Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

2,551 to 2,600 of 4,260 << first < prev | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | next > last >>

MMCJawa wrote:
And its yanked!

You think this means they will stop trying to repeal the ACA every other day?


Don't know anything about the Seattle People's Party, but apparently they're running a BLM organizer for mayor.


Mayoral Challenger Calls for Rent Control, ‘More Aggressive’ Affordable Housing Demands on Developers


More my speed:

Momentum Builds for Massive West Coast May Day Strike


Vidmaster7 wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
And its yanked!
You think this means they will stop trying to repeal the ACA every other day?

Well...something is going to happen

Seems clear they don't have the support in congress to create a new bill, and I don't think they have the support of voters on repealing without replacing.

So they could:

Undermine ACA and ensure its death spiral, and hope dems are blamed for the collapse. Then offer some very weak healthcare changes

"Republicanize" the existing heathcare by adding new condition and loosening regulations elsewhere, and fixing existing shortcomings

Come up with a new bill, which without exerting a lot o political pressure is probably going to suffer the same fate as the Ryancare bill.


MMCJawa wrote:

Well...something is going to happen

Seems clear they don't have the support in congress to create a new bill, and I don't think they have the support of voters on repealing without replacing.

So they could:

Undermine ACA and ensure its death spiral, and hope dems are blamed for the collapse. Then offer some very weak healthcare changes

"Republicanize" the existing heathcare by adding new condition and loosening regulations elsewhere, and fixing existing shortcomings

Come up with a new bill, which without exerting a lot o political pressure is probably going to suffer the same fate as the Ryancare bill.

For all the talk of "repeal", your "republicanize" is really what this attempt was. It's failed entirely.

An outright repeal is also hopeless - if only because it would violate the rules that would let them use budget reconciliation to avoid a filibuster in the Senate. And there are enough Republican Senators not enthusiastic about it to keep them from changing the rules or pretending they don't apply.

Undermining the ACA looks like the plan. Along with a lot of infighting and blame pointing. Wonder if they'll try to oust Ryan from the Speaker's post?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's hard to Republicanize a plan that's already a Republican plan. As numerous liberals on these boards have lamented, the ACA isn't really all that progressive and part of the reason was that Obama took a Republican plan and passed it in an attempt to prevent Republican opposition. For the last 5 years Republicans have been running on a platform of "The ACA sucks and we'll give you better healthcare with lower premiums." (Before that it was death panels and other problems) The problem is of course that the only way to actually do that would be to pass a more progressive version of health care.

There is one potential "republican" style plan that could be successful, and in a way I'm really surprised that someone like Rand Paul hasn't proposed it yet in order to hijack the leadership of his party: Repeal all federal legislation on health care, all regulations, all the rules, including the FDA, and block grant what the government currently spends on health care to the states to let them design their own health care system. It's anti-federal regulation and pro-states rights. I would actually be a little bit afraid of how a plan like that would impact the next couple elections as it would dull any anger towards federal republicans and shift blame to the states for any issues.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
There is one potential "republican" style plan that could be successful, and in a way I'm really surprised that someone like Rand Paul hasn't proposed it yet in order to hijack the leadership of his party: Repeal all federal legislation on health care, all regulations, all the rules, including the FDA, and block grant what the government currently spends on health care to the states to let them design their own health care system. It's anti-federal regulation and pro-states rights. I would actually be a little bit afraid of how a plan like that would impact the next couple elections as it would dull any anger towards federal republicans and shift blame to the states for any issues.

Last time we tried laissez faire we got the Gilded Age. Pass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

It's hard to Republicanize a plan that's already a Republican plan. As numerous liberals on these boards have lamented, the ACA isn't really all that progressive and part of the reason was that Obama took a Republican plan and passed it in an attempt to prevent Republican opposition. For the last 5 years Republicans have been running on a platform of "The ACA sucks and we'll give you better healthcare with lower premiums." (Before that it was death panels and other problems) The problem is of course that the only way to actually do that would be to pass a more progressive version of health care.

There is one potential "republican" style plan that could be successful, and in a way I'm really surprised that someone like Rand Paul hasn't proposed it yet in order to hijack the leadership of his party: Repeal all federal legislation on health care, all regulations, all the rules, including the FDA, and block grant what the government currently spends on health care to the states to let them design their own health care system. It's anti-federal regulation and pro-states rights. I would actually be a little bit afraid of how a plan like that would impact the next couple elections as it would dull any anger towards federal republicans and shift blame to the states for any issues.

Could not possibly pass the Senate. most of the states, even the Republican ones wouldn't want it - knowing that those block grants won't actually increase as need grows, which is the biggest problem with any block grant approach.

