Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

As far as the funding, it's a little disingenuous. The bill isn't about increasing funding, it is slashing funding. Have you grown concerned about how much the government paid for a life since you were previously concerned with imaginary death panels.

Money is money. My question is relevant to whether you're spending a trillion dollars to save a life or cutting a trillion dollars and costing a life. It's identical. It's not disingenuous. You have a perfectly acceptable honest response available. Maybe you'll stumble upon it.

As for death panels, I know Hannibal spoke at length about inevitable rationing in a government-owned system. I tend to agree with it. I don't know if it gets to death or not. I do know that the US spending on healthcare for the elderly is way higher than government-owned systems.

Personally, I'm more concerned with normal procedures like hip replacements and such. I prefer that folks don't have to wait 10-12 months. That's the more consequential outcome of government healthcare.

[froot loops]

So you are a yes on it? I am a no, I an for the status quo. It shouldn't be that hard if a question, maybe you will stumble into an answer.

It's the same bill as in March with the ability of states to opt out of essential health benefits as long as they can prove that it will lower premiums. You can read Sarah Kliff, Phillip Klein, Matt Fuller, but you are pretty good with the internet.

You bring up the hip scenario, will this bill allow hip replacements to be done quicker?

[The Oracle]

Da Talennibal loves the bill, of course he's a yes.

[iam416]

Burn!

[iam416]

You bring up the hip scenario, will this bill allow hip replacements to be done quicker?

I brought up the hip scenario in response to yet another of you specious points.

With Oracle here, you and hack now have a quorum for the junta. I'll leave you all to your backpattery.

[froot loops]

I think we can come up with a better name for the tag team of Da Geezer and Talent.

But really shouldn't be that hard for a yes or a no.

[iam416]

Oh no. Can't wait for you to call me a racist! Lots of fun ahead!

[froot loops]

Sorry I didn't realize The Oracle had also fused Hannibal in there.

[froot loops]

Oh no. Can't wait for you to call me a racist! Lots of fun ahead!

Huh? Do you like the bill or not.

[The Oracle]

Hip replacement would be a pre existing condition so good luck with that getting done period.

[hack]

IDK if its exceptionalism, or just the inevitable result of our political bipolarity....ying and yang locked in their unending dance. Most other democracies have multiple parties with enough weight that their input is required to pass legislation, and thus it requires governing to get things done.

Every country benchmarks itself against another one or group, except the US. They all look around and do comparative policy reviews. Americans just aren't minded to do this. That's resulted in some great stuff, because it allows people to think big, but it's also resulted in some enduring problems for which there is an obvious solution that all others with the means to do so have adopted.

[hack]

Sorry I didn't realize The Oracle had also fused Hannibal in there.

The Tribucknut Commission.

[iam416]

Hannibal is going to be really pissed if ever reads this Leftwing Salon.com again! I mean, c'mon, if a HRC-voter is part of the right wing, you know you're way the fuck out there. And we are.

I think I said in March that I don't think the Rs should touch healthcare. Probably on multiple occasions. My opinion hasn't changed. However, unlike Froot, I'm also willing to take a stance and say that cost and lives have to be balanced. But that's not a progressive talking point. Cost is never a concern when it comes to their talking points.

I also don't think returning to the medieval days of 2008 healthcare would be disastrous.

[The Oracle]

I've always said I'll gladly pay higher premiums on my insurance if it ensures more or everyone is covered.

[froot loops]

The thing is most of the time you say they shouldn't touch it, it's always in the prism of the next election.

Like they shouldn't touch it because it could get them massacred at the polls. That's a far cry from saying you are for or against it. Do you think it is good or do you think it is a bad bill? Should it be done regardless of the consequences of the next election for either party.

As far as the cost, you never heard me talk about universal coverage or public option. I think the ACA was success but it was fairly incremental. I'm not Bernie Bro, but that hasn't stopped you from setting up that strawman.