Jump to content
disgruntledemployee

The Next President is...

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

Wait a sec Chuck, didn’t your party pass a little 3,000 page piece of legislation a few years ago literally titled the “Affordable Care Act”?

The ACA was built through compromise, so it was an imperfect but acceptable plan until something better could be worked.  In case you've forgotten, Dem's don't hold the levers of power right now, and it's up to the (R)s to do it.  Trump promised healthcare for everyone "that is far less expensive and far better".  Up until now all they've done is repeal the individual mandate which has raised costs more than they were rising before.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was built through compromise with who, themselves? From what I recall they violated rules to get it passed with no bipartisan support.

And if my family members who couldn’t afford the ridiculous premiums before the mandate repeal now don’t have to be taxed by the IRS for it, I’m fine with that. Most premiums for working people were already unaffordable, it was always an income redistribution ruse and I’m glad my parents won’t be penalized for not paying 1/3 of their income for premiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MooseAg03 said:

It was built through compromise with who, themselves? From what I recall they violated rules to get it passed with no bipartisan support.

And if my family members who couldn’t afford the ridiculous premiums before the mandate repeal now don’t have to be taxed by the IRS for it, I’m fine with that. Most premiums for working people were already unaffordable, it was always an income redistribution ruse and I’m glad my parents won’t be penalized for not paying 1/3 of their income for premiums.

            At midnight on Christmas Eve.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But to their credit the Democrats used the power given them to ram ACA through.

Whereas the GOP has and is repeatedly deliberately ignoring the large portion of voters who didn't want ACA or the ever-increasing government intrusion into daily life.

Rise of the Tea Party and, ultimately, the election of Trump over 16 variations of the same them weak Republican candidate seems to be something that the establishment does not want to acknowledge, let alone obey.

Hence, the GOP couldn't/didn't kill dead the ACA.  A pox on them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

It was built through compromise with who, themselves? From what I recall they violated rules to get it passed with no bipartisan support.

And if my family members who couldn’t afford the ridiculous premiums before the mandate repeal now don’t have to be taxed by the IRS for it, I’m fine with that. Most premiums for working people were already unaffordable, it was always an income redistribution ruse and I’m glad my parents won’t be penalized for not paying 1/3 of their income for premiums.

Well the starting point was a republican healthcare plan, and there was Republican and Independent amendments submitted and there were a few accepted.  They unfortunately listened to Lieberman and took away the public option.  Ultimately yes they compromised with who they needed to in order to reach their required votes...isn't that how congress works?  What rules were violated?

So your family doesn't have healthcare coverage and you "fine with that"?  Out of curiosity does your family live in a state that accepted money to expand medicare? America's healthcare system is fucked, everyone can admit that...but the ACA is more popular than the president right now.  It's not great, but it's all some people have keeping them alive.  The republicans haven't offered any solution to many of those people.  If they would many voters on the fence would come flocking to the republican party, but somehow the republicans think they can keep the old and frail by continually maiming the healthcare system.

The US isn't some unique flower that can never have a good healthcare system...we just need to elect people who stop giving into corporations who are profiteering from sick people.  Yes they need to make money, but it's ridiculous.  Republicans want the government to step out and let the market work itself out, but you can't have a free market if both parties can't simply walk away from the transaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It violated rules because supposedly the individual mandate penalties were a “tax” which means it should have originated in the House. But then the Obama admin argued it was a “fine” and then switched to insisting the penalty was a “tax” in order to skirt being declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

 

If it is between my parents not being able to afford their mortgage and my mom having health insurance, yes I’m fine with it. They make their own decisions and when she tells me her premiums were almost equal to their mortgage payment each month, that’s ridiculous and I don’t blame her for foregoing coverage. I don’t think they should be penalized for choosing not to go broke buying something the government forces down their throats.

 

Since you say it’s more popular than the President, I’d love to see the sample from whom that poll was taken. My guess is it’s a majority of democrats and/or people receiving subsidies to make it more affordable. Unfortunately my dad actually works hard and is making a fairly decent living and doesn’t qualify for subsidies.

 

If you don’t think we have a good healthcare system, why do people travel here from all over the world to seek treatment? Our medicine is excellent, it’s the bureaucracy both in the government and insurance companies that drive up costs. If I had the solution, I’d be making tons of money as a consultant but I believe it lies in free market principles. When five different patients are charged five different amounts for the same treatment based on their insurance plan or how much the provider can inflate charges to maximize reimbursement amounts, there’s an issue. Why not walk in and see an actual list of prices for services?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2018 at 11:49 PM, MooseAg03 said:

If you don’t think we have a good healthcare system, why do people travel here from all over the world to seek treatment? Our medicine is excellent, it’s the bureaucracy both in the government and insurance companies that drive up costs. If I had the solution, I’d be making tons of money as a consultant but I believe it lies in free market principles. When five different patients are charged five different amounts for the same treatment based on their insurance plan or how much the provider can inflate charges to maximize reimbursement amounts, there’s an issue. Why not walk in and see an actual list of prices for services?

Sure we have some of the best doctors in the world, but that doesn't make our healthcare system great.  Sure these elite doctors exist, but those flying into the US are rich, and going to see the top 1% of doctors, not to visit the clinics people like us are relegated to.  Most countries have competent doctors, and having taken a sick kid to overseas ERs on a couple occasions I've received better healthcare and service while in foreign countries, and the bill was a fraction of what it would have been in the states.  The complaints you mention are prime example of how jacked our healthcare system is, and I agree with you.  There are several examples of healthcare systems that work efficiently around the world, but everyone is stuck on the nationalism train to realize that we may not be the best at something.  

 

edit:  Just to add if there was a universal healthcare option, a public plan, etc the government could use it's bargaining power to significantly lower costs like it does with some aspects of medicare.  This would require politicians to shed their bonuses from big pharma and piss a lot of donors off, but in the end it's whats best for the people...so it's likely not going to happen any time soon...

Edited by drewpey
edits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight--over the last 50--60 years, healthcare in the US has only become more regulated (at both the state and federal level), and yet your solution to something (that has only gotten worse in your opinion) is to further regulate it.  And as for our "healthcare system"--we don't have a "system", and that is a good thing.  We have a US Postal "System" (which is inefficient), DMV "systems" (which is very inefficient and really sucks), a social security "retirement system" (which is scheduled to go bust), etc.  As for poor people not having the money to be able to see as good of a pediatrician as my family?--well, I bring more value to society than a poor person.  The laws of economics never lie.

Oh and and as far as using Medicare as a good example of a "quasi-healthcare system", it is also scheduled to go bust even soon than predicted.  So thanks but not thanks...

https://nypost.com/2018/06/05/medicare-social-security-running-out-of-money-faster-than-expected/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HeloDude said:

So let me get this straight--over the last 50--60 years, healthcare in the US has only become more regulated (at both the state and federal level), and yet your solution to something (that has only gotten worse in your opinion) is to further regulate it.  And as for our "healthcare system"--we don't have a "system", and that is a good thing.  We have a US Postal "System" (which is inefficient), DMV "systems" (which is very inefficient and really sucks), a social security "retirement system" (which is scheduled to go bust), etc.  As for poor people not having the money to be able to see as good of a pediatrician as my family?--well, I bring more value to society than a poor person.  The laws of economics never lie.

Oh and and as far as using Medicare as a good example of a "quasi-healthcare system", it is also scheduled to go bust even soon than predicted.  So thanks but not thanks...

https://nypost.com/2018/06/05/medicare-social-security-running-out-of-money-faster-than-expected/

Interesting.  I guess by that you mean something like having the gov't say Insurance couldn't deny people with pre-existing conditions is "further regulation."  

And fuck poor people right?  How stupid of them to get poor in the first place!

Like my dumb father-in-law who was a PhD in Chemistry.  He was working for Exxon, and got HIV through a blood transfusion in the 80's and died on social assistance while raising 3 kids living on his Sis-in-laws farm for free.  

