Senate The US Politics discussion

Fixed.

 

Ender IS somewhat right in general terms - do NOT jump on me until you finish reading - that, "Given insurance is all about ensuring risk, I'm not sure why charging people more for PECs is controversial."

Insurance is all about separating people into different risk pools. Those who ignore traffic laws and get into accidents or get multipltickets get grouped with other like folks, and so forth.

BUT - once we get practically everyone insured and thus end up with a huge insurance pool, we can't stoop IMHO to treating the vast majority of health issues as something the individual can control. A driver can choose to stop for lights, drive the speed limit, etc. A person usually cannot choose to get sick/injured or avoid sickness/injury.

One *might* make a case for a surcharge for certain behaviors leading to a surcharge in premiums charged. Before the ACA, my health insurer gave credits for wearing a seatbelt, not smoking, etc. - all behaviors I can choose to engage in or not.

Thus I believe health insurance needs to be treated somewhat differently than Property and Casualty insurance (my field, by the way).

 

wow, bros have discovered pragmatism now that there's a chance to sell out women, who could've seen that coming

 

Nope, not me. You must be thinking of someone else.

But did you just seriously equate the act of not releasing a copy of a tax return or establishing an offshore investment vehicle to inhuman torture? You just Spicer'ed yourself!



But it kind of proves my point about how people give an unhealthy focus to mundane financial documents. I guess in a nutshell, my point would still be "dude, it's just a tax return."

 

He wasn't equating the two actions. He was comparing two identical responses in crafting excuses; the infamous "but what they're doing is worse" or "but they do it too" response. The comparison was in the line of argument, not the thing that is being excused.

 

Really? No kidding. Oh well, that changes everything.

But if you were following the overall point, no one cares about the actual financial product Cameron set up. That doesn't matter. However, E_S's justification for Cameron was that absent of any illegal activity, there were plenty of legitimate reasons as to why Cameron did what he did based on financial realities, so while it looked bad, he should be given the benefit of the doubt. I agree with that point, and I agree with the rational analysis in the face of a PR based incident.

It just doesn't become more valid for one and less valid for another based on liking one and not the other.

The problem with your above point is that based on equivalence, what Cameron did was much worse (going outside of Britain while British PM to avoid detection in order to use a South American law firm to set up secret offshore holding companies) vs Trump (officially filing his tax returns with the proper agency per the requirement of the law, but simply not releasing the information to the public per the spirit of tradition)

 

You're the one who was asking "are you seriously equating" this and that with an overdramatic self-righteous tone, and when I simply reply that, no, he wasn't, I'm the dumbass?

If it's a stupid question, why did you ask it? By your own admission it isn't pertinent to anything.

 

I don't know. You said it, not me. I try to avoid labels.

I guess that's the risk of interjecting one's self into the middle of an exchange?

 

The better question is why you ask questions that you admit don't amount to anything. Your sarcasm is better directed at yourself, since you asked it in the first place. If you don't want stupid answers, maybe you shouldn't ask stupid questions.

 

Come now, VVM. There are no stupid questions.

Just a lot of inquisitive idiots.

(Full disclosure--I borrowed that line from a demotivator poster)

 

Well, I think this deserves a multi-faceted reply. The first point is that the ACA does not forbid segregating into separate risk pools or making such assessments. Instead, it tries to organize those groupings in a way that will have the least impact on customer access to healthcare. In particular, individual assessments are replaced with community ratings. If you offer insurance in an area with high levels of endemic heart disease, diabetes, or other conditions, it is perfectly legal to charge more for health insurance there than in areas where everyone is relatively healthy, long-lived, and doesn't much utilize healthcare. This allows insurance companies to build a sustainable financial model and recoup the losses of covering a few particularly ill individuals. One may not, however, single out people for exorbitant rates relative to their next door neighbors, based on their health.

This brings us to the second point, which requires an appreciation of the pre-ACA condition in the United States. Especially on the individual insurance market, those with pre-existing conditions were either uninsurable or had huge holes in their coverage. This created a perverse incentive for people to avoid receiving diagnoses that could make them more difficult to insure in the future, even if those diagnoses were imminently treatable if addressed early on. Further, uncapping rate differentials would allow insurance companies to regress to something like the prior status quo. While not technically denying someone coverage for a pre-existing condition, they could charge so much that no one with said condition could actually afford it. There's no clear reason for them not to do this, from a profit-making perspective. In a model like the US, where health insurance is a prerequisite to meaningful access to healthcare, that would be disastrous from a policy standpoint.

 

There's one in the city and one nearby. But Nebraska is pretty red most of the time. Seldom will it swing too far to the left.

 

This.

To this day, the fact that I have had Crohn's disease for the past 33 years disqualifies me from every life insurance plan I've ever applied to. Going back to that standard for health care coverage will be nothing less than catastrophic in the long run. Insurers won't even look past what's written on your history. By all other metrics, I am very healthy--low blood pressure, physically active, thin, low cholesterol. But none of that matters. Like being convicted of a crime, a pre-existing condition follows you for life.

Is that the type of society America wants to be? I'm hoping no. I used to be against single-payer, now I'm strongly in support. Health care is a moral right, and should not be subject to the same degree of rampant profiteering that dominates almost every other aspect of American society.

It's amazing what being in the real world and fear of bankruptcy can do to your political views. That and having a family to care for (and worry about).

 

Well, Trump is well on his way to ending his 100 days with a government shutdown. Still a chance that doesn't happen, but of course he isn't making things easier by holding healthcare hostage and insisting on funds for his stupid wall. While it sounds like the White House won't risk a shutdown over the wall, Trump's not exactly the most rational or consistent person. And I fear his threat to healthcare is far more likely to be what tanks these talks.

 

"Wall or healthcare: you decide." The campaign ads for next year will almost write themselves.

Shut it down, guys. Please. Shut it down.

 

And to prove how tone deaf he is, he has a rally on Saturday. If the government shuts down, I see him using it to stir up more hatred against Democrats-despite the fact he's being sued by three people because of his encouragement of violence during his rallies.

 

Man, I hate purity test.

 

World War 3: Russia 'shot down United States missiles in Syria in act of war' | Daily Star

Who knows... It certainly surprised me that Putin would NOT use the 300s and 400s deployed in Syria to take down at least some of Trump's Tomahawks. Maybe he did...

 

The UK Daily Star is one of the less trustworthy news outlets in the UK.

 

Nuclear deal critics silent as Trump says Iran complying

 

It's as if the world operates completely differently to hardliner Republicans. Even the Israeli's, privately, were acknowledging Iran was sticking to the agreement.

 

Well, this will surprise no one: Trump's BFF Sean Hannity (that guy no one calls) is the latest Fox News personality to be accused of sexual harassment. So far it is just one accuser. I imagine that will change.

 

There have been plenty of rumours about female staff being sexual harassed at FOX. It is a widespread problem, it seems.