theprodigy
Member
yeah well that's clearly not IMPORTANT /cluelesstalk
-
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 2013 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
yeah well that's clearly not IMPORTANT /cluelesstalk
Link
The Autumn Wind
I greatly look forward to the results of this vote.
Well we know how this vote is going to go. Either way it's DOA in the House.
I do like that they are pushing this however.
makingmusic476
Member
Meanwhile, in Texas, the new abortion restrictions have apparently been ruled unconstitutional:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4171087?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4171087?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037
Aaron Strife
Banned
Why is Obama spending time on GAY PEOPLE when he should be spending time on [INSERT CONSERVATIVE PET ISSUE HERE] because clearly the president can only ever focus on one thing at a time and I didn't complain at all when Bush used gay people to galvanize right-wing support
That is genuinely surprising.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
What they need to do is really stake out a liberal budget so the center shifts. Propose expansions of the safety nets funding increases, end of corproate subsidies, ending no bid contracts. Then when the compromise comes in you can jettison those (not that we should) keeping at least the status quo rather than constantly having center right budgets and proposals
empty vessel
Member
The judge was a Bush II appointee as well.
Yep. The chained CPI proposal is absolutely absurd. Even if the Republican party wasn't literally insane, this would be a terrible move. Now the debate on SS is framed in a way that puts people who want the status quo on the "far-left", those who want minor cuts are now "moderate liberals" and those who seek its privatization are "moderate conservatives" .
That proposal really made me start believing that the democratic party establishment wants cuts like this. The president put it on the table, so it's hard to blame the opposition party here. The democratic base has to push back here like they did with Summers.
RustyNails
Member
I was focusing on the point of conversion to religion and non religion, and the influence factor. My point was a preacher saying you will go to hell for not being a Christian/Muslim has no effect in the real world. Maybe I will, or maybe I will go to candyland with giant kitkat bar and unicorns. Big hoot. If I am going to hell, its after I am dead and not in the real world.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Oh that's why I've been seeing so many articles about discrimination the last few days. Good to see the senate act on it. No way the house is going to act on it, but in a time of the house acting on absolutely nothing, the best use of government time is to embarrass the hell out of the house with stuff they should obviously pass.
I hope they keep pushing these types of issues as minority demographics rise to force Republicans to pick between minorities and racists, instead of this dumb meaningless messaging crap that Republicans think will allow them to have it both ways. At some point they'll have to either start voting for this stuff, or face destruction. Either outcome I'm fine with.
What you expect to happen after death can be a major influence on how you act in life. You seem to be downplaying that a lot.
Amusing talk between Shepard Smith and Dana Perino about Merkel-gate.
Perino is pro Merkel tapping, Smith not so much.
Perino is pro Merkel tapping, Smith not so much.
JesseEwiak
Member
There is the People's Budget from the Progressive Caucus - http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget/
Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons (the right-leaning corporate media), you'd think that doesn't exist aside from MSNBC and Krugman. Only the Republican and Presidential budget exists. Even the centrist Senatorial budget doesn't exist.
theprodigy
Member
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The recent spat of articles about 'rate shock' are really frustrating me. It reflects the inability for much of the media to write about people outside their own social circles
These articles about how some people with really bad insurance plans before the law are now being forced into actual real insurance plans that cover things. They're not comparing overall costs but instead just looking at the monthly premiums and claiming Obama lied that costs would go down.
Look at this anecdote
The law is a failure because a family thinks paying 3.5% (instead of 1.5%) of their income is not affordable? That's a reason not to help millions of others? [Also who write an article claiming big problems with the law based around a single anecdote?]
Their concern trolling about mostly young healthy male white kids (at least this is what I read they are the largest category in this group so I could be wrong, I'm just trying to point out its the media writing about themselves not the wider public) who might have to pay a bit more (if they have the money to do so) is intentionally written to get these people to these very people to question signing up (Just like the website, they don't want to fix the possible problem). Lets ignore the fact millions of poor folk are now covered under medicaid, millions of sick people now will have coverage, out-of-pocket costs are capped, millions of kids are still on their parents plan, more things are covered in plans, etc. Nope the most important story to cover is that already relatively well-off people have to pay a tiny bit more. Everybody else is a non-story to the media.
