|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Yeah I thought that they were trying to make it so the public only had a matter of hours to review things. They are going to limit floor debate and amendments with that tactic, not keep the text of the bill secret.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
It doesn't matter because people will blame whoever the gently caress they want to blame, and absolve of all sins whoever they like. My cousin was pissed off at Obama because the federal government, with all of its REGULATIONS that HURT SMALL BUSINESSES, was apparently responsible for a Florida state regulation that he didn't like. Thinking about the issue for even three seconds would tell you there is no possible way this is Obama's fault on any level, but he was loving pissed at him! So he voted Republican -- the party actually responsible for instituting the law he hated so much in Florida. If it were actually possible to beat sense into someone, I would've tried it after hearing that rant -- I was loving tempted as it was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
There was a nice poll that showed that the majority of people will blame Republicans for the failure of Obamacare. So,
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They are going to limit floor debate and amendments with that tactic, not keep the text of the bill secret. They were absolutely going to keep the text secret. The plan they were mulling over was to basically just advance the House bill, then an hour before the end of debate, pass an amendment that completely replaced it with the new Senate bill, leaving one hour of public notice before a vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
What's the long-term plan with rushing a bill through like this? If it's as awful and unpopular as we all assume it will be, then even if they get it through the Senate before anyone finds out what's in it, there's still the House again. Or is that good enough, and this is just to get the hot potato back in Paul Ryan's lap? Can they really get this thing all the way to being signed like this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:There was a nice poll that showed that the majority of people will blame Republicans for the failure of Obamacare. So, Yeah, that obviously worked a treat, what with the giant backlash against Republicans that cost them several branches of government and also a few governorships and state houses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, that obviously worked a treat, what with the giant backlash against Republicans that cost them several branches of government and also a few governorships and state houses. This poll was from a couple months ago not from before the election...
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:What's the long-term plan with rushing a bill through like this? It's to murder minorities and poor people for a buck and then to use gerrymandering, a police state, and voter suppression to make sure anyone who might give a poo poo is too disenfranchised to do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:It's to murder minorities and poor people for a buck and then to use gerrymandering, a police state, and voter suppression to make sure anyone who might give a poo poo is too disenfranchised to do anything about it. How does this worldview explain them hiding the bill like this? No need to act in secret if the voters are powerless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:How does this worldview explain them hiding the bill like this? No need to act in secret if the voters are powerless. They're hiding their constituent reactions from senators who are too dumb to realize the severity of the beating they're going to take at the polls.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:They're hiding their constituent reactions from senators who are too dumb to realize the severity of the beating they're going to take at the polls. Oh boy, they might lose the next election. But not any subsequent elections because of goldfish voter memories. Hope the Democrats enjoy holding the House for 2 short years (but not the Senate or the Presidency.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:They're hiding their constituent reactions from senators who are too dumb to realize the severity of the beating they're going to take at the polls. Yeah but they were hosed no matter what. The base wanted a repeal without realizing what it would mean. No one wants to deal with the consequences of a repeal, but they still fervently want to get out of all the "bad parts" of the ACA that they don't like. Trump specifically, and the republican party more generally, promised a thing they could never possibly deliver, and on the off chance they could, they'd piss off their donors bigly. Perhaps this will end up being a lesson to them, but in the short term they're hosed no matter what they do electorally speaking, so you might as well keep the donors happy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:They're hiding their constituent reactions from senators who are too dumb to realize the severity of the beating they're going to take at the polls. So I take it you disagree with the guy who said they would use "gerrymandering, a police state, and voter suppression to make sure anyone who might give a poo poo is too disenfranchised to do anything about it", which is what I was asking about? In your scenario, what's their plan for dealing with the vote in the House?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:So I take it you disagree with the guy who said they would use "gerrymandering, a police state, and voter suppression to make sure anyone who might give a poo poo is too disenfranchised to do anything about it", which is what I was asking about? They have (correctly) determined that: - They need to pass a bill to fulfill their promise to "repeal and replace Obamacare" to their base - That if they are going to do it, then a long drawn out public debate over the bill is bad politically - They can delay most of the provisions in the bill to not kick in for 2-7 years and hope that by then most voters will have forgotten about it. - This minimizes the political damage from passing it and makes it the responsibility of individual states to make it work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
I think they're betting that the 2018 Senate election landscape being so favorable for Republicans will allow them to largely escape consequences in the Senate. I think they're largely right at least in the near term, since it would take a loss in Utah, Wyoming, Tennessee, Nebraska, Mississippi, Alabama, or Texas, along with Democrats holding in Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia. A best case scenario involves upsetting Ted Cruz to get a 51-49 majority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:I think they're largely right at least in the near term, since it would take a loss in Utah, Wyoming, Tennessee, Nebraska, Mississippi, Alabama, or Texas, along with Democrats holding in Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia. I don't know why people keep overlooking Wisconsin. Russ Feingold had a 10-point lead in every poll literally a month before election day last year, and he wound up losing to Ron Johnson by a hundred thousand votes. Scott Walker is still obscenely popular in areas not named Dane County or Milwaukee County, as well, and he's up for his third term next November. All of that means Tammy Baldwin is ridiculously vulnerable, especially considering the only reason she won in 2012 was Tommy Thompson running the most half-hearted campaign imaginable because he's a friend of Baldwin's (and he only got the nomination because two other Tea Party lunatics split the "true conservative" vote in the primary).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Timby posted:I don't know why people keep overlooking Wisconsin. Russ Feingold had a 10-point lead in every poll literally a month before election day last year, and he wound up losing to Ron Johnson by a hundred thousand votes. Scott Walker is still obscenely popular in areas not named Dane County or Milwaukee County, as well, and he's up for his third term next November. All of that means Tammy Baldwin is ridiculously vulnerable, especially considering the only reason she won in 2012 was Tommy Thompson running the most half-hearted campaign imaginable because he's a friend of Baldwin's (and he only got the nomination because two other Tea Party lunatics split the "true conservative" vote in the primary). I think you're overstating how vulnerable she really is. In my mind, she's on par with Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Bill Nelson in Florida, which is to say that if the national mood turns against Democrats, she could be in trouble, but if her seat is really in trouble, we'd be looking at McConnell potentially getting a filibuster-proof supermajority. And I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Scott Walker is obscenely popular, the latest two surveys I could find, from March and April mind you, both had him slightly underwater in approve/disapprove. Obviously, hardly anyone is polling anything like that right now, but numbers like that would seem to be on-trend with the idea that the overall environment right now is a couple points towards the Democrats in a state that Trump and Ron Johnson barely won.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:I think they're betting that the 2018 Senate election landscape being so favorable for Republicans will allow them to largely escape consequences in the Senate. A best case scenario is that, and then Ted Cruz is arrested whilst smoking meth and being dominated by a prostitute. But I'll take what I can get.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It doesn't matter because people will blame whoever the gently caress they want to blame, and absolve of all sins whoever they like. You think that's bad? My dad (briefly, thankfully, before I talked sense into him) blamed Obama for the United Methodist church having a debate about accepting gay people. Somehow that was the federal government's fault and not, you know, a private church matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
McConnell is going to be 78 in 2020, and even if he runs again Kentucky is pretty safe Republican. I'm betting his only goal is to gently caress the country and steal as much as possible before he retires, and keeping the bill secret is how he hopes to trick dumb senators into voting for it because "if you don't repeal Obamacare you'll definitely get primaried, and who knows maybe the new law will work out just fine and America will love it no need to ask any health policy experts about it". Republicans will roll out more voter suppression in states they control regardless, and shut down polling places in poor areas anyway, so Mitch might be willing to gamble that's enough to cling to power whereas Collins, McCaskill, Heller, Flake, etc may not therefore best to keep the text secret and present it to them as a fail accompli.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They have (correctly) determined that: So the assumption is that we'll get a quick vote in the House on this bill after the Senate vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:So the assumption is that we'll get a quick vote in the House on this bill after the Senate vote. The House isn't as big a problem as the Senate, because the House is definitely stupid and evil enough to pass a horrible bill that everyone knows is horrible, as seen with the AHCA. Remember, the reason the first AHCA draft failed wasn't because it was dumb and bad, it failed because it wasn't evil enough for the Tea Party. And after two full months of public hatred for their kill-the-poor bill, Republicans gambled that they could get the Tea Party on board by making it eviller, and the ""moderates"" would be too dumb/cowardly to back out. Oh and they were 100% right. Once the Senate bill comes back, they'll just threaten to pin the full blame for not repealing and replacing Obamacare on any squishy moderate who wimps out. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
Washington Post's Editorial Board: quote:A single-payer health-care system would face all of these political barriers to cost-saving reform and more. To realize the single-payer dream of coverage for all and big savings, medical industry players, including doctors, would likely have to get paid less and patients would have to accept different standards of access and comfort. There is little evidence most Americans are willing to accept such tradeoffs. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Someone needs to assure the rich that Canada has cash-only docs for the "I don't want to be around poor people" crowd Also  at Bezos opposing single-payer because then he couldn't deliver drugs with Amazon Prime at gouged prices
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Someone needs to assure the rich that Canada has cash-only docs for the "I don't want to be around poor people" crowd All that mail order stuff is one of the best ways to make money off medicare right now though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:All that mail order stuff is one of the best ways to make money off medicare right now though. Because it is scammy as gently caress. Notice how they advertise no need to reorder? They send you the maximum allowable amount as often as they can, regardless of how much you need.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
The hot new trend for medical device companies since ~2005 is to partner with certain clinics and get old people to sign up for exercise or lifestyle classes with Medicare Advantage and then bill them for a service that they never use or use once a year until they die. This has the advantage of not having to actually pay for shipping or any actual products.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
There's an unfortunate externality with mandated benefits that involves scammy healthcare providers abusing the fact that the insurance company can't not pay for it. Texas is having a major problem with the ER mandated benefits and free-standing Emergency Rooms. These companies know insurance companies have to pay for it, so they open up these facilities that are barely one step above Urgent Care, charge a huge facility fee, and have zero incentive to charge a reasonable amount because they don't need to contract with insurance carriers. Texas is also one of the few states (maybe only?) where they don't have to complete a Certificate of Need to open a free standing ER. This was supposed to help open these facilities in rural parts of Texas where the access to care is very sparse, but instead you just have one every 2 blocks in DFW, San Antonio, Austin, and Houston strategically placed right next to bus stops.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Xae posted:Because it is scammy as gently caress. I mean they do this with private insurance too
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
succ posted:Washington Post's Editorial Board: NHS doctors get paid a lot less than US doctors. But on the other hand, their student loans aren't as hellish. And they still get paid great wages in very secure jobs. My mum vaguely knows a two-doctor family and they send their large brood of kids to private school, live in an amazing house, and have all the horses. These guys aren't hurting for money. The patient experience is much the same. Longer waiting for surgery for things that won't kill you in the UK, but on the other hand, you don't have to turn into an instant expert in an arcane insurance system and spend your time on hold in call centers when you really should be resting and getting well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
succ posted:Washington Post's Editorial Board: Maybe I don't get what the cartoon chef means (in this forum, I see people reply to a quote/post with the chef whenever they don't like the quote/post--so in my mind, chef='I don't like it') but all of your quote from the article is totally true, except maybe the last sentence, where 'most' should probably be changed to 'many' or 'some'. I know that many posters in this thread like to solely blame health insurance companies for the American health care system, but it is not just the health insurance companies--everybody in the health care industry, including doctors, would have to take a haircut, and rich/middle class people would have to accept lower standards of care in an affordable single-payer system. BarbarianElephant posted:NHS doctors get paid a lot less than US doctors. But on the other hand, their student loans aren't as hellish. And they still get paid great wages in very secure jobs. My mum vaguely knows a two-doctor family and they send their large brood of kids to private school, live in an amazing house, and have all the horses. These guys aren't hurting for money. Doctors in the US make so much money. But whenever this subject comes up in this thread, the consensus is 'can't cut pay for doctors! gotta pay the doctors!'. I think people in this thread are either doctors, are married to a doctor, or have watched one too many medical dramas on TV. I remember a poster in one of these threads complaining 'if you graduate last in your medical school class, you might have to accept a position in a less lucrative specialty in the Midwest/South, where you'll only get low 6 figures coming out of school.' I can't think of many other fields where you can almost flunk out of school and basically come out with a 6 figure salary guaranteed for life. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:
Not at all. You can still pay cash for whatever you want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:rich/middle class people would have to accept lower standards of care in an affordable single-payer system. Not really, if run like most first world countries. You think Canadians would put up with that? There are edge cases where it is lower, such as if you want a transplant ASAP and have infinite cash. But for the experience of most people, single payer is the same experience or better. "Lower standards of care" obviously scares the poo poo out of Americans, but it doesn't work that way. In fact, in UHC countries, the rich can usually skip the line by ponying up stacks of cash. Of course, the Republicans would continually sabotage a US UHC system like the Tories do to the NHS... and since they are much better at it, they might manage to make it a more miserable experience than it has to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
There is no reason to think a single-payer system would require people to give up the ability to obtain private care outside the system if they so choose. It is not politically possible to pass a system that doesn't because a large majority of Americans have health coverage and won't risk losing it to something that hasn't yet been proven. You can eventually push out all but the highest of the high-end private care once it's been proven, but you can't start off with forcing everyone onto the new system. You have to entice them onto it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Not really, if run like most first world countries. You think Canadians would put up with that? There are edge cases where it is lower, such as if you want a transplant ASAP and have infinite cash. But for the experience of most people, single payer is the same experience or better. "Lower standards of care" obviously scares the poo poo out of Americans, but it doesn't work that way. In fact, in UHC countries, the rich can usually skip the line by ponying up stacks of cash. Rich people can currently pay piles of cash for premium healthcare without paying an additional 6% of their income in taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Rich people can currently pay piles of cash for premium healthcare without paying an additional 6% of their income in taxes. The truly rich don't tend to have health insurance, because they would never need to use it. They just pay cash. The wealthy middle classes (below the 1%) *would* benefit from UHC though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:The truly rich don't tend to have health insurance, because they would never need to use it. They just pay cash. Not true at all in America. The uninsured rate for people who make more than 200k per year is less than 1.5% And you would not get a net benefit if you were high-income and healthy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
I think we need to split healthcare up in to 3 categories: Acute/Trauma, Lifestyle, and Everything Else. The first two can be single payer Medicare Advantage type stuff. If you break you arm and go to the ER, that's covered. If you get some crazy "Monsters Inside Me" parasite and need an infectious disease specialist, that's covered. If you have diabetes, you get enrolled in to a Lifestyle Management program and as long as you adhere, that's covered. If you're pregnant, you get enrolled in to a healthy pregnancy program and that's covered. For everything else like cancer treatment and hip replacements, each physician will get reimbursed at the Medicare rate, and at least X% of their patients must fall in to this category, but if the patient wants to pay extra out pocket or if they have private critical illness insurance that covers it, them or their insurance company pays according to a contract with the physician. Also, remove employer paid premium tax exemption.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:The truly rich don't tend to have health insurance, because they would never need to use it. They just pay cash. The truly rich absolutely have health insurance because a lot of places just plain won't take cash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:There was a nice poll that showed that the majority of people will blame Republicans for the failure of Obamacare. So, I trust nothing. I see darkness and hell before me. I have such wonderful things to show you all 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:38
|
|
