|
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 06 2017 00:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 00:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Can we just fast forward to one month from now when Republicans cut the bullshit and just straight up propose a healthcare plan where being non-white or non-male or non-Christian or non-rich are preexisting conditions? That's precisely the kind of hyperbole that does nothing to properly address the problem at hand.
I thought this bill declared abuse and rape as preexisting conditions? Seems fair to say that the line of where hyperbole starts has become blurry.
(And to be objectively scientific about it, wouldn't being female or poor actually have a statistically higher likelihood of medical issues?)
|
On May 06 2017 00:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Can we just fast forward to one month from now when Republicans cut the bullshit and just straight up propose a healthcare plan where being non-white or non-male or non-Christian or non-rich are preexisting conditions?
You forgot about the death panels for gay people.
|
United States42873 Posts
On May 06 2017 00:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 00:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Can we just fast forward to one month from now when Republicans cut the bullshit and just straight up propose a healthcare plan where being non-white or non-male or non-Christian or non-rich are preexisting conditions? You forgot about the death panels for gay people.
Statistically an increased risk for HIV. Also a not insignificant risk of people randomly deciding to beat the shit out of you. Totally a pre-existing condition and you know it.
We're already at "Why should the insurers have to charge me and rape victims the same when I cost them less and rape victims cost them more and we all know it? Make the rape victims pay for their own healthcare costs." It's hardly hyperbolic to extend that to the gays, especially for the party that thinks being gay is a choice. On the contrary, being gay probably should have come before getting raped, although there's a sizable contingent of Republicans who think getting raped is also a choice.
|
On May 06 2017 00:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 00:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Can we just fast forward to one month from now when Republicans cut the bullshit and just straight up propose a healthcare plan where being non-white or non-male or non-Christian or non-rich are preexisting conditions? That's precisely the kind of hyperbole that does nothing to properly address the problem at hand.
They didn’t even read the bill or have is scored by the COB. The democrats took 13 months and endless public hearings on their efforts. Bullshit should is kicking the can to the senate with a garbage bill that calls child birth and rape pre-existing conditions and then taking a victory lap. Any claim that the bill doesn’t dis-proportionally impacts women is bullshit as well, because it will.
Edit: Kwark is on point. You don’t get to play home owners insurance based on the homes that won’t burn down.
|
I work in that business and... if we could exploit it (which we can't for good reason).. it would be very easy to do. Insurance companies got a better picture of a person or groups actual "cost" than doctors or hospitals or most likely your children/spouse/friends..
|
So if this thing passes, I am essentially prohibitef from taking a postdoc in the US because noone is gonna insure me with MS, or is it just gonna be very expensive?
|
United States42873 Posts
On May 06 2017 01:12 opisska wrote:
So if this thing passes, I am essentially prohibitef from taking a postdoc in the US because noone is gonna insure me with MS, or is it just gonna be very expensive?
Most employer provided health insurance uses risk pools with everyone thrown in. Depending on the quality of the insurance some things are covered and some aren't. You're probably fine with a university employer, they tend to lean progressive, but look into it.
|
On May 06 2017 01:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 01:12 opisska wrote:
So if this thing passes, I am essentially prohibitef from taking a postdoc in the US because noone is gonna insure me with MS, or is it just gonna be very expensive? Most employer provided health insurance uses risk pools with everyone thrown in. Depending on the quality of the insurance some things are covered and some aren't. You're probably fine with a university employer, they tend to lean progressive, but look into it.
I don't have any particular offer right now, just being curious whether to cross the US off the list right away or not.
|
On May 06 2017 01:12 opisska wrote:
So if this thing passes, I am essentially prohibitef from taking a postdoc in the US because noone is gonna insure me with MS, or is it just gonna be very expensive?
If this passes, it will likely end up that some states cover pre-existing and some don't. Oregon, for example, would still be a great place for a post-doc. Depending on your field, that is. Likely to be the same in Washington and California. Basically the entire West coast should continue to be just fine. And I can't imagine why you'd want to live anywhere else, so there's that 
|
Judging by the way the GOP has been governing, it will be up to the states to screw over their own people and balance their own healthcare. Unlike the ACA, the cancellation notices might not come right away. It is in line with the mantra of the current brand of Republican in Congress: Make someone else responsible and then say "free market" a lot to claim that will fix it.
|
On May 06 2017 01:20 Plansix wrote:
Judging by the way the GOP has been governing, it will be up to the states to screw over their own people and balance their own healthcare. Unlike the ACA, the cancellation notices might not come right away. It is in line with the mantra of the current brand of Republican in Congress: Make someone else responsible and then say "free market" a lot to claim that will fix it.
So long as everything is in the hands of god and the free market, its no one's fault! yay!
|
United States42873 Posts
On May 06 2017 01:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 00:42 LegalLord wrote:On May 06 2017 00:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Can we just fast forward to one month from now when Republicans cut the bullshit and just straight up propose a healthcare plan where being non-white or non-male or non-Christian or non-rich are preexisting conditions? That's precisely the kind of hyperbole that does nothing to properly address the problem at hand. They didn’t even read the bill or have is scored by the COB. The democrats took 13 months and endless public hearings on their efforts. Bullshit should is kicking the can to the senate with a garbage bill that calls child birth and rape pre-existing conditions and then taking a victory lap. Any claim that the bill doesn’t dis-proportionally impacts women is bullshit as well, because it will. Edit: Kwark is on point. You don’t get to play home owners insurance based on the homes that won’t burn down.
On the contrary, for home owners insurance you do. Shitty neighbourhood, up the premiums etc. Someone already tried to burn it down, that's a pre-existing condition, up those premiums.
Insurance companies are built on discrimination because discrimination is just the outcome of proper costing. Different people have different costs and different probabilities of needing insurance. A conviction for drunk driving is a car insurance pre-existing condition, and it rightly should be.
The problem is that these things also apply to what you are, and we'd really rather they didn't. Imagine parents could take out a "my kid ends up in prison by age 25" insurance contract on their newborn infants. Do you think the rates would be the same for black kids and white kids? The reality is that if they were then the insurance company would need to significantly overcharge the white kids to make up for the black kids. Even if the insurance company turns around and says "we don't think there's anything intrisnically different with the kids, we just think the black kid is more likely to be a victim of a racist justice system" they still need to charge for that, living in America while black is still a pre-existing condition.
The intrinsic parts of what and who you are are, and always have been, pre-existing conditions for insurers. The only way around it is to legally forbid discrimination on those grounds. Being a rape victim is absolutely the kind of information an insurer would be able to use to more accurately model your costs. So is being gay. So is being black.
Republicans want insurers to use this information to more closely model costs on individuals, Democrats don't.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 06 2017 01:12 opisska wrote:
So if this thing passes, I am essentially prohibitef from taking a postdoc in the US because noone is gonna insure me with MS, or is it just gonna be very expensive?
Universities often cover your health costs as an employee. Definitely as a funded graduate student, often as a postdoc.
|
On May 05 2017 01:45 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 08:18 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 07:11 Doodsmack wrote:On May 04 2017 06:37 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 06:15 Doodsmack wrote:On May 04 2017 05:44 a_flayer wrote:
There you go again. A constant flow of misinformation coming from Russia. There is no constant flow of misinformation from Russia that is influencing the election somehow. It's coming from Breitbart (Bannon, Mercer, other rich guys in America). Fox News, infotainment, partisan news, biased news (Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, whoever is in charge of that shit). There's a constant flow of misinformation from both Russia and the others you mention. I trust Comey's word on Russia's intent and capability. So you agree with the FBI assessments that I quoted from the ODNI report? Americans who attended the Occupy Wallstreet movement and called for a revolution are more or less equal to Russian propagandists? The two-party system does not fail to represent about 1/3rd of the American population (that's less than the amount of people who don't even bother voting in presidential elections), and if you say that on TV you are spreading Russian propaganda? Also, the FBI actually said in that report that they do not know how much success/influence the Russian had in their media campaign. They could not assess this accurately. So what's that about capability that Comey said? I think you are conflating some things because Russia could have a propaganda effort that happens to align with views expressed in the past by various people in the US. I'm only saying Russia's campaign had influence, and while the FBI doesn't know how much influence it had, I'm sure the FBI would say there was some amount of influence. I'm not conflating things at all. I understand perfectly well the nuances surrounding this discussion. I'll ask you the same that I asked Plansix: do you have a definition by the FBI regarding what constitutes Russian misinformation other than the one I've gleaned from the ODNI report? The one in the ODNI report may accurately represent positions that the Russians use with an intent to sow dissent, but many of the opinions and criticisms listed are perfectly valid. That's definitely not misinformation or fake news, and borderline propaganda at best (based on funding alone). So unless you have another more sensible definition that the FBI uses, then I cannot agree with the FBI assessment that Russia is responsible for widespread misinformation regarding issues surrounding the election. In terms of influence, I'd say actual Russian misinformation and fake news (which does exist on RT America and other forms of Russian-funded media, just as American-based misinformation exists on CNN, or other sources - deliberate or not), would account for something like 0.001% of influence in terms of stopping people from voting or changing peoples mind. Something absurdly low. Probably lower than that. Admittedly, its a made up percentage. The remaining 99.9~% of people who decide not to vote or are independent enough from both of the parties to actually change their minds between Trump or Hillary would be affected by the reality of the political situation itself which they'd glean from American media sources (in the broadest sense of the word). That includes influence from RT America to support American opinions such as the 3rd party voters which the FBI also suggested to be Russian propaganda in the ODNI report (which is just utter tripe), and influence from things like Breitbart and SuperPAC ads both courtesy of people like my good American friend Mr Mercer. The actual Russian propaganda regarding those American dissenting opinions listed in the ODNI report only exists within the social media sphere as a result of Russian-funded bots/comments/retweets. It cannot come directly from RT America, because these are American reporters and Americans who share their honest perspectives, and people who watch them might share in those opinions. If you want to call that Russian propaganda, may I suggest you re-institute the HUAC? The social media sphere does not not have this qualifier, and can thus easily be classified as genuine Russian propaganda. However, there is no way that only Russia thought to use methods like that. Or would only Russia be smart enough to employ data mining and targeted ads in a political campaign? I think not, and Mercer's activities are clear evidence of this (and that influence is equally unmeasurable). The Russian measure of influence in social media could be bigger in relative terms compared to their influence in the mainstream TV media (which was evidenced by the ODNI report), but they did not list websites like Infowars/Breitbart, their social media presence or other absurdly anti-Clinton media - they just compared RT America with CNN and the like. But even if you say everything on RT is Russian propaganda because it funded by the Russian state, then the amount of influence they have is very likely to be negligible. How many people really watch that? How many people would be subjected to their Twitter bot spam? Besides, I've held many of the opinions I've seen on RT America way before I ever saw them on there, and so do most of the people I know who share in those opinions. I guess it's possible that Breitbart also receives funding from the Russian state or Russian oligarchs acting on behalf of the state, which would complicate things. I don't know though, it seems like there's plenty of big-moneyed American names behind it. This whole culture war thing between more secular liberal ideas and religion-based conservative ideas is something that is happening across the whole planet, at any rate, so to lob it all in under the nomer "Russian propaganda" would be absurd. Ultimately I guess we're both just guessing when it comes to the amount of influence Russia's efforts had. But I don't think it should be assumed that the influence was negligible. Comey's statement about intent and capability is based on more than just the ODNI report and I trust it. Russia is big on info warfare and they should be fought against.
I think of it like this: did Russia run propaganda campaigns to say that lead wasn't poisoning the air in the 70s? Did Russia run propaganda campaigns to deny climate change? The internal US propaganda apparatus is strong, and about half of it got behind the Republican candidate, as it always does during election time. It has also modernized into social media, as evidenced by the numerous 'we-will-improve-your-likes' companies that exist within the US. Mercer and his businesses are just one example (and considering he wields one of the biggest campaign donor companies to US politics, I'd say he was a big player in this).
The ODNI report gave statistics about Twitter followers and Facebook chatter. According to them, RT America pales in comparison to CNN (they had about 50k 'Facebook chatter posts', versus CNNs 300k 'Facebook chatter posts'). Yet, in another report about the election (I can't be arsed to find it right now, but it certainly wasn't some Russian source), I saw that the 'fake news posts' level on Facebook was over 50%. So, I imagine the missing 250k fake news Facebook posts could be from sources like the infamous Breitbart. And who owns Breitbart? Our good friend Mercer. This simple comparison of just a few stats is obviously leaving out a lot of other data from both sides (nyt, wp, msnbc, foxnews, infowars, zerohedge), but you can follow my meaning, hopefully. Now, the Russians would have been retweeting and liking those as well, but I still think it's overestimating their capability to say they impacted the election in any significant way beyond the actual hacking of the DNC and releasing the info to Wikileaks.
Of course, Russia DID hack, and DID run a social media propaganda campaign to combat Hillary. But, in the reverse of the Pentagon's underestimation of civilian casualties due to their missile strikes in Syria/Iraq (they say about 300 vs neutral sources that say more like 1500), I think the US intelligence community is overestimating the impact of the foreign threat. People here have loosely accused LegalLord of being a Russian troll. People elsewhere have accused me of being a paid Russian troll. I know I'm not one. Or would you say I am brainwashed by the Russians to unknowingly work on their behalf? I would have been doing that for about 15 years now then, even before I ever looked at any Russian media.
I don't know. I just don't buy it. I looked carefully at the ODNI report, and I see the FBI listing a bunch of stuff that's legitimate criticism against the way the US works, and they say its part of Russian propaganda meant to undermine US democracy. I say it's criticism that should be listened to in order to improve US democracy. There should be far more of that kind of stuff on other media channels. It could prevent pointless wars, it could prevent pointless poverty. It could prevent a failure to arrive at a single payer health care system. If that's the kind of thing they're identifying as Russian propaganda on Facebook, then yeah, they would probably come to the conclusion that the Russians had overwhelming impact.
No, I'd say that giving the data from the hack to Wikileaks is by far the biggest thing Russia did. The rest was just Americans undoing their own political process. It was exceedingly clever on the Russian side of things. It is possible that people from the Trump campaign knowingly worked with the Russians, and the FBI should obviously investigate that, but until they come with a conclusion that provides proof, that is the stuff of conspiracy theories. That's basically Alex Jones-level in terms of journalistic material.
|
On May 06 2017 01:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 01:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 00:42 LegalLord wrote:On May 06 2017 00:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Can we just fast forward to one month from now when Republicans cut the bullshit and just straight up propose a healthcare plan where being non-white or non-male or non-Christian or non-rich are preexisting conditions? That's precisely the kind of hyperbole that does nothing to properly address the problem at hand. They didn’t even read the bill or have is scored by the COB. The democrats took 13 months and endless public hearings on their efforts. Bullshit should is kicking the can to the senate with a garbage bill that calls child birth and rape pre-existing conditions and then taking a victory lap. Any claim that the bill doesn’t dis-proportionally impacts women is bullshit as well, because it will. Edit: Kwark is on point. You don’t get to play home owners insurance based on the homes that won’t burn down. On the contrary, for home owners insurance you do. Shitty neighbourhood, up the premiums etc. Someone already tried to burn it down, that's a pre-existing condition, up those premiums. Insurance companies are built on discrimination because discrimination is just the outcome of proper costing. Different people have different costs and different probabilities of needing insurance. A conviction for drunk driving is a car insurance pre-existing condition, and it rightly should be. The problem is that these things also apply to what you are, and we'd really rather they didn't. Imagine parents could take out a "my kid ends up in prison by age 25" insurance contract on their newborn infants. Do you think the rates would be the same for black kids and white kids? The reality is that if they were then the insurance company would need to significantly overcharge the white kids to make up for the black kids. Even if the insurance company turns around and says "we don't think there's anything intrisnically different with the kids, we just think the black kid is more likely to be a victim of a racist justice system" they still need to charge for that, living in America while black is still a pre-existing condition. The intrinsic parts of what and who you are are, and always have been, pre-existing conditions for insurers. The only way around it is to legally forbid discrimination on those grounds. Being a rape victim is absolutely the kind of information an insurer would be able to use to more accurately model your costs. So is being gay. So is being black. Republicans want insurers to use this information to more closely model costs on individuals, Democrats don't.
Yes and home owner rarely gets to pick their level of coverage due to having a mortgage. The insurance rates are tied to several industries, including mortgage lenders. There is an incentive from all parties to keep the insurance rate reasonable and it is used less often than health insurance. Home owner's insurance doesn't cover water boiler or well pump giving out due to old age.
That is why all the examples comparing car insurance to health insurance fall flat. Car insurance doesn't cover my oil changes.
|
On May 06 2017 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 01:20 Plansix wrote:
Judging by the way the GOP has been governing, it will be up to the states to screw over their own people and balance their own healthcare. Unlike the ACA, the cancellation notices might not come right away. It is in line with the mantra of the current brand of Republican in Congress: Make someone else responsible and then say "free market" a lot to claim that will fix it. So long as everything is in the hands of god and the free market, its no one's fault! yay!
We place our faith in the Invisible Hand and individually brought civil actions to police these industries with annual revenue larger than some states. - The GOP post 1997.
|
While the current bill implementation is pretty awful and will have deleterious consequences to millions, I don't really understand the furor over what's being labeled "pre-existing." It seems like most of the ones I've seen definitely fall under the umbrella of literally being conditions that substantially increase prospective medical costs. And none of them were protected pre-ACA as far as I know.
Did people think we were going to get some grand list of exempted pre-existing conditions in the Republican bill? Is there even any consequence to the bill declaring X a pre-existing condition (which I'm not sure it really does per se)?
I mean it exposes the less than desireable nature of medical insurance but that has existed since...well...modern health insurance in the United States.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
During a Capitol Hill hearing this week over his investigation into allegations President Trump worked with the Kremlin to steal the election, FBI Director James Comey showed his hand, and he’s not holding any aces. In fact, he’s got a whole lot of nothing.
In an exchange with Democratic Sen. Al Franken, Comey revealed the assumptions undergirding his investigation, which started in the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign, despite any specific evidence of a crime.
“What is your assessment of why the Russian government had a clear preference for President Trump?” Franken asked.
“One is he wasn’t Hillary Clinton,” Comey replied, “who [Russian President Vladimir] Putin hated and wanted to harm in any possible way; and so he was her opponent, so necessarily they supported him.”
Also, “Putin believed he would be more able to make deals . . . with someone with a business background,” the FBI chief added. But, a disappointed Franken pressed, wasn’t it also because Trump was “ensnared in their web of patronage?” No, said Comey.
So there you have it. The conclusion that Russia tried to steal the election for Trump is based on pure speculation about how Putin thinks. The notion Trump was in Putin’s back pocket doesn’t even factor into it.
Source
The style of this piece kind of reeks of yellow press journalism, but it's pretty strongly consistent with comparing Comey/Rogers/others talking to Congress to what I know to be true about various connections as stated by those folk. As I mentioned earlier, their inability to properly understand what they're looking for has a very consistent tendency to result in endless misdirections and false starts.
Good at human intelligence, our IC is not.
|
On May 06 2017 02:15 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +During a Capitol Hill hearing this week over his investigation into allegations President Trump worked with the Kremlin to steal the election, FBI Director James Comey showed his hand, and he’s not holding any aces. In fact, he’s got a whole lot of nothing.
In an exchange with Democratic Sen. Al Franken, Comey revealed the assumptions undergirding his investigation, which started in the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign, despite any specific evidence of a crime.
“What is your assessment of why the Russian government had a clear preference for President Trump?” Franken asked.
“One is he wasn’t Hillary Clinton,” Comey replied, “who [Russian President Vladimir] Putin hated and wanted to harm in any possible way; and so he was her opponent, so necessarily they supported him.”
Also, “Putin believed he would be more able to make deals . . . with someone with a business background,” the FBI chief added. But, a disappointed Franken pressed, wasn’t it also because Trump was “ensnared in their web of patronage?” No, said Comey.
So there you have it. The conclusion that Russia tried to steal the election for Trump is based on pure speculation about how Putin thinks. The notion Trump was in Putin’s back pocket doesn’t even factor into it. SourceThe style of this piece kind of reeks of yellow press journalism, but it's pretty strongly consistent with comparing Comey/Rogers/others talking to Congress to what I know to be true about various connections as stated by those folk. As I mentioned earlier, their inability to properly understand what they're looking for has a very consistent tendency to result in endless misdirections and false starts. Good at human intelligence, our IC is not.
Isn't nypost a far right tabloid though? Or am I mistaken?
|
On May 06 2017 02:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While the current bill implementation is pretty awful and will have deleterious consequences to millions, I don't really understand the furor over what's being labeled "pre-existing." It seems like most of the ones I've seen definitely fall under the umbrella of literally being conditions that substantially increase prospective medical costs. And none of them were protected pre-ACA as far as I know.
Did people think we were going to get some grand list of exempted pre-existing conditions in the Republican bill? Is there even any consequence to the bill declaring X a pre-existing condition (which I'm not sure it really does per se)?
I mean it exposes the less than desireable nature of medical insurance but that has existed since...well...modern health insurance in the United States.
Here is the thing. Most people cannot afford many pre-existing conditions if they were charged the actual medical costs.
Should someone with Diabetes be poor for his entire life? Should they kill themselves to not financially ruin their parents/partner/whoever, despite being a manageable condition?
Saying "it was that way before the ACA" is not an argument since pre-ACA the US healthcare system was the worst in the first world by a large margin (for affordable care for middle-class citizens).
Again, look to any other random first world country and you will find a better way of dealing with Healthcare costs then the US pre-ACA (and probably post ACA still)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
