|
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 23:44 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 23:40 Gahlo wrote:On March 07 2017 23:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on Tuesday morning brushed off concerns about the access low-income Americans will have to health insurance with Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare, arguing that Americans will just have to choose between a new phone and health insurance.
"Americans have choices. And they've got to make a choice. And so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions themselves," Chaffetz said on CNN's "New Day" when pressed on insurance for low-income Americans under the latest draft legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act.
Chaffetz made the comments as CNN's Alisyn Camerota quizzed the congressman on coverage under Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare. She noted that the Kaiser Foundation's Larry Levitt said Monday that the GOP plan would likely leave more people uninsured.
In response, Chaffetz noted that the plan will give states more flexibility and said that the plan will "make sure that people have access to the quality health care that they want."
Later, Camerota asked one final time whether the Republican plan would result in more access but less coverage.
"Well, yes. Yes, I think that's fair," Chaffetz replied before adding the caveat that there hasn't yet been a full analysis of the bill.
"But we're just now consuming this. So, more of the analysis has to happen. That's premature," he said. "We just saw the bill as of yesterday. We're just starting to consume it. We will have to look at how that analysis moves forward." Source What a beyond stupid response. Even if Apple was to outApple themselves and make the new iPhone $900, it still wouldn't even cover 3 months under my current healthcare plan. Dude is so detatched from reality. But the general message holds truth. If people had the choice between health care and iphone, a huge majority would go for the phone lol
On March 07 2017 23:44 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 23:40 Gahlo wrote:On March 07 2017 23:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on Tuesday morning brushed off concerns about the access low-income Americans will have to health insurance with Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare, arguing that Americans will just have to choose between a new phone and health insurance.
"Americans have choices. And they've got to make a choice. And so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions themselves," Chaffetz said on CNN's "New Day" when pressed on insurance for low-income Americans under the latest draft legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act.
Chaffetz made the comments as CNN's Alisyn Camerota quizzed the congressman on coverage under Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare. She noted that the Kaiser Foundation's Larry Levitt said Monday that the GOP plan would likely leave more people uninsured.
In response, Chaffetz noted that the plan will give states more flexibility and said that the plan will "make sure that people have access to the quality health care that they want."
Later, Camerota asked one final time whether the Republican plan would result in more access but less coverage.
"Well, yes. Yes, I think that's fair," Chaffetz replied before adding the caveat that there hasn't yet been a full analysis of the bill.
"But we're just now consuming this. So, more of the analysis has to happen. That's premature," he said. "We just saw the bill as of yesterday. We're just starting to consume it. We will have to look at how that analysis moves forward." Source What a beyond stupid response. Even if Apple was to outApple themselves and make the new iPhone $900, it still wouldn't even cover 3 months under my current healthcare plan. Dude is so detatched from reality. But the general message holds truth. If people had the choice between health care and iphone, a huge majority would go for the phone lol
People say shit like this and then they wonder why anybody could possibly believe class warfare is a real thing.
I'm American. My medical bills show me some interesting facts, like how much the service would cost if I was uninsured. Last year, I had a baby, and the figures say that if I was uninsured, I would have owed over $40,000. (With insurance it was "only" a few thousand.) Does Chaffetz believe I'm buying six iPhones every month?
For the record, yes I have an expensive smartphone, but I rely on it heavily for my job. And that's pretty much the only luxury I have.
|
On March 07 2017 23:06 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 15:13 Danglars 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. 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. Social Darwinism rears its ugly head again. Repeat after me: poverty is not a choice. Almost nobody chooses to be poor. Uninsured poor people aren't so because they're lazy.
We can talk subsidies and welfare some other time, hopefully with the willingness to argue in more than one-liners. This was about pre-existing conditions in a private system.
And please, don't talk about costs like that's just how much labor and delivery will always cost. The current system is hardly private insurance, as noted already, being this monstrosity of employer-centered coverage, almost no exposure to what prices are, and not really about managing risk. But if the only straw man you can conjure up is 'people don't choose to be poor,' maybe you need to be talked down out of an ideological cave.
|
On March 07 2017 23:44 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 23:40 Gahlo wrote:On March 07 2017 23:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on Tuesday morning brushed off concerns about the access low-income Americans will have to health insurance with Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare, arguing that Americans will just have to choose between a new phone and health insurance.
"Americans have choices. And they've got to make a choice. And so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions themselves," Chaffetz said on CNN's "New Day" when pressed on insurance for low-income Americans under the latest draft legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act.
Chaffetz made the comments as CNN's Alisyn Camerota quizzed the congressman on coverage under Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare. She noted that the Kaiser Foundation's Larry Levitt said Monday that the GOP plan would likely leave more people uninsured.
In response, Chaffetz noted that the plan will give states more flexibility and said that the plan will "make sure that people have access to the quality health care that they want."
Later, Camerota asked one final time whether the Republican plan would result in more access but less coverage.
"Well, yes. Yes, I think that's fair," Chaffetz replied before adding the caveat that there hasn't yet been a full analysis of the bill.
"But we're just now consuming this. So, more of the analysis has to happen. That's premature," he said. "We just saw the bill as of yesterday. We're just starting to consume it. We will have to look at how that analysis moves forward." Source What a beyond stupid response. Even if Apple was to outApple themselves and make the new iPhone $900, it still wouldn't even cover 3 months under my current healthcare plan. Dude is so detatched from reality. But the general message holds truth. If people had the choice between health care and iphone, a huge majority would go for the phone lol
They would also choose a phone over paying their electric bill. But they shut off your electricity if you don’t pay it. I’ve worked out payment plans on evictions with people who get a TV over paying their rent that month. But one month’s rent isn’t a 15K medical bill.
His example is poor and offers a terrible understanding of how budgeting is taught and encouraged. Comparing one time purchases to reoccurring insurance payments is a bad way to teach need and want.
|
I'd LOVE to pay 900 bucks for comprehensive health insurance a year. Even Pounds (when in reality I .
What an incredibly false analogy.
Though you could almost pay half of your yearly insurance if you were the average 21yr old living in Utah and decided to go for the cheapest option (~$170/month, not counting deductibles in case of necessary treatment).
Link
|
I have no idea how on earth the GOP plan is going to increase access. Are they just going to bulldoze down HMOs and networks, the two things that actually do hold healthcare costs down? Or did they actually discuss a way to increase access? Or is allowing people to buy across state lines supposed to somehow do this?
|
Good lord, people. Quit being so dense as to think that Chaffetz is saying that people would only need to stop buying cellphones to purchase health coverage. His point is clearly that people need to reduce their consumerism in general. Rote applications of literalism gets the conversation nowhere.
|
Building on weeks of mounting pressure to address high prescription drug prices, three influential U.S. senators have asked the government's accountability arm to investigate potential abuses of the Orphan Drug Act.
In a letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., raised the possibility that regulatory or legislative changes might be needed "to preserve the intent of this vital law" that gives drug makers lucrative incentives to develop drugs for rare diseases.
"While few will argue against the importance of the development of these drugs, several recent press reports suggest that some pharmaceutical manufacturers might be taking advantage of the multiple designation allowance in the orphan drug approval process," the letter published Friday states.
In January, NPR published a Kaiser Health News investigation that found the orphan drug program is being manipulated by drug makers to maximize profits and to protect niche markets for medicines being taken by millions.
Congress overwhelmingly passed the 1983 Orphan Drug Act to motivate pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for people whose rare diseases had been ignored. Drugs approved as orphans are granted tax incentives and seven years of exclusive rights to market drugs that are needed by fewer than 200,000 patients in the U.S.
In recent months, reports of five- and six-figure annual price tags for orphan drugs have amplified long-simmering concerns of abuse of the law. The senators' call for a GAO investigation reflects that sentiment.
The senators asked the GAO for a list of drugs approved or denied orphan status by the Food and Drug Administration. It also asked whether resources at the FDA, which oversees the law, have "kept up with the number of requests" from drug makers and whether there is consistency in the department's reviews.
The Kaiser Health News investigation found that many drugs that now have orphan status aren't entirely new. More than 70 were drugs first approved by the FDA for mass-market use. Those include cholesterol blockbuster Crestor, Abilify for psychiatric disorders and rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira, the world's best-selling drug.
Others are drugs that have received multiple exclusivity periods for two or more rare conditions. About 80 drugs fall into this category, including cancer drug Gleevec and wrinkle-fighting drug Botox.
Hatch, a longtime advocate of the rare disease community, said late Monday in a statement that there was little evidence so far to suggest the Orphan Drug Act needs to change.
Hatch is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees 50 percent of the federal budget, including Medicaid and Medicare spending. He said the letter is requesting "the first GAO study exclusively reviewing the Orphan Drug Act, and such oversight will ensure those critical innovations are continued into the future."
Grassley, the senior senator from Iowa, chairs the Judiciary Committee and has jurisdiction over anticompetitive and patent-related issues. Grassley last month announced an inquiry into the Orphan Drug Act in response to the Kaiser Health News investigation.
Cotton, a strong conservative voice, chairs the subcommittee on economic policy under the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. In a floor speech last month, he announced that he would find a legislative solution to price hikes associated with the orphan drug program.
Cotton focused on an orphan drug that has been a flashpoint in the national dialogue about drug prices, arguing that the seven-year marketing exclusivity offered by the law should not have been given to Emflaza, a corticosteroid approved to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Emflaza was not mentioned in the letter to the GAO.
"Monopoly rights are not merit badges," Cotton said in his speech. "They're not a reward for business smarts. They're supposed to serve the interests of patients."
The U.S. distributor of Emflaza, Marathon Pharmaceuticals, triggered an uproar when it announced an $89,000 annual list price for the drug, which many U.S. patients have purchased overseas for $1,000 to $1,600 a year.
Marathon responded in February by delaying the rollout of the drug, saying it will talk with stakeholders, including patients, about the price.
Source
|
On March 08 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
Good lord, people. Quit being so dense as to think that Chaffetz is saying that people would only need to stop buying cellphones to purchase health coverage. His point is clearly that people need to reduce their consumerism in general. Rote applications of literalism gets the conversation nowhere.
Chaffetz is trying to push the idea that not buying "luxury" items leaves plenty of space in a budget to afford healthcare coverage. This is simply not the reality the people that were being discussed live in. It's an incredibly dishonest image of the choices (or even lack of choice) they face.
|
On March 08 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
Good lord, people. Quit being so dense as to think that Chaffetz is saying that people would only need to stop buying cellphones to purchase health coverage. His point is clearly that people need to reduce their consumerism in general. Rote applications of literalism gets the conversation nowhere.
People understand that is what he is trying to say. People are critiquing how he is saying it and the easy comparison between a $900 Phone(the most expensive) and the cost asthma medication. Sometimes we do that, critique how well the message is conveyed.
|
Chaffetz is no Sean Spicer, that's for sure.
Healthcare coverage should be a top priority for people, but it sucks if you're on a tight budget and have to shuffle around expenses to make it work. Maybe it's no new iPhone, maybe you have to work extra hours, maybe you don't take that one annual weekend vacation to the beach 2 hours away.
Sure there's people who spend money on dumb shit, but equally there are plenty of people who are working harder than anyone on this forum works who are still struggling to make ends meet. There are plenty of people who live paycheck to paycheck or are in debt because of circumstances they cannot control. Reducing the inability of both groups to afford insurance as a "personal responsibility" issue is, as xDaunt would put it, being willfully stupid.
|
So many juicy quotes from the right. Each and everyone will be used against them when they are made to account for the failure that is their plan.
|
Wikileaks releases the "entire hacking capacity of the CIA" and we all are obliged, of course, to focus on the content of the leaks rather than the hackers and leakers.
|
On March 08 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
Good lord, people. Quit being so dense as to think that Chaffetz is saying that people would only need to stop buying cellphones to purchase health coverage. His point is clearly that people need to reduce their consumerism in general. Rote applications of literalism gets the conversation nowhere.
Don't you think the entire idea of "stop being bad with your money and you'll be able to afford healthcare" is a really bad narrative, though?
|
On March 08 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
Good lord, people. Quit being so dense as to think that Chaffetz is saying that people would only need to stop buying cellphones to purchase health coverage. His point is clearly that people need to reduce their consumerism in general. Rote applications of literalism gets the conversation nowhere.
couldn't disagree more. what it shows is an incredible disconnection from the reality of the poor(and a significant portion of the middle class i'd wager, but that would be an arbitrary judgement call) to his own perception.
|
On March 08 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
Good lord, people. Quit being so dense as to think that Chaffetz is saying that people would only need to stop buying cellphones to purchase health coverage. His point is clearly that people need to reduce their consumerism in general. Rote applications of literalism gets the conversation nowhere.
Intense consumerists already have health insurance, for the most part. Poor people on (or qualify for but don't get) Medicaid aren't buying iPhones.
|
On March 08 2017 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
Good lord, people. Quit being so dense as to think that Chaffetz is saying that people would only need to stop buying cellphones to purchase health coverage. His point is clearly that people need to reduce their consumerism in general. Rote applications of literalism gets the conversation nowhere. Intense consumerists already have health insurance, for the most part. Poor people on (or qualify for but don't get) Medicaid aren't buying iPhones.
The Iphone is often used as the punching bag for people who think “poor people have bad budgeting skills”. But often you will find that the Iphone is a gift from a relative or second hand. I have friends that were all about judging their poor neighbors because their kid had a new 3DS. They felt like real shit heads when they found out it was a gift from his grandmother and it was the only nice thing he owned.
|
Yeah, it's the classic "Poor people are stupid" argument. Maybe combined with the idea of "welfare queens".
Poor people spend all their money on frivolous things. If they wouldn't do that, they could of course afford all the medical treatments they need. And everything else. They would also not be poor if they were not stupid, so it is their own fault if they can't afford a treatment.
Of course, this argument is utterly silly.
|
did we all just get trolled 🤔
|
On March 08 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
did we all just get trolled 🤔
By xDaunt? Possibly, I feel like the guy has never been poor or has known a poor person. I've been poor, and it fucking sucks not knowing where to sleep or eat. You can't have consumerism if you can't eat, or rent a place.
|
It's unfortunately not a rare belief these days. Since Reagan, the GOP has been dominated by people with a near-religious belief in capitalism, that tax cuts, deregulation, and privatization will always and undoubtedly result in more employment, higher wealth, less poverty, etc. despite the mounds of evidence to the contrary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
