Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

The problem with both the ACA and anything meant to replace it is that the US healthcare system is SO absolutely broken and failing, there's no affordable patch to put over the whole thing that'll do any significant good. ACA, despite all its good intentions, was not really sustainable. It was not well planned out, and was at best a stopgap to cover people for a decade or so while the government debated more drastic changes over the long term. Instead we get a decade of discussion of the ACA and attempts to remove it rather than anything sustainable. It's not sustainable as it is, a flat out removal isn't sustainable. And nothing proposed will do much to help any of that.

Nobody wants to even acknowledge it, but government needs to step in and give the health care industry an ultimatum. You either regulate yourselves, make things work so that anyone who wants workable health insurance can get it, (and we'll help you with that if you give us a workable plan.) Or you're all out of business and the government takes the whole thing over, for the good and the bad that does, it'll at least make sure everyone can afford to be sick. As was said, take a year, even two to figure this all out, it's not an easy thing.. it's not a comfortable thing. Companies will not be making as much money as they once did. Hospital employees will likely be paid less. People might have a harder time getting appointments for less critical things. Government might have to shell out significant money and people might have to pay more taxes. But that's the ONLY way this is getting fixed. There is no "working with the current system." The current system is not working and nothing we do with it is more than an emergency fix that won't sustain itself long term.

[inteuniso]

Nobody wants to even acknowledge it, but government needs to step in and give the health care industry an ultimatum. You either regulate yourselves, make things work so that anyone who wants workable health insurance can get it, (and we'll help you with that if you give us a workable plan.) Or you're all out of business and the government takes the whole thing over, for the good and the bad that does, it'll at least make sure everyone can afford to be sick.

Never ever going to happen in this country. People view public corporations as synonymous with USSR and Communism and furthermore all the health care insurance companies make hand over fist and put quite a bit into lobbying congress.

US will crash and burn before it's fixed. Phoenix has to burn and die before it's reborn.

[Dunamisdeos]

Nobody wants to even acknowledge it, but government needs to step in and give the health care industry an ultimatum. You either regulate yourselves, make things work so that anyone who wants workable health insurance can get it, (and we'll help you with that if you give us a workable plan.) Or you're all out of business and the government takes the whole thing over, for the good and the bad that does, it'll at least make sure everyone can afford to be sick.

Never ever going to happen in this country. People view public corporations as synonymous with USSR and Communism and furthermore all the health care insurance companies make hand over fist and put quite a bit into lobbying congress.

US will crash and burn before it's fixed. Phoenix has to burn and die before it's reborn.

I unfortunately agree that companies like those have their talons too deep into the country to cause anything but major damage if we pull em' out. But I also agree that this is what would have to happen to achieve any major change.

[Frumple]

I gotta admit, I cannot well up within me even a drop of outrage on behalf of the banking system, no matter how hard I try.

May want to check up on the specifics of it, then, 'cause for all bank fraud is what's being looked into, it wasn't particularly the bank involved that got fucked by it.

Sanders, though... 2020 comes around and he does try running again, how I'd react depends a lot on what happens when that senate term runs out. If what I expect to happen, does, and he tries to primary as a dem again (though how and why the hell the DNC would roll with that a second time) afterwards, I'd be doing what I could to get my half broke body off its ass and help whatever's campaigning against 'im. There's a fair few folks I'd take him over, but that's about as far as it goes.

Someone else of a similar inclination might get me more on board, though. I ain't got much problem with most of what sanders was peddling and I can deal with a splash of populist if it gets things going, but sanders himself is something I got ire for at this point. It ain't Clinton Derangement Syndrome tier by a country mile but I'd really rather the more rowdy leftward folks just find somebody else.

Not really though. It makes massive cuts to medicaid in the very long term beyond the CBO's 10 year study period and restructures it in a way that basically will destroy the system over the long term. Rather than the current system which pays as much as is necessary, the senate bill set a fixed cap on year over year payment growth which is lower than the current growth rate.

Well sure, but wasn't that in the first two, too? Or at least the one that got past the house. Could have sworn the medicaid crippling was there from the start, though.

[TheDarkStar]

At the current rate of Congress's drafts of their new healthcare plan (5 months and a few days per 3 million more people with insurance), they'll finally stop reducing the number of people who lose health insurance just after November 2020.

There's something funny about that.

[misko27]

The name of 3.0 is the "Better Care Reconciliation Act" I believe.

I wonder what the "better" is supposed to mean if fewer people have it and those that do pay more for it. Presumably, the moral victory over the obviously horrific communistic influence Obamacare had over our way of life. I'm going to go with that, actually. Hey, someone tweet it at Trump and see if we can get that ball rolling.

[sluissa]

The name of 3.0 is the "Better Care Reconciliation Act" I believe.

I wonder what the "better" is supposed to mean if fewer people have it and those that do pay more for it. Presumably, the moral victory over the obviously horrific communistic influence Obamacare had over our way of life. I'm going to go with that, actually. Hey, someone tweet it at Trump and see if we can get that ball rolling.

A.K.A. The "Trust us, it's reconciliation, even though we're stretching that rule as far as possible, it's in the name so you can't call us on it." Act

[Reelya]

So ...

Time magazine has asked the Trump organisation to remove fake covers bearing his image from his golf clubs. The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that a framed Time cover featuring Trump and the headline “Donald Trump: The ‘Apprentice’ is a television smash!”, seen hanging at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, was faked. ... The cover was reportedly on display at four other golf clubs owned by the US president. ... “I can confirm that this is not a real Time cover,” Kerri Chyka wrote to the Post. The paper said Time had asked the Trump organisation to remove the covers from display.

The fake Trump magazine cover is shown framed and mixed in with real ones ... so it's not just advertising spin, if you see it, you're meant to think Trump was really on that Time magazine cover.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's...uh....interesting. Doesn't really measure up to the Golden AK or Blood Quran, the Fake Time.

[Neonivek]

Trump... created Fake news!?!

[hector13]

Shouldn't it be "The Apprentice" as opposed to The "Apprentice"?

[Reelya]

Shouldn't it be "The Apprentice" as opposed to The "Apprentice"?

Yeah, but that's what the fake covers say, so it's been reported intact:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I guess the phrase here is "fake it 'til you make it". Except once he had real Time magazine covers he could use - google search with dates restricted shows that his last Time magazine cover before running for president was actually in 1990.

[hector13]

That's what I meant, that how it is on the fake cover (The "Apprentice") shouldn't be like that, which is bizarrely the most annoying thing about it.

[Neonivek]

Honestly as silly as this is to say: This is probably the most pathetic thing he has done.

I mean there is a good chance he himself didn't do it or commission it. It is possible whoever did the interior design added extra fake covers and you weren't REALLY meant to pay attention. Which is fair enough I guess.

[hector13]

Come now, Neo, Trump is such a narcissist I'd be surprised if he didn't commission this.

He'll also blame Time for not having him on the cover exactly like that in the first place because it's obviously not his fault it's fake.