The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 6, 2013 9:25:40 GMT -5
I would love to see a vaccine that prevented cancer. Hell, I'd love to see a vaccine that prevented HIV, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease etc. The truth is that the human body is an incredibly complex machine and the viruses etc that have evolved to attack it are just as complex.
HUGE money has been spent globally to find a vaccine against HIV for over 25 years for example. We've thrown the most advanced technology and best minds in medical research, in the history of mankind, at it and still haven't found the solution. Same goes for cancer, except the time frame and amount of money spent is even greater.
I've worked for one of those "evil" drug companies. I know what is involved, and how much is spent, on a 5000 to one shot of finding an effective drug that will make it to market. I didn't work there long enough to see the whole life-cycle of a drug in development (7 years was not enough - it's usually over a decade), but did see different phases of the lifecycle and the costs associated with them.
How many people here would be willing to work for free for over a decade for a one in 5000 shot of getting paid, no-one? Not surprised (I sure as hell wouldn't). There has to be some kind of profit motive or these drugs would never be developed in the first place. Same with every other medical advance. An individual alone cannot bear that kind of risk, so the "evil" corporations do so and are vilified for it. Without them most of the major medical advances in the past 50 years would not have happened.
We have researchers on this board who have discussed how complex finding compounds are, and how difficult it is to determine risk vs. effectiveness. What is involved in the testing phase etc. It's incredibly costly, time consuming, and difficult just to control for the variables let along determining effectiveness.
Yet some people continue to believe if we just demand that things get cheaper because they want something, then it should be so.
It doesn't work that way so instead of blindly questioning why, actually do some research to find out the facts. Then offer a solution. Or go develop the cure for everything yourself if you know all the answers.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Nov 6, 2013 9:50:29 GMT -5
This should be renamed the "Totally unaffordable healthcare act". The government cannot afford the subsidies. The people cannot afford the premiums. If the average (or less than average) American could not afford $4.00 gasoline, and it effected the economy, how does one afford $300 a month and up premiums without putting the economy in the dumps?
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Nov 6, 2013 10:17:21 GMT -5
It really doesn't matter at this point if Obama lied or not. hes not running in 2016 and the law is already enacted. One of the Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon was "Lying to the American People" (once considered a 'high crime and/or misdemeanor'). That was not a very consequential lie in the grand scheme of things- probably not even worthy of impeachment, and probably wouldn't have gotten very far in the Fox / New Media world we live in today. However, Obama's lie is the single most consequential lie ever told to the American people by a sitting President in the history of the country. Mark my words- I cannot predict how it will manifest, or what the consequences are going to be, but a price will be paid for this lie. This lie will not stand. This lie has completely destroyed the credibility of Obama, and the Democrats on healthcare. Every President has one of these situations. There is zero chance of impeachment or hurting the credibility of anyone other than Obama. And even that will be very short term.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Nov 6, 2013 10:20:03 GMT -5
It really doesn't matter at this point if Obama lied or not. hes not running in 2016 and the law is already enacted. Slavery was the law. Jim Crow was the law. We've beaten back bad Democrat laws in the past, we'll beat this one back. Hillary is leading in every poll against every Republican. Most by a wide margin. The law will be tweaked over the next few years just as every law that's passed is. It wont be beaten back.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 6, 2013 11:04:40 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 6, 2013 11:08:28 GMT -5
Slavery was the law. Jim Crow was the law. We've beaten back bad Democrat laws in the past, we'll beat this one back. Hillary is leading in every poll against every Republican. Most by a wide margin. The law will be tweaked over the next few years just as every law that's passed is. It wont be beaten back. Well, if by 'beaten back' you mean repealed? No. That will never happen. It will happen bit by bit as I said it would- the key provisions will be re-worked (repealed- but they'll never say that). The law will be on the books forever, and listed as a crowning achievement- the exchanges will probably remain in place, but the individual mandate will die; the unworkable government mandated policy provisions will largely be gone; the tax on medical devices and other insidious provisions will die. They'll find a way to at least say that pre-existing conditions are covered, and adults can be considered children until they're 106, and no lifetime caps (likely simply government subsidized 'benefit' of some sort). But in it's present form? Nope. It's gone.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 6, 2013 11:11:34 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 6, 2013 11:24:24 GMT -5
