So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[jeremyp]

Confused Britisher here.

Notwithstanding that I can't understand how anybody can call themselves human and support a system that denies healthcare to people just because they are poor, I am also really confused by this situation.

As I understand it, this whole "let's not fund the government" thing is being done to try to extort the destruction of the Obamacare bill from the Democrats. Well, if the Republicans have the power to stop the government funding bills, why could they not stop Obamacare? Can somebody explain how the American legislature works please and how it got you into this mess.

 

[SkepticalDrew]

Confused Britisher here.

Notwithstanding that I can't understand how anybody can call themselves human and support a system that denies healthcare to people just because they are poor, I am also really confused by this situation.

As I understand it, this whole "let's not fund the government" thing is being done to try to extort the destruction of the Obamacare bill from the Democrats. Well, if the Republicans have the power to stop the government funding bills, why could they not stop Obamacare? Can somebody explain how the American legislature works please and how it got you into this mess.

To be frank it doesn't make much sense even if you understand how the American legislature works. The problem they have (Obamacare) has already been passed, been upheld by the supreme court, and Obama ran last year on it and won. What it amounts to is political grandstanding.

I haven't had insurance since I started school. Hoping Obamacare goes into effect soon.

 

[Upchurch]

I'll give you a reason, Travis:

Assuming moderate Republicans are smart enough to take political advantage of this, they just gave the Tea Partiers enough rope to hang themselves and the fools went ahead and did it.

 

[fishbob]

Alright, let's talk about the obvious here. Travis loves the ACA. Why? Well, basically because he sees it as a game that is rigged in his favor. He will put a relatively small amount in and get a relatively large amount out.

I don't mind admitting that I feel the opposite. I feel like someone who's being forced to take a bad bet. The roulette wheel has 38 possible spots and I'm being told that I should accept a .005-1 payoff because, hey, there's another guy over here who's getting 1000-1.

Insurance to me has been a terrible racket; I have paid out a huge amount compared to the claims I have submitted. Car insurance? I have probably paid somewhere around $30,000 so far in my life. Claims? Well, I did have my convertible top broken into twice, so say $900. Couple of minor fender benders might add $1000 to the total; but I didn't see any of that.

Home insurance I have easily spent $30,000 on. Zero payouts so far.

Health insurance is harder to quantify since much of what I had was when I was "employed" by a big company. I can say that in the last 30 uninsured years I have spent a tiny amount on traditional health care. Maybe I'm lucky that way and maybe my luck is about to change (given family history that is unlikely).

Yes insurance is a terrible racket, until you need it.

Have you forgotten that ACA is intended to address the problem of rising health care costs, doing this while keeping the insurance racket in place?

Single-payer was the goal, ACA is what we got. Obama presiding while black over the Republican plan is just too much for Congress to bear.

 

[Upchurch]

Maybe I'm lucky that way and maybe my luck is about to change (given family history that is unlikely).

Does your family history include not having babies? Because, let me tell you, in the best of conditions, that gets expensive without insurance.

 

[Travis]

I guess that depends on whether or not anger is your go-to method for dealing with stuff you don't like or fear will harm you. Unless you have the ability to turn it on and off, I don't see how there could be a "should" in the mix at all. I get angry sometimes; it doesn't seem connected to a "should" or an "ought" at all.

When faced with a threat to one's life we usually react with either fight or flight.

Are you saying I should pick flight?

If so, to where?

Alright, let's talk about the obvious here. Travis loves the ACA. Why? Well, basically because he sees it as a game that is rigged in his favor. He will put a relatively small amount in and get a relatively large amount out.

I don't mind admitting that I feel the opposite. I feel like someone who's being forced to take a bad bet. The roulette wheel has 38 possible spots and I'm being told that I should accept a .005-1 payoff because, hey, there's another guy over here who's getting 1000-1.

Insurance to me has been a terrible racket; I have paid out a huge amount compared to the claims I have submitted. Car insurance? I have probably paid somewhere around $30,000 so far in my life. Claims? Well, I did have my convertible top broken into twice, so say $900. Couple of minor fender benders might add $1000 to the total; but I didn't see any of that.

Home insurance I have easily spent $30,000 on. Zero payouts so far.

Health insurance is harder to quantify since much of what I had was when I was "employed" by a big company. I can say that in the last 30 uninsured years I have spent a tiny amount on traditional health care. Maybe I'm lucky that way and maybe my luck is about to change (given family history that is unlikely).

