|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 18 2019 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I want to make a set of "wild" predictions about 2020 so far. + Show Spoiler +Warren will be the first t2 candidate to drop out and 1st "major" candidate to endorse Sanders.
The field will be cut down by half or more after the 2nd debate/August.
It's a 3 person race by the primaries even if more hang around.
I'll be able to confidently predict the final 3 before the new year. See if I look foolish or clairvoyant by new years 
Yeah I agree with all this. Warren, much like Biden, is being propelled by existing interest/prestige, but not actually all that good of a candidate. However, I do think she will be a valuable ally of Bernie's once she bows out. From an election perspective, Bernie is just a superior version of Warren.
Similarly, Beto/Booty-jig are just superior versions of Biden. Harris kind of has value, but I'm still not impressed.
People who have a chance if they have an insane debate performance but are otherwise toast: Hickenlooper, Gabbard, Booker, Inslee (lmao), yang, castro, Harris.
Overall, I am simply not convinced a non-masculine woman can overcome the systematic sociological hurdles present in national politics. There is a certain amount of chest beating that simply hasn't left our voters yet. Clinton was a weird semi-masculine thing that didn't really work in either direction. Klobuchar comes the closest to radiating the same kind of masculine strength we see in AOC.
I love the idea of Yang being on stage and presenting the benefits of UBI, but his struggle will be to not appear as a Ron Paul joke.
Some candidates have strangely large pots of money right now, but that simply isn't enough. Modern day politics is won on social media, not TV/radio. Bernie and Trump both showed us in 2016 that the game is plain and simply different.
I think a lot of voters are continuing to ignore how much charisma/bravado Trump has. It is super crucial. For that reason, I honestly do think the only people with a chance against Trump are: Booty-jig, Klobuchar, Sanders, Beto.
Many people associate Biden with his TheOnion persona, but his IRL persona is actually significantly less likable/charismatic. He totally shit the bed in every debate I've seen him in.
|
On April 18 2019 00:38 Plansix wrote:
I believe Godwin himself said his law is bad and shouldn’t be cited anymore. I would argue it was always a bad rule made by someone who didn’t understand the mechanics of how the Nazi’s came to power. Gowdin's law doesn't work/apply when your talking about actual connections to Nazi's.
Its about completely unrelated discussions moving towards comparisons with Nazi's.
|
On April 18 2019 01:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 00:38 Plansix wrote:
I believe Godwin himself said his law is bad and shouldn’t be cited anymore. I would argue it was always a bad rule made by someone who didn’t understand the mechanics of how the Nazi’s came to power. Gowdin's law doesn't work/apply when your talking about actual connections to Nazi's. Its about completely unrelated discussions moving towards comparisons with Nazi's.
Which is super helpful when the people you are discussing things with don't know what is or is not connected to Nazis because they are poorly educated goons who learned about the Nazis from movies and video games. Like, for example, the people who think the 1924 immigration law in the US was a good thing.
|
|
|
On April 18 2019 01:30 Doodsmack wrote:We are now less than 24 hours away from #MuellerTime. + Show Spoiler +
Fans of black lines about to go crazy
|
On April 18 2019 01:39 IyMoon wrote:Fans of black lines about to go crazy
*Color-coded lines, per Barr
|
|
|
On April 18 2019 01:46 JimmiC wrote:
My Bold prediction is the Mueller report release changes nothing. Trumpers think it proves he is without a shadow of doubt clean, and not just of this but of even the stuff he has admitted to doing on twitter. Non-Trumpers believe this proves he is guilty and that under the black lines just more info that would further bury the man.
But I am excited and am hoping it is somewhat readable.
The people who aren't 100% either way are what matter. They are the ones who were like "Ya know, this Clinton gal sure is sketchy and seems to be corrupt and untrustworthy" and will likely end up thinking the same thing about Trump. Convictions are never necessary for public opinion. If the Mueller report ends up basically saying "There is an insane amount of smoke here, but technically no fire", a lot of people are going to hesitate to vote for him if someone else seems totally fine.
Everything I and everyone else says is just bullshit until we see the report tomorrow. But the fact that Mueller said Trump isn't exonerated makes me think there is enough material in the Mueller report to convince a lot of people "there's something fishy going on here".
|
The report is going to be a political rorschach test. Folks will see what they want. Given the polling released this morning, most American don't believe the report clears Trump. They think it is inconclusive. But the part that is most damning is that 51% of those polled felt the administration will get away with "corruption, unethical behavior or mishandling important problems". Which is up from this time last year by a pretty large margin. That isn't a great sign for the administration or Republicans in congress covering for the President.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/17/poll-trump-mueller-1278230
Only 30 percent of respondents accept the president’s interpretation that he was fully exonerated of wrongdoing. Meanwhile, 45 percent said they believe the Mueller report is inconclusive, and 18 percent said they don’t know enough to make a judgment.
