Well done, chopping off the subordinate clause in that sentence. Here's the whole thing again. See if you can get to the end of it all in one go.
"They're out to make money, and they've relatively little regard for the environment at large and the long-term prospects for it."
The former implies the latter, else you wouldn't have said it. Using your own terminology, I focused on the main clause because it's the main clause. And the solars are out to make money as well: so add a subordinate clause for them. Lemme guess: ", and they want altruism and all good things and peace on earth."
And he didn't just predict an election. He predicted every state correctly at the last election, and 49 out of 50 states correctly at the previous election.
That's actually surprisingly easy to do. Lookup "swing states". There's like a handful of them. Guessing the other 40+ states isn't exactly an amazing feat. Even most swing states are relatively predicable based on early polling.
Firstly, I'm glad this discussion has turned less slanderous and more respectful.
Now, if you could provide a study that actually broke down who was using the health care system and how, I'd love to see it.
Most of the studies I've seen have shown that everything is simply marked up insanely (and almost entirely arbitrarily): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
And rather than doing something about it, like forcing competition or transparency in costs, we've just spread the enormous cost across paying taxpayers (very similar to Social Security and Medicare, which just absorb the massive costs, efficiency be damned).
You "intend" to have the money "when" misfortune strikes. Yet by its very nature, you have no idea when misfortune will strike, whether multiple misfortunes will strike, or the scale of the cost. Or do you seriously contend that everyone should strive to have millions in savings just in case? Because anything less is unreasonable. Insurance is more of a risk pool precisely because of that and not merely for even "catastrophic" emergency because such a term because untenable very quickly on the cost of many medical procedures.
That is entirely untrue. Scale matters. You're trying to pretend everything out there is a million dollar expense and it simply isn't. Maternity care, for instance, while expensive, is not a bankruptcy causing condition. And it's oft (80%: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs...) seen coming ahead of time. So why then is "insurance" mandated to cover it? Moreover, why are my premiums paying for it, a childless adult with no intention of having children? This is just one such example. There are others.
For the former, you can't get blood from a stone.
Except that's disingenuous. The definition of "poor" has slid significantly so far over the years to the point than you can have a home of your own, two cars, and a vacation or two a year -- AND STILL PAY NO TAXES (http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/29/pf/taxes/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes/). 12% of people who pay no taxes make between 50 and 100k a year. There's plenty of blood in that stone.
I would be if I actually thought any health care law passed in the US would do such a thing.
But wasn't that the whole point of the law? Yes we can and all that? Grandiose change was exactly what his whole administration was supposed to be about. In fact, ACA, even as written, is one of the most sweeping, drastic changes we've ever seen to our healthcare since Medicare. The only problem is that it's a huge negative change rather than a positive. It cemented us permanently into the existing system rather than attempting to reform it.
Actually, it's most strongly linked to age as is stroke most strongly linked to age. "It is estimated that 82 percent of people who die of coronary heart disease are 65 and older."
That's a terrible yardstick. All sicknesses get worse with age. Just because someone dies at 65+ doesn't mean the stuff they did between age 1 and age 64 didn't help get them there. Let's take two groups of people: The first is a bunch of generally fit athletic people who take care of themselves, the second is a group of fat slobs who don't exercise. On average, who develops heart disease and when? That's a relevant test.
So, cut all the health care to the old since invariably they're the ones we all know inevitable should be accountable for their age.
"Of each dollar spent on health care in the United States, 31% goes to hospital care, 21% goes to physician/clinical services, 10% to pharmaceuticals, 4% to dental, 6% to nursing homes and 3% to home health care, 3% for other retail products, 3% for government public health activities, 7% to administrative costs, 7% to investment, and 6% to other professional services (physical therapists, optometrists, etc.)" -- from Wikipedia Cite Note 45, although the information wasn't readily visible in the first link...... Given that ~50% of US spending on health care is Medicare/Medicaid and the other ~50% is private (insurance), it's rather hard to separate out that figure to get an idea of how much of that is "Cadillac" coverage of unnecessary treatment of the elderly/poor or what. In any case...
And you don't find this relevant to this discussion? Exactly where costs are coming from and why? Seems a hell of alot more important than just giving everyone insurance that pays for everything and just raising taxes to account for our out of control healthcare costs.
How much of it is genetics and how much of it is environmental?
A very good question. Perhaps it calls for a study (rather than hands over eyes + dump cash into anybody's pocket that asks for medical care). It doesn't even have to be perfect accountability. At this point, I'd settle for any.
Beyond all that, I'm curious exactly how much money you've saved up personally for your inevitable heart attack and cancer.
My HSA grows every year (and accrues interest). I fully well intend to have a buffer (+ insurance) for when misfortune strikes me.
Plenty of people don't "plan" to have children. Yet they engage in activities that can result in it.
So then they should end up paying for their mistake, or their children should be taken and given to someone more responsible to take care of.
Evidence is, though, that the major issue in the US is simply that health care costs too much, period.
Well you've finally come around. So aren't you then incensed that next to zero effort was put into healthcare cost control in Obama's healthcare bill?
no matter how much you want to paint it all as the knowable and self-caused, do you have exactly evidence for this or are you just presuming?
I never painted all of it as such. In fact, I specifically called out cases that are not self-caused. However, some of it is damn well self-caused. Such as type 2 diabetes for instance. Which statistics show to be ~95% of diabetes cases. So that's at least $245 billion (http://www.diabetes.org/advocacy/news-events/cost-of-diabetes.html) that's highly likely to be self-caused. I could bring up numbers for lung/throat cancer and smoking as well. Heart disease is likely strongly linked to obesity as well. Don't pretend these studies have not been done. NONE of those people are accountable atm. If they're poor, they do as they damn well please, and the rest of us pick up the costs of their incredibly expensive lifetime vices.
Well, plenty of more liberal countries have cheaper health care systems, so clearly it's not this liberal attitude about money.
And most of those cultures also have a far healthier culture: less fat people, more exercise, less job stress, generally better lifestyles. But of course, none of those factors are considered when healthcare costs are compared from nation to nation.
ACA forces people to engage with the healthcare system through very specific channels (insurance) when they cannot pay for emergency care out of pocket.
That wasn't my statement. It forces ALL healthcare (including non-emergency care) through insurance. Secondly, your "emergency room" case argument is liberal talking point bullshit. 5% of less of our total healthcare bill is racked up in the emergency room. The VAST amount of healthcare expenses are known ahead of time. If 5% of our healthcare was handled through insurance, and 95% of it wasn't, that would be a functional system.
On the demand supply of things, everyone is a "BMW luxury car" unless you really think rich people, poor people, young people, old people, etc have fundamentally different bodies.
They in fact do. Some cram drugs into them. Some cram nicotine and cigaratte smoke into them. Some pollute their bodies with alcohol. Some spend multiple days a week in tanning beds. Some conduct themselves in dangerous activity like base jumping. Believe it or not, healthcare is not a one-size-fits-all level playing field. The only case where I wouldn't want people paying for their individual fuckups is something like autoimmune or genetics, when they literally have no choice in the matter. Most other times, it most likely had something to do with the way they lived their lives.
Though I guess in your mind the ACA really does eliminate those "market options" of "should I get really sick from the flu to the point I need to see a doctor" or "should I stay healthy, not get really sick, and avoid needing medical care". Or was it the idea that hospitals and doctors used to run specials of "have a heart attack take, 50% off your first quadruple bypass"?
You're an idiot. If I never plan to have children, why does MY plan have to cover maternity care? There's one example for you. You seem hung up on emergency care, which is sad, since you're so off base it's not even funny.
There is nothing in the ACA that would preclude "prices on the wall" for all procedures. Remember the law is about getting people to buy reasonable quality insurance. It is not dictating the price of anything
Yes it is. By mandating insurance minimums, it is dictating a high minimum price for "insurance" (I use quotes, because that word is now a complete misnomer).
The ACA was the conservative alternative to Bill Clintons attempt at health reform in the early 90s. It was supported by key conservatives up until.... the election of Obama.
urthermore do you think the cost for those people who don't have coverage magically disappears just because they don't have insurance? It gets paid for one way or another and you can either do it directly through a formal program or you can do it indirectly through higher insurance rates and hospital bills for everyone else. Either way you are going to pay for it.
Duh, that's why the fix is COST CONTROL. Addressing healthcare costs is the real problem in this country that Democrats completely continually gloss over. Rather than fix a problem at it's source, they just toss the burden of out of control costs on the shoulders of the middle class and the rich.
