|
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 July 28 2017 12:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 12:31 m4ini wrote:On July 28 2017 12:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 28 2017 12:24 m4ini wrote:Obama was boring except for the benghazi and gun running thing Now, that's missing quite a few things starting from the NSA scandal, renewal of the patriot act, drone abuse etc. I really, really like Obama, but lets call the cattle (kettle?) black. The drone abuse is a hard one for me to give you, from a military standpoint. That was a lose-lose with the congress he had. I'll give you Patriot Act simply because he didn't scale it back as far as he could have. NSA scandal? Refresh my memory please? Mass surveillance on americans and people like Angela Merkel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveillanceedit: In regards to drone abuse, drones are attacking in sovereign countries without mandate. There's no official (known) guideline for when a drone strike is appropriate. Being a "male around a certain height" can make you a drone target. And yes, that was confirmed by the white house. Imagine chinese drones targeting people who constantly make shit up like "global warming chinese hoax", and then ask yourself how the US would react. There's no military standpoint if you fly dronestrikes in Yemen/Somalia with no legal basis other than "we decided that these people are terrorist and we want them dead". edit: oh and the fact that most if not all these drones are being illegally operated from/through a german airbase. (edit2: lets stick with most, can't be arsed to check everything now) Like I said, it's a military stance I can't move on too easily. I'd rather drones than my fellow servicemen/women have to go over there and deal with it. But that's my bias. NSA, I'll give you that.
Out of interest, ever seen combat?
edit: btw the alternative to these illegal drone strikes isn't servicemen going after them, it's simply stopping illegal drone strikes.
|
On July 28 2017 12:58 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 12:49 Nevuk wrote:On July 28 2017 12:46 On_Slaught wrote:
Not the end of the world yet if it does. Gotta see what the house does. Going to definitely be defections if only bc if the CBO report.
Hard to believe, tho, that after all this the Senate are going to pass literally the worst and most destructive version of their bill. Nah, it's nowhere near as bad as the BCRA or original house bills were. Those medicaid cuts + tax cuts for the wealthy were insane proposals by almost any measure. This bill has moved massively to the left, and it's ironic that it's conservatives killing the conservative part of the AHCA (the individual mandate) That part is only conservative if think conservatism is just about balancing check books.
I think he's more referring to its genesis within the Heritage Foundation. Kind of like how the employer mandate originated in (or at least was a key part of) the Nixonian healthcare plan.
|
On July 28 2017 13:07 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 12:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 28 2017 12:31 m4ini wrote:On July 28 2017 12:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 28 2017 12:24 m4ini wrote:Obama was boring except for the benghazi and gun running thing Now, that's missing quite a few things starting from the NSA scandal, renewal of the patriot act, drone abuse etc. I really, really like Obama, but lets call the cattle (kettle?) black. The drone abuse is a hard one for me to give you, from a military standpoint. That was a lose-lose with the congress he had. I'll give you Patriot Act simply because he didn't scale it back as far as he could have. NSA scandal? Refresh my memory please? Mass surveillance on americans and people like Angela Merkel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveillanceedit: In regards to drone abuse, drones are attacking in sovereign countries without mandate. There's no official (known) guideline for when a drone strike is appropriate. Being a "male around a certain height" can make you a drone target. And yes, that was confirmed by the white house. Imagine chinese drones targeting people who constantly make shit up like "global warming chinese hoax", and then ask yourself how the US would react. There's no military standpoint if you fly dronestrikes in Yemen/Somalia with no legal basis other than "we decided that these people are terrorist and we want them dead". edit: oh and the fact that most if not all these drones are being illegally operated from/through a german airbase. (edit2: lets stick with most, can't be arsed to check everything now) Like I said, it's a military stance I can't move on too easily. I'd rather drones than my fellow servicemen/women have to go over there and deal with it. But that's my bias. NSA, I'll give you that. Out of interest, ever seen combat? edit: btw the alternative to these illegal drone strikes isn't servicemen going after them, it's simply stopping illegal drone strikes.
I have not personally. Torn ACL kept me from transitioning from radio repair to machine gunner. I've heard the stories and seen the pictures first hand from cameras (I have/had some really weird fucking people in my life. Like collecting ears and shit like it was the wild west).
And if they had stopped drones...You can come up with headlines for yourself.
|
Subsidized insured's without preexisting conditions in blue states will be okay. But man, if you are in a red state that gets a big waiver and you have something wrong with you and you buy in the individual market, you are screwed. The employer side won't be hurt that bad, but that depends on the state waivers. If they start waiving critical protections you actually need for your health then you are going to feel it. The winners here are the YOLOs who are 27-31 and decide to abstain from insurance. But they are never winners in the end by going without insurance.
Overall with skinny bill, the biggest losers are going to be people in the individual market and the poor saps who are paying for insurance. When the YOLOs jump out, older and sicker and payinger people will have to put in more.
EDIT: watch live:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?431873-1/us-senate-skinny-repeal-vote-looms-health-care-debate
|
On July 28 2017 13:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 12:58 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 12:49 Nevuk wrote:On July 28 2017 12:46 On_Slaught wrote:
Not the end of the world yet if it does. Gotta see what the house does. Going to definitely be defections if only bc if the CBO report.
Hard to believe, tho, that after all this the Senate are going to pass literally the worst and most destructive version of their bill. Nah, it's nowhere near as bad as the BCRA or original house bills were. Those medicaid cuts + tax cuts for the wealthy were insane proposals by almost any measure. This bill has moved massively to the left, and it's ironic that it's conservatives killing the conservative part of the AHCA (the individual mandate) That part is only conservative if think conservatism is just about balancing check books. I think he's more referring to its genesis within the Heritage Foundation. Kind of like how the employer mandate originated in (or at least was a key part of) the Nixonian healthcare plan.
People are still pushing that Heritage line? lol
And Nixon wasn't a conservative either. Honestly both of these interpretations are worse.
|
On July 28 2017 13:12 Wulfey_LA wrote:Subsidized insured's without preexisting conditions in blue states will be okay. But man, if you are in a red state that gets a big waiver and you have something wrong with you and you buy in the individual market, you are screwed. The employer side won't be hurt that bad, but that depends on the state waivers. If they start waiving critical protections you actually need for your health then you are going to feel it. The winners here are the YOLOs who are 27-31 and decide to abstain from insurance. But they are never winners in the end by going without insurance. Overall with skinny bill, the biggest losers are going to be people in the individual market and the poor saps who are paying for insurance. When the YOLOs jump out, older and sicker and payinger people will have to put in more. EDIT: watch live: https://www.c-span.org/video/?431873-1/us-senate-skinny-repeal-vote-looms-health-care-debate
Or here too: http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/politics/trump-health-care-latest/index.html
|
On July 28 2017 13:12 Wulfey_LA wrote:Subsidized insured's without preexisting conditions in blue states will be okay. But man, if you are in a red state that gets a big waiver and you have something wrong with you and you buy in the individual market, you are screwed. The employer side won't be hurt that bad, but that depends on the state waivers. If they start waiving critical protections you actually need for your health then you are going to feel it. The winners here are the YOLOs who are 27-31 and decide to abstain from insurance. But they are never winners in the end by going without insurance. Overall with skinny bill, the biggest losers are going to be people in the individual market and the poor saps who are paying for insurance. When the YOLOs jump out, older and sicker and payinger people will have to put in more. EDIT: watch live: https://www.c-span.org/video/?431873-1/us-senate-skinny-repeal-vote-looms-health-care-debate
How old are you? YOLOs? That smells geriatric at best. I'm 30 going on 31 but as I've stated, I've got VA bennies. So I'm not affected immediately. I will say, however, that I do have friends who would fit your descriptions and I worry about them.
|
In some ways, this bill does so little to Obamacare that two hours might actually have been enough! lol. Useless Republicans. When Democrats do something politically disastrous they get something out of it... like Obamacare.
|
On July 28 2017 13:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 28 2017 12:58 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 12:49 Nevuk wrote:On July 28 2017 12:46 On_Slaught wrote:
Not the end of the world yet if it does. Gotta see what the house does. Going to definitely be defections if only bc if the CBO report.
Hard to believe, tho, that after all this the Senate are going to pass literally the worst and most destructive version of their bill. Nah, it's nowhere near as bad as the BCRA or original house bills were. Those medicaid cuts + tax cuts for the wealthy were insane proposals by almost any measure. This bill has moved massively to the left, and it's ironic that it's conservatives killing the conservative part of the AHCA (the individual mandate) That part is only conservative if think conservatism is just about balancing check books. I think he's more referring to its genesis within the Heritage Foundation. Kind of like how the employer mandate originated in (or at least was a key part of) the Nixonian healthcare plan. People are still pushing that Heritage line? lol And Nixon wasn't a conservative either. Honestly both of these interpretations are worse.
Thats because the line for what is a conservative has been getting moved bit by bit over the years to the point where it is unrecognizable.
Honestly Obamacare is the conservative approach to universal healthcare with it trusting the allmighty free market to help provide healthcare to the nation. The more liberal approach is the single payer "medicare for all" tactic that would use a government run health care system.
|
On July 28 2017 13:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:07 m4ini wrote:On July 28 2017 12:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 28 2017 12:31 m4ini wrote:On July 28 2017 12:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 28 2017 12:24 m4ini wrote:Obama was boring except for the benghazi and gun running thing Now, that's missing quite a few things starting from the NSA scandal, renewal of the patriot act, drone abuse etc. I really, really like Obama, but lets call the cattle (kettle?) black. The drone abuse is a hard one for me to give you, from a military standpoint. That was a lose-lose with the congress he had. I'll give you Patriot Act simply because he didn't scale it back as far as he could have. NSA scandal? Refresh my memory please? Mass surveillance on americans and people like Angela Merkel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveillanceedit: In regards to drone abuse, drones are attacking in sovereign countries without mandate. There's no official (known) guideline for when a drone strike is appropriate. Being a "male around a certain height" can make you a drone target. And yes, that was confirmed by the white house. Imagine chinese drones targeting people who constantly make shit up like "global warming chinese hoax", and then ask yourself how the US would react. There's no military standpoint if you fly dronestrikes in Yemen/Somalia with no legal basis other than "we decided that these people are terrorist and we want them dead". edit: oh and the fact that most if not all these drones are being illegally operated from/through a german airbase. (edit2: lets stick with most, can't be arsed to check everything now) Like I said, it's a military stance I can't move on too easily. I'd rather drones than my fellow servicemen/women have to go over there and deal with it. But that's my bias. NSA, I'll give you that. Out of interest, ever seen combat? edit: btw the alternative to these illegal drone strikes isn't servicemen going after them, it's simply stopping illegal drone strikes. I have not personally. Torn ACL kept me from transitioning from radio repair to machine gunner. I've heard the stories and seen the pictures first hand from cameras (I have/had some really weird fucking people in my life. Like collecting ears and shit like it was the wild west). And if they had stopped drones...You can come up with headlines for yourself.
I did. I actually fought with americans. Fair enough, not a huge sample size, but not a single one of them would be okay with being a murderer. As in, an actual, legal murderer. Never seen anyone collect ears though.
And no, what headlines would come up if they stopped illegal and internationally condemned drone strikes in yemen/somalia etc? I don't think you understand the implications. People on airbase Ramstein are at the mercy of the german government because it was already established that they could be prosecuted for murder.
Which it btw is. Not in a "omg ur murdering people" sense, but in an actual legal sense.
|
Caught this on CNN. Internally LMFAO
In 2009, McConnell slammed Democrats for trying to pass Obamacare in the "dead of night"
"If the people who wrote this bill were proud of it, they wouldn’t be forcing this vote in the dead of night," Sen. Mitch McConnell said in 2009 when the Senate was voting on Obamacare.
Flash forward to tonight: Senate Republicans are meeting late to do the same thing with the "skinny repeal" health care bill. A vote is expected around midnight.
|
On July 28 2017 13:17 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Caught this on CNN. Internally LMFAO Show nested quote +In 2009, McConnell slammed Democrats for trying to pass Obamacare in the "dead of night"
"If the people who wrote this bill were proud of it, they wouldn’t be forcing this vote in the dead of night," Sen. Mitch McConnell said in 2009 when the Senate was voting on Obamacare.
Flash forward to tonight: Senate Republicans are meeting late to do the same thing with the "skinny repeal" health care bill. A vote is expected around midnight.
It's always "do as i say, not as i do".
|
On July 28 2017 13:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:12 Wulfey_LA wrote:Subsidized insured's without preexisting conditions in blue states will be okay. But man, if you are in a red state that gets a big waiver and you have something wrong with you and you buy in the individual market, you are screwed. The employer side won't be hurt that bad, but that depends on the state waivers. If they start waiving critical protections you actually need for your health then you are going to feel it. The winners here are the YOLOs who are 27-31 and decide to abstain from insurance. But they are never winners in the end by going without insurance. Overall with skinny bill, the biggest losers are going to be people in the individual market and the poor saps who are paying for insurance. When the YOLOs jump out, older and sicker and payinger people will have to put in more. EDIT: watch live: https://www.c-span.org/video/?431873-1/us-senate-skinny-repeal-vote-looms-health-care-debate How old are you? YOLOs? That smells geriatric at best. I'm 30 going on 31 but as I've stated, I've got VA bennies. So I'm not affected immediately. I will say, however, that I do have friends who would fit your descriptions and I worry about them.
I am 34. I buy my own insurance because I know something might happen to me. The reason for the 27 cut off is the ACA ability to up to 26 year old coverage on your parents. By 32 you should realize that you are mortal ... but you never know some men who never get married can YOLO carry no insurance to 40 and never get in a car accident.
EDIT: I don't now how good or how effective VA care is. As I understand it ... it varies. Some places it really works great, other places they have problems. It is probably overall superior to private market insurance in a state that didn't put effort into making their individual market effective. CA individual market really works. But you have stinker midwestern states that are too small and didn't work to make the market work.
|
On July 28 2017 13:15 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:12 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 13:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 28 2017 12:58 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 12:49 Nevuk wrote:On July 28 2017 12:46 On_Slaught wrote:
Not the end of the world yet if it does. Gotta see what the house does. Going to definitely be defections if only bc if the CBO report.
Hard to believe, tho, that after all this the Senate are going to pass literally the worst and most destructive version of their bill. Nah, it's nowhere near as bad as the BCRA or original house bills were. Those medicaid cuts + tax cuts for the wealthy were insane proposals by almost any measure. This bill has moved massively to the left, and it's ironic that it's conservatives killing the conservative part of the AHCA (the individual mandate) That part is only conservative if think conservatism is just about balancing check books. I think he's more referring to its genesis within the Heritage Foundation. Kind of like how the employer mandate originated in (or at least was a key part of) the Nixonian healthcare plan. People are still pushing that Heritage line? lol And Nixon wasn't a conservative either. Honestly both of these interpretations are worse. Thats because the line for what is a conservative has been getting moved bit by bit over the years to the point where it is unrecognizable. Honestly Obamacare is the conservative approach to universal healthcare with it trusting the allmighty free market to help provide healthcare to the nation. The more liberal approach is the single payer "medicare for all" tactic that would use a government run health care system.
I'll just note my disagreement with your first sentence.
Of course "conservative" in your post is used in a different sense. Because moving the system to the left cannot be, by definition, a conservative approach (in the way I used it).
|
On July 28 2017 13:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 28 2017 13:12 Wulfey_LA wrote:Subsidized insured's without preexisting conditions in blue states will be okay. But man, if you are in a red state that gets a big waiver and you have something wrong with you and you buy in the individual market, you are screwed. The employer side won't be hurt that bad, but that depends on the state waivers. If they start waiving critical protections you actually need for your health then you are going to feel it. The winners here are the YOLOs who are 27-31 and decide to abstain from insurance. But they are never winners in the end by going without insurance. Overall with skinny bill, the biggest losers are going to be people in the individual market and the poor saps who are paying for insurance. When the YOLOs jump out, older and sicker and payinger people will have to put in more. EDIT: watch live: https://www.c-span.org/video/?431873-1/us-senate-skinny-repeal-vote-looms-health-care-debate How old are you? YOLOs? That smells geriatric at best. I'm 30 going on 31 but as I've stated, I've got VA bennies. So I'm not affected immediately. I will say, however, that I do have friends who would fit your descriptions and I worry about them. I am 34. I buy my own insurance because I know something might happen to me. The reason for the 27 cut off is the ACA ability to up to 26 year old coverage. By 32 you should realize that you are mortal ... but you never know some men who never get married can YOLO carry no insurance to 40 and never get in a car accident.
Don't soldiers have amazing healthcare including covered penis pills (if needed) etc anyway?
|
On July 28 2017 13:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 28 2017 12:58 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 12:49 Nevuk wrote:On July 28 2017 12:46 On_Slaught wrote:
Not the end of the world yet if it does. Gotta see what the house does. Going to definitely be defections if only bc if the CBO report.
Hard to believe, tho, that after all this the Senate are going to pass literally the worst and most destructive version of their bill. Nah, it's nowhere near as bad as the BCRA or original house bills were. Those medicaid cuts + tax cuts for the wealthy were insane proposals by almost any measure. This bill has moved massively to the left, and it's ironic that it's conservatives killing the conservative part of the AHCA (the individual mandate) That part is only conservative if think conservatism is just about balancing check books. I think he's more referring to its genesis within the Heritage Foundation. Kind of like how the employer mandate originated in (or at least was a key part of) the Nixonian healthcare plan. People are still pushing that Heritage line? lol And Nixon wasn't a conservative either. Honestly both of these interpretations are worse.
I mean, they believed you could mandate purchasing insurance coverage along with tax relief (which is basically enshrined as subsidies in the ACA). Unless Stuart Butler (Director of Policy Innovation at Heritage) was lying in 1991 when he said: "We would include a mandate in our proposal--not a mandate on employers, but a mandate on heads of households--to obtain at least a basic package of health insurance for themselves and their families." The whole point of individual mandate + ACA regulation of minimal insurance is to mandate purchasing basic package of insurance.
At least, Romney and Gingrich both believed as much.
(As for Nixon being not a conservative, that seems like you're edging into "well of course a Republican who did something I didn't like isn't conservative territory, which I guess is your prerogative)
|
On July 28 2017 13:16 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 28 2017 13:07 m4ini wrote:On July 28 2017 12:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 28 2017 12:31 m4ini wrote:On July 28 2017 12:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 28 2017 12:24 m4ini wrote:Obama was boring except for the benghazi and gun running thing Now, that's missing quite a few things starting from the NSA scandal, renewal of the patriot act, drone abuse etc. I really, really like Obama, but lets call the cattle (kettle?) black. The drone abuse is a hard one for me to give you, from a military standpoint. That was a lose-lose with the congress he had. I'll give you Patriot Act simply because he didn't scale it back as far as he could have. NSA scandal? Refresh my memory please? Mass surveillance on americans and people like Angela Merkel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveillanceedit: In regards to drone abuse, drones are attacking in sovereign countries without mandate. There's no official (known) guideline for when a drone strike is appropriate. Being a "male around a certain height" can make you a drone target. And yes, that was confirmed by the white house. Imagine chinese drones targeting people who constantly make shit up like "global warming chinese hoax", and then ask yourself how the US would react. There's no military standpoint if you fly dronestrikes in Yemen/Somalia with no legal basis other than "we decided that these people are terrorist and we want them dead". edit: oh and the fact that most if not all these drones are being illegally operated from/through a german airbase. (edit2: lets stick with most, can't be arsed to check everything now) Like I said, it's a military stance I can't move on too easily. I'd rather drones than my fellow servicemen/women have to go over there and deal with it. But that's my bias. NSA, I'll give you that. Out of interest, ever seen combat? edit: btw the alternative to these illegal drone strikes isn't servicemen going after them, it's simply stopping illegal drone strikes. I have not personally. Torn ACL kept me from transitioning from radio repair to machine gunner. I've heard the stories and seen the pictures first hand from cameras (I have/had some really weird fucking people in my life. Like collecting ears and shit like it was the wild west). And if they had stopped drones...You can come up with headlines for yourself. I did. I actually fought with americans. Fair enough, not a huge sample size, but not a single one of them would be okay with being a murderer. As in, an actual, legal murderer. Never seen anyone collect ears though. And no, what headlines would come up if they stopped illegal and internationally condemned drone strikes in yemen/somalia etc? I don't think you understand the implications. People on airbase Ramstein are at the mercy of the german government because it was already established that they could be prosecuted for murder. Which it btw is. Not in a "omg ur murdering people" sense, but in an actual legal sense.
The headlines from the right? Obama too weak. Obama wants to put boots on the ground. etc. They've done it. And in response, he limited some strikes and did increase boots. But not a drastic amount.
Yemen and Somalia? Those two war torn countries that harbor terrorists? Sovereign they may be, but if the international community is not trying to step in and stop the genocide, then someone has to do it. It's a nasty game but it has to be done. I'd rather not leave them to their own devices. Like I said, a lose lose. The weak need the strong to help when being victimized. Schindler did that. Underground railroad did that.
|
Hm.. All i hear is "the democrats won't help". Multiple times.
Again, i'm baffled by that argumentation.
|
On July 28 2017 13:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 28 2017 13:12 Wulfey_LA wrote:Subsidized insured's without preexisting conditions in blue states will be okay. But man, if you are in a red state that gets a big waiver and you have something wrong with you and you buy in the individual market, you are screwed. The employer side won't be hurt that bad, but that depends on the state waivers. If they start waiving critical protections you actually need for your health then you are going to feel it. The winners here are the YOLOs who are 27-31 and decide to abstain from insurance. But they are never winners in the end by going without insurance. Overall with skinny bill, the biggest losers are going to be people in the individual market and the poor saps who are paying for insurance. When the YOLOs jump out, older and sicker and payinger people will have to put in more. EDIT: watch live: https://www.c-span.org/video/?431873-1/us-senate-skinny-repeal-vote-looms-health-care-debate How old are you? YOLOs? That smells geriatric at best. I'm 30 going on 31 but as I've stated, I've got VA bennies. So I'm not affected immediately. I will say, however, that I do have friends who would fit your descriptions and I worry about them. I am 34. I buy my own insurance because I know something might happen to me. The reason for the 27 cut off is the ACA ability to up to 26 year old coverage on your parents. By 32 you should realize that you are mortal ... but you never know some men who never get married can YOLO carry no insurance to 40 and never get in a car accident. EDIT: I don't now how good or how effective VA care is. As I understand it ... it varies. Some places it really works great, other places they have problems. It is probably overall superior to private market insurance in a state that didn't put effort into making their individual market effective. CA individual market really works. But you have stinker midwestern states that are too small and didn't work to make the market work.
I lived in CA and got my chemotherapy through the VA. 6 months of it. Moved back to Missouri (KC) and still don't have that big of a problem with the VA. In my experience, the VA works great. It's the more rural or overpopulated areas that suffer. Granted, CA (SD), had a ton of people, but I've never waited more than 30 minutes to be seen for any appointment.
|
On July 28 2017 13:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 13:12 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 13:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 28 2017 12:58 Introvert wrote:On July 28 2017 12:49 Nevuk wrote:On July 28 2017 12:46 On_Slaught wrote:
Not the end of the world yet if it does. Gotta see what the house does. Going to definitely be defections if only bc if the CBO report.
Hard to believe, tho, that after all this the Senate are going to pass literally the worst and most destructive version of their bill. Nah, it's nowhere near as bad as the BCRA or original house bills were. Those medicaid cuts + tax cuts for the wealthy were insane proposals by almost any measure. This bill has moved massively to the left, and it's ironic that it's conservatives killing the conservative part of the AHCA (the individual mandate) That part is only conservative if think conservatism is just about balancing check books. I think he's more referring to its genesis within the Heritage Foundation. Kind of like how the employer mandate originated in (or at least was a key part of) the Nixonian healthcare plan. People are still pushing that Heritage line? lol And Nixon wasn't a conservative either. Honestly both of these interpretations are worse. I mean, they believed you could mandate purchasing insurance coverage along with tax relief (which is basically enshrined as subsidies in the ACA). Unless Stuart Butler (Director of Policy Innovation at Heritage) was lying in 1991 when he said: "We would include a mandate in our proposal--not a mandate on employers, but a mandate on heads of households--to obtain at least a basic package of health insurance for themselves and their families." The whole point of individual mandate + ACA regulation of minimal insurance is to mandate purchasing basic package of insurance. At least, Romney and Gingrich both believed as much. (As for Nixon being not a conservative, that seems like you're edging into "well of course a Republican who did something I didn't like isn't conservative territory, which I guess is your prerogative)
+ Show Spoiler +It's not worth the time right now, but suffice to say that the circumstance and seriousness surrounding the Heritage proposal is used mainly by Democrats for the smallest of figleaves, and should be recognized and treated as such.
At the same time, just because Nixon was a Republican doesn't mean that you can claim everything he did (or even what he was) was conservative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