One of the Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon was "Lying to the American People" (once considered a 'high crime and/or misdemeanor'). That was not a very consequential lie in the grand scheme of things- probably not even worthy of impeachment, and probably wouldn't have gotten very far in the Fox / New Media world we live in today. However, Obama's lie is the single most consequential lie ever told to the American people by a sitting President in the history of the country. Mark my words- I cannot predict how it will manifest, or what the consequences are going to be, but a price will be paid for this lie. This lie will not stand. This lie has completely destroyed the credibility of Obama, and the Democrats on healthcare. Every President has one of these situations. There is zero chance of impeachment or hurting the credibility of anyone other than Obama. And even that will be very short term. ObamaCare is the biggest political disaster since Watergate- maybe since Teapot Dome. This is going to be radioactive and weighing down Democrats for a very long time. The problem a recalcitrant Democratic Party faces is that they must both defend it, while proposing fixes that are a tantamount admission that it's not defensible. The reason the GOP recovered from Watergate was the party turned on Nixon, the Democrats were successful in electing the worst President in history, and the GOP followed up with Reagan. It took Democrats from 1979 until 1992 to recover from the Jimmy Carter debacle, and he only got one term and he had no significant long term policy impact. There's no Democrat Reagan on the horizon, and ObamaCare- I think as you correctly point out, won't be fully repealed, so they're stuck with it. Jimmy Carter was for one term, ObamaCare is for life. The Democrats are totally screwed. It's like waking up to Jimmy Carter on steroids every day. Hell, even Jimmy Carter is hammering Obama on ineptness... www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/10/31/a-truly-wicked-blow-jimmy-carter-hammers-obama-for-ineptness/
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 6, 2013 11:56:30 GMT -5
I would love to see a vaccine that prevented cancer. Hell, I'd love to see a vaccine that prevented HIV, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease etc. The truth is that the human body is an incredibly complex machine and the viruses etc that have evolved to attack it are just as complex. HUGE money has been spent globally to find a vaccine against HIV for over 25 years for example. We've thrown the most advanced technology and best minds in medical research, in the history of mankind, at it and still haven't found the solution. Same goes for cancer, except the time frame and amount of money spent is even greater. I've worked for one of those "evil" drug companies. I know what is involved, and how much is spent, on a 5000 to one shot of finding an effective drug that will make it to market. I didn't work there long enough to see the whole life-cycle of a drug in development (7 years was not enough - it's usually over a decade), but did see different phases of the lifecycle and the costs associated with them. How many people here would be willing to work for free for over a decade for a one in 5000 shot of getting paid, no-one? Not surprised (I sure as hell wouldn't). There has to be some kind of profit motive or these drugs would never be developed in the first place. Same with every other medical advance. An individual alone cannot bear that kind of risk, so the "evil" corporations do so and are vilified for it. Without them most of the major medical advances in the past 50 years would not have happened. We have researchers on this board who have discussed how complex finding compounds are, and how difficult it is to determine risk vs. effectiveness. What is involved in the testing phase etc. It's incredibly costly, time consuming, and difficult just to control for the variables let along determining effectiveness. Yet some people continue to believe if we just demand that things get cheaper because they want something, then it should be so. It doesn't work that way so instead of blindly questioning why, actually do some research to find out the facts. Then offer a solution. Or go develop the cure for everything yourself if you know all the answers. No one is asking anyone to work for free- and no one is asking for drug companies to not turn a profit. However- they are not funding 100% of the research and are not coming up with 100% of the 'cures' either. Not even close. Not real impressed with their bullshit minor redesigns of existing products to obtain new patents so they can push newer, expensive drugs that are not really any better than what exists. They are in it to make money- not cure diseases- so that motivation is important to realize when dealing with them. But- if there ever is a cancer cure in a pill form then there is no excuse for price gouging either- and the only way to stop it is negotiating prices as the other countries do. To take your example- if 50% of the population suddenly needs this life saving treatment- then no way in hell is it justifiable- free market or not- to sell the treatments for 10K or 50K a month when the costs of production are nowhere near it.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Nov 6, 2013 12:03:49 GMT -5
vaccines aren't profitable. that's why they aren't massed produced and there is always shortages.
why cure cancer when there is a hundreds of billions of dollars industry in place to "treat" it?
