Gulo Blue said:

Viney Aneja ? North Carolina State University professor of air quality

Shahid Chaudhry ? California Energy Commission mechanical engineer

Susan Cozzens ? Georgia Tech Sociologist of science

Courtney Flint ? Utah State University Natural Resource Sociologist

Earthea Nance ? Texas Southern University Civil & Environmental Engineering

Paula Olsiewski ? Sloan Foundation Biochemist

Kenneth Reckhow ? Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology at Duke University

Robert Richardson ? Michiagan State University Ecological Economist

Sandra Smith ? Principal Toxicologist AECOM Consultancy

Gina Solomon ? California EPA (Former senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council)

Ponisseril Somasundaran- Columbia University Professor of Mineral Engineering

John Thakaran ? Howard University Biochemical engineering

Tammy Taylor ? Chief Operating Officer of the National Security Directorate at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Click to expand...

What happened to them? Did they all go out together to a sex club?

Trump is an awful person, bad leader, and bad president. he's already done plenty of harm through his (poorly written, often unconstitutional) executive orders, and indirectly through his incompetent, or downright evil appointees.

to focus on the fact that they have not passed any major legislation under him (yet), and say "nothing has changed for anyone" seems unnecessarily argumentative to me, and some (maybe even many) would consider me an unnecessarily argumentative person.

I went to another topic because I saw DACA in there and thought it wasn't just about healthcare, but with regard to healthcare, as a startup company guy, I pay for my own healthcare insurance policy. In the last few years, my network was cut in half and I was put in the half that didn't include the hospital where I live. I was on the phone for hours, had an agent helping me, and got nowhere. Ultimately, I wrote a letter to the state insurance commissioner and they got me switched to the local network. The price went up 21% and 22% in consecutive years and I've dropped from gold to silver tier coverage.

I blame Obamacare and believe it was written in large part by insurance agencies. I do not believe Trump will make it better. I think he will find a way to make it worse if anything.

tinselwolverine said:

What happened to them? Did they all go out together to a sex club?

Click to expand...

All let go from from the EPA's Board of Scientific Councilors. More EPA people have been let go of course, but those are names of people near the top.

Eh, it's a discussion. That's why we are here buddy boy.

I've actually enjoyed the conversation, it was a good back and forth.

michchamp said:

Trump is an awful person, bad leader, and bad president. he's already done plenty of harm through his (poorly written, often unconstitutional) executive orders, and indirectly through his incompetent, or downright evil appointees.

to focus on the fact that they have not passed any major legislation under him (yet), and say "nothing has changed for anyone" seems unnecessarily argumentative to me, and some (maybe even many) would consider me an unnecessarily argumentative person.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know what's changed for Viney Aneja, Shahid Chaudrey, or Susan Cozzens, the first three of the 20 or so names that Gulo listed among the millions and millions whose lives have been impacted by Trump's presidency, but they all at least still seem to be at their same place of employment.

I called each to ask "has Donald Trump's presidency substantially impacted your life in any way...?" I got Viney and Susan's voice mails and Shahid's line was busy.

Looks like Shahid is an employee of the State of California and an engineer; so he's probably figured out a way to rig his phone so it's off the hook but doesn't get that beepy shit going on while it is, just to make himself look busier than he really is.

I think I'm gonna stay with my "they all went out together to a sex club" theory.

Gulo Blue said:

All let go from from the EPA's Board of Scientific Councilors. More EPA people have been let go of course, but those are names of people near the top.

Click to expand...

Oh.

Were they getting paid by the EPA?

Because the first three still seem to be at the gigs you listed them at.

I read a summary of the upcoming healthcare deal Democrats (note: NOT including Bernie Sanders and those who signed on to his single payer initiative) and Trump are negotiating. from Naked Capitalism 10/17/17 links summary today:

so this is hardly a blame Trump & Republicans thing; the "#resistance" is negotiating with him to make the already shitty ACA worse for everyone except health insurance execs &'shareholders

tinselwolverine said:

Oh.

Were they getting paid by the EPA?

Because the first three still seem to be at the gigs you listed them at.

Click to expand...

They still have those gigs, but they also served on the EPA board. A lot of government research and policy is done that way. Sometimes money is involved, sometimes it isn't.

It's part of why I think Maryland was a huge get for the Big Ten. It's easier for their professors to volunteer to go to DC to serve on panels that determine who gets funded. A little bit of Big Ten bias could go a long way.

dubbsco said:

Eh, it's a discussion. That's why we are here buddy boy.

I've actually enjoyed the conversation, it was a good back and forth.

Click to expand...

Yeah.

Obama was elected, and the ACA was passed, and all the conservatives and the Republicans were running around and the sky was falling.

And now Trump is elected and the sky is falling again.

I remember the sky was falling when Bush and Clinton and Reagan were all elected too.

Gulo Blue said:

They still have those gigs, but they also served on the EPA board. A lot of government research and policy is done that way. Sometimes money is involved, sometimes it isn't.

It's part of why I think Maryland was a huge get for the Big Ten. It's easier for their professors to volunteer to go to DC to serve on panels that determine who gets funded. A little bit of Big Ten bias could go a long way.

Click to expand...

It looks like only one B1G prof is on your list, and he's a Sparty anyway.

So maybe we're still in okay shape.

I gotcha man. I respect your opinion and train of thought. I enjoyed the discussion.

as I've noted elsewhere, after the ACA passed there were further huge mergers in the health insurance business. so there's less competition, higher prices for SHITTIER COVERAGE, and the few behemoth insurers remaining can fuck consumers over further with no repercussions.

which is what happens when you allow mergers like this to occur...

and Republicans (& corp Democrats) hilariously defend this, shitting all over their "regulation BAD/market GOOD" rationale because they shamelessly follow the money, not the ideology.

https://twitter.com/ecotrope/status/860644533490651137?lang=en

Robert Richardson‏

Today, I was Trumped. I have had the pleasure of serving on the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors, and my appointment was terminated today.

tinselwolverine said:

Yeah.

Obama was elected, and the ACA was passed, and all the conservatives and the Republicans were running around and the sky was falling.

And now Trump is elected and the sky is falling again.

I remember the sky was falling when Bush and Clinton and Reagan were all elected too.

Click to expand...

eventually, going the way we're going (under Democrats and Republicans) the sky will fall.

michchamp said:

eventually, going the way we're going (under Democrats and Republicans) the sky will fall.

Click to expand...

I was trying to think of what it would take to make the sky actually fall...but every time it rains, the sky falls a little.

michchamp said:

eventually, going the way we're going (under Democrats and Republicans) the sky will fall.

Click to expand...

Statistically the odds are I'll be dead by then.

...and may ya be in Heaven an hour before the devil learns you're dead... (final line of an epic Irish or Scottish poem)..."

The ACA hasn't been repealed and replaced (as yet) b/c there are ~3 factions within the GOP who can't come to an agreement. One is fearful of losing their seats in purple/swing states b/c of the possibility of voter backlash if they lose coverage, so they prefer a slower acting poison pill, where their constituents would still technically have ACA-like coverage, but would receive less and less government paid monthly premium discounts over a 5 year period (for example), before "free market" competition takes over. Nevermind that there are 10 major for profit healthcare companies in the US, who are reaping billions upon bilions in profits, and they all know what each other charges and covers, for how long, and plan maximums. So the idea of obtaining better and more affordable coverage by "crossing state lines" is just a myth. As are vouchers and tax credits, since family and individual monthly premiums can easily exceed $1000.00 monthly for plans which have sky-high deductibles and 20% or higher co-pays. Having insurance will not be of much if any benefit, except for preventive wellcare or very serious conditions.


http://fortune.com/2015/06/20/fortune-500-biggest-healthcare-companies/

The second faction includes Trump and most other Republcans, who want Trumpcare passed ASAP, and as it was created by secret/secluded commitee and amended by the Senate, which most likely had Big Insurance/Pharma input and control.

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/new...hile-blaming-obamacare-for-losses-110116.html

The third faction who are mainly alt-right extremists and Tealibangelicals, want to completely gut what was the ACA, rendering Trumpcare into the equivalent of pink slime.


The removal of young and healthy individuals from health insurance requirements would only exacerbate coverage and accelerate costs. Not unlike if for example, drivers who go claim free for a year, would no longer be obligated to purchase auto insurance. But in both cases, there still would be chances, of course, that they could have accidents, injuries, diseases, ect...and not be covered for them.

turok said:

One is fearful of losing their seats in purple/swing states b/c of the possibility of voter backlash if they lose coverage, so they prefer a slower acting poison pill, where their constituents would still technically have ACA-like coverage, but would receive less and less government paid monthly premium discounts over a 5 year period (for example), before "free market" competition takes over.

Click to expand...

This faction is a bunch of idiots, because companies will continue to jack prices and make things worse regardless and if you make any change at all, regardless of how little it is in the near term, you're going to be perceived as owning the crap-sandwich that's on the way.

The most effective long-term way to reduce healthcare costs would probably be a revenue-neutral tax on low-cost-high-calorie foods to fund healthcare and quality foods for low income families.

Anything under 1 cent per calorie ->10%
Anything under .5 cents per calorie ->25%
Anything under .25 cents per calorie ->50% No more 99 cent, 400 calorie dollar menu burgers.

This is like my plan for fixing all the bad things associated with revenue sports (take it off TV.) I think it would work, but I'd hate to have it implemented.