| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On this specific issue I tend to not buy the narrative that those against it are representing their constituents, because they're also actively working to misinform the public about the ACA itself.
They call it a government takeover of healthcare, which it isn't.
You can be damn sure that WHEN it works, the conservatives will try to take credit.
Well, that's definitely part of it. But there's a feedback loop. There is a lot of money and effort going into making sure there's a push from the base against Obamacare.
Exactly. There's a well orchestrated disinformation campaign being conducted by the Kochs and others. I don't go more than a day without seeing a commercial on TV or on YouTube telling wholesale lies about the program.
Okay. Let me ask this a different way. Is it possible for a person to disagree in good faith with this bill, and actively work to repeal it. Or does everybody who work against in your eyes have a nefarious motive or is just poorly informed?
There might be such a thing as a Congressman who works in good faith. There might even be such a thing as a Congressman who's not utterly beholden to people who don't answer to the public. It's one of those concepts that's interesting to contemplate... like absolute zero.
How about an individual?
There might be such a thing as a Congressman who works in good faith. There might even be such a thing as a Congressman who's not utterly beholden to people who don't answer to the public. It's one of those concepts that's interesting to contemplate... like absolute zero.How about an individual?Individuals don't count. Individuals don't have the influence, and more importantly, the money to make things happen on their own, when we're talking about issues on this scale.
Lets get to brass tacks. If you're the individual, I'm not going to condemm you for having a difference of opinion in this issue. I'm sufficiently old school enough in my politics to do so.
Fair enough. Instead of all of this, it would of been much easier to simply cut taxes for households/individuals under certain amounts or offer a tax credit specifically for purchasing whatever insurance an individual deemed fit.
Tie them to a certain percentage of a basic healthcare plan and be done with it. If there is not enough tax to be credited, a person is then given a credit. Credits are also issued for children. Problem solved. People make their own choices of plan and the government is involved only in a minor way in determining the percentage covered.
Instead you have a massive government bureaucracy that is indeed confusing and sometimes contradictory that is missing/pushing back it's own deadlines but yet still will enforce compliance penalties on citizens.
In all honesty, Obamacare was a massive strategic error on the part of the Obama administration. He spent a good deal of his political capital and mandate on getting it through. Instead of putting Republicans in a position of opposing tax credits/breaks for middle class and low income families, he put them in the favorable position of opposing massive government spending, program creation, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It really doesn't matter.
Everyone is America needs healthcare.
It doesn't matter how bad the Affordable Care Act is when the other option includes preexisting condition clauses and people without healthcare.
If you want to call yourself a fist world country, you can't have either of those.
Tort reform isn't about saving you money or anything. It's about preventing you from being able to recover a loss from a business that wronged you. Of course urns more and more moot since mandatory arbitration clauses scree you out of your right to access the courts for redress of wings in the first place.
Mistakes happen all the time in any industry under the sun. The human body is incredibly complex and not fully understood, and a lot of times the surgeon is performing a task unmatched in it's demands for precision for hours and hours on end. Of course mistakes happen and people die. With that much pressure and the wealth of things doctors and surgeons often don't know, I don't much blame them. I don't think punitive damages are a proper response to an issue like this.
Tort reform isn't about saving you money or anything. It's about preventing you from being able to recover a loss from a business that wronged you. Of course urns more and more moot since mandatory arbitration clauses scree you out of your right to access the courts for redress of wings in the first place.Mistakes happen all the time in any industry under the sun. The human body is incredibly complex and not fully understood, and a lot of times the surgeon is performing a task unmatched in it's demands for precision for hours and hours on end. Of course mistakes happen and people die. With that much pressure and the wealth of things doctors and surgeons often don't know, I don't much blame them. I don't think punitive damages are a proper response to an issue like this.
So you don't believe that patients on the receiving end of damaging malpractice should receive compensation?
So a doctor going into spinal surgery decides he's going to get really good and drunk beforehand. Paralyzes a patient. Tough noogies for him? Obviously this is an extreme case, but that's why we have juries and a justice system; for when the case isn't as cut and dried.
The reason medical bills are so high is due to the cost of college education.
It works like this:
- Doctors graduate from medical school with around $200,000 to $300,000 in debt.
- Doctors have to charge more for their services to help pay back their loans.
- The hospitals need doctors so they pay it.
- The medical equipment companies see large sums of money changing hands, so they charge hospitals more for the equipment.
- Hospitals pass these costs on to the patients.
- Patients can't pay such high costs, so they turn to insurance companies.
- Insurance companies pay hospitals for the care and patients pay their insurance.
- Hospitals, doctors, and medical equipment people charge the insurance companies more because they have more money.
- Insurance companies respond by trying to pass more costs to patients and deny care as much as possible.
- Providers respond by charging more.
- Health care providers and insurance companies merge to leverage their size in a market power arms race.
- The last 5 steps repeat in an endless recursion as the costs climb.
- Meanwhile, patients get progressively worse care for progressively more cost.
There you go. Notice it all started with the cost of doctors attending college. That's where we need to start. Obamacare is a band-aid for the symptoms of a broken system at best.
This is an incredible oversimplification of the issue. Education costs are one facet, and not even the most critical (in fact, I'm not even sure that it's one of the problems with our healthcare system at all; there are a number of problems with your explanation). There is no one thing you can point to and say, "That's what's wrong with our healthcare system!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no one thing you can point to and say, "That's what's wrong with our healthcare system!"
I dunno, I bet I can get pretty darn close. Let me try.
*points* Profit motive.Naaaailed it.
So you don't believe that patients on the receiving end of damaging malpractice should receive compensation?Tort reform isn't about saving you money or anything. It's about preventing you from being able to recover a loss from a business that wronged you. Of course urns more and more moot since mandatory arbitration clauses scree you out of your right to access the courts for redress of wings in the first place.Mistakes happen all the time in any industry under the sun. The human body is incredibly complex and not fully understood, and a lot of times the surgeon is performing a task unmatched in it's demands for precision for hours and hours on end. Of course mistakes happen and people die. With that much pressure and the wealth of things doctors and surgeons often don't know, I don't much blame them. I don't think punitive damages are a proper response to an issue like this.
No, I don't believe they should receive punitive damages as part of compensation.
So a doctor going into spinal surgery decides he's going to get really good and drunk beforehand. Paralyzes a patient. Tough noogies for him? Obviously this is an extreme case, but that's why we have juries and a justice system; for when the case isn't as cut and dried.
If the physician is intoxicated, that is willful negligence, and is not the same as paralyzing a patient with a tiny error after several hours of surgery. Willful negligence is not a mistake, and shouldn't be considered one.
Which means you don't believe ANY damages should be paid. The whole point of punitive damages is that the loss of a patient of his or her livelihood cannot be adequately calculated. How much is your ability to walk worth to you? Or perhaps an organ or a limb?
Since there is no straightforward answer to these questions we allow a jury to decide appropriate damages. Otherwise you're saying that someone who is paralyzed by malpractice should, AT BEST, be refunded the cost of the surgery. "Oops, my lasik surgery blinded you for life, here's your $1200 back"?!
As to your second comment: who decides what is willful negligence and what is not? I suppose you'd just leave that up to the individual or hospital at fault? No, that's why we allow people to sue for damages, and in especially onerous cases it is decided by a jury.
Having a union fosters an "us vs them" mentality. I know you don't care and would want to promote that mentality further, but some other people see it as a negative.It's always been labor vs management since before the days of feudalism. Removing labor's ability to have representation and organise does not make that essential struggle go away. That's like saying that removing child labor laws won't lead to child labor.
It doesn't have to be that way. There are reasons why Henry Ford was inherently a better person, than either Rockerfeller or Carnegie, no matter how much more the latter two gave to charity.
You're not talking about the same thing I'm talking about.
So you don't believe that patients on the receiving end of damaging malpractice should receive compensation?Tort reform isn't about saving you money or anything. It's about preventing you from being able to recover a loss from a business that wronged you. Of course urns more and more moot since mandatory arbitration clauses scree you out of your right to access the courts for redress of wings in the first place.Mistakes happen all the time in any industry under the sun. The human body is incredibly complex and not fully understood, and a lot of times the surgeon is performing a task unmatched in it's demands for precision for hours and hours on end. Of course mistakes happen and people die. With that much pressure and the wealth of things doctors and surgeons often don't know, I don't much blame them. I don't think punitive damages are a proper response to an issue like this.No, I don't believe they should receive punitive damages as part of compensation.
