That law says you have to conspire - which requires intent, right? I don't think that law applies to people who are just talking about how awesome it would be to overthrow the government. Someone would have to prove that they had a plan and were going to go through with it. And if the FBI got wind of an actual plan to overthrow the US, I'm pretty sure they'd crack down on any of those groups.
Yeah, there's the whole "actionable threat" thing. Remember how Bush sent fighters to shoot down civilian planes full of American because the planes represented both an intent and capability to take a large number of lives? That's how this shit has always worked because anything else is stupid.
I'm fairly certain that was one of the flurry of things he did the first day.
I'm not happy about the indefinite detention but I just don't feel he's responsible for that.
Obama has the power to end indefinite detention with the stroke of a pen, as an executive order.
For that reason I feel he's responsible.
He could even make it a super top secret order, or clarify to mean "unless approved by the DOJ" and order them to never approve it if he needed political cover.
If Henry is referring to not pursuing charges against people that approved the use of torture, I wish it could have happened, but it's politics. I doubt we'd have the ACA if Obama really went after them.
The ACA does not address rising health care prices.
Unless Obama can magic up more political capital to go after health care costs the ACA is a pointless mess that in the short term is a massive give away to the insurance sector.
Rising health care prices is the health care crisis. A huge amount of political capital was expended to deal with the crisis for no good end.
The ACA includes cost effectiveness boards. This is a fact. You can bitch and moan about how "tribal" this forum is all bay, but the IPAB will still exist.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm fairly certain that was one of the flurry of things he did the first day.
I'm not happy about the indefinite detention but I just don't feel he's responsible for that.
Obama has the power to end indefinite detention with the stroke of a pen, as an executive order.
For that reason I feel he's responsible.
He could even make it a super top secret order, or clarify to mean "unless approved by the DOJ" and order them to never approve it if he needed political cover.
If Henry is referring to not pursuing charges against people that approved the use of torture, I wish it could have happened, but it's politics. I doubt we'd have the ACA if Obama really went after them.
The ACA does not address rising health care prices.
Unless Obama can magic up more political capital to go after health care costs the ACA is a pointless mess that in the short term is a massive give away to the insurance sector.
Rising health care prices is the health care crisis. A huge amount of political capital was expended to deal with the crisis for no good end.
The ACA includes cost effectiveness boards. This is a fact. You can bitch and moan about how "tribal" this forum is all bay, but the IPAB will still exist.
I posted a list of cost control provisions earlier in this very thread. . .
Edit: I don't understand why people are so down on the ACA here. There are a number of provisions of the bill designed to reduce costs. For example:
1. Accountable Care Organizations - by coordinating care across providers, duplicative treatment and testing should be reduced.
2. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute - by studying patient outcomes from different treatments, we should get better information one what treatments are and are not cost effective. There are also other research committees established to evaluate the effectiveness of different forms of care. Even though none of their reccomentations are binding, the research will hopefully influence what insurers will cover.
3. The individual mandate will bring a lot more good risk into insurer risk pools, allowing for the creation of functional individual and small group insurance markets.
4. Medical loss ratios literally impose caps on profit percentages for insurers.
5. The anti-discrimination rules and cadillac tax should both make it harder for insurers to market "platinum" plans that provide very high levels of benefits to select individuals.
I understand that these and the other provisions of the ACA are aimed at insurers, not providers, but if you change the amount that insurers will pay to providers, you will influence what kinds of care providers actually provide. It isn't perfect, but it also isn't nothing.
He's going to be on trial for basically treason, I don't think anyone cares about his gender status.
Exactly. The guy is literally facing the death penalty, or at least life in prison, for crimes against his country. His gender is the least important part of of this story by several orders or magnitude.
Of course, if it turns out that the logs indicate self-destructive tendencies rather than gender dysmorphia (or whatever the term is), it would explain why he was placed under the conditions he was. Hell, pointing out that you can kill yourself with your boxers to the people payed to make sure you don't kill yourself when you don't want your boxers taken away is a pretty good sign that you hate yourself.
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
ACA > blood in the water.
See, my formulation is more equal justice under the law > ACA
But I've been waging that battle unsuccessfully on this forum since it became obvious Obama was going to win.
See, I think me getting medical coverage under my dad's insurance program and thus not dying last year is more important than some guy potentially getting tortured at Gitmo.
I don't agree but I understand. Were I in your position I'd feel the same way.
And see, here's the thing. It's not just my position that influenced my decision. It's the fact that ACA demonstrably saves lives. Pursuing, arresting, and convicting a handful of people with what amount to basically gross misconduct of official duties doesn't even begin to come close to weighing the scale evenly in terms of human capital preserved. They're not even in the same ballpark.
One is kind of a victory for principles, the other is literally a victory for the continued well-being of millions of people. It utilitarian terms, ACA wins. By a fucking landslide.
I'm glad you're alive.
What if instead of being able to buy insurance, which is what ACA does, you could just afford to pay for health care?
I pay for healthcare by buying insurance.
No one pays for health care, it's too expensive. You pay an insurance premium based on an actuarial projection of risk and return on investment. Your health care provider give your insurance company a bill. They look at that bill and laugh and use their collective bargaining power it ignore the greater part of the charges. That final number might have been a number you could have afforded to pay in the first place.
You're proposing Universal Healthcare, right? Right now it's a pipe-dream. I'll take what victories I can and hope for more as things progress.
Well what I'd like is universal health care.
What I'd settle for is price reform.
Price reform is everything. Without it Health care still explodes for everyone when the boomers fully retire.
Edit: I'd rather be living than dead too. What ACA does not do
1. Solve Long Term Systemic Problems
2. Help the Under Insured -> this is a big deal, especially since health care costs are so crazy
3. Cover Everyone (Something like 23 million people are still not covered).
4. Anything else. Economic, Foreign Policy, Etc.
ACA didnt save the lives of the 33 million people it allowed to now buy health insurance.
Nor does it any way change the way health care providers from being required to cover the uninsured.
I think everyone here would have loved more cost reforms. But cost reform before coverage reform simply can not work. The reason healthcare is so costly is because they have to distribute the costs of caring for the uninsured to everyone else. You will bankrupt the healthcare provider industry if you both mandate that they lower costs and cover the uninsured.
So instead, the first step is to mandate coverage. And once everyone (for all intents and purposes) is covered, you remove the the largest reason for the exorbitant pricing. And at that point you can go after cost reforms.
Incremental reform is the absolute best we can hope for. In a perfect world, we would have had single-payer a long time ago. But this isn't a perfect world, so you have to take what you can get so that the next time reform is tried it has a new and better starting point. That's just how things work. And abiding by reality isn't a failure or weakness.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Is Vermont still doing single payer? If so, there's reason to hope we'll get true reform the same way we're getting gay equality - from the bottom-up.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
Last I heard from various VPR broadcasts, yes, Shumlin is still trying to push forward with his single payer plan; it will probably have to be done piece-meal over a timeframe however. I remember not too long ago "business owners," were grumbling about something or other with cost plans under the act, but Shumlin was pretty quick to accommodate said grumbling and I think things are moving along.
"im currently paying about 50% of my income to student loans... now its gonna be 10% and the remainder after 20 years will be forgiven."
That's a pretty big change for a lot of people. Go obama!
I've been kind of curious about the student loan thing. I maintained a full-time job to keep up with debt while in school, so I have a severe lack of knowledge of how student loans and financial aid actually works, but is the amount paid per month always based on a certain percentage of income, and does the reduction apply to everyone carrying student loan debt?
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Surprised more people aren't talking about the thing with NK.
The North Korea thing is really awesome to hear. You mean we don't have to have decades of tense saber-rattling with every foreign country led by lunatics that want nuclear weapons?
Of course, if it turns out that the logs indicate self-destructive tendencies rather than gender dysmorphia (or whatever the term is), it would explain why he was placed under the conditions he was. Hell, pointing out that you can kill yourself with your boxers to the people payed to make sure you don't kill yourself when you don't want your boxers taken away is a pretty good sign that you hate yourself.
Who could have possibly guessed that someone with gender dysphoria who's been locked in solitary confinement in their underwear for the better part of a year could develop self-destructive tendencies?
"im currently paying about 50% of my income to student loans... now its gonna be 10% and the remainder after 20 years will be forgiven."
That's a pretty big change for a lot of people. Go obama!
I've been kind of curious about the student loan thing. I maintained a full-time job to keep up with debt while in school, so I have a severe lack of knowledge of how student loans and financial aid actually works, but is the amount paid per month always based on a certain percentage of income, and does the reduction apply to everyone carrying student loan debt?
Wait did obama implement some kind of % based income thing for student loans?
Because that would be great, I have a lot of fresh grad friends making $8 an hour
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
I'm fairly certain that was one of the flurry of things he did the first day.
I'm not happy about the indefinite detention but I just don't feel he's responsible for that.
Obama has the power to end indefinite detention with the stroke of a pen, as an executive order.
For that reason I feel he's responsible.
He could even make it a super top secret order, or clarify to mean "unless approved by the DOJ" and order them to never approve it if he needed political cover.
If Henry is referring to not pursuing charges against people that approved the use of torture, I wish it could have happened, but it's politics. I doubt we'd have the ACA if Obama really went after them.
The ACA does not address rising health care prices.
Unless Obama can magic up more political capital to go after health care costs the ACA is a pointless mess that in the short term is a massive give away to the insurance sector.
Rising health care prices is the health care crisis. A huge amount of political capital was expended to deal with the crisis for no good end.
The ACA includes cost effectiveness boards. This is a fact. You can bitch and moan about how "tribal" this forum is all bay, but the IPAB will still exist.
I posted a list of cost control provisions earlier in this very thread. . .
Edit: I don't understand why people are so down on the ACA here. There are a number of provisions of the bill designed to reduce costs. For example:
1. Accountable Care Organizations - by coordinating care across providers, duplicative treatment and testing should be reduced.
2. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute - by studying patient outcomes from different treatments, we should get better information one what treatments are and are not cost effective. There are also other research committees established to evaluate the effectiveness of different forms of care. Even though none of their reccomentations are binding, the research will hopefully influence what insurers will cover.
3. The individual mandate will bring a lot more good risk into insurer risk pools, allowing for the creation of functional individual and small group insurance markets.
4. Medical loss ratios literally impose caps on profit percentages for insurers.
5. The anti-discrimination rules and cadillac tax should both make it harder for insurers to market "platinum" plans that provide very high levels of benefits to select individuals.
I understand that these and the other provisions of the ACA are aimed at insurers, not providers, but if you change the amount that insurers will pay to providers, you will influence what kinds of care providers actually provide. It isn't perfect, but it also isn't nothing.
I've not seen any analysis that says ACA will do anything except marginally effect prices. CBO analysis says it will make health care expenditures go up in the next 10 years. The crisis in health care is one of price increasing exponentially.
1. Does not effect the price of services.
2. This assumes the practices will have a positive effect (and they may) but the jury is still out and then that private insurers will follow these practices with a negative incentive to do so.
3. Only if it does. There is no enforcement mechanism. Also this changes the uninsured in best case estimates from 55 million to 23 million, so it does not solve the free rider problem.
4. But since those caps are based on made up numbers i.e. health care prices and not health care costs the effect is meaningless.
5. So?
The ACA does either zero or next to nothing (and overall decrease in the increase of 10% to 20% of health care prices over 10 years wo hoo).
The benefit of the ACA is the insurance companies cant fuck you out of your insurance by citing a pre-existing condition to deny care.
But this is the same thing as taking on extra weight on a sinking ship.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
The North Korea thing is really awesome to hear. You mean we don't have to have decades of tense saber-rattling with every foreign country led by lunatics that want nuclear weapons?
Diplomacy skillcheck: critical success!
Well, it's mostly that no other President was President when Kim Jong Il died. Granted a lot of things could have easily gone wrong and squandered the opportunity so I'm not trying to downplay it, but having a new guy wielding the other saber does make a pretty big difference too.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Let's be honest, if McCain was prez he would've botched it. Sarah Palin more so.
"im currently paying about 50% of my income to student loans... now its gonna be 10% and the remainder after 20 years will be forgiven."
That's a pretty big change for a lot of people. Go obama!
I've been kind of curious about the student loan thing. I maintained a full-time job to keep up with debt while in school, so I have a severe lack of knowledge of how student loans and financial aid actually works, but is the amount paid per month always based on a certain percentage of income, and does the reduction apply to everyone carrying student loan debt?
This is another fuck you to the middle class.
Are you able to pay of your student loans in less than 10 years?
Then Fuck You pay bitch.
Are you not able to pay off your student loans in 10 years?
Well pay what you can then we'll forgive the rest.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
"im currently paying about 50% of my income to student loans... now its gonna be 10% and the remainder after 20 years will be forgiven."
That's a pretty big change for a lot of people. Go obama!
I've been kind of curious about the student loan thing. I maintained a full-time job to keep up with debt while in school, so I have a severe lack of knowledge of how student loans and financial aid actually works, but is the amount paid per month always based on a certain percentage of income, and does the reduction apply to everyone carrying student loan debt?
This is another fuck you to the middle class.
Are you able to pay of your student loans in less than 10 years?
Then Fuck You pay bitch.
Are you not able to pay off your student loans in 10 years?
Well pay what you can then we'll forgive the rest.
I guess it depends on whether both cases are paying the same amount for those ten years.
If I get a better job than someone else who carries the same amount of debt that allows me to pay off my debt within the ten year period, how is that a 'fuck you' to me when the other guy who couldn't afford it has his debt forgiven? Should college really be some kind of eternal albatross for the underemployed?
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
ACA > blood in the water.
See, my formulation is more equal justice under the law > ACA
But I've been waging that battle unsuccessfully on this forum since it became obvious Obama was going to win.
See, I think me getting medical coverage under my dad's insurance program and thus not dying last year is more important than some guy potentially getting tortured at Gitmo.
I don't agree but I understand. Were I in your position I'd feel the same way.
And see, here's the thing. It's not just my position that influenced my decision. It's the fact that ACA demonstrably saves lives. Pursuing, arresting, and convicting a handful of people with what amount to basically gross misconduct of official duties doesn't even begin to come close to weighing the scale evenly in terms of human capital preserved. They're not even in the same ballpark.
One is kind of a victory for principles, the other is literally a victory for the continued well-being of millions of people. It utilitarian terms, ACA wins. By a fucking landslide.
I'm glad you're alive.
What if instead of being able to buy insurance, which is what ACA does, you could just afford to pay for health care?
I pay for healthcare by buying insurance.
No one pays for health care, it's too expensive. You pay an insurance premium based on an actuarial projection of risk and return on investment. Your health care provider give your insurance company a bill. They look at that bill and laugh and use their collective bargaining power it ignore the greater part of the charges. That final number might have been a number you could have afforded to pay in the first place.
You're proposing Universal Healthcare, right? Right now it's a pipe-dream. I'll take what victories I can and hope for more as things progress.
Well what I'd like is universal health care.
What I'd settle for is price reform.
Price reform is everything. Without it Health care still explodes for everyone when the boomers fully retire.
Edit: I'd rather be living than dead too. What ACA does not do
1. Solve Long Term Systemic Problems
2. Help the Under Insured -> this is a big deal, especially since health care costs are so crazy
3. Cover Everyone (Something like 23 million people are still not covered).
4. Anything else. Economic, Foreign Policy, Etc.
ACA didnt save the lives of the 33 million people it allowed to now buy health insurance.
Nor does it any way change the way health care providers from being required to cover the uninsured.
I think everyone here would have loved more cost reforms. But cost reform before coverage reform simply can not work. The reason healthcare is so costly is because they have to distribute the costs of caring for the uninsured to everyone else. You will bankrupt the healthcare provider industry if you both mandate that they lower costs and cover the uninsured.
So instead, the first step is to mandate coverage. And once everyone (for all intents and purposes) is covered, you remove the the largest reason for the exorbitant pricing. And at that point you can go after cost reforms.
Incremental reform is the absolute best we can hope for. In a perfect world, we would have had single-payer a long time ago. But this isn't a perfect world, so you have to take what you can get so that the next time reform is tried it has a new and better starting point. That's just how things work. And abiding by reality isn't a failure or weakness.
More Goose from the Goose.
There will be no second step. This year they've already cut out long term cost reducing pilots programs from the ACA to help cover meaning less deficits.
You're absolutely out of touch with reality.
"Mandating people buy insurance to fix the health care crisis is like Mandating people buy houses to fix the problem of homelessness" -Barack Obama 2008.
There are a number of factors which lead to crazy health care prices and bad health care outcomes in the health care system. Covering 59% of the uninsured does not address them. The last time there was health care reform was 1974. In 36 years there wont be a health care crisis in America because the boomers will have destroyed the industry and then mercifully died, along with Medicare and social security.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
I'm fairly certain that was one of the flurry of things he did the first day.
I'm not happy about the indefinite detention but I just don't feel he's responsible for that.
Obama has the power to end indefinite detention with the stroke of a pen, as an executive order.
For that reason I feel he's responsible.
He could even make it a super top secret order, or clarify to mean "unless approved by the DOJ" and order them to never approve it if he needed political cover.
If Henry is referring to not pursuing charges against people that approved the use of torture, I wish it could have happened, but it's politics. I doubt we'd have the ACA if Obama really went after them.
The ACA does not address rising health care prices.
Unless Obama can magic up more political capital to go after health care costs the ACA is a pointless mess that in the short term is a massive give away to the insurance sector.
Rising health care prices is the health care crisis. A huge amount of political capital was expended to deal with the crisis for no good end.
The ACA includes cost effectiveness boards. This is a fact. You can bitch and moan about how "tribal" this forum is all bay, but the IPAB will still exist.
I posted a list of cost control provisions earlier in this very thread. . .
Edit: I don't understand why people are so down on the ACA here. There are a number of provisions of the bill designed to reduce costs. For example:
1. Accountable Care Organizations - by coordinating care across providers, duplicative treatment and testing should be reduced.
2. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute - by studying patient outcomes from different treatments, we should get better information one what treatments are and are not cost effective. There are also other research committees established to evaluate the effectiveness of different forms of care. Even though none of their reccomentations are binding, the research will hopefully influence what insurers will cover.
3. The individual mandate will bring a lot more good risk into insurer risk pools, allowing for the creation of functional individual and small group insurance markets.
4. Medical loss ratios literally impose caps on profit percentages for insurers.
5. The anti-discrimination rules and cadillac tax should both make it harder for insurers to market "platinum" plans that provide very high levels of benefits to select individuals.
I understand that these and the other provisions of the ACA are aimed at insurers, not providers, but if you change the amount that insurers will pay to providers, you will influence what kinds of care providers actually provide. It isn't perfect, but it also isn't nothing.
I've not seen any analysis that says ACA will do anything except marginally effect prices. CBO analysis says it will make health care expenditures go up in the next 10 years. The crisis in health care is one of price increasing exponentially.
1. Does not effect the price of services.
2. This assumes the practices will have a positive effect (and they may) but the jury is still out and then that private insurers will follow these practices with a negative incentive to do so.
3. Only if it does. There is no enforcement mechanism. Also this changes the uninsured in best case estimates from 55 million to 23 million, so it does not solve the free rider problem.
4. But since those caps are based on made up numbers i.e. health care prices and not health care costs the effect is meaningless.
5. So?
The ACA does either zero or next to nothing (and overall decrease in the increase of 10% to 20% of health care prices over 10 years wo hoo).
The benefit of the ACA is the insurance companies cant fuck you out of your insurance by citing a pre-existing condition to deny care.
But this is the same thing as taking on extra weight on a sinking ship.
You're disdaining a fairly significant decline in the trend line. That makes me question your judgement here. And speaking as someone who has been denied insurance on the basis of pre-existing conditions, I'd say that it is much more significant than 'taking on extra weight on a sinking ship' to those individuals who are affected. Good policy is important in the abstract, but only because good policy has concrete impact on people's lives. Making progress, however incremental, towards improving that impact is a rather wonderful occurrence. It is also how everything happens in governance. As a somewhat related aside, have you ever read the original Social Security Act?
