Here's the kicker; the Democrats have enough votes to pass a Clean Resolution. Basically a law with no pork, just raising the debt ceiling with no concessions. The issue is that the only person that can bring the bill to the floor is Republican House Speaker John Boehner.
Am I understanding it correctly that a procedural rule made it's way through (coincidentally on October 1st) that put the power over said Clean Resolution in the hands of one single person or am I misunderstanding something?
e: In addition assuming the above is correct the only way to change that (through a motion) would have to be offered by the majority leader or his designee aka only the dictator may undictator himself? :3
Is this scenario really happening?
What the actual fuck... that it truly messed up right there. And to think people are still defending those rats...
yes. even thinking about it makes my head spin.
On October 14 2013 13:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 14 2013 13:11 Whitewing wrote:
On October 14 2013 13:09 Go0g3n wrote: I'm wondering if the following is technically possible?
A number of republicans switch party and join the democrats, thus granting majority to the democratic party....
It would but they won't, they were elected as republicans, their constituents would be mad as hell.
But... but...
You must be the coolest math teacher living on planet earth. And to all others - GET MAD GOD DAMMIT!
Haha thanks ^^ Right before their first exam, I showed my students the Al Pacino motivational speech from Any Given Sunday. They loved it
On topic: So how's this situation going to play out? Are the Democrats going to pussy out like always and let Republicans run the show on "negotiations"? Because honestly, I can see Republicans outlasting the Democrats, despite their polling numbers. They're much better at playing the "I don't give a fuck; we'll do this forever" stubbornness card than Democrats, in my opinion.
On October 15 2013 23:13 Saryph wrote: Part of the problem is that our own lawmakers screw things up constantly.
Look at Medicare Part D (a part of Medicare used for subsidizing prescription drugs), they passed a law that forbid negotiating over the price of drugs. The VA on the other hand is allowed to negotiate prices with drug makers, and pays between 40% and 58% less than Medicare Part D does.
GOP Rep Outlines Boehner's Counter Offer Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) on Tuesday outlined the proposal that House Republicans are likely to put forward to avert default and end the government shutdown.
Dent told MSNBC's Chuck Todd that, like the proposal being ironed out in the Senate, House Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) initiative will fund the government until Jan. 15, 2014 and raise the debt limit until Feb. 7 or 8 of next year.
But unlike the Senate framework, the House would include a two-year delay of the medical device tax. Dent said that the House will also look to strike the so-called reinsurance tax under the Affordable Care Act and include a variation of Sen. David Vitter's (R-LA) amendment by requiring members of Congress and the White House to obtain coverage through Obamacare's health exchanges.
Dent said Boehner, who detailed the proposal during a closed-door meeting with House Republicans, will unveil the outline "as early as today."
Is it me or are the republican demands getting more and more insane and in their own favor rather than an actual compromise? This would essentially delay obamacare by 2 years, and only a very temporary end to the government shut down so they can make even more demands in a few months, though this time without threatening to default? If I'm getting this right I'm pretty sure it will be instantly denied, and rightfully so.
Is the medical device tax that important for the ACA? I thought that the individual mandate was the part that was necessary for it to work. Sorry I am not very informed on it so any insight would be nice.
On October 15 2013 23:36 Sermokala wrote: Its not a law change its a rule change. This is a very important distinction and I would very much like it if you would stop fear mongering about how the USA is now somehow a dictatorship, they can ignore the rule if they want to or use it if they do want to. Procedural change on who introduces bills is not something that makes america a dictatorship. Republicans still have to get elected in a year
If it ever became one it was when Andrew Jackson showed that you can ignore the other 2 branches (SCOTUS on the trail of tears congress on the national bank) when you control the military and the public opinion.
Back when "politics worked" they would have small continuing resolutions for a few days so that they could negotiate while the people didn't suffer. Democrats don't want the shutdown to be suspended because they think Americans suffering helps them more then it hurts them.
That's very cynical. The democrats would end the shut down in a heartbeat if they could bring a clean bill to the house floor, which the republicans have blocked through rule changes. It would probably have enough votes to pass. Just because the poll numbers are reflecting increasing dissatisfaction with the republicans, it doesn't mean the democrats wouldn't put an end to this if they could. They can't, not without unreasonable concessions.
On October 15 2013 23:36 Sermokala wrote: Its not a law change its a rule change. This is a very important distinction and I would very much like it if you would stop fear mongering about how the USA is now somehow a dictatorship, they can ignore the rule if they want to or use it if they do want to. Procedural change on who introduces bills is not something that makes america a dictatorship. Republicans still have to get elected in a year
If it ever became one it was when Andrew Jackson showed that you can ignore the other 2 branches (SCOTUS on the trail of tears congress on the national bank) when you control the military and the public opinion.
