Healthcare without pre-existing conditions is idiotic and pointless. Its like healthcare without cancer treatment or something. Its just dumb.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 468
Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Healthcare without pre-existing conditions is idiotic and pointless. Its like healthcare without cancer treatment or something. Its just dumb. | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 24 2013 22:01 DoubleReed wrote: Why do people say it will raise costs right after I link to two CBO studies saying the exact opposite? Different cost definitions, I think. e.g. the cost of healthcare overall is different from premium costs or costs to the government. | ||
Melliflue
United Kingdom1389 Posts
On September 24 2013 14:30 Danglars wrote: Pre-existing conditions jack up rates. You're taking on a high-cost patient and lo-and-behold, it costs more. Subsidizing these rates with healthy people is a complex issue and Obamacare's fix is nowhere close to fixing the problems. It heavily underestimates costs. PCIP is running out of money, its costs have been 2.5 times higher than anticipated.(annual report) If you can't accurately predict the plan's enrollment, or the plan's costs, it casts doubts all over how well your fix is going to work. And if you let the insurance companies drop somebody when they become ill then I'm sure the rates would become even lower. Everything falls on the scale of how much medical bills are spread out over the population. On the one extreme everyone pays their own bills. On the other is a single-payer system. Healthy people pay less the closer the system is to 'everyone for themselves' and fewer people get bankrupted by medical bills closer to the 'single-payer' system. I had the impression that Obamacare was a compromise because Democrats wanted something closer to a single-payer system but knew that it was not politically feasible. | ||
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) compared Tea Party Republicans to Thelma and Louise for their "foolhardy plan to drive the economy off the cliff" by risking a government shutdown over ObamaCare. In this drama, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is Louise, foot on the accelerator. The more moderate members of his party are like Harvey Keitel, watching in horror from a distance. From a certain standpoint, there would appear to be no method to Cruz's madness. First, there is no scenario in which Senate Democrats and Obama accept a budget that defunds ObamaCare. Second, a government shutdown would not derail the health care law. And finally, Cruz has found himself in the strange position of trying to convince Senate Republicans to filibuster a bill he himself endorses, to prevent Reid from stripping a resolution defunding ObamaCare. But in the world of Republican politics, Cruz may be playing to his strengths, particularly as they apply to a potential 2016 presidential run. So is Ted Cruz brilliant or deranged? Let's analyze the political wisdom of Cruz's recent actions. He's a genius A new CNBC poll shows that most Americans are against defunding ObamaCare if it involves a government shutdown. Another poll by Pew Research shows that most people will blame Republicans if a shutdown happens. But Cruz doesn't care what angry voters in New York or California think. He cares about what his Tea Party base thinks. And they are the only demographic in the CNBC poll who favored defunding ObamaCare even if it means the government shuts down on Oct. 1. To see these polls through the eyes of Cruz, "imagine what those numbers look like in Republican seats that are largely whiter and more rural than the rest of the country," writes Slate's David Weigel. When your main concern is the prospect of a well-funded Tea Party challenger in a GOP primary, driving off a cliff makes more sense. Even his failure to propose meaningful legislation is considered a political plus. "He seems content accomplishing nothing because, in Cruz's view of the federal government, nothing is the accomplishment," writes GQ's Jason Zengerle, who contrasts Cruz with Florida's Marco Rubio, a once promising Republican senator who took a huge hit from his base after supporting an immigration reform overhaul that stalled in the House. By simultaneously sitting on the sidelines and putting intense pressure on his colleagues to oppose things like ObamaCare and immigration, Cruz scores political points without putting his name on legislation conservative opponents can latch onto. As for his take-no-prisoners approach on defunding ObamaCare, he has earned high praise from other Tea Party favorites, most notably former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. "Right now, Ted Cruz is speaking for us in this Obamacare fight," she says at Breitbart. "God bless him for it." He's an idiot While Cruz is great at "burnishing his credentials as someone who doesn't know or care about the ways of Washington," write The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan, his lack of tact with his Republican colleagues could hurt him in the long run. "For those who would dismiss the importance of the inside game," Cillizza and Sullivan warn, "remember that while your own party establishment probably can't keep you from a presidential nomination, they can make it a heck of a lot harder to win one." Then there's the damage Cruz is doing to the GOP brand, which would come back to hurt him if he ever wins a GOP presidential primary. "The self-promotional babble of a few has become the mainstream of Republican political thought," argues former Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) at The Hill. "It has marginalized the influence of the party to an appalling degree." "The rigid stance will also cause massive collateral damage to all Republicans," Gregg continues. "Even those who may not support it will be harmed by the label of incompetence that will stick to the whole party as a consequence." Some of Cruz's Republican colleagues in the Senate have been similarly critical of his strategy, like Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who mocked Cruz's Ivy League pedigree by saying, "I didn't go to Harvard or Princeton, but I can count — the defunding box canyon is a tactic that will fail and weaken our position." In the end, criticism probably won't have much impact on Cruz. "He has come to the reluctant but unavoidable conclusion that he is simply more intelligent, more principled, more right — in both senses of the word — than pretty much everyone else in our nation's capital," GQ's Zengerle says. "Then there's the damage Cruz is doing to the GOP brand, which would come back to hurt him if he ever wins a GOP presidential primary. The self-promotional babble of a few has become the mainstream of Republican political thought," argues former Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) at The Hill. "It has marginalized the influence of the party to an appalling degree.'" I realized something when the New Hampshire Senator mentioned Tea Partiers hurting the national party; since when have Republicans ever cared about the good of the whole anyways? Oh the irony. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON -- The Senate made history on Tuesday by voting to confirm Todd Hughes to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Hughes, who was confirmed 98 to 0, is the nation's first openly gay circuit judge. He has been a deputy director in the civil division of the Justice Department since 2007. Unlike some of President Barack Obama's other key judicial nominees -- namely those for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals -- Hughes cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee with a unanimous vote. With Hughes now confirmed, that leaves 13 judicial nominees awaiting Senate votes: two D.C. Circuit Court nominees and 11 district court nominees. Many of those nominees will likely sail to confirmation after their votes in the Senate. But Republicans are holding up the votes, allowing them proceed at a pace of about one to two nominees per week, said a senior Democratic aide. Before Obama came into office, the Senate used to clear the calendar of non-controversial judicial nominees at the end of every work period, said the aide, but Republicans "won't do that anymore." Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), pushed back on the idea that Republicans are holding up anyone. Four of the 13 nominees were only reported out of committee last week, he said, and the others were reported out within two weeks of the August recess. Source On the Senate floor Tuesday, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) criticized the plan of Ted Cruz and others to filibuster the House-passed government spending bill that defunds Obamacare. "I just don't happen to think filibustering a bill that defunds Obamacare is the best route to defunding Obamacare," McConnell said. "All it does is shut down the government and keep Obamacare funded, and none of us want that. That would be the results of filibustering." The offices of McConnell and Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) both said Monday that they would not support Cruz's filibuster effort, uniting Senate GOP leadership against the strategy. Cruz has said that Senate Republicans should filibuster the House bill until Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-NV) agrees to a 60-vote threshold for any motion that removes the defund language. Source | ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21354 Posts
"We will filibuster our own proposal until you break regulations and impose an artificially high limit to changing the bill that is so high you cant change it". Yep.... that sounds retarded. The senate needs a 51-vote threshold to change it, maybe Cruz should have done some basic math before whining at the House to pass this. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has floated an odd backup plan to fund the government in piecemeal measures if Senate Democrats refuse to pass the legislation that contains a provision to defund Obamacare. "If Harry Reid kills this bill in it the Senate, I think the House should hold its ground, and should begin passing smaller resolutions one department at a time," Cruz said on Fox News Sunday. "It should start, continuing resolution focused on the military -- fund the military, send it over, and let's see it Harry Reid is willing to shut down the military because he wants to force Obamacare on the American people." Senate Republicans, most notably Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), aren't going along with Cruz's push to block a continuing resolution in order to force Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to back down on the health care reform law. But there remains the possibility of a shutdown when funding expires next week on Sept. 30 because the Senate and House have yet to settle on a solution. Cruz's answer is one that's a nonstarter -- to the extent that the strategy makes any sense to begin with. A senior House GOP aide mocked Cruz for suggesting the idea. "I don't know how the Senator makes it down a flight of stairs, because he's completely incapable of thinking one step ahead," said the Republican aide. Source | ||