Then, gasp, raise taxes. I know, that gives republicans hives because they think taxes are the root of all evil. Let's be frank though. This has NOTHING to do with the cost. This is ALL about politics since all the resistance is coming from republicans who care more about getting re-elected than about providing poor people health coverage. The cost doesn't go away just because they aren't willing to fund it through Medicaid. If they were proposing some alternative way to get poor people health insurance then I might give some credibility to the argument that they are trying to be responsible but that simply isn't happening.
Horseshit. This is all about cost. Under Obama's rule, we've seen revenue go up significantly through about multiple different tax hikes (some buried in ACA implementation, some in the fiscal cliff negotiations, etc). Spending has not changed. It's about flat-to-up, and what's worse is that all projections have it skyrocketing within 5 years (partially due to new ACA costs that are just now starting to kick in).
If they were proposing some alternative way to get poor people health insurance then I might give some credibility to the argument that they are trying to be responsible but that simply isn't happening.
They have, in fact, put multiple alternatives on the table. The issue is that they all start with repeal of the existing terrible system which they have no interest in trying to repair.
I call bullshit on it having anything to do with a cost analysis. This was ALL about politics. This is simply republicans dragging their heels at the expense of a bunch of poor people for political grandstanding. I live in a state with a Republican governor and a republican majority legislature and they passed the medicaid expansion because it makes financial sense. The terms of the deal are quite clear and the cost of providing medical care to those poor people isn't going to go away whether or not the medicare expansion gets passed.
I can't count the number of times I've seen people on here call out Republicans for being hypocritical about their state-focused, anti-federal beliefs when they take federal handouts instead of refusing them (such as the stimulus money). Now, they finally take a stand and refuse to take the money on the principal of not wanting to expand federal government expenditures, and you still find fault? Seems like a no-win for Republicans. Had they taken the money, you'd call them hypocrites as is the norm.
The cost of insurance before "ObamaCare" was also "Insane" so quit blaming the high prices on the ACA.
Wrong. The price of HDHP HSA insurance was affordable, and practical for many. Those plans are now regulated out of existence. "Insurance" is such a misnomer now, it's actually comical.
I think it has more to do with them being seriously incompetent about the ramifications of the current system and how much we really need Universal Healthcare as a solution. I mean, both Democrats and Republicans are seriously delusional about how much the free market can magically solve a lot of the problems with our current health care system. I mean, the main part of trying to make the ACA function is precisely to force the existence of a market place precisely because health insurance is such a disaster on its own.
Umm, no, ACA is very "anti-market" -- ACA forces people to engage with the healthcare system through very specific channels (insurance) and then mandates minimum levels of healthcare for insurance plans. That's the "market" equivalent of forcing everyone to share the cost of each other's car insurance costs and then upgrading everyone to BMW luxury cars. Unsurprisingly enough, the "market" in that situation would behave in the exact same fashion: very large hikes in premiums, no change in the cost of a BMW luxury car. ACA fails because it eliminates market options (namely cheap plans that are truly catastrophic "insurance") -- it replaces them with mandated Cadillac plans that are incredibly expensive.
Indeed, it's states rights when it comes to lack of gun control, teaching creationism in schools, denying gay marriage, and polluting. When states try to enact gun control, raise taxes, abolish creationism, raise environmental standards, or allow gay marriage, suddenly states rights aren't important.
Umm, those things are always attempted at the federal level. And yes, Texas is going to get miffed when you attempt to pass federal gun control law that supercedes their state laws.
Meanwhile Canada has what? 40? 50? years of socialized health care? -- Both countries tax cigarettes, both are on a path to decriminizing pot, and its still legal to buy a large soda anywhere in Canada. So... why exactly do you think your fear of single payer aren't unfounded nonsense?
Canada isn't single-payer in the manner single-payer was presented in the US. Canada is heavily decentralized, with each province left to implement their own healthcare, with minimal interference from the central bureaucracy. Effectively, it's the equivalent of "state-level" single-payer. That's a concept even many Republicans would get behind. The advocates of single-payer in the US, however, have always pushed for full federal control and implementation of the entire system. I fear that like nobody's business.
I have to say I am absolutely disgusted with the right wing. They have taken an idea from the Heritage Institute to use capitalism which may have worked (it may have failed as well but at least we would have tried) and made it now politically impossible
You've got alot of nerve making a statement like that. ACA was passed with a Democrat supermajority + congressional tricks without even a nod to Republican input that MAY have churned out a sensible bill. Additionally, it was modified many times over afterwards by Obama's fiat executive orders and ACA amendment attempts by Republicans have all been summarily shot down. It deserves to die a horrible death if it doesn't work now, as Republicans were unable to stand in the way of it at all, it has never had long-term public support, and the resulting disaster-bill that resulted is solely on the Democrats to absorb (it WILL cost them the Senate this year). You are right about one thing though: It's terrible that a bill that might have turned out well was poisoned into something that's entirely unworkable, but you're pointing fingers in the wrong direction with your disgust. Go back and tell Mr. "ride in the back and follow our lead" Obama that we the people want a bill conceived by both parties, rather than a partisan wet dream of one side rubberstamped by the other.
This whole discussion is full of shills on every side. I believe insurance was cancelled, but every time somebody says it was they do not say the reason. This leads everybody else to say "well it probably only covered hangnails", which is certainly false. But I am also suspicious that in all these Slashdot postings saying "Obama took away my insurance" I have NEVER seen the reason an insurance was cancelled, except for one post that said "my employer refused to pay the cadillac tax" which is not something likely to be mentioned on Fox News.
Why is it relevant? I'd imagine most times people don't give a reason because they were not given a reason by their employer/insurer. Whether their employer dropped it because their costs went up, or their insurer dropped it because it didn't meet the "minimum required services", or some other reason indirect reason, the plan got canceled. Why are you hung up on the reason? Or are you trying to say it's mere coincidence that all these plans are being dropped immediately after all these new regs went into effect?
I believe there are screwups all around. Some of the regulations the left wing forced into Obamacare are probably silly and excessive and causing unhelpful cancellations, but there is a distinct refusal to post exactly what is wrong.
You're joking, right? You just stated what is wrong in the first half of that sentence, and then are asking why people don't post what is wrong in the second half? And people have been very clear about all the other things wrong with as well: no cost controls (gives everyone insurance + added healthcare while ignoring the cost of healthcare), subsidies hide the true cost from the public while socking the middle class in the stomach, adds expenses for the young invincibles (who typically don't have much money), seriously raises costs for businesses (which trickle down into employees), completely fails to account for self-employed individuals, etc, etc. You seriously must be deaf if you haven't heard the issues outlined quite thoroughly.
Just as important, the amount of defense you buy should be a function of what threats you're dealing with. 2014 is not the same as World War II.
Actually, it's worse in terms of cost. In pre1950s America, we weren't required to police the world or otherwise maintain a global military presence. We could reduce spending, but only if you're willing to let the Middle East fight it out without our interference (which is a valid isolationist stance, but not one most politicians here support).
The cost of that hardware (per unit of military usefulness) has gone down, and we're more efficient than we ever were before, so I'd expect the cost of a unit of defense to be a lot lower than it was in the past.
That's simply not true. As technology has advanced, and the threats have increased, the cost of "staying ahead of the curve" and responding to those threats has spiked significantly.
If Iran was a military superpower, we'd likely spend more.
There are more countries today verging on superpower than back when we only had the russians to worry about. At a minimum, there's Russia -and- China, and China has the leg up in both population and economic growth. Using the historical comparison, we should be spending more (or at least the same) than we were then.
Does comparing the size of our military to the size of the militaries we might fight with really not make sense to you, or are you just playing dumb?
Spending isn't a factor of army size alone. It drives innovation and new technology. Right now we're ahead because we spend to stay ahead.
There's absolutely no reason defense spending should scale with GDP.
Umm, why not? It's far more accurate since it at least partially takes inflation into account.
Since the purpose of our military is to put a whuppin' on other militaries, the better comparison is how much we spend compared to other countries. By that metric, I'd say we still have plenty of headroom in the budget.
Oh really? So are we allowed to do the same with entitlements then? Because I guarantee our ~2 trillion a year dwarfs other countries.
I dunno about that. Seeing as how companies are accepting it as a means of payment (Overstock, Tiger Direct, Tesla dealerships, etc), it pretty strongly represents the definition of money/currency: http://dictionary.reference.co...
For me, the most basic definition of money is "representative item of value used in the exchange of goods and services", which bitcoin certainly meets.
Likewise the Democrats will almost certainly balk at any reforms to social welfare spending, which is the major portion of Federal spending and which dwarfs the defense budget.
I don't see how that's relevant. We're talking about negotiations here. Increased military spending and decreased social spending are both things Republicans want.
