In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
The US oil price has fallen below the symbolic threshold of $50 a barrel for the first time since April 2009.
The price of Brent crude also fell on Monday, dipping more than 6% to trade at below $53 a barrel.
The price of both Brent crude and US oil, known as West Texas Intermediate crude, have now lost more than half of their value since mid-2014.
Investors are worried that combination of a global supply glut and weak demand could cause prices to tumble further.
US oil production has soared recently, as fracking - or the process of extracting oil from shale rock by injecting fluids into the ground - has revolutionised oil production in the country, transforming US states such as North Dakota and Pennsylvania in the process.
However, the increase in production has come just as economies across the world - from Europe to China - have slowed their once voracious demand for oil.
this "harvard professors are against the ACA" seems more like a storm in a teacup.
First, let's get one fact out of the way: the Harvard plan is still really generous. Professors will have better, more robust insurance coverage than most other people who get insurance at work. And they'll definitely have better plans than the people buying coverage through Obamacare's marketplace.
On January 06 2015 05:00 tadL wrote: I hope all that are against this are rich as hell or never get really sick. Because if no your country will let you die. And you are betting on this I hope you know it. You bet that you will never get really sick, I would not want to do this. Sorry I don't understand that you even argue about it. Its something good! You had a healthcare system once and it got destroyed for the sake of profit. That greedy people can make more money from you people. And not because its in your best interest.
Imagine a place where you get cancer. lets say you served in your military and they used nuclear munition and did not tell the soldiers to stay away from places where this munition got used (should sound familiar right?). for example a destroyed tank. you come home, you get cancer because you wanted to take a selfi, maybe keep something as a trophy. You can go to your doctor and you will get all the help you want and need. you will get cured and now comes the best. you will not loose your job, not loose your house because you need to pay the bills. all you had to do is pay a small amount that all can get help if they need it.
Or your girl is pregnant and there are complications. you can go to the doctor can get all the help the love of your life needs and the baby and your wife will arrive safe. you do not have to worry about money. your life goes on and you have not to pay a huge credit.
And yes that amuses me. But well you had kind of no chance because of the brainwashing you get since you are born. Healthcare is communist hrhrhrhr ^^
Just out of curiosity. Who can afford to get cancer and heard attack? I can? Can you?
You've bought into the idea that medical care without insurance has to be expensive. It doesn't. Pharmaceutical companies do everything in their power to keep prices high, and they can get away with it because people have insurance. It doesn't matter if none of their patients could afford their drugs because the insurance companies can. Get rid of insurance, and prices will fall. They'll have to because people would be unable to buy them at current prices. Then you need to consider patent law. Pharma companies repeatedly change the formula to their drugs right as the patent is about to expire. They change some non-active ingredients a little, and bam, they have a monopoly on that treatment again for another ~5 years.
Universal Healthcare and/or the ACA just reinforces these problems.
First question that I think we should be asking: Danglars, Millitron, and others opposed to ACA and socialized health care plans, can you please tell us if your employer or parents pay for your health care insurance? Are you insured outside of employer coverage?
Now back to the post:
Why do you equate having health insurance with buying drugs? Health insurance also covers the cost of surgery and chemotherapy. A health insurance system is already a free market creation as people are making the rational choice to pool their money to distribute risks. So what you're proposing is that the government step in to tell people that they can't spend their money however they want ie "to pool their money in an insurance system". Would you propose that vehicle insurance, farm crop insurance, life insurance, and other insurances be made illegal to justify the demand to drive down prices?
And universal health care does the opposite of driving down prices. It creates a single payer for the insurance. Doctors in Canada only have to deal with on transaction cost and they don't have to worry about their own debt collectors. And since the government acts as a monopsony for drugs, they can use their purchasing power to drive down prices, similar to Walmart using their monopsony power to drive down prices for the goods they buy.
I'm physically handicapped, I get medicaid. Chemotherapy is a drug treatment plan too btw.
Surgery might not be drugs, but it involves the use of equipment that is drastically inflated in price. Basically everything involved in medical care is. You know those yoga balls you can buy for $30? They're like $100 or more if you buy them from a therapy equipment catalog. They can get away with these insane prices because its not the patient paying. It's some multi-billion dollar insurance company. They can almost charge whatever they want.
On January 06 2015 05:00 tadL wrote: I hope all that are against this are rich as hell or never get really sick. Because if no your country will let you die. And you are betting on this I hope you know it. You bet that you will never get really sick, I would not want to do this. Sorry I don't understand that you even argue about it. Its something good! You had a healthcare system once and it got destroyed for the sake of profit. That greedy people can make more money from you people. And not because its in your best interest.
Imagine a place where you get cancer. lets say you served in your military and they used nuclear munition and did not tell the soldiers to stay away from places where this munition got used (should sound familiar right?). for example a destroyed tank. you come home, you get cancer because you wanted to take a selfi, maybe keep something as a trophy. You can go to your doctor and you will get all the help you want and need. you will get cured and now comes the best. you will not loose your job, not loose your house because you need to pay the bills. all you had to do is pay a small amount that all can get help if they need it.
Or your girl is pregnant and there are complications. you can go to the doctor can get all the help the love of your life needs and the baby and your wife will arrive safe. you do not have to worry about money. your life goes on and you have not to pay a huge credit.
And yes that amuses me. But well you had kind of no chance because of the brainwashing you get since you are born. Healthcare is communist hrhrhrhr ^^
Just out of curiosity. Who can afford to get cancer and heard attack? I can? Can you?
You've bought into the idea that medical care without insurance has to be expensive. It doesn't. Pharmaceutical companies do everything in their power to keep prices high, and they can get away with it because people have insurance. It doesn't matter if none of their patients could afford their drugs because the insurance companies can. Get rid of insurance, and prices will fall. They'll have to because people would be unable to buy them at current prices. Then you need to consider patent law. Pharma companies repeatedly change the formula to their drugs right as the patent is about to expire. They change some non-active ingredients a little, and bam, they have a monopoly on that treatment again for another ~5 years.
Universal Healthcare and/or the ACA just reinforces these problems.
The patent system is imperfect (isn't everything) but it does work pretty well. Most drugs are money-losers and R&D costs need to be financed somehow.
the patent system should be seen alongside other things, like doctor-pharma 'partnerships.' it is a fact that cost efficiency is taboo and not a lot of these 'research' actually return efficiency. merely new things to get monies.
I keep hearing about the Christie-Jones hug so I finally watched it and no one seems to be talking about what I thought were the funniest parts?
It looks like Jones looks right at Christie (offering a double high-five) and then just leaves him hanging. Then he boxes him out of the hug. After failing, Jones reaches for Christie's arm and attempts to remove it and push Christie away. +1 for wrist control -0.5 for grip though.
Also it reminds me of the "Drake with Basketball players" memes
First, let's get one fact out of the way: the Harvard plan is still really generous. Professors will have better, more robust insurance coverage than most other people who get insurance at work. And they'll definitely have better plans than the people buying coverage through Obamacare's marketplace.
Sure, but my point was never that Harvard's professors now have crummy coverage. The point is simply that they're upset by the changes. It is a microcosm of what's going on in the US. The majority of Americans pre-ACA were happy with their healthcare coverage. The ACA then made broad changes with the benefits mainly targeted at a minority of the population. That leaves quite a lot of people upset, and hence quite a lot of backlash.
On January 06 2015 06:50 Doublemint wrote: this "harvard professors are against the ACA" seems more like a storm in a teacup.
First, let's get one fact out of the way: the Harvard plan is still really generous. Professors will have better, more robust insurance coverage than most other people who get insurance at work. And they'll definitely have better plans than the people buying coverage through Obamacare's marketplace.
Sure, but my point was never that Harvard's professors now have crummy coverage. The point is simply that they're upset by the changes. It is a microcosm of what's going on in the US. The majority of Americans pre-ACA were happy with their healthcare coverage. The ACA then made broad changes with the benefits mainly targeted at a minority of the population. That leaves quite a lot of people upset, and hence quite a lot of backlash.
I can see how people that already had decent coverage might have fears and actual problems with the legislation, but since when are ~50 million uninsured people a minority...
On January 06 2015 06:50 Doublemint wrote: this "harvard professors are against the ACA" seems more like a storm in a teacup.
First, let's get one fact out of the way: the Harvard plan is still really generous. Professors will have better, more robust insurance coverage than most other people who get insurance at work. And they'll definitely have better plans than the people buying coverage through Obamacare's marketplace.
Sure, but my point was never that Harvard's professors now have crummy coverage. The point is simply that they're upset by the changes. It is a microcosm of what's going on in the US. The majority of Americans pre-ACA were happy with their healthcare coverage. The ACA then made broad changes with the benefits mainly targeted at a minority of the population. That leaves quite a lot of people upset, and hence quite a lot of backlash.