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On September 24 2013 22:01 DoubleReed wrote: Why do people say it will raise costs right after I link to two CBO studies saying the exact opposite? Healthcare without pre-existing conditions is idiotic and pointless. Its like healthcare without cancer treatment or something. Its just dumb. we don't need to just not raise costs, we need to slash them. Our medical sector is bloated and horribly inefficient, because privatized insurance is a horrible thing and this law is just a ptolemization of an already terrible system. | ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On September 25 2013 03:45 sam!zdat wrote: we don't need to just not raise costs, we need to slash them. Our medical sector is bloated and horribly inefficient, because privatized insurance is a horrible thing and this law is just a ptolemization of an already terrible system. Welcome to nominal wage/price rigidity. For the most part, the best way to lower costs is to make it grow slower than inflation+economy. | ||
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On September 25 2013 03:02 Gorsameth wrote: Ah Republicans. "We will filibuster our own proposal until you break regulations and impose an artificially high limit to changing the bill that is so high you cant change it". Yep.... that sounds retarded. The senate needs a 51-vote threshold to change it, maybe Cruz should have done some basic math before whining at the House to pass this. How is that retarded? Other than being something that would make the Democratic Senators lives difficult? Cruz did do the math, that's why he's calling for a filibuster. Honestly, this idea that we're all too dumb to understand what's going on here is really insulting. And the fact that you all are pretty much openly lying about what's going on, despite being usually pretty respectable posters on this forum, speaks volumes. | ||
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On September 25 2013 03:52 aksfjh wrote: Welcome to nominal wage/price rigidity. For the most part, the best way to lower costs is to make it grow slower than inflation+economy. no the best way to fix it is to have socialized medicine like a civilized ountry and kick the fucking private insurance companies ballooning everything to the curb. Also make people eat better and exercise and stuff so they don't get as sick | ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On September 25 2013 04:15 sam!zdat wrote: no the best way to fix it is to have socialized medicine like a civilized ountry and kick the fucking private insurance companies ballooning everything to the curb. Also make people eat better and exercise and stuff so they don't get as sick Well yea, that first part would be "best," but unrealistic today. The latter is hard to do due to personal freedom and whatnot. | ||
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
Adila
United States874 Posts
On September 25 2013 04:10 sc2superfan101 wrote: How is that retarded? Other than being something that would make the Democratic Senators lives difficult? Cruz did do the math, that's why he's calling for a filibuster. Honestly, this idea that we're all too dumb to understand what's going on here is really insulting. And the fact that you all are pretty much openly lying about what's going on, despite being usually pretty respectable posters on this forum, speaks volumes. Then he should just shut up and filibuster it already instead of trying to come up with all these ridiculous alternatives that will NEVER EVER HAPPEN while Obama is still President of the USA. I could easily come up with as many half-assed "brilliant" ideas as him but unfortunately I don't get paid by taxpayers to waste oxygen. | ||
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
![]() | ||
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On September 25 2013 04:38 Adila wrote: Then he should just shut up and filibuster it already You know damn well that he can't. That's what I'm talking about with posters on here openly lying. Being disingenuous to this degree is as dishonest as lying. | ||
kwizach
3658 Posts
On September 25 2013 05:43 sc2superfan101 wrote: You know damn well that he can't. That's what I'm talking about with posters on here openly lying. Being disingenuous to this degree is as dishonest as lying. The only one that's being disingenuous is Ted Cruz. He thought he could present himself as the anti-Obamacare flag bearer through rhetoric only, until the House actually passed the bill that he was asking for but actually thought (and hoped) he would not get. Since then, he's been desperately trying to find a way to simultaneously appear as the guy still fighting the hardest to repeal/defund Obamacare and avoid looking like the fraud that he is in terms of the political reality of the hopelessness of his fight. He's now tried to put to onus back on the House by calling on House republicans to pass piecemeal government funding bills. He's so transparent it's not even funny. | ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On September 25 2013 07:30 kwizach wrote: The only one that's being disingenuous is Ted Cruz. He thought he could present himself as the anti-Obamacare flag bearer through rhetoric only, until the House actually passed the bill that he was asking for but actually thought (and hoped) he would not get. Since then, he's been desperately trying to find a way to simultaneously appear as the guy still fighting the hardest to repeal/defund Obamacare and avoid looking like the fraud that he is in terms of the political reality of the hopelessness of his fight. He's now tried to put to onus back on the House by calling on House republicans to pass piecemeal government funding bills. He's so transparent it's not even funny. I don't see it like that. I see it as a guy that has no idea wtf he's doing in the Senate. He's burned every bridge since he got there through some naive notion that he could be a Tea Party hero. | ||
| ||