The poll also found an increase among both independents and respondents overall in the percentage who fear that the Trump administration “will get away with corruption, unethical behavior or mishandling important problems.” Whereas 32 percent of independents and 45 percent of overall respondents had that fear in December 2018, the number went up to 46 percent of independents and 51 percent overall in April 2019.
|
On April 17 2019 08:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2019 08:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 17 2019 07:38 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:29 Sadist wrote:On April 17 2019 04:24 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:19 Sadist wrote:
The whole point of Medicare for all is to implement cost controls over the Medical industry. Theres no way to do it in the private sector because your health/life isnt bound by supply/demand when the alternative can be death. If you are having a heart attack and are on the operating table youd pay anything to have your life saved and sort out the cost later. That doesnt sound like something that can be driven by the market.
Two things
1)The idea that doctors will opt out of Medicare 4 all and only take patients with private insurance that pay more is ridiculous. They will have no patients to take in if everyone is covered by Medicare and go out of business if they operated that way. Not to mention theres plenty of hospitals and doctors offices today that cater almost exclusively to Medicare patients and they still make boatloads of money. Its not as if Medicare doesnt pay fair prices or even inflated prices to Doctors already.
2)This idea that care will be rationed is ridiculous. We already pay for the most expensive group of people to take care of (the elderly). Care is now rationed by your ability to afford treatment or your insurance company. To pretend as if rationing would be a new thing with Medicare for all is dishonest at best.
Lastly, this idea that Medicare for all will lead to increased wait times is morally bankrupt. If that did happen it means we need to fix the problem (whatever is causing the delay, not enough doctors, beurocracy, etc). Also, if the only reason this is happening not happening now is because theres a ton of people who cannot afford care that is morally reprehensible. It would effectively mean we are allowing those who dont have the means to seek care to be skipped in line by those who do.
I thought the point of Medicare for all was free health insurance coverage for everyone, subsidized by tax revenue? That is the desired effect yes but as a country it will allow us to stop Medical Care from eating up an increasingly larger chunk of the countries money. Also it isnt insurance but care. Theres a distinction. That depends on who you talk to. Medicare is an insurance program restricted to the elderly, and some plans I’ve seen discussed simply expand eligibility. I don’t think positing a distinction and leaving it at that is useful at al. Insurance only provides care after you reach your deductible, which if you are poor and you have to buy a bad plan is really high. Care means if you get sick you can go to the doctor no matter what and pay a 1$ co pay. Care means that you actually get care for what money you put into the system vs. Insurance or only getting care if you're practically dead. I don’t see any purpose to posting this. High deductible health insurance has existed for ages to bring down the premium you pay. That’s a trade off, not a separation between something called care and something called insurance. The size of your deductible and cost of your premium are not useful metrics to set any kind of dividing line between care and insurance. Nothing in your post references Medicare, nor varying implementations dubbed Medicare for all, nor any authority. I only know how you prefer to use the terms, as fuzzy of a distinction as it ends up being.
Everyone who lives long enough will need healthcare unless they die suddenly. I dont see how that qualifies as insurance. If you KNOW something is going to fail eventually, how exactly is that insurance? Generally insurance has a limit on the time frame and after that you are SOL.
Secondly, how the hell can it be called insurance if someone has a known chronic condition? Is it really insurance if someone has to take medication for the rest of their life?
We need to address the cost and care, this concept of insurance is just stupid.
|
On April 18 2019 03:03 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2019 08:44 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 08:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 17 2019 07:38 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:29 Sadist wrote:On April 17 2019 04:24 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:19 Sadist wrote:
The whole point of Medicare for all is to implement cost controls over the Medical industry. Theres no way to do it in the private sector because your health/life isnt bound by supply/demand when the alternative can be death. If you are having a heart attack and are on the operating table youd pay anything to have your life saved and sort out the cost later. That doesnt sound like something that can be driven by the market.
