|
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 07 2017 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 10:14 ChristianS wrote:On March 07 2017 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2017 04:44 ChristianS wrote:On March 07 2017 04:33 LegalLord wrote:
It does take a special amount of cognitive dissonance (or, at the very least, conflict of interest) to look at what transpired over the course of the Democratic primaries and conclude that it was all just peachy and great and well-done. I believe it about as much as I believe DWS saying post-resignation, "I did nothing wrong and just took one for the team guys!" Speaking of learning to scroll past the discussions that suck, should I just skip the next 5-10 pages? I don't remember the last time someone said something new in the "was Bernie cheated" debate, but it doesn't stop it from shitting up the thread every time it comes up. If someone brought up something the DNC did to screw Bernie, not just stuff they said in internal emails, that'd be new ground. They gave a person the top position at the DNC after they knew she had cheated for Hillary. She was replacing someone who resigned because as Reid put it “I knew — everybody knew — that this was not a fair deal,” he added.
Reid said outgoing DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't impartial during the Democratic primary. She wasn't impartial, but Hillary thought she should put her back on her team immediately. Seriously, maybe Bernie loses anyway (I mean saying he was down 400+ votes before anyone actually voted sure didn't help) but Democrats are going nowhere fast if they can't come to grips with the fact that the primary process wasn't fair to Bernie. If people come to the conclusion that they didn't have to be fair because he wasn't a "real Democrat", that's one thing, but to act like the DNC didn't try to help Hillary is ignoring that they put a known cheater for Hillary in charge. Not quite what I mean. We've had plenty of "this or that person thinks the primary was unfair." We've also had plenty of "this or that leaked email suggests the DNC wasn't impartial." What would actually be new is evidence (or even clarified allegations) about what they actually did to favor one candidate over the other. Donna Brazile leaking (iirc) two debate questions, one of which was not really much of a leak, hardly constitutes the characterization "the DNC screwed Bernie out of the nomination." You tend to do a lot of your political reasoning, interpretation, and prediction based on signals - the DNC picking Perez signals this, keeping DWS around signals that, etc. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is extraordinarily bad for convincing someone who disagrees with you in an argument because a signal doesn't constitute proof. So you wind up bickering with kwizach constantly, because you seem baffled he can't see the signals, and he seems baffled you never offer any proof. It never really goes anywhere and from what I can tell he gets immensely tired of it. So I'd suggest we try to either talk about actual provable transgressions, or else just not have this conversation again and say we did. It'll save everyone some time and no one will have missed out on any new arguments. Edit: it's also worth separating the questions of "was the 2016 Democratic primary rigged" and "how should Democrats talk about that primary if they want to win in the future." It's entirely conceivable that it was rigged but they'll win more if they deny it, or that it wasn't rigged but they'll win more if they don't try to fight that misconception and just accept it. Shield asked whether it was rigged, not which history Dems should embrace going into 2018. No Donna Brazile cheating for Hillary doesn't in itself say the DNC liked people who would cheat for Hillary, but putting her in charge of the DNC does. No organization that was impartial and running a fair show would take someone kicked off CNN for cheating/lying for one of the candidates and put them in charge. Is it "proof" maybe no more than circumstantial, but it's not meaningless. I've pretty much lost hope for Kwiz, but I do think it's starting to get through to some of the people who would usually be cosigning that stuff.
None of them want to talk about it anymore because they're tired of being rhetorically bludgeoned by you and LL. He in particular doesn't even really argue about this subject. Everyone knows he looks for any opportunity possible to bring it up, and when he finds one, he mocks and derides anyone who thought HRC might have any merit for an office higher than dog catcher. It's not a political discussion, it's a roast.
Your Donna Brazile example is what I mean by reading a lot into signaling. Expressed as a syllogism, your logic is approximately this:
1. The DNC liked Donna Brazile enough to make her DNC chair.
2. Donna Brazile cheated for Hillary.
3. Therefore the DNC considers cheating for Hillary a positive attribute in a candidate.
It simply does not follow. It's entirely possible that the DNC considered cheating for Hillary a positive, neutral, or somewhat negative attribute, or that whoever made the decision was unaware of the cheating (iirc the emails about that only got leaked months later, and it might or might not have been widely known internally). Maybe they disapproved of the cheating, but since HRC was the nominee by the time they chose her and she wouldn't still be the chair by the next election, they thought it at least meant she would work well with the HRC campaign.
