In the long run this would have been bad for consumers- BB tried their own service but the costs of having the local stores were enormous. It's far easier to develop the infrastructure correctly w/o that albatross.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
The thing that no one seems to be talkng about in all of this is the way costs that doctors report to insurance have skyrocketed. Why can it possibly cost $20k for two weeks in a hospital room? Same for all other very standard procedures.
It's similar to college costs - how can it cost $250,000 for 4 years of college when it used to cost a fraction of that 20 years ago, a change well above the rate of inflation.
What? That was a totally different election about a totally different topic - that doesn't even make sense.
Private insurance and student loans, basically. There's no reason to contain costs because everyone has these buffers that let them spend whatever on these procedures.
It's the reason why dentistry and even optometry have remained relatively contained, because it's still mostly a cash market.
There's some truth to the Objectivist argument against non-catastrophic health insurance, except at this point the industry is so skewed by the insurance system that you'd go through chaos trying to move to an all-cash healthcare system: doctors, hospitals, nurses, and others would have to take a drastic paycut overnight if the prices had to be changed to market-bearing levels.
Roland_Gunner
Member
One of the results of McConnell's stealth bill process is that some of these provisions seem horribly under considered. They're just throwing in shit to address talking points without looking at the implications.
https://www.vox.com/2017/6/24/15867614/senate-health-waiting-period
whyamihere
Banned
lmao there's a fucking mandate
Autodidact
Banned
"Penalties"? You mean there'll be like... a mandate?
SomewhatGroovy
Banned
yeah i just realized it is a "parody" account. disregard
balladofwindfishes
Member
"No more mandate guys!"
"Huh... but how does that work with pre-existing conditions?"
"Huh? OH CRAP"
Reason #233294327984 for why you can't repeal a bill that took almost 2 years with a bill that took 3 weeks
"Huh... but how does that work with pre-existing conditions?"
"Huh? OH CRAP"
Reason #233294327984 for why you can't repeal a bill that took almost 2 years with a bill that took 3 weeks
This is weirdly a silver lining if it does pass, cause not having a strong enough mandate was one of the major issues w/ Obamacare.
Not that this is a perfect implementation, but letting them take the heat on it is just fine!
excelsiorlef
Member
Yeah for sure. BB was also a classic not good for consumers business. A lot of their success came from late fees
balladofwindfishes
Member
I wonder how Ted Cruz is going to like the mandate, considering he's said it was unconstitutional many times before
he's still going to vote for it
They were a lot better about it by the end cause of competition from Hollywood Video. Late Fees are a necessity tho, in any business like that.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Doesn't this mean that they'll have to wait longer for the CBO to score it? Or are they just ditching that whole step now?
So, they're literally passing a shittier version of Obamacare now. Amazing.
balladofwindfishes
Member
They'll have to wait. It won't be two weeks, but it'll still probably be a day or so that they don't have.
Looks increasingly likely this doesn't make July 4th, which also puts into question if it'll even pass at all.
whyamihere
Banned
I can't believe there's a mandate.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Autodidact
Banned
I would call ~~~SOROS~~~ and tell him to start recruiting some paid protesters, but I doubt they'll actually even meet with constituents during the recess if they can't pass this bill.
It's not possible to move the health insurance industry to a cash based system. It has to be through insurance because 95% of the market would never be able to afford a crisis when it arose. It doesn't matter if it is 2k or 20k most Americans can't afford either which is why they have insurance. Market bearing levels don't exist when the public can't afford them.
Poodlestrike
Banned
excelsiorlef
Member
Yeah true.
excelsiorlef
Member
Wait... if they make it so that you can be rejected for a pre-existing condition but then also institute a penalty of being uninsured doesn't that mean you could be penalized essentially for living in a state where you can't get insurance from anyone due to your pre-existing condition?
It's completely embarrassing that they offered something originally without some kind of mandate. I'm sure every single insurance company read this bill yesterday and collectively said what the fuck. Frantically calling lobbyists. Anyone with half a brain or understands how the insurance industry works understands that you need a mandate in some form if you want to cover people with preexisting conditions.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I mean fuck man, can they even say they're repealing Obamacare at this point? The whole point of the Affordable Care Act was 1) protecting those with pre-existing conditions, 2) mandating insurance so premiums wouldn't hike from having to cover sick people, and 3) subsidizing costs for lower-income people so they wouldn't suddenly need to buy expensive ass healthcare.
Seems like all this does is remove the subsidies and gut Medicaid for no fucking reason other than to say their tax cuts are paid for, which they're planning on repealing anyway so they can pay for different tax cuts next year.
Seems like all this does is remove the subsidies and gut Medicaid for no fucking reason other than to say their tax cuts are paid for, which they're planning on repealing anyway so they can pay for different tax cuts next year.
BlastProcessing
Member
Repealing and replacing the ACA was too hard so they are just repealing Medicaid instead.
The idea is that you'd have to have "catastrophic care." So the prices on routine things like, say, an X-ray, a hospital visit, and a cast for a broken bone would fall to something more like a similar dental procedure, whereas things like coronary bypass surgery would cost more or less what they do right now because that'd be up on the catastrophic side.
I'll admit it's a tangent because i don't believe in this style of solution (for reasons you're suggesting), but you would at least see the cost of basic care drop.
Aaron Strife
Banned
ACA is now a more dangerous third rail than Medicaid.
There's your legacy, 'bams.
balladofwindfishes
Member
It'd be fun to watch if it didn't mean 50+ million could lose insurance
Honestly pretty much everything would fall under catastrophic care. I mean you can't seriously argue that a hospital visit could ever be part of a cash based system. Even if a one night stay dropped significantly. People can't afford it period. Then we go back to the same spot where we were before. People get overcharged because other people aren't paying.
I mean standard doctor visits and basic medications could go to that system but there is simple too much that would be left out.
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-C...talks-after-tense-KushnerAbbas-meeting-497795
The Kush is failing the world. Sad!
Is it a financial penalty or are they just referring to the 6 mos waiting period? That would qualify as a "penalty" as well.
I think the deal will be easier than people say, keep going Jared!
Constitutional Convention Fanfic:
President's powers are changed to be more like the French Presidency.
House is changed to proportional representation on the state level using the Wyoming Rule (the smallest jurisdiction gets one rep and the ratio should not exceed that ratio by 50% or greater for other jurisdictions), or capped at 750,000 to 1, whichever is lower.
Congress has fixed 4-year terms from the formation of a new Government. Vote of No Confidence can bring down a Speaker and produce snap elections, after which the 4-year clock resets. Speaker must command the confidence of a majority of Congress (allowing for minority rule, but only when a majority of Congress consents to that arrangement. E.g. supply-and-confidence for minority rule rather than a formal coalition for majority rule).
With PR on the state level you'd have to ask the question of dividing up "marginal seats." Say Hawaii with its 2 reps, where do you draw the line that Republicans get 1 seat or Democrats get 2? What if the result is 65/35 D/R? Does 35% of the population really get 0 federal reps while 65% gets 100% of the representation?
My answer would be the 67% rule. If a party captures 67% of the share of a marginal seat, then they capture that seat (so in a 10-seat state, the minimum threshold for a party to get 1 rep would be 6.7% of the vote).
No single-member parties in Congress. If you are your only representative, you have to agree to caucus with at least one other congressperson or your seat will be given to the next eligible party on the list.
The House gains most of the Executive's power over domestic policy while the executive keeps power in foreign/military policy.
Supreme Court would stay mostly the same: Each President gets to pick one Justice (and the most senior justice must retire to do so upon the newly elected President's inauguration). Retiring justices can pick their own replacement. Impeached/dead justices have their replacement picked by a 3/4ths majority of the remaining court.
Amendments (different from amendments we currently have):
Elections amendment. When it regards elections, the rule for government law changes from "free speech" to "fair speech." Gov is allowed to regulate elections unless it can be proven that the law has a disproportionate impact on an established political party (that is, disproportionate to the party's influence, so the GOP couldn't sue over a regulation that hurts them, unless it hurts them to the point where their natural share of the vote would be suppressed). All elections are publicly funded based upon a nonpartisan electoral commission determining what is needed for a certain position in a certain jurisdiction (e.g. the congressional elections in Georgia will cost $20 million for the whole state and no more, each party getting a share of that based upon how they poll, while it would only cost $5 million in Montana). Outside money is strictly prohibited, though groups can advocate for partisan organizations under their own power, they are just not allowed to raise money for the purposes of doing so.
No right to bear arms, let each state figure out what works best on guns (as that's an actual issue where regional differences matter).
Free speech is maintained, but any speech designed to promote material harm to a group of people can be outlawed.
Senate is gutted of most of their responsibilities: they exist as a check on the President and can veto Presidential appointments, and can also veto laws, both based on a 2/3rds majority vote. Are responsible for impeachment. Due to their lower profile, they revert to being appointed by the States (under agreement between state legislature and state executive) for 8-year terms.
Most every right in the UN Declaration of Human Rights is so declared as a Right in the United States, and congress or state and local governments are required to pass legislation enabling the attainment of those rights.
President's powers are changed to be more like the French Presidency.
House is changed to proportional representation on the state level using the Wyoming Rule (the smallest jurisdiction gets one rep and the ratio should not exceed that ratio by 50% or greater for other jurisdictions), or capped at 750,000 to 1, whichever is lower.
Congress has fixed 4-year terms from the formation of a new Government. Vote of No Confidence can bring down a Speaker and produce snap elections, after which the 4-year clock resets. Speaker must command the confidence of a majority of Congress (allowing for minority rule, but only when a majority of Congress consents to that arrangement. E.g. supply-and-confidence for minority rule rather than a formal coalition for majority rule).
With PR on the state level you'd have to ask the question of dividing up "marginal seats." Say Hawaii with its 2 reps, where do you draw the line that Republicans get 1 seat or Democrats get 2? What if the result is 65/35 D/R? Does 35% of the population really get 0 federal reps while 65% gets 100% of the representation?
My answer would be the 67% rule. If a party captures 67% of the share of a marginal seat, then they capture that seat (so in a 10-seat state, the minimum threshold for a party to get 1 rep would be 6.7% of the vote).
No single-member parties in Congress. If you are your only representative, you have to agree to caucus with at least one other congressperson or your seat will be given to the next eligible party on the list.
The House gains most of the Executive's power over domestic policy while the executive keeps power in foreign/military policy.
Supreme Court would stay mostly the same: Each President gets to pick one Justice (and the most senior justice must retire to do so upon the newly elected President's inauguration). Retiring justices can pick their own replacement. Impeached/dead justices have their replacement picked by a 3/4ths majority of the remaining court.
Amendments (different from amendments we currently have):
Elections amendment. When it regards elections, the rule for government law changes from "free speech" to "fair speech." Gov is allowed to regulate elections unless it can be proven that the law has a disproportionate impact on an established political party (that is, disproportionate to the party's influence, so the GOP couldn't sue over a regulation that hurts them, unless it hurts them to the point where their natural share of the vote would be suppressed). All elections are publicly funded based upon a nonpartisan electoral commission determining what is needed for a certain position in a certain jurisdiction (e.g. the congressional elections in Georgia will cost $20 million for the whole state and no more, each party getting a share of that based upon how they poll, while it would only cost $5 million in Montana). Outside money is strictly prohibited, though groups can advocate for partisan organizations under their own power, they are just not allowed to raise money for the purposes of doing so.
No right to bear arms, let each state figure out what works best on guns (as that's an actual issue where regional differences matter).
Free speech is maintained, but any speech designed to promote material harm to a group of people can be outlawed.
Senate is gutted of most of their responsibilities: they exist as a check on the President and can veto Presidential appointments, and can also veto laws, both based on a 2/3rds majority vote. Are responsible for impeachment. Due to their lower profile, they revert to being appointed by the States (under agreement between state legislature and state executive) for 8-year terms.
Most every right in the UN Declaration of Human Rights is so declared as a Right in the United States, and congress or state and local governments are required to pass legislation enabling the attainment of those rights.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
😂
nature boy
Member
j_k_redtail
Member
I'd encourage you all to read the entire twitter thread. As impactful as the image is, the story she tells is even better.
By them...he still doesn't mean Russia, right?
So... is he admitting the Russians meddled in the election?
(He is)
And if so, why has he still yet to say a single negative thing about them or their leader?
Box of Kittens
Banned
After being sub-40 in Gallup the entire month, yesterday Trump shot all the way up to 42-54. Today he's back down to 39-55. What does it mean? Probably nothing more than one good day in the rolling average, i.e., noise.
Beer Monkey
Member
You're the fucking president now, tell us what YOU are doing about this extant threat other than trying to give them back the compounds on our soil that they conducted the hacking from.
What a cunt this man is.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Is... is T supposed to be Trump?
Is he referring to himself in the third person now?
Fuck.
nature boy
Member
Ziltoidia 9
Member
With college, its mostly because it is a bunch of 18 year olds taking out loans and not understanding how it will really effect them. I was one of these.
I understand that college (or anything for that matter) is going to go up in price, but it has gotten way out of hand and I believe there has been a concerted effort to take the approach of "well they aren't going to be paying for it now...so they will go along with it because they are just 18".
With that said, current generation going through college is huge, so of course college is going to go up more than the trend, but again, shouldn't be this much.
The bubble for both of these industries is about to bust. The average person will get screwed from it and all the 1%ers will make out like bandits.
With health care, its just because they are greedy ****s. One of the reasons they get away with it, at least up until this point, is because most people don't encounter hospital stays/series of surgeries until later in life, and even then, it is mostly a one off type thing.
Macho Madness
Member
Why it's always best to use weekly averages as day-to-day the fluctuations are mainly just who responded vs who didn't
"We the people propose a constitutional amendment which states that the other party can kindly suck are collective balls."
A consistent theme of his twitter rants is a tacit admission of his own powerlessness, not knowing things he should be getting from intel briefs or acting like he's just a third party observer as in this case.
He'll deflect blame in any direction in the most spurious way possible.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked