Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Trump appears to be promising to replace the ACA with the ACA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-vows-insurance-for-everybody-in-obamacare-replacement-plan/2017/01/15/5f2b1e18-db5d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?pushid=breaking-news_1484529933&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.b7ac9b7d1c72

Just like that post someone made earlier about how they overheard someone say they wanted Trump to repeal Obamacare because the ACA was better.

Paul Ryan had his town meeting where he layed out the case for repealing and replacing ACA. Basically he stood there and told a bunch of lies, because the argument to dump ACA is a big lie, and Paul Ryan is a lying gak.

He claimed ACA was collapsing. While this claim is deliberately vague (because he's lying to people), we can have a quick look at ACA enrolments. 11 million in 2016, and it is on track to be 12 million. Expanding coverage year on year is the opposite of collapsing, so Ryan is lying.

Ryan focused on the pre-subsidy increase in one state, Arizona. He ignored that premium increases are slower than they were pre-ACA, and ignored states like Ohio and New Hampshire were rates went up just 2%, or states like Massachusetts or Indiana where rates have dropped. And he ignored that ACA is designed to have rising subsidies offset higher insurance. For instance, while the sticker price for a family of four will more than double to a scary sounding $1,500 a month, on a family income of $60k then after subsidies the family will be paying $400 a month. Ryan mentioned none of that because he is a liar trying to sell people a con.

Ryan tried to sell people on high risk pools as a way to trick people that pre-existing conditions would still be covered. Ryan lied when he claimed 8% of people had pre-existing conditions (the figure is actually north of 25%), and putting these people in a seperate system would make insurance for everyone else a lot cheaper. And Ryan missed out the key facts that show that the pre-existing pools that existed before ACA were a disaster. Premiums were frequently double those paid by healthy individuals, and deductibles often exceeded $10,000. Almost all states with these plans excluded coverage of the condition that forced the person in to the high risk pool for the first year. In Ryan's own state of Wisconsin, premiums were double the normal rate, deductibles were $5,000, and there was a 6 month waiting period before they'd cover anything related to your pre-existing condition. And rates like that were only affordable because of government subsidies paid in to the high risk pool, taxes and levies paid by the rest of the insurance pool, meaning Ryan's claim of making things cheaper for everyone else was a lie, as it was just a different system of spreading the cost around.

Ryan lied when he again claimed the 'death spiral'. He claimed young people were leaving, when the number of young people enrolled has remained steady at 28% for a few years now. For Ryan's death spiral to be true that number would have to be in decline, it isn't and so Ryan's claim becomes yet another lie.

And lastly, when asked about what Republicans wanted to replace ACA with, Ryan said he didn't want to go in to all 'legislative mumbo jumbo'. This is obviously a lie, as Ryan pretended he couldn't just give a broad summary of the plan Republicans intend to enact instead. Ryan did talk briefly on health savings accounts, which aren't insurance and only work for wealthy people who are able to save more and benefit most from the tax free status of these accounts. On a method of ensuring people with pre-existing conditions can get affordable healthcare, and the insurance remains affordable for everyone, Ryan was totally silent. Whether this is because the Republican plan doesn't care about those things, or can't deliver those things, or because Republicans have no replacement plan is unclear.

The only thing that's clear is that Paul Ryan is telling lies.

 sebster wrote:
Paul Ryan had his town meeting where he layed out the case for repealing and replacing ACA. Basically he stood there and told a bunch of lies, because the argument to dump ACA is a big lie, and Paul Ryan is a lying gak.

He claimed ACA was collapsing. While this claim is deliberately vague (because he's lying to people), we can have a quick look at ACA enrolments. 11 million in 2016, and it is on track to be 12 million. Expanding coverage year on year is the opposite of collapsing, so Ryan is lying.

Ryan focused on the pre-subsidy increase in one state, Arizona. He ignored that premium increases are slower than they were pre-ACA, and ignored states like Ohio and New Hampshire were rates went up just 2%, or states like Massachusetts or Indiana where rates have dropped. And he ignored that ACA is designed to have rising subsidies offset higher insurance. For instance, while the sticker price for a family of four will more than double to a scary sounding $1,500 a month, on a family income of $60k then after subsidies the family will be paying $400 a month. Ryan mentioned none of that because he is a liar trying to sell people a con.