Well for people that have ongoing health problems but who have been denied, up until now, the ability to purchase insurance to perhaps help spread those costs through the times when health isn't a problem the ACA doesn't really seem so much like a racket as a step in the right direction.

Confused Britisher here.

Notwithstanding that I can't understand how anybody can call themselves human and support a system that denies healthcare to people just because they are poor, I am also really confused by this situation.

As I understand it, this whole "let's not fund the government" thing is being done to try to extort the destruction of the Obamacare bill from the Democrats. Well, if the Republicans have the power to stop the government funding bills, why could they not stop Obamacare? Can somebody explain how the American legislature works please and how it got you into this mess.

Okay, long story short. When the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Obama was president they passed the law creating the ACA. Then the Tea Party formed based largely on unjustified fear and the House fell into the hands of the Republicans. Since then the House has tried to repeal the law dozens and dozens of times. But repealing a law already passed by the House, Senate, signed into law by Obama and upheld by a Supreme Court ruling would require the Senate and Obama to go along with it.

Since they know the Senate won't approve said law and Obama sure as hell won't sign it the House actions on the ACA are completely futile.

So, now they employing this tactic to try and get what they want.

 

[jeremyp]

To be frank it doesn't make much sense even if you understand how the American legislature works. The problem they have (Obamacare) has already been passed, been upheld by the supreme court, and Obama ran last year on it and won. What it amounts to is political grandstanding.

So Obamacare was actually passed before last year's elections then? That makes sense.

I haven't had insurance since I started school. Hoping Obamacare goes into effect soon.

So am I correct in thinking that, under the current system, if you were to get seriously ill, your treatment would first bankrupt you and then be stopped when the money runs out?

And if that happens, the doctors would be forced to just watch you die?

 

[Travis]

So am I correct in thinking that, under the current system, if you were to get seriously ill, your treatment would first bankrupt you and then be stopped when the money runs out?

And if that happens, the doctors would be forced to just watch you die?

Yes. And it actually happens all the time.

Lots of people get treatable cancers in the USA and then oncologists have to watch them die because of a lack of money.

I've personally already been ruined financially once because I got seriously ill and had to go to an ER (who will administer certain life saving services regardless of your ability to pay) but then found myself unable to pay their bill for a long time.

Now if I had health insurance that wouldn't be a problem but as health insurance companies won't insure people like myself that are already sick....well you can see the issue.

 

[Upchurch]

So am I correct in thinking that, under the current system, if you were to get seriously ill, your treatment would first bankrupt you and then be stopped when the money runs out?

And if that happens, the doctors would be forced to just watch you die?

No, we don't throw people into the street to die. They continue to get care until their life is no longer threatened. The cost is then absorbed by the hospital who then passes it on to other patients.

 

[Bob001]

....
....
Insurance to me has been a terrible racket; I have paid out a huge amount compared to the claims I have submitted. Car insurance? I have probably paid somewhere around $30,000 so far in my life. Claims? Well, I did have my convertible top broken into twice, so say $900. Couple of minor fender benders might add $1000 to the total; but I didn't see any of that.
....

You fail to grasp the basic principle of insurance: It is not a consumer product, like a TV or a car. It is a mechanism to share the consequences of unpredictable risks among a large pool of potential victims. Do you feel cheated when your house doesn't burn down and you don't get to make a claim on your fire insurance? Do you feel swindled every day that you don't get diagnosed with cancer, or collapse in the street from a heart attack? Unless your personal wealth runs into the eight-figure territory, you could be ruined by events entirely out of your control: a severe illness, getting hit by a drunk driver, a flood or forest fire consuming your property and more. To deny someone else insurance because you have been fortunate enough not to make a claim is a rejection of modern society itself. And if you do get sick or hurt and can't pay your bills, who do you think will be on the hook for your (uninsured) tab?

 

[TragicMonkey]

No, we don't throw people into the street to die. They continue to get care until their life is no longer threatened. The cost is then absorbed by the hospital who then passes it on to other patients.

And then the media reports on "out of control costs" and the eeeeevil hospitals that, you know, need money to stay open, so the hospitals try to cut costs. Over and over. Layoffs. Hey, good news! That nonprofit hospital is now even more efficient, it fired a hundred nurses! The remainder work 20 hour shifts but hey, savings! Ca-ching!!!! $$$$! Oh, and some needless deaths. But what's that compared to money?

