|
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 the bright side if i'm reading this correctly because the penalty enforcement period is only until the end of the plan year, you could be sneaky and stay off coverage for a few months and then pay, say 7 * 1.3 = 9.1 months worth of coverage. that is if you don't die or can otherwise "afford" (non monetarily) to be off insurance for that period. 
|
On March 07 2017 13:41 ticklishmusic wrote:on the bright side if i'm reading this correctly because the penalty enforcement period is only until the end of the plan year, you could be sneaky and stay off coverage for a few months and then pay, say 7 * 1.3 = 9.1 months worth of coverage. that i if you don't die or can otherwise "afford" (non monetarily) to be off insurance for that period.
And that's the rub. It's too easy to game the system. Even if the language mandates that you pay for the full year of premiums at the penalty rate, it will still be cheaper to not sign up for health care before you really needed it (ie a catastrophe happens) given how expensive treatment can be.
|
On March 07 2017 13:37 xDaunt 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? In a privatized health insurance system, they should not be covered.
So how do we prevent someone from essentially dying because they happened to get laid off after being sick?
|
On March 07 2017 13:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 13:37 xDaunt wrote: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? In a privatized health insurance system, they should not be covered. So how do we prevent someone from essentially dying because they happened to get laid off after being sick?
I think xDaunt is one of those conservatives that thinks some form of Medicare for all/Single payer is ultimately the path we should take, though I may be misremembering.
|
On March 07 2017 13:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 13:37 xDaunt wrote: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? In a privatized health insurance system, they should not be covered. So how do we prevent someone from essentially dying because they happened to get laid off after being sick?
In a private system, the old coverage pays for the care for any condition arising before the termination of coverage. Any new coverage will take care of any condition arising after the adoption of the new coverage. As long as there's no gap in coverage, then the subject person is covered. Of course, this requires personal fiscal responsibility, which we no longer expect of people in this country.
|
On March 07 2017 13:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 13:44 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2017 13:37 xDaunt wrote: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? In a privatized health insurance system, they should not be covered. So how do we prevent someone from essentially dying because they happened to get laid off after being sick? In a private system, the old coverage pays for the care for any condition arising before the termination of coverage. Any new coverage will take care of any condition arising after the adoption of the new coverage. As long as there's no gap in coverage, then the subject person is covered. Of course, this requires personal fiscal responsibility, which we no longer expect of people in this country.
So you're saying if...
1. Enrolled in insurance A at the time of getting cancer
2. Lose job working at X
3. Get job at Y with insurance B
Insurance B should cover my cancer treatment?
Edit: And are you saying this is what *you* think should be the case, or describing something else? I'm curious how you think preexisting conditions should be handled.
|
On March 07 2017 13:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 13:48 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2017 13:44 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2017 13:37 xDaunt wrote: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? In a privatized health insurance system, they should not be covered. So how do we prevent someone from essentially dying because they happened to get laid off after being sick? In a private system, the old coverage pays for the care for any condition arising before the termination of coverage. Any new coverage will take care of any condition arising after the adoption of the new coverage. As long as there's no gap in coverage, then the subject person is covered. Of course, this requires personal fiscal responsibility, which we no longer expect of people in this country. So you're saying if... 1. Enrolled in insurance A at the time of getting cancer 2. Lose job working at X 3. Get job at Y with insurance B Insurance B should cover my cancer treatment? Edit: And are you saying this is what *you* think should be the case, or describing something else? I'm curious how you think preexisting conditions should be handled.
Your hypothetical is a little off. If you get cancer while on Insurance A, and later switch to Insurance B, Insurance A will typically be on the hook for covering the treatment in a system where preexisting conditions are not covered, because that's when the "loss" occurred.
|
On March 07 2017 13:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 13:50 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2017 13:48 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2017 13:44 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2017 13:37 xDaunt wrote: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? In a privatized health insurance system, they should not be covered. So how do we prevent someone from essentially dying because they happened to get laid off after being sick? In a private system, the old coverage pays for the care for any condition arising before the termination of coverage. Any new coverage will take care of any condition arising after the adoption of the new coverage. As long as there's no gap in coverage, then the subject person is covered. Of course, this requires personal fiscal responsibility, which we no longer expect of people in this country. So you're saying if... 1. Enrolled in insurance A at the time of getting cancer 2. Lose job working at X 3. Get job at Y with insurance B Insurance B should cover my cancer treatment? Edit: And are you saying this is what *you* think should be the case, or describing something else? I'm curious how you think preexisting conditions should be handled. Your hypothetical is a little off. If you get cancer while on Insurance A, and later switch to Insurance B, Insurance A will typically be on the hook for covering the treatment in a system where preexisting conditions are not covered, because that's when the "loss" occurred.
The previous insurance company remains on the hook even after I am no longer covered by them?
|
For people at the lower end of the economic spectrum, a couple thousand a year for coverage is pretty brutal. Also those tax credits (which are based on age) are essentially useless if you're poor enough that you have trouble affording insurance or pay little/ no taxes. Subsidies is a dirty word, but hell, they actually help people.
Here's a nice graph of family net worth by quartile. Notice how low the bottom two lines are. Please tell them something about personal responsibility.
|
On March 07 2017 13:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2017 13:50 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2017 13:48 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2017 13:44 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2017 13:37 xDaunt wrote: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? In a privatized health insurance system, they should not be covered. So how do we prevent someone from essentially dying because they happened to get laid off after being sick? In a private system, the old coverage pays for the care for any condition arising before the termination of coverage. Any new coverage will take care of any condition arising after the adoption of the new coverage. As long as there's no gap in coverage, then the subject person is covered. Of course, this requires personal fiscal responsibility, which we no longer expect of people in this country. So you're saying if... 1. Enrolled in insurance A at the time of getting cancer 2. Lose job working at X 3. Get job at Y with insurance B Insurance B should cover my cancer treatment? Edit: And are you saying this is what *you* think should be the case, or describing something else? I'm curious how you think preexisting conditions should be handled. Your hypothetical is a little off. If you get cancer while on Insurance A, and later switch to Insurance B, Insurance A will typically be on the hook for covering the treatment in a system where preexisting conditions are not covered, because that's when the "loss" occurred. The previous insurance company remains on the hook even after I am no longer covered by them?
That's correct. That's what insurance is. It's protection against the risk of loss. If the loss occurs, whatever insurance is covering you at the time has to pay up.
|
On March 07 2017 12:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 12:15 ChristianS wrote: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.
Uh, Shield revived this discussion by asking whether the primary was rigged? I'm not sure what your point is, nor who you're saying is calling everyone a liar. Is it me?
It is rhetorical bludgeoning, in that you mock and insult, but rarely even get into the actual arguments. Like, in this post you give a cheap strawman of the "Clinton camp," whoever that is anymore (camp is often short for "campaign," but the Clinton campaign is no longer an existent entity). Then you insinuate that they're either disingenuous or dumber than 12 year old children. Your usual refrain of "electable" or "delectably electable" has no actual argument to it – it's just incessant mocking of one argument (of many) made in favor of Clinton during the primary. It's basically "haha remember that one time people said we should choose Hillary because she's so electable they're so dumb." There's an irony to comparing those you criticize to 12 year old children when your own choice of rhetorical gambit is so immature.
Everyone from Danglars to Plansix has recognized and referenced your overwhelming eagerness to bring up the subject again so you can try for another zinger about how electable Clinton was. And most people have recognized that the discussion goes nowhere, and just try to avoid engaging you. In that regard, I suppose I'm making a mistake here, but GH was interpreting everyone's hesitation to defend HRC in these discussions as a sign that everyone's coming around to his view. It's not, it's just an indication that everyone is trying not to feed the troll.
|
I suppose I'm making a mistake here, but GH was interpreting everyone's hesitation to defend HRC in these discussions as a sign that everyone's coming around to his view. It's not, it's just an indication that everyone is trying not to feed the troll.
Yup, you're mistaken. While I obviously don't think the primary was a fair process arbitrated by a neutral DNC, my larger point is that Democrats, at minimum, should stop intentionally aggravating the progressive wing of the party, even if they concede it for no other reason than political expediency.
By supporting Ben Carson, Rick Perry, and not picking any pro Bernie folks for positions at the DNC (no I'm not counting the one Perez made up). It's clear the party isn't getting it, but people here have at least been conceding that they should stop doing it.
|
On March 07 2017 14:37 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 12:53 LegalLord wrote:On March 07 2017 12:15 ChristianS wrote: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. Uh, Shield revived this discussion by asking whether the primary was rigged? I'm not sure what your point is, nor who you're saying is calling everyone a liar. Is it me?
Let me just put it this way. The discussion died a day and a half ago, shortly after Shield asked the question. Who brought it back?
|
in other news Alabama governors appointment of the states attorney general who was investigating him to senate appears to have not worked out quite as planned.
Alabama's scandal-scarred governor faces a possible day of reckoning Tuesday when lawmakers meet to discuss impeaching him over an alleged affair with his top political adviser — a married mom nearly 30 years younger than he is.
The Alabama House Ethics and Campaign Finance Committee will convene at 10 a.m. to begin discussing the fate of Gov. Robert Bentley.
Bentley, a Republican, will not be at the meeting, an official from his office confirmed. In Alabama, as in most states, articles of impeachment are brought by the House of Representatives.
The governor will be represented by Ross Garber, a lawyer who works out of the Connecticut office of the Shipman & Goodwin law firm. He represented two other Republican governors who were facing impeachment, John Rowland of Connecticut and Mark Sanford of South Carolina.
Leading the investigation for the House will be local lawyer Jackson Sharman. Each lawyer will be paid $195 an hour, the official said.
Bentley a 74-year-old sometime Sunday school teacher, has denied sleeping with Rebekah Caldwell Mason and punishing the decorated police officer who blew the whistle on their alleged affair. But steamy excerpts of a purported telephone conversation between the pair have cast doubts on those claims.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alabama-lawmakers-preparing-impeach-love-gov-robert-bentley-n729676
|
On March 07 2017 13:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 13:44 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2017 13:37 xDaunt wrote: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? In a privatized health insurance system, they should not be covered. So how do we prevent someone from essentially dying because they happened to get laid off after being sick? In a private system, the old coverage pays for the care for any condition arising before the termination of coverage. Any new coverage will take care of any condition arising after the adoption of the new coverage. As long as there's no gap in coverage, then the subject person is covered. Of course, this requires personal fiscal responsibility, which we no longer expect of people in this country.
Personal anything responsibility is like advocating slavery these days. But pre-existing conditions coverage and granny getting laid off and missing a payment just before the cancer diagnosis is the bedrock foundation of health insurance systems these days.
|
United States44136 Posts
On March 07 2017 15:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 13:48 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2017 13:44 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2017 13:37 xDaunt wrote: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? In a privatized health insurance system, they should not be covered. So how do we prevent someone from essentially dying because they happened to get laid off after being sick? In a private system, the old coverage pays for the care for any condition arising before the termination of coverage. Any new coverage will take care of any condition arising after the adoption of the new coverage. As long as there's no gap in coverage, then the subject person is covered. Of course, this requires personal fiscal responsibility, which we no longer expect of people in this country. Personal anything responsibility is like advocating slavery these days. But pre-existing conditions coverage and granny getting laid off and missing a payment just before the cancer diagnosis is the bedrock foundation of health insurance systems these days.
I've consistently advocated for increased personal responsibility in this topic. However we cannot expect it to be a panacea. No amount of bootstraps will undo the structural problems within society, just as no amount of bootstraps will return uneducated manufacturing jobs.
|
On March 07 2017 15:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 14:37 ChristianS wrote:On March 07 2017 12:53 LegalLord wrote:On March 07 2017 12:15 ChristianS wrote: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. Uh, Shield revived this discussion by asking whether the primary was rigged? I'm not sure what your point is, nor who you're saying is calling everyone a liar. Is it me? Let me just put it this way. The discussion died a day and a half ago, shortly after Shield asked the question. Who brought it back?
Checking back on the discussion, I'm still not quite sure you have the sequence right. Ten hours ago you posted another mocking post about Clinton supporters. I said we should skip the discussion unless people are going to offer something new, such as proof of things the DNC actually did to discriminate against Sanders, instead of just stuff they said that indicated they didn't like him. The discussion carried on, Kwiz answered Shield's question and Kwiz and GH sniped at each other a bit as usual, GH responded to me specifically and that conversation carried back and forth a bit.
Beyond that, I don't remember calling anyone a liar. I don't think GH is a liar, I just disagree with him sometimes. I don't think you're a liar; I did call you a troll, but I'm not even sure you disagree with that characterization. So again, not quite sure what you're getting at.
@GH: We're conflating the issues again. You mentioned the people who would usually cosign Kwiz with regards to there not being evidence of the primary being rigged weren't cosigning it so much. I was arguing that's not necessarily because they've come around to thinking it was rigged, just because they're tired of being mocked and berated every time the conversation comes up so they're not responding. Whether the primary was rigged is an entirely separate question from whether it would be politically expedient for Dems to embrace the progressive wing of the party – on that I think a lot of people agreed already, and for all I know you may very well be right. I certainly lack the knowledge of demography and political tactics to know if that would be a smart tack.
|
On March 07 2017 15:27 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 15:02 LegalLord wrote:On March 07 2017 14:37 ChristianS wrote:On March 07 2017 12:53 LegalLord wrote:On March 07 2017 12:15 ChristianS wrote: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. Uh, Shield revived this discussion by asking whether the primary was rigged? I'm not sure what your point is, nor who you're saying is calling everyone a liar. Is it me? Let me just put it this way. The discussion died a day and a half ago, shortly after Shield asked the question. Who brought it back? Checking back on the discussion, I'm still not quite sure you have the sequence right. Ten hours ago you posted another mocking post about Clinton supporters. I said we should skip the discussion unless people are going to offer something new, such as proof of things the DNC actually did to discriminate against Sanders, instead of just stuff they said that indicated they didn't like him. The discussion carried on, Kwiz answered Shield's question and Kwiz and GH sniped at each other a bit as usual, GH responded to me specifically and that conversation carried back and forth a bit.
Bingo (except the "the discussion carried on" part because it was finished for like 2 days by then).
Beyond that, I will simply have to say that it's important to make it well-known why it is we ended up with a clown-in-chief. And to learn how to prevent it in the future - a lesson lost on a certain class of denialists.
|
On March 07 2017 15:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 15:27 ChristianS wrote:On March 07 2017 15:02 LegalLord wrote:On March 07 2017 14:37 ChristianS wrote:On March 07 2017 12:53 LegalLord wrote:On March 07 2017 12:15 ChristianS wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Uh, Shield revived this discussion by asking whether the primary was rigged? I'm not sure what your point is, nor who you're saying is calling everyone a liar. Is it me? Let me just put it this way. The discussion died a day and a half ago, shortly after Shield asked the question. Who brought it back? Checking back on the discussion, I'm still not quite sure you have the sequence right. Ten hours ago you posted another mocking post about Clinton supporters. I said we should skip the discussion unless people are going to offer something new, such as proof of things the DNC actually did to discriminate against Sanders, instead of just stuff they said that indicated they didn't like him. The discussion carried on, Kwiz answered Shield's question and Kwiz and GH sniped at each other a bit as usual, GH responded to me specifically and that conversation carried back and forth a bit. Bingo (except the "the discussion carried on" part because it was finished for like 2 days by then). Beyond that, I will simply have to say that it's important to make it well-known why it is we ended up with a clown-in-chief. And to learn how to prevent it in the future - a lesson lost on a certain class of denialists.
Still confused. Are you saying it's my fault the discussion stayed alive for responding to your post from ~10 hours ago? Or are you saying it's Kwiz' fault?
|
I am not saying that I agree with everything (or even half of what is in) in this opinion piece, but I thought it was an interesting read nonetheless. I'm pasting an excerpt of the opening, but the article as a whole begins with a lot with a lot more "edge" than it concludes with.
Are You Now, or Have You Ever Been, a Secret Agent of Vladimir Putin?
The strange sight of liberal America participating in a neo-McCarthyite assault on Trump appointees, not on the grounds of their inherent racism and stupidity, but because they have contacts with Russia, is among the more surreal spectacles of modern political history. At what point did Russia become the official enemy of the U.S.? Wasn’t it just yesterday that Bush Jr looked into Putin’s eyes and declared him a honorable man? The truth is, of course, that Russia never stopped being the enemy. The internalized ethos of the cold war, the anti communist hysteria of post WW2 has always been there. The resentful flinty heart of America tolerates no disobedience. No country exhibiting the slightest autonomy is allowed to escape punishment and censure. The shining light on the hill symbolism is one that demands nobody else dare to exhibit anything that resembles their own leadership role globally.
The current animus toward Putin can be traced back to several clear sources, though, as Justin Raimondo points out…
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