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Nov 6, 2013 12:24:44 GMT -5
Obamacare didn't help last night Paul.
There is no evidence that Obamacare will weigh down anyone other than Obama. Its still not clear that a majority of Americans want the Individual mandate repealed. I don't think it will be repealed.
We are going to have to win a ton of races to get the bill repealed and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 6, 2013 13:36:06 GMT -5
No one is asking anyone to work for free- and no one is asking for drug companies to not turn a profit. However- they are not funding 100% of the research and are not coming up with 100% of the 'cures' either. Not even close. Not real impressed with their bullshit minor redesigns of existing products to obtain new patents so they can push newer, expensive drugs that are not really any better than what exists. They are in it to make money- not cure diseases- so that motivation is important to realize when dealing with them. But- if there ever is a cancer cure in a pill form then there is no excuse for price gouging either- and the only way to stop it is negotiating prices as the other countries do. To take your example- if 50% of the population suddenly needs this life saving treatment- then no way in hell is it justifiable- free market or not- to sell the treatments for 10K or 50K a month when the costs of production are nowhere near it.
I agree with the price gouging and in case you don't know it, there are protections in place to prevent this. Big Pharma companies have been rightfully sued for price gouging in certain cases but in my experience it is the exception, not the rule. Of more concern to me are current rules that prohibit the Federal government from negotiating discounts with pharma for the biggest customer on a global basis - Medicare part D recipients. Once again proving my point that getting the government involved tends to screw things up more then it helps. As far as thinking the cost of producing a product is the only thing that should be considered I have to flat out say you are dead wrong. Take for example a drug that is developed to treat retinal ulcers. It takes 12 years and tens of millions of dollars in development, testing and trials to bring it to market. It costs 10 dollar per pill to manufacture - is that what should be charged? What about the 4,999 other compounds that never made it to market - how do we cover those costs? Take the above example even further, the same drug can be used to treat certain types of livestock. The prescription for human use costs around $1,500 for a full course of treatment. For animal use - $200. Is this price gouging? (Realize the testing and trial standards for animals are VERY different). As an accountant I would tell you they are not the same product because they have to take very different paths to get to market. A doctor would tell you they are chemically identical. We would both be correct. If you want to rally against big pharma ask why more is spent on advertising than on R& ? It is because they want to create a demand for a product that is not medically necessary (viagra anyone?). I firmly believe drug advertising creates an unnecessary demand and should be stopped. Let the doctor, not the patient, decide what is the best drug to choose.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 23:25:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 13:39:51 GMT -5
vaccines aren't profitable. that's why they aren't massed produced and there is always shortages. why cure cancer when there is a hundreds of billions of dollars industry in place to "treat" it? And this is one of the reasons that the heathcare industry is different than most other industry.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 23:25:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 13:43:32 GMT -5
After every election, a tiny percentage of the electorate is compelled to react by either gloating- or having A TANTRUM.
Whatever happened to "quiet dignity and grace"?