So a doctor going into spinal surgery decides he's going to get really good and drunk beforehand. Paralyzes a patient. Tough noogies for him? Obviously this is an extreme case, but that's why we have juries and a justice system; for when the case isn't as cut and dried.If the physician is intoxicated, that is willful negligence, and is not the same as paralyzing a patient with a tiny error after several hours of surgery. Willful negligence is not a mistake, and shouldn't be considered one.
I recommend you watch the documentary Hot Coffee. Unless you're already a lawyer, you'll probably learn something.
Okay. Let me ask this a different way. Is it possible for a person to disagree in good faith with this bill, and actively work to repeal it. Or does everybody who work against in your eyes have a nefarious motive or is just poorly informed?
Down with Obama--[doorbell rings]
Huh?
[Walks to the front door, finds a special courier with a package of weed and gold ingots from the Koch Bros.]
Oh, sweet, I was almost out.
[Signs for package, returns to computer]
Down with Obamacare!
For free, quality health care for all!
Vive le Galt!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no one thing you can point to and say, "That's what's wrong with our healthcare system!"I dunno, I bet I can get pretty darn close. Let me try.
*points* Profit motive.Naaaailed it.
Down with capitalism!
Vive le Galt!
Fair enough. Instead of all of this, it would of been much easier to simply cut taxes for households/individuals under certain amounts or offer a tax credit specifically for purchasing whatever insurance an individual deemed fit.There might be such a thing as a Congressman who works in good faith. There might even be such a thing as a Congressman who's not utterly beholden to people who don't answer to the public. It's one of those concepts that's interesting to contemplate... like absolute zero.How about an individual?Individuals don't count. Individuals don't have the influence, and more importantly, the money to make things happen on their own, when we're talking about issues on this scale.
Lets get to brass tacks. If you're the individual, I'm not going to condemm you for having a difference of opinion in this issue. I'm sufficiently old school enough in my politics to do so.
1. Many of the families already in this position are not paying taxes on their income because it is low.
2. Pre-existing conditions are a major part of this bill, as has been pointed out above. Without laws specifically preventing insurance from ignoring these people, they will be left out in the cold or have exorbanant prices.
Tie them to a certain percentage of a basic healthcare plan and be done with it. If there is not enough tax to be credited, a person is then given a credit. Credits are also issued for children. Problem solved. People make their own choices of plan and the government is involved only in a minor way in determining the percentage covered.
So the bill does something similar to this. Then they realized that if everyone could now afford health insurance, the companies would jack up the prices. So they created exchanges, allowing people to compare prices and bennefits easily by region, to drive down costs. It also allows the government to do much of the negotiation of price, and they have more bargaining power than any single person, further driving down price.
This only works if everyone buys into the system, because the costs get averaged. If the low insurance risk people don't buy in, as many don't now, costs are higher. Unfortunately, often those people also have unexpected accidents that they can't afford and discourages them from using preventative care. This causes the system to take the hit, a larger hit than if they used preventative care, leaving everyone else to foot the bill. This is basically what we had before, and it was bad for everyone.
Instead you have a massive government bureaucracy that is indeed confusing and sometimes contradictory that is missing/pushing back it's own deadlines but yet still will enforce compliance penalties on citizens.In all honesty, Obamacare was a massive strategic error on the part of the Obama administration. He spent a good deal of his political capital and mandate on getting it through. Instead of putting Republicans in a position of opposing tax credits/breaks for middle class and low income families, he put them in the favorable position of opposing massive government spending, program creation, etc.
He achieved something that every president in the past 50 years has attempted and failed at. He created a law that will likely last a long time, and as it gains popularity with implementation will drive the Republicans who opposed it into a shrinking minority. I has been a short term loss for what will most likely be a massive long term gain in both public opinion and future clout for the party. Sadly, it is crap to what progressives actually wanted and it will become hard to upgrade, but the law has already been a massive boon to many.
I can see you arguing that this will not drive down costs, but I will point out that most experts are saying insurance prices in most of the exchanges are below what was expected. Heck, Trader Joes is cancelling their insurance for employees who work less than 30 hours, because it will save the vast majority of those employees money. They are getting hit by a bad loophole where you don't qualify for exchanges if your employer offers insurance, but equivalent insurance from the exchanges is 1/3rd of what Trader Joes charges for their insurance after the tax breaks their employees likely recieve (people with high income spouces are an exception).
