Given that one of Kerry's biggest mistakes was not fighting anything until it was way too late, and Dean definitely wouldn't have done that, I agree with Hachface.
A Dean that was good enough to win the primary in 2004 likely would have won the general after that. Unfortunately while he had some fantastic ideas that were years ahead of their time and he was the first guy in forever to run unabashedly as a Democratic candidate, he just didn't have the fundamentals down well enough to do the job.
A Dean that was good enough to win the primary in 2004 likely would have won the general after that. Unfortunately while he had some fantastic ideas that were years ahead of their time and he was the first guy in forever to run unabashedly as a Democratic candidate, he just didn't have the fundamentals down well enough to do the job.
Up until the scream (which was meaningless really; he didn't lose because of that) he ran a damn good campaign. He got screwed by Gephardt flaming out and his voters going to Kerry and Edwards.
I'm just not entirely sure that in 2004 America would have elected a short Democrat to be its President.
A Dean that was good enough to win the primary in 2004 likely would have won the general after that. Unfortunately while he had some fantastic ideas that were years ahead of their time and he was the first guy in forever to run unabashedly as a Democratic candidate, he just didn't have the fundamentals down well enough to do the job.
Up until the scream (which was meaningless really; he didn't lose because of that) he ran a damn good campaign. He got screwed by Gephardt flaming out and his voters going to Kerry and Edwards.
I'm just not entirely sure that in 2004 America would have elected a short Democrat to be its President.
Healthcare people, healthcare!
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So this stuff is pretty confusing, to be honest. What exactly are we getting with a "public option?" Is this going to be similar to England's or Canada's system? Or is it just cheaper insurance?
So this stuff is pretty confusing, to be honest. What exactly are we getting with a "public option?" Is this going to be similar to England's or Canada's system? Or is it just cheaper insurance?
So this stuff is pretty confusing, to be honest. What exactly are we getting with a "public option?" Is this going to be similar to England's or Canada's system? Or is it just cheaper insurance?
The details are still being hashed out, but likely the closest description it will match will be an insurance company run by the Federal government, or possibly at the strongest a new form of Medicare open to more of the population that is paid for through premiums.
It's main purpose is to provide a baseline of competition with private insurers that does not need to worry about the same sort of business concerns such as profits.
So this stuff is pretty confusing, to be honest. What exactly are we getting with a "public option?" Is this going to be similar to England's or Canada's system? Or is it just cheaper insurance?
medicare for all
if only
in this whole debacle dean is the only guy i would write love letters to
well also feingold and kucinich but that's just on general principle
So this stuff is pretty confusing, to be honest. What exactly are we getting with a "public option?" Is this going to be similar to England's or Canada's system? Or is it just cheaper insurance?
The details are still being hashed out, but likely the closest description it will match will be an insurance company run by the Federal government, or possibly at the strongest a new form of Medicare open to more of the population that is paid for through premiums.
It's main purpose is to provide a baseline of competition with private insurers that does not need to worry about the same sort of business concerns such as profits.
The lowest level of implementation of the Public Option, which Obama called for, was that it be available to people who still can't afford regular private insurance. There's people pushing for another form that takes it a step further and just have it be available to all, which would actually make it competitive against private companies (though still not operating for profit).
Henroid on
0
Options
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
i love the idea of the insurance companies losing their antitrust exemption, npr had a particularly nice explanation of it as i didnt really understand it until today. Bonus because you could hear the snark in the reporter basically shouting "hell yes." (donate to npr :P)
I love the removal of the anti-trust exemption too, but I don't quite understand how it fits into the reform exactly. Not in terms of costs and lowering them and such. I mostly love it because it's a kick to the nuts to the assholes who abuse the system as it stands, and if anyone knows me I'm all for dicking over the abusive rich.
Removing the exemption allows us to break up the monopolies producing more insurance companies thus more competition and lower pricing. At least that is the idea, also it is a kick in the balls to assholes who run these things.
Its my guess that this hasnt come up yet because up until lately the insurance companies were not choosing sides. Now that they have they got bitchslapped, which is awesome.
So reading about rape as a pre-existing condition, I'm starting to have sympathy for Rust's arrest and murder all the insurance executives position.
Now, to be fair, this is just an extension of their position on how violence against women is a pre-existing condition. You can't blame them for being consistent.
werehippy on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
So reading about rape as a pre-existing condition, I'm starting to have sympathy for Rust's arrest and murder all the insurance executives position.
Now, to be fair, this is just an extension of their position on how violence against women is a pre-existing condition. You can't blame them for being consistent.