Two things
1)The idea that doctors will opt out of Medicare 4 all and only take patients with private insurance that pay more is ridiculous. They will have no patients to take in if everyone is covered by Medicare and go out of business if they operated that way. Not to mention theres plenty of hospitals and doctors offices today that cater almost exclusively to Medicare patients and they still make boatloads of money. Its not as if Medicare doesnt pay fair prices or even inflated prices to Doctors already.
2)This idea that care will be rationed is ridiculous. We already pay for the most expensive group of people to take care of (the elderly). Care is now rationed by your ability to afford treatment or your insurance company. To pretend as if rationing would be a new thing with Medicare for all is dishonest at best.
Lastly, this idea that Medicare for all will lead to increased wait times is morally bankrupt. If that did happen it means we need to fix the problem (whatever is causing the delay, not enough doctors, beurocracy, etc). Also, if the only reason this is happening not happening now is because theres a ton of people who cannot afford care that is morally reprehensible. It would effectively mean we are allowing those who dont have the means to seek care to be skipped in line by those who do.
I thought the point of Medicare for all was free health insurance coverage for everyone, subsidized by tax revenue? That is the desired effect yes but as a country it will allow us to stop Medical Care from eating up an increasingly larger chunk of the countries money. Also it isnt insurance but care. Theres a distinction. That depends on who you talk to. Medicare is an insurance program restricted to the elderly, and some plans I’ve seen discussed simply expand eligibility. I don’t think positing a distinction and leaving it at that is useful at al. Insurance only provides care after you reach your deductible, which if you are poor and you have to buy a bad plan is really high. Care means if you get sick you can go to the doctor no matter what and pay a 1$ co pay. Care means that you actually get care for what money you put into the system vs. Insurance or only getting care if you're practically dead. I don’t see any purpose to posting this. High deductible health insurance has existed for ages to bring down the premium you pay. That’s a trade off, not a separation between something called care and something called insurance. The size of your deductible and cost of your premium are not useful metrics to set any kind of dividing line between care and insurance. Nothing in your post references Medicare, nor varying implementations dubbed Medicare for all, nor any authority. I only know how you prefer to use the terms, as fuzzy of a distinction as it ends up being. Everyone who lives long enough will need healthcare unless they die suddenly. I dont see how that qualifies as insurance. If you KNOW something is going to fail eventually, how exactly is that insurance? Generally insurance has a limit on the time frame and after that you are SOL. Secondly, how the hell can it be called insurance if someone has a known chronic condition? Is it really insurance if someone has to take medication for the rest of their life? We need to address the cost and care, this concept of insurance is just stupid.
I mean, healthcare is basically the best current example of free market failure. You're talking about an industry that, by necessity and definition, deals with way more people in desperate or life/death scenarios than any other, and they've been totally free to do whatever they want, and charge whatever they want. The only way this deal works out for the consumer is when you assume the companies involved value public well-being over their own profits. Never in a million years. The free market basically gave us our opioid crisis.
|
|
|
On April 18 2019 03:13 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 03:03 Sadist wrote:On April 17 2019 08:44 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 08:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 17 2019 07:38 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:29 Sadist wrote:On April 17 2019 04:24 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:19 Sadist wrote:
The whole point of Medicare for all is to implement cost controls over the Medical industry. Theres no way to do it in the private sector because your health/life isnt bound by supply/demand when the alternative can be death. If you are having a heart attack and are on the operating table youd pay anything to have your life saved and sort out the cost later. That doesnt sound like something that can be driven by the market.
Two things
1)The idea that doctors will opt out of Medicare 4 all and only take patients with private insurance that pay more is ridiculous. They will have no patients to take in if everyone is covered by Medicare and go out of business if they operated that way. Not to mention theres plenty of hospitals and doctors offices today that cater almost exclusively to Medicare patients and they still make boatloads of money. Its not as if Medicare doesnt pay fair prices or even inflated prices to Doctors already.
2)This idea that care will be rationed is ridiculous. We already pay for the most expensive group of people to take care of (the elderly). Care is now rationed by your ability to afford treatment or your insurance company. To pretend as if rationing would be a new thing with Medicare for all is dishonest at best.
Lastly, this idea that Medicare for all will lead to increased wait times is morally bankrupt. If that did happen it means we need to fix the problem (whatever is causing the delay, not enough doctors, beurocracy, etc). Also, if the only reason this is happening not happening now is because theres a ton of people who cannot afford care that is morally reprehensible. It would effectively mean we are allowing those who dont have the means to seek care to be skipped in line by those who do.