In fact, there's only one possibility that can be definitively ruled out, which is that both a) her cheating was universally known about in the DNC prior to her becoming chair, and b) the DNC considered such cheating unquestionably disqualifying. No one is asserting that this possibility is true, however, so that isn't worth much.
Now you might think it unlikely that people within the DNC weren't widely aware of the cheating. You might also think it unlikely that the DNC would tolerate such behavior unless they specifically endorsed it. By those assumptions, your assessment that the DNC must endorse cheating for Hillary might seem reasonable. But your assumptions aren't shared, they're just asserted without supporting argument. In fact they're not even asserted, you just jump straight to the conclusion without talking about underlying assumptions so we could at least have a discussion about whether they're reasonable. In short, again, you're taking actions by the DNC as signaling about their intentions in the primary, but it does not constitute proof.
I'm sure this all seems like far too high a burden of proof to conclude the primary was rigged. But perhaps you can also see why having a much lower burden of proof might be perceived as having tinfoil tendencies. When signaling is good enough for evidence, and your assessments of probability are heavily influenced by your prior assumptions, it's much easier to come to extreme conclusions with little to no actual proof. And "the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged" is an extreme conclusion.
|
You're portraying yourself as someone who overthinks this a whole lot, zlefin. When people bring up my side of the "electable" debate, you think they're being unhelpful and they shouldn't do it. When people bring up your side of the "electable" debate, you think they're being helpful and they should do it. When people try to engage you on how helpful it actually is, you back down. This set of positions doesn't match the set of positions that someone who is actually concerned about what is helpful and what isn't would have. It looks more like "My side is right, now stop talking about it".
|
The White House on Monday released a statement from President Donald Trump, congratulating the multinational oil conglomerate Exxon Mobil Corp. Included in the formal language of the White House release were several sentences taken directly from an Exxon Mobil corporate press release issued earlier that day. The White House did not attribute the language to Exxon Mobil, and a spokeswoman did not respond to questions from The Huffington Post about the copied lines. But the duplicated text underscores how tightly the Trump administration is intertwined with many of America’s largest corporations, and with Exxon in particular. The president has made fossil fuels a cornerstone of his economic growth policy, and his newly confirmed secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, was until January the chairman and CEO of Exxon. Below is the White House’s statement released at 3:45 p.m. EST, with relevant paragraphs highlighted. ![[image loading]](http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_720_noupscale/58bdd6a31a00003700f41f47.png) Half an hour before the White House released its statement, Exxon issued a corporate press release announcing planned investments in new oil refineries and chemical plants on the Gulf Coast. Exxon’s corporate release contained a paragraph that the White House would later use, verbatim, in its own release. ExxonMobil is strategically investing in new refining and chemical-manufacturing projects in the U.S. Gulf Coast region to expand its manufacturing and export capacity. The company’s Growing the Gulf expansion program, consists of 11 major chemical, refining, lubricant and liquefied natural gas projects at proposed new and existing facilities along the Texas and Louisiana coasts. Investments began in 2013 and are expected to continue through at least 2022.The Exxon Mobil release also included a quote from the company’s chairman and CEO Darren Woods, in which Woods described the potential benefits of the corporate investment. “Importantly, Growing the Gulf also creates jobs and lasting economic benefits for the communities where they’re located,” Woods said. “All told, we expect these 11 projects to create over 45,000 jobs. Many of these are high-skilled, high-paying jobs averaging about $100,000 a year. And these jobs will have a multiplier effect, creating many more jobs in the communities that service these new investments.”Less than an hour later, Woods’ quote had been repackaged by the White House into a paragraph that seemed as though it were written by the president’s press office, without any attribution to Woods (emphasis added): Exxon Mobil’s projects, once completed and operating at mature levels, are expected to have far-reaching and long-lasting benefits. Projects planned or under way are expected to create more than 35,000 construction jobs and more than 12,000 full-time jobs. These are full-time manufacturing jobs that are mostly high-skilled and high-paying, and have annual salaries ranging from $75,000 to $125,000. These jobs will have a multiplier effect, creating many more jobs in the community that service these new investments.The apparent copy-and-paste job by White House staff is an example of the sort of unforced errors that have plagued the Trump administration from day one. Inadequately vetted policies and rushed, sloppy statements like this one have undermined a core aspect of Trump’s ostensible appeal as a candidate ― that his experience managing a family real estate empire would translate into effective management of the federal government.
