Well, let's look at it this way: Unless you think the US government is uniquely incompetent, it would be a better system than we have now. Every first-world nation, and many many more besides, have some form of nationalized healthcare, and all of them are more highly ranked than ours. We're 34th in the world, with our ever so effective private healthcare, that we pay more than any other country on earth for.The Affordable Care Act started off as trying to institute a government-run health care system. The current form of being a health insurance mandate with insurance reforms is what it ended up by the time Congress was done with it.
The sad bit is, that's actually the most successful of the two major attempts to get it passed. The first time, both it and the proposer were completely shut down.
So, yes, all evidence points to the U.S. government being uniquely incompetent.
You're confusing the Republicans in congress with the U.S. government as a whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff and Squeakman- I'll admit losing my insurance does bias me a bit. However, a single-payer government-run medical system was actually originally part of the Affordable Care Act.
Here's the timeline. The last sentence of the second paragraph is relevant.
Here's the original proposal. Scroll down until you see the Kucinich Amendment. Note which party had the most votes in favor of it.
This is about the law as it is now. It is somewhat out of date.
GentleGiant- The fact that dividing the government up into parties is seen as a legitimate reply, when pretty much both parties make up large percentages of it, reveals a very important reason why the U.S. government cannot be allowed to run a national health care: It does not act as a singular entity, but an ongoing ideological battleground between two groups of people who wield every aspect of the entire government that they can as part of their campaign.
So, no, I wasn't confusing them; the fact that they are in government makes them part of it. It is the actions of both parties in office and all three branches that determine how the entire government functions, and in turn determines how the laws actually function. You cannot ignore any single part when talking about the outcomes of laws because all parts are important to those laws.
|
You're confusing the Republicans in congress with the U.S. government as a whole.Well, let's look at it this way: Unless you think the US government is uniquely incompetent, it would be a better system than we have now. Every first-world nation, and many many more besides, have some form of nationalized healthcare, and all of them are more highly ranked than ours. We're 34th in the world, with our ever so effective private healthcare, that we pay more than any other country on earth for.The Affordable Care Act started off as trying to institute a government-run health care system. The current form of being a health insurance mandate with insurance reforms is what it ended up by the time Congress was done with it.
The sad bit is, that's actually the most successful of the two major attempts to get it passed. The first time, both it and the proposer were completely shut down.
So, yes, all evidence points to the U.S. government being uniquely incompetent.
Except the ACA was written and passed with 0 GOP input or anything. It was purely from differing factions in the Democratic party. The ACA was a highly unpopular train wreck from the start.
(Note that I am a Libertarian Conservative or a Conservative Libertarian, so I am opposed to the whole thing.)
You are about to be told that people deserve your money and you are selfish for not giving it to them happily.....
You're confusing the Republicans in congress with the U.S. government as a whole.Well, let's look at it this way: Unless you think the US government is uniquely incompetent, it would be a better system than we have now. Every first-world nation, and many many more besides, have some form of nationalized healthcare, and all of them are more highly ranked than ours. We're 34th in the world, with our ever so effective private healthcare, that we pay more than any other country on earth for.The Affordable Care Act started off as trying to institute a government-run health care system. The current form of being a health insurance mandate with insurance reforms is what it ended up by the time Congress was done with it.
The sad bit is, that's actually the most successful of the two major attempts to get it passed. The first time, both it and the proposer were completely shut down.
So, yes, all evidence points to the U.S. government being uniquely incompetent.
Except the ACA was written and passed with 0 GOP input or anything. It was purely from differing factions in the Democratic party. The ACA was a highly unpopular train wreck from the start.
(Note that I am a Libertarian Conservative or a Conservative Libertarian, so I am opposed to the whole thing.)
Click the links in my previous post; I already disproved this one. They not only had input, but had its predecessor bill creating the groundwork for a national shift to a single-payer system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When one party says they refuse to let government function, then I blame them for the government's inability to function.
When one party says they refuse to let government function, then I blame them for the government's inability to function.
What about when it's both parties? Let's be fair here; both parties are guilty of it.
thejeff and Squeakman- I'll admit losing my insurance does bias me a bit. However, a single-payer government-run medical system was actually originally part of the Affordable Care Act.
Here's the timeline. The last sentence of the second paragraph is relevant.
Here's the original proposal. Scroll down until you see the Kucinich Amendment. Note which party had the most votes in favor of it.
This is about the law as it is now. It is somewhat out of date.
That's not the ACA. That's a single-payer bill that's been introduced in the House every year since 2002 and has never gone anywhere. It didn't go anywhere in 2009 either. It was ignored. It was not the proposal that finally became the House's version of ACA, which was itself pretty much ignored in favor of the Senate version, since there was little hope of another vote reconciling the two passing.
Kucinich's amendment allows states to implement their own single payer systems. It does not even try to establish a national single-payer system. Such a thing was never part of the debate. I would have loved it if it was. It would have been a major victory if it had even gotten far enough to have its costs/saving scored by the CBO, but it just wasn't there.
Something akin to Kucinich's amendment is in the final law. Vermont has actually passed and is implementing a state-level single payer system: Green Mountain Care.
The single-payer bill introduced since 2002 is the The United States National Health Care Act, not the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Those are two entirely different bills.
And Kucinich's Amendment sets up a national single-payer health care system the same way Canada did.
Also, can you provide me with the text on that bit from the final law that allows such? Because I have never, ever found it.
When one party says they refuse to let government function, then I blame them for the government's inability to function.What about when it's both parties? Let's be fair here; both parties are guilty of it.
At times, yes. To the same degree? No frickin' way.
When one party says they refuse to let government function, then I blame them for the government's inability to function.What about when it's both parties? Let's be fair here; both parties are guilty of it.
No.
At times, yes. To the same degree? No frickin' way.When one party says they refuse to let government function, then I blame them for the government's inability to function.What about when it's both parties? Let's be fair here; both parties are guilty of it.
True. I can't argue that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When one party says they refuse to let government function, then I blame them for the government's inability to function.What about when it's both parties? Let's be fair here; both parties are guilty of it.
You clearly know enough about politics to know that is not true. I can only assume you have some sort of an agenda to try to convince people otherwise.
You clearly know enough about politics to know that is not true. I can only assume you have some sort of an agenda to try to convince people otherwise.When one party says they refuse to let government function, then I blame them for the government's inability to function.What about when it's both parties? Let's be fair here; both parties are guilty of it.
Got evidence it's not true?
Also, got evidence that I have some kind of agenda which hinges on convincing people of such?
Assumptions are incredibly dangerous.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not getting things done is a feature not a flaw of the system.
|
|
I believe there is somewhere around 40 bills that passed the House that Reid is blocking from even debate in the Senate, while Reid is using weaselly tactics to block all GOP amendments on many of the bills he does allow debate upon. So, yeah, both parties do it.You clearly know enough about politics to know that is not true. I can only assume you have some sort of an agenda to try to convince people otherwise.When one party says they refuse to let government function, then I blame them for the government's inability to function.What about when it's both parties? Let's be fair here; both parties are guilty of it.
BBBBBBut that is different
I have to say I don't understand this strategy of bragging about something and denying it at the same time. I noticed Romney using it a lot during his campaign where he would say something very far right, then walk it back in the main stream media, and then deny having walked it back to his supporters. It didn't work for him and I don't think it's working for Republicans in general.
I have to say I don't understand this strategy of bragging about something and denying it at the same time. I noticed Romney using it a lot during his campaign where he would say something very far right, then walk it back in the main stream media, and then deny having walked it back to his supporters. It didn't work for him and I don't think it's working for Republicans in general.
It requires a charisma check to work.
I have to say I don't understand this strategy of bragging about something and denying it at the same time. I noticed Romney using it a lot during his campaign where he would say something very far right, then walk it back in the main stream media, and then deny having walked it back to his supporters. It didn't work for him and I don't think it's working for Republicans in general.It requires a charisma check to work.
And the Republican alternate racial trait has a penalty to Charisma.