It's relevant because the Democrats already got what they wanted, but gave nothing back in "negotiation". Obamacare was a big program they wanted, and it included tax hikes on the rich. They got another tax hike on the rich during the fiscal cliff catastrophe. They also got the sequester. Moreover, when Democrats passed programs they wanted (like the minimum wage hike), it didn't come with corresponding cuts elsewhere. The things Republicans have wanted in response (entitlement reform or Obamacare changes) were completely ignored and/or left off the table. The "reality" of the political situation these past 8 years have been almost entirely one-sided. That's the problem. Dems demand new multi-trillion dollar programs and think throwing a few pennies at the Republicans in the way of pork riders is fair/compromise/negotiation. Seriously, look at how much revenue has increased in the past 8 years (significantly higher). Now look at spending (relatively flat, with projections that spike going forward). You call that give-and-take?
No. That is not what is happening. Almost all the proposed reductions are to fighting troops. Almost no cuts are to the bloated defense bureaucracy that make up the core of the MIC's revolving door. Hagel wants to reduce the muscle while protecting the belly fat. He is going about it all wrong anyway. Rather than trimming a little here, and a little there, it would be much better to completely eliminate a few big misguided programs. Killing the trillion dollar F-35 boondoggle would be a great place to start.
You're joking, right? We've been "trimming" from defense for the past 70+ years (now near an all-time low in defense spending):
Sure they are. I know quite a few people who were fired with crazy good severance packages. Sure, they weren't set for life, but being able to piss around for 3 months before even _starting_ to look for a job is sure as hell an overpayment.
Slashdot Mirror
The former implies the latter, else you wouldn't have said it. Using your own terminology, I focused on the main clause because it's the main clause. And the solars are out to make money as well: so add a subordinate clause for them. Lemme guess: ", and they want altruism and all good things and peace on earth."
And you think the solar and wind energy companies aren't out to make money? Are they running non-profit companies?
That's actually surprisingly easy to do. Lookup "swing states". There's like a handful of them. Guessing the other 40+ states isn't exactly an amazing feat. Even most swing states are relatively predicable based on early polling.
Most of the studies I've seen have shown that everything is simply marked up insanely (and almost entirely arbitrarily): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
So more or less like this: http://www.southparkstudios.co...
And rather than doing something about it, like forcing competition or transparency in costs, we've just spread the enormous cost across paying taxpayers (very similar to Social Security and Medicare, which just absorb the massive costs, efficiency be damned).
That is entirely untrue. Scale matters. You're trying to pretend everything out there is a million dollar expense and it simply isn't. Maternity care, for instance, while expensive, is not a bankruptcy causing condition. And it's oft (80%: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs...) seen coming ahead of time. So why then is "insurance" mandated to cover it? Moreover, why are my premiums paying for it, a childless adult with no intention of having children? This is just one such example. There are others.
Except that's disingenuous. The definition of "poor" has slid significantly so far over the years to the point than you can have a home of your own, two cars, and a vacation or two a year -- AND STILL PAY NO TAXES (http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/29/pf/taxes/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes/). 12% of people who pay no taxes make between 50 and 100k a year. There's plenty of blood in that stone.
But wasn't that the whole point of the law? Yes we can and all that? Grandiose change was exactly what his whole administration was supposed to be about. In fact, ACA, even as written, is one of the most sweeping, drastic changes we've ever seen to our healthcare since Medicare. The only problem is that it's a huge negative change rather than a positive. It cemented us permanently into the existing system rather than attempting to reform it.
That's a terrible yardstick. All sicknesses get worse with age. Just because someone dies at 65+ doesn't mean the stuff they did between age 1 and age 64 didn't help get them there. Let's take two groups of people: The first is a bunch of generally fit athletic people who take care of themselves, the second is a group of fat slobs who don't exercise. On average, who develops heart disease and when? That's a relevant test.
You scoff, but the
And you don't find this relevant to this discussion? Exactly where costs are coming from and why? Seems a hell of alot more important than just giving everyone insurance that pays for everything and just raising taxes to account for our out of control healthcare costs.
A very good question. Perhaps it calls for a study (rather than hands over eyes + dump cash into anybody's pocket that asks for medical care). It doesn't even have to be perfect accountability. At this point, I'd settle for any .
My HSA grows every year (and accrues interest). I fully well intend to have a buffer (+ insurance) for when misfortune strikes me.
So then they should end up paying for their mistake, or their children should be taken and given to someone more responsible to take care of.
Well you've finally come around. So aren't you then incensed that next to zero effort was put into healthcare cost control in Obama's healthcare bill?
I never painted all of it as such. In fact, I specifically called out cases that are not self-caused. However, some of it is damn well self-caused. Such as type 2 diabetes for instance. Which statistics show to be ~95% of diabetes cases. So that's at least $245 billion (http://www.diabetes.org/advocacy/news-events/cost-of-diabetes.html) that's highly likely to be self-caused. I could bring up numbers for lung/throat cancer and smoking as well. Heart disease is likely strongly linked to obesity as well. Don't pretend these studies have not been done. NONE of those people are accountable atm. If they're poor, they do as they damn well please, and the rest of us pick up the costs of their incredibly expensive lifetime vices.
And most of those cultures also have a far healthier culture: less fat people, more exercise, less job stress, generally better lifestyles. But of course, none of those factors are considered when healthcare costs are compared from nation to nation.
That wasn't my statement. It forces ALL healthcare (including non-emergency care) through insurance. Secondly, your "emergency room" case argument is liberal talking point bullshit. 5% of less of our total healthcare bill is racked up in the emergency room. The VAST amount of healthcare expenses are known ahead of time. If 5% of our healthcare was handled through insurance, and 95% of it wasn't, that would be a functional system.
They in fact do. Some cram drugs into them. Some cram nicotine and cigaratte smoke into them. Some pollute their bodies with alcohol. Some spend multiple days a week in tanning beds. Some conduct themselves in dangerous activity like base jumping. Believe it or not, healthcare is not a one-size-fits-all level playing field. The only case where I wouldn't want people paying for their individual fuckups is something like autoimmune or genetics, when they literally have no choice in the matter. Most other times, it most likely had something to do with the way they lived their lives.
You're an idiot. If I never plan to have children, why does MY plan have to cover maternity care? There's one example for you. You seem hung up on emergency care, which is sad, since you're so off base it's not even funny.
Yes it is. By mandating insurance minimums, it is dictating a high minimum price for "insurance" (I use quotes, because that word is now a complete misnomer).
They have. They did. But the Dems will never accept an appeal of Obamacare followed by a replace. Hence, the Republican plans are a no-go.
Citation?
Duh, that's why the fix is COST CONTROL. Addressing healthcare costs is the real problem in this country that Democrats completely continually gloss over. Rather than fix a problem at it's source, they just toss the burden of out of control costs on the shoulders of the middle class and the rich.
Horseshit. This is all about cost. Under Obama's rule, we've seen revenue go up significantly through about multiple different tax hikes (some buried in ACA implementation, some in the fiscal cliff negotiations, etc). Spending has not changed. It's about flat-to-up, and what's worse is that all projections have it skyrocketing within 5 years (partially due to new ACA costs that are just now starting to kick in).
They have, in fact, put multiple alternatives on the table. The issue is that they all start with repeal of the existing terrible system which they have no interest in trying to repair.
I can't count the number of times I've seen people on here call out Republicans for being hypocritical about their state-focused, anti-federal beliefs when they take federal handouts instead of refusing them (such as the stimulus money). Now, they finally take a stand and refuse to take the money on the principal of not wanting to expand federal government expenditures, and you still find fault? Seems like a no-win for Republicans. Had they taken the money, you'd call them hypocrites as is the norm.
Wrong. The price of HDHP HSA insurance was affordable, and practical for many. Those plans are now regulated out of existence. "Insurance" is such a misnomer now, it's actually comical.
Umm, no, ACA is very "anti-market" -- ACA forces people to engage with the healthcare system through very specific channels (insurance) and then mandates minimum levels of healthcare for insurance plans. That's the "market" equivalent of forcing everyone to share the cost of each other's car insurance costs and then upgrading everyone to BMW luxury cars. Unsurprisingly enough, the "market" in that situation would behave in the exact same fashion: very large hikes in premiums, no change in the cost of a BMW luxury car. ACA fails because it eliminates market options (namely cheap plans that are truly catastrophic "insurance") -- it replaces them with mandated Cadillac plans that are incredibly expensive.
Only to ignorant liberals. When we say it, we mean it.
Umm, those things are always attempted at the federal level. And yes, Texas is going to get miffed when you attempt to pass federal gun control law that supercedes their state laws.
Canada isn't single-payer in the manner single-payer was presented in the US. Canada is heavily decentralized, with each province left to implement their own healthcare, with minimal interference from the central bureaucracy. Effectively, it's the equivalent of "state-level" single-payer. That's a concept even many Republicans would get behind. The advocates of single-payer in the US, however, have always pushed for full federal control and implementation of the entire system. I fear that like nobody's business.