Source
|
On March 07 2017 11:36 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 09:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 07 2017 09:33 zlefin wrote:have they released a summary document which says what the changes are supposed to do? The draft law there, while good to have, is not very easy to read or informative on actual effects. some highlights based on skim:
looks more or less as the ones leaked last month except with some numbers changed around
basically moves the penalty for not having insurance from being paid to the government to being paid to the insurers as a 30% upcharge. lol. described as an "incentive to maintain continuous coverage".
lmao, they're calling it a 100 billion risk pool... when it's really 15/10 b a year. that's a reduction to what it is now (which is already considered underfunded, btw).
tax credits - 2k to 4k (depending on age) with a lot of deductions (10% income exceeding 75k).
looks like tax credits wont apply to plans that cover abortion, that's an maneuver that i kinda have to appreciate from a drafting perspective. evil, though.
FSA's are now uncapped (those are the non rollover funds), HSA's also heavily emphasized - cap raised from 2250 to the out of pocket limit on the plan.
kills device tax, insurance tax
oh, and it removes the deduction for insurer execs making over 500k a year - there's that wet sloppy blowjob analogy!
also, apparently they're removing the tax on tanning. that's random but invites jokes.
Wait what? If someone doesn't have insurance they have to pay a fine....the the insurance companies nstead of the gov?????? Wtf
yup, and insurers *have* to charge you the penalty. y'know, because it's the law.
|
Hey look on the bright side maybe this will finally be the last nail in the coffin that is Hyper-Capitalism that runs this country for the last 5-6 decades.
|
Can we just get Franken to run for president in 2020 on a platform of single payer?
|
On March 07 2017 12:16 Nebuchad wrote:
You're portraying yourself as someone who overthinks this a whole lot, zlefin. When people bring up my side of the "electable" debate, you think they're being unhelpful and they shouldn't do it. When people bring up your side of the "electable" debate, you think they're being helpful and they should do it. When people try to engage you on how helpful it actually is, you back down. This set of positions doesn't match the set of positions that someone who is actually concerned about what is helpful and what isn't would have. It looks more like "My side is right, now stop talking about it".
ok, that's clearer thank you.
first: i AM someone who overthinks things a lot.
on the "electable" issue, that's because in this specific topic, my side is right, and has proven its case many times over, and others repeatedly asserting points even after them having been demonstrated to be unsound dozens of times is in fact unhelpful.
being helpful does matter; but when a side is wrong, it's not helpful for them to repeatedly bring up the disproven points over and over again.
If you want to engage on whether it's helpful, you could've done so in a more clear way. You also clearly didn't try to engage that closely on that actual topic of helpfulness.
I forget how long you've been following the thread, and how closely, and hence to what extent you'd be aware of when an issue has been dealt with to death dozens of times already.
|
On March 07 2017 12:34 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 12:16 Nebuchad wrote:
You're portraying yourself as someone who overthinks this a whole lot, zlefin. When people bring up my side of the "electable" debate, you think they're being unhelpful and they shouldn't do it. When people bring up your side of the "electable" debate, you think they're being helpful and they should do it. When people try to engage you on how helpful it actually is, you back down. This set of positions doesn't match the set of positions that someone who is actually concerned about what is helpful and what isn't would have. It looks more like "My side is right, now stop talking about it". ok, that's clearer thank you. first: i AM someone who overthinks things a lot. on the "electable" issue, that's because in this specific topic, my side is right, and has proven its case many times over, and others repeatedly asserting points even after them having been demonstrated to be unsound dozens of times. being helpful does matter; but when a side is wrong, it's not helpful for them to repeatedly bring up the disproven points over and over again.
Clearly the other side keeps bringing up these points because they don't agree that you have disproven them (this is true for every topic of the core debate that we're having here). If we do not start from the premise that your opponents are wrong about this, it actually becomes a very helpful thing to bring up, cause it will allow the democratic party to adjust in a much more logical and strategically sound way. So again, the premise that you're attacking isn't the helpfulness, it's the accuracy, and your language should reflect that.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 07 2017 12:15 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2017 10:14 ChristianS wrote:On March 07 2017 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2017 04:44 ChristianS wrote:On March 07 2017 04:33 LegalLord wrote:
It does take a special amount of cognitive dissonance (or, at the very least, conflict of interest) to look at what transpired over the course of the Democratic primaries and conclude that it was all just peachy and great and well-done. I believe it about as much as I believe DWS saying post-resignation, "I did nothing wrong and just took one for the team guys!" Speaking of learning to scroll past the discussions that suck, should I just skip the next 5-10 pages? I don't remember the last time someone said something new in the "was Bernie cheated" debate, but it doesn't stop it from shitting up the thread every time it comes up. If someone brought up something the DNC did to screw Bernie, not just stuff they said in internal emails, that'd be new ground. They gave a person the top position at the DNC after they knew she had cheated for Hillary. She was replacing someone who resigned because as Reid put it “I knew — everybody knew — that this was not a fair deal,” he added.
Reid said outgoing DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't impartial during the Democratic primary. She wasn't impartial, but Hillary thought she should put her back on her team immediately. Seriously, maybe Bernie loses anyway (I mean saying he was down 400+ votes before anyone actually voted sure didn't help) but Democrats are going nowhere fast if they can't come to grips with the fact that the primary process wasn't fair to Bernie. If people come to the conclusion that they didn't have to be fair because he wasn't a "real Democrat", that's one thing, but to act like the DNC didn't try to help Hillary is ignoring that they put a known cheater for Hillary in charge. Not quite what I mean. We've had plenty of "this or that person thinks the primary was unfair." We've also had plenty of "this or that leaked email suggests the DNC wasn't impartial." What would actually be new is evidence (or even clarified allegations) about what they actually did to favor one candidate over the other. Donna Brazile leaking (iirc) two debate questions, one of which was not really much of a leak, hardly constitutes the characterization "the DNC screwed Bernie out of the nomination." You tend to do a lot of your political reasoning, interpretation, and prediction based on signals - the DNC picking Perez signals this, keeping DWS around signals that, etc. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is extraordinarily bad for convincing someone who disagrees with you in an argument because a signal doesn't constitute proof. So you wind up bickering with kwizach constantly, because you seem baffled he can't see the signals, and he seems baffled you never offer any proof. It never really goes anywhere and from what I can tell he gets immensely tired of it. So I'd suggest we try to either talk about actual provable transgressions, or else just not have this conversation again and say we did. It'll save everyone some time and no one will have missed out on any new arguments. Edit: it's also worth separating the questions of "was the 2016 Democratic primary rigged" and "how should Democrats talk about that primary if they want to win in the future." It's entirely conceivable that it was rigged but they'll win more if they deny it, or that it wasn't rigged but they'll win more if they don't try to fight that misconception and just accept it. Shield asked whether it was rigged, not which history Dems should embrace going into 2018. No Donna Brazile cheating for Hillary doesn't in itself say the DNC liked people who would cheat for Hillary, but putting her in charge of the DNC does. No organization that was impartial and running a fair show would take someone kicked off CNN for cheating/lying for one of the candidates and put them in charge. Is it "proof" maybe no more than circumstantial, but it's not meaningless. I've pretty much lost hope for Kwiz, but I do think it's starting to get through to some of the people who would usually be cosigning that stuff. None of them want to talk about it anymore because they're tired of being rhetorically bludgeoned by you and LL. He in particular doesn't even really argue about this subject. Everyone knows he looks for any opportunity possible to bring it up, and when he finds one, he mocks and derides anyone who thought HRC might have any merit for an office higher than dog catcher. It's not a political discussion, it's a roast.
