|
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 May 04 2017 00:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 00:01 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 23:56 Sadist wrote:On May 03 2017 23:48 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 23:33 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 23:26 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 22:29 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2017 22:22 biology]major wrote:
If you're going to have preexisting coverage then the penalty for not having insurance needs to go up and there has to be a way for someone in Arizona to get insurance from a company in Wisconsin. Sigh this is why you don't give entitlements, can't take them away. Yeah man, why don't people with a chronic condition do the right thing and just kill themselves rather then be a burden on society. We have Medicare and Medicaid, the rest can just buy insurance like everyone else before getting sick. If they were born with an illness or develop in childhood, then they can get insurance through their parents (a great provision). It's the people who don't have insurance, get sick and try to get it after the fact that I don't like. My wife does not qualify for either of those and has a PEC. Without the ACA, no insurance would cover her at an affordable rate. Are we just supposed to go bankruptcy because of bad luck? Also my wife has no parents. What the fuck are people who don’t have families supposed to do in your system? What condition and why no insurance prior to it? Why does it matter? If you have a chronic pre existing condition you are a loss for the insurer anyway. Why even deal with them? The whole system is just an inefficient way of spreading cost around. Insurance is meant to be purchased before the major life event, before pre-existing conditions. So talking about lapses before plans became unaffordable is the direct question regarding insurance. We talk about plans for subsidized/voucher based catostrophic insurance because the rest might as well be called health care direct subsidy. How do you purchase healthcare before you are born? Why is someone who had cancer/diabetes whatever not allowed to ever switch insurers? If they are insured is via their workplace, are they ever allowed to switch jobs? What if they get fired? We have been over this so many times already....
Would it cover risk of abortion if you did? We can talk about switching insurers and stuff like actuarial benefit. Those are known as alternatives and quite possibly include plans you'd like.
|
Hence Comey HAD to act, but I'm sure Clinton's personality cult won't be listening.
|
On May 04 2017 00:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 00:12 biology]major wrote:On May 04 2017 00:04 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 00:00 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 23:57 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 23:48 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 23:33 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 23:26 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 22:29 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2017 22:22 biology]major wrote:
If you're going to have preexisting coverage then the penalty for not having insurance needs to go up and there has to be a way for someone in Arizona to get insurance from a company in Wisconsin. Sigh this is why you don't give entitlements, can't take them away. Yeah man, why don't people with a chronic condition do the right thing and just kill themselves rather then be a burden on society. We have Medicare and Medicaid, the rest can just buy insurance like everyone else before getting sick. If they were born with an illness or develop in childhood, then they can get insurance through their parents (a great provision). It's the people who don't have insurance, get sick and try to get it after the fact that I don't like. My wife does not qualify for either of those and has a PEC. Without the ACA, no insurance would cover her at an affordable rate. Are we just supposed to go bankruptcy because of bad luck? Also my wife has no parents. What the fuck are people who don’t have families supposed to do in your system? What condition and why no insurance prior to it? None of your business and it doesn’t matter. Your argument is that she doesn’t deserve affordable insurance because we were unlucky. You also don’t think my autistic nephew should be covered because my sister can’t get Medicaid or Medicare because she is also firmly middle class. Ok, well people buy insurance before getting sick. That's it's purpose. We have entitlement programs for those who need help. The government can protect people with PECs in special circumstances, like if you are born w/ a condition, have no supporting parents, fired from job and have a gap, etc. She had insurance when she found out she had this condition. She still has insurance. What you are talking about is depriving her of the ability to move, change jobs or do anything beyond stay where she is forever or risk losing coverage. You seem to not understand the very basics of health insurance, PECs or why people want these protections. She is never going to get rid of this condition. Just like someone who had cancer and is in remission(also a PEC pre-ACA). The basics of health insurance make no sense, why is it tied to employer? Where is the free choice? That is what I'd like to see fixed, not these inefficient band aid systems in place that give blanket coverage and destroy the whole purpose of insurance. Because employers are the only ones that can afford the system by pooling all their employees together. It doesn’t make sense because it is a system that operates on a free market and doesn’t work like providing people with food or transportation. Once we decided we didn’t want people to die from preventable things just because they couldn’t afford the ER, it was just a question of how we are all going to pay for it.
It's the entire design of the system. Employers are tax advantaged to provide it, negotiations are borked because they're so far removed from the consumer. One Forbes piece illustrating why, for those that want balance in their understanding.
|
|
|
Just like Saudi Arabia, Israel, the EU ....... everyone lobbies us and attempts to sway opinion.
|
On May 04 2017 00:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 00:10 Gorsameth wrote:On May 04 2017 00:01 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 23:56 Sadist wrote:On May 03 2017 23:48 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 23:33 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 23:26 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 22:29 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2017 22:22 biology]major wrote:
If you're going to have preexisting coverage then the penalty for not having insurance needs to go up and there has to be a way for someone in Arizona to get insurance from a company in Wisconsin. Sigh this is why you don't give entitlements, can't take them away. Yeah man, why don't people with a chronic condition do the right thing and just kill themselves rather then be a burden on society. We have Medicare and Medicaid, the rest can just buy insurance like everyone else before getting sick. If they were born with an illness or develop in childhood, then they can get insurance through their parents (a great provision). It's the people who don't have insurance, get sick and try to get it after the fact that I don't like. My wife does not qualify for either of those and has a PEC. Without the ACA, no insurance would cover her at an affordable rate. Are we just supposed to go bankruptcy because of bad luck? Also my wife has no parents. What the fuck are people who don’t have families supposed to do in your system? What condition and why no insurance prior to it? Why does it matter? If you have a chronic pre existing condition you are a loss for the insurer anyway. Why even deal with them? The whole system is just an inefficient way of spreading cost around. Insurance is meant to be purchased before the major life event, before pre-existing conditions. So talking about lapses before plans became unaffordable is the direct question regarding insurance. We talk about plans for subsidized/voucher based catostrophic insurance because the rest might as well be called health care direct subsidy. How do you purchase healthcare before you are born? Why is someone who had cancer/diabetes whatever not allowed to ever switch insurers? If they are insured is via their workplace, are they ever allowed to switch jobs? What if they get fired? We have been over this so many times already.... Would it cover risk of abortion if you did? We can talk about switching insurers and stuff like actuarial benefit. Those are known as alternatives and quite possibly include plans you'd like.
what are you talking about? We are talking about how to deal with people who have insurance, who get a chronic illness and the future after that. No where did I talk about 'benefits' or abortions.
And plans I like? I like a plan that covers my pre-existing condition when I switch jobs/insurance company while still being affordable...
(hypothetical, I have no pre-existing condition that I know of).
|
Health care won't be solved until you solve this problem:
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/select-industries?ind=H04
How do you expect the government to pass any sort of legislation regarding health care that lowers the absurdly high price of medicine/treatments when politicians are financed by the people that sell them?
