|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
On March 16 2015 03:27 zlefin wrote:
I'd like to figure out some good system that ensures all nominees get an up or down vote in a timely manner.
That doesn't sound too hard. It is just the Senate having the ability to set its own rules (Which, if you'll remember, Harry Reid did suspend philibuster rule while he was majority leader). Constitutional amendment etc with whatever system you consider good.
On March 16 2015 11:13 KwarK wrote:
Should have happened long ago.
If public opinion were some universal indicator of societal progress, I'd agree. I'd pretty old-fashioned with thousand-year-old institutions, but I tend to think interracial and homosexual marriage are fundamentally different topics with different objections. I understand many of the alternate persuasion did marry in hetero fashion (in oppressive, loveless marriages) quite differently than interracial marriages were prevented. I could've missed that check box on the marriage license, the state requiring affirmation of sexual orientation prior to marriage, to help put it closer to miscegenation.
|
On March 16 2015 11:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:
My favorite thing about the gay marriage issue is how quickly it's coming about. Lots of people assumed they could be bigots without being shamed any time soon once it's legal across the country. Turns out nope, happening pretty soon and everyone will be remembered for being against it. This is actually nonsense. ![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/marriage.png) "People often say that same-sex marriage now is like interracial marriage in the 60s. But in terms of public opinion, same-sex marriage now is like interracial marriage in the 90s, when it had already been legal nationwide for 30 years." Should have happened long ago.
Are these numbers for legal approval or personal approval? In this kind of thing, these are very different things for a lot of people.
|
On March 16 2015 14:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 03:27 zlefin wrote:
I'd like to figure out some good system that ensures all nominees get an up or down vote in a timely manner. That doesn't sound too hard. It is just the Senate having the ability to set its own rules (Which, if you'll remember, Harry Reid did suspend philibuster rule while he was majority leader). Constitutional amendment etc with whatever system you consider good. If public opinion were some universal indicator of societal progress, I'd agree. I'd pretty old-fashioned with thousand-year-old institutions, but I tend to think interracial and homosexual marriage are fundamentally different topics with different objections. I understand many of the alternate persuasion did marry in hetero fashion (in oppressive, loveless marriages) quite differently than interracial marriages were prevented. I could've missed that check box on the marriage license, the state requiring affirmation of sexual orientation prior to marriage, to help put it closer to miscegenation.
Wait what? Are you saying that Blacks could have just married other Blacks and therfore illegal interracial marriage was not a problem for them, the same way gay people married the only set they were legally allowed to, not because they loved them but because they had to keep up appearences/conform to society?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
part of these debates is often having to get the opponent to recognize the absurdity of their own logic at crucial points. when this is impossible it's pointless to try.
|
In a rare move, a Republican governor said the Supreme Court should uphold Obamacare against a major legal challenge that threatens to unravel the law by wiping out federal exchange subsidies in nearly three-dozen states.
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead said that although he opposes Obamacare, a defeat for the law in court would cause "a lot of turmoil" and leave states like his "scrambling," according to the Wyoming Tribune Eagle.
"If on June 30, if that’s when the case comes down, and they say no more subsidies for federal exchanges … it is going to cause a lot of turmoil," he said at a press conference, as quoted by the paper. "Not just for the state, and for those people, but for the private sector as well."
Mead added: "We will see what the decision is, and if the Supreme Court upholds the federal government’s position, that is one thing. If they don’t, I think we will be one of many, many states that will be scrambling, trying find an answer and seeing whether Congress can provide the statutory fix that would be needed."
Some Republican policy aides privately worry about the implications of such a ruling, given the enormous difficulty of passing a "fix" through Congress. But publicly Republicans overwhelmingly say the lawsuit should succeed. A decision in the case, King v. Burwell, is expected by the end of June.
Source
|
A total of 16.4 million non-elderly adults have gained health insurance coverage since the Affordable Care Act became law five years ago this month. It's a reduction in the ranks of the uninsured the the Department of Health and Human Services called historic.
Those gaining insurance since 2010 include 2.3 million young adults aged 18 to 26 who were able to remain on their parents' health insurance plus another 14.1 million adults who obtained coverage through expansions of the Medicaid program, new marketplace coverage and other sources, according to the report from the department released Monday.
Officials say the percentage of people without coverage has dropped about a third since 2012: from 20.3 percent to 13.2 percent in the first quarter of 2015.
"The Affordable Care Act is working to drive down the number of uninsured and the uninsured rate," Richard Frank, assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at HHS, told reporters. "Nothing since the implementation of Medicare and Medicaid has seen this kind of change."
Latinos, who traditionally have been least likely to have health coverage, have seen the largest drop in their uninsured rate, according to the report. The Latino uninsured rate fell 12.3 percentage points, from 41.8 percent to 29.5 percent. The uninsured rate for African Americans fell by nearly half, from 22.4 percent to 13.2 percent. The rate for non-Latino whites fell by just over 5 percentage points.
Source
|
On March 17 2015 05:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +A total of 16.4 million non-elderly adults have gained health insurance coverage since the Affordable Care Act became law five years ago this month. It's a reduction in the ranks of the uninsured the the Department of Health and Human Services called historic.
Those gaining insurance since 2010 include 2.3 million young adults aged 18 to 26 who were able to remain on their parents' health insurance plus another 14.1 million adults who obtained coverage through expansions of the Medicaid program, new marketplace coverage and other sources, according to the report from the department released Monday.
Officials say the percentage of people without coverage has dropped about a third since 2012: from 20.3 percent to 13.2 percent in the first quarter of 2015.
"The Affordable Care Act is working to drive down the number of uninsured and the uninsured rate," Richard Frank, assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at HHS, told reporters. "Nothing since the implementation of Medicare and Medicaid has seen this kind of change."
Latinos, who traditionally have been least likely to have health coverage, have seen the largest drop in their uninsured rate, according to the report. The Latino uninsured rate fell 12.3 percentage points, from 41.8 percent to 29.5 percent. The uninsured rate for African Americans fell by nearly half, from 22.4 percent to 13.2 percent. The rate for non-Latino whites fell by just over 5 percentage points. Source
Statistics? Proof that NPR has a liberal bias.
|
Anyone still claiming the US would be better off with the previous system than with the ACA?
|
On March 17 2015 11:48 kwizach wrote:
Anyone still claiming the US would be better off with the previous system than with the ACA?
A ton of people probably, either ideologically against it or against how this particular system is set up. I know that several of my relatives are against this system, though they mainly think its just a bad system that was half-baked and pushed through congress so fast that its flaws couldn't be ironed out. Though I think a lot of this is due to the haphazard debut and all the problems initially with the transition.
I have also seen people make arguments that it is a sham that is actually enriching the insurance industry or something like that.
I personally have always advocated waiting a bit to let it settle in and see how it actually works once it has gotten out of its "beta testing" type phase.
|
On March 17 2015 11:54 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 11:48 kwizach wrote:
Anyone still claiming the US would be better off with the previous system than with the ACA? A ton of people probably, either ideologically against it or against how this particular system is set up. I know that several of my relatives are against this system, though they mainly think its just a bad system that was half-baked and pushed through congress so fast that its flaws couldn't be ironed out. Though I think a lot of this is due to the haphazard debut and all the problems initially with the transition. I have also seen people make arguments that it is a sham that is actually enriching the insurance industry or something like that. I personally have always advocated waiting a bit to let it settle in and see how it actually works once it has gotten out of its "beta testing" type phase.
Oh, I totally believe a better system could be implemented: single payer  But my question was about comparing the ACA with what was there previously - I just don't see how one could conclude, based on the facts, that the US would be better off without the ACA and with the previous system instead.
|
On March 17 2015 11:54 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 11:48 kwizach wrote:
Anyone still claiming the US would be better off with the previous system than with the ACA? A ton of people probably, either ideologically against it or against how this particular system is set up. I know that several of my relatives are against this system, though they mainly think its just a bad system that was half-baked and pushed through congress so fast that its flaws couldn't be ironed out. Though I think a lot of this is due to the haphazard debut and all the problems initially with the transition. I have also seen people make arguments that it is a sham that is actually enriching the insurance industry or something like that. I personally have always advocated waiting a bit to let it settle in and see how it actually works once it has gotten out of its "beta testing" type phase.
Not many was arguing for keeping the existing system. Rather it was ACA would do more harm than good, as evidenced by the increase of premiums which hit many working class families as well as needing to change to different healthcare providers. The Obamacare was rushed, with zero transparency, and implemented poorly while wasting so much money.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
I'm no fan of the ACA, I think its basically just a big pork bill for insurance companies and big pharma.
But I always thought the whole "death panel" thing was hilarious. I can't believe nobody ever brought up the fact that we already had that. Instead of government bureaucrats deciding if grandma gets her life-saving treatment though, it was cost-benefit analysts at insurance companies. People were already being denied coverage.
|
Alright, attempted plane hijack at Dulles. Can we start paying attention to mental illness yet?
|
Facts an't got nothing to do with this here politics yall hear.
I'd rather with that they let states have more freedom with the health care exchange so that states like Minnesota can form a system that responds better to its needs then other states. Minnesota needs different languages and has a different demographic then say california or west virginia.
|
In the ever-expanding annals of Obama's foreign policy failures, anyone else notice all of the countries -- particularly traditional US allies -- starting negotiations to join China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank?
|
On March 17 2015 22:34 xDaunt wrote:
In the ever-expanding annals of Obama's foreign policy failures, anyone else notice all of the countries -- particularly traditional US allies -- starting negotiations to join China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank?
Paranoid much? Negotiating with the largest nation on earth to invest in infrastructure is good business, not abandoning the US, lol.
EDIT: aren't you neocons all about free market? Or does that come with a caveat: "insofar as you spend it to keep the US economy running"?
|
On March 17 2015 23:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 22:34 xDaunt wrote:
In the ever-expanding annals of Obama's foreign policy failures, anyone else notice all of the countries -- particularly traditional US allies -- starting negotiations to join China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank? Paranoid much? Negotiating with the largest nation on earth to invest in infrastructure is good business, not abandoning the US, lol.
You're missing the bigger picture. The AIIB is going to become an alternative to the current, US-dominated international financial institutions.
|
On March 17 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 23:53 Acrofales wrote:On March 17 2015 22:34 xDaunt wrote:
In the ever-expanding annals of Obama's foreign policy failures, anyone else notice all of the countries -- particularly traditional US allies -- starting negotiations to join China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank? Paranoid much? Negotiating with the largest nation on earth to invest in infrastructure is good business, not abandoning the US, lol. You're missing the bigger picture. The AIIB is going to become an alternative to the current, US-dominated international financial institutions.
Considering the current US-dominated international financial institutions tend to cause global financial depressions I don't see the problem.
|
On March 18 2015 00:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On March 17 2015 23:53 Acrofales wrote:On March 17 2015 22:34 xDaunt wrote:
In the ever-expanding annals of Obama's foreign policy failures, anyone else notice all of the countries -- particularly traditional US allies -- starting negotiations to join China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank? Paranoid much? Negotiating with the largest nation on earth to invest in infrastructure is good business, not abandoning the US, lol. You're missing the bigger picture. The AIIB is going to become an alternative to the current, US-dominated international financial institutions. Considering the current US-dominated international financial institutions tend to cause global financial depressions I don't see the problem.
From the perspective of American power, it is certainly a problem. But if we're to look at the current state of the global economy, the American financial institutions are in better shape than pretty much everyone else -- Japan, China, Europe, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
