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 February 08 2017 12:48 cLutZ wrote: The ACA is a failure because it doesn't recognize the fundamental flaw with all of these systems: They are a tradeoff between cost, coverage, and innovation. You only get 2. A real free market would have bad coverage, but low cost and high innovation. The traditional single payer model sacrifices innovation (and basically free-rides on the American market for it). The American system has paid a very high cost for decent coverage and decent innovation.
you seriously think the insurance-provider system itself promotes innovation?
i'd say it creates pretty bad incentives for directing research.
The biggest thing that the American healthcare system promotes is better profits off of people's healthcare troubles.
I'd prefer a universal healthcare arrangement that is also open to private market competition. UHC is admittedly problematic in that a government with money troubles is going to have a sad time.
On February 08 2017 12:48 cLutZ wrote: The ACA is a failure because it doesn't recognize the fundamental flaw with all of these systems: They are a tradeoff between cost, coverage, and innovation. You only get 2. A real free market would have bad coverage, but low cost and high innovation. The traditional single payer model sacrifices innovation (and basically free-rides on the American market for it). The American system has paid a very high cost for decent coverage and decent innovation.
you seriously think the insurance-provider system itself promotes innovation?
i'd say it creates pretty bad incentives for directing research.
Depends on the insurance provider system. The American system is quite bad at promoting innovation compared to a free market (however, the actual profits involved make it better than any single payer market in the 1st world), but that is because of traditional low-deductibles, coverage of non-catastrophic events, mandates in coverage, state-level monopolies in actual provision of healthcare, mandates to provide care regardless of payment, regulations preventing below state-of-the-art level care, etc.
On February 08 2017 12:48 cLutZ wrote: The ACA is a failure because it doesn't recognize the fundamental flaw with all of these systems: They are a tradeoff between cost, coverage, and innovation. You only get 2. A real free market would have bad coverage, but low cost and high innovation. The traditional single payer model sacrifices innovation (and basically free-rides on the American market for it). The American system has paid a very high cost for decent coverage and decent innovation.
you seriously think the insurance-provider system itself promotes innovation?
i'd say it creates pretty bad incentives for directing research.
Depends on the insurance provider system. The American system is quite bad at promoting innovation compared to a free market (however, the actual profits involved make it better than any single payer market in the 1st world), but that is because of traditional low-deductibles, coverage of non-catastrophic events, mandates in coverage, state-level monopolies in actual provision of healthcare, mandates to provide care regardless of payment, regulations preventing below state-of-the-art level care, etc.
it's not really about the quantity of innovation per se
the degree to which healthcare resembles a market depends on the degree of patient control over the care product. elective procedures and the like for example are more 'free market' and the patient demand drives innovation.
insurance-hospital system on the other hand gives incentive to direct sale to providers (and providers/insurance get a cut from volume), this leads to a lot of inflationary bullshit and generally ineffective research. this is made worse by the fact that 70~80% of what passes through health insurance is chronic patients. these are the patients that get the expensive procedures and devices. this is basically the area that the current system over-incentivize but it's also just not very productive given the demographic affected. fat people who'd rather drive than walk basically
I have to say, specific prescriptions being advertised on TV is one of the most bullshit things I have ever seen with regards to healthcare. That's definitely not how it should work.
On February 08 2017 11:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Wouldn't the plaintiffs be able to use the fact that it actually is a Muslim ban and is only being worded differently in the media because of the backlash? The wording was done carefully for this very reason, it would be harder to overturn. Being that Obama only slowed down and didn't halt completely remains the key difference. If he had included Saudia Arabia or Pakistan or UAE it would be different I suppose. But it does nothing to try and sugarcoat it. It's a Muslim Ban and if it is granted, it will radicalize a lot of people.
A refugee pause causing terrorist radicalization must be the most islamophobic thing I've ever heard. Yeah pause immigration and this peaceful religion will suddenly turn murderous. It's insulting and any thinking person should feel insulted.
People are people and will react to feeling persecuted as people - particularly those put upon - do...
(that being said I'm not a big fan of Islam as a religion, and think they have (it has?) some serious catching up to do to adapt to the modern world..... just this particular statement I don't think is meant to imply what you took from it)
Yeah people are people, but if we're pointing at their religion to be a distinguishing factor, that's 100% bullseye islamophobia out here in California. I'd like a little equal application across the board when we're in the land that shouts "Most Muslims are peaceful" and "What we should really fear is the post-terror attack backlash against Muslims." Mr., if the religion's one Trump sound bite from the ISIS recruiting station, you really should re-examine your rhetoric. That is all.
On February 08 2017 13:28 LegalLord wrote: I have to say, specific prescriptions being advertised on TV is one of the most bullshit things I have ever seen with regards to healthcare. That's definitely not how it should work.
Bringing it back to what Clutz was talking about, better prescription ads on TV than no new meds being developed. The pace of innovation isn't constant as we pull the government involvement levers.
there's plenty of money in healthcare even with a government purchaser to fund innovation.
any sort of insurance scheme would not affect elective procedures and the new generation of diagnostic and personalized treatment etc. these are for rich people or mass market disruptors, models that do not depend on the insurance system.
the insurance system itself just incentivizes repetitive 'research' and research concentrated on chronic patients without much improvement in overall health outcome. as i said, redirecting resources rather than pursuing quantity in research would lead to improvement in outcomes.
Danglars, I'll take that as a statement towards me and make a brief reply. I go to school where it's probably 60% Muslim. One of the people I'm really close to is Muslim. I would give my life for that guy. What I'm saying is that rhetoric is enough for some people. Have you watched how galvanized the populace is with the stuff Trump says? Why can't it go the other way and drive them to radicalize?
On February 08 2017 12:31 kwizach wrote: Sanders' heart is in the right place with regards to single payer, but he's out of his depth when it comes to the details of the ACA, providing Cruz with the opportunity to mislead the audience on its costs and disadvantages. If Anthony Weiner had never joined twitter, he'd be wrecking Cruz right now.
Defending the ACA would be a worse use of time than advocating for Medicate for all. Cruz was right about private insurers doubling profits under the ACA and some of the other shortcomings, even if he distorted them and suggested absurd solutions.
Bottom line being, arguing for the ACA is a stupid thing for Democrats to do. More people support a medicare for all option than keeping or repealing the ACA. Why would Democrats want to fight for the ACA when they already won the argument with the American people about Medicare for all being the best choice moving forward.
Lamenting that no Democrat had the popularity and/or chutzpah to go out there and try to defend insurer profits doubling, or premiums going up, or keeping doctors/plans, or the other promises that didn't come true says a lot about the state of that wing of the Democratic party.
On February 08 2017 12:31 kwizach wrote: Sanders' heart is in the right place with regards to single payer, but he's out of his depth when it comes to the details of the ACA, providing Cruz with the opportunity to mislead the audience on its costs and disadvantages. If Anthony Weiner had never joined twitter, he'd be wrecking Cruz right now.
Defending the ACA would be a worse use of time than advocating for Medicate for all. Cruz was right about private insurers doubling profits under the ACA and some of the other shortcomings, even if he distorted them and suggested absurd solutions.
Bottom line being, arguing for the ACA is a stupid thing for Democrats to do. More people support a medicare for all option than keeping or repealing the ACA. Why would Democrats want to fight for the ACA when they already won the argument with the American people about Medicare for all being the best choice moving forward.
Lamenting that no Democrat had the popularity and/or chutzpah to go out there and try to defend insurer profits doubling, or premiums going up, or keeping doctors/plans, or the other promises that didn't come true says a lot about the state of that wing of the Democratic party.
you realize you can advocate for reforms WITHIN THE ACA if you want to argue against insurance and whatnot.
the idea is to argue that the ACA is a positive step for further reform, e.g. further expansion of medicaid. or it provides structures for future reforms such as when insurers have de facto monopolies, regulate them like utilities.
there is a lot of space in the ACA world for the sort of outcome you'd like to see, but no. gotta label the entire project a fraud because reasons.