I thought the point of Medicare for all was free health insurance coverage for everyone, subsidized by tax revenue? That is the desired effect yes but as a country it will allow us to stop Medical Care from eating up an increasingly larger chunk of the countries money. Also it isnt insurance but care. Theres a distinction. That depends on who you talk to. Medicare is an insurance program restricted to the elderly, and some plans I’ve seen discussed simply expand eligibility. I don’t think positing a distinction and leaving it at that is useful at al. Insurance only provides care after you reach your deductible, which if you are poor and you have to buy a bad plan is really high. Care means if you get sick you can go to the doctor no matter what and pay a 1$ co pay. Care means that you actually get care for what money you put into the system vs. Insurance or only getting care if you're practically dead. I don’t see any purpose to posting this. High deductible health insurance has existed for ages to bring down the premium you pay. That’s a trade off, not a separation between something called care and something called insurance. The size of your deductible and cost of your premium are not useful metrics to set any kind of dividing line between care and insurance. Nothing in your post references Medicare, nor varying implementations dubbed Medicare for all, nor any authority. I only know how you prefer to use the terms, as fuzzy of a distinction as it ends up being. Everyone who lives long enough will need healthcare unless they die suddenly. I dont see how that qualifies as insurance. If you KNOW something is going to fail eventually, how exactly is that insurance? Generally insurance has a limit on the time frame and after that you are SOL. Secondly, how the hell can it be called insurance if someone has a known chronic condition? Is it really insurance if someone has to take medication for the rest of their life? We need to address the cost and care, this concept of insurance is just stupid. I mean, healthcare is basically the best current example of free market failure. You're talking about an industry that, by necessity and definition, deals with way more people in desperate or life/death scenarios than any other, and they've been totally free to do whatever they want, and charge whatever they want. The only way this deal works out for the consumer is when you assume the companies involved value public well-being over their own profits. Never in a million years. The free market basically gave us our opioid crisis.
Exactly. We have rules or decorum that dictate there isnt price gouging during emergencies (ie: $20/gallon gas, $50 for a pack of water) yet its perfectly acceptable for the medical industry to gouge us during personal emergencies. Its ridiculous.
|
On April 18 2019 03:25 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 03:13 NewSunshine wrote:On April 18 2019 03:03 Sadist wrote:On April 17 2019 08:44 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 08:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 17 2019 07:38 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:29 Sadist wrote:On April 17 2019 04:24 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:19 Sadist wrote:
The whole point of Medicare for all is to implement cost controls over the Medical industry. Theres no way to do it in the private sector because your health/life isnt bound by supply/demand when the alternative can be death. If you are having a heart attack and are on the operating table youd pay anything to have your life saved and sort out the cost later. That doesnt sound like something that can be driven by the market.
Two things
1)The idea that doctors will opt out of Medicare 4 all and only take patients with private insurance that pay more is ridiculous. They will have no patients to take in if everyone is covered by Medicare and go out of business if they operated that way. Not to mention theres plenty of hospitals and doctors offices today that cater almost exclusively to Medicare patients and they still make boatloads of money. Its not as if Medicare doesnt pay fair prices or even inflated prices to Doctors already.
2)This idea that care will be rationed is ridiculous. We already pay for the most expensive group of people to take care of (the elderly). Care is now rationed by your ability to afford treatment or your insurance company. To pretend as if rationing would be a new thing with Medicare for all is dishonest at best.
Lastly, this idea that Medicare for all will lead to increased wait times is morally bankrupt. If that did happen it means we need to fix the problem (whatever is causing the delay, not enough doctors, beurocracy, etc). Also, if the only reason this is happening not happening now is because theres a ton of people who cannot afford care that is morally reprehensible. It would effectively mean we are allowing those who dont have the means to seek care to be skipped in line by those who do.
I thought the point of Medicare for all was free health insurance coverage for everyone, subsidized by tax revenue? That is the desired effect yes but as a country it will allow us to stop Medical Care from eating up an increasingly larger chunk of the countries money. Also it isnt insurance but care. Theres a distinction. That depends on who you talk to. Medicare is an insurance program restricted to the elderly, and some plans I’ve seen discussed simply expand eligibility. I don’t think positing a distinction and leaving it at that is useful at al. Insurance only provides care after you reach your deductible, which if you are poor and you have to buy a bad plan is really high. Care means if you get sick you can go to the doctor no matter what and pay a 1$ co pay. Care means that you actually get care for what money you put into the system vs. Insurance or only getting care if you're practically dead. I don’t see any purpose to posting this. High deductible health insurance has existed for ages to bring down the premium you pay. That’s a trade off, not a separation between something called care and something called insurance. The size of your deductible and cost of your premium are not useful metrics to set any kind of dividing line between care and insurance. Nothing in your post references Medicare, nor varying implementations dubbed Medicare for all, nor any authority. I only know how you prefer to use the terms, as fuzzy of a distinction as it ends up being. Everyone who lives long enough will need healthcare unless they die suddenly. I dont see how that qualifies as insurance. If you KNOW something is going to fail eventually, how exactly is that insurance? Generally insurance has a limit on the time frame and after that you are SOL. Secondly, how the hell can it be called insurance if someone has a known chronic condition? Is it really insurance if someone has to take medication for the rest of their life? We need to address the cost and care, this concept of insurance is just stupid. I mean, healthcare is basically the best current example of free market failure. You're talking about an industry that, by necessity and definition, deals with way more people in desperate or life/death scenarios than any other, and they've been totally free to do whatever they want, and charge whatever they want. The only way this deal works out for the consumer is when you assume the companies involved value public well-being over their own profits. Never in a million years. The free market basically gave us our opioid crisis. Exactly. We have rules or decorum that dictate there isnt price gouging during emergencies (ie: $20/gallon gas, $50 for a pack of water) yet its perfectly acceptable for the medical industry to gouge us during personal emergencies. Its ridiculous.
Its similar to Facebook with privacy stuff. Companies try their best to prevent legislation from ever existing. The medical/insurance industry has managed to prevent regulations around price control over health stuff. We just haven't had an opportunity to actually do anything yet. It is 10x easier to prevent oversight than to eliminate oversight.
|
On April 18 2019 03:03 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2019 08:44 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 08:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 17 2019 07:38 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:29 Sadist wrote:On April 17 2019 04:24 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:19 Sadist wrote:
The whole point of Medicare for all is to implement cost controls over the Medical industry. Theres no way to do it in the private sector because your health/life isnt bound by supply/demand when the alternative can be death. If you are having a heart attack and are on the operating table youd pay anything to have your life saved and sort out the cost later. That doesnt sound like something that can be driven by the market.
Two things
1)The idea that doctors will opt out of Medicare 4 all and only take patients with private insurance that pay more is ridiculous. They will have no patients to take in if everyone is covered by Medicare and go out of business if they operated that way. Not to mention theres plenty of hospitals and doctors offices today that cater almost exclusively to Medicare patients and they still make boatloads of money. Its not as if Medicare doesnt pay fair prices or even inflated prices to Doctors already.
2)This idea that care will be rationed is ridiculous. We already pay for the most expensive group of people to take care of (the elderly). Care is now rationed by your ability to afford treatment or your insurance company. To pretend as if rationing would be a new thing with Medicare for all is dishonest at best.
Lastly, this idea that Medicare for all will lead to increased wait times is morally bankrupt. If that did happen it means we need to fix the problem (whatever is causing the delay, not enough doctors, beurocracy, etc). Also, if the only reason this is happening not happening now is because theres a ton of people who cannot afford care that is morally reprehensible. It would effectively mean we are allowing those who dont have the means to seek care to be skipped in line by those who do.
I thought the point of Medicare for all was free health insurance coverage for everyone, subsidized by tax revenue? That is the desired effect yes but as a country it will allow us to stop Medical Care from eating up an increasingly larger chunk of the countries money. Also it isnt insurance but care. Theres a distinction. That depends on who you talk to. Medicare is an insurance program restricted to the elderly, and some plans I’ve seen discussed simply expand eligibility. I don’t think positing a distinction and leaving it at that is useful at al. Insurance only provides care after you reach your deductible, which if you are poor and you have to buy a bad plan is really high. Care means if you get sick you can go to the doctor no matter what and pay a 1$ co pay. Care means that you actually get care for what money you put into the system vs. Insurance or only getting care if you're practically dead. I don’t see any purpose to posting this. High deductible health insurance has existed for ages to bring down the premium you pay. That’s a trade off, not a separation between something called care and something called insurance. The size of your deductible and cost of your premium are not useful metrics to set any kind of dividing line between care and insurance. Nothing in your post references Medicare, nor varying implementations dubbed Medicare for all, nor any authority. I only know how you prefer to use the terms, as fuzzy of a distinction as it ends up being. Everyone who lives long enough will need healthcare unless they die suddenly. I dont see how that qualifies as insurance. If you KNOW something is going to fail eventually, how exactly is that insurance? Generally insurance has a limit on the time frame and after that you are SOL. Secondly, how the hell can it be called insurance if someone has a known chronic condition? Is it really insurance if someone has to take medication for the rest of their life? We need to address the cost and care, this concept of insurance is just stupid.
