Senate The US Politics discussion

Ivanka and Melania look like they're at a funeral. Donald has the most evil dictator face I've seen on him. The Pope looks like he's thinking to himself "God, kill me now please".

 

Warning sign for the GOP.

Also, now you know Republicans are getting scared

The top one interests me more, though, as it shows potential trends on the ground going into next year. Especially at the state and local level, where it will have the most impact when it comes to redistricting in 2020.

 

Yer cute.

Look, the logistics that the companies have to go through is one thing. And it's a bit complicated.

But the laws governing it don't have to be. 23,000 pages. Twenty-three thousand pages! Few, if any, of us have ever seen a publication a tenth of that size. After Obama was elected I bought and read a couple of books on Postbellum and Antebellum and they are just over 1,500 pages each and were HUGE! Those were the biggest books I've seen, let alone read. I literally read The Bible in less time than it took me to read those books! Hell, the unabridged version of Steven King's The Stand was 1,200 pages and that took me 3 months to read! Think of the biggest book you've ever sat down and read cover to cover. Think about the pages and how long it took to read. Now think: 23,000 pages!!!!!!!

I couldn't imagine 23,000 pages. And nobody has read all of them. Nobody. To my understanding there is no one single person that understands the entire law. There are teams of people who understand sections of it. A single law.

But if you want to say that I over-simplify, then you'd have to at least concede that you, and the writers of this law, over-complicate.[/quote]

 

A few posts ago, you said 2300 pages. Are you going to say 23 million pages next time?

 

Did I? Well it's 23,000.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe...20000-pages-of-obamacare-regulations-n1532069

 

Do women have to dress like they're at a funeral to meet the Pope? Ugh.

 

J-Rod
I think you've shown clearly that many-paged bills carry some kind of totemic significance for you. The way you keep invoking page length, you seem to be trying to cast some kind of spell. I hope that works.

But it's irrelevant except for demonstrating the complexity of health care in the U.S., which comprises patients, their doctors, the associations that represent the doctors, hospitals and clinics, nurses and other health care workers, an array of private insurers and managed care administrators, municipal and state public health departments, Medicare, Medicaid, all the gigantic entities under HHS: the National Institutes of Health; Health Resources and Services Administration and entities under it like Maternal Child Health Bureau; The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers, also public and private K-12 schools are involved in the delivery of health care as are colleges and universities, medical schools and research universities, nursing schools, training programs for medical technicians.

If I were in charge of health care in the U.S. and creating a plan for universal health care, I'd look at all of that and reorganize it top down and ground up through a careful, multi-year strategic planning process and the plan in detail would be tens of thousands of pages long, and so what?

23,000
Twenty-three thousand
23,000

 

Yep, nothing like resorting to the tried and true tactic of demonizing women: Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi. Nothing seems to scare them more than powerful women.

 

I've gone over this before. And to my surprise, no one agreed. LOL.

Government caused this problem More government won't fix it. The answer is to remove, as much as possible, government.

You tell the insurance companies that the government will be taking care of the bottom X%. 10%? 15%? Then you tell them that in 18 months employers won't be able to cover employees anymore. Each individual will be responsible for their own care. And by the time the 18 month deadline comes there will be plans that people can afford and will want to buy. Because these companies don't want to go out of business.

See, right now the people buying most coverages are, by law, the US government and US corporations. The two richest entities in the entire world. So the greedy companies scale their plans to those pocketbooks. That's why there is such gross (if a word can apply) profits in the insurance industry.

Well certainly the gross profits will be gone. And a more reasonable profit margin will take it's place. Because they will need customers.

 

That's why there would be the safety net for the bottom 10 or 15 percent. Maybe even 20, there would have to be a study of some kind done to see.

 

Republicans criticize a woman, they are demonizing women. Democrats tear apart Palin, Haley or any other conservative woman it's OK. liberal hypocrisy makes me sick.

 

Yes insurance companies need customers, but they will also rely on screwing people over to squeeze every penny possible coupled with trying to prevent any pay-out when the person needs it, by shady language, which they will interpret in the most favorable way for them, not for the customer. The end will always be to serve the company, not the customer, and you can bet your life that you'll have a million situations where any reasonable person would conclude that an insurance company should pay for some medicine or treatment or whatever, and the company will find a way to not cover it, and they'll prey on the poor and the uneducated to buy into their plan, making them think they're covered when they're not. And that's the problem with the insurance industry, because you're playing with people's lives.

 

Is 23,000 the new 14,000?

 

Perhaps this is a good time to post something about the Dunning-Kruger effect:

This is an ongoing problem in politics today.

 

Tomi lahren and Sarah Palin are two good examples. It isn't the gender, it's the policies. The left doesn't like these women, not because they are women but because of their political stances.

Well the same goes for Pelosi or Boxer or that nut job Warren.

 

If they were including Chuck Schumer along with Pelosi, you'd have a point. But they deliberately painted Hillary as the boogeyman and did the same to Elizabeth Warren over the last few months.

Palin was criticized not just for the dumb stuff she said (and it was dumb just as Hillary's "dead broke" comment was dumb) but for how dangerous it was. Look no further than the controversy over bullseye targets after Gabby Giffords was shot. It was the dangerous rhetoric that stirred up hatred that led to criticism over Palin. That and her desire to embrace ignorance. I'm afraid you'll need to provide some examples of criticism on Haley not related to her political stances.

 

No, it's not. Where did you get the number 3 from? The article you've linked says 20,000. There's no number 3 in there. That's because the article you've linked me to was an afterthought. Your original figure of 2300 was not an accident, but maybe because nobody cared you thought adding another zero would do the trick. Your earlier figure of 2300 was probably taken from various editorials by conservatives that slam the bill for its length, most likely the first one under here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/8/inside-the-beltway-obamacare-2300-pages-trumpcare-/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/10/15/obamacare-rollout-disasster/
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...09_1_health-insurance-health-care-tort-reform
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Nebraska-senate-sasse-obamacare/2014/01/14/id/547006/

I think you'll appreciate I included Breitbart in there. These were from the first page of a Google search.

Considering that the piece you posted is from 2013, and gets its figure from a Mitch McConnel tweet, and the first link there is from two months ago and cites the 2300 figure, it's probably much closer to the final bill.

Or, so one would think. The actual full text of the bill is just shy of 1000 pages, which you can look up on the US Congress' website any time.

 

All this would do is just increase the uninsured rate and cause premiums to skyrocket for the elderly and sick. If you make people responsible for their own care, all it will lead to is young and healthy people not buying insurance and companies will then raise premiums on the elderly and sick to compensate for the people who left the market.

 

Palin has no idea what she's talking and Lahren just spounts nasty cliches. She's about the same caliber. When she was on Bill Maher's show and had to speak to another person and not just a camera she didn't know what to say. Neither of those women are "conservatives", they're opportunists.

 

I can accept that's it's 2,000. Yet there are over 20,000 pages of regulations that go with the law. It doesn't really affect my point.

She's the Rachel Dolezal of Congress. LOL! I can't believe anyone takes her seriously.

I imagine the elderly would still be covered under the obligation made to them by medicare.

EDIT: Sorry, busy today, let me flesh this out a bit: Certainly younger/healthier people will be less likely to get insurance. Nothing can solve this except eliminating insurance altogether. Just pay for service.

But the insurance companies will know this and will have plans affordable enough to attract a percentage of the younger/healthier population.