As for the ACA being a Republican plan, it is, sort of. It's definitely a conservative approach to providing health care and it's definitely based on previous Republican proposals, but it's worth remembering that even those weren't actually anything Republicans wanted, but were designed to block or pre-empt more progressive plans. It really isn't that Republicans hate the ACA because it's a Democratic plan, but they hate the very idea of any big government approach to health care.


bugleyman wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
There is one potential "republican" style plan that could be successful, and in a way I'm really surprised that someone like Rand Paul hasn't proposed it yet in order to hijack the leadership of his party: Repeal all federal legislation on health care, all regulations, all the rules, including the FDA, and block grant what the government currently spends on health care to the states to let them design their own health care system. It's anti-federal regulation and pro-states rights. I would actually be a little bit afraid of how a plan like that would impact the next couple elections as it would dull any anger towards federal republicans and shift blame to the states for any issues.
Last time we tried laissez faire we got the Gilded Age. Pass.

Don't confuse my acknowledgement of the potential existence of said plan as an endorsement of it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
It really isn't that Republicans hate the ACA because it's a Democratic plan, but they hate the very idea of any big government approach to health care.

I don't think they have any real sort of ideology -small government, fiscal conservative, etc. are just convenient talking points to them, to be discarded when it is convenient.

I think most Republican politicians like the profits that the ACA makes for their donors in the various healthcare related lobbying groups. The problem is that the ACA has the provision that the wealthy actually have to pay taxes. If there is one thing that the GOP can't stand under any circumstance it's millionaires paying taxes! If they can shift the funding burden to the poor and working class, they will suddenly love the ACA.

EDIT: Obama says Heritage Foundation is source of health exchange idea This is interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It really isn't that Republicans hate the ACA because it's a Democratic plan, but they hate the very idea of any big government approach to health care.

I don't think they have any real sort of ideology -small government, fiscal conservative, etc. are just convenient talking points to them, to be discarded when it is convenient.

I think most Republican politicians like the profits that the ACA makes for their donors in the various healthcare related lobbying groups. The problem is that the ACA has the provision that the wealthy actually have to pay taxes. If there is one thing that the GOP can't stand under any circumstance it's millionaires paying taxes! If they can shift the funding burden to the poor and working class, they will suddenly love the ACA.

First, that's sort of a tangent to my main point which is that while the ACA is based on Republican plans, those Republican plans weren't actually things Republicans wanted, but designed to counter better approaches, by killing or replacing them.

To your point: I stated it badly. "Big government" isn't really the right term. Republicans are perfectly happy with big government when they can use it to control or oppress. Or grift, for that matter.

They're not happy with it when used to help people. Especially poor people or minorities. Especially when those people come to appreciate it and expect it. For all the problems with the ACA, it has changed the discussion on healthcare. Expectations of a federal role in health care have grown. The problem with the ACA, even in much of the public mind, is that it doesn't do a good enough job at meeting those expectations. This can be seen by the resistance to RyanCare, which fell below even those standards. That it was expected to leave millions more without insurance was a huge blow against it.

Again, for all the ACA's problems, it's changed the conversation from "Should the government do this?" to "How should the government do this?" That's one that leads to much better places.

The only thing deeper in the GOP psyche than opposition to taxes is opposition to "entitlement programs". There are still deep scars left by decades of Democratic dominance after the New Deal. They know such programs can be hugely popular and work against their whole "government is the enemy" shtick. Their fear of the ACA wasn't that it would fail. It wasn't even the taxes. It was that it would work and that people would remember it was Democrats who did it.


TheJeff wrote:
First, that's sort of a tangent to my main point which is that while the ACA is based on Republican plans, those Republican plans weren't actually things Republicans wanted, but designed to counter better approaches, by killing or replacing them.

It actually is what they wanted, or well, the second best option

Imagine the worlds smallest healthcare company. It insures Donald trump, a working stiff, and an out of work cancer patient.

In the perfect republican world Donald Trump pays 10 times as much for healthcare but makes a thousand times more money. The working stiff gets roughly what they put into the system out of it. The out of work cancer patient gets what the free market affords them. No money, no care, and they die. Here's a shovel.

But the PR from that is too much. Americans aren't going to accept that solution.

A slight step up is to have Donald trump continue to pay 10 times as much, make a thousand times as much, keep his same care. Meanwhile we pay for the cancer patient by increasing the fees on the working stiff, having him pay more and for longer by making him pay when he's younger too. We use those fees to cover the cancer patient. This is roughly how obamacare works.

A fair system would be funded by progressive taxation, donald makes a thousand times as much so he pays a bit more than a thousand times as much (because you need to account for living expenses of the working stiff). this is what republicans are trying to avoid, not obamacare. They're using the golden mean fallacy to start at Trumpcare so they don't wind up with Berniecare , not to actually get rid of obamacare.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TheJeff wrote:
First, that's sort of a tangent to my main point which is that while the ACA is based on Republican plans, those Republican plans weren't actually things Republicans wanted, but designed to counter better approaches, by killing or replacing them.

It actually is what they wanted, or well, the second best option

Imagine the worlds smallest healthcare company. It insures Donald trump, a working stiff, and an out of work cancer patient.

In the perfect republican world Donald Trump pays 10 times as much for healthcare but makes a thousand times more money. The working stiff gets roughly what they put into the system out of it. The out of work cancer patient gets what the free market affords them. No money, no care, and they die. Here's a shovel.

But the PR from that is too much. Americans aren't going to accept that solution.

A slight step up is to have Donald trump continue to pay 10 times as much, make a thousand times as much, keep his same care. Meanwhile we pay for the cancer patient by increasing the fees on the working stiff, having him pay more and for longer by making him pay when he's younger too. We use those fees to cover the cancer patient. This is roughly how obamacare works.

A fair system would be funded by progressive taxation, donald makes a thousand times as much so he pays a bit more than a thousand times as much (because you need to account for living expenses of the working stiff). this is what republicans are trying to avoid, not obamacare. They're using the golden mean fallacy to start at Trumpcare so they don't wind up with Berniecare , not to actually get rid of obamacare.

To some extent, but that's almost what I'm saying. They don't want Obamacare or even Trumpcare. They want nothing. They don't want the feds (or the states) involved in healthcare at all. Back in the 90's the Heritage Foundation was willing to propose something like the ACA to block Hillarycare. Romney was willing to sign Romneycare in Massachusetts to stop the Democrats there from pushing through a better plan. But they didn't actually want either of those.

Sure, they're all out against any real universal health care system and they'll use these kinds of plans to block that, but they don't want them either. Which is why they're trying to tear the ACA down. Don't make any mistake, despite their failure and despite the lack of any real chance legislatively for the moment, they're not done yet. They need it dead. And hope to take Medicaid and Medicare with it.

Because the big barrier is the concept that the government should be responsible for ensuring health care to its citizens at all. If they let that stand, then it becomes a question of what would work best. Another big government helps the people program isn't what they want - even if they can shield the rich from the worst of the taxes.


Irontruth wrote:
Don't confuse my acknowledgement of the potential existence of said plan as an endorsement of it.

Noted. ;-)


I haven't been following this thread, so apologies if somebody already posted this, but I just can't pass up linking to a terrible acronym-class pun.

I put no stock in Democrats' doing real resistance, but at least they can make a good pun, so that's something:

Democrat bill would force Trump to disclose White House and Mar-a-Lago visitors.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi

Over here we have a different system - free at point of need.

Our system isn't perfect - rising healthcare costs and an ever ageing population costs. But it doesn't bankrupt you if you have a major accident or disease.

Over here we check for a pulse first, not if the patient has a credit card.

Our perception here is that your president wants to limit healthcare to the richest of society, leaving the poor out of it.

Thanks
Paul H


5 people marked this as a favorite.
PaulH wrote:

Hi

Over here we have a different system - free at point of need.

Our system isn't perfect - rising healthcare costs and an ever ageing population costs. But it doesn't bankrupt you if you have a major accident or disease.

Over here we check for a pulse first, not if the patient has a credit card.

Our perception here is that your president wants to limit healthcare to the richest of society, leaving the poor out of it.

Thanks
Paul H

Speaking as a US citizen, my perception here is that our president wants to limit everything to the richest of society, leaving the poor out of it. I'm not joking when I say that.

Can I ask where you're posting from, Paul?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Sounds like the UK. The "free at the point of need" is one of the defining comments made about the NHS.


Remember all that talk about "Democrats need to lie about economics"?
Looks like some of them listened.


Pugh to veto $15 minimum wage bill she said, as a candidate, she’d sign


Yesterday, I was supposed to attend the DSA NH branch's "Theory Work Group" meeting on The ABCs of Socialism by their hipster wing over at Jacobin.

At the last minute, I got called into work for all day, Sunday overtime, but Young Gay Autistic Comrade and His BF, along with Slightly Lumpen Student Comrade, went and they convinced them that next time they should read The Communist Manifesto.

I'm really happy with my local comrades; they're really coming along.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Remember all that talk about "Democrats need to lie about economics"?

Looks like some of them listened.


Pugh to veto $15 minimum wage bill she said, as a candidate, she’d sign

She also listened to the adage that paying workers a living wage kills jobs . . . somehow. Who wants to bet that she's also cut taxes for corporations so that they'll stay in Baltimore at some point as well?


Irontruth wrote:

It's hard to Republicanize a plan that's already a Republican plan. As numerous liberals on these boards have lamented, the ACA isn't really all that progressive and part of the reason was that Obama took a Republican plan and passed it in an attempt to prevent Republican opposition. For the last 5 years Republicans have been running on a platform of "The ACA sucks and we'll give you better healthcare with lower premiums." (Before that it was death panels and other problems) The problem is of course that the only way to actually do that would be to pass a more progressive version of health care.

There is one potential "republican" style plan that could be successful, and in a way I'm really surprised that someone like Rand Paul hasn't proposed it yet in order to hijack the leadership of his party: Repeal all federal legislation on health care, all regulations, all the rules, including the FDA, and block grant what the government currently spends on health care to the states to let them design their own health care system. It's anti-federal regulation and pro-states rights. I would actually be a little bit afraid of how a plan like that would impact the next couple elections as it would dull any anger towards federal republicans and shift blame to the states for any issues.

Rand Paul actually did try to introduce a healthcare bill to repeal and replace Obamacare (summarized HERE) and it seemed bretty gud if you ask me. Then again I haven't read the full text of the bill and it died anyway...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

...I feel like not having a living wage kind of defeats the purpose of having a job.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

captain battletoad,

"let the states do it" is not a healthcare plan.

This is what happens. States where people live have people they have to insure and people earning taxes, they then have to tax those people to pay for that insurance.

Corporations that live in a PO box in delaware, or texas with no state income taxes, don't kick into state taxes.

So what you get is less money from billionaires and corporations into the system and more money from working people. This is a bad thing.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

captain battletoad,

"let the states do it" is not a healthcare plan.

This is what happens. States where people live have people they have to insure and people earning taxes, they then have to tax those people to pay for that insurance.

Corporations that live in a PO box in delaware, or texas with no state income taxes, don't kick into state taxes.

So what you get is less money from billionaires and corporations into the system and more money from working people. This is a bad thing.

In what way does this sum to "let the states do it"? If you're referring to the section under "Increasing State Flexibility to Conduct Medicaid Waivers" then you're missing the other 90% of the document. Allowing for all health insured individuals to deduct that insurance from their taxes, incentivizing medical treatment of those unable to pay, and allowing consumers to have access to more options across state lines adds up to a healthcare plan. It may not be the one that you want (or the one that I want, necessarily) but it's a plan that (in keeping with the thread theme of not being ideologically pure) I could live with for the time being.


Captain Battletoad wrote:


In what way does this sum to "let the states do it"? If you're referring to the section under "Increasing State Flexibility to Conduct Medicaid Waivers" then you're missing the other 90% of the document.

I'm really looking for any kind of healthcare plan in here and i'm not seeing it . At all.

Quote:
Allowing for all health insured individuals to deduct that insurance from their taxes,

thats fine...

Quote:
incentivizing medical treatment of those unable to pay

Thats let the states do it. And republican states won't, they'll just force the poor people that can't afford healthcare to move.

Quote:
and allowing consumers to have access to more options across state lines adds up to a healthcare plan.

This is a complete, total, and utter canard.

States that do allow people to work accross state lines aren't getting out of state insurance companies to take them up on the offer. Setting up an office in another state, learning that states laws, working with that system and networks of doctors is EXPENSIVE. it doesn't make any sense for insurance companies to do this, certainly not to the extent that it will significantly drop prices.

If you let insurance companies work across state lines by their states home rules, what you get is Delaware "die in a ditch" insurance the same way you currently have Delaware "nya nya you can't sue me" corporations


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Thats let the states do it. And republican states won't, they'll just force the poor people that can't afford healthcare to move.

It has nothing to do with the states. The incentive comes from a federal tax deduction applied to the individual medical practitioners for charitable work in an amount up to 10% of their annual income. The state is never involved, unless I missed something.

Quote:
States that do allow people to work accross state lines aren't getting out of state insurance companies to take them up on the offer. Setting up an office in another state, learning that states laws, working with that system and networks of doctors is EXPENSIVE. it doesn't make any sense for insurance companies to do this, certainly not to the extent that it will significantly drop prices.

