|
Amergin posted:Listen to the interview I posted earlier about this topic. Republicans actually voiced support for the ACA in some instances in order to rile up lobbyists against certain provisions that would have actually done something to fix our healthcare system. Holy poo poo Obama's crappy because he's not Clinton now? Never thought that one was supposed to be a proper conservative concern troll on liberals. That was an old Firebagger canard. quote:The ACA was enacted when the Dems had control of both houses of Congress. Please keep telling me how it was the best the Dems could do in the face of terrifying lobbyists from big pharma, hospitals and medical device manufacturers. Obviously to pass anything of substance, you need a backbone, and none of the loving Dems at the time had one, but they and MSNBC and HuffPo and Mother Jones tell you it was the best they could do and you just accept that like a loving pat on the head of a good dog. That's more like it. Obama just needed more backbone to
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:09 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 06:44 |
|
If neoliberal star child Clinton is the best democrats can do then yeah Obama is a worse president than him.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:12 |
|
Gounads posted:The minimum requirements are what I consider the biggest flaw of the ACA. Very high deductible catastrophic plans should still be offered. I agree that men and women should share the pregnancy cost, but in the case of mammograms and prostate screenings, I don't think you can assume those costs even out. They may, they may not, but I'd still prefer to have the option as a young healthy male of not shouldering the cost of covering my own mammograms nor prostate screenings. Trabisnikof posted:You mean the repeal of Glass-Steagall, right? Because Glass-Steagall was passed in the 30s. And of course repealing Glass-Steagall helped usher in the 2008 crash. So impactful and huge, but not exactly "good." You're right, my mistake, edited. Trabisnikof posted:I'm curious, what's the last better large scale reform legislation before ACA? Clear Air Act of 1990? I'm honestly kinda stumped (please don't mention Welfare reform). 1996 welfare reform and TANF? From that site I linked, student loan reform? Again, how large scale are we talking? The ACA does a few things to reform healthcare insurance but it isn't this huge sweeping legislation that overhauls the system - it plugs a few holes, forces people to get insurance and again ignores 90% of the problems underlying our healthcare system.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:14 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:There are lots of improvements possible, but we're still far better off with it than without it. Accelerationists need not apply. LOL the weakest possible defense of a legislation ever, accompanied by a passive aggressive accusation of accellerationism. A single dollar a month to every citizen would also fit the description of "There are lots of improvements possible, but we're still far better off with it than without it."
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:15 |
|
Is Challenging Boehner the name of the segment or a misspelling of Palin's Native American name?
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:16 |
|
I want to see Obama get a $1.00 per year tax refund to every single citizen passed, just so I can see forum liberals tell me how it was the best possible deal we could get through congress and how it's better than nothing.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:16 |
|
Zeitgueist posted:LOL the weakest possible defense of a legislation ever, accompanied by a passive aggressive accusation of accellerationism. Forcing insurers to provide for people with pre-existing conditions is a huge boon to a ton of people, so it's a bit better than that. I'm a huge critic of the ACA but even I have to grant it has good aspects and is worth defending to a point.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:17 |
|
This is going to be one of the stupidest things I've posted but since male breast cancer is a thing couldn't the mammograms thing just be expanded to cover a chest x-Ray?
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:18 |
|
Boehner's working up a sweat from all this back-forth he's doing
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:18 |
|
Amergin posted:I agree that men and women should share the pregnancy cost, but in the case of mammograms and prostate screenings, I don't think you can assume those costs even out. They may, they may not, but I'd still prefer to have the option as a young healthy male of not shouldering the cost of covering my own mammograms nor prostate screenings. This is retarded. Relegating insurance coverage to a la carte does the exact opposite of what insurance is intended to do. You've always paid for mammograms and prostate screenings, regardless of whether or not you have breasts or a prostate, because you pay premiums into a pool of shared risk among participants.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:19 |
|
People who bitch about insurance covering what they don't use are just future old people bitching about school levies.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:21 |
|
DemeaninDemon posted:People who bitch about insurance covering what they don't use are just future old people bitching about school levies. I don't have kids why should I pay for schools????
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:22 |
|
Let's be blunt, they're selfish assholes who prefer minor benefits to them over quality of life improvements for others.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:23 |
|
zoux posted:I don't have kids why should I pay for schools???? That's it you're going in a nursing home.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:23 |
|
zoux posted:I don't have kids why should I pay for schools???? I remember being in high school going door-to-door in my community asking people to vote for a bond measure that would give my school some much-needed funds and I got this answer from most of the people I canvassed.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:24 |
|
Amergin posted:I agree that men and women should share the pregnancy cost, but in the case of mammograms and prostate screenings, I don't think you can assume those costs even out. They may, they may not, but I'd still prefer to have the option as a young healthy male of not shouldering the cost of covering my own mammograms nor prostate screenings. That's not how insurance works. It's a shared risk pool. You don't get to opt-out of things you don't think you'll need. Hell, if you could I'd opt out of diabetes coverage. That'd save me a ton compared to what you're talking about here. I've agreed that a catastrophic plan should still be available. But if you get the comprehensive one, you get it all. There can't be a pick and choose middle ground and coverage of preexisting conditions.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:27 |
|
bassguitarhero posted:I remember being in high school going door-to-door in my community asking people to vote for a bond measure that would give my school some much-needed funds and I got this answer from most of the people I canvassed. It would be cool if we lived in an actual society.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:27 |
|
amanasleep posted:Holy poo poo Obama's crappy because he's not Clinton now? Never thought that one was supposed to be a proper conservative concern troll on liberals. That was an old Firebagger canard. And it's at this point liberal defense of the ACA flounders and it turns into immature Reddit-worthy snark.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:27 |
|
zoux posted:It would be cool if we lived in an actual society. Society's for rich folk, everyone else just kind of has to scramble poo poo together and hope that whatever turd the government drops has some palatable bits of corn in it.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:28 |
|
bassguitarhero posted:I remember being in high school going door-to-door in my community asking people to vote for a bond measure that would give my school some much-needed funds and I got this answer from most of the people I canvassed. "Well, if you don't want some former high school kids who couldn't get a proper education breaking into your house at night and tying you up while they steal all your stuff, you should probably consider giving them opportunities beyond a life of constant desperation"
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:29 |
|
420DD Butts posted:"Well, if you don't want some former high school kids who couldn't get a proper education breaking into your house at night and tying you up while they steal all your stuff, you should probably consider giving them opportunities beyond a life of constant desperation" That's what the police state is for sir.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:30 |
|
bassguitarhero posted:I remember being in high school going door-to-door in my community asking people to vote for a bond measure that would give my school some much-needed funds and I got this answer from most of the people I canvassed. I went through that too, but it was over building a new HS. It only eventually passed, years later, when the threat of lawsuits due to asbestos made it seem more economical.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:30 |
|
zoux posted:It would be cool if we lived in an actual society. "Social contract? Sounds like communism to me."
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:30 |
|
zoux posted:That's what the police state is for sir. I would have gone with "you want the dude measuring out your bp medication to know some basic math and science, right?"
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:32 |
|
zoux posted:It would be cool if we lived in an actual society. We do. A society full of assholes.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:34 |
|
DemeaninDemon posted:I would have gone with "you want the dude measuring out your bp medication to know some basic math and science, right?" It's sad that the best arguments we could possibly give to old fygm suburban types is to play into their fears and not, you know, basic human understanding and compassion.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:37 |
|
zoux posted:Forcing insurers to provide for people with pre-existing conditions is a huge boon to a ton of people, so it's a bit better than that. Yes of course it has good aspects, that doesn't mean it's not poo poo. That's how laws work, you have enough good stuff in that you can trumpet the good parts and hope nobody noticed the bad parts. I'm mostly making fun of the people who seem to be implying that our boys in blue fought the good fight and those dastardly red team bad guys stopped them. It's a naive and inaccurate take on what happened but if you're invested in being a Democrat it has it's charm.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:39 |
|
Amergin posted:I agree that men and women should share the pregnancy cost, but in the case of mammograms and prostate screenings, I don't think you can assume those costs even out. They may, they may not, but I'd still prefer to have the option as a young healthy male of not shouldering the cost of covering my own mammograms nor prostate screenings. Amergin posted:The insurance industry needed one thing changed, and that was preventing them from refusing to cover you due to pre-existing conditions. Eliminating price discrimination based on gender and pre-existing conditions, and reducing it significantly based on age, was an explicit goal of the PPACA. What reason other than selfishness is there to be opposed to this? Obviously a young, healthy male on the individual market is paying more than pre-PPACA, but the other end of this is that, among other things, women don't get charged more for daring to have ovaries. Speaking of, when you say "refusing to cover", would you still be fine with insurance companies pricing their plans based on pre-existing conditions and health screenings? Because that was much more common than outright refusal to offer coverage, and one of the main things that priced people out of the individual market. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Jan 6, 2015 |
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:40 |
|
Reasons used as smokescreens for selfishness and only believed by willingly naive enabling fuckwits.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:42 |
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Eliminating price discrimination based on gender and pre-existing conditions, and reducing it significantly based on age, was an explicit goal of the PPACA. What reason other than selfishness is there to be opposed to this? Obviously a young, healthy male on the individual market is paying more than pre-PPACA, but the other end of this is that, among other things, women don't get charged more for daring to have ovaries. Yeah, but how does that help me, the proverbial young straight white male. Are we reviving the White Man's Burden???
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:42 |
|
We all know sharing sucks but it's better for everyone if we do. But wait! The GOP has invented an ideology that shows that sharing is actually bad and only done by homosexuals, and now more than half the country ascribes to it.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:43 |
|
Amergin posted:And it's at this point liberal defense of the ACA flounders and it turns into immature Reddit-worthy snark. This coming from the premier importer of that brand of snark ITT. Back on topic. Every liberal I know was sickened by what they saw as a lack of spine during the enacting of the ACA because the Public Option wasn't on the table. The reality is that the Health Care reform failure of Hillarycare back in the day defined the true limits of what was possible in 2009. The Democrats also controlled congress in 1993, plus they even had a white guy president! And yet Hillarycare was defeated by some Bill Kristol faxes and a clever ad. And Hillarycare was not much different from what Obamacare turned out to be.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:44 |
|
420DD Butts posted:It's sad that the best arguments we could possibly give to old fygm suburban types is to play into their fears and not, you know, basic human understanding and compassion. gently caress being nice and rational this is America gurd damnit.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:45 |
|
So Harry Reid made a video today, broken face and all. Senator Reid Discusses Opening of 114th Congress: http://youtu.be/ss0tzJuP6VM That dude is loving hard-core
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:45 |
|
420DD Butts posted:It's sad that the best arguments we could possibly give to old fygm suburban types is to play into their fears and not, you know, basic human understanding and compassion. If appeals to human compassion and understanding worked better than appealing to the lowest common denominator than communism wouldn't just work in theory.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:46 |
|
Click this link for hot hot naked senator action.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:47 |
|
amanasleep posted:This coming from the premier importer of that brand of snark ITT. The Dems never had to go anywhere NEAR Public Option. There are plenty of bogeyman to fight and those fights would all help reduce healthcare costs. Make hospitals ACTUALLY non-profit and curb the earnings from hospital admins. Allow US citizens to buy pharmaceuticals from Canada. Limit the profitability of pharmaceutical companies, or tie their profit margins to their R&D costs. Enact comparison studies on pharmaceutical companies' products and provide incentives for doctors/pharmacists to use cheaper drugs that have the same (or better) efficiency. Enact some tort reform to reduce the over-testing of patients. Limit profitability of medical device manufacturers or present incentives/disincentives for hospitals to stop buying equipment they don't need. And although it doesn't necessarily tie too much to costs, try to reform/force insurance companies to simplify the language and layout of EOBs and other communication/billing. NONE of this has anything to do with a public option but ALL of it (except the last item) would help reduce healthcare costs. What, of these items, was included in the ACA? These items didn't need the Dems to stand up to the GOP and make "socialism" palatable, it required them to grow a loving spine and represent their constituents rather than their lobbyists. They failed, Obama failed, this legislation failed, and you're sitting here with a penny in your hand acting thankful because it was your team that did it. If this was passed under a GOP executive + Congress you would be loving livid. Amergin fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jan 6, 2015 |
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:50 |
|
zoux posted:If appeals to human compassion and understanding worked better than appealing to the lowest common denominator then communism wouldn't just work in theory. And this is why I am a raging alcoholic.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 21:54 |
|
The best part is pharmaceuticals. If the government can't negotiate pharm. prices then it's hard to make any sort of argument that poo poo isn't bought and paid for.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 22:07 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 06:44 |
|
Interesting article on the massive and simultaneous deterioration of inner ring suburbs and the lack of desire to renovate them. Snippet: quote:According to U.S. census figures, 98.7 percent of the population growth in this country from 2000 to 2010 took place beyond a two-mile radius of any downtown area. About 70 percent of that growth took place 15+ miles out. And in the 51 national major metro areas (those with a population of more than one million), the increased population in the 5-15 mile range was 4.4 million, while the increase was 11.5 million in the areas 15+ miles from the central core.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 22:07 |