|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/adamcancryn/status/842763734280036354 A lot of these assholes would be perfectly fine held up inside an underground bunker with no outside access in a post-apocalyptic hellscape so long as they were kept aware of the existence of people on the surface with no shelter or provisions. Then go to war with people on the surface if they started to rebuild because nothing is more important in life than being king of poo poo mountain
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
call to action posted:I don't think it's explicitly about loving over poor people, though they definitely get hard at the thought of it. It's more about ensuring an ever-increasing level of precarity in the workforce, so workers have less and less leverage with which to demand higher wages or better protection. Lack of healthcare is a positive motivator. At the end of the day it's all about comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted, because in their minds they respectively deserve it. The poor and sick obviously brought their lot upon themselves, and the rich deserve every break and advantage at the expense of the lazy and shiftless. Whether that comes in the form of direct wealth transfer upwards or ensuring the perpetual advantage of capital over the worker is at the discretion of the powerful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Zikan posted:You can't just repeal the individual mandate and call it a day because you risk causing a death spiral in the health insurance markets if people drop coverage and only pick it up when they become sick en mass. Yeah, but that's the thing, the current GOP plan already does that! If your plan is already going to kick 25 million people off of coverage and wreck the exchanges, why not at least make it marketable to the public?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Christ the GOP just. cannot. govern. I really wonder if trying to pass their vampiric tax cuts is gonna go down like the healthcare bill at this point. Or will it be a lot easier to thread the needle between the "oh well shucks I'm evil but not that evil" Republicans and frothing Teahadist lunatics when something more abstract than healthcare is on the line?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Fired U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara Said to Have Been Investigating HHS Secretary Tom Pricequote:Former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who was removed from his post by the Trump administration last week, was overseeing an investigation into stock trades made by the president’s health secretary, according to a person familiar with the office. ProPublica reported this afternoon that Preet Bharara was investigating Tom Price's insider stock trading-- I've seen the story start to percolate around the internet (just TPM, Slate so far). Can you imagine the insanity if Price gets charged with violating the STOCK act while they're trying to ram the AHCA through Congress? Yikes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
sharkbomb posted:Fired U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara Said to Have Been Investigating HHS Secretary Tom Price Don't worry, they've taken care of that now! (unless Preet Bahara gets hired by a state government prosecutor's office)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Don't worry, they've taken care of that now! (unless Preet Bahara gets hired by a state government prosecutor's office) Not really: they have to appoint someone new to kibosh the investigation. Until they do, Preet's deputy is in charge - and they've been terrible at filling low-level positions and may not get around to it for quite some time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Don't worry, they've taken care of that now! (unless Preet Bahara gets hired by a state government prosecutor's office) As soon as Preet was fired there were news reports that his deputy was taking over until a new appointee was confirmed by the Senate. I've read that there would be very little disruption because the two attorneys have always worked closely together. Any investigations of Tom Price would continue. evilweasel posted:Not really: they have to appoint someone new to kibosh the investigation. Until they do, Preet's deputy is in charge - and they've been terrible at filling low-level positions and may not get around to it for quite some time. I guess one way to gauge how serious Trump and Price are taking this investigation will be in how quickly they can fill the southern NY attorney position (appointing people quickly would be out of character for this administration).
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:About that... I'm currently starting a business. For a party that claims to be all about the little guy and the "job creators", they sure enjoy screwing those who want to grow their businesses. This healthcare plan was already evil on biblical proportions for what it does to the poor, the elderly, and other minority groups. But it's almost as if they want to just screw everyone over, even their base just so they can destroy everything and start from the ground up to make a new Randian world. I know it's more than likely that they just are a group of morons who scribbled together a healthcare plan on a Post It at the 11th hour, but it still seems calculating cold.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:About that... For what its worth I think the employer aspect of healthcare is a big barrier to reform because a significant chunk of the population doesn't think about or understand the healthcare market or healthcare costs. I see people at work who have a hard time grasping that their 100 or 200 a month contribution is just the tip of the 10k or so our employer pays for our healthcare. It really distorts discussions of cost and cost increases because it happens that our employers started passing on more of the increases around the time of Obamacare. So people think Obamacare doubled their costs or whatever because their small portion increased. And managing healthcare is a big burden for employers and a big barrier for employees wanting to leave their company and start a business. That aspect in particular, the entrepreneurial aspect needs to be hammered by the left on the right. At one company meeting our CEO spent the whole time talking about healthcare and how he personally researched it and negotiated it and and how he had too because it's the #2 company expense - it's monumentally stupid from every single perspective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Pretty much every economist of every political pursuasion views our employer-supplied health care as a dumb system but you can't really change it because nobody's interested in losing their employer plan for something unknown.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
I lost track of it, but does the AHCA still reduce the tax exemption for employee contributions like an earlier leaked version? That would certainly educate people about healthcare costs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
Strange, in our information packets every year we get a breakdown of employee vs employer costs and it's always been around 2/3rds employer subsidized
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
rscott posted:Strange, in our information packets every year we get a breakdown of employee vs employer costs and it's always been around 2/3rds employer subsidized This seems like the exeception. No one i know truly knows what their current work health insurance costs. I asked when i found out mine, and i only did that by accident.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Pretty much every economist of every political pursuasion views our employer-supplied health care as a dumb system but you can't really change it because nobody's interested in losing their employer plan for something unknown. Because it's a bit of a blind leap. If they lose their employer plan for Medicare-for-all under the next Democratic president, there's a good chance the Republican after that will drop them for "efficiency" and then they will be left with nothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:This seems like the exeception. No one i know truly knows what their current work health insurance costs. I asked when i found out mine, and i only did that by accident. It's on the W-2 now (box 12 code DD) so you can find out if you want. Jealous Cow posted:I lost track of it, but does the AHCA still reduce the tax exemption for employee contributions like an earlier leaked version? No it doesn't. Other republican plans in the past few years did that, but those weren't really "leaked versions of this bill"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
esquilax posted:It's on the W-2 now (box 12 code DD) so you can find out if you want. Right. Ours (family of 3) was 17k employer and probably 2k out of pocket.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Starting a business and covering yourself means you're taking a massive hit to your income every month in a period of time when actually drawing a profit is really unknown. When I started my business I didn't have healthcare for over a year because I just couldn't loving afford it until the ACA kicked in. I've yet to hear Republicans address that, or Democrats even bring it up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Starting a business and covering yourself means you're taking a massive hit to your income every month in a period of time when actually drawing a profit is really unknown. When I started my business I didn't have healthcare for over a year because I just couldn't loving afford it until the ACA kicked in. I've yet to hear Republicans address that, or Democrats even bring it up. Entrepreneurship hurts entrenched businesses, the GOP's primary constituency. Seriously though, between the current healthcare model and insane non-compete agreements, businesses exercise a firm grasp on their employees ability to create new opportunities or take advantage of employer competitively.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Starting a business and covering yourself means you're taking a massive hit to your income every month in a period of time when actually drawing a profit is really unknown. When I started my business I didn't have healthcare for over a year because I just couldn't loving afford it until the ACA kicked in. I've yet to hear Republicans address that, or Democrats even bring it up. Well, verbally finger-banging SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS OF MAINSTREET, USA is a cornerstone of conservatism, but they certainly won't do anything that practically helps small business owners.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