Ryan tried to sell people on high risk pools as a way to trick people that pre-existing conditions would still be covered. Ryan lied when he claimed 8% of people had pre-existing conditions (the figure is actually north of 25%), and putting these people in a seperate system would make insurance for everyone else a lot cheaper. And Ryan missed out the key facts that show that the pre-existing pools that existed before ACA were a disaster. Premiums were frequently double those paid by healthy individuals, and deductibles often exceeded $10,000. Almost all states with these plans excluded coverage of the condition that forced the person in to the high risk pool for the first year. In Ryan's own state of Wisconsin, premiums were double the normal rate, deductibles were $5,000, and there was a 6 month waiting period before they'd cover anything related to your pre-existing condition. And rates like that were only affordable because of government subsidies paid in to the high risk pool, taxes and levies paid by the rest of the insurance pool, meaning Ryan's claim of making things cheaper for everyone else was a lie, as it was just a different system of spreading the cost around.

Ryan lied when he again claimed the 'death spiral'. He claimed young people were leaving, when the number of young people enrolled has remained steady at 28% for a few years now. For Ryan's death spiral to be true that number would have to be in decline, it isn't and so Ryan's claim becomes yet another lie.

And lastly, when asked about what Republicans wanted to replace ACA with, Ryan said he didn't want to go in to all 'legislative mumbo jumbo'. This is obviously a lie, as Ryan pretended he couldn't just give a broad summary of the plan Republicans intend to enact instead. Ryan did talk briefly on health savings accounts, which aren't insurance and only work for wealthy people who are able to save more and benefit most from the tax free status of these accounts. On a method of ensuring people with pre-existing conditions can get affordable healthcare, and the insurance remains affordable for everyone, Ryan was totally silent. Whether this is because the Republican plan doesn't care about those things, or can't deliver those things, or because Republicans have no replacement plan is unclear.

The only thing that's clear is that Paul Ryan is telling lies.

Man, that was epic. Have an exalt.

I think the usa may need a reality check on the healthcare thing - i'm getting the feeling that 'the people in control' (idk who they might be) are projecting to the public that these big universal healthcare schemes are only good for the usa, but are essentially riding on the positive aspects of an NHS (like in britain) without addressing that most Americans don't really 'get' the benefit and therefore only see the (increasing?) financial cost.

On that basis i don't see it ever working because it will always be starved of funding; the inverse of this has happened in britain as political types are getting influenced by big healthcare firms to financially starve and then privatize the NHS - which has already started.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/15/creeping-privatisation-nhs-official-data-owen-smith-outsourcing
This has been allowed because, as a whole we are starting to become complacent about the value of our healthcare system and the attitude of "not wanting my taxes to get wasted on ....." is becoming more common among middle class types who would usually be more egalitarian than that.

Trump's announcements in the interviews he gave to English and German newspapers are pretty heavy.

But he's not totally wrong.

He critisized Merkel for her behavior regarding refugees and he is totally right.

He critisized the Nato countries to spend too less money for the military budget and he is totally right.

He critisized automotive companies like BMW to produce in Mexico. I guess he has a limited view of the global market.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Too many German premium cars in the US?
Then the Americans should produce better cars, but they cant.

 Just Tony wrote:

Do you know what the left calls anyone who tries to defend a religious group's beliefs about homosexuality? Intolerant.

Being as how the beliefs in question tend to be that gay people are depraved spawn of evil who must be either fought or converted, yes, that is intolerance.

2. refugees can undergo years of vetting. American allied afghani translators can take 3 years to get vetted.

That's assuming they get into the US at all. There are men and women who risked their lives helping us in Iraq and Afghanistan and we've left them there where they are not remotely safe.

Also because funny; you might be extremely angry at a donkey after watching this

 SirDonlad wrote:
I think the usa may need a reality check on the healthcare thing - i'm getting the feeling that 'the people in control' (idk who they might be) are projecting to the public that these big universal healthcare schemes are only good for the usa, but are essentially riding on the positive aspects of an NHS (like in britain) without addressing that most Americans don't really 'get' the benefit and therefore only see the (increasing?) financial cost.

