• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control

Status
Not open for further replies.

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
I saw it earlier today, and knew exactly which part you'd link to. Great speech

"...your speaker from yesterday,
he has a different view,
in his speech he said, that
'when he makes a promise to you he'll keep it'
and he has promised to you
that he'll veto the DREAM act,
and we should take him at his word."


"I'm just sayin'."
 
Democrats taking the lead (albeit a small one) on the generic congressional ballot, by .6 points.

Incidentally, the only two pollsters to show Republicans leading are Gallup (who has a really bizarre GOP bias on this question - in 2010 they had GOP up by 15 when they actually won by 7) and Rasmussen (lol). Filter them out and Dems have over a 4 point lead, which would put the House in play.
 
Democrats taking the lead (albeit a small one) on the generic congressional ballot, by .6 points.

Incidentally, the only two pollsters to show Republicans leading are Gallup (who has a really bizarre GOP bias on this question - in 2010 they had GOP up by 15 when they actually won by 7) and Rasmussen (lol). Filter them out and Dems have over a 4 point lead, which would put the House in play.

Polls don't take gerrymandering and complete republican control of states into regard. Those things should hold the House for republicans, perhaps for four more years
 

Al-ibn Kermit

Junior Member
Polls don't take gerrymandering and complete republican control of states into regard. Those things should hold the House for republicans, perhaps for four more years

But it's also a presidential election, which will affect down ticket voting. I don't think women and minorities will really realize how angry they are with the Republican party until we get closer to the election and those voters realize how the GOP has been riling against their interests for several consecutive months.

There's a reason even independents eventually take a side. Barring economic collapse or war, there's no reason those voters won't just take the lesser devil. Unless your local Republican is much more purple than the national average, I think Romney will negatively affect their chances (though far less than if Newt or Santorum was running against Obama).
 

Diablos

Member
I don't know, I still think Rubio might get picked. I understand the reasoning why he wouldn't, obviously, but I still think Romney would be desperate enough to pick an Hispanic republican for his VP to help secure votes.

Romney*Rubio sure does sound purdy.

But what would he do for the ticket nationally speaking? Really?


Democrats taking the lead (albeit a small one) on the generic congressional ballot, by .6 points.

Incidentally, the only two pollsters to show Republicans leading are Gallup (who has a really bizarre GOP bias on this question - in 2010 they had GOP up by 15 when they actually won by 7) and Rasmussen (lol). Filter them out and Dems have over a 4 point lead, which would put the House in play.
.6 points lol.

I'd be shocked if Dems took it back no matter who wins the election.

As I've been saying since the end of the 2010 elections, best case scenario is Obama re-elected + GOP House and Senate.

A miracle would be Obama re-elected + Dems hold Senate.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
On a scale of 1-10 (10 being the hardest), how hard will it be for Dems to win back the house?
 
I think Romney will pick a female VP. It's the only way to counter the "war on women" rhetoric. They're better off focusing on re-engaging the female block instead of hoping to put on a lame band aid to appease Hispanic voters who are a long-shot anyway. Another white male next to Romney would be the ultimate fail ticket and I just don't see it.
 

codhand

Member
I think Romney will pick a female VP. It's the only way to counter the "war on women" rhetoric. They're better off focusing on re-engaging the female block instead of hoping to put on a lame band aid to appease Hispanic voters who are a long-shot anyway. Another white male next to Romney would be the ultimate fail ticket and I just don't see it.

Portman, Portman, Portman.

These other vetting leaks are just to get the red blood flowing.
 

Shirokun

Member

Great speech. It's good to see Obama showing a bit of bite again. Out of curiosity, I decided to watch Romney's NALEO speech. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt because I've never seen a Romney speech before, but holy shit does this guy fail to inspire anyone.

I know it's just a speech, but man, if this is the best he can do with something prepared and rehearsed, how the hell does he stand any chance against Obama in the debates?
 

markatisu

Member
I think Romney will pick a female VP. It's the only way to counter the "war on women" rhetoric. They're better off focusing on re-engaging the female block instead of hoping to put on a lame band aid to appease Hispanic voters who are a long-shot anyway. Another white male next to Romney would be the ultimate fail ticket and I just don't see it.

And how did Sarah Palin work out for them in 2008? Just like how Rubio won't suddenly bring in all Hispanics, a female VP would not bring in all the women

There are fundamental issues on the GOP Platform that keep women away, its not just a Romney problem
 
picking a female and/or hispanic VP to counter weakness with latino/female voters would only really serve to put more spotlight on those issues, which he very much does not want.
 

Chumly

Member
And how did Sarah Palin work out for them in 2008? Just like how Rubio won't suddenly bring in all Hispanics, a female VP would not bring in all the women

There are fundamental issues on the GOP Platform that keep women away, its not just a Romney problem
Exactly it's like saying hermain Cain would magically get 40% of the black vote if he was vp. Not enough lols for that. Until the GOP stops treating minorities and women like crap (and in turn forcing Romney to do the same) they won't get anywhere
 
New York Times article on medical billing and insurance:

Getting Lost in the Labyrinth of Medical Bills
By Tara Siegel Bernard

Ask Jean Poole, a medical billing advocate, about her work helping people navigate the bewildering world of medical bills and insurance claims, and the stories pour out. There’s the client who was billed almost $11,000 for an 11-minute hand surgery. The cancer patient who was charged $9,550.40 for a round of chemotherapy he never received.

And then, there’s the tale of the woman who came to Ms. Poole with a large rolling suitcase stuffed with bills for her 68-year-old husband, who had gone to the emergency room after he fell getting out of bed. The hospital’s doctors discovered a series of problems — kidney failure, blood and urinary tract infections, and a blood clot. Ultimately, he ended up staying in the hospital for two months and being transferred to a nursing home for rehabilitation.

Though the couple had two insurance policies — one through Medicare and a secondary policy at Blue Cross Blue Shield — they still received more than $25,000 in medical bills and another $65,000 from the nursing home. And some of them threatened collections if they weren’t paid within days.

“Most people have a false sense of security if they have two insurances like this,” said Ms. Poole, who is based in Virginia. “Many of the bills were confusing and she was very concerned there were errors and overcharges.” ...

Hospital care tends to be the most confounding, and experts say the charges you see on your bill are usually completely unrelated to the cost of providing the services (at hospitals, these list prices are called the “charge master file”). “The charges have no rhyme or reason at all,” Gerard Anderson, director of the Center for Hospital Finance and Management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “Why is 30 minutes in the operating room $2,000 and not $1,500? There is absolutely no basis for setting that charge. It is not based upon the cost, and it’s not based upon the market forces, other than the whim of the C.F.O. of the hospital.”

And those charges don’t really have any connection to what a hospital or medical provider will accept for payment, either. “If you line up five patients in their beds and they all have gall bladders removed and they get the same exact medication and services, if they have insurance or if they don’t have insurance, the hospital will get five different reimbursements, and none of it is based on cost,” said Holly Wallack, a medical billing advocate in Miami Beach. “The insurers negotiate a different rate, and if you are uninsured, underinsured or out of network, you are asked to pay full fare.”

With the exception of Medicare and Medicaid, experts say, the amount paid for services — or the price your insurers pay — is based on the market power of the insurance company on the one side and the hospitals and providers on the other, and the reimbursement agreements they ultimately reach. So large insurers that command a lot of market power may be able to negotiate lower rates than smaller companies with less influence. Or, insurers can place hospitals or providers on a preferred list, which may help bolster their business, in exchange for a lower reimbursement rate. On the other hand, well-regarded hospitals may command higher prices from insurers.

So let’s say you have coverage through a high-deductible plan, where you’re responsible for, say, the first $5,000 or $10,000. It’s possible that you may have to pay more out of pocket for your medical services than your friend, also in a high-deductible plan, but one with an insurer that has greater negotiating power. “The ones that are affiliated with the larger insurers do best,” Mr. Anderson said, adding that the uninsured have virtually no bargaining power, which is why they are expected to pay much more.

With so little pricing information available, expecting people to shop around for quality care at the lowest cost — something that’s not always possible in emergency situations — is also asking a lot of consumers. “I have always found a bit cruel the much-mouthed suggestion that patients should have ‘more skin in the game’ and ‘shop around for cost-effective health care’ in the health care market,” said Uwe E. Reinhardt, a health policy expert and professor at Princeton University, “when patients have so little information easily available on prices and quality to those things.”

President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, the health care overhaul law passed in 2010, tries to make some improvements (though the Supreme Court is expected to rule whether all or some of the law is constitutional this month). But while the law’s changes help you shop around for insurance policies — specifically through its new HealthCare.gov Web site, a one-stop shop that lists all of your insurance options in one place — it’s still unclear how effective the law will be for anyone comparing medical services. ...

As for the 68-year-old patient, Ms. Poole’s detective work ultimately reduced his out-of-pocket costs by more than $22,000, which left him responsible for about $3,915. Since the couple didn’t have long-term care insurance, he was also responsible for the nursing home’s charges of $65,000, which Ms. Poole said Medicare covered for only a short period of time. (Ms. Poole, a former emergency room nurse, who later received an M.B.A., generally charges about 25 percent of the savings found.)

She uncovered the savings in various places — there were charges for brand medications when the patient ordered generic, services that were double-billed, as well as charges for a private room that the patient did not request; he was only there because no other rooms were available. In another instance, a surgeon belatedly submitted his $4,400 bill to the insurance company, so the claim was denied. That wasn’t the patient’s fault, but he was billed anyway. She lobbied the billing department to drop the charges, and they did.

Then, when the $132,000 hospital bill came, the patient was told he owed $9,200 and it had to be paid in 10 days. As it turns out, only one of the insurers had paid its share, which was hard to decipher from the bill. Ultimately, the patient only owed $164.99. “There were three explanation of benefits from Blue Cross Blue Shield, each with an different amount due,” she said, ranging from about $164 to $81,900. “How’s that for confusion?”

All told, Ms. Poole spent about 96 hours dissecting each bill, line by line, comparing it with the providers’ medical records and keeping track of it all in a complex spreadsheet.

“It’s a broken system,” she said.​

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/y...he-labyrinth-of-medical-costs-your-money.html

We have a system that requires us to spend 4 whole days of our lives (6 waking days) perusing medical bills (due in 10 days) to make sure we are not being overcharged by as much as $9000 (or, alternatively stated, overcharged by 5,575%).

The system is criminal, and anybody who does not support the immediate enactment of single payer health care is a traitor, as far as I'm concerned.
 

Chichikov

Member
While I have yet to hear a practical persuasive argument against a single payer system, I don't think that calling anyone who disagree a traitor is particularly useful.

And yeah, everyone and anyone can and should see that post as invitation to prove me wrong about single payer.
Seriously, I enjoy such discussions.
 

Kosmo

Banned
Just send your cash

OScreenShot.jpg


Who in their right fucking mind would do this? And to be honest, I'd get a lot more use out of the gravy bowl, no matter the candidate.

Asking for people's wedding money - does it get any lower than this?
 

Chichikov

Member
Just send your cash

OScreenShot.jpg


Who in their right fucking mind would do this? And to be honest, I'd get a lot more use out of the gravy bowl, no matter the candidate.

Asking for people's wedding money - does it get any lower than this?
Yeah this is fucking ridiculous.
But while it's definitely more unusual and silly than the norm, it's not really all that different from any other forms of begging for money, which is the way we decided we're gonna fund our elections.
This is fucking stupid and harmful, we need a dramatic overhaul of our campaign finance laws.
 
I've seen people ask that a donation be made to glaad, naacp, or more commonly a local charity before in leiu of a gift. No real difference I wouldn't think.

I mean do you really want a bread mixer? Or would it be better if 20 bucks went to the homeless shelter? Granted a political campaign is a bit different but still.
 
While I have yet to hear a practical persuasive argument against a single payer system, I don't think that calling anyone who disagree a traitor is particularly useful.

I think standing in the way of Americans seeking reasonable access to health care warrants the charge.
 

Chichikov

Member
I think standing in the way of Americans seeking reasonable access to health care warrants the charge.
I think the majority of people who oppose a single payer system do it because they think it's a bad system.
Like, do you really believe someone like ToxicAdam thinks a single payer system is the best, but he still oppose it because he hates America and sick people?

Being wrong is not treasonous.
At least I hope so, because damn, I was wrong on many policy issues in my life.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
I don't oppose a single payer system. I oppose forcing people into participating in the bullshit one we have now.

I don't understand how someone like EV can post that article, read it, then think that the Obamacare mandate is just. It's just another law that enriches coporations at the expense of the taxpayers.
 
I think the majority of people who oppose a single payer system do it because they think it's a bad system.
Like, do you really believe someone like ToxicAdam thinks a single payer system is the best, but he still oppose it because he hates America and sick people?

Being wrong is not treasonous.
At least I hope so, because damn, I was wrong on many policy issues in my life.

I've been wrong about many things in my life at many different times. Being wrong is not treasonous. Standing in the way of Americans seeking reasonable access to health care is. And there are many people who fit that bill.

I don't oppose a single payer system. I oppose forcing people into participating in the bullshit one we have now.

I don't understand how someone like EV can post that article, read it, then think that the Obamacare mandate is just. It's just another law that enriches coporations at the expense of the taxpayers.

I am not a supporter of the health care bill, except its welfare components and even those only grudgingly because the welfare is ultimately directed towards corporate health care insurers and providers. The people are just the middlemen in the exchange between the government and corporations. But as a reward for being middlemen, they will get some measure of health care from it, so it is difficult for me to oppose that aspect, if the other option is nothing. This is the dilemma idealists are constantly confronted with and always exploited by power. The argument I was having with you was at a more abstract level (at least for me) about insurance generally and social responsibility.
 

Chichikov

Member
I've been wrong about many things in my life at many different times. Being wrong is not treasonous. Standing in the way of Americans seeking reasonable access to health care is. And there are many people who fit that bill.
Of course there are, but that's a far cry from stating that "anybody who does not support the immediate enactment of single payer health care is a traitor, as far as I'm concerned".
Now I don't think you actually believe that literally, I'm trying to get you to tone down the rhetoric a bit.

I don't oppose a single payer system. I oppose forcing people into participating in the bullshit one we have now.
Oh sorry, I assume you are from this post.
Carry on.
 
Polls don't take gerrymandering and complete republican control of states into regard. Those things should hold the House for republicans, perhaps for four more years
True but Dems also got decent maps in NY, CA, and TX (surprisingly) and made out like bandits in IL which will net them 4-5 seats alone.

I think dem-gop results will be fairly close to obama-romney, so if it's a close/tied election I doubt Democrats would make up much ground, much less win back the House. If Obama's romping at the top of the ticket, they'd have a real chance.

Right now i'd put it at 7, possible but difficult. Holding the Senate will be easier.
 
Of course there are, but that's a far cry from stating that "anybody who does not support the immediate enactment of single payer health care is a traitor, as far as I'm concerned".
Now I don't think you actually believe that literally, I'm trying to get you to tone down the rhetoric a bit.

Why? If anything, I think it needs to be turned up. Polite requests have never to my knowledge resulted in concessions from centers of power.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Why? If anything, I think it needs to be turned up. Polite requests have never to my knowledge resulted in concessions from centers of power.

It's a terrific way to get tuned out by the average person. Keep it up.


.

Oh sorry, I assume you are from this post.
Carry on.

Oh, okay. I had posted that I supported single payer as the most efficient system in a few other posts. I was just answering that question under the assumption that it wasn't an option, but rather how can we can significantly improve our current state of health care.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
I think it's pretty audacious to begrudge completely sanitized invitations to donate (these are the $10-20-50 variety) in the face of getting outspent 3-1 by billionaires that want lower taxes.

I dunno, I think that's pretty low, myself.
 
It's a terrific way to get tuned out by the average person. Keep it up.

That must explain the failure of Fox News and AM radio at creating a radicalized movement. There is nothing wrong with using strong language to express anger at powerful forces for legitimate reasons. Note that one (and oftentimes two) of those clauses doesn't apply to Fox/AM radio.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
I think the term traitor should be reserved for people that are knowingly sabotaging their country, not for misinformed bumpkins that don't know better.

Seems like a real waste of a great word.
 
The far right's radical, violent rhetoric is not a coincidence or some accident. It's standard operating procedure.

People forget, but Kennedy was labeled a communist and fraud president by many on the right in the early 60s. At the time, Dallas was like a cesspool of far right wing paranoia and outrage - somewhat similar to Arizona today.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but given the politicization of the US military since Vietnam, the host of forts and bases in the deep red south, and the general disrespect and outright disdain republicans tend to have for democrat foreign policy, it almost looks like the perfect mixture for a coup. I'm not saying this is something we need to be worried about now, just consider the groundwork. Hell, consider how the far right frames Obama's foreign policy, and how the mainstream right parrots it on a national stage as if to legitimize it. Obama doesn't care about the protection of US citizens, he supports terrorists more than Israel, he's intentionally weakening the military to make us vulnerable, etc.

And before Kosmo pulls the Bush card, let's not pretend like it was democrat policy to question Bush's patriotism, interest in protecting the country, or question his love of the country. That stuff was coming from the very far left and a handful of elected officials who were marginalized. There weren't multiple elected officials and legitimate presidential candidates accusing him of treason or hating his country. The entire premise of anti Obama rhetoric boils down to Other-izing him. We saw a lot of it with Bill Clinton, rooted in him draft dodging and having no foreign policy experience (thus being a risk to the military). We saw it with Carter, who was viciously ridiculed. And of course we saw it with JFK, who was accused of selling out the country to the soviets
 

AntoneM

Member
The far right's radical, violent rhetoric is not a coincidence or some accident. It's standard operating procedure.

People forget, but Kennedy was labeled a communist and fraud president by many on the right in the early 60s. At the time, Dallas was like a cesspool of far right wing paranoia and outrage - somewhat similar to Arizona today.

People from glass houses... You know that AZ is in play this election right?
 

AntoneM

Member
How does that change the fact that Arizona is the capitol of right wing paranoia? Yes, I'll call it a cesspool again.

It's only in play if Hispanic turnout there is at 70% imo

Because North Carolina among others are worse? Wand in the vagina before an abortion, can't say seal level rise? There actually is nothing unique about AZ's right wing these days, yeah, they lead immigration paranoia with SB1070, but other states have followed suit and then some.
 

Jackson50

Member
Cutting the republican house majority to like 10-20 seats would be interesting. It would force a lot more cooperation
Perhaps, although not necessarily. It depends on which House Republicans lose their respective elections. If the more moderate members are disproportionately defeated, the Republican Caucus would become even more extreme and intransigent. They'd be able to exert more pressure on Boehner and the House leadership. If they had possessed more leverage during the debt imbroglio last summer, the consequences could have been catastrophic.
I think Romney will pick a female VP. It's the only way to counter the "war on women" rhetoric. They're better off focusing on re-engaging the female block instead of hoping to put on a lame band aid to appease Hispanic voters who are a long-shot anyway. Another white male next to Romney would be the ultimate fail ticket and I just don't see it.
There's a dearth of qualified Republican women, though. They played that gambit last cycle, and it failed spectacularly. Romney's will make a safe, prudent choice.
Wheeee. Now it really counts.
And yet so many of them don't. I'm talking about the vocabulary he uses: when he gives speeches he brings up real concrete topics people are concerned about, something I can't say for Romney

We seem to think two different things about politicians: you seem to think that all (or most of them) do know what people care about and they just ignore those things (hence Obama is just saying what everyone in Washington knows), I think that there are plenty of politicians who are completely clueless about the actual things their constituants have to deal with.
Sorry. You've been manipulated by a charlatan. Everything about Obama is contrived. Even his wife's trip to the store is an attempt to manipulate. Remember, optics.

110930-michelle-obama-shopping-at-target.jpg
 
Perhaps, although not necessarily. It depends on which House Republicans lose their respective elections. If the more moderate members are disproportionately defeated, the Republican Caucus would become even more extreme and intransigent. They'd be able to exert more pressure on Boehner and the House leadership. If they had possessed more leverage during the debt imbroglio last summer, the consequences could have been catastrophic.

But they are already taking scalps. Just need to look at the Senate races in Indiana and Nebraska.
 

kehs

Banned
Obama's weekly address somehow made it into the "Hot" section of G+, that section is usually reserved for meaningless platitudes and insipid inspirational.....

oh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom