Slashdot Mirror
In These Eight Midterms Races, Health and Medicine Are Front and Center (statnews.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: In Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah, voters will directly decide whether their states should expand their Medicaid programs. In Wisconsin, they could elect a candidate for governor who has pledged to sharply curtail drug prices. And across the country, Democratic congressional candidates are running on platforms highlighting their support for protecting insurance coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and lowering drug prices. Health care is on the ballot across the country, with issues ranging from medical marijuana to abortion rights to insurance coverage dominating the conversation.
Do any of these candidate propose anything that makes sense like expanding the market supply by building medical schools or rolling back some of the regulations that do nothing but block lower cost solutions? Or will they just continue with the tried and true "we'll regulate cost and then be surprised when the market doesn't comply with our fondly held wishes."
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
This is fake news. I saw Hair Furor on the TV last night and he said the only thing on the ballot is him.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What is this? CNN?
/. is aging. Healthcare is important to us.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Medicaid is a weird federal-state mix. The feds give the states a lot of grants to spend on their statewide Medicaid programs, but every pot of money has its own conditions.
Medicaid has traditionally covered the elderly, disabled, children, and pregnant mothers. In recent years, some parents in very poor households were added to the list. But mostly Medicaid is not for able-bodied adults.
The Affordable Care Act allocated a lot more money to get states to expand the program. States that choose to give access to more poor adults get access to a big pile of money. Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah are now voting on whether or not to take the money.
I've got friends and family that depend on pre-existing condition coverage. Plus I've got friends stuck in dead end jobs because they can't go 90 days without healthcare (one of them tried to get Cobra and found out that it's damn near impossible to sign up for, at least with his old company. He's just had to live without health insurance for 90 days).
I want Medicare for All. Saves money, works in every country that tried it and covers everyone. 45,000 Americans die of treatable illnesses every year. I don't want to be one of them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
GOP has been gradually sabotaging it via various SCOTUS rulings; removing the mandate, which makes it more expensive for seniors and those with pre-existing conditions (Legislative branch); and intentionally mis-managing the implementation and oversight of it (Executive branch).
Obama has often said that if someone presents a better plan than ACA tied to real numbers, not just talking points, he would back it. One should have realistic alternatives before complaining.
GOP can promise flying cars that get 200 mph and cost only 3 grand. The hard part is delivering a blue-print that doesn't violate physics and math.
Table-ized A.I.
Correction: should be "200 mpg" (miles per gallon)
Table-ized A.I.
Obamacare was a good start but the GOP stopped the next steps from happening.
No. Obamacare was always about the rich/healthy subsidizing the poor/sick. Nobody ever said that everyone's premiums would go down.
It turns out, that Obama (you know, the guy after whom "Obamacare" was named), gave an Address on Health Care at George Mason University on March 19, 2010, where he said this:
Now, the third thing that this legislation does is it brings down the cost of health care for families and businesses and the federal government. Americans who are buying comparable coverage in the individual market would end up seeing their premiums go down 14 to 20 percent. Americans who get their insurance through the workplace, cost savings could be as much as $3,000 less per employer than if we do nothing. Now, think about that. Thatâ(TM)s $3,000 your employer doesnâ(TM)t have to pay, which means maybe she can afford to give you a raise.
Maybe I am misreading, but it sure seems like President Obama is saying there that everybody's costs (premiums for families) were going to go down. While I know of plenty of people getting raises after the recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts helped boost the economy, I have never heard of a single person getting a raise from their employer because of all the money Obamacare saved them.
Care to comment?
Really bad troll, troll.
For one, it was in the news a few weeks ago that the insurance premiums purchased though the ACA are going *down* this year, in spite of the GOP fighting tooth and nail to sabotage it.
For another, "keep your doctor"? Do you actually *have* medical insurance? Ever company I've worked for in the last 25 years has changed insurance companies every 2-3 years, and our "contributions" keep going up. And there are plenty of doctors who accept one insurance, and not another... and others who take pretty much any of them.
Meaning your bullshit is just that.
And exactly what has the GOP done to improve healthcare in thie US? It's 48 years since LBJ (Democrat) pushed through Medicaid and Medicare. The GOP has NEVER DONE A GODDAMNED THING. It was only the Dems, in '09, who shoved this through, and the GOP wants to repeal it... AND HAS OFFERED NOTHING WHATSOEVER to replace it with. AND they all want to removed protections from pre-existing condition exclusions.
You're posting here, therefor your not a millionaire... so you're a sucker.
There has been a lot of discussion and action at the state level around the legalization of medical use of marijuana (or full-blown recreational use in a few states), but I haven't heard much about U.S. Congress representative candidates, yet alone senators, supporting it. Has anyone heard of, or does your candidate support, bringing up a bill on the federal level to bring consensus around medical use nationally? In Indiana, the state legislators have essentially punted on the idea. They held a special committee over the summer to study the issue, with families and doctors coming forward to speak about the benefits. But in the end, the committee decided it would provide no recommendation, and several state politicians seem to want to defer to the U.S. Congress to act. I don't really have a dog in this race, but do believe it can provide a lot of benefit to patients, let alone stop ridiculous jailing and prosecuting of those who choose to use.
the only one I ever hear is making it harder to sue for malpractice. I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not, and I mean that. It's a complicated topic. OTOH I'd love to be able to buy drugs from Canada (since they've got single payer they pay less) and have the Gov't negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare.
Speaking of which what I really want is to expand Medicare to everyone. It's got over 95% efficiency and similar programs work in every country they've been tried. Not like our insurance industries will allow that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yep, instead of working together they lost their minds about it. Constant effort to sabotage, and only later included replace after it had helped enough people liked it enough that just repeal didn't work. My view of the old version of the 2 parties were, they were kind of the cliche caring parents. Mom (dems) wanted to help the kids (public) all of the time. Dad also wanted to, but he also wanted to instill self sufficiently and he 'wasn't made of money'. They would work together to address issues and come to a good comprise with a common goal to in service to the public. Now that is long gone with the current state of the GOP. It is about as recognizable as a car I sold 12 years ago. The outside looks the same as in the name, but the new driver is an asshole
Obamacare was a good start but the GOP stopped the next steps from happening.
The main problem with the Affordable Care Act is that it's goal was "Health Insurance For Everyone". Health Insurance is the main problem why we have the inflationary costs in Medical Care in the first place.
Medical Providers set high prices because they assume patients have insurance and that insurance companies will try to negotiate down so set ridiculous prices. Insurance companies under pressure to cover as many doctors as possible, so pay ridiculous fees that some of the higher priced doctors charge. Other doctors raise prices to match and the whole thing spirals upwards with the consumers paying the cost.
There are two solutions.
1) A federal level health care system that regulates prices. (obviously many on the left want this but the right don't)
2) Some market based system that will keep the prices down. Currently, there are plenty of mechanisms that make the prices go up- but there is nothing in place to encourage prices to go down. There is no reason for Doctor B to charge less than Doctor A. Insurance companies don't care- they just pass on the cost to the consumer. Doctors certainly don't want to get less for the same procedure than their peers.
Ultimately, the only way a consumer will go to a lower priced doctor (an thus apply pressure for doctors to keep costs down) would be if a consumer pays a percent of each visit themselves up front (not just a copay) and
a) Knows how much something is going to cost before going.
b) Has some method of comparing the difference in prices.
Ultimately, I think a national health care system would be the best solution- but perhaps a compromise that both sides of spectrum could agree on because it would cost individuals and the state less would be a system I call McWeanyCare:
Where costs are given up front and are easily comparable (perhaps average charge to customers for last 12 months displayed outside a doctor's office much like a food grade is given - or an online database).
Instead of insurance companies for all health care- people are allowed (and encouraged) to have a Health Savings Account for non emergency care that is not taxed. Insurance should be for catastrophic coverage only. Drugs should be covered under price gouging rules (companies not allowed to randomly mark up drugs 500% for example without a court order).
For cases of poverty the government would have to help (they already do so no change here) - not everyone can afford a HSA, perhaps the government provide the first $x (probably cheaper than what the state pays today with existing programs once health costs go down).
Universal Insurance coverage as suggested by the Affordable Care Act is NOT the Answer- it is the cause of the problem in the first place. Insurance companies are the reason we pay so much now. They feed the inflationary cycle (that and non-clear doctor pricing).
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
GOP has been gradually sabotaging it via various SCOTUS rulings; removing the mandate, which makes it more expensive for seniors and those with pre-existing conditions (Legislative branch); and intentionally mis-managing the implementation and oversight of it (Executive branch).
The Democrats have had no issue, however, using the courts to try to "sabotage" the Trump administration. So, I guess the takeaway is is perfectly OK for Democrats to do it when Republicans are in power, but when the roles are reversed it is an abuse of power.
Also, as it happens, the Republicans were not all that successful in the SCOTUS. The court upheld the ACA, using some rather tortured logic that boiled down to, "we get what Congress meant to say and even though the law doesn't say that, we are going to pretend that it does".
Obama has often said that if someone presents a better plan than ACA tied to real numbers, not just talking points, he would back it. One should have realistic alternatives before complaining.
It was kind of unfair of Obama to rely on fake numbers and talking points and then insist that challengers use real numbers and no talking points. Seems like he did not really want anyone to challenge him.
GOP can promise flying cars that get 200 mph and cost only 3 grand. The hard part is delivering a blue-print that doesn't violate physics and math.
Right. And Obamacare was billed as more better quality healthcare for more people that costs less. Anybody who has taken project management 101 knows you don't get all three sides of the triangle.
If i'm kicking in to pay for everyones healthcare. I want a say in what they do.
Fat people? Nope. Extreme sports? Nope. Sports? Nope. Dangerous hobbies i don't approve of? Gone. Motorcycles? Gone. Drug use? Oh hell no. Alcohol use? Fuck that. And i can continue listing stuff all day.
If you want MY money. I get a say.
No taxation without representation you shitheads!
Care to comment?
No.
they started climbing again when Trump pulled funding and generally sabotaged the exchanges. If you put somebody who is deeply opposed to a law in charge of implementing that law then the law fails, who knew?
This isn't to say Obamacare is a "good" law. It's terrible. It was terrible when the right wing Heritage Foundation created it. But it was the best we could get with a House and Senate full of right wing Blue Dog Dems and a milk toast right of center president.
We know what the solution is, it's Medicare for All. But the insurance companies spent $500 million killing a public option. They'll spend twice that killing Medicare for all. Even with all that 70% of Americans want it. But we need to make it a no-go issue. If a politician opposes it they don't get in office. That's how the British got the NHS. Winston Churchill himself didn't want it and the Brits told him, thanks for wining the war Winston but take a flying leap on that. That's the level we need.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's not like he can force drug companies to give him lower prices due to the massive market that Wisconsin represents. A stupid cap on drug prices in Wisconsin will just cause drug companies to shrug and stop selling there....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
with help of the Blue Dogs. The law was supposed to have a Public Option to put pressure on the insurance companies. It didn't. Meanwhile the law made phony plans with no coverage illegal. So people who were paying $50+/mo for basically nothing suddenly had to have insurance for pay the fine.
The GOP plays to win. They don't care what the outcome is for America. They just want to win. The means when Obama compromised he was being tricked. He's smart. He knew this. But people where dying, and he did the best he could. I'm not so naive to think I could have done better. Maybe Bernie could have if we'd voted for him instead of that Orange jerk. We may never know.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
No.
OK. Cool. Since it is going to be like that and since my other comment was down-modded "Overrated." I will go ahead and repeat my comment here. I guess we don't like facts that go against the narrative. But, oh well.
No. Obamacare was always about the rich/healthy subsidizing the poor/sick. Nobody ever said that everyone's premiums would go down.
It turns out, that Obama (you know, the guy after whom "Obamacare" was named), gave an Address on Health Care at George Mason University [americanrhetoric.com] on March 19, 2010, where he said this:
Now, the third thing that this legislation does is it brings down the cost of health care for families and businesses and the federal government. Americans who are buying comparable coverage in the individual market would end up seeing their premiums go down 14 to 20 percent. Americans who get their insurance through the workplace, cost savings could be as much as $3,000 less per employer than if we do nothing. Now, think about that. ThatÃ(TM)s $3,000 your employer doesnÃ(TM)t have to pay, which means maybe she can afford to give you a raise.
Maybe I am misreading, but it sure seems like President Obama is saying there that everybody's costs (premiums for families) were going to go down. While I know of plenty of people getting raises after the recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts helped boost the economy, I have never heard of a single person getting a raise from their employer because of all the money Obamacare saved them.
Care to comment?
He didn't remove it; states still could create a public option under the law. Some states did -- NY and MN have one for incomes under 200% of poverty level, I think.
Don't blame me — I voted for Kodos.
Every time you bring up Hitler or Nazis in a debate, you automatically lose.
The Trump administration is doing a great deal to fight drug prices, but the public largely doesn't know about it (because the mainstream media doesn't run the stories).