On that basis i don't see it ever working because it will always be starved of funding; the inverse of this has happened in britain as political types are getting influenced by big healthcare firms to financially starve and then privatize the NHS - which has already started.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/15/creeping-privatisation-nhs-official-data-owen-smith-outsourcing
This has been allowed because, as a whole we are starting to become complacent about the value of our healthcare system and the attitude of "not wanting my taxes to get wasted on ....." is becoming more common among middle class types who would usually be more egalitarian than that.

I don't personally think something like NHS would work here mostly do to geographic limitations. It's hard devising a functioning scheme of nationalized healthcare that can cover the US's landmass and varying population density (with some areas being very sparse). I don't like the privatization of social services remotely, but I'll probably have to end up settling for it regardless because something along those lines is probably the best we can get.

He critisized automotive companies like BMW to produce in Mexico. I guess he has a limited view of the global market.

The funny thing is that US car manufacturers also make the cars in Mexico XD The plants in the US are mostly assembly lines. Manufacturing is done overseas.

And they still can't make a good car (except you Ford. You make Mustangs and that's the only get out of jail card you'll ever need )

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/counter-sting-catches-james-okeefe-network-attempting-to-sow-chaos-at-trumps-inauguration_us_5873e26fe4b043ad97e516f7




what a time to be alive eh ?

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/counter-sting-catches-james-okeefe-network-attempting-to-sow-chaos-at-trumps-inauguration_us_5873e26fe4b043ad97e516f7




what a time to be alive eh ?

Not surprising one bit. When you're an organization that calls yourself the Latin name for "truth", you usually have some scummy things to hide...

Obviously we just need James Cameron to come in and raise the bar on this gak, because we just don't seem capable of it.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/counter-sting-catches-james-okeefe-network-attempting-to-sow-chaos-at-trumps-inauguration_us_5873e26fe4b043ad97e516f7




what a time to be alive eh ?

Indeed. But one does wonder how rare that actually is - I suspect it's really quite common, especially when trying to maintain a centre-right/right wing narrative.

But I've got to say, I've always wanted to revisit the USA. Man V Food has left an impression, as did my all-too-short school exchange to Maine back in 1994.

However seeing what I'm seeing, I don't want to go visit until 2021 at the earliest. I know some might look up on this with scorn, but the USA we've seen recently just doesn't seem to be the USA of past years, including the Bush years.

Still. Gives me plenty of time to save up loads and loads of munneh so I can go have a proper whale of a time once Trump and Pence are out.

 LordofHats wrote:
Obviously we just need James Cameron to come in and raise the bar on this gak, because we just don't seem capable of it.

You're forgetting your history, and I'll remind you of one of my favourite pieces of American history

After Andrew Jackson was sworn into office, he invited the public back for a few drinks at the White House.

Big mistake

The White House was trashed and plates, tables, portraits and cutlery went missing...

Trump ain't gonna trump Jackson's inauguration


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/counter-sting-catches-james-okeefe-network-attempting-to-sow-chaos-at-trumps-inauguration_us_5873e26fe4b043ad97e516f7




what a time to be alive eh ?

Society will always get the democracy it deserves.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You're forgetting your history, and I'll remind you of one of my favourite pieces of American history

After Andrew Jackson was sworn into office, he invited the public back for a few drinks at the White House.

Big mistake

The White House was trashed and plates, tables, portraits and cutlery went missing...

Trump ain't gonna trump Jackson's inauguration

Fair enough

Personally though I was more referring to being reminded of the two edged disappointment that there are people who want to pay people to sabotage a public event just to score points, and that there are people willing to be paid to sabotage a public event just to score points. That gak is just sad.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You're forgetting your history, and I'll remind you of one of my favourite pieces of American history

After Andrew Jackson was sworn into office, he invited the public back for a few drinks at the White House.

Big mistake

The White House was trashed and plates, tables, portraits and cutlery went missing...

Trump ain't gonna trump Jackson's inauguration

Fair enough

Personally though I was more referring to being reminded of the two edged disappointment that there are people who want to pay people to sabotage a public event just to score points, and that there are people willing to be paid to sabotage a public event just to score points. That gak is just sad.

American history is full of dirty tricks, scandal, violence, and skulduggery when it comes to Presidential elections.

Even the founding fathers were not immune to this, and you'd think they'd know better. Jefferson Vs. Adams was a gutter fight.

Trump is not the first President who is clearly unfit for office, and won't be the last.

If we had social media in the 1960s, Jack Kennedy would have been drummed out of office within weeks. To say his private life was scandalous would be an understatement.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You're forgetting your history, and I'll remind you of one of my favourite pieces of American history

After Andrew Jackson was sworn into office, he invited the public back for a few drinks at the White House.

Big mistake

The White House was trashed and plates, tables, portraits and cutlery went missing...

Trump ain't gonna trump Jackson's inauguration

Fair enough

Personally though I was more referring to being reminded of the two edged disappointment that there are people who want to pay people to sabotage a public event just to score points, and that there are people willing to be paid to sabotage a public event just to score points. That gak is just sad.

Have you read Indecent Exposure by Tom Sharpe? Incredibly funny book satirising the apartheid South African police.

At one point in it, one of the officers is convinced that there are secret communist cells operating in the city. So he sends off secret police to identify and infiltrate the groups. In order to maintain security, none of the secret police know about any of the others, not what they look like or even that there are other members of the sting operation. At first none of them have much luck but then they all manage to infiltrate communist cells at around the same time. And seem to be carrying out similar activities at around the same time. You can probably see where this is going

Seems like it is a good mirror for this whole "pay people to sabotage things so you can prove that people will be paid to sabotage things" line of investigation

 SirDonlad wrote:
I think the usa may need a reality check on the healthcare thing - i'm getting the feeling that 'the people in control' (idk who they might be) are projecting to the public that these big universal healthcare schemes are only good for the usa, but are essentially riding on the positive aspects of an NHS (like in britain) without addressing that most Americans don't really 'get' the benefit and therefore only see the (increasing?) financial cost.

On that basis i don't see it ever working because it will always be starved of funding; the inverse of this has happened in britain as political types are getting influenced by big healthcare firms to financially starve and then privatize the NHS - which has already started.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/15/creeping-privatisation-nhs-official-data-owen-smith-outsourcing
This has been allowed because, as a whole we are starting to become complacent about the value of our healthcare system and the attitude of "not wanting my taxes to get wasted on ....." is becoming more common among middle class types who would usually be more egalitarian than that.

I've read several post from Brits on these forums bitching about the NHS and how they have had problems getting good healthcare through it. Wasn't there some kind of healthcare worker strike in Britain a few months ago?

Relapse wrote:
I've read several post from Brits on these forums bitching about the NHS and how they have had problems getting good healthcare through it. Wasn't there some kind of healthcare worker strike in Britain a few months ago?

That hardly qualifies as a consensus on their healthcare system. Overall, surveys show that even though there are valid complaints about the NHS, people are generally pleased with the care they receive.

Also in a recent poll, the NHS is listed as the thing that makes Brits proud to be British.

Relapse wrote:


I've read several post from Brits on these forums bitching about the NHS and how they have had problems getting good healthcare through it. Wasn't there some kind of healthcare worker strike in Britain a few months ago?

Junior Doctors had a couple of 24-hour strikes, were some pre-booked treatments were postponed, emergency rooms and procedures still ran as expected.

Our NHS is being run into the ground by our government who want to privatise it (something like 210 of our politicians have ties to private medical companies), by reducing funding as far as possible, but it's still got nothing on the gakshow that is American health care. It's better in Scotland as we've got control over it and tend to be a lot more lefty than the UK as a whole.

Being in hospital in both the US and the UK, I have to admit that the US treatment was nicer (got my own room, got tests done and back really quickly), but there's no way I could have afforded it if my travel insurance didn't pick up the bill. IIRC I was paying something like $100/hour just to be there, and the visit cost something north of $80,000, when my annual salary at the time (as a student) was <$10,000/year. We may pay more tax over here than you, but I've never heard of people over here having to sell their house when their partner gets sick.

I'd chose the NHS over any insurance system any day, under any conditions. You guys pay far more, per head, than we do, for a service that is much, much worse. Why does that make sense?

Relapse wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
I think the usa may need a reality check on the healthcare thing - i'm getting the feeling that 'the people in control' (idk who they might be) are projecting to the public that these big universal healthcare schemes are only good for the usa, but are essentially riding on the positive aspects of an NHS (like in britain) without addressing that most Americans don't really 'get' the benefit and therefore only see the (increasing?) financial cost.

On that basis i don't see it ever working because it will always be starved of funding; the inverse of this has happened in britain as political types are getting influenced by big healthcare firms to financially starve and then privatize the NHS - which has already started.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/15/creeping-privatisation-nhs-official-data-owen-smith-outsourcing
This has been allowed because, as a whole we are starting to become complacent about the value of our healthcare system and the attitude of "not wanting my taxes to get wasted on ....." is becoming more common among middle class types who would usually be more egalitarian than that.

I've read several post from Brits on these forums bitching about the NHS and how they have had problems getting good healthcare through it. Wasn't there some kind of healthcare worker strike in Britain a few months ago?

Our NHS is not perfect, but any Brit would happily till you that.

I'm still glad we have it though. It saved my life once.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
I think the usa may need a reality check on the healthcare thing - i'm getting the feeling that 'the people in control' (idk who they might be) are projecting to the public that these big universal healthcare schemes are only good for the usa, but are essentially riding on the positive aspects of an NHS (like in britain) without addressing that most Americans don't really 'get' the benefit and therefore only see the (increasing?) financial cost.

On that basis i don't see it ever working because it will always be starved of funding; the inverse of this has happened in britain as political types are getting influenced by big healthcare firms to financially starve and then privatize the NHS - which has already started.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/15/creeping-privatisation-nhs-official-data-owen-smith-outsourcing
This has been allowed because, as a whole we are starting to become complacent about the value of our healthcare system and the attitude of "not wanting my taxes to get wasted on ....." is becoming more common among middle class types who would usually be more egalitarian than that.

I've read several post from Brits on these forums bitching about the NHS and how they have had problems getting good healthcare through it. Wasn't there some kind of healthcare worker strike in Britain a few months ago?

Our NHS is not perfect, but any Brit would happily till you that.

I'm still glad we have it though. It saved my life once.

This. The NHS saved my life and continues to do so.

I pay £10.40 a month (for 10 months but giving me 12 months coverage of my prescription costs) for my prescription, no matter the cost of the drugs or how many different drugs I need.

Summing up the costs for some of the different tablets I get for that £10.40:
MMF 250mg £80 for 50 tablets (would last me 25 days)
MMF 500mg £80 for 50 tablets (would last me 25 days)
Tacrolimus 1mg £160 for 100 tablets (would last me 25 days)

So over a whole year I am paying £104 but getting ~£4672 worth of medication. Even at standard prescription charge rates (£8.40 per item) it would only cost me £302 a year.

The NHS seems like our VA: people will readily admit there are issues, some have horror stories, but the vast majority don't want to see it go away and are very happy with it despite the flaws.

 d-usa wrote:
The NHS seems like our VA: people will readily admit there are issues, some have horror stories, but the vast majority don't want to see it go away and are very happy with it despite the flaws.

There are a LOT of horror stories with the VA, way more than the NHS, but like with any public service, obviously not having it is worse. The old better than nothing cliche.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Trump appears to be promising to replace the ACA with the ACA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-vows-insurance-for-everybody-in-obamacare-replacement-plan/2017/01/15/5f2b1e18-db5d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?pushid=breaking-news_1484529933&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.b7ac9b7d1c72

For the record, I called this late last year, even before the election. Can I get an internet cookie now?

It is really the only way they can pull off Repeal and replace and not take face a political gakstorm.

..just another day in America.


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-vigilante-security-213847

Bikers for Trump became a protective force, and it’s not alone. Another group, Lions of Trump, popped up online after Chicago to scour social media for likely protesters and expose them. Its website prominently quotes the Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. At a Trump rally in Wisconsin in late March, a local Tea Party activist arrived several hours early and assisted a campaign security consultants in identifying area progressive activists, who were then removed. And Citizens for Trump, an all-purpose grassroots support group, has deployed a team scouring social media for death threats to Trump, while a handful of its members tour the country on the lookout for protesters at rallies.


While security experts warn that untrained vigilante groups could cause more harm than good, and even expose a candidate to charges of negligence in the case of violence, Trump’s campaign and paid consultants are doing little to discourage Bikers for Trump or other security volunteers.