And the Republican alternate racial trait has a penalty to Charisma.I have to say I don't understand this strategy of bragging about something and denying it at the same time. I noticed Romney using it a lot during his campaign where he would say something very far right, then walk it back in the main stream media, and then deny having walked it back to his supporters. It didn't work for him and I don't think it's working for Republicans in general.It requires a charisma check to work.
Gore. Kerry?
Sometimes you just roll badly. You don't need a racial penalty to get a bad stat, it just makes it harder to get a good one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is my opinion:
-You don't have a right for other people to pay for your stuff.
(Also, Hobby Lobby covers most contraceptives, it is only a subset of those, like the morning after pill, that they objected to covering)
It is a common misconception that health benefits amount to "somebody else paying for your stuff." They don't. They are part of your salary. Part of your compensation for your work.
Hobby Lobby is basically telling their workers what they can or cannot do with their wages. And the Supreme Court handed them the right to do so.
That's just the tip of the iceberg of wrongness that this fiasco represents. But it's as good a place as any to start down the road of understanding what a mistake has been made here.
Gore. Kerry?And the Republican alternate racial trait has a penalty to Charisma.I have to say I don't understand this strategy of bragging about something and denying it at the same time. I noticed Romney using it a lot during his campaign where he would say something very far right, then walk it back in the main stream media, and then deny having walked it back to his supporters. It didn't work for him and I don't think it's working for Republicans in general.It requires a charisma check to work.
I'm pretty certain Gore dumpstatted both Wisdom and Intelligence.
Kerry... You know, that had to be one of the most forgettable people I've ever seen. Pretty certain a Charisma dumpstat or alternate racial penalty. Given some of Obama's gaffs, I'm thinking Charisma is a racial penalty for the Democrat alternate racial trait.
Now, if you want to talk about someone who didn't dumpstat charisma, take a look at the second Bush. He had a lot of people convinced he was an idiot with his funny way of mispronouncing things... and then he gets handed a Democrat Congress and suddenly the mispronunciations vanish. That man knew how to use the Bluff skill.
Clinton was also another who definitely maxed Charisma. Given he also plays the Sax, I think he's using a Bard archetype.
Well, he asked for satire. ;-)
She, actually. :P
But yes, I did, to wit:
Nordic worshipers refuse to pay for for end of life care. Demand the much cheaper swords and an area of the food court set aside so the dying can kill each other in glorious combat and get into Valhalla.
This is excellent. I work with elderly people, and just visualizing this gave me a great laugh.
|
|
At times, yes. To the same degree? No frickin' way.When one party says they refuse to let government function, then I blame them for the government's inability to function.What about when it's both parties? Let's be fair here; both parties are guilty of it.As I said above, Republicans run on "Government doesn't work". Democrats run on "Government can work for you". Both parties do block things the other party wants, but it's more dangerous for Democrats since doing so reinforces the Republican ideology. Proves them right and makes it easier for Republicans to to run on "Government doesn't work".
When Republicans obstruct it hurts them in the short term if it's obvious enough, but still fits in their general strategy.
Many conservative feel the gov is often the problem, many liberals believe that the gov is always the answer. But as Reid's games show they obstruct too when they might not get their way.
It is a common misconception that health benefits amount to "somebody else paying for your stuff." They don't. They are part of your salary. Part of your compensation for your work.
Hobby Lobby is basically telling their workers what they can or cannot do with their wages. And the Supreme Court handed them the right to do so.
Are health benefits legally considered the same as regular wages? I could see it going both ways, but I lean more toward the rule of "It's not your money until you cash the check".
I'm pretty certain Gore dumpstatted both Wisdom and Intelligence.Kerry... You know, that had to be one of the most forgettable people I've ever seen. Pretty certain a Charisma dumpstat or alternate racial penalty. Given some of Obama's gaffs, I'm thinking Charisma is a racial penalty for the Democrat alternate racial trait.
Don't forget Biden.
We should try running him over with a truck, see if he put all those points into Dex or Con.
Many conservative feel the gov is often the problem, many liberals believe that the gov is always the answer.
Do you honestly believe any part of that?
