FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

BenPoquette · Feb 5, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Tarheel316 said:

GeorgeFHayek said:

Tarheel316 said:

Are you making fun of Lancey's situation?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think he's making light of the interpretation of Lancey's situation. I am sure he/she is, like me, pleased that Lancey's condition was treatable (rather easily, it seems) and is not a serious cause for immediate and/or long-term concern.

I'll be the first to admit here that the whole pre-existing conditions challenge is a tough nut to crack. At my age I've seen this play out numerous times, and I certainly understand this as a root of dissatisfaction with the current (actually, the on-the-way-out) system. Most recently I had a first cousin whose older (late teens) son was diagnosed with cancer. Fortunately for him the cancer was caught early and the surgery/chemo regimen was (apparently) very successful. Unfortunately for him, he'll always have that pre-existing condition, which means that unless he goes to work for: 1) the government; or 2) some big firm, he's going to have both the cancer shadow AND the insurance shadow chasing him. I have serious problems with any system set up that way.

On the other hand, our health care system as it is emerged under a regime of insurance as primary financing mechanism, which means that an alternative approach (i.e., one in which insurance really is insurance, rather than prepaid health care) can't, as a practical, political matter, get a fair hearing. I think this is terribly unfortunate since what evidence there is (and there's not much, but there's some) suggests such a transition would be a very, very positive outcome.
Click to expand...

That's some good analysis. I just don't it's right for people to be bankrupted by medical bills. It's immoral. For starters, fee-for-service has got to go.
Click to expand...

I completely agree and of course I was not making fun of his situation. Something had to be done about health insurance in this country and something WAS done. I just am not confident the right thing was done. Adding all these new people to the health insurance rolls, people who did not have the ability to pay for it, will make it more expensive for everyone. That's common sense. I could not believe, during the Obamacare debate, we were actually told this new law will make health insurance more affordable. That was and is a flat-out lie. We are starting to see some of the numerous problems with this law.

Single-payer, if that's what Obama wanted, was what he should have went for. Not this massive mess that is going to cost billions and billions of dollars and will still not cover everyone. B

Armchair_QB · Feb 5, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

MisterCreosote said:

Azrael said:

I'd be more inclined to go along with the obamagotcha if there had been any objection raised when all of this 'by any means necessary' bullshit started ten years ago.
Click to expand...

You don't know what my reaction was 10 years ago.

Also, this:

"This is a profoundly disturbing document, and it’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances. It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority – the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement before or after the fact,” Hina Shamsi of the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement Monday night.
Click to expand...

And tomorrow the Justice Department will announce that the Republican Party has been classified as an Al-Qaeda affiliate.

cranberry · Feb 5, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

BenPoquette said:

Tarheel316 said:

GeorgeFHayek said:

Tarheel316 said:

Are you making fun of Lancey's situation?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think he's making light of the interpretation of Lancey's situation. I am sure he/she is, like me, pleased that Lancey's condition was treatable (rather easily, it seems) and is not a serious cause for immediate and/or long-term concern.

I'll be the first to admit here that the whole pre-existing conditions challenge is a tough nut to crack. At my age I've seen this play out numerous times, and I certainly understand this as a root of dissatisfaction with the current (actually, the on-the-way-out) system. Most recently I had a first cousin whose older (late teens) son was diagnosed with cancer. Fortunately for him the cancer was caught early and the surgery/chemo regimen was (apparently) very successful. Unfortunately for him, he'll always have that pre-existing condition, which means that unless he goes to work for: 1) the government; or 2) some big firm, he's going to have both the cancer shadow AND the insurance shadow chasing him. I have serious problems with any system set up that way.

On the other hand, our health care system as it is emerged under a regime of insurance as primary financing mechanism, which means that an alternative approach (i.e., one in which insurance really is insurance, rather than prepaid health care) can't, as a practical, political matter, get a fair hearing. I think this is terribly unfortunate since what evidence there is (and there's not much, but there's some) suggests such a transition would be a very, very positive outcome.
Click to expand...