“I immediately thought of the Rolling Stones' use of the Hells Angels to provide security and crowd control at their infamous Altamont concert!” said Steve Amitay, the executive director and general counsel of the National Association of Security Companies, of Bikers for Trump’s activities at the candidate’s events. “How did that work out?” (The 1969 concert in northern California at which members of the Hells Angels provided security ended with one 18-year-old concert-goer dead at the motorcycle club’s hands.)

“If it can be shown the Trump campaign permitted them to assume this security role, and then something bad happened involving a biker security volunteer, the Trump campaign could easily be found liable for negligence,” he said.

.... an army of loyal people to help the Leader.

That always works out well.

At this state, you will have a Civil War Day One of Trump being in office. Could be "fun" to rub this into the Right Wingers who said Hillary "started" more wars than Trump.

Yeah, not that fun, actually.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
I think the usa may need a reality check on the healthcare thing - i'm getting the feeling that 'the people in control' (idk who they might be) are projecting to the public that these big universal healthcare schemes are only good for the usa, but are essentially riding on the positive aspects of an NHS (like in britain) without addressing that most Americans don't really 'get' the benefit and therefore only see the (increasing?) financial cost.

On that basis i don't see it ever working because it will always be starved of funding; the inverse of this has happened in britain as political types are getting influenced by big healthcare firms to financially starve and then privatize the NHS - which has already started.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/15/creeping-privatisation-nhs-official-data-owen-smith-outsourcing
This has been allowed because, as a whole we are starting to become complacent about the value of our healthcare system and the attitude of "not wanting my taxes to get wasted on ....." is becoming more common among middle class types who would usually be more egalitarian than that.

I've read several post from Brits on these forums bitching about the NHS and how they have had problems getting good healthcare through it. Wasn't there some kind of healthcare worker strike in Britain a few months ago?

Our NHS is not perfect, but any Brit would happily till you that.

I'm still glad we have it though. It saved my life once.

This. The NHS saved my life and continues to do so.

I pay £10.40 a month (for 10 months but giving me 12 months coverage of my prescription costs) for my prescription, no matter the cost of the drugs or how many different drugs I need.

Summing up the costs for some of the different tablets I get for that £10.40:
MMF 250mg £80 for 50 tablets (would last me 25 days)
MMF 500mg £80 for 50 tablets (would last me 25 days)
Tacrolimus 1mg £160 for 100 tablets (would last me 25 days)

So over a whole year I am paying £104 but getting ~£4672 worth of medication. Even at standard prescription charge rates (£8.40 per item) it would only cost me £302 a year.

There's another way of looking at that, and as I've said before, it always surprises me that the USA doesn't share this viewpoint.

For example, you pay £104 and get £4672 worth of medical drugs in return. On the surface, that looks a pretty bad deal.

And yet, if you do nothing, and let that person's health gets worse, it's more than likely that:

that person gets a serious condition and has to go to hospital. A team of surgeons has to operate on that person, plus weeks of after care, plus the cost of the ambulance to get them to hospital = more than £4672.

Plus, if those drugs keep that person going, keep them working, then they pay tax back, and it's likely that they claim no benefits because they have a job.

Now, that is good value for money. Surely the Americans can see the business sense in that?

Oh yeah, if I don't take those drugs then there is a good chance that I will reject my transplanted kidney. So then I have to go into hospital and pump much higher doses of those drugs into me to try and bring my immune system back into line. If that fails then it is onto dialysis and the waiting list for a new kidney.

Which does not make me a very productive member of society, to say the least

 Sarouan wrote:
At this state, you will have a Civil War Day One of Trump being in office. Could be "fun" to rub this into the Right Wingers who said Hillary "started" more wars than Trump.

Yeah, not that fun, actually.

I'm mostly worried about the commander of DC's national guard being replaced with a Trumper immediately preceding the Women's March.

Is there anybody from dakka marching on Washington this Friday?

 Sarouan wrote:
At this state, you will have a Civil War Day One of Trump being in office. Could be "fun" to rub this into the Right Wingers who said Hillary "started" more wars than Trump.

Yeah, not that fun, actually.

A Civil War where the right wingers would win...

Be careful what you wish for...

Seriously though, the people freaking out over Cheeto Jesus is really something else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Is there anybody from dakka marching on Washington this Friday?

No moi... got gak to do.

The inauguration is something you'd watch on TV... if you go in person, you're really just vacationing in DC. Unless you're a hoi poi who can go to the inauguration ball.