Like my stupid brother who put himself through mechanic school and graduated in 2008...then couldn't find a job for 3 years to pay off that technical training.  So he flipped burgers for that time, then put himself through web-development school a few years ago.

Your denigration of other human beings as a "cost center" is rather misplaced.  The fact that you produce more "value," and think that relates directly to your worth as a human being is a gross misjudgement of what people on this very board say matters - QoL, family, etc.  It's the thinking that plunged this county into the 2008 recession.  A bunch of disturbingly rich people thinking they were of more value, hence their enormous paychecks, just trying to get richer no matter what the cost to society.  

Military members live in a very insular bubble with generally supremely healthy people all around them.  We shit on coworkers who get into medical issues and "can't deploy because they're malingering."  I've had 2 back surgeries paid for by the AF, the first when I was 20.  If I wasn't AD, I'd be the exact person you're talking about being "more valuable" than.   

I hate socialism and communism as well as the son of a Cold War vet can (doubly so after reading the Gulag Archipelago), but I'm not convinced capitalism is the lens through which we need to view chronic health problems and treatment.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting.  I guess by that you mean something like having the gov't say Insurance couldn't deny people with pre-existing conditions is "further regulation."  
And poor people right?  How stupid of them to get poor in the first place!
Like my dumb father-in-law who was a PhD in Chemistry.  He was working for Exxon, and got HIV through a blood transfusion in the 80's and died on social assistance while raising 3 kids living on his Sis-in-laws farm for free.  
Like my stupid brother who put himself through mechanic school and graduated in 2008...then couldn't find a job for 3 years to pay off that technical training.  So he flipped burgers for that time, then put himself through web-development school a few years ago.
Your denigration of other human beings as a "cost center" is rather misplaced.  The fact that you produce more "value," and think that relates directly to your worth as a human being is a gross misjudgement of what people on this very board say matters - QoL, family, etc.  It's the thinking that plunged this county into the 2008 recession.  A bunch of disturbingly rich people thinking they were of more value, hence their enormous paychecks, just trying to get richer no matter what the cost to society.  
Military members live in a very insular bubble with generally supremely healthy people all around them.  We shit on coworkers who get into medical issues and "can't deploy because they're malingering."  I've had 2 back surgeries paid for by the AF, the first when I was 20.  If I wasn't AD, I'd be the exact person you're talking about being "more valuable" than.   
I hate socialism and communism as well as the son of a Cold War vet can (doubly so after reading the Gulag Archipelago), but I'm not convinced capitalism is the lens through which we need to view chronic health problems and treatment.
Lighten up, Francis.

Here's the problem, and I'm going to lump everyone into the two primary political groups because it's simpler for the conversation. Also realize that many people who support the correct option often do so for the wrong reasons (e.g. "I am more valuable to society").

Liberals are very concerned with now, and when you look at their solutions, they often lack any consideration for long-term or second- and third-order effects. They also like to take for granted the incredible advancing power of the free market. But they care, and they very genuinely want to make the world better.

Conservatives on the other hand deal with the future. What's better for tomorrow. Yes, they lose sight of empathy and compassion, which is why niether side can function without the other. But they are also accepting of the reality today for the promise of a better reality tomorrow.

If Americans treated healthcare the way you would like it to back in the 50's, we would not have the incredible system we have today. And it is incredible. Any idiot can see how wildly healthy Americans are compared to the past. The free market did that, not government.

I want a free market system because I'd rather my kids and grandkids have a cheap cure for cancer than having expensive dialysis provided for me today. And if you think that's a false choice, take a closer look at some of the systems out there run by governments. I heard about the steady decline of the NHS for three years on BBC as I drove to work. And my British neighbors would gasp at the idea of paying for healthcare in one conversation, then brag about their private insurance and how it got them such better treatment, and faster. How's that for the rich getting all the perks?
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all are or were in the government via the USAF.

The thread(s) railing against the stupidity/inefficiency/buffoonery of that part of the government are orders of magnitude longer and larger than those that talk about USAF getting it right. 

And the USAF is, arguably, staffed with better than the average bears in the overall federal government.

We've all see the incredible stupidity/adherence to written in a vacuum policies/pettiness by mindless drones.

The VA is government healthcare on a smaller scale than universal but an accurate template.

So, please, I'll pass on gubmint running healthcare via any system.

Less government is good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Wondering which I would prefer as my Wingman... f you take care of yourself or hey I know I screwed up last time, let me make good this time around...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Snooter said:

Wondering which I would prefer as my Wingman... f you take care of yourself or hey I know I screwed up last time, let me make good this time around...

Hardly. More like choosing a) bit of a brawler that undoubtedly needs guidance but when push comes to shove, he's down to throw some punches and reshuffle the cards, because "we're America bit$%" vs. b) quiet, professorial type who judges you for the occasional 'Merica. Because in his mind, we're an illegitimate country founded by white racists. 

That pointless exercise aside, serious question. You think dropping the A-Bomb on Japan was a mistake? Something that we should have to apologize for almost 60 years later, despite rebuilding the country and spending God only knows how much blood and treasure to make them a first-rate regional power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or American exceptionalism.

 

I see no reason to apologize for nuking Japan.

Apologize to South Vietnam?  Sure, since we didn't help them win.  Coincidentally, the nation that exists beat us.  So I wouldn't apologize.

Apologies, when unnecessary, shows weakness on the world stage.  YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Conservatives on the other hand deal with the future. What's better for tomorrow. Yes, they lose sight of empathy and compassion, which is why niether side can function without the other. But they are also accepting of the reality today for the promise of a better reality tomorrow.

The climate being the exception to that rule, I guess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

Hardly. More like choosing a) bit of a brawler that undoubtedly needs guidance but when push comes to shove, he's down to throw some punches and reshuffle the cards, because "we're America bit$%" vs. b) quiet, professorial type who judges you for the occasional 'Merica. Because in his mind, we're an illegitimate country founded by white racists. 

That pointless exercise aside, serious question. You think dropping the A-Bomb on Japan was a mistake? Something that we should have to apologize for almost 60 years later, despite rebuilding the country and spending God only knows how much blood and treasure to make them a first-rate regional power?

The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the A-bomb.  The A-bomb was our middle finger to Russia.

 

Illegitimate country founded by white racists, got it.  You have a good day...

Edited by Snooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:
10 hours ago, Vertigo said:
The climate being the exception to that rule, I guess?

You have to believe the threat, which I do not.

Some still prefer to fly by the seat of their pants rather than trust their instruments (I.e. empirical data presented in front of them). More often than not, this doesn’t end well. Oh, and I understand that there may be an instrument that sometimes tells you something different (some data doesn’t jive).  That’s why you scan all the instruments. Sometimes you have to throw the bad one out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some still prefer to fly by the seat of their pants rather than trust their instruments (I.e. empirical data presented in front of them). More often than not, this doesn’t end well. Oh, and I understand that there may be an instrument that sometimes tells you something different (some data doesn’t jive).  That’s why you scan all the instruments. Sometimes you have to throw the bad one out.
Funny thing though, if all of the instruments rely on one single sensor to function, a systemic failure is more likely.

The thousands of scientists that form the consensus on climate change rely on temperature data from only three sources. Data that has been heavily and repeatedly revised over the years, and always towards supporting the popular theory. For example, using ship bilge temperature data instead of more accurate bouy data. Or how a well documented temperature spike in the middle of the 20th century had been slowly disappearing from the data sets despite no new data from that time. I could go into more examples of illogical temperature station changes that have been exposed, but it's not my job to do the research for you.

When a global warming model successfully predicts the future climate, maybe I'll give it a fresh consideration. Until then, I'll file it with the "guaranteed" catastrophes of global cooling and overpopulation that enjoyed "scientific consensus" in their day.
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 12, 2018 at 6:07 PM, 17D_guy said:

Interesting.  I guess by that you mean something like having the gov't say Insurance couldn't deny people with pre-existing conditions is "further regulation." 

That is exactly what I meaon by further regulation.  Health "insurance" stopped being "insurance" when the government forced people to enter into business where the business was forced to cover things it didn't want to cover.

Here's a simple analogy you should be able to understand: Homeowners insurance.  If the government forced the insurance business to take a new customer whose house had been burnt down last week and then also forced the insurance company to pay to replace this home after the fact...and then also force me to do business with said insurance company, then this is no longer insurance.  It's government mandating that homeowners with insurance who have not had their house burnt down pay for someone's house who didn't pay into the insurance pool before it burnt down.  Or even worse, forcing a homeowner who didn't want insurance to pay for the guy whose house burnt down.  Like I said, this is not insurance.

As for the rest of your post (which came across as quite emotional by the way), I'll gladly respond once we can understand each other as to what is and isn't insurance.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2016/11/01/why-should-the-young-and-the-healthy-bail-out-of-obamacare/#309d294f1f69

Edited by HeloDude
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Funny thing though, if all of the instruments rely on one single sensor to function, a systemic failure is more likely.

The thousands of scientists that form the consensus on climate change rely on temperature data from only three sources. Data that has been heavily and repeatedly revised over the years, and always towards supporting the popular theory. For example, using ship bilge temperature data instead of more accurate bouy data. Or how a well documented temperature spike in the middle of the 20th century had been slowly disappearing from the data sets despite no new data from that time. I could go into more examples of illogical temperature station changes that have been exposed, but it's not my job to do the research for you.

When a global warming model successfully predicts the future climate, maybe I'll give it a fresh consideration. Until then, I'll file it with the "guaranteed" catastrophes of global cooling and overpopulation that enjoyed "scientific consensus" in their day.

I hear you.  I really do. But do some research on the whole ship temperature thing and why it was revised. It makes sense. I admit I’m no expert in the field. That’s why I choose to trust the experts.  It’s that whole “nine out of ten doctors recommend” thing. I usually don’t trust the outlier. Problem is, these days everybody’s an internet expert and thinks they’re entitled to their own little version of reality. If we can’t agree on the facts, we are truly in trouble. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hear you.  I really do. But do some research on the whole ship temperature thing and why it was revised. It makes sense. I admit I’m no expert in the field. That’s why I choose to trust the experts.  It’s that whole “nine out of ten doctors recommend” thing. I usually don’t trust the outlier. Problem is, these days everybody’s an internet expert and thinks they’re entitled to their own little version of reality. If we can’t agree on the facts, we are truly in trouble. 

Lol, I have read the data, and analysis. Using ship data was insane. Look at it this way. Don't you think it's odd that the adjustments to imperfect instruments always seem to work in the direction of the proposed theory? If you look at the adjustments made to weather stations, old temps get revised down and newer readings go up, even for stations that have had no surrounding infrastructure changes or equipment modifications.

 

Similar to how satellite data, by far the most accurate measure of global temps, doesn't paint the nightmare scenario the true believers would have you believe.

 

Where's the flooding? Super storms? Extinct polar bears? Hell, where's the predicted temperature increases?

 

How many forecasts have to fail before you doubt the premise? How many scientists need to get caught bending the established rules of science? You should never trust a theory that demands the end of debate. Ask Judith Curry, she's a much better source than I am.

 

I could be wrong. But the difference is that you trust the experts. I choose to read their literature, and it is lacking.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Prozac said:

If we can’t agree on the facts, we are truly in trouble. 

We can’t, and we are.

this is preceisly why open minded debate is so important.  By the way, we’ve never had a public reckoning with past scientific certainties that turned out false: I recall being taught that acid rain would destroy crops by 1990 and the world would starve.  How about that hole in the ozone layer 80s kids were forced to fear?  “Every expert agrees this scary thing will happen soon, no time for questions, do what we say now!” has been a progressive TTP for a long time.

Listening to each other politely and crafting arguments that convince is hard.  Squashing disagreement and ordering compliance via fiat is easy.  Which method would you prefer to be used on you?  

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×