The Goat Pen

They are a nonprofit just like hospitals and universities. Don't think your employer doesn't have a profit margin. It does. Nonprofits need margin to expand and grow opportunities. They can't do that if they break even every year.

Again, will the ABA agree to restrictions on malpractice activity like other countries that have national subsidized healthcare?

also , since the government now mandates health care insurance and subsidizes it for those that qualify,

all out of pocket health costs, - not a % of your income, should be tax deductible including premium costs, co-pays and deductibles

I mean, if they are really serious about making it affordable, lets put some weight behind it.

"For example: the poverty rate in Louisiana is 11,400 to receive Medicaid. This means to get access to the exhanges, you need to at least make 11,400 per year. But if you only make $10,000, you can't get access to the exchanges nor in Louisiana do you qualify for medicaid. You only make $10,000 per year, but you are too rich for medicaid (qualifications controlled by the state)."

So you're saying one of the main problems with the ACA is that it's not inclusive enough?

"all of these programs that the government enacts to help the less fortunate always comes at the expense of the middle class - the people that are working their ass off to stay above water and hold their own. when the government zeros in on a sector of the our life, it creates an artificial market with our tax dollars. The government uses your tax dollars against you in preventing the market from dictating price controls.

That's not tea party idealism. There is no free ride in capitalism.

Ask a veteran how well a national health care plan can be run by the government - and they are supposed to be our nations top priority in regards to health care."

Well fucking said. I know it was like 30 posts or so ago but hell yeah!!

"I know it was like 30 posts or so ago but hell yeah!!"

You have been accused of many things in here, but being nimble is not one of them...

So, eCat and Sardis, in light of all of this are you saying status quo was the route to take? Is it single payer and tort caps? Is it tax breaks on the OOP costs? If not ACA, what?

Bklyn wrote:So, eCat and Sardis, in light of all of this are you saying status quo was the route to take? Is it single payer and tort caps? Is it tax breaks on the OOP costs? If not ACA, what?

I don't have the answer to that, but I'm not about to listen to any noise about how successful the ACA is. Its a narrative that is insulting to masses that have to deal with it.

yes, I feel for the guy that was diagnosed with cancer , didn't have insurance and the ACA allowed him to find a plan and get treatment - but it seems to me that the ACA is trumpeting that kind of scenario as a success while dangerously ignoring the cost and burden this has put on the masses. "See, it works, this guy is getting treatment! Oh? you're paying more? yea well - health care is a complicated issue, you better just work on having a smaller nut as you get older"

If you went with the old Ronald Reagan line - are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? And you can point to things that happened in spite of the ACA, but you can't ignore they also happened *because* of the ACA. Do I really need to differentiate between what the ACA specifically mandated versus a causal effect of the ACA? In the end, the truth doesn't change - I , along with many other Americans, have higher health care costs and less coverage than prior to the ACA. Its not a coincidence, its not a perfect storm of actions that came together to take advantage of a vulnerable public - its an intentional act that either is based on complete incompetence or to burden Americans like me in order to support the agenda laid out in electing Obama.

So yes, given where we are now and where we are going, I'd much rather prefer status quo of 2007 . I could have 10 more years of costs increases at that current rate and still not be where I was the first year of ACA - and I'd have the benefit of being covered under a "Cadillac" plan with the peace of mind knowing that I had my family taken care of.

I honestly believe, and this isn't hyperbole, that people are going to revolt in the next year or so - perhaps more actively than on any other issue against Obamacare simply because they believe it cannot work as presented to them. And given its an election year, I think it will have some traction.

You didn't get to keep the health care you had
You didn't get an average savings of $2500
You won't get to keep your doctor

Even *if* the ACA has nothing to do with the above statements not coming true and outside forces conspired to make it happen - its irrelevant. They happened after the rollout of Obamacare in its earliest implementation - so Obamacare "owns it".

eCat wrote:

Saint wrote:

eCat wrote: That's not tea party idealism. There is no free ride in capitalism.

Ask a veteran how well a national health care plan can be run by the government - and they are supposed to be our nations top priority in regards to health care.

Tell that to the assholes who are making more money each year and not raising wages. Or the dickheads who do everything they can to avoid paying their share of taxes.

You can hedge all you want about how this current setup sucks or how a national system would suck, but the bottom line is that unless some of these fuckwads pocketing major bucks right now are willing or made to give some of it up, the whole thing is going to continue to suck for you, me and everyone else other than the cocksuckers who get the free gov't care now.

putting your trust in a politician to choose you over them however is not the answer

Oh, I know but putting trust that our economic system isn't going to be highjacked by those entities with clout isn't the answer either. The bigger problem is that you're really talking about the same folks when you bitch about one or the other.

And while the gov't doesn't always work, it always has the potential to. People accept so many things that are fucked up in the private sector, that they pay for: shitty cell phone reception, shitty food in a restaurant, shitty quality of high-end goods, to name a few. But if a gov't-run enterprise isn't picture perfect all the time, they get riled up like Granny Clampett.

I hate to quote him but Crow had it right when he said, more or less, that the gov't is all we've got to make things right. We can't trust the market because history is littered with examples of how the market had to be sat in the corner. But as long as people have this inherent distrust of gov't we will continue to be the Gimp in the 3-some with Government and Business.

Business PR kicks Government PR's ass. Institution PR kicks reformer PR's ass, every time.

Thanks for the answer, though, eCat. You'd rather have status quo...and that's in line with what we normally get with things. Then, every few years a small drumbeat starts saying we can't kick the can down the road any longer (pick an issue), then after some back-and-forth with the nay'ers and yea'ers, things go away again and we go back to status quo. This is true no matter what the issue is. We have a hard time doing anything beneficial for ourselves 30 years out if it is not convenient today...and this is not some didactic, holier than thou lecture. I do it, too. It's American as apple pie, platitudes and easy answers.

So, the GOP can come in and dismantle the ACA. I'm at a place now where I will navigate the waters without too much of a change to my lifestyle. I just know that medical costs were increasing astronomically, people were getting screwed out of coverage (with lethal results) and the government was taking on a heavy burden before the ACA. I don't think the ACA was panacea, but it appeared to try to handle some of the issues that threaten our sustainability into the future. I would like to know what solution would actually help us, if this ain't it.

WHY NYPD TURNED ITS BACK ON THE CITY

If the public appetite for police reform can be soured by the mad acts of a man living on the edge of society, then the appetite was probably never really there to begin with. And the police, or at least their representatives, know this. In this piece, by Wesley Lowery, there are several amazing moments where police complain about things Barack Obama and Eric Holder have not actually said. There simply is no level of critique they would find tolerable. Why take criticism when you don't actually have to? Better to remind the public that you are the only thing standing between them and the barbarians at the gate:


“We might be reaching a tipping point with the mind-set of officers, who are beginning to wonder if the risks they take to keep communities safe are even worth it anymore,” Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke said. “In New York and
other places, we’re seeing a natural recoil from law enforcement officers who don’t feel like certain people who need to have their backs.”

Here's Radley Balko quantifying those "risks" police officers face:


Policing has been getting safer for 20 years. In terms of raw number of deaths, 2013 was the safest year for cops since World War II. If we look at the rate of deaths, 2013 was the safest year for police in well over a century ....
You’re more likely to be murdered simply by living in about half of the largest cities in America than you are while working as a police officer.

Nearly half of those deaths are from automobile accidents. Balko is somewhat frustrated that despite the empirical facts around policing, nothing seems to penetrate the narrative of police living under constant threat. Why? Is it that most people are just basically ignorant of the information? Is it that most people just believe, uncritically, what police officers tell them?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ty/384196/

Then maybe cops should stop stopping black folk and giving them a hard time. AFter all, the types of thugs they are claiming to be protecting society from are far more likely to kill each other anyway.

And while we're at it, reform the drug laws and quit giving cops a reason to shake down people to start with.

But my big problem with lethal force almost always comes from the cases where the cops could have easily taken the victim out without pumping them full of lead. And in what seems to be many of these cases, the victim has some type of mental imbalance. The thinking, and you can see it here in the posts, that if you're dumb enough to fuck with cops, you deserve to die. That may be true in some cases but it shouldn't give police carte blanche to empty their revolvers in people because they were asking for it.

I draw the line at innocent victim and someone engaged in criminal activity - and innocent victim extends to traffic violations and relatively minor offenses.

Thats why I can't support claiming police abuse over Michael Brown - I'm convinced he did fuck with police, and unfortunately, once the process of fucking with the police is started, I don't think you as the citizen has control of when to stop it.

But a kid holding a bb gun? The guy in Wal-mart? The guy in the stairwell?

I bet if we enacted mandatory 10 year sentences for any police killing an innocent victim simply because they didn't comply with the officer - we'd see an immediate drop in this sort of thing. Of course we'd see an immediate drop in police activity across the board like we're apparently seeing in New York. (which enrages me but that is another rant)

For me, the police can turn their back on DeBlasio and do whatever to show they don't think he supports them, but what hasn't happened as far as I know is wholesale policy change in regards to police interaction with the public - so when this happens next time....and it will, the cop will not face grand jury charges either and will have the backing of the DA and the judicial branch.

If people want to be outraged at anything - don't be outraged with the police, be outraged at the policy makers that put police lives ahead of the citizens they have sworn to protect - and demand change from there.

I doubt it would change anything though - because at the end of the day, the police are going to do exactly what they are doing now - using the safety of the public as leverage to fight change and squelch any inquiry by politicians who seek to develop processes to address police abuse.

Bklyn wrote:So, eCat and Sardis, in light of all of this are you saying status quo was the route to take? Is it single payer and tort caps? Is it tax breaks on the OOP costs? If not ACA, what?

I don't know how to improve the status quo, but I do know the status quo was better for 85% of the population than the ACA and most people could figure that out back in 2011, but it was strong armed through legislation.

I would probably first cap malpractice, that would reduce cost some, but I am not naïve, I know that alone doesn't solve the problem. I would then let states decide what is best for their citizenry. Massachusetts system worked...for Massachusetts. They didn't have high uninsured to begin with and had a more wealthy % to draw from. In fact, having to comply with the ACA made it tougher for Mass uninsured than the old Mass plan. Apply anti-trust rules to insurance companies in states. Let the states apply a sales tax on premium payments to help with the uninsured. That would be a one-time initial increase in premiums for the consumer, but I think it would help in the long run. Those are base hits that probably won't solve everything, but at least you are not starting some massive federal bureaucratic nightmare that ends up hurting more than helping.

Basically when you have the caliber of person who generally gets elected to office (at any level), things are going to get fucked up. Who goes into politics? Loser nerds who don't have what it takes to make it in the real world. They may be personable and charming, but my guess is that on average, they are lazier and dumber than the average worker. And those are the people who make the laws. And they are easily influenced, and probably have an very inflated opinion of their importance and power. That's a bad combination. And business knows it. That's why lobbyists are licking their lips when a new slew of "lawmakers" comes to DC. Classic case of country comes to town. Take em out to a few dinners, rounds of golf, whatever, and they're feeling all important and privileged, and then they're in the pocket of the NRA or the oil lobby or whatever lobby can conceivably be made to look like "local interest" to whatever state or area they are from. We are ruled by a coven of pussies and leeches...

102 women 50 plus minorities few native americans.

be interesting to see if this congress gets anything done compared to the last lame duck congress.

something on immigration/tax reform and some long term budgetary restraint would be nice.

but Im sure just like last few congresses this one will be impotent too

eCat wrote:If people want to be outraged at anything - don't be outraged with the police, be outraged at the policy makers that put police lives ahead of the citizens they have sworn to protect - and demand change from there.

I like this. I will use it.

sardis wrote:

Bklyn wrote:So, eCat and Sardis, in light of all of this are you saying status quo was the route to take? Is it single payer and tort caps? Is it tax breaks on the OOP costs? If not ACA, what?

I don't know how to improve the status quo, but I do know the status quo was better for 85% of the population than the ACA and most people could figure that out back in 2011, but it was strong armed through legislation.

I would probably first cap malpractice, that would reduce cost some, but I am not naïve, I know that alone doesn't solve the problem. I would then let states decide what is best for their citizenry. Massachusetts system worked...for Massachusetts. They didn't have high uninsured to begin with and had a more wealthy % to draw from. In fact, having to comply with the ACA made it tougher for Mass uninsured than the old Mass plan. Apply anti-trust rules to insurance companies in states. Let the states apply a sales tax on premium payments to help with the uninsured. That would be a one-time initial increase in premiums for the consumer, but I think it would help in the long run. Those are base hits that probably won't solve everything, but at least you are not starting some massive federal bureaucratic nightmare that ends up hurting more than helping.

They all seem reasonable to me. Why are insurance companies exempt from anti-trust?

On the reality of white disadvantage, Webb is right. While the poverty rate for white Americans is 9.6 percent—substantially below the rate for Latinos (23.5 percent) and black Americans (27.2 percent)—they account for nearly half of all of America’s poor, and 56 percent of the country’s poverty-level wage earners are white.


But this isn’t part of the national conversation, which owes itself, in part, to geography. Unlike black and Latino poverty, which is tied heavily to the nation’s urban spaces, white poverty is more diffuse, though there are areas where it’s highly concentrated. Kentucky, West Virginia, and Arkansas are mostly white states with double-digit white poverty rates—18 percent, 16 percent, and 13 percent, respectively—and the ills that come with them: drug abuse, incarceration, and family dissolution. And overall, the number of whites who experience this kind of disadvantage has grown substantially in the last 20 years. “The number of non-Hispanic white people residing in high-poverty neighborhoods more than doubled between 2000 and 2007–2011, rising from 1.4 million to 2.9 million,” writes sociologist Paul Jargowsky in a 2014 report.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... _dt_tw_top

Nobody cries when whitey dies...

"Why are insurance companies exempt from anti-trust?"

Owlman probably knows better than me, but I think it has to do with the fact that they are state regulated when it comes to their premiums?