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
ACA > blood in the water.
See, my formulation is more equal justice under the law > ACA
But I've been waging that battle unsuccessfully on this forum since it became obvious Obama was going to win.
See, I think me getting medical coverage under my dad's insurance program and thus not dying last year is more important than some guy potentially getting tortured at Gitmo.
I don't agree but I understand. Were I in your position I'd feel the same way.
And see, here's the thing. It's not just my position that influenced my decision. It's the fact that ACA demonstrably saves lives. Pursuing, arresting, and convicting a handful of people with what amount to basically gross misconduct of official duties doesn't even begin to come close to weighing the scale evenly in terms of human capital preserved. They're not even in the same ballpark.
One is kind of a victory for principles, the other is literally a victory for the continued well-being of millions of people. It utilitarian terms, ACA wins. By a fucking landslide.
I'm glad you're alive.
What if instead of being able to buy insurance, which is what ACA does, you could just afford to pay for health care?
I pay for healthcare by buying insurance.
No one pays for health care, it's too expensive. You pay an insurance premium based on an actuarial projection of risk and return on investment. Your health care provider give your insurance company a bill. They look at that bill and laugh and use their collective bargaining power it ignore the greater part of the charges. That final number might have been a number you could have afforded to pay in the first place.
You're proposing Universal Healthcare, right? Right now it's a pipe-dream. I'll take what victories I can and hope for more as things progress.
Well what I'd like is universal health care.
What I'd settle for is price reform.
Price reform is everything. Without it Health care still explodes for everyone when the boomers fully retire.
Edit: I'd rather be living than dead too. What ACA does not do
1. Solve Long Term Systemic Problems
2. Help the Under Insured -> this is a big deal, especially since health care costs are so crazy
3. Cover Everyone (Something like 23 million people are still not covered).
4. Anything else. Economic, Foreign Policy, Etc.
ACA didnt save the lives of the 33 million people it allowed to now buy health insurance.
Nor does it any way change the way health care providers from being required to cover the uninsured.
I think everyone here would have loved more cost reforms. But cost reform before coverage reform simply can not work. The reason healthcare is so costly is because they have to distribute the costs of caring for the uninsured to everyone else. You will bankrupt the healthcare provider industry if you both mandate that they lower costs and cover the uninsured.
So instead, the first step is to mandate coverage. And once everyone (for all intents and purposes) is covered, you remove the the largest reason for the exorbitant pricing. And at that point you can go after cost reforms.
Incremental reform is the absolute best we can hope for. In a perfect world, we would have had single-payer a long time ago. But this isn't a perfect world, so you have to take what you can get so that the next time reform is tried it has a new and better starting point. That's just how things work. And abiding by reality isn't a failure or weakness.
More Goose from the Goose.
There will be no second step. This year they've already cut out long term cost reducing pilots programs from the ACA to help cover meaning less deficits.
You're absolutely out of touch with reality.
"Mandating people buy insurance to fix the health care crisis is like Mandating people buy houses to fix the problem of homelessness" -Barack Obama 2008.
There are a number of factors which lead to crazy health care prices and bad health care outcomes in the health care system. Covering 59% of the uninsured does not address them. The last time there was health care reform was 1974. In 36 years there wont be a health care crisis in America because the boomers will have destroyed the industry and then mercifully died, along with Medicare and social security.
Except if you can't afford healthcare you get a subsidy
For example if the ACA went into full effect right now I would spend precisely zero dollars and be insured. I think you're a bit overly cynical, as if you look at the history of both Social Security and Medicare you'll see similar things. Both programs struggled early on, but once people actually start benefiting from them they become unrepealable.
If the ACA is still around and starts up in 2014, it will be impossible to repeal. Any political party that decides to take away 15% of the nation's health insurance with legislation is asking to be taken out back and shot, it's why the worst the Republicans will do to Medicare is make ridiculous proposals that they themselves have no intention of passing.
override367 on
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Man I do not like the American Elect people one bit. No fucking third parties unless they are guaranteed to sap more votes from the GOP candidate.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
You're disdaining a fairly significant decline in the trend line. That makes me question your judgement here. And speaking as someone who has been denied insurance on the basis of pre-existing conditions, I'd say that it is much more significant than 'taking on extra weight on a sinking ship' to those individuals who are affected. Good policy is important in the abstract, but only because good policy has concrete impact on people's lives. Making progress, however incremental, towards improving that impact is a rather wonderful occurrence. It is also how everything happens in governance. As a somewhat related aside, have you ever read the original Social Security Act?
The trend line is colored by an enormously depressed economy.
Except if you can't afford healthcare you get a subsidy
For example if the ACA went into full effect right now I would spend precisely zero dollars and be insured. I think you're a bit overly cynical, as if you look at the history of both Social Security and Medicare you'll see similar things. Both programs struggled early on, but once people actually start benefiting from them they become unrepealable.
If the ACA is still around and starts up in 2014, it will be impossible to repeal. Any political party that decides to take away 15% of the nation's health insurance with legislation is asking to be taken out back and shot, it's why the worst the Republicans will do to Medicare is make ridiculous proposals that they themselves have no intention of passing.
There is no enforcement mechanism in the ACA. If you can afford to purchase health care and you choose not to nothing happens. The free rider problem is not solved.
Additional changes have been made to the ACA since it's inception. It's getting nickeled and dimed out of funding to deal with the imaginary problem of deficits.
quite possibly I am being cynical. I know from personal experience it doesn't solve the health care crisis today. I think there's evidence to say it wont solve it tomorrow or in 2014. Nothing I see anywhere seems to solve the problem of stratification of society in the US. In the real middle class getting hemed in on every front. There appears to be slightly more there there in the bones the middle class gets thrown from the democrats than the republicans. While Reagen era policies are seen as ridiculously left wing. There's no meaningful reform or oversight of hugely risky financial markets, there's absolutely well document different systems of treatment between the very rich and the middle class, and shallow CBO scored nearly meaningless reform is seen as sage steps in the right direction by the vast majority of the members of this board. Meanwhile it's now okay to assassinate US citizens abroad, possibly at home too, and unemployment is functionally 16%. But the ACA somehow makes it all worth it.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
ACA > blood in the water.
See, my formulation is more equal justice under the law > ACA
But I've been waging that battle unsuccessfully on this forum since it became obvious Obama was going to win.
See, I think me getting medical coverage under my dad's insurance program and thus not dying last year is more important than some guy potentially getting tortured at Gitmo.
I don't agree but I understand. Were I in your position I'd feel the same way.
And see, here's the thing. It's not just my position that influenced my decision. It's the fact that ACA demonstrably saves lives. Pursuing, arresting, and convicting a handful of people with what amount to basically gross misconduct of official duties doesn't even begin to come close to weighing the scale evenly in terms of human capital preserved. They're not even in the same ballpark.
One is kind of a victory for principles, the other is literally a victory for the continued well-being of millions of people. It utilitarian terms, ACA wins. By a fucking landslide.
I'm glad you're alive.
What if instead of being able to buy insurance, which is what ACA does, you could just afford to pay for health care?
I pay for healthcare by buying insurance.
No one pays for health care, it's too expensive. You pay an insurance premium based on an actuarial projection of risk and return on investment. Your health care provider give your insurance company a bill. They look at that bill and laugh and use their collective bargaining power it ignore the greater part of the charges. That final number might have been a number you could have afforded to pay in the first place.
You're proposing Universal Healthcare, right? Right now it's a pipe-dream. I'll take what victories I can and hope for more as things progress.
Well what I'd like is universal health care.
What I'd settle for is price reform.
Price reform is everything. Without it Health care still explodes for everyone when the boomers fully retire.
Edit: I'd rather be living than dead too. What ACA does not do
1. Solve Long Term Systemic Problems
2. Help the Under Insured -> this is a big deal, especially since health care costs are so crazy
3. Cover Everyone (Something like 23 million people are still not covered).
4. Anything else. Economic, Foreign Policy, Etc.
ACA didnt save the lives of the 33 million people it allowed to now buy health insurance.
Nor does it any way change the way health care providers from being required to cover the uninsured.
I think everyone here would have loved more cost reforms. But cost reform before coverage reform simply can not work. The reason healthcare is so costly is because they have to distribute the costs of caring for the uninsured to everyone else. You will bankrupt the healthcare provider industry if you both mandate that they lower costs and cover the uninsured.
So instead, the first step is to mandate coverage. And once everyone (for all intents and purposes) is covered, you remove the the largest reason for the exorbitant pricing. And at that point you can go after cost reforms.
Incremental reform is the absolute best we can hope for. In a perfect world, we would have had single-payer a long time ago. But this isn't a perfect world, so you have to take what you can get so that the next time reform is tried it has a new and better starting point. That's just how things work. And abiding by reality isn't a failure or weakness.
More Goose from the Goose.
There will be no second step. This year they've already cut out long term cost reducing pilots programs from the ACA to help cover meaning less deficits.
You're absolutely out of touch with reality.
"Mandating people buy insurance to fix the health care crisis is like Mandating people buy houses to fix the problem of homelessness" -Barack Obama 2008.
There are a number of factors which lead to crazy health care prices and bad health care outcomes in the health care system. Covering 59% of the uninsured does not address them. The last time there was health care reform was 1974. In 36 years there wont be a health care crisis in America because the boomers will have destroyed the industry and then mercifully died, along with Medicare and social security.
I just came really fucking close to getting myself banned (or at least jailed) with this response, but luckily came to my senses and decided you weren't worth it. You finally made a fucking post without being a giant fucking troll. I took the opportunity to try to have a reasonable discussion with you. And you respond by being a giant fucking troll again. I'm done with you. If all you want to do is bitch and moan about how tribal we are or how we're nothing but an echo chamber, I hope you enjoy yourself. Just know that there are plenty of dissenting voices around here that get treated with respect because they aren't dismissive, condescending assholes. Their opinions are welcome around here. I almost feel pity for you knowing that you'll never be looked at the same way.
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
The North Korea thing is interesting, but I think it tells us more about Kim Jong Un than it does about Obama. Obama has been trying to do this for years, but Kim Jong Il was never in a position, due to his junta, to accommodate , even if he wanted to. Kim Jong Un is in a much different position. He can sort of "wipe the slate clean" if you will, and open North Korea up a little bit. In some ways, I always sort of thought this is what would happen when he took over. I mean, it's not going to be a democracy any time soon, but I think you will find Kim Jong Un quite a bit more accommodating than his father.
The North Korea thing is interesting, but I think it tells us more about Kim Jong Un than it does about Obama. Obama has been trying to do this for years, but Kim Jong Il was never in a position, due to his junta, to accommodate , even if he wanted to. Kim Jong Un is in a much different position. He can sort of "wipe the slate clean" if you will, and open North Korea up a little bit. In some ways, I always sort of thought this is what would happen when he took over. I mean, it's not going to be a democracy any time soon, but I think you will find Kim Jong Un quite a bit more accommodating than his father.
Well, it's always good to be the dictator but I'd much rather be a dictator in economically growing China than in horrifying North Korea. Turning North Korea into China means being the dictator is that much nicer.
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
The North Korea thing is interesting, but I think it tells us more about Kim Jong Un than it does about Obama. Obama has been trying to do this for years, but Kim Jong Il was never in a position, due to his junta, to accommodate , even if he wanted to. Kim Jong Un is in a much different position. He can sort of "wipe the slate clean" if you will, and open North Korea up a little bit. In some ways, I always sort of thought this is what would happen when he took over. I mean, it's not going to be a democracy any time soon, but I think you will find Kim Jong Un quite a bit more accommodating than his father.
Well, it's always good to be the dictator but I'd much rather be a dictator in economically growing China than in horrifying North Korea. Turning North Korea into China means being the dictator is that much nicer.
Right, which I think is Kim Jong Un's plan. He just knows he has to do it slowly, or the old guard of the junta will freak out. Honestly, I think he's waiting for that old guard to start dying off. Most of them are the age of his father, and won't be around much longer. Then he gets to start appointing his own military council.
"im currently paying about 50% of my income to student loans... now its gonna be 10% and the remainder after 20 years will be forgiven."
That's a pretty big change for a lot of people. Go obama!
I've been kind of curious about the student loan thing. I maintained a full-time job to keep up with debt while in school, so I have a severe lack of knowledge of how student loans and financial aid actually works, but is the amount paid per month always based on a certain percentage of income, and does the reduction apply to everyone carrying student loan debt?
This is another fuck you to the middle class.
Are you able to pay of your student loans in less than 10 years?
Then Fuck You pay bitch.
Are you not able to pay off your student loans in 10 years?
Well pay what you can then we'll forgive the rest.
Since when can people in the middle class pay off student loans in less than 10 years? Either you're making a lot of money, in which case hell upper class, or you didn't have that much debt to begin with, so stop complaining.
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
ACA > blood in the water.
See, my formulation is more equal justice under the law > ACA
But I've been waging that battle unsuccessfully on this forum since it became obvious Obama was going to win.
See, I think me getting medical coverage under my dad's insurance program and thus not dying last year is more important than some guy potentially getting tortured at Gitmo.
I don't agree but I understand. Were I in your position I'd feel the same way.
And see, here's the thing. It's not just my position that influenced my decision. It's the fact that ACA demonstrably saves lives. Pursuing, arresting, and convicting a handful of people with what amount to basically gross misconduct of official duties doesn't even begin to come close to weighing the scale evenly in terms of human capital preserved. They're not even in the same ballpark.
One is kind of a victory for principles, the other is literally a victory for the continued well-being of millions of people. It utilitarian terms, ACA wins. By a fucking landslide.
I'm glad you're alive.
What if instead of being able to buy insurance, which is what ACA does, you could just afford to pay for health care?
I pay for healthcare by buying insurance.
No one pays for health care, it's too expensive. You pay an insurance premium based on an actuarial projection of risk and return on investment. Your health care provider give your insurance company a bill. They look at that bill and laugh and use their collective bargaining power it ignore the greater part of the charges. That final number might have been a number you could have afforded to pay in the first place.
You're proposing Universal Healthcare, right? Right now it's a pipe-dream. I'll take what victories I can and hope for more as things progress.
Well what I'd like is universal health care.
What I'd settle for is price reform.
Price reform is everything. Without it Health care still explodes for everyone when the boomers fully retire.
Edit: I'd rather be living than dead too. What ACA does not do
1. Solve Long Term Systemic Problems
2. Help the Under Insured -> this is a big deal, especially since health care costs are so crazy
3. Cover Everyone (Something like 23 million people are still not covered).
4. Anything else. Economic, Foreign Policy, Etc.
ACA didnt save the lives of the 33 million people it allowed to now buy health insurance.
Nor does it any way change the way health care providers from being required to cover the uninsured.
I think everyone here would have loved more cost reforms. But cost reform before coverage reform simply can not work. The reason healthcare is so costly is because they have to distribute the costs of caring for the uninsured to everyone else. You will bankrupt the healthcare provider industry if you both mandate that they lower costs and cover the uninsured.
So instead, the first step is to mandate coverage. And once everyone (for all intents and purposes) is covered, you remove the the largest reason for the exorbitant pricing. And at that point you can go after cost reforms.
Incremental reform is the absolute best we can hope for. In a perfect world, we would have had single-payer a long time ago. But this isn't a perfect world, so you have to take what you can get so that the next time reform is tried it has a new and better starting point. That's just how things work. And abiding by reality isn't a failure or weakness.
More Goose from the Goose.
There will be no second step. This year they've already cut out long term cost reducing pilots programs from the ACA to help cover meaning less deficits.
You're absolutely out of touch with reality.
"Mandating people buy insurance to fix the health care crisis is like Mandating people buy houses to fix the problem of homelessness" -Barack Obama 2008.
There are a number of factors which lead to crazy health care prices and bad health care outcomes in the health care system. Covering 59% of the uninsured does not address them. The last time there was health care reform was 1974. In 36 years there wont be a health care crisis in America because the boomers will have destroyed the industry and then mercifully died, along with Medicare and social security.
I just came really fucking close to getting myself banned (or at least jailed) with this response, but luckily came to my senses and decided you weren't worth it. You finally made a fucking post without being a giant fucking troll. I took the opportunity to try to have a reasonable discussion with you. And you respond by being a giant fucking troll again. I'm done with you. If all you want to do is bitch and moan about how tribal we are or how we're nothing but an echo chamber, I hope you enjoy yourself. Just know that there are plenty of dissenting voices around here that get treated with respect because they aren't dismissive, condescending assholes. Their opinions are welcome around here. I almost feel pity for you knowing that you'll never be looked at the same way.
Goose is as Goose Does you goose. I mention tribalism not once. In the post you quote but you cant really see that. You are the cancer.
You're what's wrong with the political discourse in the US. You're why Obama gets a pass on being 97% Bush. Because he's so much better than the alternative.
Meanwhile in the real world Functional unemployment is 16% and any chance of changing that wasnt even proposed. All the wise old white guys got together and decided it would make more sense to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 and cut primary education to 3 days a week. A proposal supported by Democrats to deal with the deficit, which is an imaginary problem. A problem the President has defended as real an important.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
"im currently paying about 50% of my income to student loans... now its gonna be 10% and the remainder after 20 years will be forgiven."
That's a pretty big change for a lot of people. Go obama!
I've been kind of curious about the student loan thing. I maintained a full-time job to keep up with debt while in school, so I have a severe lack of knowledge of how student loans and financial aid actually works, but is the amount paid per month always based on a certain percentage of income, and does the reduction apply to everyone carrying student loan debt?
This is another fuck you to the middle class.
Are you able to pay of your student loans in less than 10 years?
Then Fuck You pay bitch.
Are you not able to pay off your student loans in 10 years?
Well pay what you can then we'll forgive the rest.
Since when can people in the middle class pay off student loans in less than 10 years? Either you're making a lot of money, in which case hell upper class, or you didn't have that much debt to begin with, so stop complaining.
That's nonsensical. Someone making 60K a year is both staunchly middle class and also able to pay off stundent debt in less than 10 years. Someone who spent EDIT 6 figures on an english lit degree not so much.
Edit we do not yet live in a world where people make either 30k or 6 figures.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
"im currently paying about 50% of my income to student loans... now its gonna be 10% and the remainder after 20 years will be forgiven."
That's a pretty big change for a lot of people. Go obama!
I've been kind of curious about the student loan thing. I maintained a full-time job to keep up with debt while in school, so I have a severe lack of knowledge of how student loans and financial aid actually works, but is the amount paid per month always based on a certain percentage of income, and does the reduction apply to everyone carrying student loan debt?
This is another fuck you to the middle class.
Are you able to pay of your student loans in less than 10 years?
Then Fuck You pay bitch.
Are you not able to pay off your student loans in 10 years?
Well pay what you can then we'll forgive the rest.
Since when can people in the middle class pay off student loans in less than 10 years? Either you're making a lot of money, in which case hell upper class, or you didn't have that much debt to begin with, so stop complaining.
That's non-nonsensical. Someone making 60K a year is both staunchly middle class and also able to pay off stundent debt in less than 10 years. Someone who spent 7 figures on an english lit degree not so much.
Seven figures? Seven figures... that's a million dollars. What is wrong with your brain?
Also, degree names don't matter. Someone with an English degree is just as employable as some moron with a Business Management degree.
It's almost like employment is a much more complicated issue than what you're making it out to be.
"im currently paying about 50% of my income to student loans... now its gonna be 10% and the remainder after 20 years will be forgiven."
That's a pretty big change for a lot of people. Go obama!
I've been kind of curious about the student loan thing. I maintained a full-time job to keep up with debt while in school, so I have a severe lack of knowledge of how student loans and financial aid actually works, but is the amount paid per month always based on a certain percentage of income, and does the reduction apply to everyone carrying student loan debt?
This is another fuck you to the middle class.
Are you able to pay of your student loans in less than 10 years?
Then Fuck You pay bitch.
Are you not able to pay off your student loans in 10 years?
Well pay what you can then we'll forgive the rest.
Since when can people in the middle class pay off student loans in less than 10 years? Either you're making a lot of money, in which case hell upper class, or you didn't have that much debt to begin with, so stop complaining.
That's non-nonsensical. Someone making 60K a year is both staunchly middle class and also able to pay off stundent debt in less than 10 years. Someone who spent 7 figures on an english lit degree not so much.
Seven figures? Seven figures... that's a million dollars. What is wrong with your brain?
Also, degree names don't matter. Someone with an English degree is just as employable as some moron with a Business Management degree.
It's almost like employment is a much more complicated issue than what you're making it out to be.
You're right I meant 6 figures, and they're not. More specifically what you get your degree in matters, and so does how much you spent on it.
Get your degree in accounting, drafting, biology, geology, cartography, engineer or even buisness and there's some assurance that you know how to do something (even if it's just write an email in memo form). Get an additional certificate of some specialty and more the better. Get a degree in English, History or Psychology? Well you can always work on a masters... but what those degrees used to garuntee you a future in was teaching, teachers haven't been doing so well with the emphasis on "cutting public spending and the deficit"
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
North Korea also has a habit of taking aid in exchange for broken promises. I'm very cautiously optimistic about this development.
Me too.
I always got the impression that the Junta would be the more reasonable part of North Korea's government and that it was KJI who was holding everything back.
I guess I just have a hard time taking Chubbs seriously.
"im currently paying about 50% of my income to student loans... now its gonna be 10% and the remainder after 20 years will be forgiven."
That's a pretty big change for a lot of people. Go obama!
I've been kind of curious about the student loan thing. I maintained a full-time job to keep up with debt while in school, so I have a severe lack of knowledge of how student loans and financial aid actually works, but is the amount paid per month always based on a certain percentage of income, and does the reduction apply to everyone carrying student loan debt?
This is another fuck you to the middle class.
Are you able to pay of your student loans in less than 10 years?
Then Fuck You pay bitch.
Are you not able to pay off your student loans in 10 years?
Well pay what you can then we'll forgive the rest.
Since when can people in the middle class pay off student loans in less than 10 years? Either you're making a lot of money, in which case hell upper class, or you didn't have that much debt to begin with, so stop complaining.
That's nonsensical. Someone making 60K a year is both staunchly middle class and also able to pay off stundent debt in less than 10 years. Someone who spent 7 figures on an english lit degree not so much.
Edit we do not yet live in a world where people make either 30k or 6 figures.
60k is roughly twice the median single-earner income. An individual making 60k is in the 82nd percentile of wage earners in the United States. Source.
Posts
Yeah, there's the whole "actionable threat" thing. Remember how Bush sent fighters to shoot down civilian planes full of American because the planes represented both an intent and capability to take a large number of lives? That's how this shit has always worked because anything else is stupid.
The ACA includes cost effectiveness boards. This is a fact. You can bitch and moan about how "tribal" this forum is all bay, but the IPAB will still exist.
I posted a list of cost control provisions earlier in this very thread. . .
Edit: I don't understand why people are so down on the ACA here. There are a number of provisions of the bill designed to reduce costs. For example:
1. Accountable Care Organizations - by coordinating care across providers, duplicative treatment and testing should be reduced.
2. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute - by studying patient outcomes from different treatments, we should get better information one what treatments are and are not cost effective. There are also other research committees established to evaluate the effectiveness of different forms of care. Even though none of their reccomentations are binding, the research will hopefully influence what insurers will cover.
3. The individual mandate will bring a lot more good risk into insurer risk pools, allowing for the creation of functional individual and small group insurance markets.
4. Medical loss ratios literally impose caps on profit percentages for insurers.
5. The anti-discrimination rules and cadillac tax should both make it harder for insurers to market "platinum" plans that provide very high levels of benefits to select individuals.
I understand that these and the other provisions of the ACA are aimed at insurers, not providers, but if you change the amount that insurers will pay to providers, you will influence what kinds of care providers actually provide. It isn't perfect, but it also isn't nothing.
Of course, if it turns out that the logs indicate self-destructive tendencies rather than gender dysmorphia (or whatever the term is), it would explain why he was placed under the conditions he was. Hell, pointing out that you can kill yourself with your boxers to the people payed to make sure you don't kill yourself when you don't want your boxers taken away is a pretty good sign that you hate yourself.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Yes, essentially.
It's bizarre because it actually plays a huge role in how he got caught, if I'm remembering correctly.
I think everyone here would have loved more cost reforms. But cost reform before coverage reform simply can not work. The reason healthcare is so costly is because they have to distribute the costs of caring for the uninsured to everyone else. You will bankrupt the healthcare provider industry if you both mandate that they lower costs and cover the uninsured.
So instead, the first step is to mandate coverage. And once everyone (for all intents and purposes) is covered, you remove the the largest reason for the exorbitant pricing. And at that point you can go after cost reforms.
Incremental reform is the absolute best we can hope for. In a perfect world, we would have had single-payer a long time ago. But this isn't a perfect world, so you have to take what you can get so that the next time reform is tried it has a new and better starting point. That's just how things work. And abiding by reality isn't a failure or weakness.
"im currently paying about 50% of my income to student loans... now its gonna be 10% and the remainder after 20 years will be forgiven."
That's a pretty big change for a lot of people. Go obama!
I've been kind of curious about the student loan thing. I maintained a full-time job to keep up with debt while in school, so I have a severe lack of knowledge of how student loans and financial aid actually works, but is the amount paid per month always based on a certain percentage of income, and does the reduction apply to everyone carrying student loan debt?
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Diplomacy skillcheck: critical success!
Who could have possibly guessed that someone with gender dysphoria who's been locked in solitary confinement in their underwear for the better part of a year could develop self-destructive tendencies?
Wait did obama implement some kind of % based income thing for student loans?
Because that would be great, I have a lot of fresh grad friends making $8 an hour
I've not seen any analysis that says ACA will do anything except marginally effect prices. CBO analysis says it will make health care expenditures go up in the next 10 years. The crisis in health care is one of price increasing exponentially.
1. Does not effect the price of services.
2. This assumes the practices will have a positive effect (and they may) but the jury is still out and then that private insurers will follow these practices with a negative incentive to do so.
3. Only if it does. There is no enforcement mechanism. Also this changes the uninsured in best case estimates from 55 million to 23 million, so it does not solve the free rider problem.
4. But since those caps are based on made up numbers i.e. health care prices and not health care costs the effect is meaningless.
5. So?
The ACA does either zero or next to nothing (and overall decrease in the increase of 10% to 20% of health care prices over 10 years wo hoo).
The benefit of the ACA is the insurance companies cant fuck you out of your insurance by citing a pre-existing condition to deny care.
But this is the same thing as taking on extra weight on a sinking ship.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Well, it's mostly that no other President was President when Kim Jong Il died. Granted a lot of things could have easily gone wrong and squandered the opportunity so I'm not trying to downplay it, but having a new guy wielding the other saber does make a pretty big difference too.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
This is another fuck you to the middle class.
Are you able to pay of your student loans in less than 10 years?
Then Fuck You pay bitch.
Are you not able to pay off your student loans in 10 years?
Well pay what you can then we'll forgive the rest.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
am I blind or something I can't find what anybody is talking about
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
I guess it depends on whether both cases are paying the same amount for those ten years.
If I get a better job than someone else who carries the same amount of debt that allows me to pay off my debt within the ten year period, how is that a 'fuck you' to me when the other guy who couldn't afford it has his debt forgiven? Should college really be some kind of eternal albatross for the underemployed?
More Goose from the Goose.
There will be no second step. This year they've already cut out long term cost reducing pilots programs from the ACA to help cover meaning less deficits.
You're absolutely out of touch with reality.
"Mandating people buy insurance to fix the health care crisis is like Mandating people buy houses to fix the problem of homelessness" -Barack Obama 2008.
There are a number of factors which lead to crazy health care prices and bad health care outcomes in the health care system. Covering 59% of the uninsured does not address them. The last time there was health care reform was 1974. In 36 years there wont be a health care crisis in America because the boomers will have destroyed the industry and then mercifully died, along with Medicare and social security.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
You're disdaining a fairly significant decline in the trend line. That makes me question your judgement here. And speaking as someone who has been denied insurance on the basis of pre-existing conditions, I'd say that it is much more significant than 'taking on extra weight on a sinking ship' to those individuals who are affected. Good policy is important in the abstract, but only because good policy has concrete impact on people's lives. Making progress, however incremental, towards improving that impact is a rather wonderful occurrence. It is also how everything happens in governance. As a somewhat related aside, have you ever read the original Social Security Act?
Except if you can't afford healthcare you get a subsidy
For example if the ACA went into full effect right now I would spend precisely zero dollars and be insured. I think you're a bit overly cynical, as if you look at the history of both Social Security and Medicare you'll see similar things. Both programs struggled early on, but once people actually start benefiting from them they become unrepealable.
If the ACA is still around and starts up in 2014, it will be impossible to repeal. Any political party that decides to take away 15% of the nation's health insurance with legislation is asking to be taken out back and shot, it's why the worst the Republicans will do to Medicare is make ridiculous proposals that they themselves have no intention of passing.
The trend line is colored by an enormously depressed economy.
There is no enforcement mechanism in the ACA. If you can afford to purchase health care and you choose not to nothing happens. The free rider problem is not solved.
Additional changes have been made to the ACA since it's inception. It's getting nickeled and dimed out of funding to deal with the imaginary problem of deficits.
quite possibly I am being cynical. I know from personal experience it doesn't solve the health care crisis today. I think there's evidence to say it wont solve it tomorrow or in 2014. Nothing I see anywhere seems to solve the problem of stratification of society in the US. In the real middle class getting hemed in on every front. There appears to be slightly more there there in the bones the middle class gets thrown from the democrats than the republicans. While Reagen era policies are seen as ridiculously left wing. There's no meaningful reform or oversight of hugely risky financial markets, there's absolutely well document different systems of treatment between the very rich and the middle class, and shallow CBO scored nearly meaningless reform is seen as sage steps in the right direction by the vast majority of the members of this board. Meanwhile it's now okay to assassinate US citizens abroad, possibly at home too, and unemployment is functionally 16%. But the ACA somehow makes it all worth it.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
I just came really fucking close to getting myself banned (or at least jailed) with this response, but luckily came to my senses and decided you weren't worth it. You finally made a fucking post without being a giant fucking troll. I took the opportunity to try to have a reasonable discussion with you. And you respond by being a giant fucking troll again. I'm done with you. If all you want to do is bitch and moan about how tribal we are or how we're nothing but an echo chamber, I hope you enjoy yourself. Just know that there are plenty of dissenting voices around here that get treated with respect because they aren't dismissive, condescending assholes. Their opinions are welcome around here. I almost feel pity for you knowing that you'll never be looked at the same way.
Well, it's always good to be the dictator but I'd much rather be a dictator in economically growing China than in horrifying North Korea. Turning North Korea into China means being the dictator is that much nicer.
Right, which I think is Kim Jong Un's plan. He just knows he has to do it slowly, or the old guard of the junta will freak out. Honestly, I think he's waiting for that old guard to start dying off. Most of them are the age of his father, and won't be around much longer. Then he gets to start appointing his own military council.
Goose is as Goose Does you goose. I mention tribalism not once. In the post you quote but you cant really see that. You are the cancer.
You're what's wrong with the political discourse in the US. You're why Obama gets a pass on being 97% Bush. Because he's so much better than the alternative.
Meanwhile in the real world Functional unemployment is 16% and any chance of changing that wasnt even proposed. All the wise old white guys got together and decided it would make more sense to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 and cut primary education to 3 days a week. A proposal supported by Democrats to deal with the deficit, which is an imaginary problem. A problem the President has defended as real an important.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
That's nonsensical. Someone making 60K a year is both staunchly middle class and also able to pay off stundent debt in less than 10 years. Someone who spent EDIT 6 figures on an english lit degree not so much.
Edit we do not yet live in a world where people make either 30k or 6 figures.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Seven figures? Seven figures... that's a million dollars. What is wrong with your brain?
Also, degree names don't matter. Someone with an English degree is just as employable as some moron with a Business Management degree.
It's almost like employment is a much more complicated issue than what you're making it out to be.
Stop getting so pissed
You're right I meant 6 figures, and they're not. More specifically what you get your degree in matters, and so does how much you spent on it.
Get your degree in accounting, drafting, biology, geology, cartography, engineer or even buisness and there's some assurance that you know how to do something (even if it's just write an email in memo form). Get an additional certificate of some specialty and more the better. Get a degree in English, History or Psychology? Well you can always work on a masters... but what those degrees used to garuntee you a future in was teaching, teachers haven't been doing so well with the emphasis on "cutting public spending and the deficit"
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Me too.
I always got the impression that the Junta would be the more reasonable part of North Korea's government and that it was KJI who was holding everything back.
I guess I just have a hard time taking Chubbs seriously.
60k is roughly twice the median single-earner income. An individual making 60k is in the 82nd percentile of wage earners in the United States. Source.