I think the whole debate just illustrates that Capitalism, (especially of the crony variety) is a piss poor way of taking care of medical and health needs. For capitalism to work, it needs to be able to fail, and there needs to be a mechanism of informed choice. You just can't get anything close to a "free market", and even if you could, the poorest people would just be left out of it.
I think a single payer system including everyone from the president to those on death row, with real limits on where the money goes would be better for almost everyone in the country, and would simultaneously fix most of the problems of the VA, which as far as I am concerned is a national disgrace.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't remember Hobby Lobby ever telling their employees that they can't spend their money on one of the 4 birth control methods if they want to. They cover 16 in their health coverage. They pay their full-time employees 90% more than minimum wage...almost twice the minimum wage. If you work for Hobby Lobby and are making that good working wage for what is usually a lower paying job and then you complain that you can't get a "morning after pill" for free when you had 16 other free methods available to not get pregnant then you can reach into your fatter-than-people-doing-comparable-jobs-in-comparable-companies pockets and pay for it.
I just don't understand it. Frickin' burger flippers trying to demand 15-20 $ an hour, people making almost double the minimum wage in a minimum wage job and complaining about how is covered in their healthcare....
I guess it's just me but I don't feel sorry for some idiot making almost double what he/she could be, who passes over 16 forms of covered contraceptives, who then gets pregnant and complains that the 4 methods of contraceptives that could then work are not covered while my wife, who also works for a corporation, has coverage that sucks in general.
I hope Hobby Lobby re-vamps their organization and offers all that crap, and then lowers wages to the market standard. If they are getting punished for trying to pay their employees better than normal then the employees complain about other non-issues, then just forget about trying to make the employees happy. Offer the same coverage and pay as other standards of the market.
I don't remember Hobby Lobby ever telling their employees that they can't spend their money on one of the 4 birth control methods if they want to. They cover 16 in their health coverage. They pay their full-time employees 90% more than minimum wage...almost twice the minimum wage. If you work for Hobby Lobby and are making that good working wage for what is usually a lower paying job and then you complain that you can't get a "morning after pill" for free when you had 16 other free methods available to not get pregnant then you can reach into your fatter-than-people-doing-comparable-jobs-in-comparable-companies pockets and pay for it.
I just don't understand it. Frickin' burger flippers trying to demand 15-20 $ an hour, people making almost double the minimum wage in a minimum wage job and complaining about how is covered in their healthcare....
I guess it's just me but I don't feel sorry for some idiot making almost double what he/she could be, who passes over 16 forms of covered contraceptives, who then gets pregnant and complains that the 4 methods of contraceptives that could then work are not covered while my wife, who also works for a corporation, has coverage that sucks in general.
I hope Hobby Lobby re-vamps their organization and offers all that crap, and then lowers wages to the market standard. If they are getting punished for trying to pay their employees better than normal then the employees complain about other non-issues, then just forget about trying to make the employees happy. Offer the same coverage and pay as other standards of the market.
Hit me up with the 16?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just so you know, "frickin burger flippers" are more likely to be shot on the job than a police officer. So I'm not really against them making more money.
It is a common misconception that health benefits amount to "somebody else paying for your stuff." They don't. They are part of your salary. Part of your compensation for your work.
+1 to this. Benefits are completely part of your overall compensation package.
I have two additional concerns I've not seen come up yet on this one:
1. How this decision may water down HIPAA - generally an employer has no right to any private health information for any of its employees, so it becomes very odd in how this will be handled. Especially if this exception for religious beliefs becomes more widespread. To my knowledge, there is no real way the CPT or diagnosis system is going to really differentiate between billing for "acceptable" vs. "unacceptable" birth control, especially as it will apparently vary by the company's current belief system. While individual medications may be added to a list, I don't know many health professionals that would know to or care to try to find a specific list of things they can't discuss with or prescribe to a patient because of who their employer happens to be.
2. The concept that a corporation can have a religion. One of the "downstream effects" which concerns me is if a "closely held" company decides that they are a conscientious objector, how that will affect those who may be employed there who are serving in the armed forces or are veterans.
