Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

That is probably correct talent, but you can make adjustments. The ACA itself had a lot of Medicare reforms, it made some cuts. Cue the death panels discussion

Well, if you undo the mandate then you're "taking away" insurance from 20M people or something. That's the language of opposition and it's shit near impossible to overcome.

I agree that you can mend the ACA, but you can only mend it one direction. Period. If people are losing insurance, it's dead in the water.

Well, wait, I take that back -- the Ds can technically "fix" the ACA if it involves people losing coverage -- but, LMFAO. Bill Clinton, god bless him, was able to welfare reform because he was a D -- at the time -- these days his 90s policies are moderate to solid R.

The Rs, however, cannot. When people lose insurance I believe that's called killing them in political language. So, when you say the ACA can be fixed, the reality is that it can only be fixed in the direction the Ds (and you) want.

[iam416]

As some may recall, the City of Seattle engaged a team of researchers to do a comprehensive study on the impacts of Seattle's minimum wage hike. The researchers were not merely looking at the restaurant industry, but rather the entire local economy. Their findings were consistent with what most economists would predict.

Well, it turns out that the City of Seattle, upon seeing their preliminary findings, decided to cut funding of the project. It was supposed to run 5 years but is now at an end. Go figure. #ProgsHeartScience. That also explains why Berkley was engaged to do a half-ass study on restaurant-only jobs -- they knew the truth was coming and needed something to waive about to de-legitimize the study they actually commissioned. #WeHeartPolitics. Not only that, but Seattle set an earlier deadline for the Berkley report so that it would come out first.

[froot loops]

But there was substantial medicare cuts in the ACA, presumably that was part of the entitlement that was tough to swallow. Remember Death Panels? It didn't poll very well at all but it was part of a bigger compromise. But it was giving up something.

At any rate, you certainly can't influence opinion on the righteousness of your bill if you aren't trying to persuade people or get some bipartisan support. This bill is literally going against what Donald Trump campaigned for. He promised lower premiums, lower deductibles and more coverage. He was going to replace it with something better. He should hold a health summit like Obama did for 5 hours and televise it, what better way to show how much better he is at policy.

[crashcourse]

"That is probably correct talent, but you can make adjustments. The ACA itself had a lot of Medicare reforms, it made some cuts. Cue the death panels discussion."

90% get there insurance through their work and or government
I think less then 20 million actually have signed up for Obama care

the 10 percent using Obama care 70 percent of those are subsidized leaving 30 % of those actually using obamacare to pay the full premiums
ive said it before say it again

until we curb costs on those in the population who do nothing but sap up resources in their last 6 months of life pursuing high cost medical care that really has little effect on the overall outcome--that's what the drives up the costs and that's why obamacare is failing

[froot loops]

"That is probably correct talent, but you can make adjustments. The ACA itself had a lot of Medicare reforms, it made some cuts. Cue the death panels discussion."

90% get there insurance through their work and or government
I think less then 20 million actually have signed up for Obama care

the 10 percent using Obama care 70 percent of those are subsidized leaving 30 % of those actually using obamacare to pay the full premiums
ive said it before say it again

until we curb costs on those in the population who do nothing but sap up resources in their last 6 months of life pursuing high cost medical care that really has little effect on the overall outcome--that's what the drives up the costs and that's why obamacare is failing

What does this mean by curbing costs, 42 percent of Medicaid spending goes to Nursing homes. What is your cost cutting proposal for nursing home residents?

[iam416]

But there was substantial medicare cuts in the ACA, presumably that was part of the entitlement that was tough to swallow. Remember Death Panels? It didn't poll very well at all but it was part of a bigger compromise. But it was giving up something.

I'll address this nonsense once -- if you want to pass a stand-alone bill slashing medicare, then good fucking luck. If you want to pass a bill that includes medicare cuts but is otherwise part of a massive government entitlement program then, well, duh, you can do it. I'll also go on record as saying you can ELIMINATE medicare if you want if, you know, it's part of a single-payer bill.

So, c'mon. Don't fight from the fucking low ground, Froot.

The rest of your post about selling the new bill and trying to persuade others is correct, though in the context of trying to actually cut an entitlement, it's utterly hopeless. So, maybe the Rs understand this obvious point and are just going to push forward in an effort to undo the entitlement (at great political cost). Then they put the ball back in the Ds court. Then the Ds have to tackle the behemoth.

[froot loops]

I actually don't think it's the low ground. I think it's reality, that's why I said in that post that you may be correct but you can make adjustments. You're like what Kyle Smith says in his Barro column, you get a win and you are pushing forward to the next fight.

[Da Geezer]

Jon:

I asked a simple question: "Does anybody here think those on Medicaid should be required to practice birth control while on welfare?" The unwillingness to answer by any prog here is evidence that, beyond prog-talk, political correctness requires viewing pregnancy as a pre-existing condition, because the welfare recipients, like pardoned felons, are a reliable voting bloc for the Democrat Party.

What the health insurance debate has shown is that if you take the most common view of "pre-existing condition" to mean that buying insurance is available for any diagnosis, then health insurance has to be mandated for all, particularly the young and healthy. The young and healthy have to act in a manner that is against their economic self- interest. I happen to believe that changing the definition of "pre-existing" is a more truthful and econonic way to approach the horns of the dilemma. Most here like single-payer because it "solves" the "problem" of getting the young and healthy to pay for health insurance by using the general tax power of the government.

Can anyone name a serious diagnosis that a citizen could not simply insure over? Why would you buy insurance at all, if you know the companies must sell a mandated policy to you post-diagnosis?

[Mainevent]

my guess is < 10 percent know the actual content of said bill

And sadly, that includes the POTUS.

If the Trump administration does something good, great. I'll be happy. I'm all for tax reform. It makes a ton of sense to me to streamline the tax policy, eliminate most of the complexity around exemptions and adjust the tax brackets. But the Trump tax proposals look like shit.

And when Jared Kushner negotiates peace in the Middle East, I think we can all agree that will be a great accomplishment.

[froot loops]

They should be able to pass something, they own the government. They won the election last fall. There is certainly nothing stopping them from passing bills, it would be nice to have bipartisan cover but it isn't required. The Medicaid cuts were overreach in my opinion. They went far beyond the medicaid expansion.

The problem is you have to court the media rather than this pro wrestling kayfabe feud they conduct now. If you want to make your case you have to influence the media why your bill is good. Having a good bill would help.

Look no further than George W Bush, he spent the first year on his charm offensive.

[Da Geezer]

Strange:

Didn't just meet with Putin a second time, he met one-on-one. No one else present except a translator.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But did he really think no one would find out or how it would look?

To correct the record, CNN is reporting that the second meeting was when Trump sat across the table from Putin at a dinner for couples. Trump's only translator was Japanese/English, because he sat next to PM Abe. However, Melania did talk to Putin because she sat next to him. She might speak Russian, since she does speak 5 languages. And she is Slavic. And she speaks to Trump regularly.

OH, MY GOD, MELANIA IS A RUSSIAN MOLE !!!! This needs to be investigated, let's get this to Mueller asap.

[Ghengis Jon]

Chump boot licker Mike Pence is currently chairing the first session of the voter fraud commission. (Live on CNN if you're looking for a laugh. Even Faux News isn't covering the imbecilic exercise.) Will it be today or tomorrow that he announces he's found evidence of 15 million illegal HRC voters and that he needs the resources investigating the Russian connection to be diverted to this, the most pressing issue of our time.

[Wild Hoss]

until we curb costs on those in the population who do nothing but sap up resources in their last 6 months of life pursuing high cost medical care that really has little effect on the overall outcome--that's what the drives up the costs and that's why obamacare is failing

This could probably be phrased better...but yes, end of life care needs a thorough overhaul IMO.

The folks on the Right will need to get past the Culture of Death nonsense first. Wake us up when that happens.

[Ghengis Jon]

Jon:

I asked a simple question: "Does anybody here think those on Medicaid should be required to practice birth control while on welfare?"

Not exactly a prog, but my answer is no. That is an intimate question that should be left to the individuals directly involved. Make it available so that even people without resources can obtain it as there is an overall societal benefit of not having more children than you can appropriately raise. IMO gov't should stay completely out of the reproductive arena. This can be extended to the abortion debate as well. It is the same moral equivilant to force someone to have an abortion as it is to prevent someone from having one of their own free will. Gov't has no business in that discussion.

[crashcourse]

"They should be able to pass something, they own the government. They won the election last fall. There is certainly nothing stopping them from passing bills, it would be nice to have bipartisan cover but it isn't required.."

true

I have a feeling health care and tax reform pass in some version before the next midterms but as somebody said earlier the Donald is doing a shitty job explaining why it has to be done and the public is doing a shittier job of accepting that the road we are on now is unsustainable and choices have to be made

that's why closing borders shifts emphasis back to americans. you stop illegal immigration to conserve health funds. The flow of illegal immigrants does tax our local govt health economic and social budgets. and with less immigrants hopefully you have more jobs at a higher salary then we have now.

amazingly though I see help wanted signs wherever I go--hotels/fast food/retail--there are a lot of help wanted signs out there right now and 100 million americans aged 18-65 not working who would benefit from less entitlements and more production for a paycheck.