You might not like how insurance functions in markets, but that’s a very different thing than pointing at Medicare/Medicare for all and calling it “care” instead of “insurance” and zinging someone on the “distinction.” I’ll call it insurance because it’s an insurance program.
Secondly, I know I’m going to get in an accident eventually, how dare they call it car insurance? You know somebody’s eventually going to make the impossible shot/trick shot, how dare they call it contest insurance? I really think the problem here is misunderstanding on insurance, before even getting into problems with the hospital-insurer-govt reg dynamic in this industry. Maybe I can dig up a link or two about managing risk IN SPITE OF the knowledge that bad things will happen eventually.
|
On April 18 2019 03:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 03:03 Sadist wrote:On April 17 2019 08:44 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 08:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 17 2019 07:38 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:29 Sadist wrote:On April 17 2019 04:24 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:19 Sadist wrote:
The whole point of Medicare for all is to implement cost controls over the Medical industry. Theres no way to do it in the private sector because your health/life isnt bound by supply/demand when the alternative can be death. If you are having a heart attack and are on the operating table youd pay anything to have your life saved and sort out the cost later. That doesnt sound like something that can be driven by the market.
Two things
1)The idea that doctors will opt out of Medicare 4 all and only take patients with private insurance that pay more is ridiculous. They will have no patients to take in if everyone is covered by Medicare and go out of business if they operated that way. Not to mention theres plenty of hospitals and doctors offices today that cater almost exclusively to Medicare patients and they still make boatloads of money. Its not as if Medicare doesnt pay fair prices or even inflated prices to Doctors already.
2)This idea that care will be rationed is ridiculous. We already pay for the most expensive group of people to take care of (the elderly). Care is now rationed by your ability to afford treatment or your insurance company. To pretend as if rationing would be a new thing with Medicare for all is dishonest at best.
Lastly, this idea that Medicare for all will lead to increased wait times is morally bankrupt. If that did happen it means we need to fix the problem (whatever is causing the delay, not enough doctors, beurocracy, etc). Also, if the only reason this is happening not happening now is because theres a ton of people who cannot afford care that is morally reprehensible. It would effectively mean we are allowing those who dont have the means to seek care to be skipped in line by those who do.
I thought the point of Medicare for all was free health insurance coverage for everyone, subsidized by tax revenue? That is the desired effect yes but as a country it will allow us to stop Medical Care from eating up an increasingly larger chunk of the countries money. Also it isnt insurance but care. Theres a distinction. That depends on who you talk to. Medicare is an insurance program restricted to the elderly, and some plans I’ve seen discussed simply expand eligibility. I don’t think positing a distinction and leaving it at that is useful at al. Insurance only provides care after you reach your deductible, which if you are poor and you have to buy a bad plan is really high. Care means if you get sick you can go to the doctor no matter what and pay a 1$ co pay. Care means that you actually get care for what money you put into the system vs. Insurance or only getting care if you're practically dead. I don’t see any purpose to posting this. High deductible health insurance has existed for ages to bring down the premium you pay. That’s a trade off, not a separation between something called care and something called insurance. The size of your deductible and cost of your premium are not useful metrics to set any kind of dividing line between care and insurance. Nothing in your post references Medicare, nor varying implementations dubbed Medicare for all, nor any authority. I only know how you prefer to use the terms, as fuzzy of a distinction as it ends up being. Everyone who lives long enough will need healthcare unless they die suddenly. I dont see how that qualifies as insurance. If you KNOW something is going to fail eventually, how exactly is that insurance? Generally insurance has a limit on the time frame and after that you are SOL. Secondly, how the hell can it be called insurance if someone has a known chronic condition? Is it really insurance if someone has to take medication for the rest of their life? We need to address the cost and care, this concept of insurance is just stupid. You might not like how insurance functions in markets, but that’s a very different thing than pointing at Medicare/Medicare for all and calling it “care” instead of “insurance” and zinging someone on the “distinction.” I’ll call it insurance because it’s an insurance program. Secondly, I know I’m going to get in an accident eventually, how dare they call it car insurance? You know somebody’s eventually going to make the impossible shot/trick shot, how dare they call it contest insurance? I really think the problem here is misunderstanding on insurance, before even getting into problems with the hospital-insurer-govt reg dynamic in this industry. Maybe I can dig up a link or two about managing risk IN SPITE OF the knowledge that bad things will happen eventually.