I hate policy by anecdote.
These articles about how some people with really bad insurance plans before the law are now being forced into actual real insurance plans that cover things. They're not comparing overall costs but instead just looking at the monthly premiums and claiming Obama lied that costs would go down.
Look at this anecdote
The law is a failure because a family thinks paying 3.5% (instead of 1.5%) of their income is not affordable? That's a reason not to help millions of others? [Also who write an article claiming big problems with the law based around a single anecdote?]
Their concern trolling about mostly young healthy male white kids (at least this is what I read they are the largest category in this group so I could be wrong, I'm just trying to point out its the media writing about themselves not the wider public) who might have to pay a bit more (if they have the money to do so) is intentionally written to get these people to these very people to question signing up (Just like the website, they don't want to fix the possible problem). Lets ignore the fact millions of poor folk are now covered under medicaid, millions of sick people now will have coverage, out-of-pocket costs are capped, millions of kids are still on their parents plan, more things are covered in plans, etc. Nope the most important story to cover is that already relatively well-off people have to pay a tiny bit more. Everybody else is a non-story to the media.
I hate policy by anecdote.
Black Mamba
Member
I wish they gave her age. If she's near 30, for $98 she has shit catastrophic care. One thing being undersold is the basic elimination of those shit policies for 30+ year olds. A lot of people don't understand the benefits their insurance policies give and how much it costs. They think they got some great coverage for $100 a month but in reality it's pure shit. It basically covers you from paying full costs and stuff, so you're only out $10-15k if something goes bad rather than $100k, but you get little to no help if you get the flu, break your arm, need an MRI or X-ray, etc.
Jonathon Cohn had an article today basically setting the rest of the media straight on the "rate shock" angle.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115372/how-obamacare-changing-insurance-premiums-and-coverage
Most people who are unwillingly hurt by the law are the self-employed people who earn enough money to afford coverage but want to be cheap about it because they mostly don't understand how to evaluate risk. I don't cry for them at all.
Black Mamba
Member
WSJ becoming the Onion?
Absurd beyond belief.
WSJ becoming the Onion?
News Corp. That's all that really needs to be stated.
Avon Barksdale
Member
PhoenixDark
Banned
In the event that Obama gets what he wants, ie a "grand bargain" he can stamp his name on featuring chained CPI and some minor tax increases, I hope Warren fillibusters the shit out of it.
Black Mamba
Member
here is the article, btw. It's quite amazing: http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2013/1...ordable-care-act-is-a-socialist-ponzi-scheme/
I think the most hilarious part about it is that she rails Obamacare is socialized medicine and socialized medicine is evil and then goes on to complain that Obamacare will hurt medicare.
All this without a sense of irony.
Chait had some fun with her: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/10/suzanne-somerss-strong-wsj-obamacare-critique.html
I think the most hilarious part about it is that she rails Obamacare is socialized medicine and socialized medicine is evil and then goes on to complain that Obamacare will hurt medicare.
All this without a sense of irony.
Chait had some fun with her: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/10/suzanne-somerss-strong-wsj-obamacare-critique.html
Joe Molotov
Member
WSJ becoming the Onion?
I'm glad WSJ has brought in THE EXPERTS to weigh in on this debate. Hopefully they can get Patrick Duffy to get to the bottom of Benghazi too.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
BertramCooper
Banned
What does foreign affairs expert Joyce DeWitt have to say about Benghazi?
Possibly, but who cares? He would just be 1 member in a body of 400+ members. I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives because it would curb extreme electorate influence and force politicians to appeal to a wider audience, not just their crazy base. What this would lead to is a better functioning government because you would now have an incentive to actually work together to do things, not appeal your insane base in an incredibly safe district
It's been interesting watching this image maker go from making somewhat silly image macros to progressing deeper and deeper into hate and racism. This image pretty much sums up that this particular person is far from being a Christian. Right now to the "Fuck you" hidden in the phone number.
Op, they removed it. Ah well.
Op, they removed it. Ah well.
JesseEwiak
Member
To be fair, I actually think social conservatives have an axe to grind that the media is more left-wing than the median of society when it comes to gay rights and other social issues (even though, they overreach about the truth of it, especially on abortion).
But, since they also don't admit that the media, especially the national media (local print media tends to be better depending on the paper), is center-right to right-wing on economics.
WSJ becoming the Onion?
I continue to struggle why the concept of "socialized medicine" is such a bad thing in the US.
I can get where people might come from around unemployment benefits (lazy!), or food stamps (lazy!), or minimum wage (lazy!), etc. But I just don't see an argument against socialized medicine beyond a selfish "I don't want any of my tax dollars being used to help the unfortunate". Is it really that simple? (I see the "socialism=communism" aspect falling into this category)
In NZ, if something happens to you via accident or falling ill, whether a NZ citizen or American tourist, with or without health insurance, you are going to be looked after. And as an NZ taxpayer, I have no issue with that. I WANT everybody in our society to be looked after health wise, so I have piece of mind about myself, family, and friends, and have a prosperous and healthy community.
Such is the state of political cartoons these days. You aren't even allowed to find it humorous or have a point because label label label label label label label label caption caption. Or you're Ramirez and you're just running a sketch filter over public domain .jpgs and writing some words under it for a living.
Its even dumber than that because their tax dollars already pay those people's medical care. Poor people who arent on medicaid and dont have insurance go to the ER. They can't pay ER prices so the tax payer gets stuck with the bill. the ER is the most expensive and inefficient way to provide care.
People are just ignorant, selfish, and stupid.
I think it what it might be is that people are afraid of change. They like what they have going for them right now and dont want to jeopardize that, even if the proposed system is a lot better for them. So yea, selfish and stupid.
BertramCooper
Banned
Because some people can't let go of the Cold War.
Yeah, basically every highly developed nation besides us has universal health care, and their average healthcare costs are much lower. I guess the average American doesn't care about issues abroad and don't realize this.
It probably doesn't help when internally US health care appears to be consistently described as "the best health care in the world", apart from the odd voice of dissent. So why change.
I guess arguably the US has the best individual practitioners, the largest infrastructure, and some of the most advanced techniques and equipment. So you could make that argument.
But that doesn't take into consideration that the average citizen's access to those facilities seems heavily restricted and the average state of health is not the best in the world. Individual aspects of US health care may be world class, but the system appears dysfunctional.
Affordable Healthcare is a previledge not a right. Duh.
Appears? No, it is dysfunctional.
Yes, well, I bailed and changed my "is" to an "appears".
I had a brief flirtation with the US health system when I had to go to the hospital in Hawaii after fracturing and cutting open my right hand in a football training accident. They wouldn't let the trainer into the hospital with me but then proceeded to make me fill out my own admission form with my useless bloody right hand and prove I had insurance before I even got into the waiting room.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
How do grandfathered plans work?
empty vessel
Member
Or the civil war, for that matter.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I found my answer to the grandfather question.
This could all be easily solved with single payer. Jeez
Edit: ThinkProgress story with more background
http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...y-obama-knowing-health-care-policy-cancelled/
So this everytime Obama said you can keep your plan he was right. Insurance Companies changed plans in the interim years that are now requiring them to cancel coverage. God forbid Obama wanted to cancel crappy plans that didn't cover anyone. I'm also skeptically this group (those that wont have subsidies to lower costs) is very large. They by definition have to be pretty well off as the subsidies go pretty high.
This could all be easily solved with single payer. Jeez
Edit: ThinkProgress story with more background
http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...y-obama-knowing-health-care-policy-cancelled/
Joe Molotov
Member
Cuz computer glitches == people dying and having their homes destroyed lol
Rhomega Beta
Member
Cramped waiting rooms, long waiting lists for surgeries, less time with your doctor, assuming you even have a regular one, etc.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
death panels
Link
The Autumn Wind
If only the healthcare industry could somehow add more people to its workforce.
- Status