Healthcare Reform Megathread: Can I sell my organs to pay this hospital bill?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Healthcare Reform Megathread: Can I sell my organs to pay this hospital bill?

«‹›2 »

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

JesusSinfulHands posted:

You need 60 votes in the Senate to pass allowing interstate sales of health insurance, and good luck getting 8 Democrats to go along with your agenda.

Why do they need 60 votes?

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 18:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Concerned Citizen posted:

the senate can only pass 1 reconciliation bill a year. a part b and part c bill requires 60 votes.

Zikan posted:

filibuster

I'm genuinely pretty ignorant of Senate rules at this point, but aren't the Republicans now in a position to undo that 60 vote "requirement"?

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 19:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

EugeneJ posted:

I mentioned a few weeks ago that Bernie should start publicly saying he would like to try and work with Trump on health care, but I got laughed at.

Now is not a bad time for Bernie to have an Uncle Jesse moment with Baby Trump about how he shouldn't let people die. Trump seems to respect Bernie.

Trump respects that Sanders is a fantastic way to keep the Democrats divided internally.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 05:13

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1275?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr+1275%22%5D%7D&r=1

Is that the replacement plan? Is that really the title?

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 19:34

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/839662087668379649

# ¿ Mar 9, 2017 04:43

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Something's happened in the markup session:

https://twitter.com/pdmcleod/status/839905011895320576

edit: dammit, start there and click through to read the rest. A major Medicare shift to try to appeal to Republicans.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2017 19:38

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Wait poo poo

https://twitter.com/pdmcleod/status/839908151164026882
https://twitter.com/pdmcleod/status/839908377308368896

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Mar 9, 2017

# ¿ Mar 9, 2017 19:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Once again the Trump team is making it way worse on themselves than they have to be. There are a number of known ways to game CBO estimates that they're pretty clearly not even bothering with.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2017 20:44

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Bueno Papi posted:

Dynamic scoring would help with the deficit but not the number of uninsured.

I think the people making the request can force the CBO to stipulate basically whatever situations they want. It's true that it's a transparent abuse, but it would confuse the narrative and get competing numbers out there "from the CBO". It was a common tactic in the past, but, as usual, the Trump admin isn't even competent in its evil.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2017 21:45

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Bueno Papi posted:

Within reason they take requests but the CBO also says health insurance is a consumer product with a specific definition. Prior to the new congressional term CBO said what is and is not health insurance. It's why republicans are trying out new talking points to diminish the CBO and the "who needs health insurance anyways?"

I see, thanks for the correction!

# ¿ Mar 12, 2017 22:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Does the report also doa premiums forecast?

# ¿ Mar 13, 2017 21:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Reik posted:

It said by 2026 the premiums will be about 10% lower than the ACA projection, but that's a terrible comparison. Because the AHCA removes the essential health benefits, the benefits covered under the two different plans will be completely different.

I'm convinced the CBO did not consult anyone with a strong understanding of the health insurance industry for this report.

I think it's more that the shifts involved are so complex and massive they didn't have time to calculate them- the economic effect analysis was left out.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2017 22:13

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Reik posted:

If you're doing projections about health insurance and you don't project premiums, insurer paid amounts, and member liability amounts, you have no business doing those projections.

Sure thing dude, I'll let the Congressional Budget Office, the best organization in the world at predicting the impacts of all forms of legislation, who have scored and evaluated every health care reform bill, know how poo poo they are.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2017 22:35

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/841401250935635970

# ¿ Mar 13, 2017 22:59

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Paracaidas posted:

Also, it's TigerBeat, but...

I need to remember that nickname for Politico, it's spot on.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 03:23

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

tekz posted:

The Democrats are actively working to squash single payer at state level: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/03/single-payer-dems-colo/

That's not even what the article says.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 09:10

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

evilweasel posted:

Best guess is they claim they will try again later but if they can't get the votes now they can't later.

I'm curious as to the narrative they will use- Democratic obstructionism would be a hard sell, even for those saturated in right wing media.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2017 06:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Bird in a Blender posted:

What are the odds that it comes back worse?

The odds are pretty low; they'll be able to tweak it to get the specific measures they want. It will still be terrible, though.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2017 22:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Moving out of reconciliation might give the Republicans cover in the form of united Democratic opposition.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2017 03:42

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

https://twitter.com/chefjoseandres/status/845053060699344896

This is the incredibly successful DC chef/restaurateur who left one of Trump's properties over his immigration statements.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Mar 24, 2017

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 00:35

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Mantis42 posted:

Thank god Trump is such a good negotiator, 2 months in and he's already saved the healthcare of 25 million Americans.

Healthcare Reform Megathread: Trump saves 25 million Americans

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 01:07

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The Republican strategy is now to sabotage health insurance markets administratively and use the "collapse" as justification for repeal.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trumpcare-obamacare-health-care-236387

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 21:57

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

evilweasel posted:

I know he's going to try. But I just don't think its going to work. In 2018, every Democratic candidate will be able to tell voters, in detail, what Republicans tried to do to their heathcare. It's no longer "compare this messy, real-world solution with the fruits of your imagination!" It's "compare Obamacare to Trumpcare" Obamacare can't beat fantasy solutions, but it'll beat the crap out of Trumpcare any day of the decade. And you can't run on fixing Obamacare when, well, your fix was this.

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 24, 2017 22:13

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Joementum's killing it.

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/845384576109285377

NoDamage posted:

Ultimately repeal is fine as long as it gets replaced with a universal option. The problem is can the Democrats actually make that happen?

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that during this term, in the next two years, the administration could destroy insurance markets, and make the public think "it's Obamacare's fault, the Republicans were right, I need more freedom to choose". And then they pass something much like what we just got.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 22:21

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Pollyanna posted:

Yeah, we're not done yet. We need to start holding the HHS's feet to the fire, and letting people know whenever they step out of line.

We have no way to hold HHS's feet to the fire, it's an administrative agency. The appointees are the kind of people who think post-approval monitoring is better than clinical trials for drug approvals. And, simultaneously, direct industry communication with clinicians about offlabeling. As in, "we have to let companies tell doctors whatever they want about what their drugs can be used for, with no evidence, to find out if the drugs work".

evilweasel posted:

I have a hard time understanding how a voter hears the Republican plan was...this, then Republicans successfully run on a different replacement without, uh, saying what it is. Or why they haven't passed it already. Like, they control the entire government and people know it. They can try to blame Democrats, but its not going to work.

Don't you see, evilweasel?! The insurers withdrawing, the massive increase in premiums, the death spiral...it's because Obamacare is enforcing a straitjacket of regulations on states, insurers, and the American public, forcing them to spend money on these outrageous plans they don't need, pooling risks with irresponsible poor people. We have to get rid of it and let Americans have more freedom about the plans they think are right for them.

The same rationales that Republicans used in the runup will be way more effective if they actually are able to sabotage the marketplaces. It's why refusing Medicare expansion was the correct tactical move for many Republicans.

From the Costa interview:

quote:

�Time will tell. Obamacare is in for some rough days. You understand that. It�s in for some rough, rough days,� Trump said.

He added, �I�ll fix it as it explodes. They�re going to come to ask for help. They�re going to have to. Here�s the good news: Health care is now totally the property of the Democrats.�

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Mar 24, 2017

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 22:26

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Pollyanna posted:

Joementum is Dave Wiegel?

Any user on DnD who is especially on point w/r/t DC is Dave Weigel. Joementum is always Dave Weigel. For at least the past 48 hours, Dave Weigel has also been posting under his evilweasel alt.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 23:23

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Hollismason posted:

I don't know what Price and co.can actually do to sabotage things.

A bunch of things. They're already working on it. See my politico link from upthread.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2017 01:04

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

naive Overton theory being pushed itt

# ¿ Mar 29, 2017 01:09

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Ytlaya posted:

^^^ Could you elaborate? I'm not particular committed to the truth of what I posted; it just seemed to make sense. I realize that advocating for a radical position doesn't always magically move the Overton window in that direction, but at the same time I imagine it must help an idea become more mainstream if it's supported by more public figures.

evilweasel's got it.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2017 04:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Tom Price was just in a hearing on Capitol Hill.

He came outright and said:

- HHS will not spend any money advertising Obamacare Open Enrollments going forward.

("We aren�t going to continue spending millions of taxpayers� dollars promoting a failed government program.")

- HHS is cutting the funds to states to help them advertise and enroll new people.

- The IRS is unlikely to enforce the individual mandate penalty (they already barely do, but having the director say that they won't will encourage more people to go without it)

- When asked about enforcing Essential Health Benefit Requirements, he said that they are the law, but they aren't going to go out of their way to check every single plan. They will look into them if someone files a complaint for a non-compliant plan. They will follow the law, though.

He thinks people probably won't complain because premiums would be lower and "Individuals ought to be able to select the kind of coverage they want, not that the government forces them to buy."

Basically, giving a green light to companies and individuals to not follow the law.

Oh good, I was right :suicide:

# ¿ Mar 29, 2017 20:06

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I am concerned that the HFC may have been brought to heel in the interim.

:shittydog:

# ¿ Apr 14, 2017 21:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

silence_kit posted:

I think insurance companies often get to be the Boogeyman in these kinds of discussions. We in the US are taught from a young age that doctors and healthcare providers are altruistic and always have the patients' best interests in mind, and so they tend to get passed over when discussing why healthcare costs so much in the US.

Docs and healthcare providers are scum (like all humans), but there are more functional medical institution regulatory structures, and it's often easier to spot physician harms when they operate within an institution. State level physician regulation is definitely a gaping hole, though. The direction of interests is such that individual hospitals are rarely true moral monsters as overarching institutions. That tends to be 1. individual people at the middle level operating hospitals, and 2. the ancillary systems that crop up in badly regulated states, like ~~emergency~~urgent care clinics, and some ambulance systems. And of course state legislators.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Apr 28, 2017

# ¿ Apr 28, 2017 18:59

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

VitalSigns posted:

From what I understand they can't. Reconciliation can contain changes to spending or revenue but not both, and only one reconciliation bill is allowed per fiscal year.

Who makes that call?

# ¿ May 2, 2017 14:38

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I feel universalized, standardized EMR might be a good thin end of the wedge.

# ¿ May 9, 2017 17:57

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Rad Valtar posted:

I'd really like to know if most of the individuals in these videos identify as republican or democrat. It feels like these people are starting to understand that maybe health insurance should be a right for every citizen in the country.

A big factor here is that Dem proxy groups have been organizing people to prep them to go to these townhalls for months now. That's a large part of what the "empty suit" townhalls were earlier.

# ¿ May 11, 2017 02:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/865331682882310145

# ¿ May 19, 2017 00:34

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I was surprised by how limited the externality cost estimates are.

# ¿ May 25, 2017 01:35

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Bueno Papi posted:

Yeah, this was a super-generous score. The loss of a hundred billion to 18% of the economy day 1 would be horrific. I imagine CBO's assumption would be that people would accept a 50% increase to premiums because it's more rational than dying but all those people will just walk from the individual market.

That too, but I was thinking of secondary costs to government caused by medical care and other costs incurred by the newly under- and uninsured.

# ¿ May 25, 2017 02:12

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I believe paste is on my fake (in this case, deliberately misleadingly partisan, designed to induce rage and indignation) news list.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2017 17:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I haven't had time to read the leak yet, what are the deets?

# ¿ Jun 22, 2017 03:19

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Healthcare Reform Megathread: Can I sell my organs to pay this hospital bill?

«‹›2 »