On February 08 2017 12:31 kwizach wrote: Sanders' heart is in the right place with regards to single payer, but he's out of his depth when it comes to the details of the ACA, providing Cruz with the opportunity to mislead the audience on its costs and disadvantages. If Anthony Weiner had never joined twitter, he'd be wrecking Cruz right now.
Defending the ACA would be a worse use of time than advocating for Medicate for all. Cruz was right about private insurers doubling profits under the ACA and some of the other shortcomings, even if he distorted them and suggested absurd solutions.
Bottom line being, arguing for the ACA is a stupid thing for Democrats to do. More people support a medicare for all option than keeping or repealing the ACA. Why would Democrats want to fight for the ACA when they already won the argument with the American people about Medicare for all being the best choice moving forward.
Lamenting that no Democrat had the popularity and/or chutzpah to go out there and try to defend insurer profits doubling, or premiums going up, or keeping doctors/plans, or the other promises that didn't come true says a lot about the state of that wing of the Democratic party.
NORFOLK, VIRGINIATen times a year, the Naval Station Norfolk floods. The entry road swamps. Connecting roads become impassable. Crossing from one side of the base to the other becomes impossible. Dockside, floodwaters overtop the concrete piers, shorting power hookups to the mighty ships that are docked in the world’s largest naval base.
All it takes to cause such disarray these days is a full moon, which triggers exceptionally high tides.
Norfolk station is headquarters of the Atlantic fleet, and flooding already disrupts military readiness there and at other bases clustered around the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, officials say. Flooding will only worsen as the seas rise and the planet warms. Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the naval station was built. By 2100, Norfolk station will flood 280 times a year, according to one estimate by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
This visibly changing geography made Norfolk the natural poster child for the climate challenges confronting the Defense Department—and seems as good a setting as any to consider the fate of climate science and the military in the new political era in Washington that will set the bar for how climate science is pursued by the government.
The Defense Department has been planning for climate change for more than a decade, often in the face of roadblocks set up by climate science skeptics in Congress. In 2014 and again last year, Republicans in the House of Representatives added language to Defense Department spending bills prohibiting funds from being spent to plan or prepare for climate change. Terrorism is the greater threat, the authors of those prohibitions declared, and federal funding should be steered towards snuffing out ISIS instead. Both times, the restrictions were nullified by the Senate. It is too early to say whether efforts to bar defense spending on climate change will be tried again.
"That potential exists," says retired Marine Corps Brigadier General Stephen Cheney. "We'll see how strongly they feel about it, given the plethora of other challenges in front of the new administration."
The Defense Department assiduously avoids the politics of climate science debate, while pressing ahead.
“We don’t talk about climate change,” Capt. Dean VanderLey told visiting journalists in a tour of the base before the election. “We talk about sea-level rise. You can measure it.”
The Defense Department operates more than 555,000 facilities on 28 million acres of land with a replacement value of $850 billion, according to the Government Accountability Office. Some 1,200 military installations are in the United States. GAO auditors surveyed the military’s holdings in 2014 to assess the climate impacts. Their report, which drew little notice at the time, focused on 15 unidentified sites where sea-level rise and severe weather are damaging runways, roads, seawalls, and buildings.
In the Arctic, the region warming faster than anywhere else on Earth, the combination of melting sea ice, thawing permafrost and sea-level rise is eroding the Alaska shoreline enough to damage several Air Force radar early warning and communication installations. At one base, half a runway has given way to erosion, preventing large planes from using it. Damage to a seawall has allowed waves to wash onto the runway at another base. Thawing permafrost has also affected access to training areas.
In the West, drought has amplified the threat of wildfires and deluge has damaged roads, runways, and buildings at bases there. Wildfire in Alaska has interrupted training. Last year in California, fires threatened Camp Pendleton, the Marine Corps’ major West Coast base, which lies 48 miles north of San Diego, as well as Vandenberg Air Force Base, 65 miles north of Santa Barbara. A year’s worth of rain fell in 80 minutes at Fort Irwin in the Mojave Desert in California, causing $64 million in damage to 160 buildings, including barracks, roads, a bridge, and 11,000 feet of fencing.