You've got alot of nerve making a statement like that. ACA was passed with a Democrat supermajority + congressional tricks without even a nod to Republican input that MAY have churned out a sensible bill. Additionally, it was modified many times over afterwards by Obama's fiat executive orders and ACA amendment attempts by Republicans have all been summarily shot down. It deserves to die a horrible death if it doesn't work now, as Republicans were unable to stand in the way of it at all, it has never had long-term public support, and the resulting disaster-bill that resulted is solely on the Democrats to absorb (it WILL cost them the Senate this year). You are right about one thing though: It's terrible that a bill that might have turned out well was poisoned into something that's entirely unworkable, but you're pointing fingers in the wrong direction with your disgust. Go back and tell Mr. "ride in the back and follow our lead" Obama that we the people want a bill conceived by both parties, rather than a partisan wet dream of one side rubberstamped by the other.
Why is it relevant? I'd imagine most times people don't give a reason because they were not given a reason by their employer/insurer. Whether their employer dropped it because their costs went up, or their insurer dropped it because it didn't meet the "minimum required services", or some other reason indirect reason, the plan got canceled. Why are you hung up on the reason? Or are you trying to say it's mere coincidence that all these plans are being dropped immediately after all these new regs went into effect?
You're joking, right? You just stated what is wrong in the first half of that sentence, and then are asking why people don't post what is wrong in the second half? And people have been very clear about all the other things wrong with as well: no cost controls (gives everyone insurance + added healthcare while ignoring the cost of healthcare), subsidies hide the true cost from the public while socking the middle class in the stomach, adds expenses for the young invincibles (who typically don't have much money), seriously raises costs for businesses (which trickle down into employees), completely fails to account for self-employed individuals, etc, etc. You seriously must be deaf if you haven't heard the issues outlined quite thoroughly.
Actually, it's worse in terms of cost. In pre1950s America, we weren't required to police the world or otherwise maintain a global military presence. We could reduce spending, but only if you're willing to let the Middle East fight it out without our interference (which is a valid isolationist stance, but not one most politicians here support).
That's simply not true. As technology has advanced, and the threats have increased, the cost of "staying ahead of the curve" and responding to those threats has spiked significantly.
There are more countries today verging on superpower than back when we only had the russians to worry about. At a minimum, there's Russia -and- China, and China has the leg up in both population and economic growth. Using the historical comparison, we should be spending more (or at least the same) than we were then.
Spending isn't a factor of army size alone. It drives innovation and new technology. Right now we're ahead because we spend to stay ahead.
Umm, why not? It's far more accurate since it at least partially takes inflation into account.
Oh really? So are we allowed to do the same with entitlements then? Because I guarantee our ~2 trillion a year dwarfs other countries.
I dunno about that. Seeing as how companies are accepting it as a means of payment (Overstock, Tiger Direct, Tesla dealerships, etc), it pretty strongly represents the definition of money/currency: http://dictionary.reference.co...
For me, the most basic definition of money is "representative item of value used in the exchange of goods and services", which bitcoin certainly meets.
It's relevant because the Democrats already got what they wanted, but gave nothing back in "negotiation". Obamacare was a big program they wanted, and it included tax hikes on the rich. They got another tax hike on the rich during the fiscal cliff catastrophe. They also got the sequester. Moreover, when Democrats passed programs they wanted (like the minimum wage hike), it didn't come with corresponding cuts elsewhere. The things Republicans have wanted in response (entitlement reform or Obamacare changes) were completely ignored and/or left off the table. The "reality" of the political situation these past 8 years have been almost entirely one-sided. That's the problem. Dems demand new multi-trillion dollar programs and think throwing a few pennies at the Republicans in the way of pork riders is fair/compromise/negotiation. Seriously, look at how much revenue has increased in the past 8 years (significantly higher). Now look at spending (relatively flat, with projections that spike going forward). You call that give-and-take?
You're joking, right? We've been "trimming" from defense for the past 70+ years (now near an all-time low in defense spending):
http://i.cfr.org/content/publi...
http://object.cato.org/sites/c...
CEOs are often valued for their contacts/rolodex, not their skills.
Sure they are. I know quite a few people who were fired with crazy good severance packages. Sure, they weren't set for life, but being able to piss around for 3 months before even _starting_ to look for a job is sure as hell an overpayment.