This only works if everyone buys into the system, because the costs get averaged. If the low insurance risk people don't buy in, as many don't now, costs are higher. Unfortunately, often those people also have unexpected accidents that they can't afford and discourages them from using preventative care. This causes the system to take the hit, a larger hit than if they used preventative care, leaving everyone else to foot the bill. This is basically what we had before, and it was bad for everyone.
So what you wind up with is the worst amalgamation possible of the profit driven corporation acting with the full legal authority of the government behind it: Its effectively a regressive tax that is set by a non government agency. They've outsourced the legislative process to a private company to avoid having to raise taxes on the rich to cover health care costs that are now communal rather than individual.
I'm not even going to comment on my opinion of this initiative, the way it was done, or the way it has been handled since passing.
What I will say is that if this continues to go forward, a lot of people are going to be surprised by the end result. We have not yet even begun to see the economic and social impact of this legislation. It will change a whole lot more than your doctor.
I'm not even going to comment on my opinion of this initiative, the way it was done, or the way it has been handled since passing.
What I will say is that if this continues to go forward, a lot of people are going to be surprised by the end result. We have not yet even begun to see the economic and social impact of this legislation. It will change a whole lot more than your doctor.
The people that can least afford it wind up flipping the bill for everyone's health care. What else?
thejeff, I'd be more inclined to comment if disagreement with the approved narrative didn't automatically get a person branded as a nutcase by those whose ideologies are challenged.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff, I'd be more inclined to comment if disagreement with the approved narrative didn't automatically get a person branded as a nutcase by those whose ideologies are challenged.
Try challenges that don't rely entirely on personal insults and ad homs.
Some substance would be nice.
I mean its not exactly like I'm giving the plan a ringing endorsement.
thejeff, I'd be more inclined to comment if disagreement with the approved narrative didn't automatically get a person branded as a nutcase by those whose ideologies are challenged.Try challenges that don't rely entirely on personal insults and ad homs.
Some substance would be nice.
I mean its not exactly like I'm giving the plan a ringing endorsement.
Nah, I've learned my lesson Norse. Once burned twice shy and all that.
You all can have your fun within the accepted parameters of discussion here. I'll just watch and chuckle as the real world intrudes on people's naivetee and ideologies.
Carry on.
thejeff, I'd be more inclined to comment if disagreement with the approved narrative didn't automatically get a person branded as a nutcase by those whose ideologies are challenged.Try challenges that don't rely entirely on personal insults and ad homs.
Some substance would be nice.
I mean its not exactly like I'm giving the plan a ringing endorsement.
Nah, I've learned my lesson Norse. Once burned twice shy and all that.
You all can have your fun within the accepted parameters of discussion here. I'll just watch and chuckle as the real world intrudes on people's naivetee and ideologies.
Carry on.
You can't knock it if you've never tried it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The law sucks, but it also is better than what was in place before it.
The fact that it's better than what existed before it does not mean it doesn't suck. It's just a textbook example of incremental change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone knows the approved narrative is: Obamacare sucks, free health care for all is the answer and international proletarian socialist revolution is the way to get there.
Vive le Galt!
The people who can least afford it get subsidies.
Not all of them, or even most of them. The law does a terrible job of realizing that people in different areas of the country do not all have the same level of income required to buy insurance (which is also more expensive in high priced areas). Someone making 30k a year in rural wyoming is doing ok. New york city? Not so much.
People who can afford it, even though it'll hurt, but choose to gamble on not needing insurance because they're young and healthy are going to pay more and support the system. Which sucks for them. Except for the ones who would have lost the gamble and had a major accident or disease.
1) It sucks for most of them individually because most of them don't get hurt or catch a disease
2) it sucks for them as a group because they have to pay the high healthcare costs of a lot of large baby boom of people a generation ahead of them: they are objectively overpaying for the services that they will be getting: thats not a conspiracy its the PLAN. You are overcharging one group to pay into a system because other groups were undercharged their entire lives.
This is far from what I would have done if I'd been made dictator, but I do think it's going to be a good thing overall. Just not enough.
The Massachusetts system, which is similar, has been working.
A lot of young people left the state though, thats not nearly as much of an option here.
The Massachusetts system, which is similar, has been working.A lot of young people left the state though, thats not nearly as much of an option here.
Really? I hadn't heard that. And how can you tell, in Massachusetts, where another flock of them arrives each fall?
You've asserted that unions create an antagonistic position between labor and management. My assertion is that such a relationship has always existed, and what unions used to do is to give labor some teeth in what has typically been a one-sided struggle. They still do, but their power to do so has been on the wane since the Reagan era.You're not talking about the same thing I'm talking about.Having a union fosters an "us vs them" mentality. I know you don't care and would want to promote that mentality further, but some other people see it as a negative.It's always been labor vs management since before the days of feudalism. Removing labor's ability to have representation and organise does not make that essential struggle go away. That's like saying that removing child labor laws won't lead to child labor.
It doesn't have to be that way. There are reasons why Henry Ford was inherently a better person, than either Rockerfeller or Carnegie, no matter how much more the latter two gave to charity.
1) I didn't say I disagreed with you.
2) You're addressing something different than I was addressing.
He doesn't like me laughing at the travails of UPS supervisors and thinks that anti-union people will find their worst fears justified by reading my posts.
Well, guess what?
We're all on drugs, too. And we rarely clock in on time. And we take lots of days off.
U-nion! U-nion! U-nion!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff, I'd be more inclined to comment if disagreement with the approved narrative didn't automatically get a person branded as a nutcase by those whose ideologies are challenged.Try challenges that don't rely entirely on personal insults and ad homs.
Some substance would be nice.
I mean its not exactly like I'm giving the plan a ringing endorsement.
Nah, I've learned my lesson Norse. Once burned twice shy and all that.
You all can have your fun within the accepted parameters of discussion here. I'll just watch and chuckle as the real world intrudes on people's naivetee and ideologies.
Carry on.
You get that this is exactly what we'd expect to hear from someone who didn't have any good arguments and was bitter about it, right? Complete with, "The real world will prove me right!" and everything.
He's gone, Scott (and everybody else). Based on past interactions, I doubt he's coming back.
Then what are you talking about, because I read it the same way he did. Perhaps if you're misunderstood, it's worth clarifying.
I'm happy to provide clarification, thejeff, I've just found that providing it prior to being asked is usually pointless. I have to hammer home that I'm not talking about the same thing for a while, because people aren't exactly predisposed towards listening around here.
My comment was not in regards to a society-wide analysis, that labor unions are responsible for the class war. Rather, that when you go down to the micro level, looking at specific people or specific workplaces, there is a measurable trend. Workplaces with unions generally have starker dividing lines between worker and manager than places that don't have unions.
It isn't really a measure of causation, but rather correlation. It could be that all workers are being screwed, but union ones are the only ones fighting back, so the level of hostility is increased in those places. But when the comrade mentions a "failure in empathy", for me it makes sense. He's a member of a union and a communist. He sees the managers as the enemy, and people rarely have empathy for their enemies.
Hee hee!
So, when I was still a newbie steward, I had the misfortune of getting involved in a catfight between two female employees. Usual bickering bullshiznit and I was talking to one of them and tried to put it in perspective. "You may not get along with Bonnie, but remember who the real enemy is."
Anyway, IIRC, she was getting two hours of overtime a day outside of the seniority order and when I brought it up with the supervisor, he saw an opportunity to sow dissension within the union ranks and blamed her loss of non-contractually compliant overtime on me. So she went and filed a harassment complaint against me. (I know all of this because when they hauled me into the office they had her report on their desk. I've been to f@%+ing college, man, you think I can't read upside-down?!?)
So, I got hauled into the office with another dude who they were trying to frame for threatening to egg some other supe's home over the Halloween weekend. I was all like, "what does this have to do with me?" I can't remember exactly how it was worded, but they (the shift manager, the HR supe and the security head) said that I was being investigated for harassment and workplace violence. Usually I counsel members not to answer their questions, but I knew what I had and hadn't done, so I answered. I don't remember them all, but I clearly remember being asked:
"Did you tell someone to 'remember who the real enemy is'?"
"Yes."
"And who did you mean by that?"
"Why, management, of course."
They went ape-shiznit. I laughed, and then demanded they get me my own steward. Neither me nor the alleged egger ever heard about it again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, in my two decades in the workforce I haven't noticed a difference between union and non-union employees and how much they dislike their bosses.
I have noticed that in non-union shops, supervisors are always underestimating how much their employees dislike them because the latter suck up, fawn over the boss, and, in general, hide their dislike.
In union shops, supervisors know exactly how much their employees dislike them because the employees' freedom of speech is covered by the National Labor Relations Act and the employees let management know how much they dislike them.
