|
Peachfart posted:Okay? Medicare is famous for paying less than insurance. I would like single payer, but we have to realize that many many powerful groups will be against it. pssst guess what medicare is here's a hint: it rhymes with "bin sewer ants"
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:pssst Would it make you happy if I changed 'insurance' to 'private insurance'? Bit of a nitpick, since my point remains: entitled doctors will fight Medicare for All.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:pssst Psst Guess what? Stop doing this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 06:43
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Private employer insurance is a clusterfuck if different payers setting different prices. I've been seeing the same allergist for 4 years while changing jobs enough that he's been paid through 3 different employer plans, at $78, $112, and finally now $153 a visit. How is that a reasonable or a functional insurance system?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
what can I say, people presenting themselves as authorities on a subject getting the most basic facts of the matter wrong, in their desperate quest to prove better things are not possible, is entertaining to me
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Private employer insurance is a clusterfuck if different payers setting different prices. I've been seeing the same allergist for 4 years while changing jobs enough that he's been paid through 3 different employer plans, at $78, $112, and finally now $153 a visit. How is that a reasonable or a functional insurance system? The healthcare debate is too politicized to make payment reforms like that to improve the system. Leveling payments across payers is a wonkish solution that is hard to convey as "helps people" and doesn't energize anyone's base. Medicare and Medicaid pay different rates from each other and both cost shift significantly to private plans which adds to the problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Crossposting from PPG's megapost in USPOL: https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/908757768097681408 https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/908718687116505090 Probably not something anyone who reads this thread is unaware of, but more confirmation that this is a garbage bill written by garbage sorts absolutely infatuated with death and decay. Also defunding planned parenthood.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:what can I say, people presenting themselves as authorities on a subject getting the most basic facts of the matter wrong, in their desperate quest to prove better things are not possible, is entertaining to me did you know, that, if we remove the profit incentive and abolish private insurance companies, healthcare would immediately become entirely free??? bernie would have won, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
I've been reading through conservative think-pieces on Graham-Cassidy, in the vain hope that there are signs of it falling apart, but I came across something else. This bit from Forbes seems angry that the bill leaves open the possibility of states using block grants for public plans, even though my understanding was that Graham specifically tailored the structure to effectively kill Medicaid outright. I'm assuming the author is considering the possibility of states enacting their own Medicaid-like plans should this pass. Is anyone familiar with that particular facet of this piece-of-poo poo bill? I'm still praying for October to roll around with the ACA intact, but this was new to me. The author's hard-on for the market is rather grating, so apologies in advance. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/09/17/take-two-inside-bill-cassidys-plan-to-replace-obamacare/#7ff45a251181
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Twitter is freaking out about this latest bill. I know it's horrible, but how likely is it to pass?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Qu Appelle posted:Twitter is freaking out about this latest bill. The likelihood was stated upthread as somewhere in the 'low' zone, a possibility I don't necessarily contest, but I don't think anybody really knows. The medicaid devastation and planned parenthood fuckery should be enough to dissuade Collins and Murkowski, but it would be only mildly stating the case that people have a deficit of trust in a Republican senator's commitments after the poo poo Heller pulled earlier this year. Thus there's a pervasive sense that someone is going to vote yes for one reason or another, but realistically we won't know anything more until after the Republicans' secret little meeting tomorrow. It doesn't help that this bill would render healthcare in this country measurably worse than it was in the days before the ACA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
And I'm somewhat interested in what sort of coverage this is getting on broadcast networks, an interest admittedly spurred by their desire to cover stupid poo poo like Trump's retweets and the Emmys.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Qu Appelle posted:Twitter is freaking out about this latest bill. Nobody is claiming they have 50 votes and Paul has already come out strongly against it. But it's still a real threat because more likely than not to fail isn't good enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Didn't the Parliamentarian rule against a lot of the things Graham-Cassidy back when they were in BCRA? Have those issues been resolved in current language or is McConnell just going to ignore it? I don't think I ever heard about how they resolved them last time, if they ever did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
In the event the Senate passes the Graham-Cassidy bill is there any scenario where the House votes it down? Presumably there's no time for them to do the normal reconciliation committee process, and the House will simply vote on the bill as is. While the obvious answer is "Yes, of course they will pass it dummy", the previous House version of the bill was essentially a hot potato thrown to the Senate without any real expectation it would become law. They didn't even bother waiting for a final CBO score. If the House has to vote on an actual bill that could become law are there enough vulnerable Republican House representatives to hold up the bill?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:In the event the Senate passes the Graham-Cassidy bill is there any scenario where the House votes it down? Presumably there's no time for them to do the normal reconciliation committee process, and the House will simply vote on the bill as is. While the obvious answer is "Yes, of course they will pass it dummy", the previous House version of the bill was essentially a hot potato thrown to the Senate without any real expectation it would become law. They didn't even bother waiting for a final CBO score. If the House has to vote on an actual bill that could become law are there enough vulnerable Republican House representatives to hold up the bill? This is a fair question, even if expecting the House Republicans to hesitate for a second is something of a dubious prospect. The McArthur Amendment was tacked onto the AHCA in order to make palatable the obviously murderous qualities of the original bill, and provide something resembling political cover for those vulnerable members of the House. Graham-Cassidy does a 180 on that and then some, although there's been no real word from the House on this bill, and the Senate position appears to be all or nothing with regards to passing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
This is kind of a more general question but I feel it's worth asking: has any other post-WWII country committed something like this against its own population? Graham-Cassidy, AHCA, BCRA, whatever example you want to hold up, I'm sincerely aching for examples of the ruling elite of another country who committed genocide by destroying healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:This is kind of a more general question but I feel it's worth asking: has any other post-WWII country committed something like this against its own population? Graham-Cassidy, AHCA, BCRA, whatever example you want to hold up, I'm sincerely aching for examples of the ruling elite of another country who committed genocide by destroying healthcare. Yeah, in the 70s when the labour party in australia passed single payer in the form of medibank, states run by right wingers sued to block it for years in their jurisdictions until a new liberal government dismantled it, causing such an outcry that labour got back in power to create medicare, their current single payer system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
Rand Paul appears to be trying to make sure C-G never even gets a vote, just need Collins and Murkowski to publicly say they won't vote for it. After that point the rest of the "moderates" will defect, but none of them can be trusted to be the decisive vote. https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/909776281847386112
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Called Senator Todd Young's office encouraging him to show true leadership by supporting the bipartisan deal instead. I doubt it'll have any impact, but that's all I can really do here in Indiana.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/909806872844259328 I'm going to assume Doucey doesn't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/909825989588525058 My thought is that they're trying to avoid personally taking responsibility for the bill's failure, either by obsequious commitments up until the moment of truth or by passing it off to the House... or they're not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/robertbryan4/status/909825591154761728 It's like they designed this to stick it to blue states. Of course a few of the poorest and sickest red states are collateral damage as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/robertbryan4/status/909825591154761728 They did design it to stick it to blue states.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/909825989588525058 I don't know what the background is but there's no way in which her being undecided as opposed to a no is good. The obsequious commitments usually work the other way: the "moderates" tell Mitch that he has their vote if he needs them, but if it's going to fail they're going to vote no. Murkowski is the person I'd peg as most flippable of the Paul/Murkowski/Collins trio and if she flips it's hosed. Also, this basically means McCain is a yes: https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/909837150530818048
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
I think this has become an actual threat and really needs to be taken seriously. I don't see any real "no" votes besides Paul/Murkowski/Collins. Heller already signed on, Capuito/Portman will never be the decisive vote, McCain said he was going to consider AZ's governor's view and that guy just came out for the bill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Republicans haaaate McCain ever since he voted No on repeal, I think it would be very hard for Murkowski to fall on this sword a second time after how vitriolic the base's reaction was to the first vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
GenJoe posted:Republicans haaaate McCain ever since he voted No on repeal, I think it would be very hard for Murkowski to fall on this sword a second time after how vitriolic the base's reaction was to the first vote. Murkowski doesn't need to answer to the base, she's an independent who won against a hard-right republican on a write-in campaign. And Alaska seemed to love her vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Why should we trust Rand Paul to be a no when he voted yes on the BCRA? I'm sure it's not regressive enough for him but it seems likely he'll just vote for it because it's more regressive than the ACA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
gently caress I can't do this again
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:Why should we trust Rand Paul to be a no when he voted yes on the BCRA? Paul voted no on BRCA, yes on the 2016 repeal and skinny repeal. His actions have only been consistent with a desire to kill any repeal using any (from the right) rationale he can think of, and he has been repeatedly tweeting against C-G in the past few days. I think he sees no benefit to supporting any repeal that is going to actually pass because he knows it's going to fail and because Kentucky is actually doing very well under the ACA. He would rather go "told you so" at any problems and say they were because repeal wasn't conservative enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Paul voted no on BRCA, yes on the 2016 repeal and skinny repeal. His actions have only been consistent with a desire to kill any repeal using any (from the right) rationale he can think of, and he has been repeatedly tweeting against C-G in the past few days. Good catch, got my facts mixed up on his voting record. Still, I am not feeling very comfortable right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Murkowski kept putting up "undecided" statements right up until past votes as well. But I really, really don't like that everyone's going to be lazer-focused on her for two weeks. I was hoping she'd simply announce support for the bipartisan effort and be done with this bullshit. You'd think that would be an easy out, though that plan hasn't been released yet as far as I know. http://midnightsunak.com/2017/07/24/eve-senate-vote-unknown-health-care-bill-murkowski-undecided/
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:gently caress I can't do this again Yeah, I'm psychologically & emotionally kinda tapped out on this issue Graham/Cassidy is so unimaginably bad that it's in that same category with "well, Trump might nuke us all" where it's hard to even think about it Plus, my senator is Graham so who am I supposed to yell at? Tim Scott I guess gaahh
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't know what the background is but there's no way in which her being undecided as opposed to a no is good. The obsequious commitments usually work the other way: the "moderates" tell Mitch that he has their vote if he needs them, but if it's going to fail they're going to vote no. oh GODDAMMIT
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, I'm psychologically & emotionally kinda tapped out on this issue That's the plan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:That's the plan. imtellectually i realize this I resistbotted
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/909854887688761345 Well that's comforting. Just cartoonish villains all the way down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/909854887688761345 Turtles. It's turtles all the way down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
20 pages of "This is a healthcare bill" repeated over and over https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/909860987511164928
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:41
|
|