I recall reading an article a year or two back that one of the Scandinavian countries (sweden I think) had a ridiculous percentage of entrepreneurs just because the social safety net made people confident enough to engage in an inherently risky endeavor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I recall reading an article a year or two back that one of the Scandinavian countries (sweden I think) had a ridiculous percentage of entrepreneurs just because they social safety net made people confident enough to engage in an inherently risky endeavor. They also invest in education, so poor students can apply abroad without fear of bankruptcy, and actually exercise upward economic mobility at home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Since we are talking about starting businesses, I'm reminded about that incredibly moronic comment from Rep. Justin Chaffetz about those making a decision to buy a new iPhone or healthcare. In a twisted way, he's kinda making the argument why we need a single payer system or something like it that takes away healthcare costs from working Americans thus giving more money in their pockets to spend in the economy on goods and services, like an iPhone. Because under the GOP plan you have a variety of groups that are going to be losing even more disposable income which is what should be going back into the economy to grow GDP. That hurts the growth of businesses who rely on consumer spending. So why aren't big corporations and small businesses rallying together to fight on behalf of consumers then? If taking away the exorbitant costs of healthcare gives much more purchasing power then why not? Even if you take Rep Chaffetz comment at face value, that seems a direct attack on companies like Apple. Am I overlooking something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:So why aren't big corporations and small businesses rallying together to fight on behalf of consumers then?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Since we are talking about starting businesses, I'm reminded about that incredibly moronic comment from Rep. Justin Chaffetz about those making a decision to buy a new iPhone or healthcare. In a twisted way, he's kinda making the argument why we need a single payer system or something like it that takes away healthcare costs from working Americans thus giving more money in their pockets to spend in the economy on goods and services, like an iPhone. Because under the GOP plan you have a variety of groups that are going to be losing even more disposable income which is what should be going back into the economy to grow GDP. That hurts the growth of businesses who rely on consumer spending. The government spending money on anything spurs the economy in the immediate but that's a finite resource. The opposite is also true - cutting anything, regardless of whether someone calls it 'waste' or not also has an immediate negative impact on jobs and GDP. Something the left should be reminding Trump as he massively cuts various agencies all across the country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Am I overlooking something? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2VG53RIJ50&t=25s
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:Why would businesses voluntarily relinquish the power they currently exercise over workers? The motivations of mom&pop stores vs large corps are different but it's still all about power. Sure I wouldn't disagree with that but then you have cases like this: Wetzel's Pretzels' CEO says minimum wage increase boosts business http://www.marketplace.org/2017/02/17/economy/fast-food-ceo-says-minimum-wage-increase-boosts-business quote:“The increases in minimum wage have been good for my business, and the data would support what I’ve said,” CEO Phelps said. quote:“My overall sales were something like 15 percent ahead after the first minimum wage bump, and now they're about 12 percent ahead this year,” franchise owner Jacobs said. “It isn't because I'm such a great manager or smart guy, but the buying public has more money in their pocket.” quote:“By my looking at it, the minimum wage increase has just been a godsend,” Jacobs said. “My income this year will be double what it was in 2013.” quote:His employees have gotten a raise. His CEO is getting big numbers. His customers can buy more pretzels. And Jacobs can buy more guitars. And there's an economist cited in the article who says getting data to prove minimum wage increases helps fast food companies is extremely rare because companies obviously don't have the incentive to undermine their own narrative about higher wages = higher prices and so on. asdf32 posted:The government spending money on anything spurs the economy in the immediate but that's a finite resource. What's a finite resource? Money? Our government has an unlimited ability to spend money, we can never run out of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:Why would businesses voluntarily relinquish the power they currently exercise over workers? The motivations of mom&pop stores vs large corps are different but it's still all about power. It is less about control than efficiency. Providing group coverage to employed saves them a huge amount of money at a small cost to the employer. Subsidizing it is also tax free. It costs them a small amount of money but delivers a huge amount of value to employees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Everyone complains about the employer paid system but loves their particular employer sponsored plans since they can be incredibly generous. The ACA would've dialed this down via the cadillac tax mechanism through the decades and gradually unwind that since virtually all plans would've hit the high value threshold in a decade or so. Then people can decide if they want to firm up the marketplace subsidies, reregulate plans to make them cover more doctors (no more narrow networks), or put in a public option or whatever. The GOP plan seems to do what they've wanted to have done for decades, which is fire a shot directly into the heart of it and see what happens next.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Everyone complains about the employer paid system but loves their particular employer sponsored plans since they can be incredibly generous. In the nearly ten years I've been married and thus had insurance through my husband('s employer) rather than my parents, I don't think I've ever loved his insurance plan. If what I have is "incredibly generous" and would have hit a "high value threshold"... what on earth are "low" value plans covering? If what I have would be top-of-the-line in the individual market, and the GOP wants to make the individual market worse, why don't they just cut out the middleman and allow insurance companies to offer a laminated card with the insurer's phone number on it as the sole benefit of the policy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:In the nearly ten years I've been married and thus had insurance through my husband('s employer) rather than my parents, I don't think I've ever loved his insurance plan. The magic of employer sponsored insurance is the massive disparity in plans. I've worked at places where the deductible is 3,300 before the employer covers anything and also places where it's $350. zonohedron posted:
Same stuff employer plans do, but they're able to trims costs with gimmicks like high deductibles and copays and/or narrow networks. The gap month I didn't have employer coverage between jobs I used an ACA plan that limited me to only one hospital/provider group in the metro region. It also had a $1.5k deductible and a $5000 out of pocket max. Luckily generics were just $10 and were deductible waived, unlike the silver version of the same plan where it was not waived and you would pay full cost for an expensive generic until you hit the deductible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
So is there any way for the GOP to not take a political hit from this? 1. If it passes, millions will lose coverage and everyone from the healthcare industry to the AARP is pissed at them. 2. If it fails, they can't fulfill campaign promises and look like idiots. Hardcore backers like the Koch brothers are pissed at them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:So is there any way for the GOP to not take a political hit from this? If they go with 2, there's still a decent chance that they can get by on whatever their godawful budget ends up being + Dems finding ways to lose again. If they go with 1 then yeah they're almost definitely boned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:If they go with 2, there's still a decent chance that they can get by on whatever their godawful budget ends up being + Dems finding ways to lose again. If they go with 1 then yeah they're almost definitely boned. Making #2 a no-brainer for the GOP: Blame Democrats for not being able to pass repeal. More Dems get voted out of the midterms because of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
The Koch brothers want the bill to fail. They were funding commercials about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
It's me. I'm the segment of the voting population preemptively getting pissed off over Dem failure to justify why I don't show up to vote in the midterm which proves my theories about Dem failure. The GOP can still escape this by following the Cruz path and having Pence overrule the parliamentarian about whether or not their other prongs can be passed via reconciliation. That broadens what they can put in to appease both wings in the house, but risks a pretty epic revolt in the Senate. There's also the chance that the parliamentarian rolls over if this becomes a real threat, to avoid the destruction of the office. Past that, it's playing hot potato to see who gets the blame. There's zero chance Manchin or Heitkamp move on the bill, so Ryan is trying to force it into the Senate and make it Mitch's problem. Senators who'd rather not vote for it are talking tough right now to hopefully avoid having a vote on record that will be used against them in either the primary or the general. It's unclear that the GOP has sticks or carrots necessary to get to 50 in the Senate, without reconciliation trickery. Biggest risk is collective action-the individual cost of killing a bill that would decimate the GOP is too high, so everyone passes it through.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:I have the highest confidence that Democrats will not lift a finger to take advantage of the situation. It's no longer a question of repeal. It's a question of the "replace" and everyone hates the "replace". It's the replace that's going to be litigated in 2018, not the repeal - especially because repeal without replace is fiendishly unpopular. Republicans could run on repeal without details of replace before they got control of the government. They can't anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:I have the highest confidence that Democrats will not lift a finger to take advantage of the situation. The Democrats are actively working to squash single payer at state level: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/03/single-payer-dems-colo/
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
tekz posted:The Democrats are actively working to squash single payer at state level: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/03/single-payer-dems-colo/ That's not even what the article says.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
tekz posted:The Democrats are actively working to squash single payer at state level: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/03/single-payer-dems-colo/ The article says consulting firms used by dems are being paid by health interest lobbyists to work against it, notably insurance companies. Read the article before you react. I mean let's look at this paragraph: quote:The anti-single-payer effort is funded almost entirely by health care industry interests, including $500,000 from Anthem Inc., the state’s largest health insurance provider; $40,000 from Cigna, another large health insurer that is current in talks to merge with Anthem; $75,000 from Davita, the dialysis company; $25,000 from Delta Dental, the largest dental insurer in the state; and $100,000 from SCL Health, the faith-based hospital chain. Sloober fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 14:04
|
|
