hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 10:22 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
Oh to be rid of the first-past-the-post election system.

Instant run-off, or ranked choice voting, has worked pretty well in Maine — except that, as you might guess, it's opposed by the Republicans. Right now it can only be used in federal elections because state races are decided by plurality according to the constitution. And even though the people have twice voted to uphold ranked choice voting amending the constitution takes 2/3 of both houses of the legislature followed by a general election. It will be difficult to achieve those majorities and the only hope is that Republican opposition will moderate in time.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 10:26 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
No way republicans or libertarians are voting for higher taxes and more government programs.


they would if they had a sense they'd be out of power for decades if they voted against something people already knew would save them money.
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 10:36 am
@ehBeth,
Well sure. Their voters don’t want it though.

If you said you were a libertarian and you voted for higher taxes and a HUGE government program you’d lose your job the next election

That’s why I was asking hightor HOW we get Republican VOTERS on board with UHC.
ehBeth
 
  4  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 11:54 am
@maporsche,
advertising using people in Massachusetts who've rec'd good healthcare at less cost than people with high cost private insurance or people who received good basic care without any private insurance

---

that's what worked to bring in conservative/libertarian voters in Canada

appeals to their wallets work
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 12:14 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

Tell that bullshit to every other developed country there is. They have it and are allegedly less well off than we.

The US appears more 'well off' because of inflated prices in various parts of the economy that translate into the ability to engage in lucrative transactions, which cause money to flow in various directions.

If you raise prices of health care and then use those high prices to fund everything from hospital construction projects to medical school student loan debt to medical suppliers to pharmaceuticals, you have to exclude people who can't afford to fund the expensive system.

If you don't exclude them, then the people who are paying more in get upset about having to share their doctors and facilities with poor people who are overutilizing the system to trigger more spending in hopes of generating more jobs and income for the lower classes.

In more socialized countries, there is little if any opportunity for social mobility, so people are just stuck doing the jobs that wealthier people don't want to do for themselves, like cleaning and other manual labor.

In the US, there is theoretically the possibility for anyone to make more money and escape the necessity of performing menial labor for the privileged classes. For that reason, social redistribution is more frowned upon by people who don't want to lose their economic position because of the fantasy that there will be equality as a result of the redistribution.

Face it, everywhere in the world there are people who do manual labor and others who work in offices doing intellectual and creative work. Economics is about maintaining privilege by keeping people working to produce the privileges. The health care economy in the US is a major part of that, so when you are asking for socialized medicine, you're not really just asking for health care for the poor or affordable health care for everyone; you're asking for people to give up the privileges of having cushy office jobs so that others won't be forced into quasi-slave labor positions.

Good luck with that. I would love it everyone would give up the dream of well-paid intellectual/creative jobs to avoid low-paid menial jobs, but do you see that happening? If not, why do you expect them to change the health care system to allow the poor better access to health care, medical knowledge/training, etc.?
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  4  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2018 07:59 am
@ehBeth,
I hate to be such a downer and bad mouth my own people so to speak, but...

The conservative vs. liberal beliefs (for lack of thinking of a better word) is so ingrained in our society that reasonable information sharing is just impossible among the most partisan among us. More people want UHC or at least a good working Obamacare than do not in this country. However, those that do not, seem to be the more powerful among us and they are able to keep their base with them no matter the facts.

At least that is the way it has been in the past. I am not sure now. More people seem to be upset of the ruling in Texas than I thought. Surely even those in conservative base have health care through Obamacare and do not want it disappear without something better take it's place? I can see the appeal and practicality of UHC if you cut out the insurance companies and taxes directly pay for health care. If people want private insurance, perhaps there will still be a way they can pay for it like they do for private schools.


It seem the worst thing that happened with Obamacare was allowing states to opt out of expanding Medicare. Any improvements would have accommodate that problem. I really don't see why it is matter of constitutionality since all states have to pay for taxes for public schools whether they send their kids to a private school. Perhaps the reason Obamacare is a problem is because the private insurance is mixed up in the government provided insurance. If it entirely government provided, then it would be like the public schools. I am musing in an effort to get information back from those who might know these laws more than I do. I know that is risk for insults from Lash, but.., shrugs.

Speaking of which I have to go my cardiologist this morning. I hope they don't send me home.
Seeyahi
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2018 10:20 am
@revelette1,
What for? I advise you just to forget about him.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2018 02:01 pm
@Seeyahi,
I agree.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2018 04:12 pm
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
The conservative vs. liberal beliefs (for lack of thinking of a better word) is so ingrained in our society that reasonable information sharing is just impossible among the most partisan among us. More people want UHC or at least a good working Obamacare than do not in this country. However, those that do not, seem to be the more powerful among us and they are able to keep their base with them no matter the facts.

People here have labelled me 'far right,' which is not true; though I'm sure it makes sense from the perspective of someone who is far left and wants to normalize it by calling anyone who doesn't tow the socialist line 'far right.'

That said, I can actually imagine many forms of socialized health care that would be good if they could work, but the reality is that they can't work. Why can't they work? Because of greed and system-manipulation. There are too many savvy people who can get involved with any system and use it to trigger funds transfers to create more jobs and generally redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots.

Democrats are always complaining about how the rich hold such a large proportion of the country's wealth, as if it wealth was a collective pie to be divied up among all the citizens. That in itself is a horrible ethic of how to manage wealth. The point of wealth isn't to divide it up; it's to protect and conserve it for future generations. Socialism is greedy people fighting over control of wealth and the means of consumption instead of doing the right thing, which is putting forth ideas for how to steward resources better and how to live with less.

So while it would be really great to have health care that stewards the health of all people in a way that optimizes their quality of life and thus their ability to participate in taking responsibility for resources and wealth for future generations; that won't happen due to ACA, medicare/medicaid expansion, or any other UHC 'system' where people are using rules and policies to trigger funds-transfers for care and medical activities.

Instead, people will use whatever 'system' you create to vye for more money, higher income, and more business success. People want bigger houses, new cars, more driving, more going out to eat, more vacations, more parties, more/newer clothes, bigger more comfortable houses, etc. etc. They don't want to be healthy, responsible stewards of wealth/resources for future generations; and even those who do mostly don't reflect on how much more wasteful and irresponsible their economic choices are than they could be.

There's a lot of ignorance and greed masquerading as a sense of entitlement for being, 'just a normal middle class person struggling to get by.'
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2018 09:13 pm
My wife just returned from having knee replacement surgery, for the second time this year. Her case is a pretty good illustration of how the politicians and insurance companies are milking Medicare at the public expense. In February, she was treated fantastically well, and kept in a room until she could get around on her own, with a walker. For her entire stay, they swarmed about her, as they did the same for the others patients. They were really excellent. It was to be expected, because she had Aetna Insurance for well over twenty years. But, around June, Medicare made the surgery an out patient procedure. Everything seemed to be "poor boyed" this time. The doctor was forced to find new ways to administer pain medicine. If my wife had gone in early enough in the day they would have sent her home before sundown. Just a sort of skeleton staff saw to her needs that night. Last time, they sent her home walking. This time, she had to claw and drag herself along the porch deck to the front door and wage a mighty struggle to get up in the easy chair. I reason that it's because the bastards of government, in DC and Austen, robbed another substantial chunk out of the system. Somebody with that kind of insurance and having Medicare, plus with all deductibles paid off early in the year should have dignity and complete care.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2018 09:22 pm
@edgarblythe,
When I was a practicing nurse, the patients billing/insurance was completely irrelevant to the care I provided.

In fact, unless the patient mentioned it, I had no idea their insurance carrier.

This was just over 1 year ago.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2018 10:16 am
Quote:
The midterm elections were, to an important extent, a referendum on the Affordable Care Act; health care, not Donald Trump, dominated Democratic campaigning. And voters delivered a clear verdict: They want Obamacare’s achievements, the way it expanded coverage to roughly 20 million people who would otherwise have been uninsured, to be sustained.

But on Friday, Reed O’Connor, a partisan Republican judge known for “weaponizing” his judicial power, declared the A.C.A. as a whole — protection for pre-existing conditions, subsidies to help families afford coverage, and the Medicaid expansion — unconstitutional. Legal experts from both right and left ridiculed his reasoning and described his ruling as “raw political activism.” And that ruling probably won’t be sustained by higher courts.

But don’t be too sure that his sabotage will be overturned. O’Connor’s abuse of power may be unusually crude, but that sort of behavior is becoming increasingly common. And it’s not just health care, nor is it just the courts. What Nancy Pelosi called the “monstrous endgame” of the Republican assault on health care is just the leading edge of an attack on multiple fronts, as the G.O.P. tries to overturn the will of the voters and undermine democracy in general.

For while we may congratulate ourselves on the strength of our political institutions, in the end institutions consist of people and fulfill their roles only as long as the people in them respect their intended purpose. Rule of law depends not just on what is written down, but also on the behavior of those who interpret and enforce that rule.

If these people don’t regard themselves as servants of the law first, partisans second, if they won’t subordinate their political goals to their duty to preserve the system, laws become meaningless and only power matters.

And what we’re seeing in America — what we’ve actually been seeing for years, although much of the news media and political establishment has refused to acknowledge it — is an invasion of our institutions by right-wing partisans whose loyalty is to party, not principle. This invasion is corroding the Republic, and the corrosion is already very far advanced.

I say “right-wing” advisedly. There are bad people in both parties, as there are in all walks of life. But the parties are structurally different. The Democratic Party is a loose coalition of interest groups, but the modern Republican Party is dominated by “movement conservatism,” a monolithic structure held together by big money — often deployed stealthily — and the closed intellectual ecosystem of Fox News and other partisan media. And the people who rise within this movement are, to a far greater degree than those on the other side, apparatchiks, political loyalists who can be counted on not to stray from the party line.

Republicans have been stuffing the courts with such people for decades; O’Connor was appointed by George W. Bush. That’s why his ruling, no matter how bad the legal reasoning, wasn’t a big surprise. The only question was whether he would imagine himself able to get away with such a travesty. Obviously he did, and he may well have been right.

But as I said, it’s not just the courts. Even as Trump and his allies spin fantasies about sabotage by the “deep state,” the reality is that a growing number of positions in government agencies are being occupied by right-wing partisans who care nothing, or actively oppose, their agencies’ missions. The Environmental Protection Agency is now run by people who don’t want to protect the environment, Health and Human Services by people who want to deny Americans health care.

The same takeover by apparatchiks is taking place in politics. Remember when the role of the Senate was supposed to be to “advise and consent”? Under Republican control it’s just plain consent — there is almost literally nothing Trump can do, up to and including clear evidence of corruption and criminality, that will induce senators from his party to exercise any kind of oversight.

So how do people who think and behave this way respond when the public rejects their agenda? They attempt to use their power to overrule the democratic process. When Democrats threaten to win elections, they rig the voting process, as they did in Georgia. When Democrats win despite election rigging, they strip the offices Democrats win of power, as they did in Wisconsin. When Democratic policies prevail despite all of that, they use apparatchik-stuffed courts to strike down legislation on the flimsiest of grounds.

As David Frum, the author of “Trumpocracy,” warned a year ago: “If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” That’s happening as we speak.

So Pelosi was right about Reed O’Connor’s ruling being a symptom of a “monstrous endgame,” but the game in question isn’t just about perpetuating the assault on health care, it’s about assaulting democracy in general. And the current state of the endgame is probably just the beginning; the worst, I fear, is yet to come.


NYT
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2018 10:20 am
@Seeyahi,
A lot of doctors and clinics are refusing to take my particular insurance I got from the exchange. Luckily, my doctor doesn't seem to be one of them (so far). I live in a rural area, specialist are few and far between.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2018 10:25 am
@livinglava,
I disagree with most if not all your pronouncements/observations and opinions.

The problem in our health care is the greed of doctors, pharmacies and health insurance companies, they want to be billionaires on the backs of the overall health care of the country's citizens.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2018 03:44 pm
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:

I disagree with most if not all your pronouncements/observations and opinions.

The problem in our health care is the greed of doctors, pharmacies and health insurance companies, they want to be billionaires on the backs of the overall health care of the country's citizens.

Then the challenge is to find a way to let people who aren't greedy practice medicine and produce/distribute generic drugs.

Allow people to create low-cost medical training/education, pharmaceutical training/facilities, and shield them from things like liability, insurance requirements, etc. and you will have an affordable health-care option for those who choose it, which doesn't require government subsidies, or at least not very much.

In fact, I've had the idea that the government should just go into the business of making and distributing generic drugs and paying people in health departments to fully serve the public free of charge.

To keep that affordable, however, they would have to prevent health care vendors/businesses from getting involved and trying to generate business activity from it, e.g. the way book publishers go into schools and have book fairs or give away books as a marketing scheme for their products.

You need to realize that in a market economy, whenever any high quality public good/service emerges, business people try to get involved to jack up prices and make money. How to stop them from doing that is anyone's guess.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » RIP OBAMACARE
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/19/2019 at 02:39:35