US Politics Mega-thread - Page 353

On July 25 2013 06:52 Gorsameth wrote:

The thing is if thats the argument of a doctor they should be ashamed. The damage to our wallet is to great!

Why Obamacare is needed is because it allows everyone to get healthcare. Doesnt matter if your poor. You get healthcare. If you get into an accident you will not go bankrupt. If you get sick you will be able to get treated and go back to work.

The main goal of universal healthcare is to allow everyone access to "basic" medical needs.

That said if its really paying hospitals set amounts per patient its dumb. The insurance company needs to pays the hospital for its treatments not how many people walked through the door.

On July 25 2013 06:56 Klondikebar wrote:


This is the exact dumb fuckery I tried to address and yet someone STILL had to go acting like they're making a point.

They aren't whining that they'll make less money. They're worried that it creates a money based incentive to provide less comprehensive care. Doctors are humans. Faulting them for responding to incentives is moronic. Until we have bacta tanks and medical droids you need to design your healthcare system with humans in mind.

People need to quit slamming on doctors just because they wanna make money. Everyone wants to make money. These doctors are at least trying to make sure that more money goes to providing better care instead of worse care.

On July 25 2013 06:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Link

Liberals, here's your chance to do the right thing and attack doctors

On July 25 2013 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:

Yes i still being it up because saying Obamacare should be repealed because it creates bad incentives while ignoring that it provides basic healthcare to everyone is fooling. There is such a thing as cost/benefit. Besides think on the other angle. Insurance companies are the once's paying the hospitals. If they give bad advise/treatment to try and be cheap that person will just need more and more treatment. Treatment the insurance company has to pay for. It creates oversight where the insurance companies want people to get healthy because if there not they cost more money while the insurance still receives the same.

On July 25 2013 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:

Yes i still being it up because saying Obamacare should be repealed because it creates bad incentives while ignoring that it provides basic healthcare to everyone is fooling. There is such a thing as cost/benefit. Besides think on the other angle. Insurance companies are the once's paying the hospitals. If they give bad advise/treatment to try and be cheap that person will just need more and more treatment. Treatment the insurance company has to pay for. It creates oversight where the insurance companies want people to get healthy because if there not they cost more money while the insurance still receives the same.

House Speaker John Boehner signaled a clash with the White House and the Democratic-led Senate over raising the U.S. borrowing authority later this year.

Congressional Republicans are staking their ground in fiscal negotiations that once again could pose the threat of default or a government shutdown -- the recurring theme surrounding efforts to reduce the nation’s deficit since 2011.

“We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending,” Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters in Washington yesterday. President Barack Obama and Senate leaders are refusing to accept anything short of a clean debt-limit increase.

On July 25 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:

Source

You have to be fucking kidding me. The House GOP is without an adult in their ranks it seems.

On July 24 2013 13:23 Danglars wrote:
So it's the mean old rich guys in their country clubs stopping what should be quick integration. That's quite an indictment of the Ellis Island days, where foreigners coming with just their suitcases were earning profits and integrated in a generation. It wasn't an era of free English lessons and nice housing. That had to be worked for.

Those welfare programs, the housing projects, and the rest have been a hindrance. I mean the free English lessons are available in a generation, known as public schools (though much can be done to free those from mediocrity and worse). Open borders and the principal of giving immigrants legit jobs and nice housing? Who's doing the giving and how? Heck, with unemployment being what it is, you can't even give American citizens legit jobs and nice housing, let alone open up the border to give others it too.

It is, however, nice to see the left squirm a little.

On July 25 2013 10:19 oneofthem wrote:
if the replacement of obamacare is something better designed to curb cost and provide care, (read, less leverage for insurance, more cost accounting to patients so hospitals make cost consciousness a priority) then by all means repeal it.

Arizona does not have enough sunshine. It needs to ration that precious resource.

There’s no other explanation for the latest proposal from Arizona Public Service, Arizona’s largest electric utility. On July 12, it announced a plan to drastically change net-metering, the way in which homeowners and businesses with solar rooftops sell excess power back to the grid. Net-metering is the foundation for all solar leasing; without it, solar companies can’t entice homeowners with the promise of “cut your electric bill, no money down” but instead would rely on sales of expensive systems.

The proposal would slap existing solar-paneled homeowners with a fee of up to $100 per month for the privilege of selling excess power back to APS. If you own a home and don’t already have solar panels, no sun for you! You can never share in net-metering as we know it.

The APS proposal has Arizonans up in arms—a pro-solar rally on July 16 drew hundreds of people to stand outside, hogging that sunshine and keeping it from reaching roofs. After all, net-metering challenges a government monopoly. It’s made with American ingenuity. The alternative is a costly boondoggle of centrally regulated authority.

In this classic fight of freedom from big government, it’s no wonder that Barry Goldwater, Jr. supports solar—uh, wait? Yes, the son of the 1964 Presidential candidate fights for solar power because, as a conservative, he wants a free market, not a monopoly.

Why is Arizona suddenly so opposed to solar energy? The state consumes its electricity 50 percent in the form of coal, and two percent in the form of sunshine. Much of its coal is imported from Colorado and points north, turned into electricity at Four Corners and other massive coal plants, and exported to California—an approach that only makes sense to fans of Rube Goldberg devices. It has some utility-scale solar plants, with more planned, but again much of its power is bought by California’s hungry utilities.

With as much sunshine as we enjoy here in Arizona, solar power can and should have a bright and long future in our state.

As a national leader in utility-scale solar, Arizona Public Service Co. can help make Arizona the solar capital of America. We see a future of rapidly increasing adoption of solar power — where individual customers can “go solar” by putting solar panels on their homes and businesses, and where large-scale solar plants provide more solar energy to more customers at a competitive price.

Our responsibility is to make sure the electricity grid is in place to support that goal. Today’s roof-top solar customers benefit from a reliable grid that is there whenever they need it — at night, in the rain, or when it is so hot that they need more power to run their air-conditioners.

These solar customers also use the grid to sell power when they have more than they can use.

The grid helps them ensure that they have the power they need, whenever they need it.

As more people install solar on their homes, it becomes more important that everyone who uses the grid helps cover the costs of keeping it operating at all times.

Under the current rules, roof-top solar customers benefit from a reliable grid, but use it at little to no cost. As a result, customers who can’t afford, can’t install or simply don’t want roof-top solar pay more.

After a series of public meetings, we have submitted a recommendation to the Arizona Corporation Commission that would update the current policy — called “net metering” — so that future customers who choose roof-top solar get compensated at a fair rate for the power they generate and also pay a fair price for their use of the grid.

APS has offered two potential approaches for the Commission to consider:

The net-metering option continues the practice and asks future roof-top solar customers to pay a fair price for their use of the grid based on how much power they use.

The “bill credit” option gives future roof-top solar customers a bill credit for the electricity they generate, at a price set by the Commission and based on the rate APS pays other generators for power.

Customers who have already made the choice to install roof-top solar will not be affected by this change.

These customers will be “grandfathered” for 20 years.

At the same time, we voiced our support to increase the cash incentive for future customers who want the choice of roof-top solar. Incentives decrease the upfront cost of installation or allow customers to make a bigger down payment on a lease.

This bigger down payment translates into a lower monthly lease payment, which can help offset what customers would pay for their use of the grid. These incentives are the most effective way to make solar an affordable option for more customers.

Solar power is vital to the future of Arizona and the nation. It promotes energy independence, fuel diversity and job creation. It gives customers important choices.

Our plan is a fair approach that allows solar to flourish for all people in Arizona over the long term and protects the reliable electrical service we all use every day.