-TimD
The single-payer bill introduced since 2002 is the The United States National Health Care Act, not the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Those are two entirely different bills.And Kucinich's Amendment sets up a national single-payer health care system the same way Canada did.
Also, can you...
Exactly. They're not the same bill. The single payer one had nothing to do with the debate over what became the ACA. It went nowhere, like it's done every year.
It's a bit of a stretch to say Kucinich's amendment "sets up a notional single-payer health care system". It would make it possible for states to go that route, but it certainly doesn't require it. And it was an amendment from one of the most liberal representatives, not the original plan that got watered down, as you claimed.
Looking a little closer at Vermont's plan. They have indeed passed a single-payer plan, but they will need federal approval to use it in place of an exchange. So you're right, that language isn't in the ACA, but it seems possible to make it work. Not sure if it requires an act of Congress or just the executive branch.
I did not imply they are the same bill :P
And, I was actually partially-right. I had to dig a bit farther; I will admit I was confusing pieces of evidence, but the quotes from Obama himself in this article make it quite clear the intent of his healthcare reform actions and show that, yes, before this got to Congress setting up a single-payer system was indeed the actual goal. The Kucinich Amendment would have just been the first step on the path to that goal. It's the actions of Congress and changes they made that probably scuttled it, especially given how it's since been heavily gouged in the courts.
And, actually, Vermont's plan will require an act of Congress. They have to pass an active amendment to the ACA to allow it. So, pretty much, Vermont's idea won't go anywhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
I just don't understand it. Frickin' burger flippers trying to demand 15-20 $ an hour, people making almost double the minimum wage in a minimum wage job and complaining about how is covered in their healthcare....
I guess it's just me but I don't feel sorry for some idiot making almost double what he/she could be, who passes over 16 forms of covered contraceptives, who then gets pregnant and complains that the 4 methods of contraceptives that could then work are not covered while my wife, who also works for a corporation, has coverage that sucks in general.
...
Please don't take this the wrong way, but it is probably the same lack of empathy for "some idiot" that results in your wife's poor health care. I'm guessing that you probably make well more then minimum wage, and that you make a decent living wage for your area. I'm guessing that you and your wife feel you deserve better care then you get and better care then that idiot you mentioned. Now there are many people making not twice, or four times, or even ten times, but 100 times more money then you make. If you work for a corporation, there are probably many who make decisions about your compensation and benefits. To them, you and your wife are the "idiots" who get paid far more then the minimum wage they feel you deserve. In their minds YOU should just be glad to have a job at all, since outsourcing your jobs would save them all kinds of money.
The measure of how deserving you are of healthcare is not based on the size of your bank account. That guy flipping burgers, or the CEO of Burgercorp is neither superior nor inferior to you. People deserve the best healthcare and education that the society can provide, not the most they can buy leaving the scraps for the poor.
1. How this decision may water down HIPAA - generally an employer has no right to any private health information for any of its employees, so it becomes very odd in how this will be handled. Especially if this exception for religious beliefs becomes more widespread. To my knowledge, there is no real way the CPT or diagnosis system is going to really differentiate between billing for "acceptable" vs. "unacceptable" birth control, especially as it will apparently vary by the company's current belief system. While individual medications may be added to a list, I don't know many health professionals that would know to or care to try to find a specific list of things they can't discuss with or prescribe to a patient because of who their employer happens to be.
It's simple enough: The company auto-denies until the employee provides all of the necessary documentation as to what the procedure is actually for. There's no law against that thanks to that ruling.
And that's assuming they closed that loophole that the laws related to billing had created...
Well, one use of the IUD that is now no longer covered and is quite expensive, is to prevent hysterectomy. something other forms of birth control that are still covered, do not do. So this is a life-saving medical device for some people.
You sure you know what a "hysterectomy" is? Cause it sounds like you don't.
http://www.webmd.com/women/guide/hysterectomy
An IUD prevents a medical procedure? Only until it is removed....
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
After all that crap about people not wanting some bureaucrat coming between them and their doctor, why is it suddenly okay for your boss to get in there?