As you already stated, ACA is a brilliant scapegoat for why you're taking money out of your employees' pockets.
On January 06 2015 06:50 Doublemint wrote: this "harvard professors are against the ACA" seems more like a storm in a teacup.
First, let's get one fact out of the way: the Harvard plan is still really generous. Professors will have better, more robust insurance coverage than most other people who get insurance at work. And they'll definitely have better plans than the people buying coverage through Obamacare's marketplace.
Sure, but my point was never that Harvard's professors now have crummy coverage. The point is simply that they're upset by the changes. It is a microcosm of what's going on in the US. The majority of Americans pre-ACA were happy with their healthcare coverage. The ACA then made broad changes with the benefits mainly targeted at a minority of the population. That leaves quite a lot of people upset, and hence quite a lot of backlash.
I can see how people that already had decent coverage might have fears and actual problems with the legislation, but since when are ~50 million uninsured people a minority...
When the country's population is over 300 million.
Edit: Also, some people who are uninsured are uninsured by choice rather than because they can't afford it.
On January 06 2015 06:50 Doublemint wrote: this "harvard professors are against the ACA" seems more like a storm in a teacup.
First, let's get one fact out of the way: the Harvard plan is still really generous. Professors will have better, more robust insurance coverage than most other people who get insurance at work. And they'll definitely have better plans than the people buying coverage through Obamacare's marketplace.
Sure, but my point was never that Harvard's professors now have crummy coverage. The point is simply that they're upset by the changes. It is a microcosm of what's going on in the US. The majority of Americans pre-ACA were happy with their healthcare coverage. The ACA then made broad changes with the benefits mainly targeted at a minority of the population. That leaves quite a lot of people upset, and hence quite a lot of backlash.
I can see how people that already had decent coverage might have fears and actual problems with the legislation, but since when are ~50 million uninsured people a minority...
When the country's population is over 300 million.
Edit: Also, some people who are uninsured are uninsured by choice rather than because they can't afford it.
Covered by a 11 trillion dollar a year economy, Universal healthcare is pocket change.
On January 06 2015 06:50 Doublemint wrote: this "harvard professors are against the ACA" seems more like a storm in a teacup.
First, let's get one fact out of the way: the Harvard plan is still really generous. Professors will have better, more robust insurance coverage than most other people who get insurance at work. And they'll definitely have better plans than the people buying coverage through Obamacare's marketplace.
Sure, but my point was never that Harvard's professors now have crummy coverage. The point is simply that they're upset by the changes. It is a microcosm of what's going on in the US. The majority of Americans pre-ACA were happy with their healthcare coverage. The ACA then made broad changes with the benefits mainly targeted at a minority of the population. That leaves quite a lot of people upset, and hence quite a lot of backlash.
I can see how people that already had decent coverage might have fears and actual problems with the legislation, but since when are ~50 million uninsured people a minority...
When the country's population is over 300 million.
Edit: Also, some people who are uninsured are uninsured by choice rather than because they can't afford it.
well "choice" might go hand in hand with affordability. not to mention that it's a very stupid and expensive choice no matter what. who will go bankrupt or jump in to foot the bill? from the ER for example? kind of a vicious circle.
//edit: and what will the cost of the bankruptcy be? if a certain individual has a family?
On January 06 2015 06:50 Doublemint wrote: this "harvard professors are against the ACA" seems more like a storm in a teacup.
First, let's get one fact out of the way: the Harvard plan is still really generous. Professors will have better, more robust insurance coverage than most other people who get insurance at work. And they'll definitely have better plans than the people buying coverage through Obamacare's marketplace.
Sure, but my point was never that Harvard's professors now have crummy coverage. The point is simply that they're upset by the changes. It is a microcosm of what's going on in the US. The majority of Americans pre-ACA were happy with their healthcare coverage. The ACA then made broad changes with the benefits mainly targeted at a minority of the population. That leaves quite a lot of people upset, and hence quite a lot of backlash.
I can see how people that already had decent coverage might have fears and actual problems with the legislation, but since when are ~50 million uninsured people a minority...
When the country's population is over 300 million.
Edit: Also, some people who are uninsured are uninsured by choice rather than because they can't afford it.
well "choice" might go hand in hand with affordability. not to mention that it's a very stupid and expensive choice no matter what. who will go bankrupt or jump in to foot the bill? from the ER for example? kind of a vicious circle.
