|
On October 13 2013 12:04 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2013 11:44 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 13 2013 07:37 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2013 07:27 Danglars wrote:Speaker John Boehner told House Republicans Saturday morning that his efforts to strike a deal with President Barack Obama are at a standstill.
There is no agreement, Boehner said in a room in the Capitol Saturday, and there are no negotiations between House Republicans and the White House, since Obama rejected the speaker’s effort to lift the debt ceiling for six weeks and reopen government while setting up a budget negotiating process.
With that, a familiar dynamic has resurfaced 12 days into the government shutdown and five days before Treasury says the nation runs out of borrowing authority: The pendulum has swung back to Senate Republicans, who now look more likely to cut a deal with Obama to end the first government shutdown since 1996, and avoid the first default on U.S. debt in history.
After the news that talks between Boehner and Obama have broken down, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) emerged on the floor to emphasize that the nation’s eyes are firmly fixed on the chamber. politicoBasically, Obama met with Boehner and other Congressional leaders and they talked. For a little bit, it looked like some kind of deal would be reached. Now, we know it didn't happen. I never got the idea a deal would be reached. Either the Republicans open the government or it stays close. Dem's have made it perfectly clear there not negotiating while the country is held hostage. Democrats always back down. I am almost certain that it will happen this time as well, i.e. the budget will be changed in such a way that GOP at least partially gets what they want, and Democrats get much less. Then Democrats will declare a victory over GOP, while in reality it will be a GOP victory. It has happened so many times recently that I would not be surprised if it happened once again. Tell me a time in the past 2-4 years where the democrats have made significant concessions? They can't even pass a budget, and they got their tax hike. The republicans have achieved jack-all.
Ironically, the biggest example would be cutting the public option out of the ACA lmao
|
Obviously China has a stake in this since they are the next biggest power after the US but the situation that America is spiraling more and more out of control and that it is dragging the rest of the world with it is something I can very much agree on.
|
On October 14 2013 05:04 farvacola wrote:Because that operation involves the GOVERNMENT, and nothing could be more scary, right? 
Bureaucratic rationing is always scarier than economic rationing.
And the reason US health care has been so shitty is not because of the horrible free market, but because the normal price mechanisms have been completely eliminated through legislation, and dozens of barriers to entry into the market have been erected in the name of safety and keeping certain people rich. There is no reason we couldn't have a working market model with limited subsidies in place to take care of the poor. Step one would be eliminating the employer insurance which simply creates yet another middle man between the consumer and the actual price of care.
|
On October 14 2013 05:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:
You know it isn't that KwarK. A love and adulation for private interest and "the free market" runs rampant through this country, and purging it from areas like healthcare is going to be accordingly painful. If people are motivated entirely by private interest then why can you not go "this is how much of your money goes towards paying for your healthcare at the moment and this is how much more money you would have if you got rid of it" and then let them work it out for themselves?
The problem is that the American media is as partisan as its government. There is no clear picture, there is almost no way to form an honest opinion because of how hard it is to get actual facts.
|
On October 14 2013 05:19 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 05:04 farvacola wrote:Because that operation involves the GOVERNMENT, and nothing could be more scary, right? Bureaucratic rationing is always scarier than economic rationing. And the reason US health care has been so shitty is not because of the horrible free market, but because the normal price mechanisms have been completely eliminated through legislation, and dozens of barriers to entry into the market have been erected in the name of safety and keeping certain people rich. There is no reason we couldn't have a working market model with limited subsidies in place to take care of the poor. Step one would be eliminating the employer insurance which simply creates yet another middle man between the consumer and the actual price of care.
Subsidizing the poor, especially through mandated emergency care, actually is a huge part of the cost problem. The only real market solution would require that we allow the poor to die, which--let's face it--they probably deserved anyway, or else they wouldn't be poor now, would they?
|
what does medical ensurance cost in the US anyway ?
|
On October 14 2013 05:46 djukger wrote:
what does medical ensurance cost in the US anyway ?
The answer to this depends on a multitude of factors, which is a huge part of the problem. Generally, the answer is too much lol.
|
On October 14 2013 05:27 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 05:19 Nick Drake wrote:On October 14 2013 05:04 farvacola wrote:Because that operation involves the GOVERNMENT, and nothing could be more scary, right? Bureaucratic rationing is always scarier than economic rationing. And the reason US health care has been so shitty is not because of the horrible free market, but because the normal price mechanisms have been completely eliminated through legislation, and dozens of barriers to entry into the market have been erected in the name of safety and keeping certain people rich. There is no reason we couldn't have a working market model with limited subsidies in place to take care of the poor. Step one would be eliminating the employer insurance which simply creates yet another middle man between the consumer and the actual price of care. Subsidizing the poor, especially through mandated emergency care, actually is a huge part of the cost problem. The only real market solution would require that we allow the poor to die, which--let's face it--they probably deserved anyway, or else they wouldn't be poor now, would they?
Poor people deserve to die because they are poor?
Quite the humanitarian aren't you?
|
Hunter is being sarcastic 
|
On October 14 2013 05:19 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 05:04 farvacola wrote:Because that operation involves the GOVERNMENT, and nothing could be more scary, right? Bureaucratic rationing is always scarier than economic rationing. And the reason US health care has been so shitty is not because of the horrible free market, but because the normal price mechanisms have been completely eliminated through legislation, and dozens of barriers to entry into the market have been erected in the name of safety and keeping certain people rich. There is no reason we couldn't have a working market model with limited subsidies in place to take care of the poor. Step one would be eliminating the employer insurance which simply creates yet another middle man between the consumer and the actual price of care.
How exactly does employer insurance hurt things? Admittedly just jumped into it, but it's not obvious at all to me.
|
United States44316 Posts
On October 14 2013 06:10 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 05:19 Nick Drake wrote:On October 14 2013 05:04 farvacola wrote:Because that operation involves the GOVERNMENT, and nothing could be more scary, right? Bureaucratic rationing is always scarier than economic rationing. And the reason US health care has been so shitty is not because of the horrible free market, but because the normal price mechanisms have been completely eliminated through legislation, and dozens of barriers to entry into the market have been erected in the name of safety and keeping certain people rich. There is no reason we couldn't have a working market model with limited subsidies in place to take care of the poor. Step one would be eliminating the employer insurance which simply creates yet another middle man between the consumer and the actual price of care. How exactly does employer insurance hurt things? Admittedly just jumped into it, but it's not obvious at all to me.
It means you can't pick a plan that is appropriate for you and your needs but are rather subject to whatever your employer picks in his employee plan. It's part of the reason why you end up with conservative companies refusing to pay for healthcare women need because they refuse to recognise things like the pill as healthcare. It's a needless middle man that hurts the consumer and makes the market less open and free.
|
On October 14 2013 06:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 06:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 14 2013 05:19 Nick Drake wrote:On October 14 2013 05:04 farvacola wrote:Because that operation involves the GOVERNMENT, and nothing could be more scary, right? Bureaucratic rationing is always scarier than economic rationing. And the reason US health care has been so shitty is not because of the horrible free market, but because the normal price mechanisms have been completely eliminated through legislation, and dozens of barriers to entry into the market have been erected in the name of safety and keeping certain people rich. There is no reason we couldn't have a working market model with limited subsidies in place to take care of the poor. Step one would be eliminating the employer insurance which simply creates yet another middle man between the consumer and the actual price of care. How exactly does employer insurance hurt things? Admittedly just jumped into it, but it's not obvious at all to me. It means you can't pick a plan that is appropriate for you and your needs but are rather subject to whatever your employer picks in his employee plan. It's part of the reason why you end up with conservative companies refusing to pay for healthcare women need because they refuse to recognise things like the pill as healthcare. It's a needless middle man that hurts the consumer and makes the market less open and free.
Which sucks because employer plans usually suck. At least, I haven't had an employer with good insurance yet. Most of the time it is just catastrophic coverage in case you have to go to the ER. Olive Garden's best plan for prescription coverage only covered $500/year or something, and they are a Fortune 500 company that also made the Fortune 100 list of best companies to work for.
|
On October 14 2013 06:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 06:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 14 2013 05:19 Nick Drake wrote:On October 14 2013 05:04 farvacola wrote:Because that operation involves the GOVERNMENT, and nothing could be more scary, right? Bureaucratic rationing is always scarier than economic rationing. And the reason US health care has been so shitty is not because of the horrible free market, but because the normal price mechanisms have been completely eliminated through legislation, and dozens of barriers to entry into the market have been erected in the name of safety and keeping certain people rich. There is no reason we couldn't have a working market model with limited subsidies in place to take care of the poor. Step one would be eliminating the employer insurance which simply creates yet another middle man between the consumer and the actual price of care. How exactly does employer insurance hurt things? Admittedly just jumped into it, but it's not obvious at all to me. It means you can't pick a plan that is appropriate for you and your needs but are rather subject to whatever your employer picks in his employee plan. It's part of the reason why you end up with conservative companies refusing to pay for healthcare women need because they refuse to recognise things like the pill as healthcare. It's a needless middle man that hurts the consumer and makes the market less open and free.
Why should the pill be healthcare...? Why are women entitled to getting the pill in their employer's plan as opposed to paying out of pocket? Doesn't planned parenthood do that stuff for free or cheap anyways? Doesn't make any sense to me... unless we're not referring to contraceptive reasons but rather helping with other issues that it is often used for?
I've always more so felt if there is to be healthcare, it shouldn't cover any "mild" circumstances, just moderate to severe, which is unfortunately subjective. Guess I'm not fully educated on the reason such things are necessary.
|
On October 14 2013 07:28 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 06:53 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2013 06:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 14 2013 05:19 Nick Drake wrote:On October 14 2013 05:04 farvacola wrote:Because that operation involves the GOVERNMENT, and nothing could be more scary, right? Bureaucratic rationing is always scarier than economic rationing. And the reason US health care has been so shitty is not because of the horrible free market, but because the normal price mechanisms have been completely eliminated through legislation, and dozens of barriers to entry into the market have been erected in the name of safety and keeping certain people rich. There is no reason we couldn't have a working market model with limited subsidies in place to take care of the poor. Step one would be eliminating the employer insurance which simply creates yet another middle man between the consumer and the actual price of care. How exactly does employer insurance hurt things? Admittedly just jumped into it, but it's not obvious at all to me. It means you can't pick a plan that is appropriate for you and your needs but are rather subject to whatever your employer picks in his employee plan. It's part of the reason why you end up with conservative companies refusing to pay for healthcare women need because they refuse to recognise things like the pill as healthcare. It's a needless middle man that hurts the consumer and makes the market less open and free. Why should the pill be healthcare...? Why are women entitled to getting the pill in their employer's plan as opposed to paying out of pocket? Doesn't planned parenthood do that stuff for free or cheap anyways? Doesn't make any sense to me... unless we're not referring to contraceptive reasons but rather helping with other issues that it is often used for? I've always more so felt if there is to be healthcare, it shouldn't cover any "mild" circumstances, just moderate to severe, which is unfortunately subjective. Guess I'm not fully educated on the reason such things are necessary.
"other issues" are a pretty common use for the pill. Also, sexual health is an important part of health. Just because conservative employers may not want to recognize that sex exists doesn't mean that we should base our healthcare around the idea that sex is an "extra".
|
United States44316 Posts
Pregnancy is a serious medical condition that has big negative consequences on the quality of life and ability to work of the pregnant woman. Yes, it is caused by sex and yes, sex is, strictly speaking, voluntary. But if we accept that choosing to have sex is a normal part of everyday life for women (and I'm hoping we do) then how can contraceptive health not be an important part of their healthcare. The alternatives are insisting that sex isn't a thing women are meant to have in their normal lives or that pregnancy does not impact the health of the woman.
|
United States24799 Posts
Wouldn't birth control pills go in the same basic category as dermatological coverage, mild allergy coverage, etc? Specialists are often but not always covered by various insurance plans, or are covered to different amounts. While I think covering birth control pills is a good idea, I think it is in essence no different than other things which are sometimes denied.
|
On October 14 2013 07:45 micronesia wrote:
Wouldn't birth control pills go in the same basic category as dermatological coverage, mild allergy coverage, etc? Specialists are often but not always covered by various insurance plans, or are covered to different amounts. While I think covering birth control pills is a good idea, I think it is in essence no different than other things which are sometimes denied.
The difference is that insurance companies would much rather cover contraceptives than not since it's far cheaper for them than covering more pregnancies--there's no market reason to deny contraceptive coverage, only moral reasons.
|
United States44316 Posts
On October 14 2013 07:45 micronesia wrote:
Wouldn't birth control pills go in the same basic category as dermatological coverage, mild allergy coverage, etc? Specialists are often but not always covered by various insurance plans, or are covered to different amounts. While I think covering birth control pills is a good idea, I think it is in essence no different than other things which are sometimes denied.
I can't see why. Pregnancy is a serious medical condition that is in no way comparable to a mild allergy or a rash. If there were any other normal everyday activity that resulted in an organism living and growing inside you for 9 months, consuming your body's resources and displacing organs while dramatically altering your ability to live and work as you wanted then a cheap pill that prevented that would be seen as necessary healthcare. But when it's women having sex it's suddenly seen as an optional extra. It'd be bizarre if it wasn't part of a larger pattern of misogyny.
|
I think we should make a legislative or constitutional change to prevent shutdowns.
Something basic like if no budget is set on time, there's an automatic continuing resolution.
Then no more shutdown nonsense, it may not be optimal; but at least it'd keep things running.
There could optionally be a penalty clause that penalizes congress for failing to get stuff down, ranging from mild (they get no pay) to harsh (they're all kicked out of office and special elections are held) to really harsh (as before, plus they're barred from government jobs for life and given 2 years in jail.)
|
On October 14 2013 07:56 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 07:45 micronesia wrote:
Wouldn't birth control pills go in the same basic category as dermatological coverage, mild allergy coverage, etc? Specialists are often but not always covered by various insurance plans, or are covered to different amounts. While I think covering birth control pills is a good idea, I think it is in essence no different than other things which are sometimes denied. The difference is that insurance companies would much rather cover contraceptives than not since it's far cheaper for them than covering more pregnancies--there's no market reason to deny contraceptive coverage, only moral reasons.
I also think a big part of this issue is the rank hypocrisy involved in a lot of these plans that, while refusing birth controls pills to women, are covering sexual health medication (read: Viagra) for men.
Which is nothing but sexist. There's really no other way to explain that, other than from a flawed moral system where it's considered morally acceptable for men to have sexual lives and immoral for women to have them.
The irony in all of that is that under most of these hypocritical moral systems men aren't even allowed to have sex with each other. The math just doesn't add up....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
