|
Mellow Seas posted:Oh it's way crazier than you know! ...Kinda want to vote for this dude now
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:It's Tuesday
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:...Kinda want to vote for this dude now He’s racist
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
papa horny michael posted:He created a black and brown power group in the 70's, and the beret was a symbol of such at the time. Please explain to me, a 90s baby, why the Guardian Angels were a “black and brown power group”. Please believe that this question is 100% sincere and is in no way facetious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
This makes Amazon the only American company left with a commercial facial recognition AI that they plan to sell (though, they have been delaying it for years and have a temporary ban on selling to to law enforcement) Not sure how significant that will be in the long run. Other countries are still researching and selling facial recognition A.I. and you can't stop software from spreading. Plus, lots of companies have promised not to sell the A.I. facial recognition software publicly, but still use it privately. So, it will still exist and likely end up public in some form eventually. I think the main issue for privacy concerns is going to be preventing state and local governments from adopting it for police. quote:Facebook plans to shut down its facial recognition program https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/02/facebook-will-shut-down-program-that-automatically-recognizes-people-in-photos-and-videos-delete-data.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:01
|
|
|
Hi, I have a question about healthcare while living in the United States. I'm from the US but I've lived out of the country for like ten years, and specifically since before the ACA was really in full effect. We don't have a general USPol thread anymore, which is where I would post this. I know there are people in this thread who understand US health policy better than most. If this is not kosher to ask about here, I'll move it. Also, I can tie it back to real US Current Events because if I get the (bad) answers I'm expecting, or really any answer, I can say "Democrats should really fix that" or something. Are medical bankruptcies still a thing even if you have marketplace coverage? I know marketplace coverage is not great, the premiums are too much for most people, as are the deductibles. For this purpose assume I have enough income to pay the premiums and enough savings to pay a disgusting deductible: Do people with coverage still lose their loving house if they get cancer or whatever? Sometimes I want to move back but I'm terrified of the healthcare system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
He used to do this daily radio show with a long hair hippie liberal lawyer called “Curtis and Kuby”, it was pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Hi, I have a question about healthcare while living in the United States. I'm from the US but I've lived out of the country for like ten years, and specifically since before the ACA was really in full effect. We don't have a general USPol thread anymore, which is where I would post this. I know there are people in this thread who understand US health policy better than most. If this is not kosher to ask about here, I'll move it. Also, I can tie it back to real US Current Events because if I get the (bad) answers I'm expecting, or really any answer, I can say "Democrats should really fix that" or something. Short answer. Yes. Insurance does not protect you from financial ruin if you actually have to use it. It can depend on your insurance obviously, but the bronze and silver plans are not protecting people that get cancer from bankruptcy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
Here's an article about medical debt from earlier this year which should make you even more furious about Dems intransigence to do anything to address it: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/medical-debt-engulfing-more-people-pandemic-takes-its-toll-n1265002 quote:Andréa Ceresa said she may have to declare bankruptcy soon. She has paid off about $23,000 in medical bills so far, but she faces $133,000 more for a nine-day hospital stay in November.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Hi, I have a question about healthcare while living in the United States. I'm from the US but I've lived out of the country for like ten years, and specifically since before the ACA was really in full effect. We don't have a general USPol thread anymore, which is where I would post this. I know there are people in this thread who understand US health policy better than most. If this is not kosher to ask about here, I'll move it. Also, I can tie it back to real US Current Events because if I get the (bad) answers I'm expecting, or really any answer, I can say "Democrats should really fix that" or something. Yes, there are. Although, with Medicaid expansion and the new ACA enhancements you are now in a weird position where you can end up with more medical debt (not an exact 1:1 translation because having medical debt is different than medical bankruptcy, but you need some medical debt to have a bankruptcy related medical costs) if you make $55k per year than you do if you make $20k per year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
gently caress. Democrats should really fix that. <-- Now this is officially a political/news discussion. I'm healthy but I can't see myself ever moving back to the US, at least until I'm 65 and qualify for Medicare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:16
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Short answer. Yes. Insurance does not protect you from financial ruin if you actually have to use it. It can depend on your insurance obviously, but the bronze and silver plans are not protecting people that get cancer from bankruptcy. Cancer? They hardly even cover physical therapy. A $100 office visit being $90 if you have insurance isn't helping anyone!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:gently caress. Democrats should really fix that. <-- Now this is officially a political/news discussion. Negotiating prescription prices required a sledgehammer to get to 50 votes. M4A ain't gonna happen until there's a drastically different Senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Cancer? See, that stuff I knew about. I know for routine stuff US health insurance is garbage. But I was wondering does it help for truly catastrophic things. I know a day laborer who fell off of a roof and broke his back. The system here fixed him up and he's walking and working again. Hopefully not on roofs anymore. But it dawned on my when I saw him go through it that he was better off than most people in the US at least as far as healthcare is concerned. Deteriorata posted:Negotiating prescription prices required a sledgehammer to get to 50 votes. M4A ain't gonna happen until there's a drastically different Senate. Yeah, no poo poo. I'll qualify for regular old people Medicare long before I expect the US to expand that coverage to younger people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1455639045627949076 https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1455639227786530823 We can't afford good policies because they're too expensive. We can't spend on infrastructure because that will increase the debt and/or inflation. We have to spend 800 billion on warships or else we'll get attacked. We must unite the country. https://mobile.twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1455618936075075587 But we're cutting taxes on rich blue state guys and red states are lazy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:31
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Oh it's way crazier than you know! Okay, that is indeed way crazier than I knew. Thanks for the story  I don't wish for him to win, but I'm glad that he loves his cat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:31
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:See, that stuff I knew about. I know for routine stuff US health insurance is garbage. But I was wondering does it help for truly catastrophic things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Look up "out of pocket max" and ask yourself how many people have that kind of money lying around for one catastrophe, let alone having it every year for a chronic illness Yeah, it's hosed. I do happen to have that much available for a one off but would not for very long if I were out of work with a chronic illness. But there's something in the out of pocket max language that I don't quite know how to parse. Healthcare.gov posted:The out-of-pocket limit doesn't include: Uh... what's that last one? If the provider may charge more than the allowed amount doesn't that make coverage literally meaningless? The first several are of course dumb and bad but I don't see the point at all if providers can just charge more than insurance pays.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
Pamela Springstein posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1455618936075075587 I would love to see that source Leon was quoting that said it was a limited cap repeal. He seemed very confident, so it must have some excellent sourcing
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Yeah, it's hosed. I do happen to have that much available for a one off but would not for very long if I were out of work with a chronic illness. But there's something in the out of pocket max language that I don't quite know how to parse. yes! Also if insurance declines to pay (any significant medical event will have some bills rejected) you're just on the hook for all of it anyway. the best healthcare system in the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:It's like the Democrats are all in a marriage counseling session. To some degree this is a consequence of being the party that actually tries to "do things". Additionally, it really can't be emphasized enough how cartoonishly reasonless, arbitrary, and unscientific congress's approach to developing legislation is. Their arguments with one another are laughably vague, overgeneralized, fallacies and armchair psychology. These people are not analysts. The general lack of quantitative backgrounds means they don't even have the educational context to appreciate how inept their decision making process is. It's like watching medieval physicians argue over which body humor is the source of the patients illness. They're not even wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
Harik posted:yes! Also if insurance declines to pay (any significant medical event will have some bills rejected) you're just on the hook for all of it anyway. Every American who isn’t independently wealthy lives in a system of medical precarity, and the one party that ostensibly claims to want to help this cannot get policies that have 70 to 80% approval among the public, an unheard of level of agreement in the US today, over the finish line. I don’t see how one looks at that and thinks this is going to work out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
NYT writeup on the drug-cost proposal, datelined as of 4:52 EDT:quote:The prescription drug deal is limited. Starting in 2023, negotiations could begin on what Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon called the most expensive drugs — treatments for cancer and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as anticoagulants. Most drugs would still be granted patent exclusivity for nine years before negotiations could start, and more advanced drugs, called biologics, would be protected for 12 years. note: That "cap" on consumer out-of-pocket costs means that the government is further subsidizing pharma, as it already does on other aspects of Part D Medicare. I'm assuming (but don't know) that this is also the case on insulin expenses, mirroring the ACA subsidies that mask the cost of private insurance because of corporate welfare. quote:But the pharmaceutical industry won its share of concessions. The inflation rebates initially contained a “look back” provision that would have assessed rebates on drug prices that began to soar as far back as 2012. That would have yielded one-time levies on drug companies in the billions of dollars. And some Democrats wanted Medicare to have price-negotiating authority immediately, with no patent exclusivity periods. https://web.archive.org/web/20211102212103/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/us/politics/prescription-drug-prices-medicare.html I don't see this being a huge boon to voters over the next several elections, given that "negotiations could begin" in 2023, and will end up affecting relatively small groups of voters. And, as with the ACA, government subsidies & corporate welfare will have the effect of deferring meaningful change like strict cost controls on manufacturers. eta: Hellblazer187 posted:Yeah, no poo poo. I'll qualify for regular old people Medicare long before I expect the US to expand that coverage to younger people. I'm only being somewhat tongue-in-cheek when I point out that we might get M4A by 2065, the centennial of the original Medicare act. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Nov 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
Man. Really depressing. I'm doing moderately well financially but I don't think I could risk living in the US unless I absolutely had to. Like if I lost my job and couldn't find another remote job. Even then I'd probably rather try to skate by teaching English or something before I gave up and moved back to meat grinder. Sad because I miss my family but, well, it's a broken society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:I would love to see that source Leon was quoting that said it was a limited cap repeal. He seemed very confident, so it must have some excellent sourcing Bloomberg says the plan under discussion is the version from the original Senate Budget Committee proposal: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-02/salt-cap-negotiations-zero-in-on-three-year-suspension-of-limit Link to the Senate Budget Committee Proposal: https://www.atr.org/sites/default/files/assets/Sanders%20Budget%20Proposal.pdf (Cost of $120 billion over 10 years and capped at income less than $400k)  Bernie Sanders himself saying that he is discussing SALT with income limits: https://twitter.com/davidrlurie/status/1455641653268647942 https://twitter.com/FinancialJuice/status/1455656455625904131 AOC says that the version they have been discussing in the House Ways and Means Committee is based on the Senate Budget Committee Proposal. Also, they say that no final decision has been made.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Yeah, it's hosed. I do happen to have that much available for a one off but would not for very long if I were out of work with a chronic illness. But there's something in the out of pocket max language that I don't quite know how to parse. What this means is that insurers negotiate a 'max allowable' rate with each provider in their network. This is the maximum amount the insurer will pay for a billed service, and its almost always some (larger) multiple of medicare rates, like 125% or 140%. If the provider charges *more* than the agreed upon maximum amount it can go two ways: either the insurer denies the excess as part of their contract and you the patient are off the hook, or the insurer washes their hands of the excess and the provider bills you for it. Which one happens depends on the contract between the provider and the insurer and the text of your particular policy. For instance, my doctor charges something like $200 for an office visit. My insurance will only pay $125 for that visit with a flat $25 copay from me. According to the contract the doctor gets $125 from the insurer, I pay my $25 copay, and nobody pays the other $50. Why does the doctor charge $200? Negotiating space with other insurers and to get the uninsured. Sometimes though I go to the eye specialist. They charge considerably more, like $400 a visit. My insurance allows something like $200 for a specialist and my copay is $40. However *I'm* still on the hook for the $160 difference. They bill me for that separately. Why? I don't actually know, I assume the contract with the eye specialist differs. I just pay what the tell me to pay. Sometimes mistakes are made and you get told you don't owe the excess but secretly you do. Sometimes you get told you do owe the excess and get threatening letters but secretly you don't! Its fun to discover which applies in any given transaction!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:What this means is that insurers negotiate a 'max allowable' rate with each provider in their network. This is the maximum amount the insurer will pay for a billed service, and its almost always some (larger) multiple of medicare rates, like 125% or 140%. If the provider charges *more* than the agreed upon maximum amount it can go two ways: either the insurer denies the excess as part of their contract and you the patient are off the hook, or the insurer washes their hands of the excess and the provider bills you for it. Which one happens depends on the contract between the provider and the insurer and the text of your particular policy. Seems like even without M4A they could... do a lot to make this system less punishing for ordinary folks. Obviously they should do M4A, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying a regulated private health insurance system doesn't need to be quite that stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 23:27
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Seems like even without M4A they could... do a lot to make this system less punishing for ordinary folks. Obviously they should do M4A, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying a regulated private health insurance system doesn't need to be quite that stupid. This is why Bernie kept insisting the estimates of the costs for M4A that were derived from the current costs of the American healthcare system were deceptive. Think how much needlessly duplicated administrative work goes into every insurer negotiating a rate with providers, all the data audits, all the lost physician time spent on paperwork instead of patient care, etc etc. American healthcare is incredibly wasteful for no real gain because there isnt enough information to make informed market choices - which is by design.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 23:33
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Bloomberg says the plan under discussion is the version from the original Senate Budget Committee proposal: while A) a 10k salt deduction is Okay and B) salt deduction details are, like, my two hundred and eightieth policy priority in the tax code alone, an income cap seems reasonable course, you know what would be easier to calculate and involve a functional income cap? a changed simple salt deduction
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 23:34
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Seems like even without M4A they could... do a lot to make this system less punishing for ordinary folks. Obviously they should do M4A, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying a regulated private health insurance system doesn't need to be quite that stupid. They could, but then they wouldn't get fat bribes A comically large sack with a dollar sign on it is the One Weird Trick to get lawmakers to do anything you want
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 23:34
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Seems like even without M4A they could... do a lot to make this system less punishing for ordinary folks. Obviously they should do M4A, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying a regulated private health insurance system doesn't need to be quite that stupid. Hey, those campaign contributions aren't gonna donate themselves! Speaking of which, looks like opensecrets updated their data thru Q3. Here are the lucky duckies in the Senate:   
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 23:37
|
|
|
This has been brought up in leftist circles & media, but the most incredible thing is just how little politicians need to be bribed to become stalwart roadblocks of any meaningful progress for trillion dollar industries. Just Menendez alone will prevent any meaningful pharma reform, in exchange for what will likely add up to a couple million dollars across his entire senatorial career. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Nov 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:They could, but then they wouldn't get fat bribes Bulworth has a lot of problems, but a senator getting assassinated by an insurance company exec for suggesting single-payer isn't one of them. Neurolimal posted:This has been brought up in leftist circles & media, but the most incredible thing is just how little politicians need to be bribed to become stalwart roadblocks of any meaningful progress for trillion dollar industries. When corruption is legal it becomes very cheap, and that's a studied fact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
I mean why not, incumbency protection is absolutely massive and even if you do lose usually it's to someone even more well-funded because they sold out even more
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:This has been brought up in leftist circles & media, but the most incredible thing is just how little politicians need to be bribed to become stalwart roadblocks of any meaningful progress for trillion dollar industries. Not if you're the Senate Majority Leader! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:This has been brought up in leftist circles & media, but the most incredible thing is just how little politicians need to be bribed to become stalwart roadblocks of any meaningful progress for trillion dollar industries. https://twitter.com/ddayen/status/1455658899294470144 He put out a statement saying he supported the new deal, but I do agree that it is a minimal deal The Glumslinger fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Nov 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 23:50
|
|
|
drat, this sausage making process may actually be nearly over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
So, poking around in the recent news in the twitterverse, it looks like a lot of what's in the drug price compromise comes from Pelosi's H.R.3 which passed the house in 2019 and can be read here: https://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/HR3%20Backgrounder%2010.2.19.pdf It apparently doesn't actually force lower prices so much as apply a tax for companies that refuse to negotiate at all. Kind of one of those things that looks impressive until you read it closer and it's like, "oh, that basically would never apply to anyone unless they deliberately did it to themselves." Like most punishments aimed at the rich, I suppose. The people bought by pharma (like Menendez, Carper, Coons, and Sinema, most likely) are pleased with it as a compromise position, and Pelosi's reportedly happy with it, too. Per Alex Ruoff of Bloomberg's Government reporting, "The US government would negotiate just 10 drugs starting in 2025 under a new compromise drug pricing plan, the proposal was pitched to Democratic holdouts who have opposed previous, broader schemes to lower drug prices." Which I think means that in addition to the bits of HR3, there are 10 other drugs, but I can't find confirmation of that anywhere. Either way, I'm not smart enough in legalese to really be able to parse everything I'm reading, but a $2000 cap on out of pocket expenses for seniors (only) per year on prescription drugs (only) doesn't exactly seem that great. Better than what we have, but ... not exactly a high bar. It doesn't maintain parity with other countries, so importing our own drugs back to us is still probably going to be cheaper than getting them even with insurance in the future. Whatever the case, and whatever I'm probably missing, I do know that the line about "protecting innovation" is some hot bullshit. If someone with better legal brainmeats can parse what's available or explain what exactly the difference between medicare part B or D is and why that matters in relation to prescription drug prices, please have at it. I understand the mechanics of medications, but the hows and whys of how they're monetized are completely beyond me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 00:07
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:Whatever the case, and whatever I'm probably missing, I do know that the line about "protecting innovation" is some hot bullshit. If someone with better legal brainmeats can parse what's available or explain what exactly the difference between medicare part B or D is and why that matters in relation to prescription drug prices, please have at it. I understand the mechanics of medications, but the hows and whys of how they're monetized are completely beyond me. It's almost like that's a feature, not a bug, for people with a vested interest in ensuring that we never get single payer/universal healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Polls closed in VA. Initial Exit Polls from CBS: quote:Was Biden a factor in your vote? McAuliffe has a lead of 21-24% in early vote. Youngkin has a lead of 8-12% in election day vote. ~37% of the vote was early vote. Edit: Additional Exit Poll Questions: 62% of voters say the VA economy is "Good" or "Excellent" 68% of voters were over age 45. Black Voters: McAuliffe: 88% Youngkin: 11% White Women: McAuliffe: 42% Youngkin: 56% Suburban voters are 62% of the electorate. Youngkin winning suburban men. McAuliffe winning suburban women. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Nov 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 00:16
|
|