The pertinent agency with the Department of Health and Human Services has proposed rules that would require Big Pharma to publicly disclose how much the damned things cost: "This proposed rule would ... [amend] the Medicare Parts A, B, C and D programs, as well as the Medicaid program, to require direct-to-consumer (DTC) television advertisements of prescription drugs and biological products for which payment is available through or under Medicare or Medicaid to include the Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC, or 'list price') of that drug or biological product". See https://benefitslink.com/news/index.cgi/view/20181015-146182 and https://benefitslink.com/news/index.cgi/view/20181028-146483
Similarly, the administration is trying to make it easier for people to use pre-tax dollars to pay for drugs if they're not already on a group health plan: https://benefitslink.com/news/index.cgi/view/20181101-146610 ("The proposed 'Integrated HRA' rules would permit employers of any size to offer a standalone HRA to employees and former employees who have individual health coverage.")
He just signed into law a bill that bans "gag clauses" -- "Gag clauses are sometimes found in contracts between pharmacies and insurance companies, pharmacy benefit managers or group health plans and bar pharmacists from telling customers that they could save money by paying cash for their prescriptions rather than using their health insurance. If pharmacists violate the gag rule, they risk penalties and/or contract termination." https://www.employeebenefitsblog.com/2018/10/bills-ban-gag-clauses-in-pharmacy-contracts/
What cheap shit do nothing plan were you on? What did it cost, like $5?
to distract from the issue. We can't easily make those deaths go away. We could make those 45,000 death stop tomorrow. Just like Canada did. And the UK. And France. The Netherlands. Sweden. Germany. The list goes on. We are choosing to let these people die. And you could be next. Get sick, lose your job, lose your healthcare. Die. It happens 45,000 times every year. Every 11 minutes.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
While I know of plenty of people getting raises after the recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts helped boost the economy,
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc? Just because something follows doesn't mean it was caused by what it follows. You might know people getting raises because the economy is doing rather well for the last several years (no Trump did not cause that, nor did Obama) but I defy you to prove that anyone you know got raises because of the recent tax cuts.
I have never heard of a single person getting a raise from their employer because of all the money Obamacare saved them.
Why would someone get a raise because of a cheaper health care plan? Employers will pocket the difference if there is any. When the ACA passed the economy was in the shitter thanks to the real estate market imploding and NOBODY was getting raises. A few years later the economy is getting better and people start getting raises. In neither case does it have anything to do with a law passed by congress.
fake insurance where the min med stuff mcdonalds had like.
$1000 year for an $2000 max payout
I had better care and WAY less expenses.
Sounds like you had a decent deal going. Maybe it was a little too good?
This was a good I dea for who exactly?
Me for one. I got better coverage for similar money once the ACA was passed. Our company was able to save a decent amount of cash too. Most of the other employees at my work previously covered by our (rapidly becoming expensive) company health insurance got similar or better coverage for similar or less money. A few ended up paying more - mostly older folks who smoked.
And all, repeat, ALL of the Republicans who fought ACA tooth and nail are now swearing they were for it, for protecting coverage of preexisting conditions, all along! Lying bastards.
My point is that GOP has changed ACA from the original. Perhaps "sabotage" is loaded word. Okay, substitute "change" instead.
Yes, but the court also reduced the scope of the planned medicaid expansion that was part of ACA.
For the sake of argument, IF he did that, two wrongs don't make a right. You seem to be saying if O did bad things, GOP can then also do bad things.
The bottom line is still that GOP presented nothing computable as alternative. That one is not O's fault. (Later GOP attempts under T covered fewer people and fewer conditions, which is partly why they couldn't pass it: they'd have to throw SOME demographics under the bus order to make it better/cheaper for others. They re-discovered the no-free-lunch-principle the hard way.)
You seem to be throwing up red herrings. The bottom line is GOP presented NO viable alternatives, only griped about ACA. Problem solving requires producing alternatives to the current state. That should be common sense, but it's not sinking in for most ACA bashers.
Table-ized A.I.
Maybe you shouldn't live in a state that deliberately sabotaged the ACA.
Just voted Democrat all the way down, baby! If they lose tonight, I am screwed!
That has been the democrat platform for nearly 150 years, ever since the 14th amendment and other federal statutes overturned their Jim-Crow laws and they lost their 'keep those blacks in their place' platform.
I am sure they will be glad to see their propaganda is still working in your case.
The young subsidize the old in every company health pool and always have.
Has anybody ever had 'company insurance' where the old pay a higher copay? I doubt it would be legal.
When I was in my 20s, I led a small company wide young people's group defection. Our copay was actually higher than our individual rate, because the CFO's kid had a very expensive condition that we were all paying for. After we quit the group, their per person rate got really interesting. I moved on shortly after, place just sucked on many levels.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
sure, tackle the issues one at a time.... starting with cost. The lower your cost the more people will be able to have it.
stop tying health insurance to EMPLOYMENT. This is a SCAM. No other insurance on the planet works this way. If I hate my job, I dont have to worry about driving without insurance, or my house catching on fire and not being covered, as a result of this. With healthcare I may have to stick with a completely shitty place to work merely because I am currently using benefits (kids physical therapy or something similar) where changing jobs threatens this. This has existed since Nixon and its a tool that employers can use to stagnate wages and underpay employees. Employers are not even required to subsidize. They literally can charge the employee the full cost of coverage. So if employers want to continue to subsidize they can come up with a way that employers can direct deposit an amount directly to the premium.
limit the costs of procedures. Constantly you get an EOB that says medical billed some ridiculous price and that the insurance lowered it to some lower value. This value is generally based on reasonable acceptable amounts. A 8 min office visit does not need to cost $186, hell it shouln't even cost $45. Make the requirement that the facility or practice most present the same charge to uninsured as those with insurance. There are plenty of plans that suck that have $40 copays for an office visit. If you read your EOB you will see that the charges got reduced down to $48, meaning they only paid $8 anyway. By forcing the providers to charge everyone $48, even the uninsured are not paying much more than those with the shittiest insurances. These $4000 procedure discounted to $1500 come back in 'income losses' and claimed against their taxes.
limit the costs of malpractice and malpractice insurances - they constantly claim that those $4000 MRI bills (that are only $150 in europe) are padded with malpractice insurance and malpractice payouts and these crazy prices are to recover those expenses. Make class actions (the type where the class gets $50 while the lawfirm gets hundreds of millions) banned. Each malpractice should have its own case with its own determination of Tort and actual damages.
Require all medical fields to meet the requirements of 503(c) non-profit status. They must re-invest a percentage of their profits back into their mission statements. Allowing hospitals and medical facility to be for-profit is unethical. 503(c) can turn a profit, they just are limited in how much profit they can turn by making them re-invest in whatever their mission is such as new medical equipment or newer technologies and research.
Solve the cost issues FIRST... once these are stable, THEN start going over what services should or should not get serviced. Because with a stable and affordable cost structure in place. Does this earn me the right to complain?
Just remember this year, that due to all the conflict and divisive nature of politics, that to ensure we keep things civil at the polls:
1. Republicans, vote today at your normal places.
2. Democrats, vote tomorrow at your normal places.
This way we can ensure that we keep things civil at the polling sites and lessen any chance of fights and/or riots.
Pass the word around so that everyone knows.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It will get cheaper, we promise. It’s cheaper in Iceland (or somewhere — it doesn't matter where) so we can magically make the US into Iceland, grab all the benefits of the system in Iceland, with none of the drawbacks. Nothing bad could possibly happen from our schemes. And if it does, it's because the bogeymen on the other team, because we didn't throw that extra $1 Billion on the fire, because these deplorable people can't be governed, or because of bad luck.
States were supposed to expand their Medicaid programs as part of Obamacare. But in order to get it to pass, Congress made that part optional (leave it up to the states). So Idaho, Utah, etc decided "that's dumb! We're republican states and won't do it" so they didn't, and therefore missed out on the federal funding for it. Now they're like, "oh, crap... you mean we can get hundreds of millions of federal dollars if we would have just expanded Medicaid to cover the gap as was part of the original plan?" Okay, better put it up to vote.
It covers the gap between the old Medicaid and the lowest Obamacare tier. If you make just the right amount of money, it's too little to qualify for Obamacare and too much to qualify for Medicaid. So you're stuck with a full premium even though you're on the lower end of the income scale.
Socialism just doesn't work.
That more or less sounds like "copy Europe". GOP has never been too keen on that. It might be the right direction, but it probably won't fly in the US political system.
Table-ized A.I.
Wow, just wow. Did you vote today? For the sake of the rest of the nation I sure hope not.
But there is no wall and Mexico has made it quite plain that they will NOT pay for one.
I disagree. If lowering costs of both premiums and healthcost is successful, then you get a lot less push-back from the population. Who in their right mind would argue that. Once that gets stabilized, people will generally not make waves about changes if the net result doesnt affect their bottom line. You want to cover Lasik and found a way to do it without increasing my costs or premiums? knock yourself out. You can be a lot more effective at fixing things if you start from a strong economic position.
It wasnt until they drafted a nearly 1000 page bill and said 'you have to vote for it before we even let you read it' that really pissed people off. Nothing screams shady bullshit ripe with fraud and abuses than telling someone to vote for something they've never seen. "Trust us, we are from the government, we are here to help." Scariest words ever.
Mental health care in an outpatient setting is a lot cheaper than having people go in and out of jail because they either (a) can't deal with life well or (b) have an addiction issue.
Maybe you shouldn't live in a state that deliberately sabotaged the ACA.
How can one sabotage the ACA? That's like saying that someone did something to make kim-chi go bad.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
...That's because the democrats are a very fractured party at the moment.
Actually, given that I don't always like what happens when a unified party gains control, there's a lot to be said for voting for a fractured party.
Neither party have a compelling message at the moment. Republicans: "Make America White Again"
Democrats: "We're not with Stupid."
Say, I support that as a slogan!
One of Akin's laws of spacecraft design is "Don't do nothin' dumb."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
There's also no immigration reform, which Obama ran on in 2008 and talked up for a good chunk of 2009, when democrats had control of the house AND senate.
And, amusingly, so did George Bush, when he had control of both the house and the senate.
(Interestingly, Bush's immigration reform plan was nearly the same as Obama's.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
What makes you think providers will agree to perform their services under the rules you want? What if they don't?
And exactly what has the GOP done to improve healthcare in thie US?
How is your medical care the goverment's responsibility?
Democrats DO have a platform. Unfortunately, while Republicans hold the state houses, Congress, presidency, and now the Supreme Court, they are utterly powerless to make anything on that platform come to fruition. Any bills they propose just get squashed, never even coming to the floor to be voted down, even simple, stupid stuff that has wide national bipartisan support. (Such as DACA, since you rather helpfully brought it up.)
In such a circumstance, about the only thing they CAN do productively is to keep Republicans from passing yet more stupid legislation undermining our economy and freedoms, which is what they've been much more successful at doing these past couple of years than I honestly expected.
Nevertheless, there is still a clear Democratic platform. Seriously. They even publish it on the web so that anyone who wants to can go out and see it. There's even a section specifically on immigration.
Of course, that doesn't mean that every Democrat is in lockstep on every issue in that platform. We're not a hive mind, and there is sometimes ardent disagreement within the party over the nitty gritty details of how things can best be accomplished. For example, Bernie Sanders wants to have the federal minimum wage immediately go up to $15 everywhere. Hillary Clinton wanted to immediately increase it to $12 per hour, and allow individual cities where the cost of living is higher have the option of raising it higher as appropriate. Which way is better? I honestly don't know, I can see merits and downsides to both plans. But one thing I can say for damn sure is either plan would be better than the "Let's just leave it where it's been since 2009," or "Let's do away with the federal minimum wage completely!" plans that Republicans have embraced.
By the way, that Republican "Contract With America"? Very, very few of the items in that agenda actually got implemented. The dirty little secret that they didn't bother to tell anyone while they were hyping it is that the vast majority of the things on it would never get past the senate, let alone past a presidential veto. That whole thing was just a marketing gimmick. Yes, it was effective—if you define "effective" as getting people elected. But if instead you define "effective" as actually getting stuff done? Not so much.
Like it or not, that crown in recent history has to go to the Democratic Congress and Obama, who got the ACA passed. Like it or not, it was one of the most major overhauls of the health care system in our country's history. It was a huge undertaking, and even after it's been repeatedly undermined and gutted by Republicans, it's actually still helping people.
No. Per Godwin, Godwin's law is suspended until the political climate changes.
What if they prescribe pain medication in spite of KASPER or whatever state law limiting the amount and/or frequency they can prescribe? Its no different than any other consumer protection law on the books.
The very fact that they accept a fixed amount already agreed-upon, in contract from an insurance company, or several, is all the evidence you need to argue that the amount was deemed acceptable add appropriate payment for rendering Syd service
What if they prescribe pain medication in spite of KASPER or whatever state law limiting the amount and/or frequency they can prescribe? Its no different than any other consumer protection law on the books.
What if they just go into a different line of work that doesn't treat them like government property?
So Obama did do something in spite of lack of legislative support but Trump undid it?
Kim-chi is actually healthy and rich in vitamin C... :)
Changes were being negotiated and made right up to the deadline. That's common with bills. An earlier draft was available to the public. Stop turning everything into a sinister conspiracy.
Table-ized A.I.
Then good fucking riddance. What if they went into a different line of work and still didn't OBEY THE LAW? Seriously... are you a fucking idiot?
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Neither does your brain. No other industrialized country has such a costly health system. If ours provided vastly superior results, that might be something... but it doesn't; those systems more "socialist" than ours typically do far better... for LESS cost. Fucking idiots just can't seem to understand that (and by "that," i mean reality).
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Cunts like you are nothing more than anti-social pieces of shit. I would much rather have the government working on making sure people get the health care they need than murdering people in a foreign land. When the day finally comes when worthless piece of shit sociopaths like you die out, the world will be a far better place.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Another anon coward dipshit. Oh wait, is that you Eric? Guess that whole"he's a fucking idiot" thing people say about you is true.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Still a fucking idiot i see. Seriously, pull your head out of your ass and take a breath of reality for once in your miserable excuse of a life.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Just because someone agrees to accept one fixed amount doesn't mean they'll automatically accept a different, lower fixed amount.
Cunts like you are nothing more than anti-social pieces of shit. I would much rather have the government working on making sure people get the health care they need than murdering people in a foreign land. When the day finally comes when worthless piece of shit sociopaths like you die out, the world will be a far better place.
Are you really that desperate for government freebies? Why not just pay your own way rather than spending every day of the year simmering with rage and hatred?
It only works for residents of northern Europe. It's an unmitigated disaster every time anyone else tries it.
Noone said lower. If youre already accepting $48 from the insurance companies, then always bill $48 not $158 regardless. You might be surprised to learn the doctors are currently prohibited, via contract, from actually doing this right now. The insurance companies are the issue in the case of inflating non covered pricing. It helps the insurance company look like they are doing more than just payjng 20% of your bill. Do away will all of this fake numbers-game bullshit. Allow Doctors to offer pricing comparible to insurance allowed amounts. Prohibit doctors from listing extraneous âretailâ(TM) pricing in order to game taxes or gouge uninsured the same way they prohibit gouging gas prices or utility prices. This is the easiest part of the whole thing to solve. We already do this sort of thing for many other types of products.
The Godwin that made the rule you're citing concurs with Ryanrule. We ain't talking about HR's internet policies or non-smoking restaurants here.
Godwin is a hypocrite. So one crazy person who happens to associate with alt-right goes on a killing spree and suddenly alt-right as a whole are a bunch of murderers? I don't agree with anything those people come up with, but the logical fallacy in this is mind-boggling. By that logic every Democrat is a baseball practice murderer.
There is a mountain of data that shows socialized medicine in first world countries provides great healthcare for half or less the overall cost of our own (both public and private expenditures). The people arguing against it are the same who claim to be economic conservatives but consistently do nothing to balance the budget. Health care for all has been shown to be far more affordable than our current system for decades, the problem is this country is full anti government paranoids and blindly partisan types.
Sure, once a system is in place that works most of these idiots will come around seeing the obvious results that every other first world country has shown but until then they will kick, scream, and flail their little hands. The challenge is getting a system in place that works over the heads of these ignorant masses.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Why not?
Every other first world country on the planet has a socialized medicine system that delivers first world medical care at half or less the over all cost of our own (both private and public costs).
What kind of idiot keeps on with such a massively unproductive system in the name of blind ideology? Communists maybe?
That's not to say anti socialized medicine types are communists mind you. Obviously they wouldn't be, It's that they are just as stupid in their blind ideology before easily observable fact.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
What is this? It's "stuff that matters"
Many Americans are of the opinion that proper healthcare isn't something people should have to go bankrupt over. Only one party has even attempted to approach this issue in the last 2 decades that a majority of Americans very much care about. The other party simply wants to blindly move forward in a system that is clearly broken.
And by broken I mean spending twice or more per capita than any other first world country spends on its socialized medicine.
Sure what the Democrats have done so far is middling at best but it's still far better than business as usual for a failing system.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
if you had a catastrophe you'd quickly find out they covered nothing. They were riddled with loop holes. If all else failed they'd declare it a pre-existing condition.
The plans were that cheap because they didn't work. Their purpose was to soak up money from rubes and (more often) divorced guys with a court order to have insurance. Reading the fine print they weren't worth the paper it was printed on.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
when the phony baloney plans went away the kitchen sink approach was there to shore up profits from the insurance companies being forced to cover everyone, even the really sick.
See, insurance is wildly profitable when you don't have to insure high risk customers. And with modern big data you know exactly who's high risk. Plus with all that sweet, sweet data you can always find some "pre existing" condition (my personal fav is skin cancer. Ever had acne medication? Congrats, you've had treatment for cancerous skin lesions, no more cancer meds for you, pre-existing).