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 6, 2013 13:53:45 GMT -5
I've asked this question before but no one ever has an answer for me. If some medical miracle was developed that would prolong life by 20 years would everyone be entitled to it? Let's say that miracle cost 1M, does your answer change? How do we pay for it? Now to leverage off your statement about "thousands" of people with treatable cancer, let's make that multiple millions, does your answer change? What if you knew the odds of developing cancer in the US was about 50% during a lifetime, is everyone entitled to full treatment at a cost of tens, hundreds, or even 1.5M per person? We all die sometime, to think everyone is entitled to have their life prolonged to the maximum of scientific ability, regardless of the cost to society, is in IMHO a huge injustice to future generations who at some point will have to pay the piper. You love to demonize the insurance industry, but they performed a function that at some point will be relegated to the government - the rationing of health care. It's inevitable that someone or something will have to perform this function. Lately I've seen very little from our government that makes me comfortable giving them this power. ACA does zero to control costs, and every resource has limits and has to be rationed somehow. What are your proposals or solutions? I have none, but to promise unlimited access to costly resources never worked, anywhere. What kind of medical miracle? A drug? As far as cancer if 50% of the population ends up needing cancer treatment- then I would have to ask why in the hell it costs 1.5M per person. I am not saying everyone deserves to have the best team of doctors squeezing out the last few weeks cost be damned- I am talking about the average citizen with an average, treatable cancer (or other condition) that will kill them without it. Everyone in that situation should be treated- period. To let someone die because they are poor, do not have the proper policy, etc. is about the worst thing we could do and the symptom of a failed health care system. My solution is to figure out what is working in all of these other countries and try to come up with the best system in the world, whether it involves some role for private insurance or not. Universal coverage at a fair cost. I like single payer- put everyone on Medicare and tell the insurance companies to take a hike. I demonize insurance companies because they deserve it- especially health insurers. Look what they are doing right now- sending out letters cancelling the individual plans trying to convince people to sign up with more expensive options (and not really mentioning the exchanges)- it is what they always do- try to screw people when they are vulnerable or do not know any better. You know this is because ACA requires plans to have coverages beyond what those individual plans covered, right? As far as trying to convince people to sign up for more expensive options, again ACA basically elimates the ability of insurance companies to offer plans that have anything less than total coverage (such as maternity - really useful for a 60 yo man...) far beyond what many people need or want. ACA has dramatically reduced the options people have (such as catastrophic coverage only if that is all you can afford). Don't blame the insurance companies for cancelling policies that are no longer compliant with ACA, and to be honest - I believe this was one of the intended results of the legislation - to force more people into the higher coverage/cost exchanges to subsidize previously insurable people who would now sign up.
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Nov 6, 2013 15:50:01 GMT -5
OBAMACARE COST ON THE GDP!! IS THE ACA AFFORDABLE ?
IF YOU ARE GOING YEAR AFTER YEAR PAYING $5,000 ON HEALING WHAT SPENDING WILL YOU CUT??
PERSONALLY...$$$$$AVING 50%....TRAVEL....50%..BUT I AM LUCKY. Food.... get food stamps!!!! or state WIC for single Females with Children!!!! then need help to pay...Work until 71 and children stay at home to help mother.
Dating...For Single males....all ages...reduced saving..reduced retirement savings..but may have more time to do that....new SS start at 70.5. Obama Care will cost the 20-30 years old in the family forming age then Most will get married later....or Not at all....all about cost...spend less...Like at home or make room for Mom....
Education....Why spend four more years and $250,000 of borrowed money with interest cost lasting for 10 + years!!
ObamaCare looks more costly then thought...Esp to spending...Sales dependent on price cutting...We see that now!! DEPRESSION SOON
Now that sound as like a 5% cost on the GDP after the increase payments to PAY the Amy of agents and programers!!!!
Just a thought, BiMetalAuPt
Watch sales on Black Friday...Spending will be reduced but saving increased...New Decline in GDP.....It is starting!!! DEPRESSION... ,,,,
I AM SHOUTING!!! @ COST TO GDP...GET ALL YOUR FREE VACCINES!!
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 6, 2013 16:26:37 GMT -5
I agree it was the intended result- I was pointing out the they were sending letters offering their new compliant policies at much higher prices and failing to mention that people could shop the exchange for a better deal- they are trying to lock these people in at high prices and keep them away from the exchanges. Not illegal-although once company has already been fined- but it is downright sneaky and par for the course with these people.
Just about every horror story being blasted through the RW media- take Hannity's guests a few weeks back- were based on 100% bullshit- as in what the company offered as a replacement policy- not was was available through the exchanges- and in fact he was busted cold on this as another reporter interviewed them and found out that was exactly the case- that they had not even looked at prices on the exchange- and same reporter plugged in the details and found out- surprise surprise- they would come out better than they were originally paying.