The car insurance one is not true. Theres lots of people who never get in an accident their entire life. How is that remotely compareable to healthcare which everyone will eventually need?
Also, how should we deal with known chronic conditions? Those by definition are not something insurance should cover since its already happened.
|
The Mueller report is likely going to be a nothingburger. We already know the key conclusions from Barr's letter. Nonetheless, I fully expect that Mueller's report is going to take multiple facts out of context to try to paint an unflattering and substantively untrue narrative regarding Trump. Various congressional republicans have already raised the red flag on Mueller intentionally leaving out exculpatory evidence. For this reason, Mueller's report almost certainly won't be something that can be reviewed in isolation. It will have to be reviewed with whatever rebuttal that Giuliani's team has prepared.
Mueller's objective is going to be to try to legitimize the underlying bases of the investigation. He needs to dress up the turd that is the dossier to at least give the appearance that its usage was legitimate. He's not going to be able to verify the key substantive allegations of the dossier directly, but I do expect quite a bit of discussion regarding the indictments of the various Russian hacking entities and what not to show Russian interference in the election, regardless of the fact that this interference was wholly unrelated to Trump and his campaign. What I am interested in seeing is whether Mueller doubles down on the Assange/Wikileaks connection to the Russian hackers. I am also curious as to the extent to which Mueller is going to throw the CIA under the bus for its role in the pre-Crossfire Hurricane spying on Trump people. At some point, Mueller is going to have to give some discussion on what started Crossfire Hurricane in the report, and we already know that Brennan and the CIA played a role here. To the extent that we get to see any of this (it's likely to be redacted), I doubt that Mueller is going to get into the details because virtually nothing that he can say is going to be any good for the legitimacy of his investigation unless he actually delivers a legitimate predicate (all but impossible at this point).
Regardless, the Mueller report is going to be the last gasp for the Russia collusion narrative and will have all of the impact of a wet fart. Once it's out, I fully expect that Trump, Barr, and others will turn the tables on the investigators, and we'll get some real answers on what happened.
|
On April 18 2019 03:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 03:03 Sadist wrote:On April 17 2019 08:44 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 08:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 17 2019 07:38 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:29 Sadist wrote:On April 17 2019 04:24 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:19 Sadist wrote:
The whole point of Medicare for all is to implement cost controls over the Medical industry. Theres no way to do it in the private sector because your health/life isnt bound by supply/demand when the alternative can be death. If you are having a heart attack and are on the operating table youd pay anything to have your life saved and sort out the cost later. That doesnt sound like something that can be driven by the market.
Two things
1)The idea that doctors will opt out of Medicare 4 all and only take patients with private insurance that pay more is ridiculous. They will have no patients to take in if everyone is covered by Medicare and go out of business if they operated that way. Not to mention theres plenty of hospitals and doctors offices today that cater almost exclusively to Medicare patients and they still make boatloads of money. Its not as if Medicare doesnt pay fair prices or even inflated prices to Doctors already.
2)This idea that care will be rationed is ridiculous. We already pay for the most expensive group of people to take care of (the elderly). Care is now rationed by your ability to afford treatment or your insurance company. To pretend as if rationing would be a new thing with Medicare for all is dishonest at best.
Lastly, this idea that Medicare for all will lead to increased wait times is morally bankrupt. If that did happen it means we need to fix the problem (whatever is causing the delay, not enough doctors, beurocracy, etc). Also, if the only reason this is happening not happening now is because theres a ton of people who cannot afford care that is morally reprehensible. It would effectively mean we are allowing those who dont have the means to seek care to be skipped in line by those who do.