|
On May 04 2017 00:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 00:16 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 00:12 biology]major wrote:On May 04 2017 00:04 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 00:00 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 23:57 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 23:48 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 23:33 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 23:26 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 22:29 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Yeah man, why don't people with a chronic condition do the right thing and just kill themselves rather then be a burden on society. We have Medicare and Medicaid, the rest can just buy insurance like everyone else before getting sick. If they were born with an illness or develop in childhood, then they can get insurance through their parents (a great provision). It's the people who don't have insurance, get sick and try to get it after the fact that I don't like. My wife does not qualify for either of those and has a PEC. Without the ACA, no insurance would cover her at an affordable rate. Are we just supposed to go bankruptcy because of bad luck? Also my wife has no parents. What the fuck are people who don’t have families supposed to do in your system? What condition and why no insurance prior to it? None of your business and it doesn’t matter. Your argument is that she doesn’t deserve affordable insurance because we were unlucky. You also don’t think my autistic nephew should be covered because my sister can’t get Medicaid or Medicare because she is also firmly middle class. Ok, well people buy insurance before getting sick. That's it's purpose. We have entitlement programs for those who need help. The government can protect people with PECs in special circumstances, like if you are born w/ a condition, have no supporting parents, fired from job and have a gap, etc. She had insurance when she found out she had this condition. She still has insurance. What you are talking about is depriving her of the ability to move, change jobs or do anything beyond stay where she is forever or risk losing coverage. You seem to not understand the very basics of health insurance, PECs or why people want these protections. She is never going to get rid of this condition. Just like someone who had cancer and is in remission(also a PEC pre-ACA). The basics of health insurance make no sense, why is it tied to employer? Where is the free choice? That is what I'd like to see fixed, not these inefficient band aid systems in place that give blanket coverage and destroy the whole purpose of insurance. Because employers are the only ones that can afford the system by pooling all their employees together. It doesn’t make sense because it is a system that operates on a free market and doesn’t work like providing people with food or transportation. Once we decided we didn’t want people to die from preventable things just because they couldn’t afford the ER, it was just a question of how we are all going to pay for it. It's the entire design of the system. Employers are tax advantaged to provide it, negotiations are borked because they're so far removed from the consumer. One Forbes piece illustrating why, for those that want balance in their understanding.
The artcile is correct in that the solution they would propose would be better than what we currently have. The issue would be the 3 to 5 year turmoil it causes before the healthcare cost and insurance cost even out.
It still doesnt really address monopolies efficiently though although it claims to try. Medicare for all and a private insurance option would help. Cap payments for procedures like we do today with medicare but also negotiate drug prices as a country to enter the us market. Those are the only way you will effectively drive price down. Without cost transparency AND price controls we are pretty much fucked.
Healthcare isnt a good item for free market to handle since you only have 1 life...
|
Melania Trump has got conspiracy theorists and gossipers excited after she favourited a tweet which suggested her marriage to the US President is not a happy one. Melania Trump's personal and verified Twitter account (@MELANIATRUMP) liked a tweet saying the only wall Donald Trump has built was a wall between him and his wife.
The tweet by blogger Andy Ostroy featured a GIF of the the much publicised 'frown' that the First Lady pulled after Trump turned to face her during his inauguration on 20 January.
www.yahoo.com
|
|
|
What's that I hear? Is it a bunch of cocks hitting desks at the NSA as they all get erections at the thought of legislation being passed to make this [stopping Russia!] happen?
What you need to do to stop the Russians from hacking (which was their only real influence, I hope you will agree) is enforcing that people/corporations/organizations who find bugs - anyone - report those bugs to the software maintainers so they can be fixed. But somehow, I don't think that's the kind of legislation that will be passed.
|
On May 04 2017 00:46 a_flayer wrote:Health care won't be solved until you solve this problem: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/select-industries?ind=H04How do you expect the government to pass any sort of legislation regarding health care that lowers the absurdly high price of medicine/treatments when politicians are financed by the people that sell them?
Gotta agree here. Really only legal bribes on that level can explain the contortions US politicians go to to avoid an idea as simple as "Lets pick any one of the dozens of working systems from other first world countries, and just copy that"
You don't have to reinvent the wheel. There are many different types of wheels that are already proven to be working. We have car wheels, bike wheels, train wheels, whatever you want. Just take a look at how they are build, noone is hiding it. But you insist on starting with "No, no, no! Our wheel is going to be square! My theory says that square is the best shape for a wheel! We just need to figure out a few kinks, than you will see how amazing our square wheel is. In fact, there really is no other shape a wheel could take. Round wheels murder babies!"
And you don't realize that the people who make those statements have obviously been paid by Square Wheel Inc, the worlds only producer of square wheels.
|
On May 04 2017 01:21 Simberto wrote:Gotta agree here. Really only legal bribes on that level can explain the contortions US politicians go to to avoid an idea as simple as "Lets pick any one of the dozens of working systems from other first world countries, and just copy that" You don't have to reinvent the wheel. There are many different types of wheels that are already proven to be working. We have car wheels, bike wheels, train wheels, whatever you want. Just take a look at how they are build, noone is hiding it. But you insist on starting with "No, no, no! Our wheel is going to be square! My theory says that square is the best shape for a wheel! We just need to figure out a few kinks, than you will see how amazing our square wheel is. In fact, there really is no other shape a wheel could take. Round wheels murder babies!" And you don't realize that the people who make those statements have obviously been paid by Square Wheel Inc, the worlds only producer of square wheels.
We don't even need to go outside our country, several states have working healthcare systems. But Republicans are just resistant to be responsible for anything and would rather place their faith in the Invisible Hand to assure affordable coverage.
On May 04 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:What's that I hear? Is it a bunch of cocks hitting desks at the NSA as they all get erections at the thought of legislation being passed to make this [stopping Russia!] happen? What you need to do to stop the Russians from hacking (which was their only real influence, I hope you will agree) is enforcing that people/corporations/organizations who find bugs - anyone - report those bugs to the software maintainers so they can be fixed. But somehow, I don't think that's the kind of legislation that will be passed.
Whoa there, you are talking about regulating the political darling that is the tech industry. That scrappy little up start needs to remain unregulated until they push all print publications out of business, destroy the entire taxi industry and can sell our personal data to other governments. Then they might be big enough for some oversight.
|
This is a pretty sad misreading of what Obama said. The liberal media exaggerates, but Fox fabricates.
"Fair and Balanced"
More than two decades before he railed against Donald Trump’s “temperament” and “core values,” a young Barack Obama dreamed of becoming the billionaire businessman.
Obama revealed his idolization of The Donald – and what he stood for – in a never-published book written with a classmate during his Harvard Law School days, portions of which are published in the upcoming Obama biography “Rising Star.”
Americans have a “continuing normative commitment to the ideals of individual freedom and mobility,” Obama wrote in the manuscript, revealed in a Washington Post book review. “The depth of this commitment may be summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism of the average American — I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don’t make it, my children will.”
www.foxnews.com
|
Comey is a true patriot lol, seriously he's probably reinstated the confidence of the American people regarding the FBI.
|
On May 04 2017 01:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 01:21 Simberto wrote:On May 04 2017 00:46 a_flayer wrote:Health care won't be solved until you solve this problem: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/select-industries?ind=H04How do you expect the government to pass any sort of legislation regarding health care that lowers the absurdly high price of medicine/treatments when politicians are financed by the people that sell them? Gotta agree here. Really only legal bribes on that level can explain the contortions US politicians go to to avoid an idea as simple as "Lets pick any one of the dozens of working systems from other first world countries, and just copy that" You don't have to reinvent the wheel. There are many different types of wheels that are already proven to be working. We have car wheels, bike wheels, train wheels, whatever you want. Just take a look at how they are build, noone is hiding it. But you insist on starting with "No, no, no! Our wheel is going to be square! My theory says that square is the best shape for a wheel! We just need to figure out a few kinks, than you will see how amazing our square wheel is. In fact, there really is no other shape a wheel could take. Round wheels murder babies!" And you don't realize that the people who make those statements have obviously been paid by Square Wheel Inc, the worlds only producer of square wheels. We don't even need to go outside our country, several states have working healthcare systems. But Republicans are just resistant to be responsible for anything and would rather place their faith in the Invisible Hand to assure affordable coverage.
Yes, and just like Republicans are owned by pharmaceutical companies, they are also owned by Wallstreet. And that's which is why Democrats can't pass legislation to stop them from extracting wealth from society through the most ridiculous means possible.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000022219&cycle=2016
This is the Robert Mercer hedge-fund company. A man who held far more sway over the US elections than the Russians did. He is part owner of companies like Cambridge Analytica (in short: targeted political ads on facebook), Breitbart (in short: content for political ads), and whatever SuperPACs (hey, look at that, political ads!) he helped fund. Through this, tons of bullshit was created and propagated over social media out of minor inconveniences such as the leaked e-mails. He is just as involved in all of these companies as Steve Bannon was.
Oh, and look at that! Democrats actually receive more direct campaign donations than Republicans from this asshole. Including Charles Schumer ($64,800) and Hillary Clinton ($40,200).
Tell me again how its the Republicans that are the problem in US politics. It's a really convincing line!
On May 04 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:What's that I hear? Is it a bunch of cocks hitting desks at the NSA as they all get erections at the thought of legislation being passed to make this [stopping Russia!] happen? What you need to do to stop the Russians from hacking (which was their only real influence, I hope you will agree) is enforcing that people/corporations/organizations who find bugs - anyone - report those bugs to the software maintainers so they can be fixed. But somehow, I don't think that's the kind of legislation that will be passed.
On May 04 2017 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Whoa there, you are talking about regulating the political darling that is the tech industry. That scrappy little up start needs to remain unregulated until they push all print publications out of business, destroy the entire taxi industry and can sell our personal data to other governments. Then they might be big enough for some oversight.
I'm also talking about stopping the NSA/CIA/FBI from hoarding bugs to exploit for themselves (and whoever else happens to find those bugs). There's nothing secure about deliberately leaving bugs in software. This problem with hacking is going to continue to get far, far worse as everything is connected these days. If all the guys on the side of "good" don't contribute to solving this problem, we will live in the digital equivalent of the Wild West for years to come.
This is one of the reasons why I think we should all be pushing government to use exclusively open source software. So that the whole force of the government (and the corporations hired by the government) can be behind making that software secure, and also leave it available for the consumer. But you know, that's communism, I guess.
|
lol blumenthal
B: Who are you investigating?
C: I can't say that
B: So who are you not investigating
C: ....that would basically be saying who I am
B: I see, so are you investigating Trump?
C: ..........For the same reason given, I will not say in this setting
Blum, he ain't that stupid.
|
On May 04 2017 01:55 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 01:25 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 01:21 Simberto wrote:On May 04 2017 00:46 a_flayer wrote:Health care won't be solved until you solve this problem: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/select-industries?ind=H04How do you expect the government to pass any sort of legislation regarding health care that lowers the absurdly high price of medicine/treatments when politicians are financed by the people that sell them? Gotta agree here. Really only legal bribes on that level can explain the contortions US politicians go to to avoid an idea as simple as "Lets pick any one of the dozens of working systems from other first world countries, and just copy that" You don't have to reinvent the wheel. There are many different types of wheels that are already proven to be working. We have car wheels, bike wheels, train wheels, whatever you want. Just take a look at how they are build, noone is hiding it. But you insist on starting with "No, no, no! Our wheel is going to be square! My theory says that square is the best shape for a wheel! We just need to figure out a few kinks, than you will see how amazing our square wheel is. In fact, there really is no other shape a wheel could take. Round wheels murder babies!" And you don't realize that the people who make those statements have obviously been paid by Square Wheel Inc, the worlds only producer of square wheels. We don't even need to go outside our country, several states have working healthcare systems. But Republicans are just resistant to be responsible for anything and would rather place their faith in the Invisible Hand to assure affordable coverage. Yes, and just like Republicans are owned by pharmaceutical companies, they are also owned by Wallstreet. And that's which is why Democrats can't pass legislation to stop them from extracting wealth from society through the most ridiculous means possible. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000022219&cycle=2016This is the Robert Mercer hedge-fund company. A man who held far more sway over the US elections than the Russians did. He is part owner of companies like Cambridge Analytica (in short: targeted political ads on facebook), Breitbart (in short: content for political ads), and whatever SuperPACs (hey, look at that, political ads!) he helped fund to create tons bullshit out of minor inconveniences such as the leaked e-mails. He is just as involved in all of these companies as Steve Bannon was. Oh, and look at that! Democrats actually receive more direct campaign donations than Republicans from this asshole. Including Charles Schumer ($64,800) and Hillary Clinton ($40,200). Tell me again how its the Republicans that are the problem in US politics. It's a really convincing line! Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:What's that I hear? Is it a bunch of cocks hitting desks at the NSA as they all get erections at the thought of legislation being passed to make this [stopping Russia!] happen? What you need to do to stop the Russians from hacking (which was their only real influence, I hope you will agree) is enforcing that people/corporations/organizations who find bugs - anyone - report those bugs to the software maintainers so they can be fixed. But somehow, I don't think that's the kind of legislation that will be passed. Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Whoa there, you are talking about regulating the political darling that is the tech industry. That scrappy little up start needs to remain unregulated until they push all print publications out of business, destroy the entire taxi industry and can sell our personal data to other governments. Then they might be big enough for some oversight. I'm also talking about stopping the CIA/FBI from hoarding bugs to exploit for themselves (and whoever else happens to find those bugs). There's nothing secure about deliberately leaving bugs in software. This problem with hacking is going to continue to get far, far worse as everything is connected these days. If all the guys on the side of "good" don't contribute to solving this problem, we will live in the digital equivalent of the Wild West for years to come. This is one of the reasons why I think we should all be pushing government to use exclusively open source software. So that the whole force of the government (and the corporations hired by the government) can be behind making that software secure, and also leave it available for the consumer. But you know, that's communism, I guess.
Bro its real simple.
One party wants to make sure my wife and nephew can always get health care. The other wants to put it in the hands of an uncontrolled market force and hope it works out.
The other issues you raised are valid and I have always said I want less money in politics. The Democrats are the only ones who are pushing for election reform in any way. If you don't think they will follow through, feel free to start a single issue party and run on that. You will likely secure my vote.
The Democrats are far from perfect, but there is only one party actively trying to fuck me and a lot of people I know over on a daily basis.
|
On May 04 2017 02:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 01:55 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 01:25 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 01:21 Simberto wrote:On May 04 2017 00:46 a_flayer wrote:Health care won't be solved until you solve this problem: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/select-industries?ind=H04How do you expect the government to pass any sort of legislation regarding health care that lowers the absurdly high price of medicine/treatments when politicians are financed by the people that sell them? Gotta agree here. Really only legal bribes on that level can explain the contortions US politicians go to to avoid an idea as simple as "Lets pick any one of the dozens of working systems from other first world countries, and just copy that" You don't have to reinvent the wheel. There are many different types of wheels that are already proven to be working. We have car wheels, bike wheels, train wheels, whatever you want. Just take a look at how they are build, noone is hiding it. But you insist on starting with "No, no, no! Our wheel is going to be square! My theory says that square is the best shape for a wheel! We just need to figure out a few kinks, than you will see how amazing our square wheel is. In fact, there really is no other shape a wheel could take. Round wheels murder babies!" And you don't realize that the people who make those statements have obviously been paid by Square Wheel Inc, the worlds only producer of square wheels. We don't even need to go outside our country, several states have working healthcare systems. But Republicans are just resistant to be responsible for anything and would rather place their faith in the Invisible Hand to assure affordable coverage. Yes, and just like Republicans are owned by pharmaceutical companies, they are also owned by Wallstreet. And that's which is why Democrats can't pass legislation to stop them from extracting wealth from society through the most ridiculous means possible. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000022219&cycle=2016This is the Robert Mercer hedge-fund company. A man who held far more sway over the US elections than the Russians did. He is part owner of companies like Cambridge Analytica (in short: targeted political ads on facebook), Breitbart (in short: content for political ads), and whatever SuperPACs (hey, look at that, political ads!) he helped fund to create tons bullshit out of minor inconveniences such as the leaked e-mails. He is just as involved in all of these companies as Steve Bannon was. Oh, and look at that! Democrats actually receive more direct campaign donations than Republicans from this asshole. Including Charles Schumer ($64,800) and Hillary Clinton ($40,200). Tell me again how its the Republicans that are the problem in US politics. It's a really convincing line! On May 04 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:What's that I hear? Is it a bunch of cocks hitting desks at the NSA as they all get erections at the thought of legislation being passed to make this [stopping Russia!] happen? What you need to do to stop the Russians from hacking (which was their only real influence, I hope you will agree) is enforcing that people/corporations/organizations who find bugs - anyone - report those bugs to the software maintainers so they can be fixed. But somehow, I don't think that's the kind of legislation that will be passed. On May 04 2017 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Whoa there, you are talking about regulating the political darling that is the tech industry. That scrappy little up start needs to remain unregulated until they push all print publications out of business, destroy the entire taxi industry and can sell our personal data to other governments. Then they might be big enough for some oversight. I'm also talking about stopping the CIA/FBI from hoarding bugs to exploit for themselves (and whoever else happens to find those bugs). There's nothing secure about deliberately leaving bugs in software. This problem with hacking is going to continue to get far, far worse as everything is connected these days. If all the guys on the side of "good" don't contribute to solving this problem, we will live in the digital equivalent of the Wild West for years to come. This is one of the reasons why I think we should all be pushing government to use exclusively open source software. So that the whole force of the government (and the corporations hired by the government) can be behind making that software secure, and also leave it available for the consumer. But you know, that's communism, I guess. Bro its real simple. One party wants to make sure my wife and nephew can always get health care. The other wants to put it in the hands of an uncontrolled market force and hope it works out. The other issues you raised are valid and I have always said I want less money in politics. The Democrats are the only ones who are pushing for election reform in any way. If you don't think they will follow through, feel free to start a single issue party and run on that. You will likely secure my vote. The Democrats are far from perfect, but there is only one party actively trying to fuck me and a lot of people I know over on a daily basis.
What kind of monster holds the health of their family as more important than the rights of cake makers?
|
On May 04 2017 00:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 23:56 Sadist wrote:On May 03 2017 23:48 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 23:33 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 23:26 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 22:29 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2017 22:22 biology]major wrote:
If you're going to have preexisting coverage then the penalty for not having insurance needs to go up and there has to be a way for someone in Arizona to get insurance from a company in Wisconsin. Sigh this is why you don't give entitlements, can't take them away. Yeah man, why don't people with a chronic condition do the right thing and just kill themselves rather then be a burden on society. We have Medicare and Medicaid, the rest can just buy insurance like everyone else before getting sick. If they were born with an illness or develop in childhood, then they can get insurance through their parents (a great provision). It's the people who don't have insurance, get sick and try to get it after the fact that I don't like. My wife does not qualify for either of those and has a PEC. Without the ACA, no insurance would cover her at an affordable rate. Are we just supposed to go bankruptcy because of bad luck? Also my wife has no parents. What the fuck are people who don’t have families supposed to do in your system? What condition and why no insurance prior to it? Why does it matter? If you have a chronic pre existing condition you are a loss for the insurer anyway. Why even deal with them? The whole system is just an inefficient way of spreading cost around. Insurance is meant to be purchased before the major life event, before pre-existing conditions. So talking about lapses before plans became unaffordable is the direct question regarding insurance. We talk about plans for subsidized/voucher based catostrophic insurance because the rest might as well be called health care direct subsidy.
So in the world of dangles, do people never have to change insurance? Do insurance companies never raise prices and become worse than competitors? Do people never lose their jobs while getting their insurance through a job? Do people never find a better job that gives insurance through a different company? If they do, then what should they do in your world if they have a preexisting condition? Should they refuse the better job because they can't lose their current insurance? Should they keep their company from going under and laying everyone off? Should they go bankrupt because they can't get insured because of preexisting condition?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
