|
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. |
United States42772 Posts
On April 14 2017 00:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 23:50 KwarK wrote:On April 13 2017 22:12 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 17:32 Wegandi wrote:On April 13 2017 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2017 13:43 LegalLord wrote:
Still, support for UHC is rather substantial these days. Progress, finally. That's a pretty unfavorable way to ask the question too. There was another poll out recently that had Republicans with a plurality in support. It's pretty clear UHC is one of those things we want and our politicians don't for.... rea$on$. I'm sure if you phrased the question honestly, "Do you support the Federal Government nationalizing Healthcare?", instead of calling it 'insurance' or 'universal health care' you'd get a significant difference in opinion. No one wants the VA to become the healthcare system and that's what "UHC" is. The Government can barely manage postage and you want to hand them healthcare? More that the same people that gave us Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA system, should be trusted to get your shiny socialized medicine program and not a version of it that goes horribly wrong. Do you believe that healthcare is terrible in Britain? Serious question. If yes, why do you think the British and their statistics disagree? If no, do you believe that it's just the US government that is incapable of running a healthcare system? I didn't mention Britain. The US Government, civil service, legislators & their staff is in question. I'd hardly trust them to even getting a health care website up and running.
Sure, my question related to whether you think government is intrinsically incapable of running healthcare or whether you think the US government is uniquely incapable of running it. The British government was a placeholder example of another government.
|
On April 14 2017 00:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 23:50 KwarK wrote:On April 13 2017 22:12 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 17:32 Wegandi wrote:On April 13 2017 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2017 13:43 LegalLord wrote:
Still, support for UHC is rather substantial these days. Progress, finally. That's a pretty unfavorable way to ask the question too. There was another poll out recently that had Republicans with a plurality in support. It's pretty clear UHC is one of those things we want and our politicians don't for.... rea$on$. I'm sure if you phrased the question honestly, "Do you support the Federal Government nationalizing Healthcare?", instead of calling it 'insurance' or 'universal health care' you'd get a significant difference in opinion. No one wants the VA to become the healthcare system and that's what "UHC" is. The Government can barely manage postage and you want to hand them healthcare? More that the same people that gave us Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA system, should be trusted to get your shiny socialized medicine program and not a version of it that goes horribly wrong. Do you believe that healthcare is terrible in Britain? Serious question. If yes, why do you think the British and their statistics disagree? If no, do you believe that it's just the US government that is incapable of running a healthcare system? I didn't mention Britain. The US Government, civil service, legislators & their staff is in question. I'd hardly trust them to even getting a health care website up and running.
I hear from a lot of people that there's something uniquely incompetent about the U.S. government but I've never seen any facts to support it.
Do you have any evidence that the U.S. government is especially wasteful compared to other first-world countries? (Not counting the Department of Defense.) Yeah, the VA affairs and healthcare.gov were debacles, but let's not pretend that such crap has never happened in other first-world countries before.
|
On April 14 2017 01:00 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 00:58 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 23:50 KwarK wrote:On April 13 2017 22:12 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 17:32 Wegandi wrote:On April 13 2017 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2017 13:43 LegalLord wrote:
Still, support for UHC is rather substantial these days. Progress, finally. That's a pretty unfavorable way to ask the question too. There was another poll out recently that had Republicans with a plurality in support. It's pretty clear UHC is one of those things we want and our politicians don't for.... rea$on$. I'm sure if you phrased the question honestly, "Do you support the Federal Government nationalizing Healthcare?", instead of calling it 'insurance' or 'universal health care' you'd get a significant difference in opinion. No one wants the VA to become the healthcare system and that's what "UHC" is. The Government can barely manage postage and you want to hand them healthcare? More that the same people that gave us Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA system, should be trusted to get your shiny socialized medicine program and not a version of it that goes horribly wrong. Do you believe that healthcare is terrible in Britain? Serious question. If yes, why do you think the British and their statistics disagree? If no, do you believe that it's just the US government that is incapable of running a healthcare system? I didn't mention Britain. The US Government, civil service, legislators & their staff is in question. I'd hardly trust them to even getting a health care website up and running. I hear from a lot of people that there's something uniquely incompetent about the U.S. government but I've never seen any facts to support it. Do you have any evidence that the U.S. government is especially wasteful compared to other first-world countries? (Not counting the Department of Defense.) Yeah, the VA affairs and healthcare.gov were debacles, but let's not pretend that such crap has never happened in other first-world countries before.
Waste is only half the story, and VA is not a 'happened' it is a 'still happening.'
|
On April 14 2017 00:56 Mercy13 wrote:Speaking of healthcare, here's an article about an innovative approach Alaska has used to stabilize premium increases: Show nested quote +Last year, Alaska’s Obamacare marketplaces seemed on the verge of implosion. Premiums for individual health insurance plans were set to rise 42 percent. State officials worried that they were on the verge of a “death spiral,” where only the sickest people buy coverage and cause rates to skyrocket year after year.
So the state tried something new and different — and it worked. Lori Wing-Heier, Alaska’s insurance commissioner, put together a plan that had the state pay back insurers for especially high medical claims submitted to Obamacare plans. This lowered premiums for everyone. In the end, the premium increase was a mere 7 percent.
...
Premiums in the individual market went up a lot last year. The national average was a 25 percent hike. Alaska was bracing for an even higher 42 percent increase from its one remaining Obamacare insurer, Premera Blue Cross.
That’s when Wing-Heier and other Alaska officials had an idea. The state already had a tax on insurance plans (not just health but also life and property insurance). Usually the money goes to a general Alaska budget fund, but the state decided to divert $55 million of the tax revenue into a reinsurance program.
This would give Obamacare insurers — at this point, just Premera — extra money if they had some especially large medical claims. Reinsurance essentially backstops insurers’ losses; it guarantees they won't be on the hook for the bills of a handful of exceptionally sick patients.
The new reinsurance program convinced Premera to only raise rates 7 percent in 2017. Alaska suddenly went from having one of the highest rate increases in the nation to one of the lowest. SourceNot a silver bullet obviously, but one of the ACA's biggest flaws is that it doesn't work well in rural, low-population density states like Alaska. Alaska's approach seems to have partially addressed this. Also, notable quote from the article: Show nested quote +Alaska officials say the Trump administration has so far been easy to work with, helping them make sure the application looks right and moves quickly toward review. Wouldn't have predicated that.
This flies pretty damn close to socialized healthcare. "If things go crazy, the state picks up the bills"
|
United States42772 Posts
On April 14 2017 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 00:56 Mercy13 wrote:Speaking of healthcare, here's an article about an innovative approach Alaska has used to stabilize premium increases: Last year, Alaska’s Obamacare marketplaces seemed on the verge of implosion. Premiums for individual health insurance plans were set to rise 42 percent. State officials worried that they were on the verge of a “death spiral,” where only the sickest people buy coverage and cause rates to skyrocket year after year.
So the state tried something new and different — and it worked. Lori Wing-Heier, Alaska’s insurance commissioner, put together a plan that had the state pay back insurers for especially high medical claims submitted to Obamacare plans. This lowered premiums for everyone. In the end, the premium increase was a mere 7 percent.
...
Premiums in the individual market went up a lot last year. The national average was a 25 percent hike. Alaska was bracing for an even higher 42 percent increase from its one remaining Obamacare insurer, Premera Blue Cross.
That’s when Wing-Heier and other Alaska officials had an idea. The state already had a tax on insurance plans (not just health but also life and property insurance). Usually the money goes to a general Alaska budget fund, but the state decided to divert $55 million of the tax revenue into a reinsurance program.
This would give Obamacare insurers — at this point, just Premera — extra money if they had some especially large medical claims. Reinsurance essentially backstops insurers’ losses; it guarantees they won't be on the hook for the bills of a handful of exceptionally sick patients.
The new reinsurance program convinced Premera to only raise rates 7 percent in 2017. Alaska suddenly went from having one of the highest rate increases in the nation to one of the lowest. SourceNot a silver bullet obviously, but one of the ACA's biggest flaws is that it doesn't work well in rural, low-population density states like Alaska. Alaska's approach seems to have partially addressed this. Also, notable quote from the article: Alaska officials say the Trump administration has so far been easy to work with, helping them make sure the application looks right and moves quickly toward review. Wouldn't have predicated that. This flies pretty damn close to socialized healthcare. "If things go crazy, the state picks up the bills"
Alaska nationalized their natural resources and used them to create Universal Basic Income. Alaska is odd.
|
On April 14 2017 01:00 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 00:58 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 23:50 KwarK wrote:On April 13 2017 22:12 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 17:32 Wegandi wrote:On April 13 2017 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2017 13:43 LegalLord wrote:
Still, support for UHC is rather substantial these days. Progress, finally. That's a pretty unfavorable way to ask the question too. There was another poll out recently that had Republicans with a plurality in support. It's pretty clear UHC is one of those things we want and our politicians don't for.... rea$on$. I'm sure if you phrased the question honestly, "Do you support the Federal Government nationalizing Healthcare?", instead of calling it 'insurance' or 'universal health care' you'd get a significant difference in opinion. No one wants the VA to become the healthcare system and that's what "UHC" is. The Government can barely manage postage and you want to hand them healthcare? More that the same people that gave us Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA system, should be trusted to get your shiny socialized medicine program and not a version of it that goes horribly wrong. Do you believe that healthcare is terrible in Britain? Serious question. If yes, why do you think the British and their statistics disagree? If no, do you believe that it's just the US government that is incapable of running a healthcare system? I didn't mention Britain. The US Government, civil service, legislators & their staff is in question. I'd hardly trust them to even getting a health care website up and running. I hear from a lot of people that there's something uniquely incompetent about the U.S. government but I've never seen any facts to support it. Do you have any evidence that the U.S. government is especially wasteful compared to other first-world countries? (Not counting the Department of Defense.) Yeah, the VA affairs and healthcare.gov were debacles, but let's not pretend that such crap has never happened in other first-world countries before.
The US is in the unique position where a significant portion of its inhabitants think the country would be better off without a government.
I would image that has some effect on the ability of said government to function (see tea party idiots and the government shutdown)
|
For any Trump supporters disappointed with any of his recent flip flops, understand that you may have been conned for the sake of his family business.
Trump’s three oldest children — Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric — and Kushner have been frustrated by the impression of chaos inside the White House and feel that their father has not always been served well by his senior staff, according to people with knowledge of their sentiments. The Trump heirs are interested in any changes that might help resuscitate the presidency and preserve the family’s name at a time when they are trying to expand the Trump Organization’s portfolio of hotels.
“The fundamental assessment is that if they want to win the White House in 2020, they’re not going to do it the way they did in 2016, because the family brand would not sustain the collateral damage,” said one well-connected Republican operative, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the president’s family. “It would be so protectionist, nationalist and backward-looking that they’d only be able to build in Oklahoma City or the Ozarks.”
WaPo
The developer trying to build a Trump-brand hotel in Dallas told the city this week that the deal is dead.
...
The change in plans follows a March investigation by The Dallas Morning News that documented Sarimsakci's checkered business history and his plans to use foreign investors he wouldn't name.
After The News pressed him to divulge their identities, Sarimsakci said the money for the project would flow only from him and his U.S. partners. He said the Trump Organization was vetting potential investors in the deal.
...
“This is a good way to schmooze Trump and the Trump Organization,” said Richard Painter, a former ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush and a law professor at the University of Minnesota. “All these investors are going to want to get in good with Trump.”
Dallas Morning News
|
I've honestly only experienced one type of healthcare, being in Canada. All I do is go to the doctor on an as-needed basis, emergency is reserved for shit which is an actual emergency, and I don't have to worry that I'm going to be bankrupt as a result of seeing a doctor.
I really don't see why there shouldn't be a baseline level of care, funded by tax dollars. If there's something you're worried about, you can go see a family doctor (up to n times per year to prevent abuse) for free. Just any baseline level of care so that the preventable stuff never grows to a point where you need to go to the emergency room for anything which should have been resolved much cheaper a few months earlier.
|
On April 13 2017 23:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Yep...
This should come up when you search for the meaning of 'shady' in the dictionary
Why does he accept to be interviewed though. He paints such a bad picture of himself lol
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Carter Page ruined Trump's Syria windfall. What a jerk.
|
On April 14 2017 00:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 00:00 KwarK wrote:This is the answer of a man who isn't yet sure how many of his conversations were recorded. LOL this was exactly my first thought. Starting to look like Page is toast.
Remind me, how often did HRC not recall things during her hearings?
|
On April 14 2017 01:17 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 00:03 Mohdoo wrote:On April 14 2017 00:00 KwarK wrote:This is the answer of a man who isn't yet sure how many of his conversations were recorded. LOL this was exactly my first thought. Starting to look like Page is toast. Remind me, how often did HRC not recall things during her hearings?
Big differences here being the topics. Not remembering if an enormous matter of geopolitical importance was even a topic is very different than the specifics you are referring to. Which instance of Clinton not recalling something during the Benghazi hearing would you say is comparable to not remembering if lifting sanctions on Russia was a topic?
On April 14 2017 01:12 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:This should come up when you search for the meaning of 'shady' in the dictionary Why does he accept to be interviewed though. He paints such a bad picture of himself lol
It feels impossible for him to think these interviews are a good idea. Likely means there's more to it than I realize. He looks like an idiot to us, but I bet he's not. He's got a lot to lose and I have a hard time believing he's just blatantly incriminating himself.
|
On April 14 2017 01:17 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 00:03 Mohdoo wrote:On April 14 2017 00:00 KwarK wrote:This is the answer of a man who isn't yet sure how many of his conversations were recorded. LOL this was exactly my first thought. Starting to look like Page is toast. Remind me, how often did HRC not recall things during her hearings?
Well she was under oath and that is the phrase you use when you are not sure your memory will be 100% accurate. And she got raked over the coals for it, just like everyone else who uses that excuse.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Hillary Clinton earned her reputation as a shitty pathological liar, not without reason.
Whether she or Carter Page belong in prison is a matter for the courts to decide.
|
|
|
"So if they hide in mountains, what if we remove the mountains?"
|
I only hope they got good video.
|
|
|
All right then, I guess we are going to try to bomb mountains into submission. This seems like a pretty good way to waste money on something we could have had Mythbusters tests.
|
wasn't that bomb in some video game? I'm sure this is going to be effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