Back when "politics worked" they would have small continuing resolutions for a few days so that they could negotiate while the people didn't suffer. Democrats don't want the shutdown to be suspended because they think Americans suffering helps them more then it hurts them.
That's very cynical. The democrats would end the shut down in a heartbeat if they could bring a clean bill to the house floor, which the republicans have blocked through rule changes. It would probably have enough votes to pass. Just because the poll numbers are reflecting increasing dissatisfaction with the republicans, it doesn't mean the democrats wouldn't put an end to this if they could. They can't, not without unreasonable concessions.
Just to be clear. A "Clean Bill" is just another way of saying "Blank Check".
On October 15 2013 23:36 Sermokala wrote: Its not a law change its a rule change. This is a very important distinction and I would very much like it if you would stop fear mongering about how the USA is now somehow a dictatorship, they can ignore the rule if they want to or use it if they do want to. Procedural change on who introduces bills is not something that makes america a dictatorship. Republicans still have to get elected in a year
If it ever became one it was when Andrew Jackson showed that you can ignore the other 2 branches (SCOTUS on the trail of tears congress on the national bank) when you control the military and the public opinion.
Back when "politics worked" they would have small continuing resolutions for a few days so that they could negotiate while the people didn't suffer. Democrats don't want the shutdown to be suspended because they think Americans suffering helps them more then it hurts them.
That's very cynical. The democrats would end the shut down in a heartbeat if they could bring a clean bill to the house floor, which the republicans have blocked through rule changes. It would probably have enough votes to pass. Just because the poll numbers are reflecting increasing dissatisfaction with the republicans, it doesn't mean the democrats wouldn't put an end to this if they could. They can't, not without unreasonable concessions.
Just to be clear. A "Clean Bill" is just another way of saying "Blank Check".
On October 15 2013 23:36 Sermokala wrote: Its not a law change its a rule change. This is a very important distinction and I would very much like it if you would stop fear mongering about how the USA is now somehow a dictatorship, they can ignore the rule if they want to or use it if they do want to. Procedural change on who introduces bills is not something that makes america a dictatorship. Republicans still have to get elected in a year
If it ever became one it was when Andrew Jackson showed that you can ignore the other 2 branches (SCOTUS on the trail of tears congress on the national bank) when you control the military and the public opinion.
Back when "politics worked" they would have small continuing resolutions for a few days so that they could negotiate while the people didn't suffer. Democrats don't want the shutdown to be suspended because they think Americans suffering helps them more then it hurts them.
That's very cynical. The democrats would end the shut down in a heartbeat if they could bring a clean bill to the house floor, which the republicans have blocked through rule changes. It would probably have enough votes to pass. Just because the poll numbers are reflecting increasing dissatisfaction with the republicans, it doesn't mean the democrats wouldn't put an end to this if they could. They can't, not without unreasonable concessions.
Just to be clear. A "Clean Bill" is just another way of saying "Blank Check".
The budget has already been passed.
But it hasn't. The "clean bill" they're talking about is just a continuing resolution of the previous years budget. I don't think a real budget has passed for quite a few years.
On October 15 2013 23:36 Sermokala wrote: Its not a law change its a rule change. This is a very important distinction and I would very much like it if you would stop fear mongering about how the USA is now somehow a dictatorship, they can ignore the rule if they want to or use it if they do want to. Procedural change on who introduces bills is not something that makes america a dictatorship. Republicans still have to get elected in a year
If it ever became one it was when Andrew Jackson showed that you can ignore the other 2 branches (SCOTUS on the trail of tears congress on the national bank) when you control the military and the public opinion.
Back when "politics worked" they would have small continuing resolutions for a few days so that they could negotiate while the people didn't suffer. Democrats don't want the shutdown to be suspended because they think Americans suffering helps them more then it hurts them.
That's very cynical. The democrats would end the shut down in a heartbeat if they could bring a clean bill to the house floor, which the republicans have blocked through rule changes. It would probably have enough votes to pass. Just because the poll numbers are reflecting increasing dissatisfaction with the republicans, it doesn't mean the democrats wouldn't put an end to this if they could. They can't, not without unreasonable concessions.
Just to be clear. A "Clean Bill" is just another way of saying "Blank Check".
On October 15 2013 23:36 Sermokala wrote: Its not a law change its a rule change. This is a very important distinction and I would very much like it if you would stop fear mongering about how the USA is now somehow a dictatorship, they can ignore the rule if they want to or use it if they do want to. Procedural change on who introduces bills is not something that makes america a dictatorship. Republicans still have to get elected in a year
If it ever became one it was when Andrew Jackson showed that you can ignore the other 2 branches (SCOTUS on the trail of tears congress on the national bank) when you control the military and the public opinion.
Back when "politics worked" they would have small continuing resolutions for a few days so that they could negotiate while the people didn't suffer. Democrats don't want the shutdown to be suspended because they think Americans suffering helps them more then it hurts them.
That's very cynical. The democrats would end the shut down in a heartbeat if they could bring a clean bill to the house floor, which the republicans have blocked through rule changes. It would probably have enough votes to pass. Just because the poll numbers are reflecting increasing dissatisfaction with the republicans, it doesn't mean the democrats wouldn't put an end to this if they could. They can't, not without unreasonable concessions.
Just to be clear. A "Clean Bill" is just another way of saying "Blank Check".
The politics of it aside, if it has the votes and it would end the shut down, but republicans won't allow a vote on it through rule changes, how do we end up at democrats want the shutdown to continue? It would end if house dems weren't reduced to just watching from the sidelines.
On October 16 2013 00:19 manicsquare wrote: Is the medical device tax that important for the ACA? I thought that the individual mandate was the part that was necessary for it to work. Sorry I am not very informed on it so any insight would be nice.
Medical device tax, like the changes to Medicare premiums and hospital reimbursement, is needed more to make the ACA cost-neutral. If you remove all the parts of the act that fund it, it will become a huge revenue sink-which is coincidentally exactly what Republican lawmakers want to see happen.
On October 16 2013 00:19 manicsquare wrote: Is the medical device tax that important for the ACA? I thought that the individual mandate was the part that was necessary for it to work. Sorry I am not very informed on it so any insight would be nice.
Medical device tax, like the changes to Medicare premiums and hospital reimbursement, is needed more to make the ACA cost-neutral. If you remove all the parts of the act that fund it, it will become a huge revenue sink-which is coincidentally exactly what Republican lawmakers want to see happen.
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.
Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:
Something is very wrong with US healthcare.
You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics.
The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy.
The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care.
On October 15 2013 23:36 Sermokala wrote: Its not a law change its a rule change. This is a very important distinction and I would very much like it if you would stop fear mongering about how the USA is now somehow a dictatorship, they can ignore the rule if they want to or use it if they do want to. Procedural change on who introduces bills is not something that makes america a dictatorship. Republicans still have to get elected in a year
If it ever became one it was when Andrew Jackson showed that you can ignore the other 2 branches (SCOTUS on the trail of tears congress on the national bank) when you control the military and the public opinion.
Back when "politics worked" they would have small continuing resolutions for a few days so that they could negotiate while the people didn't suffer. Democrats don't want the shutdown to be suspended because they think Americans suffering helps them more then it hurts them.
That's very cynical. The democrats would end the shut down in a heartbeat if they could bring a clean bill to the house floor, which the republicans have blocked through rule changes. It would probably have enough votes to pass. Just because the poll numbers are reflecting increasing dissatisfaction with the republicans, it doesn't mean the democrats wouldn't put an end to this if they could. They can't, not without unreasonable concessions.
Just to be clear. A "Clean Bill" is just another way of saying "Blank Check".
The politics of it aside, if it has the votes and it would end the shut down, but republicans won't allow a vote on it through rule changes, how do we end up at democrats want the shutdown to continue? It would end if house dems weren't reduced to just watching from the sidelines.
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that. they could keep it going for 3 days or so at a time like what the democrats did with jimmy carter back in the day but they want more long term then that so it'll go out of the media cycle and look back for the republicans again when nothing gets done between now and then.
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.
Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:
Something is very wrong with US healthcare.
You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics.
The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy.
The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care.
Mystery solved.
If we accept that as explaining the whole situation it still amounts to "there is a lot of money being spent on healthcare and a lot of people aren't getting any and are dying young". It's still a problem.
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.
Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:
Something is very wrong with US healthcare.
You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics.
The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy.
The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care.
Mystery solved.
If we accept that as explaining the whole situation it still amounts to "there is a lot of money being spent on healthcare and a lot of people aren't getting any and are dying young". It's still a problem.
Well global poverty will always be a problem. The point is you can't take those numbers and think it says anything about the US system.
Japan does not share a 3,000 km border with a third world country, for instance. People look at that graph and think "wow Japan really has good health care policy" instead of "wow a small island nation with a different culture lives differently."
But these country comparisons are ALWAYS idiotic. People only use them because they love confirmation bias.
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.
Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:
Something is very wrong with US healthcare.
You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics.
The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy.
The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care.
Mystery solved.
If we accept that as explaining the whole situation it still amounts to "there is a lot of money being spent on healthcare and a lot of people aren't getting any and are dying young". It's still a problem.