It absolutely makes sense for companies to do so. Allowing them to operate in any state without having to become licensed in each state where they want to do business opens up a new avenue of (relatively) quickly entering a market where they were previously unable to go. In an age where distance is a non-factor in being able to engage in business transactions, "setting up an office" is low on the totem pole and learning state laws is an inherent part of the business anyway. It adds no major complexities and instead frees previously isolated companies to compete across state lines. Now whether or not that was a major issue before, I can't say as I haven't bothered to do much digging since as I previously mentioned, Rand's proposal was DoA. That's a separate issue though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:


Quote:
States that do allow people to work accross state lines aren't getting out of state insurance companies to take them up on the offer. Setting up an office in another state, learning that states laws, working with that system and networks of doctors is EXPENSIVE. it doesn't make any sense for insurance companies to do this, certainly not to the extent that it will significantly drop prices.
It absolutely makes sense for companies to do so. Allowing them to operate in any state without having to become licensed in each state where they want to do business opens up a new avenue of (relatively) quickly entering a market where they were previously unable to go. In an age where distance is a non-factor in being able to engage in business transactions, "setting up an office" is low on the totem pole and learning state laws is an inherent part of the business anyway. It adds no major complexities and instead frees previously isolated companies to compete across state lines. Now whether or not that was a major issue before, I can't say as I haven't bothered to do much digging since as I previously mentioned, Rand's proposal was DoA. That's a separate issue though.

Except it's not a matter of "without having to be licensed", it's a matter of selling insurance that doesn't have to follow that states rules. As BNW says, that lets them set up in the state with the laxest rules and entirely defeats the point of states having rules in the first place.

As for the tax deductions and the HSA that are a huge piece of the plan, those are a nice perk for people who make enough to buy good insurance in the first place and nigh useless for those on the lower end of the scale. Remember that a $1000 tax deduction actually saves you more money the higher your income. HSAs are only useful if you can afford to put money into them. If you can and especially if you're in a high tax bracket, they're a nice tax break. Anything done through taxes is inherently better for higher income people, unless you go to great effort to avoid it.


Captain Battletoad wrote:

It has nothing to do with the states. The incentive comes from a federal tax deduction applied to the individual medical practitioners for charitable work in an amount up to 10% of their annual income. The state is never involved, unless I missed something.

Seriously? THATS how the plan pays for the uninsured and uninsurable? A voluntary option to take 10% of their income, which will no longer include young healthy people, and apply it to taxes that they're probably not paying anyway?

You don't think they can make more money NOT booting dying cancer patients off their plans, not accepting people with pre existing conditions, and not insuring the poor? What happens when no one can operate like that?

I realize we play a game where people can throw fireballs from their fingers but paying for the poor with a 10% off coupon is an unbelievable fantasy, not a policy.

Quote:
It absolutely makes sense for companies to do so.

it does not. Your theoretical ideas about what makes sense for businesses to do does not trump objective evidence that they are not doing this.

Quote:
Allowing them to operate in any state without having to become licensed in each state where they want to do business opens up a new avenue of (relatively) quickly entering a market where they were previously unable to go.

It also allows them to defraud, steal from, and abandon people with impunity by incorporating in a PO box in delaware if new jersey can't yank their license for defrauding its citizens.

Quote:
In an age where distance is a non-factor in being able to engage in business transactions, "setting up an office" is low on the totem pole and learning state laws is an inherent part of the business anyway. It adds no major complexities and instead frees previously isolated companies to compete across state lines.

Health care coverage does not work this way. You have to deal with individual doctors offices. Those offices need to be near their sick people. Those offices are not a portable good. And you cannot leave anyone uncovered. You need to know who you're working with and that is incredibly difficult to do from 4 states away.

Quote:


Now whether or not that was a major issue before, I can't say as I haven't bothered to do much digging since as I previously mentioned, Rand's proposal was DoA. That's a separate issue though.

Of course it's DOA. It doesn't actually cover anyone. Like most libertarian policies it relies on "and then the market fixes everything" and "this will suddenly not cost money" the same way a badly written play relies on "and then the fairy made everything better"


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:

It has nothing to do with the states. The incentive comes from a federal tax deduction applied to the individual medical practitioners for charitable work in an amount up to 10% of their annual income. The state is never involved, unless I missed something.

Seriously? THATS how the plan pays for the uninsured and uninsurable? A voluntary option to take 10% of their income, which will no longer include young healthy people, and apply it to taxes that they're probably not paying anyway?

You don't think they can make more money NOT booting dying cancer patients off their plans, not accepting people with pre existing conditions, and not insuring the poor? What happens when no one can operate like that?

I realize we play a game where people can throw fireballs from their fingers but paying for the poor with a 10% off coupon is an unbelievable fantasy, not a policy.

I think you either misread the section I was referring to, or misunderstood what I was saying. Neither I nor the document said anything about the 10% deduction covering the costs for all uninsured and uninsurable. Also it sounds like you're under the impression that the 10% deduction is in reference to insurance companies. It's not. It would have applied to the physician administering the care.

Quote:
it does not. Your theoretical ideas about what makes sense for businesses to do does not trump objective evidence that they are not doing this.

The whole point of that section of the proposal is to address WHY they aren't currently doing this. Whether or not it would have drastically changed anything is up to speculation (and again, not really a point I much care about given the proposal's swift death), but using current business practices based on current regulations as your proof that altering those regulations would maintain the status quo is getting things a bit out of order.

Quote:
Health care coverage does not work this way. You have to deal with individual doctors offices. Those offices need to be near their sick people. Those offices are not a portable good. And you cannot leave anyone uncovered. You need to know who you're working with and that is incredibly difficult to do from 4 states away.

The doctor's office needs to be near the people it deals with, yes. The insurer does not. Knowing who you're dealing with in no way requires a face-to-face meeting (which would be the only reason for the local requirement) when it's so easy to make an assessment via financial records, which can be done from anywhere.

Quote:
Of course it's DOA. It doesn't actually cover anyone. Like most libertarian policies it relies on "and then the market fixes everything" and "this will suddenly not cost money" the same way a badly written play relies on "and then the fairy made everything better"

That depends on what kind of libertarian you're talking about (there are so, so many different ideologies labeling themselves as libertarian these days, like crazy-ass Gary Johnson). I'm not seeing the "this will suddenly not cost money" part, so much as "the money won't come from the feds". Now where it comes from probably was a major (if not THE) reason it was DoA and as I said, I'm not even a great fan of the proposal ("bretty gud" is a "meh"-tier endorsement, if that was unclear) but the idea that it isn't a plan simply because it doesn't provide for everyone is ridiculous.


This plan in no way reaches "meh" level quality.


Captain Battletoad wrote:


I think you either misread the section I was referring to, or misunderstood what I was saying.

No. You answered a complete non sequitor.

me: I'm really looking for any kind of healthcare plan in here and i'm not seeing it . At all.

you: its a 10 % discount...

..without admiting "yes BNW, you're right, there is no healthcare plan here" because if your plan is not providing healthcare then you do not have a healthcare plan

Healthcare is complicated. THAT is simple.

Quote:
. It would have applied to the physician administering the care.

Even dumber. Doctors specialize. A plastic surgeon can cover people on a 10% discount. An oncologist not so much.

Quote:
but using current business practices based on current regulations as your proof that altering those regulations would maintain the status quo is getting things a bit out of order.

It isn't, because some states ARE open to out of state competition and its been somewhere between low and non existant, and nothing you're proposing changes that unless you open up one loophole. If your plan is to open up the delaware die in a ditch loophole, no. That is also a bad idea.

Quote:
The doctor's office needs to be near the people it deals with, yes. The insurer does not. Knowing who you're dealing with in no way requires a face-to-face meeting (which would be the only reason for the local requirement) when it's so easy to make an assessment via financial records, which can be done from anywhere.

It requires networks of doctors who all need a certain number of high paying patients to cover the lower paying patients and spread the burden around. its complicated and takes years if not decades to set up, decades that local providers have as a head start over anyone trying to get into the area.

Quote:
That depends on what kind of libertarian you're talking about

Any that don't wind up going full socialist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
This plan in no way reaches "meh" level quality.

Giving it a dumpster fire rating would be an insult to the 5 people a dumpster fire can keep warm for a night.


Ah ok, so I see where the confusion is. To you, any healthcare plan must involve providing healthcare for everyone. At least that must be the case because otherwise it must "provide healthcare for X number of people" where X is any number from 1 to the total population. Since that plan would provide healthcare increase for some amount of people in some quantifiable capacity (note that this is not a statement of net increase/decrease as I don't care to speculate to that extent), it would be considered a healthcare plan by the second definition I listed. If your definition actually is the first one, then that's more of a difference in opinion on what the role of government should be, rather than a comment on the quality (or lack thereof) of the proposal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Hey Captain Battletoad, how was dinner?
"It was pretty good."
"Well I'm glad you liked it."
"I didn't say that."

It must be confusing to hang out with you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Ah ok, so I see where the confusion is. To you, any healthcare plan must involve providing healthcare for everyone. At least that must be the case because otherwise it must "provide healthcare for X number of people" where X is any number from 1 to the total population. Since that plan would provide healthcare increase for some amount of people in some quantifiable capacity (note that this is not a statement of net increase/decrease as I don't care to speculate to that extent), it would be considered a healthcare plan by the second definition I listed. If your definition actually is the first one, then that's more of a difference in opinion on what the role of government should be, rather than a comment on the quality (or lack thereof) of the proposal.

Well, technically a bill that consisted of "Remove the federal government from health coverage entirely, providing no rules for coverage or care and no support for the poor or elderly or even emergency care" would also be a "health care plan".

I mean, the plan is basically FOAD if you're not rich, but it's still a plan.


Knight who says Meh wrote:

"Hey Captain Battletoad, how was dinner?

"It was pretty good."
"Well I'm glad you liked it."
"I didn't say that."

It must be confusing to hang out with you.

Probably, but I never hang out with me so I couldn't tell you.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
Ah ok, so I see where the confusion is. To you, any healthcare plan must involve providing healthcare for everyone. At least that must be the case because otherwise it must "provide healthcare for X number of people" where X is any number from 1 to the total population.

It needs to come close, or at least be taking a reasonable jab at it.

Quote:
Since that plan would provide healthcare increase for some amount of people in some quantifiable capacity (note that this is not a statement of net increase/decrease as I don't care to speculate to that extent), it would be considered a healthcare plan by the second definition I listed.

Horsefeath..No. that one deserves the full on (#!@)%&*.

By your definition the 10% off one bottle of asprin coupon i have in my pocket is a healthcare plan because it in some way shape or form affects how much I pay for healthcare.

If you don't want a government healthcare plan, say you don't want a government healthcare plan. Admit it, argue from that. Don't hide behind disingenuous rules lawyering chicanery to try to claim you have a healthcare plan from a certain point of view. This is not dependent on a difference of disagrement over the role of the government or any other of the fuzzy subjective matter you want to try to pass this off as: you don't want a healthcare plan and you are hiding behind tricks to avoid admiting it.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Ah ok, so I see where the confusion is. To you, any healthcare plan must involve providing healthcare for everyone. At least that must be the case because otherwise it must "provide healthcare for X number of people" where X is any number from 1 to the total population.

It needs to come close, or at least be taking a reasonable jab at it.

Quote:
Since that plan would provide healthcare increase for some amount of people in some quantifiable capacity (note that this is not a statement of net increase/decrease as I don't care to speculate to that extent), it would be considered a healthcare plan by the second definition I listed.

Horsefeath..No. that one deserves the full on (#!@)%&*.

By your definition the 10% off one bottle of asprin coupon i have in my pocket is a healthcare plan because it in some way shape or form affects how much I pay for healthcare.

If you don't want a government healthcare plan, say you don't want a government healthcare plan. Admit it, argue from that. Don't hide behind disingenuous rules lawyering chicanery to try to claim you have a healthcare plan from a certain point of view. This is not dependent on a difference of disagrement over the role of the government or any other of the fuzzy subjective matter you want to try to pass this off as: you don't want a healthcare plan and you are hiding behind tricks to avoid admiting it.

You presume to know more about my intentions than you actually do. I don't come from an obfuscated position of wanting no government-funded healthcare, mostly because I have NO firm position on the matter. As a young guy who hasn't had cause or time to become any sort of expert on the matter, I have yet to entrench myself in support of either extreme or any position in-between. My argument was that he put forward a proposal, relative to our current standing I saw no apocalyptic signs that it would make life quantifiably worse, and gave it a "bretty gud/10". The quality of the plan is certainly up in the air and would be a subject for another, even less interesting debate, but on the subject of whether or not a plan that pertains to healthcare is a healthcare plan by my definition... well I think it's self-explanatory.


Is "bretty gud" a reference to something? Is it supposed to mean something other than "pretty good?"

Is your argument that Ryan's healthcare plan looks pretty good (or bretty gud) to someone who has no interest in or knowledge of healthcare plans?

I'm having a hard time following your line of thought.


Knight who says Meh wrote:

Is "bretty gud" a reference to something? Is it supposed to mean something other than "pretty good?"

Is your argument that Ryan's healthcare plan looks pretty good (or bretty gud) to someone who has no interest in or knowledge of healthcare plans?

I'm having a hard time following your line of thought.

Not sure if that's a typo or if you actually think we're talking about Ryancare, but this was about Rand Paul's proposal. To clarify: "bretty gud" equates to an unenthusiastic "meh, could go either way". I'm sorry if that was unclear, as I thought it was a relatively well known phrase at this point.


"What do we want for dinner

"Tic tacs. *shakes a half empty box of tic tacs*

"So we're skipping dinner?

"why do you think i want to skip dinner? its dinner. It has calories on it and everything. Its a pretty gud dinner


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The free market is good IN GENERAL at deciding what to produce, when, and where. However, some things -- such as things with nearly completely inelastic demand -- make the free market work NOT SO WELL. This is abundantly clear to anyone who has studied economics at all. Those who believe that the answer to healthcare is to "let the free market fix it" (aka laissez-faire economics) can safely be ignored in a debate, because they are catastrophically ignorant. It really is that simple.

Sadly, actually knowing what one is talking about is NOT a prerequisite to vote...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@captain battletoad: Multi-state plans already exist. They're a thing and they're real. Touting a law that says it will allow them to exist and this will change the industry is a fallacy, because they already exist.

What this law would do is allow insurers to ignore the laws of the state they want to sell insurance in and only obey the laws of the state they're based in. So, whatever state has the least mandated coverage, all insurance companies would now be based in that state.

Right now, a friend of mine is actually prevented from leaving the state of Minnesota, because of the mandated health care coverage he gets. In Minnesota, a broad array of mental health care for children is mandated and his daughter has explosive violence issues (tantrums literally last hours, I've personally seen 6+ hours). He gets help through his insurance, because even though he makes good money as an engineer, paying $3,000 a month out of pocket is a serious burden that he can't afford. He's had job offers to move to Texas, but because Texas doesn't mandate that coverage, he won't move there, because no insurance company offers that kind of coverage. If it isn't mandated, they don't offer it.

Another gamer I met recently found it was cheaper to move his family to Minnesota, while he still lived in Nebraska, to get care for his autistic son. It was cheaper to own two homes, than pay for the care his son needed out of pocket (coincidentally, another friend of mine works at the place that provides that care). If insurers were allowed to apply Nebraska rules to Minnesota, he would have to choose, pay $5,000 a month to help his autistic son get better, or save money for his non-autistic child so they can go to college one day. He was at the point of literally giving up on his autistic child, so that he could provide a better future for his non-autistic child.

This law would mandate that he must now face that choice again.

I haven't even branched outside of the people I play RPGs with for these stories.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:

Is "bretty gud" a reference to something? Is it supposed to mean something other than "pretty good?"

Is your argument that Ryan's healthcare plan looks pretty good (or bretty gud) to someone who has no interest in or knowledge of healthcare plans?

I'm having a hard time following your line of thought.

Not sure if that's a typo or if you actually think we're talking about Ryancare, but this was about Rand Paul's proposal. To clarify: "bretty gud" equates to an unenthusiastic "meh, could go either way". I'm sorry if that was unclear, as I thought it was a relatively well known phrase at this point.

What typo? We're talking about Rand Paul Ryan's healthcare proposal, right? Right? Why is everyone looking at me like that?


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:

Is "bretty gud" a reference to something? Is it supposed to mean something other than "pretty good?"

Is your argument that Ryan's healthcare plan looks pretty good (or bretty gud) to someone who has no interest in or knowledge of healthcare plans?

I'm having a hard time following your line of thought.

Not sure if that's a typo or if you actually think we're talking about Ryancare, but this was about Rand Paul's proposal. To clarify: "bretty gud" equates to an unenthusiastic "meh, could go either way". I'm sorry if that was unclear, as I thought it was a relatively well known phrase at this point.
What typo? We're talking about Rand Paul Ryan's healthcare proposal, right? Right? Why is everyone looking at me like that?

It's actually an Ayn Rand Paul Ryan proposal. :)


thejeff wrote:
It's actually an Ayn Rand Paul Ryan proposal. :)

way to get the dems onboard with the genetic engineering ban.


bugleyman wrote:
However, some things -- such as things with nearly completely inelastic demand -- make the free market work NOT SO WELL. This is abundantly clear to anyone who has studied economics at all.

This is abundantly clear to anyone that's said "How much does that cost? i like that _____, but I can buy it next week" but also been to the ER "AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" doesn't leave a heck of a lot of room to comparison shop or hold off on a purchase.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
To clarify: "bretty gud" equates to an unenthusiastic "meh, could go either way". I'm sorry if that was unclear, as I thought it was a relatively well known phrase at this point.

I spend all day every day on the internet, even at work because I'm paid to do that, and I've never once seen that phrase before. "Gud" yes, "bretty gud," no. I'm sure its common among the people you interact with, but its probably not as widely used as you've been assuming.

I'm sure other people have mentioned this before me, but I'm hoping the Dems pick SOME kind of ACA fix to get behind, up to an including single-payer (which is cheaper and simpler if you have insurance at all, although the thought of adding an entirely new bureaucracy to the executive branch boggles the mind).

They've managed to hold solid while the Republicans started turning on each other. Let's hope they get a message of their own out there, one that not only they can use as a rallying cry but also one that might peel more moderate Republicans, or at least GOP in less secure districts, into supporting them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:


They've managed to hold solid while the Republicans started turning on each other. Let's hope they get a message of their own out there, one that not only they can use as a rallying cry but also one that might peel more moderate Republicans, or at least GOP in less secure districts, into supporting them.

look, i really get wanting to see a ray of sunshine in what is suddenly a mad max level of a sucktastic world, but one action isn't something you can draw a larger narative out of. We're in this for the whole game, and the first batter just struck out. Cheer, clap, and get ready .

2,551 to 2,600 of 4,260 << first < prev | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards