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.

And this is Paul Ryan you at talking about. The man who takes Ayn Rand as his pedestal to look up to? Yeah, good luck with that singlmpayer health care idea.

Gordon Shumway wrote:

I, and every single democrat, would support a single payer system. How does that fly in the GOP of 2016 after years of poo pooing Canada and GB? Eating gak sure is tasty.

If I remember correctly the Democrats wanted to get as close as possible to a single payer system but the Republicans didn't and that's why they "compromised" on the ACA.

 whembly wrote:

Another way to put it, do they concede that health is a basic human right.

That, I won't concede.

I'll concede that it should be a cherished entitlement. But a basic human right? It all sounds good, as long as the healthcare laborers are still working in the field and the bills are paid.

You have the right to a fair trial in the US, have you not? That including the right to counsel. I don't see people complaining that this results in lawyers not being paid and the legal system falling apart (or like some describe it when it comes to healthcare "they want to enslave the doctors and not pay them!"). Both professions have high standards of qualification and certification. Doctors will need to adjust if the system changes. They, like everybody else, are not guaranteed a life without adjustments or changes.

You remember correctly. In the 08 debates, Clinton was the one pushing for single payer, Obama was hedging his bets saying he would take the best bill he could craft. Now whembly is on Team Hillary and cats are falling out of the sky.

If the GOP manages to get this turd of a bill passed, and the public is so incensed we finally move to single payer, then it would be a net win for the US.

Of course that's not going to happen, but one can dream.

Mario wrote:

Gordon Shumway wrote:

I, and every single democrat, would support a single payer system. How does that fly in the GOP of 2016 after years of poo pooing Canada and GB? Eating gak sure is tasty.

If I remember correctly the Democrats wanted to get as close as possible to a single payer system but the Republicans didn't and that's why they "compromised" on the ACA.

Even some democrats didn't want single payor.

The ACA was *NOT* a compromise... it was something they felt they could pass WITHOUT the Republicans.

 whembly wrote:

Another way to put it, do they concede that health is a basic human right.

That, I won't concede.

I'll concede that it should be a cherished entitlement. But a basic human right? It all sounds good, as long as the healthcare laborers are still working in the field and the bills are paid.

You have the right to a fair trial in the US, have you not? That including the right to counsel. I don't see people complaining that this results in lawyers not being paid and the legal system falling apart (or like some describe it when it comes to healthcare "they want to enslave the doctors and not pay them!"). Both professions have high standards of qualification and certification. Doctors will need to adjust if the system changes. They, like everybody else, are not guaranteed a life without adjustments or changes.

Sure we can make that case.

Just don't expect the same level of care. *shrugs*

I still don't think it's on the same level of basic human right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
You remember correctly. In the 08 debates, Clinton was the one pushing for single payer, Obama was hedging his bets saying he would take the best bill he could craft. Now whembly is on Team Hillary and cats are falling out of the sky.

Team Hillary... Good one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
If the GOP manages to get this turd of a bill passed, and the public is so incensed we finally move to single payer, then it would be a net win for the US.

Of course that's not going to happen, but one can dream.

You think they can pass this turd sammich?

Considering Murica has access to shootin' irons and just say no having to host jarheads in your home a Right, I'd say not having access to basic health services par for the looney tunes course.

So, is Trump still refusing to put up or shut up about his wiretapping claims? Or is he now just going to claim how he was ' purposefully misinterpreted by the media as yet another attack, and that's totally not what he meant"?

Mario wrote:

Gordon Shumway wrote:

I, and every single democrat, would support a single payer system. How does that fly in the GOP of 2016 after years of poo pooing Canada and GB? Eating gak sure is tasty.

If I remember correctly the Democrats wanted to get as close as possible to a single payer system but the Republicans didn't and that's why they "compromised" on the ACA.

 whembly wrote:

Another way to put it, do they concede that health is a basic human right.

That, I won't concede.

I'll concede that it should be a cherished entitlement. But a basic human right? It all sounds good, as long as the healthcare laborers are still working in the field and the bills are paid.

You have the right to a fair trial in the US, have you not? That including the right to counsel. I don't see people complaining that this results in lawyers not being paid and the legal system falling apart (or like some describe it when it comes to healthcare "they want to enslave the doctors and not pay them!"). Both professions have high standards of qualification and certification. Doctors will need to adjust if the system changes. They, like everybody else, are not guaranteed a life without adjustments or changes.

Are we discussing health care or health insurance? If you're sick or injured you won't be turned away from receiving medical care in the US but that is a separate issue from having the Federal govt pay for health insurance for everyone.

Any system that turns doctors in the US into the medical equivalent of public defenders would be a massive step backwards.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
So, is Trump still refusing to put up or shut up about his wiretapping claims? Or is he now just going to claim how he was ' purposefully misinterpreted by the media as yet another attack, and that's totally not what he meant"?

It's transformed. Conway's words

Well.....as long as everything is staying status quo, I guess. The best way to deal with BS of the highest caliber is to expect it all the time, right?

 feeder wrote:
Considering Murica has access to shootin' irons and just say no having to host jarheads in your home a Right, I'd say not having access to basic health services par for the looney tunes course.

So... is basic healthcare enshrined as a right in Canada?


<---genuinely don't know...

So Amazon is advertising The Man in the High Castle season 3 through a web radio show called resistance radio.

Apparently some Trump supporters thought it was real...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/amazon-launched-a-fake-radio-station-to-promote-%E2%80%98the-man-in-the-high-castle%E2%80%99-angry-trump-supporters-thought-it-was-real/ar-AAofhCl?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=HPDHP

And now, for another installation in the McCrory Saga...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/323792-former-nc-gov-says-backlash-over-bathroom-law-has-made-it-hard

Former North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) says the state's controversial "bathroom law" has made it difficult for him to land a job after leaving office.

McCrory said in an interview with a World Radio podcast, according to the News & Observer, that the backlash following the law “has impacted me to this day, even after I left office. People are reluctant to hire me, because ‘oh my gosh, he’s a bigot’ — which is the last thing I am.”

He blamed liberal advocates who opposed the law, which requires that transgender people use the bathroom corresponding to their biological sex as identified on their birth certificate, for damaging his reputation.

“If you disagree with the politically correct thought police on this new definition of gender, you’re a bigot, you’re the worst of evil,” McCrory said. “It’s almost as if I broke a law.”
Prior to President Trump taking office, reports circulated that McCrory would land a role in the new administration.

“They’re definitely going to take care of him,” a source close to Trump’s team told the Charlotte Observer in December.

McCrory did not say Monday, according to the report, whether he was being considered for a post in the Trump administration, nor would he rule out a future gubernatorial bid.

According to the report, the North Carolina Democratic Party issued a statement in response to McCrory’s interview.

“North Carolina has already lost hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity and thousands of jobs as a direct result of House Bill 2, but I guess we can start adding Gov. McCrory’s career to the total as well,” a spokesman said in a statement.

Good to see the free market working the way it is supposed to.

Did the spokesman drop his mic after his statement?

Because he should have.

Once again, interesting to see members of the Personal Responsibility party trying to blame others for their own actions. It's not like the Democrats held his pen hand to the bill while chanting 'stop screwing your future self! Stop screwing your future self!' Glad to see the back of him.

So did everyone see the job figures for February. It was 237k. Pretty good result, a strong continuation of the long period of job growth the US has seen. Trump was pretty pleased with himself. It'd be worth having a conversation about how little impact a president can have on the economy in the short term outside of very rare circumstances, except for the sheer crazy of the position the Trump administration put themselves. Because Trump had previously called similar job numbers under Obama as false stats. Including the 238k jobs added in Feb last year, or the 235k added in February the year before that. When questioned on how the job numbers suddenly became reliable once they suited Trump, Spicer doubled down, Obama's figures were cooked but there ones are honest. There has been no change in staff or policy in the Department of Labor, the figures were produced under exactly the same circumstances.

Similar was the Whitehouse reaction to the CBO's analysis of the impact of AHCA. The Whitehouse was contemptuous of CBO's prediction that 24 million people would lose insurance... meanwhile the Whitehouse's own analysis says it will be 26 million. At the same time they were calling the CBO useless, they did find one positive in the CBO analysis, a prediction that premiums would be lower (mostly a result of older people being unable to afford coverage and dropping out)... this part they believed was 100% accurate and to be trusted.

Thing is, honesty isn't just about other people knowing what you really stand for. The most important thing about honesty is that it makes you reflect on your own beliefs, and makes you ensure your ideas actually stand up in the real world. The first person you convince of your lies is yourself.

But if you actually reach a position of power, then your bs comes up against reality really hard. Paul Ryan spent years making pretend budgets, with big tax cuts funded by promises of magical growth rates and unspecified spending cuts. Donald Trump spent the whole election campaign promsing anything to everyone, including healthcare that was better, cheaper and available to everyone.

That bs left both men incapable of actually seeing how healthcare really is, and why. And the result is that now they've put up the most extraordinarily terrible healthcare bill imaginable.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
You remember correctly. In the 08 debates, Clinton was the one pushing for single payer, Obama was hedging his bets saying he would take the best bill he could craft. Now whembly is on Team Hillary and cats are falling out of the sky.

Actually it was Obama that was strongly for single payer during the 2008 primary, along with Iraq it was the big point of difference between himself and Clinton. Once he got in to power he quickly moved to the ACA model of banning insurance companies from rejecting for pre-existing conditions, offset by low income subsidies and the individual mandate, which was Clinton had been arguing for. Whether Obama made this change because he had a cynical plan to promise the world in the campaign and then switch to what was viable during the campaign, or whether its because he only learned about how impossible it would to make the overhaul needed for single payer, I don't think anyone knows.

Clinton's own plan for single payer died in 1993. That's why she was ahead of the game in knowing what level of practical reform would be possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
So, is Trump still refusing to put up or shut up about his wiretapping claims? Or is he now just going to claim how he was ' purposefully misinterpreted by the media as yet another attack, and that's totally not what he meant"?

He just says he's organising investigative committees, doesn't organise a committee, and then stops talking about it. Remember how Pence was going to investigate voter fraud? Last week NPR went hunting around for someone, anyone who'd been contacted about joining Pence's investigation. They asked every voter fraud academic they could find, not a single one had been contacted by the Whitehouse.

Why would Pence ask experts?

NPR needs to be checking with people the Trump administration would put in charge of an important project like that, like the lady who tried to vote twice for him.

Maybe there is a guy who invented a hatchet that you can also use as a crowbar that's working on that.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Considering Murica has access to shootin' irons and just say no having to host jarheads in your home a Right, I'd say not having access to basic health services par for the looney tunes course.

So... is basic healthcare enshrined as a right in Canada?


<---genuinely don't know...

Depends. In many ways, yes. If everything goes well, you should never be denied services in Canada. It's happened before, so you should always be current on your healthcare registration/payments, just in case you end up on a really really stupid admission clerk.

To be more precise, health is a provincial prerogative in Canada, meaning each Provinces have a certain freedom in writing the laws and setting up the administrative system. The Federal government, for multiple, not-always-good reasons, has since 1964 run programs to support the different provincial systems, with major conditions for eligibility being accessibility and universality. I'm not aware of a single Province or Territories not having a law promising access to citizens.

Hell, I'm pretty sure even non-citizens would be protected, if only because of good samaritan laws forcing apt medical specialists to offer care. Not sure how that would work.

So, healthcare isn't a right to the level that americans would hold those on the Bill of Rights, but effectively, it's supposed to be.

For more evidence of this 'reality don't live here anymore' presidency, when attacking the CBO ahead of them reporting their findings on AHCA, Tom Price said they are going to rely on other analysts who will conclude this plan will cover more people than our currently covered. Mr Price doesn't appear to have realised that if you've already determined what analysis is going to tell you, it isn't actually analysis.

Similarly, there was a report requested by the Whitehouse to establish the need for Trump's travel ban. This report was leaked, and it completely demolished the case for needing this ban. Trump policy advisor Stephen Miller dismissed the report, saying it was 'not the intelligence assessment the president asked for'. Apparently the way things work is you ask for a report to prove what you've already decided, and if the report doesn't prove that then its the report that's wrong.

 Spinner wrote:
Why would Pence ask experts?

Touche.

Remember, the best way to reform defense spending is to abolish the entire US military by 2020. Then we will be forced to make a better military that is more efficient.

Prestor Jon wrote:
A big part of the problem with the insane growth of tuition costs in recent decades is that the government will make unaffordable tuition costs affordable through loans. We have more colleges and universities than ever and more college students than ever and instead of competition bringing prices down prices have skyrocketed while colleges indulge in an amenities arms race funded by tuition that would price most students out of attending except the .gov makes up that shortfall. Higher Ed doesn't have to be this expensive but it has been enabled to be this expensive and the people that have to bear the brunt of the cost are the students the institutions are supposed to be helping.

There is a serious problem with exploding costs in the US tertiary sector, and it certainly is dependent on people accepting very large amounts of debt, but that isn't down purely to the loans available. Consider getting a car loan, for instance. I could go out tomorrow and get a loan for $200k and buy an unbelievably nice car to replace my 10 year old Mazda 6 that just got a really bad tinting bubble on my driver's door window. But I won't because even though I can borrow the money I able to value the utility of that car against all the other ways I might spend $200k, and against the utility of not having that debt at all.

So it isn't the ability to borrow in and of itself that is causing the issue. Rather there's three reasons;

1) The massive increase in total sector debt is largely driven by the large increase in people getting a tertiary education.
2) While the nominal price for tuition has exploded, this isn't actually representative of the actual price paid. Colleges have massively increased their discounts at the same time, it's all basically a marketing ploy. Just as a car that costs $20k doesn't seem as good a deal as a $25k with a special $5k discount, there is also a feeling of greater value from a $50k tuition with 'scholarship' of $20k, compared to a $30k tuition.
3) While the two issues above have led to an overstatement, there is still an undeniable issue. But to return to my car example above, this isn't driven by debt, but by how hard it is to judge the utility of a tertiary education. Because unlike a car your college education also drives your income. People who study this for a living have been able to more or less form a consensus that college is worth the price paid, if you graduate, but nothing any more concrete than that. Given experts have such scarce information, students who are asked to assess whether a $30k tuition per year will give a greater payoff than a $20k tuition are basically left guessing. Human nature typically associates price with value, and so people take the more expensive college, so there is no consumer choice keeping costs down, and hey presto there's your tuition price explosion.

It's a classic area where conventional economics just don't work, because consumers aren't able to make a rational decision on the value of one college compared to another, and compare that against price, because that kind of knowledge really just doesn't exist.

Pretty sure having so much of the money focused on the top end plays into this; college graduates are making less (relative to costs) like everyone else who isn't in the very top income brackets. I remember looking at a study showing that average pay for a high school and associates education has gone down in the last 20 years, with only a bachelors breaking even. Coupled with rising costs for tuition and nearly everything else...

 jmurph wrote:
Plus Trump didn't mean wire tap when he tweeted "wire tap": http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/sean-spicer-donald-trump-wiretapping/index.html

Also, apparently microwaves can turn into cameras.

Every week or so we get something that sounds so utterly ridiculous that it's bound to be the thing that define's the incredible stupidity of the Trump administration. Like Bush's 'misunderestimated', or 'is our children learning'. But no matter how crazy it is, it gets forgotten a week or two later by new crazy stuff. And unlike Bush this isn't just some mispoken words, but actual honest to god beliefs of Trump and his staff that show a complete detachment from reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Incrementally introduce changes instead of one-size-fits-all strategy.

As I've said a lot of times now, the structure of the ACA can't be incremental. Individual mandate, subsidies, taxes and the guarantee of coverage, the minimum standards of coverage, and the guarantee of coverage despite a pre-existing condition are all part of one system, that need the other parts of the system to make any sense. You don't build one leg of a chair, and sit on that for a year or two while you get around to getting the second, third, fourth and fifth legs.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Incrementally introduce changes instead of one-size-fits-all strategy.

As I've said a lot of times now, the structure of the ACA can't be incremental. Individual mandate, subsidies, taxes and the guarantee of coverage, the minimum standards of coverage, and the guarantee of coverage despite a pre-existing condition are all part of one system, that need the other parts of the system to make any sense. You don't build one leg of a chair, and sit on that for a year or two while you get around to getting the second, third, fourth and fifth legs.

Plus, building three or five legged chairs is the Democrat's specialty!

 whembly wrote:
That, I won't concede.

I'll concede that it should be a cherished entitlement. But a basic human right? It all sounds good, as long as the healthcare laborers are still working in the field and the bills are paid.

You're right in that healthcare isn't a right that is specified in the constitution. There is a law that a hospital can't turn away someone with a life threatening condition, but that's a law, not a fundamental right. And that's just for coverage, in terms of who is left to pay for that coverage there's even less support, before ACA there was effectively nothing, and since ACA there's merely guarantee that you can get insurance and a system where portion of it will be covered by government if you're low income.

But instead of thinking about it in a purely legalistic sense, think about it in terms of how healthcare works. Because when a person with a serious medical issue shows up at a hospital they are given treatment. This isn't just the law, this is also how human decency works. We care for people that need care. Once we accept that as reality, then the question just becomes one of who pays for that care, particularly when the person receiving the care has little or no ability to pay.

Once we get that we are going to give people the treatment they need, then it becomes a question of how we share the burden of that cost. Which means we dismiss straight away the argument that people must pay for their own care, because we know lots of people simply can't pay. So we either subsidise their insurance, or we treat them for free and write off the cost. Either way that subsidy or write off has to come from somewhere, which means the rich will pay, either with taxes or higher insurance premiums.

Realise that and what you're left with is either ACA or single payer. And given single payer is politically and perhaps institutionally impossible, then you're left with ACA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Pretty sure having so much of the money focused on the top end plays into this; college graduates are making less (relative to costs) like everyone else who isn't in the very top income brackets. I remember looking at a study showing that average pay for a high school and associates education has gone down in the last 20 years, with only a bachelors breaking even. Coupled with rising costs for tuition and nearly everything else...

Yeah, I think part of it is that there's so much money at the top, it produces a mentality of swinging for the bleachers. Take any debt to maximise your chance of getting that really high paying job, because if you make it you'll cover that debt countless times. If you don't make it then $100k is probably as crushing as $200k.

And yeah, one issue with the glut of uni educated people is that it forces the value of the degree down. I still think its worth it as long as you take the right course, and that you graduate, but it isn't as obviously beneficial as it was a decade ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Plus, building three or five legged chairs is the Democrat's specialty!

I'm trying to think of a joke where the individual mandate is too small, so the fifth leg makes a wobbly chair, but my funny is bad.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/13/presidential-executive-order-comprehensive-plan-reorganizing-executive


looking at the people you're appointing this is gonna be a fire sale.

best of luck.

Oh, hello. This looks like a purge.

Mind you I heard one guy's using taxpayer money to fly to Florida every weekend AND keep his wife in a golden tower in NYC.

 reds8n wrote:
Mind you I heard one guy's using taxpayer money to fly to Florida every weekend AND keep his wife in a golden tower in NYC.

I bet it' the Clintons.