|
Willa Rogers posted:I would like to think that the myth that "Lieberman killed the public option" died when he did, but I guess that's not the case. Max Baucus, chair of the Finance Committee & who was given the task of creating the Senate ACA bill by Obama, killed the public option in committee; it never got a floor vote in the Senate (by design). https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/27/health.care/index.html https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/49912-baucus-advances-without-public-option/ Rest assured Willa we're all truly fascinated that you still hateread D&D while being unable to get basic information straight, which must truly be frustrating for your evident ego.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
Name Change posted:https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/27/health.care/index.html Baucus voted against a public option in committee & neither story says otherwise, only that Baucus used the threat of a filibuster as a reason to preclude it from the Senate bill: quote:His bill will not include a government-run insurance option to compete with the private sector because “a public option cannot pass the Senate,” Baucus said. It was not approved by the Senate Finance Committee, the committee charged with writing the ACA, which is what I said. Baucus's reasoning that it was due to Lieberman's threat of a veto, when the health-insurance industry & other "stakeholders" didn't want one from the jump, came months after Obama promised "stakeholders" there wouldn't be one included during off-the-record meetings that later came to light. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-real-reason-obamas-pl_b_473924 quote:The reason Robert Gibbs gives for President Obama's health care plan not including a public option -- that despite majority voter support, it can't get 51 Democratic votes in the Senate -- doesn't hold up. The real reason is that Obama made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital industry that there would be no meaningful public option. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Apr 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 23:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SheehyforMT/status/1778133400026595781 Republican senate candidate in Montana is either trying to get ahead of something or swift boating himself for no apparent reason (he claims to have lied and told a park ranger he shot himself to avoid an investigation into an old gunshot wound)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 00:06
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I don't remember the exact verbiage since it was 13 years ago, but that was basically the gist of the conversation. The NICU doctor wasn't in network at our in network hospital, and the closest in network NICU doctor was at a hospital an hour away from where we were. I want to retroactively strangle that insurance rep on your behalf. I wish I'd kept Aetna's rejection letter from before Obamacare outlawed preexisting conditions. They refused to cover my healthcare costs due to thyroid issues (which were genetic), and for some reason (inaccurately) dragged my BMI into it. "No, we won't let you get healthcare because of this disease you inherited and did nothing to cause. Oh, and you're fat!" Mother fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 00:07
|
|
|
Even before the new surprise billing law it was possible to get insurance companies to cover emergency care from out-of-network providers in in-network hospitals but you had to endure a lot of phone trees and bottom tier reps to get to there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 00:12
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:Even before the new surprise billing law it was possible to get insurance companies to cover emergency care from out-of-network providers in in-network hospitals but you had to endure a lot of phone trees and bottom tier reps to get to there. And as usual the people with the greatest need to do so were usually the least equipped for it, so it's not much comfort.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 00:14
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:https://twitter.com/SheehyforMT/status/1778133400026595781 He told the park ranger he shot himself but told everyone else he got shot in the middle east and then later clarified that he didn't know whether it was enemy or friendly fire
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 00:18
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:Even before the new surprise billing law it was possible to get insurance companies to cover emergency care from out-of-network providers in in-network hospitals but you had to endure a lot of phone trees and bottom tier reps to get to there. It took appealing. We got got with an out of network anesthesiologist who did the epidural. It was something like 10 grand. It basically took HR telling them they should pay, they were managing a self insured not for profit’s plan. For a lot of people appealing didn’t work especially if one’s employer wasn’t on one’s side.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 00:20
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Baucus voted against a public option in committee & neither story says otherwise, only that Baucus used the threat of a filibuster as a reason to preclude it from the Senate bill: Just a note: stakeholders is absolutely bog standard government / policy language for everyone who would be impacted by a policy. Medical and insurance companies are absolutely and unequivocally stakeholders in any nationwide healthcare policy change. Should they be the most important stakeholders? Absolutely not - but it's a totally unremarkable piece of bureaucratese. I am *very* fluent in bureaucratese
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 00:52
|
|
|
I understand & agree; I put it in quotes because I saw the term used by bureaucrats during the early months of 2009 when it seemed to encompass PhRMA, the AHA, AHIP, medical-supply companies, and other for-profit interests--but precluded single-payer advocates (even Quentin Young, who had served as Obama's private physician in Chicago) and, more importantly, the people who'd hired Obama & the legislators put in charge of crafting the bill.  Goatse James Bond posted:I don't see a forumban on your rap sheet, so I don't know why you think you'd be probated for a civil, on-topic post with some effort and content put into it. Thanks; I may be unduly skittish based on the specious premises of some of my past probations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 01:42
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Baucus voted against a public option in committee & neither story says otherwise, only that Baucus used the threat of a filibuster as a reason to preclude it from the Senate bill: Baucus was not the only Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee to vote against the public option. Five Dems voted against Rockefeller's proposal, and three Dems voted against Schumer's proposal. Kent Conrad and Blanche Lincoln voted against both, while Tom Carper and Bill Nelson voted against one but not the other. Conrad was a notorious deficit hawk and big beneficiary of health industry lobbyist bucks, who was known for his tendency to come out strongly against just about any federal spending that wasn't agricultural subsidies for North Dakotan farmers. It wasn't exactly shocking when he opposed the public option. Lincoln had supported the idea of a public option earlier in her career, but by 2009 she'd taken a rather drastic turn in the conservative direction in an attempt to shore up some rather difficult reelection prospects, and had publicly vowed to filibuster the ACA if it had a public option in it. So it wasn't terribly shocking that she also opposed it in committee. Her sudden plunge into deep-red waters didn't seem to help her get reelected, though! Carper claimed to like the idea of a nonprofit public option, but didn't want it to be able to outcompete private insurance, and so he didn't want it to be government-run. He tried to offer up a compromise plan in which each state would have the option to create its own public option. Nelson spoke out of both sides of his mouth. He suggested that he was open to the idea of a public option, but also voting against a government-run public option on the grounds that it was "socialized healthcare" and declaring that it would definitely not pass; he was thought likely to join in on a filibuster if the public option had hit the floor of Congress. And those were just the Dem opponents on the Senate Finance Committee! In addition to those five, several other Dem senators were openly signaling that they were unlikely to support a public option. Lieberman's threat to filibuster it is the best-remembered, but he wasn't the only one. Mary Landrieu also suggested that she'd filibuster it, saying that there was no way she would ever vote for government-run healthcare. It's wrong to say that Lieberman was solely responsible for killing the public option. But it's even more wrong to say that Baucus was solely responsible for that. Regardless of where Baucus may have personally stood on the public option, he was definitely telling the truth when he said that there weren't 60 votes to pass it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 01:44
|
|
|
I don't understand these people. I get there's political calculus, compromises, and taking the long view, but do they not have families? It wasn't too long ago that Biden, the loving vice president, was about to sell his home to pay for Beau's cancer treatments. When you actively keep people from the healthcare they need, everyone loses. But what do I know, I'm just some rando on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 02:03
|
|
|
Looks to the Moon posted:I don't understand these people. I get there's political calculus, compromises, and taking the long view, but do they not have families? It wasn't too long ago that Biden, the loving vice president, was about to sell his home to pay for Beau's cancer treatments. Families don’t refill the campaign chest as quickly as insurance companies do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 02:25
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:Families don’t refill the campaign chest as quickly as insurance companies do.  How could I have forgotten.The sheer power insurance companies hold in this country is a national disgrace.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 02:27
|
|
|
Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad really remembering some dems now Nissin Cup Nudist fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Apr 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 02:30
|
|
|
Looks to the Moon posted:I don't understand these people. I get there's political calculus, compromises, and taking the long view, but do they not have families? It wasn't too long ago that Biden, the loving vice president, was about to sell his home to pay for Beau's cancer treatments. While I'm sure many of the politicians at the time had family members who had been diagnosed with cancer, I don't believe Beau's cancer was known at that point in time. Wikipedia puts the first symptoms appearing in 2010, and a diagnosis isn't until 2013.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 02:32
|
|
|
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/10/biden-says-he-wouldd-veto-medicare-for-all-as-coronavirus-focuses-attention-on-health.html Giving people healthcare is fiduciary irresponsibility. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 02:32
|
|
|
koolkal posted:https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/10/biden-says-he-wouldd-veto-medicare-for-all-as-coronavirus-focuses-attention-on-health.html That isn't what the article says at all. The headline is also incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 02:49
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:Families don’t refill the campaign chest as quickly as insurance companies do. That was probably true in 2008 but it's not really true anymore, the big money for Democrats running national elections is in actblue donations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 03:00
|
|
|
I will keep saying that America not having single-payer, European-style universal healthcare is the dumbest, stupidest, and most disgraceful thing about this country. Not only is universal healthcare cheaper per citizen while actually covering everyone, but it leads to better healthcare outcomes. There is absolutely no point in healthcare middlemen that are just an economic, health, and moral drain on society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 03:27
|
|
|
small butter posted:I will keep saying that America not having single-payer, European-style universal healthcare is the dumbest, stupidest, and most disgraceful thing about this country. it makes the jingo joke about some foreign country about to learn why we don't have national health care particularly hollow because our military sucks loving dicks too. threw how many billions down the toilet in Afghanistan, and what'd it get us? The reason Americans don't have health care is because we're all being cucked by defense contractors who would flee the country the second poo poo got dicey.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 03:32
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Thanks; I may be unduly skittish based on the specious premises of some of my past probations. It's okay, I stepped down from being a mod months ago
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 03:36
|
|
|
Looks to the Moon posted:I don't understand these people. I get there's political calculus, compromises, and taking the long view, but do they not have families? It wasn't too long ago that Biden, the loving vice president, was about to sell his home to pay for Beau's cancer treatments. They all at least claimed to agree that healthcare is too expensive, and that we need to bring the cost down or otherwise mitigate the impact of the costs on most people. However, they disagree on the best way to accomplish those goals. There's a substantial ideological movement in the US that honestly believes that government action just makes everything worse and more expensive, and that privatization makes things both cheaper and better. Even if this movement's greatest champions don't honestly believe it, quite a few of its adherents do. Many of these senators either sympathized with that movement to some extent, or believed that their voters did. On top of that, the deficit hawks were very active back in those days, proclaiming that there was no way the US government could possibly afford to take on the whole cost of the healthcare industry by itself, and that the US government simply did not have the money to bear that cost regardless of the benefits that might come with it. Of course, many of the loudest backers of this view were nowhere to be seen during the Bush or Trump administrations, but there were some genuine true believers for that too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 03:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Baucus was not the only Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee to vote against the public option. Five Dems voted against Rockefeller's proposal, and three Dems voted against Schumer's proposal. Baucus (and, more importantly, his former health-insurance lobbyist chief of staff [who Obama later appointed to oversee implementation of the ACA]) were given the directive to craft the bill by the president, and he led the committee hearings on the Senate version of the bill; he was pretty much considered the architect during its crafting. As the Huffington Post link points out, there were many Senate Democrats (including those on the finance committee, as you said) opposed to the public option. But the hairball during all of this was that, prior to the actual hearings on the amendment, Obama had made a backroom deal to preclude a public option. So yes, you're correct: Baucus didn't unilaterally kill the public option; it's probably more truthful to say that it was Obama who killed it, with the assistance of Baucus & several other Democrats. And it all circles back to the Lieberman Lie, which somehow persists even after 15 years. (How ironic that the "deficit hawks" like Conrad were against the option that would have likely saved the feds the hundreds of billions of dollars they wound up subsidizing private health insurers, although I do recall Schumer saying, at the time, that any public option would have to be priced "on an even playing field" with private insurance.) eta: I will note that your contention that I said "that Baucus was solely responsible for that" is factually incorrect; I said that "Baucus killed the amendment in committee" and that he refused to bring it for a floor vote, powers that he wielded as chair of the Senate Finance Committee at that time, and that Lieberman did not. I'm confused how those facts are "more wrong" than assigning the blame for killing the public option on Lieberman, which was the original claim to which I responded. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Apr 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 03:40
|
|
|
Speaking of Obama, has anyone read the roman à clef "Great Expectations" about the Obama years that was released last month? Jacobin posted a review of it: quote:n 2007, the New Yorker staff writer Vinson Cunningham was in his early twenties, working as a tutor in Manhattan. These were exciting times for the liberal public sphere: the iPhone, Tumblr, and Nancy Pelosi had just made debuts, the latter as the first woman speaker of the House of Representatives. Through luck, or fate, or divine intervention, Cunningham’s tutoring connections drew him into the orbit of a charismatic black senator from Illinois making a bid for the presidency. Working on Barack Obama’s campaign, he called potential donors, collected checks, clutched a clipboard at the entrance to the apartments of the rich and famous — the kind of work that inspires and requires jaded cynicism. Cunningham has lent his own potted biography to the protagonist of his debut novel, Great Expectations. Like its namesake, this is a story about searching for identity, but race, religion, and political disillusionment in early 2000s America take the place of Charles Dickens’s class-inflected Victorian romance. https://jacobin.com/2024/04/vinson-cunningham-great-expectations-obama-era/
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 03:55
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:It took appealing. We got got with an out of network anesthesiologist who did the epidural. It was something like 10 grand. It basically took HR telling them they should pay, they were managing a self insured not for profit’s plan. This was my experience as well, fought a 5k "insurance refuses to cover due to lack of evidence" and it took a year and the head of HR on a three way call calling them stupid for failing to inform me that I did not provide enough evidence of need, and when I did provide it immediately upon receipt of the bill was told "too late, we closed it, now pay."
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 04:26
|
|
|
https://ktul.com/news/local/house-b...h-hpv-infectionquote:TULSA, Okla. (KTUL) — House Bill 3098, authored by Senator Jessica Garvin and Representative Toni Hasenbeck, could criminalize common STIs and turn thousands of Oklahomans into felons. Instead of reducing the spread of STIs, experts in the field say the bill would make the problem worse. If signed into law, House Bill 3098 would criminalize the intentional or reckless spread of STIs. Violators could face between 2 to 5 years in prison.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 04:30
|
|
|
the cruelty is the point
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 04:41
|
|
|
selec posted:it makes the jingo joke about some foreign country about to learn why we don't have national health care particularly hollow because our military sucks loving dicks too. threw how many billions down the toilet in Afghanistan, and what'd it get us? The reason Americans don't have health care is because we're all being cucked by defense contractors who would flee the country the second poo poo got dicey. How many defense contractors have fled the nation in the last few years of economic turmoil and uncertainty?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 05:15
|
|
|
Aren't there laws on the books already criminalizing it if you intentionally infect someone with an STI? I know that laws exist specifically for HIV, not sure about other STIs offhand. But poorly defining it as just being "reckless" and not "intentional" seems arbitrarily vague - but then, the GOP's method for writing legislation these days seems to be "We'll put words on paper and tell you what they mean as soon as we figure it out."
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 05:21
|
|
|
Defense spending is small compared to healthcare spending, it's like Republicans saying we can't afford foreign aid. We also spend more on healthcare than other developed countries that have universal healthcare. Our political system has a lot of veto points and ~25% of the country automatically opposes doing anything that isn't bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 05:42
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Defense spending is small compared to healthcare spending, it's like Republicans saying we can't afford foreign aid. We also spend more on healthcare than other developed countries that have universal healthcare. Our political system has a lot of veto points and ~25% of the country automatically opposes doing anything that isn't bad. Not just more, but about double the amount per capita. It's absolutely nuts. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 06:12
|
|
|
I can picture the SVU episode about this and Ice-T explaining in frustrated tones what a dumb-rear end, unworkable idea this is. Well done, lawmakers!
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 06:18
|
|
|
Can you imagine if a conservative proposed a bill to criminalize reckless spreading of COVID-19? They'd be hanged, drawn and quartered. But STDs? Gotta get government up in everyone's junk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 06:20
|
|
|
Pretty awful, I thought the bill Florida passed this week that makes it a felony for an officer to have a panic attack about fentanyl around you would be hard to top: https://www.tallahassee.com/story/n...te/72326294007/ quote:Exposures of First Responders to Fentanyl (SB 718/HB 231), which passed through a Senate Criminal Justice Committee meeting Tuesday, would make it a second-degree felony to “recklessly” expose a first responder to fentanyl or any fentanyl analogues (drugs that are chemically similar), resulting in bodily injury. Because cops are very normal about fentanyl I doubt you need to even have it on you to get charged with this, just ruin their vibes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 10:31
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Aren't there laws on the books already criminalizing it if you intentionally infect someone with an STI? I know that laws exist specifically for HIV, not sure about other STIs offhand. But poorly defining it as just being "reckless" and not "intentional" seems arbitrarily vague - but then, the GOP's method for writing legislation these days seems to be "We'll put words on paper and tell you what they mean as soon as we figure it out." "recklessly" is a huge jump downwards on what a prosecution needs to prove. Basically if they engage in sex while "likely" knowing they could spread a STI. Kinda crazy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 12:50
|
|
|
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243982287/fbi-agents-housing-costsquote:Many FBI agents are struggling to make ends meet. Housing costs are to blame First of all, shits too expensive and people need to be paid more/paid wages that allow them live. But lol and lmao let's all feel sorry for these cops for having to do things like "living with roommates" and deciding between whether they "pay rent or buy food".
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 13:31
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243982287/fbi-agents-housing-costs They should have learned to code maybe. I get it’s your dream job or whatever but maybe it’s not practical? Have you thought about seeing if you could frame mentally ill Muslim men as a hobby instead?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 13:59
|
|
|
FBI Special Agents are at GS-13 on the federal payscale, which is well over six figures. They're also getting locality pay adjustments when they work in expensive cities, plus tiny bumps in seniority over time, and annual adjustments for inflation. For reference, GS-13 in DC is ~$120k. That is enough to swing a $3000 a month apartment near an office in the city center, or a nicer place capable of handling dependents with a commute. It's not enough to have it all but if FBI agents are regularly struggling on that salary then that is on them. EDIT: The article references a starting salary at ~73k, but FBI agents only make that much when they're in training at Quantico and receive automatic pay increases afterwards for the next 2 years until they end up at GS-13. Morrow fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Apr 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 14:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
Morrow posted:FBI Special Agents are at GS-13 on the federal payscale, which is well over six figures. They're also getting locality pay adjustments when they work in expensive cities, plus tiny bumps in seniority over time, and annual adjustments for inflation. For reference, GS-13 in DC is ~$120k. That is enough to swing a $3000 a month apartment near an office in the city center, or a nicer place capable of handling dependents with a commute. It's not enough to have it all but if FBI agents are regularly struggling on that salary then that is on them. Even beyond agents themselves, lab geeks and paper pushers don't start off nearly that high but a lot of people just see "FBI" and say "Oh, an FBI agent." Like it or not you can't run the agency without the rest of the positions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 14:30
|
|