That's some good analysis. I just don't it's right for people to be bankrupted by medical bills. It's immoral. For starters, fee-for-service has got to go.
Click to expand...

I completely agree and of course I was not making fun of his situation. Something had to be done about health insurance in this country and something WAS done. I just am not confident the right thing was done. Adding all these new people to the health insurance rolls, people who did not have the ability to pay for it, will make it more expensive for everyone. That's common sense. I could not believe, during the Obamacare debate, we were actually told this new law will make health insurance more affordable. That was and is a flat-out lie. We are starting to see some of the numerous problems with this law.

Single-payer, if that's what Obama wanted, was what he should have went for. Not this massive mess that is going to cost billions and billions of dollars and will still not cover everyone. B
Click to expand...

a) single payer wasn't politically possible
b) we were already paying for the non-insured

Tarheel316 · Feb 5, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

BenPoquette said:

Tarheel316 said:

GeorgeFHayek said:

Tarheel316 said:

Are you making fun of Lancey's situation?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think he's making light of the interpretation of Lancey's situation. I am sure he/she is, like me, pleased that Lancey's condition was treatable (rather easily, it seems) and is not a serious cause for immediate and/or long-term concern.

I'll be the first to admit here that the whole pre-existing conditions challenge is a tough nut to crack. At my age I've seen this play out numerous times, and I certainly understand this as a root of dissatisfaction with the current (actually, the on-the-way-out) system. Most recently I had a first cousin whose older (late teens) son was diagnosed with cancer. Fortunately for him the cancer was caught early and the surgery/chemo regimen was (apparently) very successful. Unfortunately for him, he'll always have that pre-existing condition, which means that unless he goes to work for: 1) the government; or 2) some big firm, he's going to have both the cancer shadow AND the insurance shadow chasing him. I have serious problems with any system set up that way.

On the other hand, our health care system as it is emerged under a regime of insurance as primary financing mechanism, which means that an alternative approach (i.e., one in which insurance really is insurance, rather than prepaid health care) can't, as a practical, political matter, get a fair hearing. I think this is terribly unfortunate since what evidence there is (and there's not much, but there's some) suggests such a transition would be a very, very positive outcome.
Click to expand...

That's some good analysis. I just don't it's right for people to be bankrupted by medical bills. It's immoral. For starters, fee-for-service has got to go.
Click to expand...

I completely agree and of course I was not making fun of his situation. Something had to be done about health insurance in this country and something WAS done. I just am not confident the right thing was done. Adding all these new people to the health insurance rolls, people who did not have the ability to pay for it, will make it more expensive for everyone. That's common sense. I could not believe, during the Obamacare debate, we were actually told this new law will make health insurance more affordable. That was and is a flat-out lie. We are starting to see some of the numerous problems with this law.

Single-payer, if that's what Obama wanted, was what he should have went for. Not this massive mess that is going to cost billions and billions of dollars and will still not cover everyone. B
Click to expand...

Good, well thought out post Ben. I favor single-payer. Always have.

GeorgeFHayek · Feb 5, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

cranberry said:

a) single payer wasn't politically possible
b) we were already paying for the non-insured
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute ...

I thought it was immoral that everyone didn't have health care! You're telling me that everyone did?

Armchair_QB · Feb 5, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

MisterCreosote said:

Jay Carney on killing U.S. citizens without due process: "These strikes are legal. They are ethical and they are wise."
Click to expand...

So I guess the liberal trash will be issuing apologies to the previous occupant of the White House....

hondo · Feb 5, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

In other news, Crazy Joe keeps taking himself out of the presidential race:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-gaffes-his-way-across-europe_700254.html

Riptide · Feb 5, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Armchair_QB said:

MisterCreosote said:

Jay Carney on killing U.S. citizens without due process: "These strikes are legal. They are ethical and they are wise."
Click to expand...

So I guess the liberal trash will be issuing apologies to the previous occupant of the White House....
Click to expand...

He's out playing on his horsie and can't come to the phone right now.

Starman · Feb 5, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

cranberry said:

a) single payer wasn't politically possible
Click to expand...

Of course not, after Kumbayabama decided for the 47 gazillionth time to punt on first-goal from the 7-yard line in an effort to build goodwill and cooperation from "Moderate Republicans."

LongTimeListener · Feb 5, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

"It’s like a little radio ad and you guys run like lap dogs to report it. … It’s not a burp, it’s barely a fart."

--Jerry Brown, on the pro-business ads Texas is running in California

Captain Obvious · Feb 5, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

LongTimeListener said:

"It’s like a little radio ad and you guys run like lap dogs to report it. … It’s not a burp, it’s barely a fart."

--Jerry Brown, on the pro-business ads Texas is running in California
Click to expand...

Seems as if Apple and Google had a good reason to go to Texas, those companies would have made a move.

LanceyHoward · Feb 5, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Tarheel316 said:

GeorgeFHayek said:

Tarheel316 said:

Are you making fun of Lancey's situation?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think he's making light of the interpretation of Lancey's situation. I am sure he/she is, like me, pleased that Lancey's condition was treatable (rather easily, it seems) and is not a serious cause for immediate and/or long-term concern.

I'll be the first to admit here that the whole pre-existing conditions challenge is a tough nut to crack. At my age I've seen this play out numerous times, and I certainly understand this as a root of dissatisfaction with the current (actually, the on-the-way-out) system. Most recently I had a first cousin whose older (late teens) son was diagnosed with cancer. Fortunately for him the cancer was caught early and the surgery/chemo regimen was (apparently) very successful. Unfortunately for him, he'll always have that pre-existing condition, which means that unless he goes to work for: 1) the government; or 2) some big firm, he's going to have both the cancer shadow AND the insurance shadow chasing him. I have serious problems with any system set up that way.

On the other hand, our health care system as it is emerged under a regime of insurance as primary financing mechanism, which means that an alternative approach (i.e., one in which insurance really is insurance, rather than prepaid health care) can't, as a practical, political matter, get a fair hearing. I think this is terribly unfortunate since what evidence there is (and there's not much, but there's some) suggests such a transition would be a very, very positive outcome.
Click to expand...

That's some good analysis. I just don't it's right for people to be bankrupted by medical bills. It's immoral. For starters, fee-for-service has got to go.
Click to expand...

My situation as treated with medication. The medication reduces my heart rate so but does not thin the blood so that the chances of clotting increase. So my future risk of a stroke is now much higher. I now feel fine but if I lose my current insurance because of a layoff I will have trouble getting coverage of my heart condition. What insurance company wants to pay for recovery from a stroke? That was my orginal point.

To respond to a previous post where a guy said he had saved money all his life and it would be unfair for him to subsidize some irresponsible person I disagree. How many 55 year old people are two life events away from near bankruptcy? The first is a layoff where they lsoe their current insurance. And the second is a major medical crisis.

So if someone has a stroke or other major medical event that is not covered by insurance chances are good they be pretty much wiped out, even if they have have saved a couple of hundred thousand dollars. All the effort that went into saving that money will have been wasted becasue the medical companies will take everything you have. So in my view Obamacare is a great thing for the person who saved the extra money because if he suffers a medical crisis while uninsured there will be something left for his family. The guy who lived off his credit cards will have very little to lose so he actually makes out better in the old scenario where at some point both parties probably wind up on Medicaid. The irresponsible guy just arrives at the Medicaid point earlier.

Log in or Sign up

FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

BenPoquette Active Member

Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

cranberry Well-Known Member

Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

GeorgeFHayek Member

Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

hondo Well-Known Member

Riptide Well-Known Member

Starman Well-Known Member

LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

Captain Obvious Guest

LanceyHoward Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

BenPoquette Active Member

Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

cranberry Well-Known Member

Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

GeorgeFHayek Member

Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

hondo Well-Known Member

Riptide Well-Known Member

Starman Well-Known Member

LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

Captain Obvious Guest

LanceyHoward Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches