TRUMPCARE
Trump Tweet this morning :
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Democrats are smiling in D.C. that the Freedom Caucus, with the help of Club For Growth and Heritage, have saved Planned Parenthood & Ocare!
drummerboy said:
fixed that for you
lord_pabulum said:
Any perceived failure of ACA lies with the previousadministration andcongress. This is the time to improve ACA if the legislature has the cajones to actually do some work.
No, you only fixed your rainbow and unicorn perception of reality.
Really? Your world seems to include a Republican party willing to work with Obama.
Quite delusional, don't you think?
lord_pabulum said:
drummerboy said:
fixed that for you
lord_pabulum said:
Any perceived failure of ACA lies with the previousadministration andcongress. This is the time to improve ACA if the legislature has the cajones to actually do some work.
No, you only fixed your rainbow and unicorn perception of reality.
DNC deputy chair Keith Ellison joins Bernie to call for Medicare for All. Is he speaking for the DNC? Will the Democratic Party get behind Medicare for All? A big test for the Democrats to seize the moment and take the leadership on health care.
Paul Ryan has always had a hard-on for Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. When he giddily talked about screwing these programs over with vouchers and "access," he appeared to soil himself with ecstasy. It hasn't gone unnoticed; there's a spoof video that's been around of Ryan rushing to push an elderly woman in a wheelchair off a cliff. What Ryan slapped together wasn't a health care plan as much as it was a blueprint for tax breaks for the wealthy. Like a pornographic magazine, Ryan kept it hidden under the mattress until the very last moment. Even Ryan's plan wasn't draconian enough for some Republicans. They wanted full spread eagle: the poor and sick needed to eat dirt and die. Ryan is a Roman Catholic. In the entrance of the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, there is a stained glass illustration of the Matthew 19:24 Biblical quote. It shows a camel's snout easily passing through the eye of a needle. This is completely lost on Ryan and company in their mercilessness. In the end all of our graves will be the same.
salon.com: Why are Republicans so Cruel to the Poor?
In the comments to that article, there's a great discussion lead by Bill Kistler on cognitive science and politics - well worth drilling for, then following up on the quoted studies mentioned by him and others.
here's a good post on the Republican health care position:
http://www.ginandtacos.com/2017/03/26/what-the-hell-are-you-waiting-for-do-it-do-it/
Our health care system, with or without the ACA, is a mess. People
disagree about the reasons it is a mess or what specific aspects of it
are most problematic, but anyone can see this isn't working. The
fundamental flaw is one thing that nobody in the Republican Party has
the balls (being as male-heavy as it is in Congress, the gendered
euphemism is appropriate here) to address.
On the surface it seems like the choice between a pure free market
and a pure single payer system for health care would give us two options
that both work as self-contained entities with very different
consequences. A free market system would cost less for many individuals,
cost more for others, and leave some people unable to afford health
care at all. A single payer system would guarantee service to everyone
but raise issues of overall cost (depending on how it were run) and how
efficiently service could be provided. The problem in the U.S. is not
that we have picked the wrong one of these options, but that we have
neither of them.
The loophole that makes our system the enormous clusterbang that it
is results from Republicans not having the courage to back up their
tough talk on people who can't afford health care. As long as the law
requires Emergency Rooms to take people irrespective of ability to pay,
the system we use today is guaranteed to be an expensive mess. A system
that requires people to buy insurance from a for-profit insurance
industry or face a penalty is going to leave some people uncovered.
Those people are going to get sick and get in car accidents just like
everyone else. When they do, they end up getting services they have no
intention of or ability to pay for. The costs get passed on to everyone
else. This is why health care in the U.S. has been such a disaster –
because we treat it like an industry rather than a social service.
The logical solution is to have a single-payer system in which people
don't have to go to the ER when they have the flu because it's the only
service provider they have access to that can't reject them for being
uninsured and poor. The alternative, though, is for the Republicans to
sack up and change the law that requires ERs to take uninsured patients.
If they really are committed to the idea of health care as a product,
the provision of which is governed by the invisible hand, then go all
the way. Tell people, "If you don't have insurance, the ER will leave
you outside on the sidewalk and lock the door. Hospitals don't have to
treat you anymore, even if you're comatose, until they determine what
you can afford."
That's abhorrent, of course, but they don't seem to have any problem
being abhorrent as long as they know that their poorest constituents can
get into a hospital somehow (and then suffer under a mountain of
medical debt they can't begin to pay back, which is a win for the debt
collection industry). Nonsense. Take away the safety net. If you want a
market in which health care is treated the same as any other product or
service, then stand behind your ideology and let's do this for real. See
how it looks in practice. Let people experience it. See how they like
it.
It's the only way for Americans to make an informed choice, after
all, on the merits of treating access to medical care as an issue of
personal responsibility and a privilege one must earn.
I was listening to right wing radio the other day. The host (Pastor Dave) was a substitute for the guy I usually listen to (Howie Carr).
Anyhow, some guy called in and said that without the individual mandate there's nothing stopping people from going to the ER for a hangnail and disappearing without paying a cent. Dave (correctly) said the ER should just refuse service for non-emergencies like hangnails. To which the caller (in what was clearly a trap) asked "what about a broken leg?"
Dave's response? Send him away too if he can't pay - this is about personal responsibility. But it's the law - they can't turn them awa...click...that's enough out of you, next caller.
while we're at it, why am I paying for the police to go to someone else's house if they're robbed? Police response should be fee-based. If you can't afford to pay them when you call 911, tough luck.
ml1 said:
while we're at it, why am I paying for the police to go to someone else's house if they're robbed? Police response should be fee-based. If you can't afford to pay them when you call 911, tough luck.
Some rural fire departments are fee-based. Once in a great while, you will hear stories of a house that was allowed to burn because the owner didn't pay the fees.
I have never heard of fee-based police services.
The problem with medical services is that they inhabit a middle ground between fee-based and guaranteed service.
lord_pabulum said:
Any perceived failure of ACA lies with the previous administration and congress.
NO major legislation of this kind gets it right the first time. But then it is on Congress to work with the administration to fix the problems. For the last 6 years, all we got were attempts to repeal. If Congress (i.e. the GOP) had been working on addressing those issues since 2010, we might not be seeing the problems we have now.
Of course, perhaps the better approach would have been for Obama to ignore the GOP from the start and go much further with healthcare reform than the ACA. Unfortunately, his desire for a bipartisan solution (which didn't happen anyway) coupled with resistance within the Democratic Party (Baucus and company) prevented that.
everything should be fee-based. let the market decide. Congress should be paying for their parking spaces. And their offices. Why am I paying so some representative from another state should get an office filled with nice furniture?
tjohn said:
ml1 said:
while we're at it, why am I paying for the police to go to someone else's house if they're robbed? Police response should be fee-based. If you can't afford to pay them when you call 911, tough luck.
Some rural fire departments are fee-based. Once in a great while, you will hear stories of a house that was allowed to burn because the owner didn't pay the fees.
I have never heard of fee-based police services.
The problem with medical services is that they inhabit a middle ground between fee-based and guaranteed service.
What about people unconscious at the scene of an accident where you can't determine if they have paid their fees?
ml1 said:
everything should be fee-based. let the market decide. Congress should be paying for their parking spaces. And their offices. Why am I paying so some representative from another state should get an office filled with nice furniture?
tjohn said:
ml1 said:
while we're at it, why am I paying for the police to go to someone else's house if they're robbed? Police response should be fee-based. If you can't afford to pay them when you call 911, tough luck.
Some rural fire departments are fee-based. Once in a great while, you will hear stories of a house that was allowed to burn because the owner didn't pay the fees.
I have never heard of fee-based police services.
The problem with medical services is that they inhabit a middle ground between fee-based and guaranteed service.
below is a good post that talks about what it took to pass the ACA . It was a pretty significant accomplishment, and not enough credit is given to Obama, Pelosi and Reid in getting this passed.
Yes, overall the ACA is a pretty tepid approach to a national health care system. But for a country that had been fighting over health care for 60 years, with entrenched and powerful interests in pharma, health insurance and the medical profession that had to be fought, cajoled and satisfied to varying degrees, it was a remarkable political accomplishment. Criticisms that state that a more "liberal" bill could have been passed are shortsighted, I think.
Like Biden said at the time - "This is a big effing deal."
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/03/b-f-d
============================================================
On Christmas eve 2009, the Senate voted to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in what would be its final form, although nobody expected that at the time. Let me highlight some names on the yea side for you:
Max Baucus D Mont.
Evan Bayh D Ind.
Robert C. Byrd D W.Va
Kent Conrad D N.D.
Byron L. Dorgan D N.D.
Kay Hagan D N.C.
Tim Johnson D S.D.
Mary L. Landrieu D La.
Joseph I. Lieberman ID Conn.
Blanche Lincoln D Ark.
Claire McCaskill D Mo.
Ben Nelson D Neb.
Mark Pryor D Ark.
John D. Rockefeller IV D W.Va.
Jon Tester D Mont.
Jim Webb D Va.
It is ever more remarkable, in retrospect, that much of the discussion on the left following the passage of the ACA consisted of complaints about how Obama/Pelosi/Reid could “only” pass the ACA. This is, on one level, understandable, given that the ACA is unmistakably inferior to the baseline established by other liberal democracies. But this collection names should make clear than when evaluating the work of the Democratic leadership this baseline is irrelevant. The question is not why Obama/Pelosi/Reid couldn’t nationalize the American health insurance industry. The question is how they were able to get this rogue’s gallery — each and every one of whom had a veto — to agree to the most important progressive social welfare legislation passed since the Johnson administration. And note too that the only senator who is clearly more conservative than necessary to win election in the state is Holy Joe, who wasn’t the Democratic candidate but won because while the Democratic candidate would have been a better senator as a campaigner he made Martha Coakley look like FDR. (Webb is more conservative than you need to be elected statewide in Virginia now, but this was much less true in 2008.) The coalition that passed the ACA included three
senators from the Dakotas, one each from Indiana and Arkansas, and two each from Montana and West Virginia. Glib “BE MORE LIBERAL!” exhortations don’t really help you to get liberal governing majorities in an institution that heavily favors conservative rural interests.
Comprehensive health care reform is brutally hard, as Truman and Johnson and Clinton can tell you. In addition getting the list of legislators above, the Democrats also needed to keep in the fold every liberal who was well aware that the ACA was substantially suboptimal. Senators like Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown deserve enormous
credit for working to make the bill as it could be and then supporting it. The Republicans just completely failed with a more homogeneous coalition in the more top-down chamber. What the Democratic leadership pulled off in 2009 is remarkable, and we now know that it is an enduring accomplishment.
tough luck. People should always have their insurance info with them. Tattoo it on an arm and a leg if necessary. Heath care is not a right. Health care is not a right. Health care is not a...
tjohn said:
What about people unconscious at the scene of an accident where you can't determine if they have paid their fees?
ml1 said:
everything should be fee-based. let the market decide. Congress should be paying for their parking spaces. And their offices. Why am I paying so some representative from another state should get an office filled with nice furniture?
tjohn said:
ml1 said:
while we're at it, why am I paying for the police to go to someone else's house if they're robbed? Police response should be fee-based. If you can't afford to pay them when you call 911, tough luck.
Some rural fire departments are fee-based. Once in a great while, you will hear stories of a house that was allowed to burn because the owner didn't pay the fees.
I have never heard of fee-based police services.
The problem with medical services is that they inhabit a middle ground between fee-based and guaranteed service.
ml1 said:
while we're at it, why am I paying for the police to go to someone else's house if they're robbed? Police response should be fee-based. If you can't afford to pay them when you call 911, tough luck.
there is no Constitutional right to having your house fire put out. I've looked. It's not there.
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
while we're at it, why am I paying for the police to go to someone else's house if they're robbed? Police response should be fee-based. If you can't afford to pay them when you call 911, tough luck.
Even on-road auto breakdown insurers let you pay on the spot for coverage (yes, at a slightly higher rate, but you can still join up while getting your car looked at or towed). Unbelievable.
How can that be professional and not be arson? How can homeowners insurance companies let the firefighters get away with that? What happens when not just animal lives but human lives are lost?
bear in mind that the guy whose house burned did not live in the jurisdiction providing fire service. His taxes were not supporting that fire department.
but Steve, you're saying if you're caught camping somewhere and there's a bushfire or flood, you don't deserve to be rescued....that's just bizarre.
We are currently experiencing a force 4 cyclone in the state where I live, smack in the middle of the tourist islands belt of the Great Barrier Reef and then inland through the agricultural zone that feeds us through winter, and our export mining zone. Winds in excess of 263kph. More than 25,000 people evacuated from one city, several townships flattened.
Debbie, the cyclone, has been downgraded to force 2 about 12hours after landfall. Still so dangerous that the State Premier is warning people not to leave their homes. Rescue info is being given via phone and ham radio. Yet by the reasoning presented above, unless each local govt area has received itemised "emergency services levy", they're not entitled to rescue/help. So much for rescuing tourists, transient workers (truckies, FIFO workers, airline staff etc), professional fishermen, people driving through... rescue staff from other areas.... the defence forces on military bases... How would that reasoning have worked in superstorm Sandy, or hurricane Katrina?
this guy didn't pay for ANY fire protection. That was his choice to try and be a free rider. If fire protection were important to him, he could have paid the $75 and worked to establish a system that provided fire protection through his taxes. Someone has to pay, right?
I also note that he chose to not have sufficient insurance, either. This was a guy who wanted others to bear the risk.
Also, I think that while they won't put out the fire, they will rescue people from a burning building even if you have not paid.
As for the camping question, the owner of the land on which you are camping should have paid for fire protection - the fire coverage is not personal, it's land based.
there are other recourses when people don't pay taxes or fees. Letting a house burn to the ground seems cruel and stupid. Garnish someone's wages, fine them, whatever, but put out the fire.
What I'm saying is, there are people here from overseas, caught in this extreme weather event. Unemployed people. Retired, homeless, disadvantaged, people from the other side of the continent..... literally thousands of people, millions of dollars (billions, by the time you factor in riverine floods, then the rainforest damage because hundreds of acres of trees have been torn from the ground) worth of damage.... how are you going to track everyone's billing for redress?? *scratches head* We pay nationally in our taxes for these emergency services; we pay for statewide coordination; afterwards we pay a clean-up/rebuild levy for up to 5 years. Anyway.
It sounds like what's being asked for is more, per local government area, regardless of circumstances in which it's incurred. To me it seems impractical and unfair. (And I think we're probably in agreement)
ml1 said:
there are other recourses when people don't pay taxes or fees. Letting a house burn to the ground seems cruel and stupid. Garnish someone's wages, fine them, whatever, but put out the fire.
Yes, it is cruel. Problem is is that where he lives does not provide fire protection services. The neighboring jurisdiction, which has no authority to impose any fines, garnish wages, or any other means of extracting funds from him. Like I said, he also could have simply "paid the $75 and worked to establish a system that provided fire protection through his taxes."
fixed that for you