If it's to be interpreted as rhetorical bludgeoning, then remember why it's important to bring it up ad infinitum. The Clinton camp's self-acknowledgment of the issues is seldom anything more than "she didn't get convicted in court for collusion, so she did nothing wrong, lalalalalala Putin-Comey-Duke conspiracy lalalalala." A 12-year-old child could see how full of shit this defense is, even if it isn't so easy to conclusively prove. The denialists don't make it better and they are rightfully criticized for it.
Remember who revived this discussion and started throwing accusations that everyone else who disagreed was a liar, and that Hillary was actually clean as her not-acid-washed-but-Bleachbitted email server.
|
On March 07 2017 12:21 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 11:36 Slaughter wrote:On March 07 2017 09:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 07 2017 09:33 zlefin wrote:have they released a summary document which says what the changes are supposed to do? The draft law there, while good to have, is not very easy to read or informative on actual effects. some highlights based on skim:
looks more or less as the ones leaked last month except with some numbers changed around
basically moves the penalty for not having insurance from being paid to the government to being paid to the insurers as a 30% upcharge. lol. described as an "incentive to maintain continuous coverage".
lmao, they're calling it a 100 billion risk pool... when it's really 15/10 b a year. that's a reduction to what it is now (which is already considered underfunded, btw).
tax credits - 2k to 4k (depending on age) with a lot of deductions (10% income exceeding 75k).
looks like tax credits wont apply to plans that cover abortion, that's an maneuver that i kinda have to appreciate from a drafting perspective. evil, though.
FSA's are now uncapped (those are the non rollover funds), HSA's also heavily emphasized - cap raised from 2250 to the out of pocket limit on the plan.
kills device tax, insurance tax
oh, and it removes the deduction for insurer execs making over 500k a year - there's that wet sloppy blowjob analogy!
also, apparently they're removing the tax on tanning. that's random but invites jokes.
Wait what? If someone doesn't have insurance they have to pay a fine....the the insurance companies nstead of the gov?????? Wtf yup, and insurers *have* to charge you the penalty. y'know, because it's the law.
How do they choose which insurance company is "forced" to randomly bill me o.o This idea sounds so weird, a company forcefully charging someone money for not using their service.
|
On March 07 2017 12:46 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 12:34 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2017 12:16 Nebuchad wrote:
You're portraying yourself as someone who overthinks this a whole lot, zlefin. When people bring up my side of the "electable" debate, you think they're being unhelpful and they shouldn't do it. When people bring up your side of the "electable" debate, you think they're being helpful and they should do it. When people try to engage you on how helpful it actually is, you back down. This set of positions doesn't match the set of positions that someone who is actually concerned about what is helpful and what isn't would have. It looks more like "My side is right, now stop talking about it". ok, that's clearer thank you. first: i AM someone who overthinks things a lot. on the "electable" issue, that's because in this specific topic, my side is right, and has proven its case many times over, and others repeatedly asserting points even after them having been demonstrated to be unsound dozens of times. being helpful does matter; but when a side is wrong, it's not helpful for them to repeatedly bring up the disproven points over and over again. Clearly the other side keeps bringing up these points because they don't agree that you have disproven them (this is true for every topic of the core debate that we're having here). If we do not start from the premise that your opponents are wrong about this, it actually becomes a very helpful thing to bring up, cause it will allow the democratic party to adjust in a much more logical and strategically sound way. So again, the premise that you're attacking isn't the helpfulness, it's the accuracy, and your language should reflect that.
they may disagree that they have been disproven, but if they're wrong, and their disagreement comes without a refutation of the points that resulted in them being disproven, then they are simply repeating an unfounded claim. which is pointless, wrong, and unhelpful.
We did not start from the opponents being wrong as a premise, but as a conclusion of a VERY long chain of evidence. unless you have a counter to the vast chain of evidence, it does not in fact help anything. restating a prior claim already addressed does not constitute a counterargument.
something can be both wrong and unhelpful. as I stated earlier, the two often go together.
Being wrong without new evidence or arguments, but merely to restate an old unsound argument is actively unhelpful, and tends to just make the thread worse.
I can both claim that they are wrong, and that they are unhelpful. I need not only claim one, and am free to claim either without claiming both at any given time.
the issue of helpfulness is about whether things are constructive/destructive to the thread.
What I see is you complaining about my accuracy, when you are not using the requisite level of rigor yourself.
and you continue to assert to improperly assert on what the goal of my actions is.
I attacked things for being unhelpful (and they are unhelpful because they are wrong). you asserting i'm aiming otherwise is not adequately founded.
it'd also be far more useful if you addressed the actual underlying issues than quibbling over my sound word choices.
|
|
|
The GOP healthcare bill is basically one last attempt to salvage a predominantly privatized health insurance system. I doubt it will work, because the soft penalties on failing to sign up for health insurance aren't enough to coerce the healthy population to sign up. Once you mandate coverage for preexisting conditions, the whole concept of health insurance goes out the window.
|
On March 07 2017 12:56 zlefin wrote:
We did not start from the opponents being wrong as a premise, but as a conclusion of a VERY long chain of evidence.
I didn't say you started with the premise that they are wrong, I said your claim that they are unhelpful starts from the premise that they're wrong. Cause if they aren't wrong, their effort is actually really helpful, as I'm sure you can tell because it's legit obvious. You are correct, if they're wrong, they're being very unhelpful. That's not an argument against what I've said. If I'm being honest, I'm inclined to believe you actually agree with what I've said, cause the way you're describing your position now looks about as close to "I'm right, stop talking about it" as I could imagine.
|
On March 07 2017 13:16 xDaunt wrote:
The GOP healthcare bill is basically one last attempt to salvage a predominantly privatized health insurance system. I doubt it will work, because the soft penalties on failing to sign up for health insurance aren't enough to coerce the healthy population to sign up. Once you mandate coverage for preexisting conditions, the whole concept of health insurance goes out the window.
Which is why he (Obama) let his party die for it (besides the egotistical reasons). The chances are so small of actually getting government out of anything once its nose is in there, healthcare and health insurance included.
|
This GOP bill is amazing. It takes the penalty for being uninsured and turns it into a years worth of 30% increase in premiums if you are off insurance for 2 month. It took a tax and turned it into a year's windfall for the healthcare companies.
That is some magical stuff right there. It takes a special level of irrational hate for government to rake people over the coals like that.
|
On March 07 2017 13:16 xDaunt wrote:
The GOP healthcare bill is basically one last attempt to salvage a predominantly privatized health insurance system. I doubt it will work, because the soft penalties on failing to sign up for health insurance aren't enough to coerce the healthy population to sign up. Once you mandate coverage for preexisting conditions, the whole concept of health insurance goes out the window.
It feels like you're saying preexisting conditions isn't something that should be covered. Am I wrong here?
|
On March 07 2017 13:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 13:16 xDaunt wrote:
The GOP healthcare bill is basically one last attempt to salvage a predominantly privatized health insurance system. I doubt it will work, because the soft penalties on failing to sign up for health insurance aren't enough to coerce the healthy population to sign up. Once you mandate coverage for preexisting conditions, the whole concept of health insurance goes out the window. It feels like you're saying preexisting conditions isn't something that should be covered. Am I wrong here?
I took it to mean that he doesn't think healthcare will be predominantly privatized much longer
|
On March 07 2017 13:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 13:16 xDaunt wrote:
The GOP healthcare bill is basically one last attempt to salvage a predominantly privatized health insurance system. I doubt it will work, because the soft penalties on failing to sign up for health insurance aren't enough to coerce the healthy population to sign up. Once you mandate coverage for preexisting conditions, the whole concept of health insurance goes out the window. It feels like you're saying preexisting conditions isn't something that should be covered. Am I wrong here?
In a privatized health insurance system, they should not be covered.
|
On March 07 2017 13:36 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 13:34 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2017 13:16 xDaunt wrote:
The GOP healthcare bill is basically one last attempt to salvage a predominantly privatized health insurance system. I doubt it will work, because the soft penalties on failing to sign up for health insurance aren't enough to coerce the healthy population to sign up. Once you mandate coverage for preexisting conditions, the whole concept of health insurance goes out the window. It feels like you're saying preexisting conditions isn't something that should be covered. Am I wrong here? I took it to mean that he doesn't think healthcare will be predominantly privatized much longer
We have been moving that way since we stopped turning people away from emergency rooms because they are poor. Other countries figured this out all ready, we are just stubborn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
