|
"Take Alabama, Mississippi, and West Virginia out of the statistics because..... gently caress those people" -an actual user (bad troll) in this thread
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
oldswitcheroo posted:"Take Alabama, Mississippi, and West Virginia out of the statistics because..... gently caress those people" I thought relitigating the primary was verboten?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:Says the people who absolutely despise that part of the country and would prefer that it secede and everyone in it die. Are you really this dumb or are you trolling?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:Says the people who absolutely despise that part of the country and would prefer that it secede and everyone in it die. Are you literally retarded or did you recently just learn English? The rate at which you compare apples to oranges in each of your sentences is astounding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:So on a scale between 10 and 11 how dumb is it to think that voters blame democrats for ensuing healthcare problems? Not as dumb as some of the poo poo they believe. They'll actually be correct in saying that Obamacare has problems. Unfortunately going one step back, and even then only if it suits them, is about their derivative limit for thinking through poo poo. So there's zero chance of them comprehending that bullshit like Rubio's legislation or the Roberts decision is what is actually the root cause of said problems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Mississippi loving sucks but it is still part of America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:So actually let's analyze this. This is such lazy thinking. Following your own dumb argument where it's fair to subdivide regions for underfined reasons the average infant mortality in the EU northern states is ~4.1 / 1000 births, which is substantially better than your set of cherry picked US states. EU member nations like Poland and Romania were actual communist dictatorships for a good fraction of the 20th century, no kidding health outcomes aren't as good as the richest nation in the history of the world. You clearly haven't thought this through.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Mississippi loving sucks but it is still part of America. Can confirm. Looked outside my window. Still America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:My concern is that there have enough power just through HHS to genuinely crater ACA markets, spike premiums, drive insurers out, etc, that a repeal starts seeming plausible to the ignorant public.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
It is possible, but risky. People tend to blame who ever is on power for everything. Right or wrong. If they gently caress up healthcare and then can't get a fix through they will be the party in power when people's benefits get cut and their premiums skyrocket.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
I predict at least 10-20% of Republicans will think that Obamacare has now been repealed, at least for a while (they may figure out it wasn't at some point). I mean, you already had a significant portion of both Republicans and Democrats thinking that Obamacare and the ACA were different things, so it's not a stretch for them to think that Obamacare is gone and now we "only" have this ACA thing.Nocturtle posted:This is such lazy thinking. Following your own dumb argument where it's fair to subdivide regions for underfined reasons the average infant mortality in the EU northern states is ~4.1 / 1000 births, which is substantially better than your set of cherry picked US states. EU member nations like Poland and Romania were actual communist dictatorships for a good fraction of the 20th century, no kidding health outcomes aren't as good as the richest nation in the history of the world. You clearly haven't thought this through. His post is basically the sort of thing that happens when someone who values science/rational thinking but doesn't actually know how to do those things themselves tries to make an argument. Though even then it seems like "if you cherry pick the healthiest states in the US you'd need to at least cherry pick the healthiest regions in the EU as well for a fair comparison" would be transparently obvious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I predict at least 10-20% of Republicans will think that Obamacare has now been repealed, at least for a while (they may figure out it wasn't at some point). I mean, you already had a significant portion of both Republicans and Democrats thinking that Obamacare and the ACA were different things, so it's not a stretch for them to think that Obamacare is gone and now we "only" have this ACA thing. Some of those idiots already thought they were getting trumpcare. Jokes on them i guess?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:
Well, what that poster is talking about [shortening the length of time to become a doctor] has already basically happened in the form of physician assistants and nurse practitioners becoming increasingly more used for basic/ intermediate procedures. Which is in part why US doctors are in school longer- almost all of them are trying to go into a specialty which skyrockets their earning potential. tsa fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Mar 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Mississippi loving sucks but it is still part of America. Yes it is. It is also a very poor state. The economics leave a lot of families with no or limited access to health care. This contributes to the infant mortality rate. By excluding the poorest states you can make an estimate of what the overall infant mortality rate in America would look like, if we improved access to health care. It's not that people are excluding those states because of disdain, it's to make a statistical argument in favor of UHC. Which would save lives; babies, children, adults, and the elderly; in those very same states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
I thought the purpose of the argument was to justify the claim that the US has the best healthcare in the world. Personally, I would a just stuck with pointing out that yes, in terms of service at its very peak, America is superior, but this refuses to acknowledge how few people can get to it. So it's technically true but hella misleading. Or as Republicans call that, the truth lieberuls don't want you to know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This is a good point: Oh poo poo, that means he was in it when I walked past it a little bit ago. I didn't flip him off as I walked by because I didn't think he was there. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This is a good point: Lmao that "was a babbling moron but made the points his advisors wanted and didn't call for the public execution of Paul Ryan" counts as deeply disciplined these days. If Barack Obama had acted like Trump did in that weird WaPo phone interview they'd have impeached him the next day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Lmao that "was a babbling moron but made the points his advisors wanted and didn't call for the public execution of Paul Ryan" counts as deeply disciplined these days. If Barack Obama had acted like Trump did in that weird WaPo phone interview they'd have impeached him the next day. If Barack Obama had done literally anything Trump does on a daily basis he would've been impeached January 2011.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Pizdec posted:An article posted earlier included a paragraph that I can't wrap my head around: I didn't see anyone respond to this, but covering pre-existing conditions requires some sort of mandate, otherwise why would you ever get health insurance if you were healthy? Let's say you had cancer (Hope you don't!). Pre 2009, if you didn't already have coverage, lol, you die now (Breaking-Bad world). With Obamacare protections, you cannot be denied coverage like you could before. But then, why not just go with no insurance and once you get cancer sign up then? So, in order to allow pre-existing condition coverage, you need to make sure healthy people are also signing up to cover costs (Healthy people usually spend more than benefits they receive). You also need to make sure poor people have coverage, so hence the medicaid expansion. You'd then want online marketplaces to make sure everyone can find coverage. Then you need new taxes to pay for all of this. Basically, if you say you want pre-existing conditions to be covered, the rest of Obamacare naturally follows. If you try to keep pre-existing conditions and get rid of any of the stuff that follows you're likely to run into problems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
And EHB comes in because there is an argument that even without a mandate people will still buy insurance so they can have their checkups covered, or just because, etc, but without mandated coverage requirements people will naturally gravitate towards cheaper plans that cover less knowing that if they develop something that's not covered they can upgrade plans after the fact. This undermines the economics and basic nature of insurance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Actually, most of the characters in Breaking Bad had insurance, and even those that didn't generally received some care. They ended up with sky high medical bills because they went out of network and actively sought out the best specialists available. There's no telling how long Walter would have lived without chemo or surgery, or if Hank would have walked again with less frequent physical therapy, but people who are willing and able to pay large amounts of cash generally can get more care.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Yes it is. It is also a very poor state. The economics leave a lot of families with no or limited access to health care. This contributes to the infant mortality rate. To be fair to that guy, the only point he can kinda make is that a lot of states refused or refuse to expand medicaid access despite the fact the federal government will cover most of the costs. The American system allows states to essentially decide how they want to distribute healthcare and a bunch of lovely states have said gently caress you to the poor. This is the other part of the ACA that sucks that no one remembers. All 50 states would of received Medicaid expansion but the Supreme Court said states could not be forced to do so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
the inside story of how the freedom caucus sunk the bill: despite that "the freedom caucus" wasn't voting as a bloc, most of it agreed to vote as a bloc anyway and repeatedly rebuffed efforts to peel one of them off too hard need medical assistance http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-freedom-caucus-obamacare-repeal-replace-secret-pact-236507
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RevoltPolitic/status/846038944865275905 Yesssssssss Make the bad Dems vote against it on record
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:https://twitter.com/RevoltPolitic/status/846038944865275905 There have been multiple Medicare for all types bills filed this session, all with fairly broad Democratic support All have been killed in committee immediately by Republicans and never seen any kind of vote, which is the same fate this one faces
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Quorum posted:There have been multiple Medicare for all types bills filed this session, all with fairly broad Democratic support If Dems hype it enough and say "we're the party that can bring you single-payer" before the mid-terms, that's good Helps Dem chances for regaining congressional seats next year Whether or not Trump would veto a single-payer bill if it got to his desk is another thing. Maybe they can get him on record saying yes or no?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:If Dems hype it enough and say "we're the party that can bring you single-payer" before the mid-terms, that's good It's difficult (impossible) to hype a bill that is killed in committee, as evidenced by the fact that this is considered a big deal and not just Sanders coming 2 months late to the party that Conyers kicked off. The only way I could see this getting a vote in the senate is if it's in exchange for not filibustering Gorsuch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Whether or not Trump would veto a single-payer bill if it got to his desk is another thing. Maybe they can get him on record saying yes or no? Get the bill to his desk, troll him with some dumb scandal in the media that keeps him glued to TV and Twitter for ten days, single payer is law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Sorry but "If the Democrats all loudly and uniformly support single payer, they're guaranteed to win in 2018" is leftist magical thinking. I wish it was the case but it's total nonsense. Even if you got the entirety of the Dem congressional delegation behind it, they'd pick up maybe a couple seats max as a net effect. Medicare for all is nominally popular when you poll it but there's no silent majority who will turn out in droves for a midterm election on that basis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:Sorry but "If the Democrats all loudly and uniformly support single payer, they're guaranteed to win in 2018" is leftist magical thinking. I wish it was the case but it's total nonsense. Even if you got the entirety of the Dem congressional delegation behind it, they'd pick up maybe a couple seats max as a net effect. They could dupe Trump into supporting it, which creates the bizarre scenario of GOP vs. The World with both Democratic and Republican voters wanting the bill to pass, and GOP congressmen pressured to support it so they don't lose their seats in 2018
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
DON'T SIGN THE BILL INTO LAW, DONALD DON'T WANT TRUMPCARE TO RAISE YOUR APPROVAL RATINGS, DO YOU? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:Sorry but "If the Democrats all loudly and uniformly support single payer, they're guaranteed to win in 2018" is leftist magical thinking. I wish it was the case but it's total nonsense. Even if you got the entirety of the Dem congressional delegation behind it, they'd pick up maybe a couple seats max as a net effect. They should support it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:They should support it anyway. Yes they should but pretending it's some brilliant winning electoral strategy is dumb
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:Yes they should but pretending it's some brilliant winning electoral strategy is dumb They have no other strategy
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:Yes they should but pretending it's some brilliant winning electoral strategy is dumb What about just a 'good' electoral strategy? Agitation for UHC will stimulate the base. It would be useful in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:They have no other strategy Watching the Republicans ineptly waste their chance seems to be working for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Watching the Republicans ineptly waste their chance seems to be working for them. *Dems look on smugly as they lose control of all three branches of government*
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:What about just a 'good' electoral strategy? Agitation for UHC will stimulate the base. It would be useful in that regard. Which Republican house and senate seats specifically do you think are vulnerable in 2018 if the Democrats do a full-court press for UHC and not vulnerable if they don't
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Azhais posted:*Dems look on smugly as they lose control of all three branches of government* Why do you think full court on universal health care would of fixed that in 2016?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
Supporting any healthcare plan at all seems likely to hurt anyone who does so politically, may as well support the right one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:43
|
|