Well global poverty will always be a problem. The point is you can't take those numbers and think it says anything about the US system.
Japan does not share a 3,000 km border with a third world country, for instance. People look at that graph and think "wow Japan really has good health care policy" instead of "wow a small island nation with a different culture lives differently."
But these country comparisons are ALWAYS idiotic. People only use them because they love confirmation bias.
Btw Japans healthcare isn't 100% nationalized patents assume a % of cost for their care which is why health insurance still is common in japan, and you make it sound like sick people in mexico will travel across the desert where healthy boarder jumpers die just to get treated here. When something like that can just be stopped with carding people before health care but then people would have to have a national ID card which i'm sure conspiracy theorists would love.
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.
Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:
Something is very wrong with US healthcare.
You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics.
The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy.
The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care.
Mystery solved.
Nah. It is mostly because people are overweight here. Has nothing to do with immigrants. You would be surprised how lowering your weight to a healthy bmi of around 20 will prolong your life against the number one killer, Heart disease. Japan is so high up because they have a mostly vegetarian, with the exception of fish, diet. Poor or rich, if you put shitty food into your body you get shitty results.
People live longer based on diets. Safe drinking water is probably the largest factor as well, which is why lots of countries without it have the weird high death rates of children/adolescents but long life spans of people pass the age of 30 (their immune systems are adapted to the bacteria and pathogens found in the unsafe water.)
P.S. I'm not saying meat is bad. It's a good source of protein and yadayadayada. There are better things than the processed food usually seen in the normal american diet. Vegetarian diets tend to have less of the processed foods leading to healthier living. Non-processed food is probably the way to go regardless of eating meat or not. I hope this doesn't turn into a food based thread from my post. Please don't do that. Keep it government related.
On October 15 2013 23:36 Sermokala wrote: Its not a law change its a rule change. This is a very important distinction and I would very much like it if you would stop fear mongering about how the USA is now somehow a dictatorship, they can ignore the rule if they want to or use it if they do want to. Procedural change on who introduces bills is not something that makes america a dictatorship. Republicans still have to get elected in a year
If it ever became one it was when Andrew Jackson showed that you can ignore the other 2 branches (SCOTUS on the trail of tears congress on the national bank) when you control the military and the public opinion.
Back when "politics worked" they would have small continuing resolutions for a few days so that they could negotiate while the people didn't suffer. Democrats don't want the shutdown to be suspended because they think Americans suffering helps them more then it hurts them.
That's very cynical. The democrats would end the shut down in a heartbeat if they could bring a clean bill to the house floor, which the republicans have blocked through rule changes. It would probably have enough votes to pass. Just because the poll numbers are reflecting increasing dissatisfaction with the republicans, it doesn't mean the democrats wouldn't put an end to this if they could. They can't, not without unreasonable concessions.
Just to be clear. A "Clean Bill" is just another way of saying "Blank Check".
The politics of it aside, if it has the votes and it would end the shut down, but republicans won't allow a vote on it through rule changes, how do we end up at democrats want the shutdown to continue? It would end if house dems weren't reduced to just watching from the sidelines.
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that. they could keep it going for 3 days or so at a time like what the democrats did with jimmy carter back in the day but they want more long term then that so it'll go out of the media cycle and look back for the republicans again when nothing gets done between now and then.
Except even that short term CR wasn't offered by the Republicans without concessions. The Democrats have repeatedly said they would be willing to negotiate if the government was opened. Its the Republicans that are not willing to open the government even for a very limited time without concessions.
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.
Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:
Something is very wrong with US healthcare.
You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics.
The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy.
The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care.
Mystery solved.
Nah. It is mostly because people are overweight here. Has nothing to do with immigrants. You would be surprised how lowering your weight to a healthy bmi of around 20 will prolong your life against the number one killer, Heart disease. Japan is so high up because they have a mostly vegetarian, with the exception of fish, diet. Poor or rich, if you put shitty food into your body you get shitty results.
People live longer based on diets. Safe drinking water is probably the largest factor as well, which is why lots of countries without it have the weird high death rates of children/adolescents but long life spans of people pass the age of 30 (their immune systems are adapted to the bacteria and pathogens found in the unsafe water.)
bmi is an outmoded irrelevant index for a non white northern European male populous. First off not every race stories subcutaneous fat in the same amounts nor does every race store fat in the same locations. It's fat above the waste that gives around the liver and heart that causes the most problems, which is why Blacks and Pacific islanders can have more fat and not share the same risks, and south eastern asian's have a higher risk with less body fat%. Waist Hip ratio is an accepted form of measurement for risk.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://ipatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/cost12.png)