Werehippy I want to bludgeon you after reading that even though I know you're not being serious.
So reading about rape as a pre-existing condition, I'm starting to have sympathy for Rust's arrest and murder all the insurance executives position.
Now, to be fair, this is just an extension of their position on how violence against women is a pre-existing condition. You can't blame them for being consistent.
It's really more "having a vagina" is a pre-existing condition.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I wonder how the mechanics of the public option would work. Would it be like doing taxes - you just download and print off a form from a .gov website and send it in to... well, that's my question. Supposing the public option gets into the final final version, and everything passes, do we have to wait for a new government agency to be planned, built, staffed, trained, etc?
i love the idea of the insurance companies losing their antitrust exemption, npr had a particularly nice explanation of it as i didnt really understand it until today. Bonus because you could hear the snark in the reporter basically shouting "hell yes." (donate to npr :P)
I love the removal of the anti-trust exemption too, but I don't quite understand how it fits into the reform exactly. Not in terms of costs and lowering them and such. I mostly love it because it's a kick to the nuts to the assholes who abuse the system as it stands, and if anyone knows me I'm all for dicking over the abusive rich.
Removing the exemption allows us to break up the monopolies producing more insurance companies thus more competition and lower pricing. At least that is the idea, also it is a kick in the balls to assholes who run these things.
The more they break up the insurance market, the more expensive it generally is. The larger the risk pool, the lower the premiums.
Speaking of Insurance Industry Reform, has anyone even floated by the idea of removing the legislation that blocks people from being able to sue their employer provided healthcare insurance providers for negligence / malfeasance / liability issues from denying care etc?
Gnome-Interruptus on
MWO: Adamski
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
So reading about rape as a pre-existing condition, I'm starting to have sympathy for Rust's arrest and murder all the insurance executives position.
Now, to be fair, this is just an extension of their position on how violence against women is a pre-existing condition. You can't blame them for being consistent.
Werehippy I want to bludgeon you after reading that even though I know you're not being serious.
Just playing the Devil's advocate here:
Say a woman tries to get insurance, and the underwriters discover that she's been in prolonged physically abusive relationship with subsequent trips to the ER for physical trauma.
Now, given that insurance is basically risk-pooling, is it not fair to deny coverage based on a risky lifestyle choice?
Being glib, how is it all that different than denying lion-related injury claims to a lion tamer? I'm not at all suggesting that rape shouldn't be covered, but I might be suggesting that a woman who stays in an abusive relationship with her rapist could conceivably be deemed too risk-prone to cover.
Dean has been pretty good to the Democratic party, his organising and fundraising helped turn things around. Maybe he can bring some of skill to this bill. I think several Blue Dogs owe him for their seats.
However... Hands down the worst mistake the democratic party has made in the last 20 years, was to nominate Lieberman for VP. It raised his profile, so that when he does his DINO act it gets serious airtime. I doubt he is/ever was a democrat. He just registered that way to get elected and stays that way to get the perks of being in the majority party.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Being glib, how is it all that different than denying lion-related injury claims to a lion tamer? I'm not at all suggesting that rape shouldn't be covered, but I might be suggesting that a woman who stays in an abusive relationship with her rapist could conceivably be deemed too risk-prone to cover.
Economically, an insurer has no motive to cover a battered woman, and hence it's no surprise that they wouldn't want to. But that's just another reason to suspect that the private insurance system is the wrong social structure for providing health care.
So reading about rape as a pre-existing condition, I'm starting to have sympathy for Rust's arrest and murder all the insurance executives position.
Now, to be fair, this is just an extension of their position on how violence against women is a pre-existing condition. You can't blame them for being consistent.
Werehippy I want to bludgeon you after reading that even though I know you're not being serious.
Just playing the Devil's advocate here:
Say a woman tries to get insurance, and the underwriters discover that she's been in prolonged physically abusive relationship with subsequent trips to the ER for physical trauma.
Now, given that insurance is basically risk-pooling, is it not fair to deny coverage based on a risky lifestyle choice?
Being glib, how is it all that different than denying lion-related injury claims to a lion tamer? I'm not at all suggesting that rape shouldn't be covered, but I might be suggesting that a woman who stays in an abusive relationship with her rapist could conceivably be deemed too risk-prone to cover.
This is sounding dangerously close to 'she was asking for it.'
Smokers can get health insurance. That's all I have to say to this.
So reading about rape as a pre-existing condition, I'm starting to have sympathy for Rust's arrest and murder all the insurance executives position.
Now, to be fair, this is just an extension of their position on how violence against women is a pre-existing condition. You can't blame them for being consistent.
Werehippy I want to bludgeon you after reading that even though I know you're not being serious.
Just playing the Devil's advocate here:
Say a woman tries to get insurance, and the underwriters discover that she's been in prolonged physically abusive relationship with subsequent trips to the ER for physical trauma.
Now, given that insurance is basically risk-pooling, is it not fair to deny coverage based on a risky lifestyle choice?
Being glib, how is it all that different than denying lion-related injury claims to a lion tamer? I'm not at all suggesting that rape shouldn't be covered, but I might be suggesting that a woman who stays in an abusive relationship with her rapist could conceivably be deemed too risk-prone to cover.
A liontamer sets himself in harms way as part of his job. A more appt comparison would be smoker/drinker, but even that falls short. People know that smoking could be bad for them(if not their doctor should tell them), if they choose to continue then its their own fault.
Abusive relationships however are different. Nobody enters into a relationship expecting to be abused. Abusive people hide their abusive personality and lie about their behavior. You wont find an ad on Craigslist saying: Looking for long term girlfriend for walks on the beach, companionship and occasional physical violence.
In any case its not something one could plan for.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I completely agree, but what I'm wondering aloud is if the condition of continuing a recently abusive relationship shouldn't be considered a risk and pre-existing condition.
Going back to the smoker/drinker metaphor, many insurance plans consider you a non-smoker as long as it's been fifteen years or greater since you quit, and you have a physical assessment asserting a clean bill of lung health. It wouldn't be fair, in this situation, to refuse coverage based on a history of smoking.
Now apply that to domestic abuse. Being newly assaulted, or assaulted fifteen years ago, isn't a chronic condition fit for coverage denial. But say, someone with a handful of moderately recent ER visits for rape and/or abuse, and the patient is still with that abusive partner? I can't exactly blame the insurers for not wanting to cover them. At that point, that patient is like a two pack a day smoker trying to get emphysema coverage.
The cigarettes don't remind her after her beatings that if she ever leaves they will find her and kill her. There's no emotional bond. She doesn't feel she can change them. There's no kids in the picture. Her family isn't pressuring her to try to make it work.
I completely agree, but what I'm wondering aloud is if the condition of continuing a recently abusive relationship shouldn't be considered a risk and pre-existing condition.
Going back to the smoker/drinker metaphor, many insurance plans consider you a non-smoker as long as it's been fifteen years or greater since you quit, and you have a physical assessment asserting a clean bill of lung health. It wouldn't be fair, in this situation, to refuse coverage based on a history of smoking.
Now apply that to domestic abuse. Being newly assaulted, or assaulted fifteen years ago, isn't a chronic condition fit for coverage denial. But say, someone with a handful of moderately recent ER visits for rape and/or abuse, and the patient is still with that abusive partner? I can't exactly blame the insurers for not wanting to cover them. At that point, that patient is like a two pack a day smoker trying to get emphysema coverage.
You can, even though it isnt necessarily good business sense, it is still morally reprehensible. Many other companies take hits to their profit margin to use more recyclable or reusable materials in order to increase market share. Unfortunately due to insurance company collusion you cant shop around and boycott a company due to their practices, because every company has the same guidelines.
All in all, its just further evidence of why Health insurance should be a Non-Profit organization, focusing more on providing a service and not on earning a profit.
Gnome-Interruptus on
MWO: Adamski
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The cigarettes don't remind her after her beatings that if she ever leaves they will find her and kill her. There's no emotional bond. She doesn't feel she can change them. There's no kids in the picture. Her family isn't pressuring her to try to make it work.
Again, I agree. But insurance is a business, and not one (unlike hospitals) that require mandatory access of services.
All in all, its just further evidence of why Health insurance should be a Non-Profit organization, focusing more on providing a service and not on earning a profit.
Eh, that's sounds nice, but very unrealistic. The public option is really the most tenable objective, barring a complete revamping of federal insurance laws. Either of which I would tentatively support.
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
I think we may be fighting for solutions to a problem that barely exists, though. We're not talking about insurers denying wholesale coverage to rape victims, we're talking about insurers denying rape-based coverage to rape victims who have significant histories of at-risk behavior.
Atomic Ross is just using an extend form of sarcasm across several posts. It's like a fine line between devil's advocate, strawman, and humor. He doesn't really believe it.
At least... god I hope he doesn't.
zerg rush on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
So reading about rape as a pre-existing condition, I'm starting to have sympathy for Rust's arrest and murder all the insurance executives position.
Now, to be fair, this is just an extension of their position on how violence against women is a pre-existing condition. You can't blame them for being consistent.
Werehippy I want to bludgeon you after reading that even though I know you're not being serious.
Just playing the Devil's advocate here:
Say a woman tries to get insurance, and the underwriters discover that she's been in prolonged physically abusive relationship with subsequent trips to the ER for physical trauma.
Now, given that insurance is basically risk-pooling, is it not fair to deny coverage based on a risky lifestyle choice?
Being glib, how is it all that different than denying lion-related injury claims to a lion tamer? I'm not at all suggesting that rape shouldn't be covered, but I might be suggesting that a woman who stays in an abusive relationship with her rapist could conceivably be deemed too risk-prone to cover.
There's times where playing Devil's Advocate is healthy for debate and times where you're just going to piss people off.
Abuse isn't a lifestyle choice, it's a situation one ends up in. The last thing these people need is officials of any sort turning them away. That's unacceptable.
Atomic Ross is just using an extend form of sarcasm across several posts. It's like a fine line between devil's advocate, strawman, and humor. He doesn't really believe it.
At least... god I hope he doesn't.
That was pretty quick for this thread to have an instance of Poe's Law.
Savant on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Atomic Ross is just using an extend form of sarcasm across several posts. It's like a fine line between devil's advocate, strawman, and humor. He doesn't really believe it.
At least... god I hope he doesn't.
No, I don't.
But I do think the issue deserves more than a kneejerk, "fucking scumbag insurance company!1!" reaction, and that's why I'm playing this angle. The primary issue at heart here isn't so much that insurers are horrible, horrible people; it's that counting on private insurance to meet everyone's needs is potentially a really bad idea. Because I can rationalize a provider not insuring a rape victim doesn't make me a supporter of sexual crime, but it does put in contrast how poorly this system we currently have is capable of working if a legitimate case can be made to disregard a case of this hypothetical magnitude.
It's like a wierd kind of math, where A + B = "Justifiable atrocity." Instead of getting wound up and wringing our hands over what the equation equals, we need to just throw out the textbooks. A patient's lengthy and continuing history of being a victim of spousal abuse does, in actual fact, show them to be bad for insurance without pre-existing qualifiers. That's not the insurance system's fault, it's our fault for relying on an insurance system that would allow such a thing. It's like getting mad at the laws of gas expansion and velocity when someone gets shot. Our blame here is probably quite misplaced.
Atomika on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Economically, an insurer has no motive to cover a battered woman, and hence it's no surprise that they wouldn't want to. But that's just another reason to suspect that the private insurance system is the wrong social structure for providing health care.
That's me, on the last page, saying it!
MrMister on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I know, I know. But I did have to nip that "hey, lookit! he's a'justifyin' rapery!" bullshit in the bud. All props to you and your firstiness.
Atomika on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
Well, to be fair, I think that you can morally fault business people for pursuing profit in reprehensible ways, but that gets into complicated ethical and policy issues regarding corporate governance. It's also separate from the point that as long as the system is set up as-is, we can reasonably expect people to pursue profit in said reprehensible ways, which is a pretty good argument for not having the system set up as-is.
Posts
I'm just not entirely sure that in 2004 America would have elected a short Democrat to be its President.
Healthcare people, healthcare!
medicare for all
The details are still being hashed out, but likely the closest description it will match will be an insurance company run by the Federal government, or possibly at the strongest a new form of Medicare open to more of the population that is paid for through premiums.
It's main purpose is to provide a baseline of competition with private insurers that does not need to worry about the same sort of business concerns such as profits.
if only
in this whole debacle dean is the only guy i would write love letters to
well also feingold and kucinich but that's just on general principle
The lowest level of implementation of the Public Option, which Obama called for, was that it be available to people who still can't afford regular private insurance. There's people pushing for another form that takes it a step further and just have it be available to all, which would actually make it competitive against private companies (though still not operating for profit).
tastes so good
Now, to be fair, this is just an extension of their position on how violence against women is a pre-existing condition. You can't blame them for being consistent.
Werehippy I want to bludgeon you after reading that even though I know you're not being serious.
It's really more "having a vagina" is a pre-existing condition.
a date that fills you with confidence
No, no, today's outrageous pre-existing condition was a baby that was too skinny. Rape has to wait its turn.
Seriously, it's like they're in some internal competition to see what's the most reprehensible thing they can call a pre-existing condition.
MWO: Adamski
Just playing the Devil's advocate here:
Say a woman tries to get insurance, and the underwriters discover that she's been in prolonged physically abusive relationship with subsequent trips to the ER for physical trauma.
Now, given that insurance is basically risk-pooling, is it not fair to deny coverage based on a risky lifestyle choice?
Being glib, how is it all that different than denying lion-related injury claims to a lion tamer? I'm not at all suggesting that rape shouldn't be covered, but I might be suggesting that a woman who stays in an abusive relationship with her rapist could conceivably be deemed too risk-prone to cover.
However... Hands down the worst mistake the democratic party has made in the last 20 years, was to nominate Lieberman for VP. It raised his profile, so that when he does his DINO act it gets serious airtime. I doubt he is/ever was a democrat. He just registered that way to get elected and stays that way to get the perks of being in the majority party.
Economically, an insurer has no motive to cover a battered woman, and hence it's no surprise that they wouldn't want to. But that's just another reason to suspect that the private insurance system is the wrong social structure for providing health care.
This is sounding dangerously close to 'she was asking for it.'
Smokers can get health insurance. That's all I have to say to this.
A liontamer sets himself in harms way as part of his job. A more appt comparison would be smoker/drinker, but even that falls short. People know that smoking could be bad for them(if not their doctor should tell them), if they choose to continue then its their own fault.
Abusive relationships however are different. Nobody enters into a relationship expecting to be abused. Abusive people hide their abusive personality and lie about their behavior. You wont find an ad on Craigslist saying: Looking for long term girlfriend for walks on the beach, companionship and occasional physical violence.
In any case its not something one could plan for.
I completely agree, but what I'm wondering aloud is if the condition of continuing a recently abusive relationship shouldn't be considered a risk and pre-existing condition.
Going back to the smoker/drinker metaphor, many insurance plans consider you a non-smoker as long as it's been fifteen years or greater since you quit, and you have a physical assessment asserting a clean bill of lung health. It wouldn't be fair, in this situation, to refuse coverage based on a history of smoking.
Now apply that to domestic abuse. Being newly assaulted, or assaulted fifteen years ago, isn't a chronic condition fit for coverage denial. But say, someone with a handful of moderately recent ER visits for rape and/or abuse, and the patient is still with that abusive partner? I can't exactly blame the insurers for not wanting to cover them. At that point, that patient is like a two pack a day smoker trying to get emphysema coverage.
The cigarettes don't remind her after her beatings that if she ever leaves they will find her and kill her. There's no emotional bond. She doesn't feel she can change them. There's no kids in the picture. Her family isn't pressuring her to try to make it work.
You can, even though it isnt necessarily good business sense, it is still morally reprehensible. Many other companies take hits to their profit margin to use more recyclable or reusable materials in order to increase market share. Unfortunately due to insurance company collusion you cant shop around and boycott a company due to their practices, because every company has the same guidelines.
All in all, its just further evidence of why Health insurance should be a Non-Profit organization, focusing more on providing a service and not on earning a profit.
MWO: Adamski
Again, I agree. But insurance is a business, and not one (unlike hospitals) that require mandatory access of services.
Eh, that's sounds nice, but very unrealistic. The public option is really the most tenable objective, barring a complete revamping of federal insurance laws. Either of which I would tentatively support.
"By denying them service because of their abusive relationship, we encourage them to get out of it."
At least... god I hope he doesn't.
There's times where playing Devil's Advocate is healthy for debate and times where you're just going to piss people off.
Abuse isn't a lifestyle choice, it's a situation one ends up in. The last thing these people need is officials of any sort turning them away. That's unacceptable.
That was pretty quick for this thread to have an instance of Poe's Law.
No, I don't.
But I do think the issue deserves more than a kneejerk, "fucking scumbag insurance company!1!" reaction, and that's why I'm playing this angle. The primary issue at heart here isn't so much that insurers are horrible, horrible people; it's that counting on private insurance to meet everyone's needs is potentially a really bad idea. Because I can rationalize a provider not insuring a rape victim doesn't make me a supporter of sexual crime, but it does put in contrast how poorly this system we currently have is capable of working if a legitimate case can be made to disregard a case of this hypothetical magnitude.
It's like a wierd kind of math, where A + B = "Justifiable atrocity." Instead of getting wound up and wringing our hands over what the equation equals, we need to just throw out the textbooks. A patient's lengthy and continuing history of being a victim of spousal abuse does, in actual fact, show them to be bad for insurance without pre-existing qualifiers. That's not the insurance system's fault, it's our fault for relying on an insurance system that would allow such a thing. It's like getting mad at the laws of gas expansion and velocity when someone gets shot. Our blame here is probably quite misplaced.
That's what I said!
That's me, on the last page, saying it!
I know, I know. But I did have to nip that "hey, lookit! he's a'justifyin' rapery!" bullshit in the bud. All props to you and your firstiness.