I thought the point of Medicare for all was free health insurance coverage for everyone, subsidized by tax revenue? That is the desired effect yes but as a country it will allow us to stop Medical Care from eating up an increasingly larger chunk of the countries money. Also it isnt insurance but care. Theres a distinction. That depends on who you talk to. Medicare is an insurance program restricted to the elderly, and some plans I’ve seen discussed simply expand eligibility. I don’t think positing a distinction and leaving it at that is useful at al. Insurance only provides care after you reach your deductible, which if you are poor and you have to buy a bad plan is really high. Care means if you get sick you can go to the doctor no matter what and pay a 1$ co pay. Care means that you actually get care for what money you put into the system vs. Insurance or only getting care if you're practically dead. I don’t see any purpose to posting this. High deductible health insurance has existed for ages to bring down the premium you pay. That’s a trade off, not a separation between something called care and something called insurance. The size of your deductible and cost of your premium are not useful metrics to set any kind of dividing line between care and insurance. Nothing in your post references Medicare, nor varying implementations dubbed Medicare for all, nor any authority. I only know how you prefer to use the terms, as fuzzy of a distinction as it ends up being. Everyone who lives long enough will need healthcare unless they die suddenly. I dont see how that qualifies as insurance. If you KNOW something is going to fail eventually, how exactly is that insurance? Generally insurance has a limit on the time frame and after that you are SOL. Secondly, how the hell can it be called insurance if someone has a known chronic condition? Is it really insurance if someone has to take medication for the rest of their life? We need to address the cost and care, this concept of insurance is just stupid. You might not like how insurance functions in markets, but that’s a very different thing than pointing at Medicare/Medicare for all and calling it “care” instead of “insurance” and zinging someone on the “distinction.” I’ll call it insurance because it’s an insurance program. Secondly, I know I’m going to get in an accident eventually, how dare they call it car insurance? You know somebody’s eventually going to make the impossible shot/trick shot, how dare they call it contest insurance? I really think the problem here is misunderstanding on insurance, before even getting into problems with the hospital-insurer-govt reg dynamic in this industry. Maybe I can dig up a link or two about managing risk IN SPITE OF the knowledge that bad things will happen eventually.
For all you seem to think he's "zinging" you on a distinction, isn't that exactly what you're trying to do right now? You're synthesizing an argument and trying to make the discussion about something other than how our healthcare industry in this country is a total failure. And, so far as I can tell, you're the only one participating in this argument.
|
|
|
On April 18 2019 03:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 03:53 xDaunt wrote:The Mueller report is likely going to be a nothingburger. We already know the key conclusions from Barr's letter. Nonetheless, I fully expect that Mueller's report is going to take multiple facts out of context to try to paint an unflattering and substantively untrue narrative regarding Trump. Various congressional republicans have already raised the red flag on Mueller intentionally leaving out exculpatory evidence. For this reason, Mueller's report almost certainly won't be something that can be reviewed in isolation. It will have to be reviewed with whatever rebuttal that Giuliani's team has prepared. Mueller's objective is going to be to try to legitimize the underlying bases of the investigation. He needs to dress up the turd that is the dossier to at least give the appearance that its usage was legitimate. He's not going to be able to verify the key substantive allegations of the dossier directly, but I do expect quite a bit of discussion regarding the indictments of the various Russian hacking entities and what not to show Russian interference in the election, regardless of the fact that this interference was wholly unrelated to Trump and his campaign. What I am interested in seeing is whether Mueller doubles down on the Assange/Wikileaks connection to the Russian hackers. I am also curious as to the extent to which Mueller is going to throw the CIA under the bus for its role in the pre-Crossfire Hurricane spying on Trump people. At some point, Mueller is going to have to give some discussion on what started Crossfire Hurricane in the report, and we already know that Brennan and the CIA played a role here. To the extent that we get to see any of this (it's likely to be redacted), I doubt that Mueller is going to get into the details because virtually nothing that he can say is going to be any good for the legitimacy of his investigation unless he actually delivers a legitimate predicate (all but impossible at this point). Regardless, the Mueller report is going to be the last gasp for the Russia collusion narrative and will have all of the impact of a wet fart. Once it's out, I fully expect that Trump, Barr, and others will turn the tables on the investigators, and we'll get some real answers on what happened. Are you on board with the people it did take down? Or should they be pardoned? If so is this because you think the investigation is flawed? Or do you think they were actually innocent? If it shows a bunch of smoke but not the "fire" that is needed to indict certain people will this change your view on anyone that it may point too?
Flynn and Papadopoulos may need to be pardoned given the huge stink of entrapment surrounding what happened to them. Even Manafort may be deserving of a pardon depending upon the source of the evidence that was used for his prosecution. If all of that evidence came from raids, seizures, and surveillance that was predicated upon the dossier, then there's a real 4th Amendment issue that needs to be looked at and considered, regardless of the criminal activity that Manafort engaged in. Ours is not a system where people are investigated. Only crimes are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.etsystatic.com/15706883/r/il/bf4696/1449339295/il_fullxfull.1449339295_eim8.jpg)
