Slashdot Mirror
Senators Propose Bill Targeting Websites That Facilitate Sex Trafficking (usatoday.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today: A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced legislation Tuesday that aims to make it easier to sue and criminally prosecute operators of online classified sites like Backpage.com that have been used to advertise sex workers. The proposed bill would amend the Communications Decency Act to eliminate a provision that shields operators of websites from being liable for content posted by third-party users. In addition to removing liability protections for websites that facilitate "unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims," lawmakers are seeking to amend the CDA to allow state prosecutors -- not just federal law enforcement -- to take action against individuals and businesses that use websites to violate federal sex trafficking laws. "For too long, courts around the country have ruled that Backpage can continue to facilitate illegal sex trafficking online with no repercussions," said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio. "The Communications Decency Act is a well-intentioned law, but it was never intended to help protect sex traffickers who prey on the most innocent and vulnerable among us. This bipartisan, narrowly crafted bill will help protect vulnerable women and young girls from these horrific crimes."
Would this include image websites that allow anonymous uploads of dick pics? Asking for a friend...
Backpage.com has already been pressured into eliminating their escort/massage section. "Escorts" just moved their ads to the "Women seeking Men" dating section. All websites need is positive deniability and you can't touch them. "What, you expected us to READ everything that anybody posts? Even slashdot doesn't do that!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Let's forget about improving healthcare in the U.S.
Ever have one of those days when you google the number the cute girl gave you in a nightclub, and it shows up in an ad on backpage.com? I have. At least now I understand why she gave me her number!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"For too long, courts around the country have ruled that Backpage can continue..."
So ... multiple judges and juries have decided that it's nothing wrong with it but and they want to change that ?
So, after this law is passed, if a AC posts an unlawful comment to a story on /. - will the editors be sent to prison ?
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
Why don't you mind your own goddamn business? Thank goodness the "family values conservatives" are in charge, amirite? Sessions cracking down on marijuana, Trump encouraging police to brutalize suspects and Portman making sure it's illegal for two consenting adults to enter into a personal contract.
If Portman cares about human trafficking, maybe he should look into Trump's "model agency" or his relationship with Melania.
http://www.inquisitr.com/43971...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yes let's protect the women and girls since they are obviously the ONLY victims of sex trafficking. And of course the ONLY people advertising there are victims, none of them are there because they actually make a lot more money doing something they enjoy than trying to find a non-existent job flipping burgers or working in Walmart.
Ok I'm off to my massage, let's hope this all leads to a happy ending.
There hasn't been talk of 'improving' it since the Democrats left office.
The laws already exist to protect women and children. It is up to law enforcement to capture and enforce what is already there Senator dumbshit.
unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims
The whole article sort of subtly conflates the two-- unlawful sex acts, and sex trafficking victims, as though they are one and the same. i.e. prostitution == victim
Came here to make exactly that point.
Let's also ban kitchen knives because they have been used in horrifying acts of domestic abuse, and will continue to be used unless we act now!
You're right, it should've gone to single-payer
While I'm all for getting rid of sex traffickers, the line "eliminate a provision that shields operators of websites from being liable for content posted by third-party users" could be a bit scary if it leaves the narrow scope specified. I mean, if it's ONLY applied to sex trafficking websites cool, but I could totally see companies jumping on this bandwagon and holding web hosts responsible for content posted by third-party users. Imagine the copyright lawsuits that would happen. Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but corporations/congress have done this kinda "Look, we're doing something good" with something really terrible as the real intention before.
Question everything that you've accepted without thinking.
and not the good kind. For all their posturing they aren't really doing squat to take care of victims of sex trafficking. If you wanted to do that you could provide help and support to the victims so they didn't feel the need to sell their bodies in the first place. But that costs real money and doesn't help out some prosecutors career prospects.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Sounds to me while this may (or may not) be well-intentioned, it'll be abused to censor online discussions, having a chilling effect on peoples freedom of speech.
Furthermore, as others in this discussion have already pointed out, sex traffickers will just learn to hide their posts better. The net effect will then be infringement on the rights of people who are doing nothing wrong, and sex trafficking will continue unabated.
Really sounds to me like they just need to enforce the laws already on the books with regards to this sort of illegal activity, and nevermind creating new legislation.
God no....please.
I don't like the federal govt. having as much say in my healthcare as it is, I don't want them in 100% complete control of it.
I think they should do a few things.
First, the extreme poor, infirmed and the elderly, we keeps medicare and medicare for them...the safety net.
For the rest of able bodied American that can work...
We allow insurance to be sold across state lines.
We allow for very high limit HSA (Health Savings Accounts) to be set up by our citizens for their routine medical needs (office visits, meds, etc)...this comes out pre-tax and rolls over annually, not use it or lose it like FSA's are.
We allow people to buy the insurance they want...and let's get back to insurance being what used to be referred to as "major medical"....basically is insurance if you get hit by a bus or heart attack, etc......but for routine medical needs, you use your own HSA money. With your $$ in hand, you can shop around for Dr. and tx.
Get the middle men and bean counters out of medicine and prices will drop....the extreme rise in medical care came about due to HMO's and the middle men.
An alternative is something being experimented with by groups of doctors...groups of them get together kind of like a CSA, but with health instead of food...you pay a regular monthly fee and when you have medical needs, they treat you as needed.
These are only a couple of examples that can work and will lower price...and give people choices on what they want to spend their money on and how they want to treat their health.
I certainly think I can make better decisions than some bureaucrat 1000's of miles away in a completely different environment than I live.
At the minimum, I can realize that as a single male I really have no use being forced to pay for maternity insurance I do not need.
I'm still trying to figure that out with obamacare....I should only pay for the insurance I deem necessary for my needs at my stage in life.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It's possible to do more than one thing at a time. Sex Trafficking is and should always be a bipartisan issue not beholden to the usual contest of opposing political forces coming from sources of legitimate disagreement. People being held in slavery in the modern United States is not a partisan issue. Children getting raped multiple times per day is not a partisan issue. People knowingly profiting off of that without making at least reasonable efforts to prevent it and refusing to be reasonably responsive to law enforcement in preventing it should absolutely be prosecuted and should be civilly liable. While there are legitimate reasons to refuse or insist on narrowing a request made from law enforcement if one is overbroad, this is not one of those grey areas where there is a lot of room for legitimate debate.
There is room to talk about the best way of fixing the problem, but again, this isn't and really shouldn't be a heavily partisan debate. Leaders on both sides of the aisle have spoken out against trafficking, for example. (Bush and Clinton come to mind.)
If someone wants to set up a bulletin board fine, but if it gets misused they should either step up and deal with the misuse or they should take it down, because seriously, kids are being raped.
Newspapers shut down comments sections because of racist comment threads and doxxing; this is worse. There are bounds to moral relativism. Raping kids is crossing those bounds.
Real lawyers write in C++
Great.
So, are they going to remove safe harbor for newspapers? The postal service? Phone companies? Hell, you see such adds posted on library community noticeboards! All of those mediums can and do have an involvement in the sex trade. Are they going to shut down strip bars? or do we just keep pretending that they have nothing to do with the sex trade.
Or just perhaps it is time to grow up out of the 1800s and accept that pushing these things deeper and deeper into hidden markets actually makes things much worse for the women involved, and that they should legalise and regulate - as many countries have done - with a matching reduction in drugs, violence, disease and abuse in that inevitable industry? The way things stand, a girl going to the police because of abuse is more likely to end up in trouble herself than get any protection - is that the way things should be?
Interestingly you will find, just like the drug 'industry' the lawless 'big players' running most of these things are actually strongly against legalisation - because it reduces their own control and profitability. They would need to clean up their act a lot, would face competition, and would need to treat their workers much, much better than many do.
But no, the US will continue burying its head (like many other countries) in an 'us and them' view of the world where the women caught up in such situations are bad and the people passing laws to punish them for their situation are good, and a blid eye is turned to the fact that many of the people passing the laws are violating them themselves, with impunity..
Sad, really.
You keep using that word. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
Stop making bull shit special laws that are purposely broad in scope. Sex trafficking is illegal already so enforce that fucking law.
It is the law against sex trafficking that is broad in scope. This law is meant to target a mechanism of it (whether any good at it is another matter). It is like having no road traffic laws except one that just says "Drive safely" and saying fucking enforce it.
Government run single payer health insurance is cheaper (1/2 the price per capita) than the American system, and gives better results. The government is accountable to the voters, a corporation is only accountable to the share holders.
Exactly. So rather than the pathetic attempt to repeal on their own, they should have worked with them in the first place.
Just like the post office is cheaper than UPS and FedEx
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Trafficking is forcing someone to do something against their will.
Sex Trafficking is forcing someone to do sex work.
People who work at the Bunny Ranch do sex work. They aren't trafficked.
An online advertisement for the Bunny Ranch isn't illegal (in the U.S.), and shouldn't be illegal.
It's single payer, not single provider. The government pays. Various non-profits compete to offer better services for those payments. And of course the rich can still buy extra perks.
This space intentionally left blank
If they're advertising online, that means they're providing contact information.
Are the police so inept that they can find someone who's advertising that they're doing something illegal?
A thing that by it's nature requires them to come into physical contact with you?
It is not possible to erode states legitimacy by outlawing something tens of millions are willing to do anyway regardless of legality without society paying a heavy price in return.
Any politician concerned enough about enslaved and exploited people would seek to legalize and regulate prostitution rather than hopelessly whacking away at obvious predictable outcomes of a harmful policy.
This is the war on drugs all-over again: Once the low-hanging fruit is gone, catching criminals is expensive work. (In a large part because removing competition, increases profits, giving criminals the power to evade the police. It's why the police were eventually given the power to blatantly steal from criminals.) Remember the polygraph-exam schools: The schools suddenly had to report any customers that conspired to commit a crime. Ditto for that guy installing lock-boxes in cars.
This is the same principle: It's much cheaper to make any shop that meets those criminals, deprive the criminals of their of rights and entitlements, instead of the police doing their job. George Orwell got it wrong: Unpersons won't be created by the government but by the shrinking number of mega-corps refusing to take your money. Go watch 'To see the invisible man', The twilight zone.
Most people will point back to this report http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective claiming that we spend more than 2x everyone else on our health care. But look carefully at the numbers as it's divided into public (e.g. the government pays) and private spending (a citizen pays out of pocket) and they note that 34% of the us citizens are on public programs - and the public number would be higher if they counted employer-mandated health care.
What does that mean? It means that the US is actually spending $4,000 per capita, either publicly or privately, NOT the $9,000 claimed by the report. Our cancer outcomes are much better than anyone in the world, but we get dinged by the report for having lower quality of life and worse outcomes with obesity-related diseases.
But I would argue that's often not a health system failure, but a cultural failure. We don't slow down enough to sit and eat our meals, we eat them on the go or in our cars or while writing emails on our personal devices and cope by drinking sugar and caffeine to keep us going.
About the "government is accountable" claim, it's bunk when the citizens won't hold them accountable, in fact it's worse as a company needs to be lean enough to turn a profit where the government can play the shell game to just reach further into our pockets. Judging by how medicare is going, once single-payer comes into play, there will be mainly large corporate players who are the medical providers as they'll be able to absorb the cost via volume rather than your neighborhood doctor who won't be able to afford the cut rates and high paperwork overhead that will be demanded.
We need real solutions - single payer may be one, but we need to have an honest discussion about what that means and what we will be willing to both pay for in tax increases and take in cuts to our current level of care.
Why is it that it's a penny for your thoughts, but you have to put your two cents in? Somebody's makin a penny. --Steven
I can't mod this up to the +5 insightful it deserves, but thank you! That is a brilliant synopsis of the situation.
Single-payer=single decider. Maybe you should ask Charlie Gard how that worked out.
But what about the young men trapped in this situation also?
It's not just women and girls that are trafficked.
Here's an excellent opportunity for equality.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Re: "The proposed bill would amend the Communications Decency Act to eliminate a provision that shields operators of websites from being liable for content posted by third-party users." -- In other words, they've used trafficked women and sex workers as a premise for whatever hidden agenda they may have. Can we have a look at the bill's .docx metadata? Perhaps written by lobbyists for... whom?
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
A lot of people like to assume that single payer means "all insurance companies go bye bye" and the federal government is now the insurer.. And that may be true for lower economic brackets.. but the reality is, it would be the safety net everyone wants (real safety net) and then those that want to pay more for better quality/service.. can cheerfully do so.. (sort of like the bus ride vs. a car.. you are poor and have few options.. the bus it is.. but if you can afford it (because of the all the benefits it has to you), you can obtain a car.
Personally the federal government does a good job at health care when its universal.. they spend more money and time working on "you don't quality" than just simply saying, any legal citizen has health care.. done. (it would save a substantial amount of money because the various pools (and overhead) are streamlined into a single entity.. Everything else is private, and that's between you and the provider.
God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
Also the problem is, you are forgetting.. more choice = more complexity = more expenses. Hence why they want to have a very limited number of plans. It reduces many of the problems of "which plan covers what". And its NOT just about you, but rather the mandate insures that EVERYONE gets coverage by increasing the pool of money available.
Plus also as a single payer, you have unlimited bargaining rights with prices, drugs, etc.. which lowers costs overall.
God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
I'm more concerned with the content here, that eliminates website operators from their liability of posted content by 3rd partied.
That now sets up EVERY website with a comment section for target of enforcement, and NOT restricted to 'sex trafficking'.
Devils in the details, and I'm sure the legalese being wrought here, is about to 'shit can' a lot of forums for 'unliked' content.
Discussions of fair use on hardware? To be targetted..
Discussions on sites like 'Glass Door', employee 'opinion' sites? To be targetted..
Stifling of free speech under the guise of halting sex trafficking? No! That would never happen! /s
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Prostitution is undesirable. It's okay to ban prostitution, though perhaps a bit foolish. But does anyone outside the NY/DC/SF rich feminist delusion bubble believe this is about "trafficking"?
"I don't want them in 100% complete control of it."
I do, then I can hold them 100% accountable for it. Try getting a corporation to be accountable for shit.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
No, it needs to be modded "just doesn't get it." Single payer has absolutely nothing to do with the care you get... only how it is paid for. By going single payer, it does remove all the "beancounters" he's complaining about.... as well as the vast majorities of other "overhead" that the private insurance industry has in abundance, including "profit" and "shareholder costs."
Additionally, the poster should get a "are you fucking clueless" mod for seemingly not having an inkling of how insurance works. The larger the insurance pool, the lower the average costs... and while it may be more for some, it's an overall lower average because of minimized overhead and implementation costs. While he may not want to pay for "maternity" related things being a guy, how's he going to feel when he gets testicle cancer and no one wants to pay for it, opting to just let his nuts fall off before dying? With everyone in one single cost pool, you minimize the cost while protecting everyone.
Perhaps he should just be modded "self-centered, myopic, and clueless."
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Sounds to me while this may (or may not) be well-intentioned, it'll be abused to censor online discussions, having a chilling effect on peoples freedom of speech. Furthermore, as others in this discussion have already pointed out, sex traffickers will just learn to hide their posts better. The net effect will then be infringement on the rights of people who are doing nothing wrong, and sex trafficking will continue unabated. Really sounds to me like they just need to enforce the laws already on the books with regards to this sort of illegal activity, and nevermind creating new legislation.
I wonder if any of these senators have a website that hosts open forums / comment sections? If so, it can't be too hard to write a script that posts fake sex ads in their forums.
I've seen that movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
You do realize they use words like "Sex trafficking" as inflammatory rhetoric to goad people. It tends to conjure up images of women (and sometimes boys) in incapacitated by various means and used for the pure purpose of sex.. when in reality, 99% of the time, its just pure regular prostitution initiated by the women themselves as a source of revenue. Are there sex traffickers?.. well, that depends on your definition of sex trafficking in the first place.
The term is most often used when it crosses state/county/city jurisdiction for the purposes of sex.. Your own self can be accused of sex trafficking by crossing state/county/city boundaries for the purpose of sex. Heck, there are still laws on the books that ANY interracial couple (married or not) that crosses state/city/county boundaries can be accused of sex trafficking.
So are there problems?.. Of course.. (much of which can be alleviated legalization and moving it into the light as opposed to driving it further underground, which means victims have no one to turn to when there are problems.) But that of course, requires everyone to be an adult and stop attempting to be the moral police and let people use their own bodies in their OWN way.
God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
Or we could remove the profit out of the equation and everything will become much cheaper.
While we're at it:
At the minimum, I can realize that as a single male I really have no use being forced to pay for maternity insurance I do not need.
For someone who advocates insurance as a solution you certainly don't know how it works, that it relies on its collective power, and that your boneheadded suggestion will just result in higher premiums for everyone.
And how is it magically "cheaper"? audiokat below points out the study that shows that in the US it's quite a bit more - about double. He doesn't understand it and misstates the conclusion, but there it is.
Do you have ESP?
Then why oh why do FedEx and UPS use the Post Office for last-mile delivery so often? Hmmmm??
None of what you said will address the cause of all of this which is a shortage of supply of good medical professionals. We require students to pass an exam to become students who are learning to become doctors. What if this exam has eliminated thousands of great doctors-to-be from getting the education that would allow them to become great doctors, increase the supply of good doctors, and put a downward pressure or prices through increased competition.
We are undergoing a huge demographic shift where in 30 years, half of the population will be senior citizens. That will significantly increase demand for medical care, which will greatly increase the costs of medical care unless we encourage and enable millions of more young people to become medical professionals to provide the care we will need when we are older. Every other issue in the medical industry debate is peanuts compared to the demographic and supply and demand portions of the equations.
Some of you may think I'm advocating for allowing inferior doctors into the field, but all I'm saying decrease the costs of the education, and allow far more students to study to the point of taking the final exam.
I'm a fan of pro sports. Talent assessment is a huge deal. For instance, every year, something like 30% of first round players wash out. And every year dozens of good players, and even a few all stars go undrafted. In the medical field, those are the guys who would be eliminated by the MCAT.
Additionally, we also have a legal medical cartel inflating prices, something we wouldn't allow in almost any other field, but when you have money, and the law makers are going to eventually find themselves on your operating table, perhaps you have the leverage to get away with highway robbery.
'Sex trafficking'? Really? How much of a primitive animal do you have to be to treat other members of your own species that way? Really, honestly, seriously,
Why the hate for prostitution? How about you keep your puritanical judgements about what consenting adults do to each other to yourself?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Fuck you. You know damn well we're talking about people (usually WOMEN) being forced into a life of slavery. Go troll someone else.
No, it should be moderated as rhetorical bullshit.
The American healthcare system is the worst in the developed world, the most expensive and the worst outcomes.
https://www.quora.com/topic/Un...
Fuck you. You know damn well we're talking about people (usually WOMEN) being forced into a life of slavery. Go troll someone else.
No, we're not. You want to make it about women who are forced into a life of slavery, but the story and summary are quite clear - it's only about prostitution.
Get out of other peoples bedrooms - a consensual contract between adults is none of your fucking business.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
...when they accept and try to limit prostitution not only for "... vulnerable women and young girls" but for "vulnerable men and young boys". Strange that male prostitution _never_ get mentioned by people/bills like this even though in some areas there are more male prostitutes than female (according to measurements that admittedly have a high error marginal).
I guess women can't make a conscious choice due to their small brains while men can /s.
Err....especially if the federal govt is the SINGLE PAYER..they will most definitely have a say in your treatment, whether you require it, and whether you get it, after all they will watch what they spend on who....
I"d rather not have the feds make those types of decisions.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Funny...before Obamacare, I wasn't forced to have maternity care as part of my insurance, and it wasn't nearly as expensive as it is now.
I only want/need insurance in the old sense of "major medical" in that I only want insurance for emergencies, heart attack, hit by a bus, etc.
The routine maintenance, checkups and meds, I can pay for from my HSA I fund annually.
That should be much cheaper for me, and it used to be, but now I have a bunch of crap I don't need coverage for....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
What was this fallacy? I forgot. The one that says only one thing can happen at a time and everything else should stop happening until something like cancer is not a thing anymore.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Outsourcing.
Its subsidized by your TAX dollars.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Isn't it time to stop persecuting those engaged in the oldest profession and let them come into the light of day where they can actually enjoy the protections of law enforcement like anyone else engaged in business? All this serves to do is allow people to abuse sex workers with the safety of mutually assured destruction.