The actual solution is to expand the risk pool to the largest possible: everyone. In otherwords, medicare for all. But we've had our heads stuffed full of insurance industry propaganda. They spent billions making sure you think the way you do because if you ever figure out the truth they and their blood sucking parasitic business model are through. They're fighting for their lives, so they're gonna be real nasty about it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
to my college days seeing the plans on offer when I worked at a Jack in the Box. Yep, like that. Absolute bullshit.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
maybe I don't. See, that's how healthcare works. You don't know you're going to need it until you do. So it makes sense to have a large risk pool. Otherwise when you, Kohath, get lung cancer from genetics and poor air quality in your city then your company runs out of money before you're cured and you get to die. They find a way to stop paying.
If all else fails they hassle the doctor until he gives up and stops prescribing you your meds. It's called the "Wallet Biopsy", your doc will silently (perhaps unconsciously) withhold treatment options because he knows your insurance won't pay and he can't afford to treat you for free. His practice will fail. If he has to he'll tell himself it's for the best, since if he goes under he can't treat anyone.
We know the solution: get the biggest risk pool possible. And what's the biggest risk pool possible? Everyone. aka Medicare for All.
Or you can just keep praying you don't get lung cancer. Or a heart murmer. Or legionnaires disease. Or any one of the dozens of horrible but treatable illnesses. Treatable with enough money that is. Sleep well tonight.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
too much paper work, too easy to add loop holes. Just give people medical care already. Like every other civilized nation.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
- elective abortions (ie not medically necessary) - if you arent going to pay for infertility treatments, why pay for the fertility removal treatments
Is it cheaper to pay for an abortion or for a birth? Ideally, of course would be to pay, or subsidize, birth control along with education on how to use it.
- medical marijiuanna - as it would be tantamount to a doctor prescribing a glass of wine every day. Every state that has medical cannabis laws makes provisions to grow your own so that your expenses are curbed considerably. CBD oil for seizures would be the only possible exception since its impossible to extract at home without also extracting all the other cannabis
Now that it is legal here, hopefully there will many more studies, but currently, often marijuana is a cheaper option compared to most pharmaceuticals. And no, growing it yourself is often not an option. Grow it outside and it is likely to be stolen. Grow it inside and if you are a renter, yo will be kicked out for ruining the property and if you own your own house, there is a similar problem.
- sex change operation - turning a normally functioning male into an apparently looking female (or vice versus) is not medically necessary. No one says you cant do it, just that someone else should not have to subsidize it. It would be no different than asking for penis enlargement surgery or implant surgery.
Would it be cheaper to pay for the mental health support for someone who feels so strongly they're in the wrong body that they would get a sex change operation?
Even boob jobs can be needed, I know someone where the best option for her back was breast reduction surgery to make her more normal sized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
This is not news. Obama drowned the public option in the bathtub long before any Republican or Bush Dog could vote against it.
Why should my tax dollars cover police and fire protection for your elitist Randian ass?
Police and Fire protection are local issues, often paid for by property taxes — because police protect property from theft and fire fighters protect property from fire. The entire community (theoretically) benefits from not being murdered and from the town not burning down.
Health care benefits only the individual who receives the care, not the people who don't.
Since studies show BMW drivers are assholes, no, as it will create more mental health issues as well as accidents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Now, the third thing that this legislation does is it brings down the cost of health care for families and businesses and the federal government. Americans who are buying comparable coverage in the individual market would end up seeing their premiums go down 14 to 20 percent. Americans who get their insurance through the workplace, cost savings could be as much as $3,000 less per employer than if we do nothing. Now, think about that. Thatâ(TM)s $3,000 your employer doesnâ(TM)t have to pay, which means maybe she can afford to give you a raise.
Maybe I am misreading, but it sure seems like President Obama is saying there that everybody's costs (premiums for families) were going to go down. While I know of plenty of people getting raises after the recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts helped boost the economy, I have never heard of a single person getting a raise from their employer because of all the money Obamacare saved them.
Care to comment?
I think you are misreading, he wasn't talking about a drop in premiums as much as a drop in the rate of increase in premiums.
I don't know what the numbers come out to, but it certainly seems like employers are paying less than they would have in the pre-ACA system.
I stole this Sig
And exactly what has the GOP done to improve healthcare in thie US?
How is your medical care the goverment's responsibility?
Because that is the mandate we gave them. And here in the UK it's turned out much cheaper than an all private system and I don't have to be beholden to an employer to ensure I have medical cover.
For the duties we could best use government for, how is health care not one of them? Healthcare is like the police or fire services and the armed forces, it benefits society in it's entirety even if you don't use any of their services yourself.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.