www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ck…
— Matthew B (@matthewbroome.bsky.social) December 4, 2024 at 2:30 PM
Archives for 2024
Odds & Ends Open Thread
Donald Trump appears to truly despise Ron DeSantis, and that feeling is certainly shared by Trump’s incoming chief of staff Susie Wiles, with whom the governor had a nasty falling out some years ago. So, I figured Florida’s Angriest Kumquat would be frozen out of a Trump II cabinet. But if the latest reports are true, DeSantis might get the DoD job if Hegseth’s nomination flames out.
My feelings on that are approximately what they were when leering sex trafficker Matt Gaetz’s AG nomination imploded and the somewhat cleverer election-denying crook Pam Bondi got the nod instead: Since either choice would be catastrophic, better to have the out-of-his-depth clown in office because maybe he’ll accidentally do less damage.
DeSantis has proved adept at abusing power to target perceived enemies and funneling taxpayer dollars into his cronies’ pockets in Florida. I have no doubt he’d gleefully abuse military power and turn the Pentagon into a personal enrichment machine too.
But if the speculation I’ve read is correct, there’s a transaction that must be completed first: DeSantis has to name Lara Trump (Mrs. Gums) to to the U.S. Senate seat to be vacated by Marco Rubio.
I really hope that happens because Florida deserves the auto-tune queen as its representative. Not all of us, of course — millions of Floridians voted for Harris-Walz, reproductive freedom, etc. But the votes coming from Florida’s junior senator will be Trump’s rubberstamp no matter who DeSantis names. So why not a vapid, unqualified, unserious nepo baby to underscore how absurd this all is?
***
Josh Marshall’s latest Backchannel essay (gift link) focuses on how Dems can be an effective opposition party. I haven’t followed the news much, so I don’t know if Marshall is reacting to weak-sauce public statements from Dems or outlining principles of political opposition more generally, but what he says makes sense to me:
People are scared and upset about Kash Patel becoming FBI director. There’s good reason to be. But the language illustrates problems we should have learned about during the election. I hear that he’s an “extremist,” that’s he’s a “norm-busting” pick, that he’s inexperienced, that he’s a “hardcore MAGA loyalist.” This all sounds like yada, yada, yada to me. In one ear and out the other.
What I want to hear Democrats saying is that Patel has literally promised to abuse his power as soon as he’s sworn into office. He’s said that repeatedly over the last year. I want to hear Democrats saying they don’t want an FBI director who has promised to abuse the powers of his office as soon as he’s sworn in. To me, that’s not complicated. That’s pretty straightforward. Everyone can understand it.
I also hear talk about which GOP senators might be ready to stand up to Trump. It’s hopeful talk, a real wish that some might be ready to come across the lines and do the right thing. But that’s soft, loser talk. It’s begging. It’s undignified and weak.
One of the benefits of being out of power is clarity. Democrats are outsiders to all the decision-making right now. “Tough” confirmation battles, if they occur, take place entirely among Republicans. Democrats have total freedom of action to oppose on their own terms. Democrats shouldn’t be begging a Susan Collins to do the right thing. They should be eagerly putting her on notice, almost gleeful about how they’re going to use her bootlicking votes against her when she runs for reelection in 2026.
In other words, oppose, oppose, oppose. Do not congratulate. Do not feel obligated to hand it to them. Do not act as if any of this shit is business as usual.
There is no chance Republicans will come up with a clean policy proposal that will benefit the American people, so maybe (loudly!) trying to stop everything they attempt is the way to go. I’m not in the political strategy business, but that seems like pretty sound advice to me.
Open thread.
The Political Parties Are Not the Same – It Pays to Live in a Blue State
Illinois, for instance, where I live. This just applies to employment.
The following changes to Illinois employment law take effect on January 1, 2025, and apply to employers of all sizes unless otherwise noted. Below are summaries of the changes.
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE
Illinois’ minimum wage will increase to $15 per hour. The minimum base wage for tipped employees will increase to $9 per hour. The law applies to employers with four or more employees.PAY AND BENEFITS IN JOB POSTINGS
Employers with 15 or more employees will be required to post a pay scale in their job postings. The law applies to internal and external job postings for all positions that will be physically performed in the state (even partially), or outside the state if the employee will report to a supervisor or location in the state. Job postings must also include a general description of any benefits and other compensation offered for that position, including bonuses, stock options, and other incentives.Employers can comply with the disclosure requirements by including a hyperlink to an easily accessible public web page that features the pay scale and benefits for the specific position. If a job posting wasn’t available to an applicant, employers need to provide this information before any job offer or discussion of compensation occurs, or upon the applicant’s request.
Promotion Opportunities
Employers must inform all current employees about promotion opportunities within 14 days after posting the job externally. This can be done through an announcement, posting, or by any other effective means.EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
Illinois’ antidiscrimination law will be expanded to protect reproductive health decisions and family responsibilities. Reproductive health decisions include, but aren’t limited to, decisions to use contraception, reproductive technologies, prenatal care, or pregnancy termination care. Family responsibilities are defined as an employee’s actual or perceived caregiving for a family member (e.g., the assumption that a woman will be taking care of children or aging parents).EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION CHANGES
Employers will be required to provide employees with specific notices and rights when a discrepancy is found in their employment authorization documents. Employer obligations will vary depending on whether the discrepancy was found by the employer, a government agency, or a federal government inspection. Employers must also inform their employees about Form I-9 and employment record inspections within 72 hours of being notified. The Illinois Department of Labor will create a sample notice for this purpose by June 30, 2025.CAPTIVE AUDIENCE MEETINGS
Employers will be prohibited from taking—or threatening to take—adverse action against an employee to get them to attend, or for not attending, an employer-sponsored meeting if its purpose is to express the employer’s opinion on religious or political matters.The same applies to receiving or listening to communications for this purpose. Political matters include (but aren’t limited to) the decision to join or support any political party or any political, civic, community, fraternal, or labor organization. The law does have several exceptions that are outlined on the Illinois Employment Discrimination and Accommodations laws page.
Allow employees to opt out of any meeting or communication covered by this law.
Anyone know what’s happening in other blue states that are trying to protect their residents.
If anyone has a link to the other changes being made in Illinois, or any other state, please share them.
The Political Parties Are Not the Same – It Pays to Live in a Blue StatePost + Comments (42)
Elite Order
Kay made this observation about the press in one of yesterday’s threads, and it stuck with me:
I think media’s absolutely bonkers level of focus on this tells us how bad Trump’s proposed appointees are. They can’t really face any of the new reality because they’re rigidly conventional, unimaginative people.
Dave Karpf uses a slightly different description, but I think he’s making a similar point:
This [freakout over Hunter Biden’s pardon] is of a piece with a broader pattern. Our political and media elites have made it clear through their actions that they value the appearance of order and propriety over anything else.
Donald Trump was elected President. Ergo he is legitimate, and must be afforded the same polite treatment offered to any other President-elect. Wipe the slate clean, so as to not sully the office he is set to occupy. We must all hope against hope that he behaves himself better his time around. And, if he does not, then it is our duty to cluck our tongues and register respectful, muted disapproval.
There is a right and proper way for Presidents to behave.
And there is a right and proper way for people to behave toward Presidents.
To do otherwise is to endanger social order and stability. (And it is maintenance of the social order, above all else, that our political, media, and economic elites value above all else.)
In pardoning his own son, Joe Biden did not behave right and properly. It smacks of favoritism, as though he put the well-being of his disappointing son ahead of the duties of his office. Even worse, he stated repeatedly he would not issue this pardon. Lying is bad. Presidents ought not lie.
So it is our duty to cluck our tongues and register disapproval. And that disapproval should perhaps be just a bit louder, as proof that WE show no such favoritism.
It is all just so… contrived.
Karpf also makes this point about the role of Democracy:
Democracy, at its core, is a compromise between political elites and the mass public. The public is given the vote as a pressure release valve of sorts — a form of legitimate dissent that affects the composition of the government. Elites, as a result, enjoy unparalleled social stability.
I’ve been thinking about that paragraph as we witness a manhunt after the apparent assassination of an elite, the head of a rapacious, evil insurance company. (Read this if you think I exaggerate.) If this CEO was killed due to the (horrible) actions of his company, then the elite order has truly been disturbed, and we’re in for it.
Silverloading game theory (revisited)
I’m working on an ACA/Silverloading manuscript this morning. I think I will be able to write that sentence for at least another decade. The big question that we’re poking at in this manuscript is how does Silverloading change the pricing dynamics from the insurers’ points of view. My co-authors and I all agree that weird game theory happens. I am trying to think my way through the problem and as I’m thinking about it, I wanted to pull up my first attempt at thinking through the problem from Spring 2017:
Anthem seems to be allocating all of the cost of the CSR non-payment only to Silver plans. Bronze, Gold and Platinum plans will be priced on medical trend only.
This is interesting as it opens up the potential for some very odd games. We need two cases.
The first case is if not all carriers use the same assumptions. I am assuming the prices of the carriers in a non-sabotage world would be converging as my baseline counterfactual. We’ll keep the world simple and just assume two carriers in a pricing region. I think the analysis logically expands to more than two carriers.
If one carrier elects to spread the cost of CSR throughout the entire product line and one carrier elects to concentrate the price increase in Silver, the spreader most likely captures the least expensive Silver plan. They are adding 10%-20% of premium to their non-sabotage Silver premiums. The concentrated Silver needs to add enough premium between 15% to 20% actuarial value which with induced demand factors probably means a premium increase of 25% to 30% over their non-sabotaged Silver plans. If each company only offers a single silver plan, there is a large silver gap and there are great deals for buyers of the spread Silver. Most likely the spread Silver company captures most of the CSR Silver market.