The most daunting threat remains sea-level rise—on American shores and overseas in places like Korea, Singapore, and elsewhere in the Asia Pacific. An Air Force radar installation to help track space junk, built on an atoll in the Marshall Islands, at a cost of $1 billion, is projected to be underwater within two decades, the Associated Press reported.
On February 08 2017 12:31 kwizach wrote: Sanders' heart is in the right place with regards to single payer, but he's out of his depth when it comes to the details of the ACA, providing Cruz with the opportunity to mislead the audience on its costs and disadvantages. If Anthony Weiner had never joined twitter, he'd be wrecking Cruz right now.
Defending the ACA would be a worse use of time than advocating for Medicate for all. Cruz was right about private insurers doubling profits under the ACA and some of the other shortcomings, even if he distorted them and suggested absurd solutions.
Bottom line being, arguing for the ACA is a stupid thing for Democrats to do. More people support a medicare for all option than keeping or repealing the ACA. Why would Democrats want to fight for the ACA when they already won the argument with the American people about Medicare for all being the best choice moving forward.
Lamenting that no Democrat had the popularity and/or chutzpah to go out there and try to defend insurer profits doubling, or premiums going up, or keeping doctors/plans, or the other promises that didn't come true says a lot about the state of that wing of the Democratic party.
you realize you can advocate for reforms WITHIN THE ACA if you want to argue against insurance and whatnot.
What, in your opinion, is the advantage of tying an already majority supported idea (Medicare for all) to the majority opposed policy of Obamacare?
That seemed to be what Cruz was trying to do, not something that should be emulated by Democrats.
uh why does it have to be a majority opposed policy? why can't you advocate for it better, since millions of people's coverage, a lot of tax revenue and the like are at stake.
like for example, pointing out to poor white people that they are the single most salient group benefiting from obamacare. this is not some sort of unwinnable conflict.
given the fundamentals on why obamacare was opposed stridently by professional rightwing politics (hint, tax hike) why would you expect less opposition to a replacement system that would have to get money from somewhere (hint, rich people).
On February 08 2017 13:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Danglars, I'll take that as a statement towards me and make a brief reply. I go to school where it's probably 60% Muslim. One of the people I'm really close to is Muslim. I would give my life for that guy. What I'm saying is that rhetoric is enough for some people. Have you watched how galvanized the populace is with the stuff Trump says? Why can't it go the other way and drive them to radicalize?
Some people but not your friends? Have you asked them how likely they are to radicalize now that Trump's the president and dishing out immigration executive orders? I mean you're saying these things semi-seriously and expecting to be taken seriously. Or is all this islamophobic junk for the religion on the next planet over with coincidental naming? Farcical, absolutely farcical. And still mainstream Islamophobia that would give Trump a run for his money.
this old lady trying to raise awareness about the impending tide of predatory 'businesses' trump is about to unleash upon the land and you are here mocking her for some age related ailment. quality stuff really.
On February 08 2017 13:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Danglars, I'll take that as a statement towards me and make a brief reply. I go to school where it's probably 60% Muslim. One of the people I'm really close to is Muslim. I would give my life for that guy. What I'm saying is that rhetoric is enough for some people. Have you watched how galvanized the populace is with the stuff Trump says? Why can't it go the other way and drive them to radicalize?
Some people but not your friends? Have you asked them how likely they are to radicalize now that Trump's the president and dishing out immigration executive orders? I mean you're saying these things semi-seriously and expecting to be taken seriously. Or is all this islamophobic junk for the religion on the next planet over with coincidental naming? Farcical, absolutely farcical. And still mainstream Islamophobia that would give Trump a run for his money.
Given that very few of the people in the United States who follow the religion of Islam are radicalised in any case, the argument you're making here is unsound.
@Danglars: Do you think that legislation/executive orders/etc introduced by the United States which is intended to restrict the ability of Muslim people to do things is going to make any Muslims more sympathetic to the United States?
EPT