//edit: and what will the cost of the bankruptcy be? if a certain individual has a family?
The reason you have the mandate in the ACA is to get young, healthy people to buy health insurance w/o significant subsidies. Some uninsured are poor + sick, some young + healthly. The goal was, and is, to get both into the market to expand coverage w/o raising premiums.
Yes it is risky to go w/o insurance, but it is a rare risk. Most people won't have a major medical problem in a given year, particularly when they're young. If it does happen you can get hit with a big bill, though there's a limit to how hard they'll go after you for it, particularly if you are young or poor person without a lot of assets. Hospitals as a whole get stuck with billions in 'unreimbursed care' each year, meaning they take the hit and pass it on how they can.
On January 06 2015 06:50 Doublemint wrote: this "harvard professors are against the ACA" seems more like a storm in a teacup.
First, let's get one fact out of the way: the Harvard plan is still really generous. Professors will have better, more robust insurance coverage than most other people who get insurance at work. And they'll definitely have better plans than the people buying coverage through Obamacare's marketplace.
Sure, but my point was never that Harvard's professors now have crummy coverage. The point is simply that they're upset by the changes. It is a microcosm of what's going on in the US. The majority of Americans pre-ACA were happy with their healthcare coverage. The ACA then made broad changes with the benefits mainly targeted at a minority of the population. That leaves quite a lot of people upset, and hence quite a lot of backlash.
I can see how people that already had decent coverage might have fears and actual problems with the legislation, but since when are ~50 million uninsured people a minority...
When the country's population is over 300 million.
Edit: Also, some people who are uninsured are uninsured by choice rather than because they can't afford it.
well "choice" might go hand in hand with affordability. not to mention that it's a very stupid and expensive choice no matter what. who will go bankrupt or jump in to foot the bill? from the ER for example? kind of a vicious circle.
//edit: and what will the cost of the bankruptcy be? if a certain individual has a family?
The reason you have the mandate in the ACA is to get young, healthy people to buy health insurance w/o significant subsidies. Some uninsured are poor + sick, some young + healthly. The goal was, and is, to get both into the market to expand coverage w/o raising premiums.
Yes it is risky to go w/o insurance, but it is a rare risk. Most people won't have a major medical problem in a given year, particularly when they're young. If it does happen you can get hit with a big bill, though there's a limit to how hard they'll go after you for it, particularly if you are young or poor person without a lot of assets. Hospitals as a whole get stuck with billions in 'unreimbursed care' each year, meaning they take the hit and pass it on how they can.
but you do agree that this is a bad situation, right?
On January 06 2015 06:50 Doublemint wrote: this "harvard professors are against the ACA" seems more like a storm in a teacup.
First, let's get one fact out of the way: the Harvard plan is still really generous. Professors will have better, more robust insurance coverage than most other people who get insurance at work. And they'll definitely have better plans than the people buying coverage through Obamacare's marketplace.
Sure, but my point was never that Harvard's professors now have crummy coverage. The point is simply that they're upset by the changes. It is a microcosm of what's going on in the US. The majority of Americans pre-ACA were happy with their healthcare coverage. The ACA then made broad changes with the benefits mainly targeted at a minority of the population. That leaves quite a lot of people upset, and hence quite a lot of backlash.
I can see how people that already had decent coverage might have fears and actual problems with the legislation, but since when are ~50 million uninsured people a minority...
When the country's population is over 300 million.
Edit: Also, some people who are uninsured are uninsured by choice rather than because they can't afford it.
well "choice" might go hand in hand with affordability. not to mention that it's a very stupid and expensive choice no matter what. who will go bankrupt or jump in to foot the bill? from the ER for example? kind of a vicious circle.
//edit: and what will the cost of the bankruptcy be? if a certain individual has a family?
The reason you have the mandate in the ACA is to get young, healthy people to buy health insurance w/o significant subsidies. Some uninsured are poor + sick, some young + healthly. The goal was, and is, to get both into the market to expand coverage w/o raising premiums.
Yes it is risky to go w/o insurance, but it is a rare risk. Most people won't have a major medical problem in a given year, particularly when they're young. If it does happen you can get hit with a big bill, though there's a limit to how hard they'll go after you for it, particularly if you are young or poor person without a lot of assets. Hospitals as a whole get stuck with billions in 'unreimbursed care' each year, meaning they take the hit and pass it on how they can.
but you do agree that this is a bad situation, right?