Odd things happen in other bands. The concentrated Silver has a massive price advantage on their Bronze plan as they add in no sabotage premium increase. The spread Silver plan has to add in a significant bump to their Bronze plans. And since there is a large Silver spread between the benchmark and the low cost Bronze plans, these plans will be very attractive to non-CSR eligible individuals. The same dynamic will occur at Gold. There is a decent chance the concentrated Silver Gold plan will cost less than their Gold plan and may be near the spread Silver’s premium.
I think in a situation where there is a split actuarial assumption on how to distribute the costs of non-payment of CSR, the company that spreads the cost over all metal bands will get almost all of the 100-150% Federal Poverty Line (FPL) Silver purchases, most of the 150-200% FPL CSR Silver purchases and very little else. The concentrated Silver carrier will get almost all of the people who would have otherwise bought the Silver 200-250% FPL CSR Silver as Gold buyers, and then pick up most of the Bronze, Gold and Platinum buyers.
I’m sort of identifying a Silverload vs. Broadload game here although those two terms were not invented for another few months. If there is a split in how costs for CSR benefits are attributed to different metal levels and somewhat similar pricing structures, there are points were different insurers are competing for very different market segments. I think this still makes at least directional sense.
The next scenario is if all carriers in a rating region adopt the Anthem assumption that their Silver premium contains the entire CSR sabotage price as an actuarial value adjustment….
Effectively Bronze plans in most counties will be low to no cost for most buyers who earn under 400% FPL. Weak gold plans (76%-80% AV) will be priced for subsidized individuals as if they are Bronze plans today. Platinum plans will have relative prices as if they are Gold plans today.If every carrier in a region prices on the assumption that Wesley thinks Anthem is making, the average actuarial value of plans purchased on Exchange will increase significantly for everyone but for 100-200% FPL CSR Silver buyers. They will be getting the same (87% or 94%) actuarial value as before with perhaps some of the 150% to 200% FPL buyers choosing to buy down to a Gold to take a larger out of pocket in exchange for a lower monthly post-subsidy premium or buying up to Platinum for a small increase for less out of pocket.
I don’t think I quite got this one right as the Two Margin Problem suggests a much larger move to Bronze than I thought and I got the risk adjustment/competition incentives wrong on Silver pricing near Platinum instead of near Gold.
Day After – South Korea
I don’t know anything about South Korean politics, and I certainly don’t want to draw parallels between yesterday’s coup attempt in a country where people my age have memories of demonstrators being killed in the struggle for democracy. That said, one thing driven home by the coverage of the event is that BlueSky has matured to the point that it’s possible to follow breaking news there.
Here’s the Guardian explainer on what comes next, and here’s their story about yesterday’s events.
Jay Rosen’s definition of reporting is “I’m here, you’re not, here’s what I see.” In that vein, Sarah Jeong of the Verge, who I think is Korean-American, happened to be in Seoul that night. Her report from the scene is worth a read, especially because of her honesty about being drunk, and her difficulty with the Korean language.
Wednesday Morning Open Thread: We’re All Gonna Miss the Bidens
(Ann Telnaes via the Washington Post)
Robin Givhan, at the Washington Post — “One last holiday wish from the Biden White House” [gift link]
The mood of this year’s White House holiday decorations tilts between calm and chaos, between rooms that evoke peace on earth and good will toward men, and others that simply advise visitors to eat, drink and get in a good laugh whenever you can.
The decor is not so much a fantasyland of elves and flying reindeer, but a statement of stubborn good will and wishful thinking about the best that the season can inspire.
In the East Room, a canopy of glittering, metallic snowflakes float above trees trimmed in silver and white. Their bases are framed by silhouettes of American men, women and children all holding hands like a population of happy little Whos in Whoville. White paper doves signifying peace fly over the Cross Hall like a gust of optimism. Church bells and sleigh bells adorn the East Colonnade. And in the State Dining Room, thumb-size candy ice skaters make graceful loops in front of a gingerbread White House blanketed with snow drifts of royal icing. If there is any single message, in these decorations inspired by “A Season of Peace & Light,” it’s that no amount of cultural infighting, political partisanship or shriveled-heart meanness shall steal the Christmas spirit on the Bidens’ watch. Grinches be gone…
The planning for these decorations began months ago. Back then, no one could say whether democracy would be saved or America would be waiting to be made great again. Now, each room reads like an exclamation point on the issues and ideas that have animated the Bidens during their time in the White House — specifically the interests of the first lady. The longtime teacher enhanced the White House library with children’s books. Students created many of the decorations, including self-portraits, that adorn the trees in the State Dining Room. And children — and the young at heart — are the audience for the official White House Christmas tree in the Blue Room. The 18½ foot Fraser fir from North Carolina has been transformed into a carnival carousel with animals bobbing up and down on brass-colored poles.
Wednesday Morning Open Thread: We’re All Gonna Miss the BidensPost + Comments (248)