Quantcast
Senator John McCain casts deciding vote against "Skinny Repeal"

Forums - Politics Discussion - Senator John McCain casts deciding vote against "Skinny Repeal"

Healthcare you want for the US

Single Payer (All taxes) 83 57.24%
 
Multi-Payer (Government option) 24 16.55%
 
Heavy regulations (Capita... 6 4.14%
 
Moderate regulation 14 9.66%
 
No regulation 14 9.66%
 
Alternative Medicine 4 2.76%
 
Total:145
sethnintendo said:
Hiku said:



Vote for politicians who do not take corporate or pac money.

If you find one of those then let me know.  I don't believe they exist.

Bernie Sanders has never accepted a corporate check in his 30+ year long career in politics. That's basically his thing. It's what he has been fighting for all his life.
He has an extensive list of personal donors instead, which the corporate democrats tried to get from him.

There's a group called Justice Democrats that are gaining traction. Their one single requirement is: Do not take corporate or pac money. https://justicedemocrats.com/

They have a few members in congress already, iirc.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzmGPcCUyug



Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:
Puppyroach said:
Thank goodness that the house and senate has had the most incompetent republicans of our time on place so that they can fail even when they have the majority 🙂.

Well I'm annoyed they haven't come up with something they all agree with, I'm glad they're avoiding passing something broken like ACA.

Yeah, if only republicans hadn't broke Obamacare to begin with, maybe you wouldn't have to deal with this shit.



Hiku said:
sethnintendo said:

If you find one of those then let me know.  I don't believe they exist.

Bernie Sanders has never accepted a corporate check in his 30+ year long career in politics. That's basically his thing. It's what he has been fighting for all his life.
He has an extensive list of personal donors instead, which the corporate democrats tried to get from him.

There's a group called Justice Democrats that are gaining traction. Their one single requirement is: Do not take corporate or pac money. https://justicedemocrats.com/

They have a few members in congress already, iirc.

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzmGPcCUyug

I knew Bernie banked his campaign off small donors but assumed he might of had a pac or a pac was made by supporters of him.  Reading this article it shows that three were unofficial supporting him but he tried to distance himself from them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/11/sanderss-claim-that-he-does-not-have-a-super-pac/

I'll look into the link later.  I wish Bernie and a few others would just resurrect the Progressive Party and steam roll these two shit parties.  I'm ready to see some trust busting.



Ka-pi96 said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes, because other people would be paying. Read again where I put POPULATION and not single person.

I haven't looked in to it at all, but it probably is cheaper for the majority of the population still. So yeah, still is cheaper for the population as a whole.

Being cheaper to a part while a lot more expensive to other isn't exactly being cheaper for majority of population.

It's as simples as you paying yourself it would cost 100, with governement involvement it costs 140 but it may be other person paying it without using. Not a real benefit.

I have friends that got their "mandatory" health care go from 1k to 4k in a matter of few years on Obamacare while not even using, wanting or needing the health care.

sethnintendo said:
DonFerrari said:

You know that cost structure is a sensitive information that basically defines if a company is competitive or not and that releasing that information is basically the destruction of a company? You already have the price they charge to decide if you want to pay or not and for publically traded companies you have their accountability release where you can see how much is their profit margins and verify if they are overcharging or just the cost itself is high.

 

So you are saying if they release their prices so people know how much they are expected to pay up front they will go under.  What if a fast food company ran its pricing like a hospital where you don't know until you get to the pay window.  So you order a meal thinking it will be 10 dollars and once you get to the window they want 100. 

Most people don't know how much they are going to pay for health service rendered unless they actively take charge and call offices asking them for their prices.  You can say well all people should do that.  Well what happens in an emergency where you either go or are taken to a random hospital.  You don't know shit for pricing if it is an emergency except you know for sure its at least 1,000 charge just to be omitted to the emergency room.

Nope. There is a difference between Price, Value and Cost.

What I said is that no one should demand they to reveal their COSTS. But sure no issue with they making their prices public on direct threatment (agreements with healthcare plans and similars is discretionary between the companies).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
sethnintendo said:

So you are saying if they release their prices so people know how much they are expected to pay up front they will go under.  What if a fast food company ran its pricing like a hospital where you don't know until you get to the pay window.  So you order a meal thinking it will be 10 dollars and once you get to the window they want 100. 

Most people don't know how much they are going to pay for health service rendered unless they actively take charge and call offices asking them for their prices.  You can say well all people should do that.  Well what happens in an emergency where you either go or are taken to a random hospital.  You don't know shit for pricing if it is an emergency except you know for sure its at least 1,000 charge just to be omitted to the emergency room.

Nope. There is a difference between Price, Value and Cost.

What I said is that no one should demand they to reveal their COSTS. But sure no issue with they making their prices public on direct threatment (agreements with healthcare plans and similars is discretionary between the companies).

Got it.  I agree on not releasing cost.  I thought you were referring to price charged.  Sorry just waking up and I read that wrong.



Around the Network
sethnintendo said:
DonFerrari said:

Nope. There is a difference between Price, Value and Cost.

What I said is that no one should demand they to reveal their COSTS. But sure no issue with they making their prices public on direct threatment (agreements with healthcare plans and similars is discretionary between the companies).

Got it.  I agree on not releasing cost.  I thought you were referring to price charged.  Sorry just waking up and I read that wrong.

No problem. I do agree that not knowing at least a good estimative of how much you are going to be charged for a procedure unless you go through several loops is bad and problematic.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
Ka-pi96 said:

I haven't looked in to it at all, but it probably is cheaper for the majority of the population still. So yeah, still is cheaper for the population as a whole.

Being cheaper to a part while a lot more expensive to other isn't exactly being cheaper for majority of population.

It's as simples as you paying yourself it would cost 100, with governement involvement it costs 140 but it may be other person paying it without using. Not a real benefit.

I have friends that got their "mandatory" health care go from 1k to 4k in a matter of few years on Obamacare while not even using, wanting or needing the health care.

sethnintendo said:

So you are saying if they release their prices so people know how much they are expected to pay up front they will go under.  What if a fast food company ran its pricing like a hospital where you don't know until you get to the pay window.  So you order a meal thinking it will be 10 dollars and once you get to the window they want 100. 

Most people don't know how much they are going to pay for health service rendered unless they actively take charge and call offices asking them for their prices.  You can say well all people should do that.  Well what happens in an emergency where you either go or are taken to a random hospital.  You don't know shit for pricing if it is an emergency except you know for sure its at least 1,000 charge just to be omitted to the emergency room.

Nope. There is a difference between Price, Value and Cost.

What I said is that no one should demand they to reveal their COSTS. But sure no issue with they making their prices public on direct threatment (agreements with healthcare plans and similars is discretionary between the companies).

The US is third in the world in per-capita health care costs behind just Switzerland and Norway. The US pays way more than most developed nations for worse care and has for a very long time. To claim that mirroring healthcare systems that provide better care for less money would increase costs is just silly.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

What the hell is going on in the senate! What't the hell is a Skinny Repeal! Why can't they just understand that their greedy, heartless bill is complete shit! Focus on other areas that need more attention if you can't come up with a plan that you had 8 years to come up with.



Normchacho said:
DonFerrari said:

Being cheaper to a part while a lot more expensive to other isn't exactly being cheaper for majority of population.

It's as simples as you paying yourself it would cost 100, with governement involvement it costs 140 but it may be other person paying it without using. Not a real benefit.

I have friends that got their "mandatory" health care go from 1k to 4k in a matter of few years on Obamacare while not even using, wanting or needing the health care.

Nope. There is a difference between Price, Value and Cost.

What I said is that no one should demand they to reveal their COSTS. But sure no issue with they making their prices public on direct threatment (agreements with healthcare plans and similars is discretionary between the companies).

The US is third in the world in per-capita health care costs behind just Switzerland and Norway. The US pays way more than most developed nations for worse care and has for a very long time. To claim that mirroring healthcare systems that provide better care for less money would increase costs is just silly.

There is improvements to be made on the system, I'm not questioning that. The questioning is applicable universally. There is added cost on putting the government to manage anything and usually they will return a subpar result (also managing a system for 20M citizen is different than to 300M).

You do know the profit margin of the corporations doing the service? Their cost structure? How much is wage, investiments, etc? No. If you don't know where or what really is the problem won't help you solve it.

Government is inheritently bad at managing anything because of the overwhelming size of it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

sethnintendo said:
vivster said:
For once McCain votes for the thing he's saying instead of the opposite. Good for him.

Also it's all the Democrat's fault.

I don't why the Democrats didn't vote for a bill they were locked out of which was drafted behind closed doors.  The nerve of them people...

Yet, the Republicans were ridiculed for not voting for the ACA in the first place, when it was crafted behind closed doors, and they were locked out.  Seems you drink the blue kool-aid a little too much.

The Republican replacement plans were just as bad as the ACA is.  The only thing they were doing right was getting rid of the individual mandate.  The individual and employer mandates make the ACA a de-facto single payer law.  As with single payer, our finances are going to be wrecked the same with the ACA is going to wreck it.  The problem isn't the insurance companies, and it never was.  The problem is the health care providers.  The prices they charge for services, and supplies, is astronimical.  They can raise them all they want to, because the government (Medicaid / Medicare) will pay, and the insurance providers will try to haggle some, but in the end, they will just pay it and raise insurance rates.  Neither party wants to mess with that system, so they just made everyone buy insurance. 

Now, I would assume that you aren't making the kind of money to where taking the penalty is a massive advantage, financially.  I was in that situation over the past two years.  I am a programmer, and I was doing contract work.  I was making 25 an hour at one job, and 30 an hour at another.  The company that placed me with the two places I worked, did offer insurance, at 400 dollars a month for me, and 800 for my wife and I.  I decided to look on the exchange to see if I could find some "Affordable" care, and hell no I didn't.  They wanted 1k fro my wife and I.  I sure the hell am not going to pay 12k a month for insurance that I do not use.  If there is an emergency, a hospital has to treat me, by law, so I am covered in that instance, and just have to hope it isn't too costly.  Also, if it isn't an emergency, then I can just fly to my wifes country, Korea, and get whatever treatment I need there, for a fraction of the price here. 

Just like most legislation, the ACA was designed to ensure that one party looks like they care about people, while ensuring they continue to get votes.  Also, if you are the party of big government, the bigger it gets, the more votes you get due to people voting in their best interests.  The sad reality is, government control over the economy has failed everywhere is has been implemented.  The bigger the government, the worst the economy is.  Just look at China (which started to go capitilist in the 90s), Vietnam (recently started to embrace capitialism),     Venezula (who abandoned capitialism for communism and is falling apart now), North Korea (bless their heart, they just wont let go), USSR (The old Soviet Empire for the people who were screwed by their eductional system, this one failed in the 90s, and now all those countries are capitilist), and Cuba (bless their heart too). 

The narrative of today is about socialism, except, socialism needs a viable economic model underneath.  There are only two economic models present in the modern age, capitalism and communism.  Socialism based off of capitalism is what Europe has, as well as the US, Japan, and most all other socialist countries.  Socialism based off of communism is what the Soviet Union had, North Korea has, Vietnam is transitioning from, China has transitioned from, Venezula was transitioning too, and what America seems to be trying to transition to (at least the progressives).  Communism leads to authoratarianism everywhere it is enacted.  Venezula is a democracy, but the president is working on changing that, even trying to change their constitution, due to the fact that communism has failed there and he doesn't want to give up power.  It is a mess.  In Venezula, how good is their health care now?  How good is it in Vietnamn, China, etc?  Where does most of the medical advances come from, what country?  Can we continue to make those types of advances if we gut the cost of healthcare, and people move on to other industries to work for?  This isn't a simple problem.

What I would like to see is the ACA removed, minimum insurance requirements removed as well.  Let people pick what they want, let their be actual competition within the industry.  Now, we can't actually have competition within the emergency services, you don't get to pick your ambulance or hospital in the event of an emergency.  So, for them, they should be a regulated monopoly, like many utilities are.  For regular medical services, let them compete on price.  Health care was more affordable before the ACA (sadly, it was still overpriced).  It isn't going to be getting any better now that you have to buy insurance, no matter what they charge for it.  No incentive at all to lower the cost.

Socialized medicine works in Europe, sure, but they don't have a two party system.  They are held more accountable by their voters than we hold our politicians (congress has less than a 15% approval rate, but over an 80% re-election rate, mainly due to two choices every time).  Our government wastes money like there is no tomorrow, and they will constantly pay well above market rate just to keep getting elected.  They never want to make the hard choices, and do what is needed to ensure that the government will be able to meet its obligations in the future.  The sad reality is, it is legal to bribe people for their vote, as long as you are using tax payer money.

So far, what I have noticed in the last decade, is that the Republicans are all talk, they don't do a damn thing, while the Democrats are the ones that actually write legislation that hurts people.  Some of it is good, but they have done a lot of damage to the middle class, that they so champion.  They both care about the rich, neither care about the poor.  Neither pay their fair share of taxes (gotta love the loopholes and tax breaks they put in their for themselves and their rich buddies).  Quit drinking the kool-aid.  The reality is, all governments throughout history have served the rich and powerful, ALL.  The only thing us little people can really hope for is that some of these policies actually make things better for us.

 

Now, I will leave you to ponder this.  If the ACA is so great, why did the people who crafted it, and voted for it, exempt themselves from it?  Everyone in this country has to abide by the ACA, except congress.  Bet they know something that we don't.....