits the yearly cost that way?
US median individual wage is $39K/yr for males and $26.5K/yr for females [1]. That amounts to an after-total-tax (for a California resident) of $28K/yr for males and $19K/yr for females.
Average rent ranges from $500-$3600/mth though for illustrative purposes (taking into account people in expensive places share) let's use $1K/mth for our hypothetical person. [3]
That leaves you with $16K/yr (male) and $7K/yr (female) for food, transportation and incidental expenses.
Obamacare backed health plans have a maximum out-of-pocket of $7K/yr for individuals.
Yeah, I'd say the median American is pretty much SOL if they get sick even if they have insurance. And those figures don't take into account the price of the insurance itself if your employer elects not to provide it to you.
In the UK your NHS annual out-of-pocket maximum is $0.
US median individual wage is $39K/yr for males and $26.5K/yr for females [1]. That amounts to an after-total-tax (for a California resident) of $28K/yr for males and $19K/yr for females.
The tax calculator you reference includes estimates of sales, property, and fuel taxes (which make up much of the tax total at the incomes here), which are actually rolled into rent, transportation, and general purchases, so you are double counting some expenses.
Obamacare added three provisions in particular that affected my family. Annual and lifetime caps on coverage were banned, dropping sick policyholders was banned, and all plans were required to set maximum out-of-pocket costs.
My family has easily hit the pre-Obamacare lifetime coverage limits and fairly frequently would've hit the annual ones. Our $4k out-of-pocket cap saves us from 10-50k in coinsurance/copays depending on the year. As a result, they'd drop us in a heartbeat if they could.
Based on Republican control of House, Senate, and White House, their having explicitly stated they'd repeal Obamacare, and the ability to do a lot of damage to the law without risking a filibuster (which they can do away with entirely, incidentally). http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/the-future-of-obama...
After two or three conservative justices are appointed the court your life will be mega affected. Are you gay? Kiss gay marriage goodbye. Right to privacy ? Gone. Wanna buy or own a sex toy? Those were illegal in many states until a progressive court put an end to it. A conservative court will absolutely reverse that.
Can you point to some supreme court cases? One that comes to mind is Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the "sodomy law" by a largely republican court (I think only one or two justices were democratic at the time)
That's a gross misstatement of Citizens United. People do not give up their right to free speech by forming a voluntary organization (aka a corporation). We know this is true because we allow corporations and organizations like the New York Times, the ACLU, and the Teamsters unions to have a right to free speech.
As for money being free speech, the equivalence is that in general it costs money to publicize views. The FEC has limits on what you can do with the money (you're not supposed to buy jewelry or fancy vacations) and where it can come from.
Gay marriage is here to stay because of a massive shift in public opinion on the issue which has been taking place over decades. None of that is going away.
History is pretty consistent that candidates actually do try to enact what they say during campaigns... Anyone expecting a suddenly different President Trump vs. Candidate Trump will likely be in for a surprise.
Trump has said many things that contradict reality. These are clearly lies. Trump has said many things that contradict other things that he has said. These indicate more lies. Trump has made many promises regarding policy. There is no reason to believe these to be lies. I am hopeful that they are, but it is just a hope.
Come on, be realistic. The guy would say anything to get votes. He is just like my Swedish politicians [0]. So what will the US and the rest of the world get? I don't know. You don't know. I'm not even certain that Trump knows.
I hope, as an European, Trump will be pro NATO enough to keep Putin from invading more countries...
Let's hope that Trump will look at who buys US stuff and who doesn't. And Russia is too badly managed to have a good economy and be a good partner for trade.
Nothing positive about Clinton implied, either.
[0] The Swedish ex communists have declared themselves a feminist party -- but stamp it as "racist" when immigrant women have problems with oppression in the immigrant areas... :-) They are courting the intolerant immigrant votes. I would dare anyone to find any more hypocritical political example anywhere, but... sadly, there certainly are.
He said a lot of things which appealed to certain voters but pretty clearly aren't going to happen. His style is to overstate. People on the other side taking his words literally has led to a lot of fear.
Well most of the state and city bans to limit the 2nd amendment were struck down by the courts.
So the left has been pushing 'back-door' laws that would do the same thing, effectively: huge taxes on ammo, letting manufactures be legally liable crimes committed with their sold weapons, etc.
Regardless of your views on guns, it is the 2nd Amendment - if the left wants to change it, there is a method to change the Constitution. Executive decisions and other nefarious schemas shouldn't be accepted.
Do you really not believe that these people will follow through with their campaign promises when they have the house, senate, and presidency? All it takes is a SCOTUS nominee, a new law defunding planned parenthood and/or banning abortion, and a challenge to the law to get struck down in the Supreme Court, all of which are now in their grasp.
I am talking about civil liberties in general. The mechanism for gay marriage would be similar.
As a footnote, yes, I have read the decision and I have read my constitution. Furthermore I don't think this is the right place for those kinds of ad-hominem attacks.
"... a new law defunding planned parenthood and/or banning abortion"
Not giving Federal taxpayer money to PP doesn't stop them from doing abortions (they officially claim they use no taxpayer funds for abortion anyway), and you can't ban abortion via statute due to Roe v Wade having supremacy. (BTW, PP does a minority of abortions in the USA.)
Even if the USSC wanted to replace Roe v Wade, they can't just do that by decree. A relevant case that would give them that nexus would have to navigate itself all the way up the chain from Federal court through the corresponding Court of Appeals (assuming they even hear the case), winning all the way in courts laden with Obama appointees, to even get on the USSC's radar.
You didn't understand what you claim to have read.
I'm not sure I follow. Can't Congress just pass a law outlawing abortion, Trump signs, then it's the law? For the Supreme Court to overturn, there would have to a lawsuit to stop it.
No, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it wouldn't pass, because Democrats would vote 95% against and Republicans at most 75% for.
But even if it DID pass the House, the Senate would just filibuster it.
And even if by some miracle one was passed and signed, it would hit an immediate injunction from the Federal court of the abortion-backers' choice, using Roe as a precedent.
The concept makes for a good scare tactic to raise contributions and volunteers, but it goes nowhere in the real world.
> No, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it wouldn't pass, because Democrats would vote 95% against and Republicans at most 75% for.
Why do you believe this? On a night when the traditional polling and data mechanisms we have come to rely on have proven totally fallible, I have a hard time trusting ANY proposed split.
In other words, you fear that Republicans might pull a trick similar to what Reid did 3 years ago in implementing the "nuclear option"[1]? Did you protest that at the time, or since?
Actually they can replace Roe V Wade because it's a ruling on the interpretation of laws that are amendable by the legislative branch.
I hope you are right about the courts laden with Obama appointees across the entire nation.
No, they can't. If you have any friends who went to law school, perhaps they could explain it to your satisfaction. Marbury v. Madison laid out these mechanisms over 210 years ago.
An an actual repeal of Roe v. Wade (or Casey v. Planned Parenthood) is unlikely. It's mainly red meat for the base. To actually do it would be political suicide of the type we saw when an unpopular ACA was passed.
All it will take is a reversion to "let the states decide", which may also be what we see with issues such as abortion. What scares me though, are the decisions like Citizens United, issues with privacy and regulatory oversight, and that kind of thing.
However, as long as you are not directly affected by any of those, e.g. you are not LBGTQ, you might consider staying to defend LGBTQ rights and thereby have a more meaningful impact. Even if you're not a politician, voting, educating your children and talking to friends and coworkers can have a significant impact.
Serious question from a non-American: What are the checks and balances on Trump? He has the presidency, House, Senate, and can tilt the supreme court. He's got a mandate to take action against the media and free speech on the internet. What's left?
If Clinton won, the republicans would probably have held one or both houses, which seems like significant checks on power even if she could have a more friendly supreme court than Obama.
The check and balance is that he has to get all those people to agree with him. Certainly on major issues where he aligns with Republican philosophy that might happen. But he's not a dictator that can do as he will tomorrow. If he decided he wants to transfer the entire U.S. treasury into his personal bank account he wouldn't be able to.
Certainly I doubt our founders thought an entire political party would control every single branch of government. But even if it does the only things that can be accomplished need to be agreed upon by that large group of people. If the will of the people is to elect a group of people into those positions that all hold the same philosophy and values, then that's just democracy. It's what we voted for. I don't know if any party has controlled all three branches of government at once, but it's not like that negates the principle of checks and balances
You mean where republican philosophy aligns with him. If you've followed the primaries he has ripped the republican playbook to shreds. They never wanted him as their candidate and now they can't hide from him. And for a lot of politicians their success is directly tied to his support.
I think we are closer to uncharted territory than a lot of people assume.
I'm not sure that they put a lot of thought into the concept of political parties back then. To a large extent, modern democratic systems have been designed as a mechanism for free men to make collective decisions based upon their individual knowledge and conscience.
Political parties are just another application which happens to run well on top of the same OS.
Yes. I have two sisters that could lose access to birth control and planned parenthood. One of them dates a black man and already gets racial slurs thrown at them in public. These results are only going to embolden that behavior. America has voted for a mysogynistic sexist at its highest ceremonial office, you don't think that affects what is acceptable discourse? You don't think the SCOTUS is changed for a generation now?
It's not just a trump presidency, it's a trump presidency rubber stamping a republican house and senate, which will follow through on their stated intention to install judges to repeal Roe V Wade, and to establish a more conservative, evangelical agenda.
That's a big oft-overlooked point: Trump seems to have much more moderate views on social issues than the Republican Party (and he didn't win on a very Republican platform), but the problem is that he also will likely not be in a position to contradict or overrule the party on those issues (or terribly inclined to do so in the first place).
The trend in the House and Senate and many state governments since 2008 is far more concerning to me than Trump's election.
> Trump seems to have much more moderate views on social issues than the Republican Party
Trump also doesn't seem to have much of a view at all, during campaign he expressed one thing and its opposite multiple times, he craves attention and acceptance and if the GOP does that (and lets him enact the petty revenges he's know for) I don't expect he'll have any issue enacting evangelical policies. Hell, he explicitly stated he'd leave the presidential busywork to his VP.
<The trend in the House and Senate and many state governments since 2008 is far more concerning to me than Trump's election.>
Did you forget that the Democrats controlled the House and Senate until 2011? In fact, the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate until February of 2010.
Yes, they controlled it and then lost it. As opposed to controlling and maintaining. Doesn't that speak to a growing disconnect between them and the people voting on those seats (phrased as such to acknowledge both political changes and redistricting ones)?
Live somewhere like CA? Hard to see the state government or Supreme Court rolling things back too terribly. Health insurance if you don't have a good job would be a big question mark, would be nice to see the state pick that up.
Live in a state where the legislature is inclined to pass laws against your sexuality, religion, etc? That's a much more vulnerable position.
IMO a much larger problem than Trump is the structural favoritism in the American political system towards less-populated areas. This has a lot to do with how Obama's last term was largely sabotaged as well, after all.
That "structural favouritism towards less populated areas" is a very old design feature of American democracy. Without it, everywhere but a small band in each coast would become politically irrelevant, much like it's already ignored by the media.
Clinton's projected by the NY Times to win the popular vote by 1.2% right now. That's hardly a huge mandate for a singular agenda. It's a margin that would still be at massive risk if people continued ignoring those non-coastal populations feeling economically left behind.
Instead, despite that 1.2% lead for the Democratic presidential candidate, that party will be the minority party in every branch of government? That's a better, fairer system?
Structurally separating everyone into groups drifting further and further apart for everyone is a recipe for a system that can't get much useful stuff done.
(And the media ate up the Trump campaign despite it being incredibly unappealing to those small coastal bands. Nobody build an unassailable media monopoly by ignoring something like 48% of the population.)
She campaigned for the electoral vote, not for the popular vote.
You can't be sure that if, instead, the popular vote were used that she would have taken a different platform that was soundly rejected by most states but secured her a much larger popular vote margin.
In what way am I spamming, and in what way is pointing out that a generation-long shift to the Right is going to be the result of this election via the SCOTUS?
It's true, but at the end of the day you can already see that we're not going to do a damned meaningful thing about it whoever gets elected. The kinds of changes needed are not going to come about in a timely fashion, and when we start to move, it will be far too late (if it isn't already). On that point at least, our fate is sealed.
LGBT people, of which there are many here, have every reason to be afraid. Mike Pence has been vocal about his feelings w.r.t. how these people should be "treated".
And with the ability to set a Justice and a party dominated House and Senate, it does not look very good for "checks and balances" over the next 4 years.
And that of course assumes you're not subject to deportation for whatever reason. If Trump keeps any of his campaign promises we will be seeing many people forced out of the country. No idea what the extent of that will be, and at least some people here are first generation and claim to be anchors.
Just live your life and be happy, vote when you can but don't let what you don't control make you sad.