 

[Bob001]

No, we don't throw people into the street to die. They continue to get care until their life is no longer threatened. The cost is then absorbed by the hospital who then passes it on to other patients.

That's only partly true. Emergency rooms treat urgent life-threatening conditions. But if you need cancer treatment or heart surgery or long-term care for a chronic condition, you don't get it, or you get it and get billed at retail rates then file for bankruptcy.
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/uninsured.html

 

[Spindrift]

No, we don't throw people into the street to die. They continue to get care until their life is no longer threatened you can be discharged. The cost is then absorbed by the hospital who then passes it on to other patients.

And then they give you a prescription for medicine you can't afford.

 

[Dymanic]

This really isn't about the ACA, guys. It's about the integrity of our political system.

 

[Upchurch]

That's only partly true. Emergency rooms treat urgent life-threatening conditions. But if you need cancer treatment or heart surgery or long-term care for a chronic condition, you don't get it, or you get it and get billed at retail rates then file for bankruptcy.
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/uninsured.html

And then they give you a prescription for medicine you can't afford.

I was going for the short answer, but yes, fair enough.

 

[Upchurch]

This really isn't about the ACA, guys. It's about the integrity of our political system.

That depends entirely on why Travis is ticked off with the GOP. I'm pretty sure the GOP trying to undercut the ACA has something to do with it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't say terrorism. I said political terrorism.

All terrorism is political. "Political terrorism" is a nonsense term, which betrays nonsense thinking.

Terrorism is defined as using terror inciting tactics to further political, religious, or ideological goals.

And what is "terror"? You have defined nothing, you've only kicked the can down the road.

But here's a hint: if it doesn't involve violence, it's not terrorism.

The Republican party is threatening the economy and the livelihood of people with a government shutdown.

The Economy^TM will do just fine. And as for the livelihoods of the specific people who might be threatened, would you call union strikes "terrorism"? Because that's a much more direct threat against people's livelihoods.

While this might not rise to the level of "terror"

Might not? Try doesn't.

it's close enough to where people know what I mean when I said political terrorism.

I understood what you meant. That doesn't mean that what you said wasn't incredibly stupid.

They are pushing an ideological goal and they know they're going to hurt people doing it. And they're going ahead with it anyway. Hence, my naming it political terrorism.

Everybody pushes their own ideological goals. And very few ideological goals don't hurt somebody, because damn few things in this world actually benefit everyone. By your standards, basically everything in politics becomes "political terrorism", including the president's refusal to negotiate with Republicans on this.

We can agree to disagree, but this is how I see it.

And that's the problem: you see it so massively distorted, there's no common ground to even discuss what our differences are. It isn't merely that you have policy preferences different than mine, it's that your concept of reality itself is evidently divorced from mine.

Would you like to discuss anything else I mentioned in that post

There isn't really any point, not when you can't tell the difference between disagreements over a budget and cold-blooded ruthless mass murder.

 

[eeyore1954]

Rachel Maddow talked about this tonight. In 2012 Democratic Congressional candidates received 1.4 million more votes than the Republicans (as noted in the Wiki link), but Republican state legislatures in 2010 gerrymandered Congressional districts to boost Republican-favored districts and weaken Democratic districts. The only solution is to have district borders drawn by some non-partisan independent commission, or to develop alternate voting procedures.

Do you believe there is such a thing as a non-partisan independent commission?
I don't doubt there is some gerrymandering (done by both sides not just the evil republicans) but is there any data on how many seats are affected by it?

 

[Spindrift]

Do you believe there is such a thing as a non-partisan independent commission?
I don't doubt there is some gerrymandering (done by both sides not just the evil republicans) but is there any data on how many seats are affected by it?

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/p...ressional-districts-compactness-by-state.html

 

[eeyore1954]

Yes. And it actually happens all the time.

Lots of people get treatable cancers in the USA and then oncologists have to watch them die because of a lack of money.

I've personally already been ruined financially once because I got seriously ill and had to go to an ER (who will administer certain life saving services regardless of your ability to pay) but then found myself unable to pay their bill for a long time.

Now if I had health insurance that wouldn't be a problem but as health insurance companies won't insure people like myself that are already sick....well you can see the issue.

Are you angry at the heavily democrat controlled state you live in for not having a program in the last decade to help you? To be honest I am amazed that you do not qualify for something there.