Let's forget about improving healthcare in the U.S.
Trouble is that there are two conflicting ideas on how to "improve" it. I don't think many people really want what we have now, but it's what we could get. One side wants government single payer, while the other wants free market get as good of heath care as your job can provide through wages or insurance.
My understanding is this - the report claims that the US spends ~$9,000 per capita for health care. In the same row, they break that out into $4,000 in public funds and programs, $1000 out of pocket private and ~$3500 "other".
Per their own document, the "public" part of those funds only cover 34% of the population and do not include government-mandated health care premiums that employers pay. Since all of the other nations the "public" funds covers everyone, the totals of public, private (out of pocket) and private (other) make sense, but here they do not.
So by that logic, if we were adding them together in a sum it should be:
(4,000 * 0.34) + (4,500 * 0.66) = 1,360 + 2,970 = 4,330. Let's be generous and assume that with some people paying more and some people paying less that even creeps up to $5,500. That's still not the massive increase claimed.
As I'm interested in making sure I'm not overlooking anything - where does the $9,000 number come from otherwise and what do you see the correctly-stated conclusion to be?
Why is it that it's a penny for your thoughts, but you have to put your two cents in? Somebody's makin a penny. --Steven
Troll. Also maybe DEVIANT, or SOCIOPATH. In any case: Fuck you sideways with a rusty chainsaw, asshole. We're not talking about $1000 a night independent callgirls. We're talking about people being treated like cattle to be bought and sold, who have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in where they go or what they do.
It was a marginal improvement, but it was a very small margin. At the same time it was a fucking giveaway to insurance companies.
Uh, no. The Post Office receives ZERO "tax dollars". They only get what they make from postage. FedEx and UPS have the Post Office do last-mile delivery for them because it's CHEAPER (for them) that way.
Ummmm... yes...
http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/...
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Troll. Also maybe DEVIANT, or SOCIOPATH. In any case: Fuck you sideways with a rusty chainsaw, asshole. We're not talking about $1000 a night independent callgirls. We're talking about people being treated like cattle to be bought and sold, who have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in where they go or what they do.
Spare me the histrionics; both the summary and the article were quite unambiguous.
It's clear, and has been for some time, that there's a segment of the population online who feel a deep need to virtue signal. You are obviously one of those people - any opportunity to signal your virtue you'll take, and (like in this case) you'll make one up if there isn't any opportunity.
Go on then - signal your virtue to the whole world - does it make you feel better about yourself?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
The per capita public spending in the table you are referring to is not the amount spent per person covered by government programs, as you seem to think. It is the total amount of government spending on healthcare divided by the entire population (that's what "per capita" means). Some people get zero health care paid for by the government, some get a lot; this is averaged over everyone.
Likewise, the out-of-pocket amount is the total amount of out-of-pocket spending across the entire population divided by the population. Some people pay nothing out-of-pocket, some people pay a lot, this is the average across everyone.
The correctly-stated conclusion is that the US actually does pay more than twice as much per capita as other nations that achieve similar healthcare outcomes.
Trump was right about Australia having better health care than the US. If his party actually introduced legislation that would repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with an Australian-style system they would have plenty of support from the opposition party.
Funny...before Obamacare, I wasn't forced to have maternity care as part of my insurance, and it wasn't nearly as expensive as it is now.
Yeah I agree. The single thing that changed before Obamacare and after Obamacare is that you now have maternity cover. That is the only reason the price of your medical insurance changed.
I retract my statement about you not having a clue of insurance and will correct it now: You just have no clue about *anything*, I'm sure that is Obama's fault too.
That should be much cheaper for me
You know what would be much cheaper to you based on healthcare cost vs benefits from different systems around the world? Socialised healthcare.
As the AC below mentioned, i'd rather have the feds make a list of preferred and worthwhile treatments to be used, rather than have a private company WHO HAS A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO DENY YOUR TREATMENT SO THEY CAN MAKE MONEY OFF OF YOUR DEATH.
Seriously... have you not paid attention to anything, ever?
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
So... when do you want to start paying insurance for, say cancer? Or Aids? Or being hit by a truck? Pay too soon and you contravene what you said above. Getting insurance after diagnosis might be a little tricky...
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'