I liked Ron Paul's idea. No ACA or universal healthcare, but anyone who absolutely cannot pay is covered in the form of tax breaks for the hospitals/doctors/pharma companies that treated them. You're free to get insurance if you want it, or not.
On January 06 2015 12:01 Millitron wrote: I liked Ron Paul's idea. No ACA or universal healthcare, but anyone who absolutely cannot pay is covered in the form of tax breaks for the hospitals/doctors/pharma companies that treated them. You're free to get insurance if you want it, or not.
No, we should just make medical debt stick after bankruptcy, just like student loans. Keep that market captive, keep the capital flowing, and make the deteriorating health of the american people the next cash cow.
On January 06 2015 05:00 tadL wrote: I hope all that are against this are rich as hell or never get really sick. Because if no your country will let you die. And you are betting on this I hope you know it. You bet that you will never get really sick, I would not want to do this. Sorry I don't understand that you even argue about it. Its something good! You had a healthcare system once and it got destroyed for the sake of profit. That greedy people can make more money from you people. And not because its in your best interest.
Imagine a place where you get cancer. lets say you served in your military and they used nuclear munition and did not tell the soldiers to stay away from places where this munition got used (should sound familiar right?). for example a destroyed tank. you come home, you get cancer because you wanted to take a selfi, maybe keep something as a trophy. You can go to your doctor and you will get all the help you want and need. you will get cured and now comes the best. you will not loose your job, not loose your house because you need to pay the bills. all you had to do is pay a small amount that all can get help if they need it.
Or your girl is pregnant and there are complications. you can go to the doctor can get all the help the love of your life needs and the baby and your wife will arrive safe. you do not have to worry about money. your life goes on and you have not to pay a huge credit.
And yes that amuses me. But well you had kind of no chance because of the brainwashing you get since you are born. Healthcare is communist hrhrhrhr ^^
Just out of curiosity. Who can afford to get cancer and heard attack? I can? Can you?
You've bought into the idea that medical care without insurance has to be expensive. It doesn't. Pharmaceutical companies do everything in their power to keep prices high, and they can get away with it because people have insurance. It doesn't matter if none of their patients could afford their drugs because the insurance companies can. Get rid of insurance, and prices will fall. They'll have to because people would be unable to buy them at current prices. Then you need to consider patent law. Pharma companies repeatedly change the formula to their drugs right as the patent is about to expire. They change some non-active ingredients a little, and bam, they have a monopoly on that treatment again for another ~5 years.
Universal Healthcare and/or the ACA just reinforces these problems.
Getting "rid of insurance" seems like a monumentally stupid idea. You would rather have everyone pay out of pocket for their own costs?
Your idea of how a pharma company uses patents to keep their prices high is a bit wonky. Changing the "non-active ingredients" a little might grant an extended period of patent protection, but the old formula still becomes available on time. It's not as if you can change the non-active ingredients to get another patent and extend protection while also preventing people from using the old formulation once the patent for that expires.
The scandal over Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise’s 2002 speech to a white supremacist group has so badly damaged his image inside the House Republican Conference that he faces serious questions over his political future, according to interviews with multiple aides and lawmakers — including some Scalise allies.
Scalise’s job as House majority whip remains safe – and Speaker John Boehner has publicly backed him — but he may be too toxic for some Republican circles. Top GOP aides and lawmakers question whether he’ll be able to raise funds, especially on trips to New York or Los Angeles. Senior figures within the party doubt that the corporate chieftains and rich donors who bankroll Republican candidates will give him money to keep campaign coffers filled. Others say it will be difficult for him to persuade lawmakers to support the House Republican agenda.
Rank-and-file GOP lawmakers, meanwhile, found themselves defending Scalise back home, a potentially fatal flaw for someone who wants to serve in leadership. Many of these lawmakers are faced with blistering editorials from hometown newspapers calling for Scalise to step down. Conservative activists like Mark Levin, Erick Erickson and Sarah Palin have all said he should be booted out of GOP leadership.
“As far as him going up to the Northeast, or going out to Los Angeles or San Francisco or Chicago, he’s damaged,” said a GOP lawmaker who asked not to be named. “This thing is still smoking. Nobody is really fanning the flames yet. … The thing that concerns me is that there are people who are still out there digging on this right now.”
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fiYAzmy.jpg)
