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.

 whembly wrote:
Furthermore, you do know that every Emergency Room is REQUIRED to take any anyone who needs to be stabilized... right?

This isn't like Panem, where only the connected gets care...

And as we all know, the emergency room is the best place to treat cancer and other conditions that would qualify as pre-existing.

 reds8n wrote:
I understand that

But emergency rooms aren't much good for, say, treating cancer or similar on a long term basis.

But if Congress passes a law -- such as the removal of healthcare -- which could actively lead to the demise of a USA citizen --

-- and I'm happy to accept there would have to be some limits here of course -- because there's no replacement, does SCOTUS have the right or duty to step in ?


I have a friend.. well more a friend of a friend , Facebook kinda thing -- who is undergoing treatment for Liver cancer & a few related odds and sods and said person appears to be facing an effective death sentence when/if their h'care coverage is removed.

Didn't have access prior to the ACA due to pre-existing conditions AFAIK.

... I had to google Panem

The ACA doesn't provide people with healthcare. The ACA sets up the system through which the Federal govt funds subsidies for private insurance plans purchased by citizens and for the reimbursement to state govts for the cost of new enrollees in medicare or Medicaid programs. Subsidizing the cost of health insurance =/= providing healthcare. The ACA increased the number of people with health insurance but it really didn't do much of anything to change the quality of health care and it only had a secondary impact on the availability of health care to the extent that people with active health insurance plans have an easier time getting preventative and long term care at a more reasonable cost than those without health insurance.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Glad to see the Brexit, Trump, global lunacy phenomenon continues to roll around the planet...German elections this year, kiddies.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-23/germany-is-growing-more-tolerant-of-extremism

However, the German elections are overshadowed by the growing right-wing populists. As long as refugees make headlines in Germany, the populist party will grow. Could be a bad awakening after the elections.

 reds8n wrote:
I understand that

But emergency rooms aren't much good for, say, treating cancer or similar on a long term basis.

True... most of an individual's healthcare is the sole responsibility of said individual.

But if Congress passes a law -- such as the removal of healthcare -- which could actively lead to the demise of a USA citizen --

I work in the healthcare industry. Remember that Obama promise "you can keep your doctor, and your healthcare plan!".

Remember that?

Well, in our Cancer Centers many patients had to pause, or in some cases stop, their treatments because they had to get different insurances (and some cases, different doctors). Now, it wasn't a huge number, (we all heard about them), as many insurance/clinics did their best to smooth out the transition periods, but many were left wondering if that change impacted their treatment adversely.

-- and I'm happy to accept there would have to be some limits here of course -- because there's no replacement, does SCOTUS have the right or duty to step in ?

It's too premature to claim that there's no replacement.

Even then... no... the SCOTUS does not have a duty to step in as the litigant would have no standing.

I have a friend.. well more a friend of a friend , Facebook kinda thing -- who is undergoing treatment for Liver cancer & a few related odds and sods and said person appears to be facing an effective death sentence when/if their h'care coverage is removed.

Liver cancer is one of the worst... I can't forecast what would happen if the ACA insurance would be rendered null and void. There's talk about the next plan to target and address those with pre-existing conditions. Even then... your friend may even be qualified by his state's medicaid program (something that would be in effect pre-ACA anyways).

Didn't have access prior to the ACA due to pre-existing conditions AFAIK.

This narrative that Pre-ACA was this wild-wild-west in Fallout 4 is getting tiring... In MOST cases, the state's Medicaid would likely helped him.

I donated a kidney to a 24 year old who was suffering from renal failure (pre-existing condition), who didn't work... the state of Missouri's Medicaid picked up the tab on that.

... I had to google Panem

Sorry... I get the feeling that the outsider thinks that is how US Healthcare works...










Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vash108 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Furthermore, you do know that every Emergency Room is REQUIRED to take any anyone who needs to be stabilized... right?

This isn't like Panem, where only the connected gets care...

Also this can/will/has put people into crippling debt for the rest of their lives...

Just ask a friend of mine who was flown and operated on in a out of coverage ER room after a car accident.

That can happen yes... additionally bankruptcy laws can clear that debt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Goliath wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Furthermore, you do know that every Emergency Room is REQUIRED to take any anyone who needs to be stabilized... right?

This isn't like Panem, where only the connected gets care...

And as we all know, the emergency room is the best place to treat cancer and other conditions that would qualify as pre-existing.

I know you're being pithy here... but, you have NO idea how close the truth you are...

Studies has been done, that even though the poor (those having difficult times to purchase insurance) are heavily subsidized... since the advent of the ACA, "free-care" to Emergency Rooms has NOT dropped... it's even gone UP.

 Goliath wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Furthermore, you do know that every Emergency Room is REQUIRED to take any anyone who needs to be stabilized... right?

This isn't like Panem, where only the connected gets care...

And as we all know, the emergency room is the best place to treat cancer and other conditions that would qualify as pre-existing.

If you're not dying or seriously ill, there is nothing the ER is required to do. That's what the "go to the ER" crowd always ignores. My job for 1.5 years was telling our doctors what can and cannot be admitted to our hospital. Now we were lucky enough that we also provided al the specialty clinics and primary care clinics and related testing and procedures for our patients, so when we turned people away that didn't need admission I could send them out of our ER with scheduled appointments for the testing and follow-up needed. But the vast majority of facilities won't do that. They will just tell you "we did a CT, looks like you have cancer but it won't kill you yet, sign here and find an oncologist that will see you without insurance, now get out."

Prestor Jon wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
I understand that

But emergency rooms aren't much good for, say, treating cancer or similar on a long term basis.

But if Congress passes a law -- such as the removal of healthcare -- which could actively lead to the demise of a USA citizen --

-- and I'm happy to accept there would have to be some limits here of course -- because there's no replacement, does SCOTUS have the right or duty to step in ?


I have a friend.. well more a friend of a friend , Facebook kinda thing -- who is undergoing treatment for Liver cancer & a few related odds and sods and said person appears to be facing an effective death sentence when/if their h'care coverage is removed.

Didn't have access prior to the ACA due to pre-existing conditions AFAIK.

... I had to google Panem

The ACA doesn't provide people with healthcare. The ACA sets up the system through which the Federal govt funds subsidies for private insurance plans purchased by citizens and for the reimbursement to state govts for the cost of new enrollees in medicare or Medicaid programs. Subsidizing the cost of health insurance =/= providing healthcare. The ACA increased the number of people with health insurance but it really didn't do much of anything to change the quality of health care and it only had a secondary impact on the availability of health care to the extent that people with active health insurance plans have an easier time getting preventative and long term care at a more reasonable cost than those without health insurance.

This.

Right here.

Is 1000% correct.

Once you understand wha the ACA has done, you'll realize it's not the panacea it's made out to be...

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Beyond the Veterans' Administration the government isn't a healthcare provider, it just subsidizes private insurance plans for qualifying people.

The government is also a healthcare provider via the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the Indian Health Service, and the Public Health Service.

Other than the VA and the Indian Health Service, do any of those departments actually own and operate hospitals and healthcare providers or do they just provide health insurance policies?

Prestor Jon wrote:

You're correct that student protests that result in the cancellation of guest speakers/lecturers isn't a violation of constitutionally protected free speech but while lawful it's still a terrible, unreasonable and intolerant practice.

Hrm, depends on the event and the speaker. If I were graduating from an ivy league school and they bring in a pop culture personality who's claim to fame is based on things in strong opposition to the values espoused by the institution for the commencement speech, disinviting that speaker as a result of student protests who will comprise the audience probably isnt awful.

If people are attempting to have an honest conversation about an issue, disinviting speakers with extensive track records of inflammatory and false statements is probably not a terrible thing as long as theyre allowed to attend in an audience capacity and have their say that way and can freely express themselves around campus otherwise.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:


Why were they not on Medicaid? This is a question not a criticism.

At the time he was under 26 and still working (but was a temp and wasnt covered by work). He is on disability and medicaide now and just had a liver transplant at 30 a few weeks ago. Had the bad luck to be born with viral hep C from his mother in the mid 80's and has failed literally every treatment out there (his old liver is actually apparently now something of a dedicated research project at Scripps health now)

https://twitter.com/DeptofDefense/status/823515639302262784

Social media postings sometimes provide an important window into a person’s #mentalhealth. Know what to look for. http://go.usa.gov/x9yVB

...


..guess that's one more official twitter account about to be closed and reassigned.

Bloody hell.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Beyond the Veterans' Administration the government isn't a healthcare provider, it just subsidizes private insurance plans for qualifying people.

The government is also a healthcare provider via the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the Indian Health Service, and the Public Health Service.

Other than the VA and the Indian Health Service, do any of those departments actually own and operate hospitals and healthcare providers or do they just provide health insurance policies?

They own and operate hospitals and heath care facilities.

The DoD has giant hospitals for soldiers wounded in combat, and clinics at all major bases. Walter Reed is just one example.

The Department of Justice operates clinics and health care facilities via ICE and the Bureau of Prisons. The BOP is the primary care provider for all federal inmates, and operates entire hospitals located within a prison.

One example:

https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/spg/

 Vaktathi wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You're correct that student protests that result in the cancellation of guest speakers/lecturers isn't a violation of constitutionally protected free speech but while lawful it's still a terrible, unreasonable and intolerant practice.

Hrm, depends on the event and the speaker. If I were graduating from an ivy league school and they bring in a pop culture personality who's claim to fame is based on things in strong opposition to the values espoused by the institution for the commencement speech, disinviting that speaker as a result of student protests who will comprise the audience probably isnt awful.

If people are attempting to have an honest conversation about an issue, disinviting speakers with extensive track records of inflammatory and false statements is probably not a terrible thing as long as theyre allowed to attend in an audience capacity and have their say that way and can freely express themselves around campus otherwise.

I don't think you'll find many universities inviting such people to speak at commencement or as guest lecturers. The more controversial speakers are likely to be invited by various student organizations that have a more partisan or focused agenda. Commencement is a showcase for the university so they tend to put a fair amount of thought into who gets invited to speak at them. There may well be universities that have invited political ideologues or vapid entertainers but I haven't heard of it happening at any of the major universities in the states I've lived in.

For instance in 2011 a student organization at Rutgers that books/plans events used the money they get from the school to hire Snooki from The Jersey Shore to be a guest speaker. Rutgers University paid Nobel and Pulitzer prize winning author Toni Morrison to be the commencement speaker that year.

Trump halts federal hiring and freezes pay. Also pulls a Sanders and pulls us out of TPP.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38721056

https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-trump-meets-business-leaders-white-house-143201095--finance.html

At the time he was under 26 and still working (but was a temp and wasnt covered by work). He is on disability and medicaide now and just had a liver transplant at 30 a few weeks ago. Had the bad luck to be born with viral hep C from his mother in the mid 80's and has failed literally every treatment out there (his old liver is actually apparently now something of a dedicated research project at Scripps health now)

Good good. In line with my belief about universal healthcare I view it as a requirement for a free society that at least the lower class/poor should have access.

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Beyond the Veterans' Administration the government isn't a healthcare provider, it just subsidizes private insurance plans for qualifying people.

The government is also a healthcare provider via the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the Indian Health Service, and the Public Health Service.

Other than the VA and the Indian Health Service, do any of those departments actually own and operate hospitals and healthcare providers or do they just provide health insurance policies?

They own and operate hospitals and heath care facilities.

The DoD has giant hospitals for soldiers wounded in combat, and clinics at all major bases. Walter Reed is just one example.

The Department of Justice operates clinics and health care facilities via ICE and the Bureau of Prisons. The BOP is the primary care provider for all federal inmates, and operates entire hospitals located within a prison.

One example:

https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/spg/

What's the distinction between the DoD and the VA? The veterans in my family always refer to it as the VA but at least one of them received care at Walter Reed, IIRC.

And thanks for the clarifications, I shouldn't have overlooked the BoP (so many privatize prisons these days) and ICE.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Glad to see the Brexit, Trump, global lunacy phenomenon continues to roll around the planet...German elections this year, kiddies.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-23/germany-is-growing-more-tolerant-of-extremism

However, the German elections are overshadowed by the growing right-wing populists. As long as refugees make headlines in Germany, the populist party will grow. Could be a bad awakening after the elections.

You saw what happened here. It's going to happen there, and elsewhere. Hence the point of my posting that article. The ugly child of the 2008/9 global meltdown has finally got legs and is making the rounds.

 Frazzled wrote:
Trump halts federal hiring and freezes pay. Also pulls a Sanders and pulls us out of TPP.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38721056

https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-trump-meets-business-leaders-white-house-143201095--finance.html

Yay, I can't wait to tell my father (who works for the NPS).


It's such an arbitrary, and all around really fething stupid idea. If you think there is waste, get rid of that, don't hurt everybody who works for government (and by extension all of those millions of families).

 Frazzled wrote:

Are you unaware that the ACA is going to gutted and/or removed ?

That’s not “confiscating” healthcare. You know that. Quit playing semantics games. We don’t do alternative facts here. We do Real Facts! 
Babylon Five comes true 200 years early.

Effectively, for some people? It very well could be.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yes, emergency rooms will stabilize, but thats often far from enough. I know several people, including a close personal friend of mine since middle school, that would have been dead without the ACA and the extra care it allowed beyond mere stabilization that missed stuff like the internal bleeding from esophageal varices.

Why were they not on Medicaid? This is a question not a criticism.

Because some people can't necessarily qualify for Medicaid.

Effectively, for some people? It very well could be.

No that’s not how logic works. By not paying for someone else the government is not “restricting” their care. Otherwise the government is restricting my transportation by not buying me an original Norton.

Because some people can't necessarily qualify for Medicaid.

That’s why I was asking…

...that's pretty impressive if you ask me...


(I was looking for a shot of the crowd where you an actually see Trump).

...still it's a petty argument last weekend. Makes we wonder we're going to see these sorts of petty arguments to 'overshadow' the things they're going to do...


Like, Trump signing an EO to forbidding funding to any abortion services internationally:

President Trump signs executive order reinstating the Mexico City abortion rules. pic.twitter.com/CNprSew5CQ

— Fox News (@FoxNews) January 23, 2017

I think I see my man Dubya in that photo!

So there's Waldo...

The petty argument is not about the size.

The actual argument is about the lie.

 d-usa wrote:
The petty argument is not about the size.

The actual argument is about the lie.

Eh? I thought Spicer et. & el. were arguing it's the largest crowd ever...

Did they walk that back?

 d-usa wrote:
The petty argument is not about the size.

The actual argument is about the lie.

We are post facts. Now we have alternative facts. Please check in with your nearest Happy Patriotism officer for your double ungood thoughts.

 Frazzled wrote:

Effectively, for some people? It very well could be.

No that’s not how logic works. By not paying for someone else the government is not “restricting” their care. Otherwise the government is restricting my transportation by not buying me an original Norton.

Do you actually understand how the ACA worked? Because it really seems like you don't.

ACA prevented insurance companies from turning down people because of preexisting conditions and other issues that made insurance companies consider them to be "high risk/low reward" prospects.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/23/511160267/delusions-or-deceptions-white-house-alternative-facts-rile-press

Good write-up, I expect the small amount of federal funding to dry up soon.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The petty argument is not about the size.

The actual argument is about the lie.

Eh? I thought Spicer et. & el. were arguing it's the largest crowd ever...

Did they walk that back?

No, Whem'. The point is that they lied about something so insignificant, and obviously, not what the lie was. And that they then talked about keeping the media "in check" (or whatever the phrase was)... because they called them out on such an obvious lie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/23/511160267/delusions-or-deceptions-white-house-alternative-facts-rile-press

Good write-up, I expect the small amount of federal funding to dry up soon.

I mean, they are already trashing arts and humanities funding, I would not be surprised if public broadcasting was next on the chopping block. Thankfully most NPR stations are largely self-sufficient nowadays, what with the charitable donations and fund-drives..

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The petty argument is not about the size.

The actual argument is about the lie.

Eh? I thought Spicer et. & el. were arguing it's the largest crowd ever...

Did they walk that back?

No, Whem'. The point is that they lied about something so insignificant, and obviously, not what the lie was. And that they then talked about keeping the media "in check" (or whatever the phrase was)... because they called them out on such an obvious lie.

Ah...

Meh... media did this to themselves (see last 8 years covering Obama)...

All this chicken little hysteria is falling right into their trap.

Seriously, this is stray voltage here...

Are we still repeating the lie that the media was not adversarial towards Obama?

On more trivial note, does anyone else think Spicer just looks like a reanimated corpse? In all the pictures of the dude over the last couple days, he's got this weird purple hue around his eyes and mouth, like a zombie extra from the Walking Dead or something.

Ruffle up the hair a bit, maybe loosen the tie, BAM, instant Walking Dead extra.


Might just be a first day on the job thing, and not trying to start any weird theories or anything, but he does not look well in any pics I've seen of him at his new job

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Effectively, for some people? It very well could be.

No that’s not how logic works. By not paying for someone else the government is not “restricting” their care. Otherwise the government is restricting my transportation by not buying me an original Norton.

Do you actually understand how the ACA worked? Because it really seems like you don't.

ACA prevented insurance companies from turning down people because of preexisting conditions and other issues that made insurance companies consider them to be "high risk/low reward" prospects.

Only if you had the money.
You are literally not making a logical argument.