That should tell you something- if the law is so bad then why do these people have to make up shit and twist the truth to fight it?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 6, 2013 16:32:42 GMT -5
Fixed.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 6, 2013 16:43:52 GMT -5
More substantively:
PPACA suffers from the following political problems -
1) It was misrepresented to the American voters, who were variously told that it would reduce the average family's costs by $2500, that it would leave nobody one illness away from financial ruin, that it would bend the cost curve down, that it would add not one dime to the deficit, that they could keep their health plan and their doctor, and that it would Protect Patients and make Care Affordable.
2) It was designed with the political optics of rolling out a massive complicated transformation of the healthcare industry in mind, so benefits were frontloaded, costs backloaded, hard choices deferred, and significant obstacles ignored.
3) It was passed by the most desperate measures, a pre-conference bill with all its flaws deemed in the House by narrow margins and squeaking through the Senate by the skin of its teeth. And no Republican had fingerprints on it; no Republican had any incentive politically to see it succeed. This was a critical political failing.
4) The arm-twisting required to get the bill to a successful vote also involved a lot of unsavory compromises with powerful lobbies that could otherwise kill the bill. This meant that the stated aim of improving the lot of patients was undermined from the get-go; it also meant, inevitably, that the process of translating the bill into actual regulations would be dogged with special pleading, waivers, corruptions of the bill's intent, and other bastardizations.
5) Implementation was further hampered by the short-termism and political self-interest of the Executive Branch, which delayed critical decisions and put others in the hands of people chosen for loyalty rather than aptitude.
All of these would be bad news if the bill itself were well-conceived. It isn't...
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Nov 6, 2013 17:04:27 GMT -5
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 6, 2013 17:07:12 GMT -5
PPACA also struggles with the following structural problems -
1) It confronts the wrong problem in the healthcare market. It is understood that a developed nation should provide coverage to more than 80% of its citizenry; it is further understood that it should provide this coverage at less than twice the per capita cost of every other developed nation. Of the two, the second is obviously the most serious, contributing directly to the first most trivially. Emphasizing the first was a matter of blind dogma. Reform needed to focus on the second.
2) The measures PPACA includes to control costs are either ineffective (the risk-pooling benefits of community rating and guaranteed issue, for example, are approximately cancelled out by the disincentivizing effect of low-risk insureds dropping out of the pool: we're talking a risk-pooling benefit of around 7%, a skew of about the same magnitude toward higher-risk insureds, and a 40% hike in average premiums, based on historical evidence from state-level reforms); explicitly redistributive, and so not controlling the cost at all (the mandated benefits a Bronze-level plan must offer and the subsidy scheme are examples of this); or have a negative impact on patient care (the controlling of reimbursement levels by IPAB, and the skewing of patient loads towards Medicaid beneficiaries, will both make the economics of healthcare delivery to the poorest and neediest patients even more challenging than they are now).
3) PPACA as written relies heavily on states to set up their own exchanges, and offered a powerful threat as incentive - withdrawal of Medicaid funding. Leaving aside the moral implications of this threat, SCOTUS correctly found it unconstitutional, essentially guaranteeing the failure of federally-run exchanges for which the law made precious little allowance, and to which the Executive Branch dared not draw undue attention prior to Election 2012. The exchanges also needed to offer good choices to patients in order for competition to exert a downward market pressure on prices - unfortunately, the restrictions on quality of plan and the risk of adverse selection (see below) limit competition on the exchanges.
4) Most importantly, the law requires young, healthy people to sign up for insurance they almost certainly won't need, and to do so at rates far higher than would have been the case prior to reform. Theoretically, the individual mandate should motivate this - in practice, if it were large enough to do so, it would have been ruled unconstitutional. The other restrictions the law places on what plans must include for all insureds, as well as validating other challenges on Constitutional grounds, exacerbate the cost of selecting care over the rebate penalty for young, healthy citizens. The protracted foul-up of the healthcare.gov website, the culture of secrecy in the Executive Branch that kept problems from being addressed in a timely fashion, and the oppositional stance towards GOP-controlled state legislatures all combined to make even signing up to see what options the exchange offered a cumbersome experience. The result? Adverse selection. Former "uninsurables" are willing to make the jump; new Medicaid beneficiaries don't mind it; the rest are more hesitant.
5) That this was recognized by the administration is confirmed by the deliberate crafting of regulations that would force people who already had healthcare insurance that they wanted to keep off those plans and onto the exchanges. Tens of millions of Americans may be impacted by this, and their objections are going to create what may be insurmountable barriers to the program's stated goals.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 23:25:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 18:12:24 GMT -5
It really doesn't matter at this point if Obama lied or not. hes not running in 2016 and the law is already enacted. Look, stop being sensible.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Nov 6, 2013 19:55:35 GMT -5
The biggest winners of the Unaffordable healthcare act is:
1. the insurance companies 2. The healthcare hospital conglomerates. 3. The drug companies. 4. All corporations, whether large international or regional corporations.
Not necessarily in that order.
The big losers of this act. 1. The middle class citizens who have to come up with the premium fees. 2. retail and fast food industry due to loss of sales because the middle class have to pay the insurance premiums and have nop discretionary income left to spend. 3. Big oil, because they can no longer raise prices whenever they feel like it and stick it to the driving public. 4. State tax revenue, because the consumer has no money to spend, hence, decreasing sales tax revenue
The top four sounds like a Republican conspiracy. The last four sound like a Democratic conspiracy.
We all do know who is responsible. And it was not one Republican.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Nov 6, 2013 21:46:15 GMT -5
I agree it was the intended result- I was pointing out the they were sending letters offering their new compliant policies at much higher prices and failing to mention that people could shop the exchange for a better deal- they are trying to lock these people in at high prices and keep them away from the exchanges. Not illegal-although once company has already been fined- but it is downright sneaky and par for the course with these people. Just about every horror story being blasted through the RW media- take Hannity's guests a few weeks back- were based on 100% bullshit- as in what the company offered as a replacement policy- not was was available through the exchanges- and in fact he was busted cold on this as another reporter interviewed them and found out that was exactly the case- that they had not even looked at prices on the exchange- and same reporter plugged in the details and found out- surprise surprise- they would come out better than they were originally paying. That should tell you something- if the law is so bad then why do these people have to make up shit and twist the truth to fight it? Ummm...from the sounds of it, telling people to look at the exchanges right now would be a complete waste of time. Maybe what they're saying is: get this new policy because right now its the only one available?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 6, 2013 21:48:57 GMT -5
For the record, some people's cancellation notices are directing them to the exchanges: mycancellation.com/Novelty: primary-source data points.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 6, 2013 22:08:11 GMT -5
The legalist in me says otherwise.
Dj and others are welcome to argue that Bush, in chiming in with President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Madeleine Allbright, and John Kerry, inter alia, in suggesting that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling WMDs - a fiction that the Iraqi dictator himself took considerable pains to maintain, and which deceived everybody, and which furthermore was only one of more than a dozen grounds on which Congress authorized intervention in Iraq - told a lie of similar brazenness, magnitude, and impact.
I disagree with them. The President repeatedly, before and after passage of the law, lied about what it would mean. He continues to lie now about having lied about it, and indeed continues to lie about the law. He does so not from any commitment to the claimed virtuous aims of PPACA - it is purely, nakedly, political self-interest. He is invested in "Obamacare" too personally to concede that it is a disaster. He is prepared to bring down the entire Democratic Party, and try to bring down the Republican Party with it, rather than admit that his hubris led him to take on more than he could handle.
And it matters because it sets a precedent. Bush's "imperial presidency" was bad - recess appointments, signing statements, executive orders, dubious reinterpretations. Obama's has doubled down on all of these abuses. In addition to retaining all the follies of the Bush administration, thereby normalizing them, Obama has criminalized free speech; taken unto himself the power to summarily execute citizens who disagree with him without recourse to judicial review, due process, habeas corpus, or any of that quaint civil stuff; asserted the authority to unilaterally make war without Congressional approval or oversight; willfully ignored statutes with which he disagreed, as if laws were upheld at his pleasure rather than as his faithfully sworn duty; politicized the executive agencies he claims should be entrusted with greater responsibility and scope to interfere in our lives; repeatedly poisoned the well of public debate; neglected his responsibilities as head of the Executive Branch; demonstrated a contempt even for his own party on Capitol Hill; injected himself, foolishly and damagingly, into public debates without possession of the facts; so denatured the bully pulpit with repeated empty speechifying as to bring his office into disrepute; and, not least, miserably failed in his duties as a steward of the nation's finances, a leader of the whole country, a resolute ally to civilized nations and a credible threat to unstable ones, and even as the nominal head of the Democratic Party. All because he spent his whole life clawing for ever greater power, and then when he found himself at the summit, had no idea how to use it.
That the law would not be the law, and the President not be the President, were it not for his repeated and pernicious mendacity with the American people (incidentally, a citation among the articles drafted for the impeachment of President Nixon), makes it a very pertinent object of inquiry. That he has three years left in office, potentially, and nothing whatever to lose from here on out, makes it a credible consideration when evaluating anything else the man has to say on any other topic, up to and including the religious affiliation of the Pope and ursine defecatory habits.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 7, 2013 0:48:15 GMT -5
The legalist in me says otherwise. Dj and others are welcome to argue that Bush, in chiming in with President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Madeleine Allbright, and John Kerry, inter alia, in suggesting that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling WMDs - the difference, of course, is that Clinton, Clinton, Pelosi and Albright were not president. they were not the CIC. they didn't send 4000 men and women to their death. they didn't spend $1T on the boondoggle. they didn't kill 100k Iraqi's and Afganis, including over 40,000 children. no, that distinction belongs to BUSH. and i never claimed Bush was the originator of that lie. what i claim is that he repeated it with such enthusiasm that eventually 60% of the US public actually believed it. there is no denying any of that, of course. it is as true as anything in this life. whether he thought it was true or not is immaterial. the buck stops with him. if he didn't know better, he should have. that is what being in charge means. a fiction that the Iraqi dictator himself took considerable pains to maintain, indeed he did. and we KNEW that, actually. this is an entire OTHER layer to (our) lie that makes it even more repulsive, imo. and which deceived everybody, totally false. the CIA didn't believe it. neither did the weapons inspectors. in fact, very few people believed it. except in the US. and which furthermore was only one of more than a dozen grounds on which Congress authorized intervention in Iraq - told a lie of similar brazenness, magnitude, and impact. a good reason to opposed the AUMF, imo. we have misapplied it probably 100x since WW2. we should stop that. as for the rest of your post, i have no interest in defending Obama. others may do so, if they wish.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 7, 2013 8:04:06 GMT -5
I find the combination of this with the stance on Obama's lie fascinating.
That Obama lied, if I'm following the argument (not yours specifically, dj), is immaterial because Bush lied, even if Bush believed he was telling the truth (what we humans call 'being wrong' - not generally morally equivalent to 'deliberately telling falsehoods'). It is also immaterial because he hasn't got a time machine and can't undo his lie. It may also be immaterial because his lie was in the service of a Good Thing, even if that Good Thing was in fact not very good and even if the substance of his lie was passing off the not very good thing as a Good Thing. It is further immaterial that he was not repeating a lie that had gained currency years earlier - he was generating it himself - and that he went on to repeat the lie on dozens of documented occasions. It is further immaterial because politicians lie anyway, so it's really just stupid of voters to have believed anything he said in the first place. It is also immaterial, one guesses, because of the implicit racism of criticizing America's first black President. And most of all, it is immaterial because if we allow it to be material we start having an honest and critical conversation about the incoherences of the modern Left, and we simply can't be doing that.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 7, 2013 12:54:22 GMT -5
ObamaCare is a national joke- the mere mention of ObamaCare results in outburst of laughter at CMAs...
ObamaCare by morning, Why's this takin' so long?
I'm gonna wind up with hemorrhoids If I sit here 'til dawn.
We'll have cataracts and dementia this is gettin' on my nerves
ObamaCare by morning Over six people served...
Folks, this is what a meltdown looks like- things are more desperate than anyone is hearing about right now at the White House, and in the Democratic Party. I think the Democrats know that if McAuliffe had lost in VA the reason would have been ObamaCare- and going into 2014, if the GOP chose to fight this- we could well have been looking at a bi-partisan repeal effort.
And again, I know we're not likely to see full repeal. But an effective repeal is coming.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 7, 2013 13:12:56 GMT -5
The legalist in me says otherwise. Dj and others are welcome to argue that Bush, in chiming in with President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Madeleine Allbright, and John Kerry, inter alia, in suggesting that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling WMDs - a fiction that the Iraqi dictator himself took considerable pains to maintain, and which deceived everybody, and which furthermore was only one of more than a dozen grounds on which Congress authorized intervention in Iraq - told a lie of similar brazenness, magnitude, and impact. I disagree with them. The President repeatedly, before and after passage of the law, lied about what it would mean. He continues to lie now about having lied about it, and indeed continues to lie about the law. He does so not from any commitment to the claimed virtuous aims of PPACA - it is purely, nakedly, political self-interest. He is invested in "Obamacare" too personally to concede that it is a disaster. He is prepared to bring down the entire Democratic Party, and try to bring down the Republican Party with it, rather than admit that his hubris led him to take on more than he could handle. And it matters because it sets a precedent. Bush's "imperial presidency" was bad - recess appointments, signing statements, executive orders, dubious reinterpretations. Obama's has doubled down on all of these abuses. In addition to retaining all the follies of the Bush administration, thereby normalizing them, Obama has criminalized free speech; taken unto himself the power to summarily execute citizens who disagree with him without recourse to judicial review, due process, habeas corpus, or any of that quaint civil stuff; asserted the authority to unilaterally make war without Congressional approval or oversight; willfully ignored statutes with which he disagreed, as if laws were upheld at his pleasure rather than as his faithfully sworn duty; politicized the executive agencies he claims should be entrusted with greater responsibility and scope to interfere in our lives; repeatedly poisoned the well of public debate; neglected his responsibilities as head of the Executive Branch; demonstrated a contempt even for his own party on Capitol Hill; injected himself, foolishly and damagingly, into public debates without possession of the facts; so denatured the bully pulpit with repeated empty speechifying as to bring his office into disrepute; and, not least, miserably failed in his duties as a steward of the nation's finances, a leader of the whole country, a resolute ally to civilized nations and a credible threat to unstable ones, and even as the nominal head of the Democratic Party. All because he spent his whole life clawing for ever greater power, and then when he found himself at the summit, had no idea how to use it. That the law would not be the law, and the President not be the President, were it not for his repeated and pernicious mendacity with the American people (incidentally, a citation among the articles drafted for the impeachment of President Nixon), makes it a very pertinent object of inquiry. That he has three years left in office, potentially, and nothing whatever to lose from here on out, makes it a credible consideration when evaluating anything else the man has to say on any other topic, up to and including the religious affiliation of the Pope and ursine defecatory habits. Great post. Marvelous articulation of the facts. I especially liked your comparison of the hyperbole that "Bush lied, and people died" propaganda vs. the reality that Obama actually did lie, and people are dying now as a result. The United States chose to go to war in Iraq in 1991; and during the period between 1991 and maintenance of the no fly zone, and air strikes through 1998, both parties understood that the ceasefire was conditional. In the shadow of the attacks of 9/11, after decades of attempts to enforce the terms of the ceasefire, and the international madate- Bush decided that in a post 9/11 world, the status quo was untenable. Whether or not this was a good call is still, in my opinion, with the jury. I think we learned the lesson that the nation-building aspect was ill-advised; so I'm speaking specifically about the invasion and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Here, however, we face an entirely different situation- we are up against an administration that passed, using a questionable procedural vote, a bill to raise revenue (it's a tax, right?) that originated in the Senate, along straight party lines. And we know that even to do that, the President had to lie- in a deliberately calculated way with full knowledge of the absolute truth- in order to persuade even members of the Democratic Party. He, and they, continued to lie in order to get re-elected. Conservatives have been shouting the ObamaCare warnings from the rooftops for half a decade- we have been mocked, we have been ridiculed, we have been told that we don't know what we're talking about, and all by people that knew full well they were lying.
|
|