Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

[Yankee Tripper]

Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

This is such an important point. In what world does it make sense to rely on your employer for healthcare? It's wasteful, not aligned with the best interests of patients, and a distraction for the private sector.

It was also why GM was often described as a benefits delivery company that also made cars.

[Soriambi]

Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

Stop. That's not what I'm doing at all.

I'll simplify things. Do you want the federal government to play a more significant role in deploying health care for the American people, as in the ACA or Medicare for All? Yes or no?

I emphatically answer 'no!' If you answer 'yes,' you've relinquished the right to second-guess the government's decisions on a vaccine. You don't get to give that power to the government, but then say "not in this case." You don't get to opt in or out on a case-by-case basis. You trust the government with your care, or you don't. I don't. I didn't when the ACA was passed. I don't now. I won't when Biden is in office. That's not normalizing the Trump Administration; it's distrusting the federal government, regardless of who sits behind which desk.

What.

[billyhoyle]

Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

Stop. That's not what I'm doing at all.

I'll simplify things. Do you want the federal government to play a more significant role in deploying health care for the American people, as in the ACA or Medicare for All? Yes or no?

I emphatically answer 'no!' If you answer 'yes,' you've relinquished the right to second-guess the government's decisions on a vaccine. You don't get to give that power to the government, but then say "not in this case." You don't get to opt in or out on a case-by-case basis. You trust the government with your care, or you don't. I don't. I didn't when the ACA was passed. I don't now. I won't when Biden is in office. That's not normalizing the Trump Administration; it's distrusting the federal government, regardless of who sits behind which desk.

The main function of the ACA was that it allowed uninsured people to buy subsidized healthcare on a public exchange, banned insurance companies from denying care for pre-existing conditions, ended lifetime caps on reimbursement, and levied a fine on those who chose to not purchase health insurance. Is that really a problem? In my view, everyone in the country should have health insurance and have access to medical care, regardless of income or employment status. Not only is it a good thing morally, but the country as a whole is simply better off for it if people have access to health care (in an macroeconomic sense the value of labor from a healthy population exceeds the cost of providing that healthcare).

I want the gov to manage the health care system and control the costs. I want my personal healthcare decisions including what vaccines I get or don't get to be decided between me and my doctor.

Getting a vaccine isn’t a personal decision. It’s a matter of public health-the decision of individuals to not get vaccinated impacts the entire community. It’s like a requirement to drive a safe vehicle. That’s very different than all other medical decisions, which are absolutely personal. I don’t think the government has the ability to mandate vaccination, but I do think it should be required for attending public schools and other services that some local governments have enacted. Exceptions of course for those who are allergic to vaccine components (this is extremely rare).

[Texsahara]

Getting a vaccine isn’t a personal decision. It’s a matter of public health-the decision of individuals to not get vaccinated impacts the entire community. It’s like a requirement to drive a safe vehicle. That’s very different than all other medical decisions, which are absolutely personal. I don’t think the government has the ability to mandate vaccination, but I do think it should be required for attending public schools and other services that some local governments have enacted. Exceptions of course for those who are allergic to vaccine components (this is extremely rare).

Think what you want. If the government is not mandating a vaccine by law, it is a personal choice whether or not to get one. Of course it's a matter of public health. It's still a personal decision. Both of those things can exist together.

[billyhoyle]

Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

Think what you want. If the government is not mandating a vaccine by law, it is a personal choice whether or not to get one. Of course it's a matter of public health. It's still a personal decision. Both of those things can exist together.

That’s true that somebody can choose not to be vaccinated. I simply mean that it’s a choice that impacts others and to access services like public schools it should be required. While choice on other medical care decisions like whether you prefer medication A vs medication B is completely personal since it doesn’t impact others. I’m drawing the distinction because many feel the opinion I am espousing here is government overreach.

[Maynerd]

Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

I want the gov to manage the health care system and control the costs.

When has our government EVER controlled costs?

I want my personal healthcare decisions including what vaccines I get or don't get to be decided between me and my doctor.

That's not ever going to be an option when the government is managing the health care system. Those are mutually exclusive. If you want them to control costs, you're going to need to live with their decisions. If you want you and your doctor to be in charge of your health care, you CANNOT have the government managing it. If the government is the least bit involved with COST, they're going to be making the decisions.

A world where the government pays the bills but you retain the control and decision-making is a dreamland.

[Yankee Tripper]

Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

When has our government EVER controlled costs?

Social Security

[billyhoyle]

Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

When has our government EVER controlled costs?That's not ever going to be an option when the government is managing the health care system. Those are mutually exclusive. If you want them to control costs, you're going to need to live with their decisions. If you want you and your doctor to be in charge of your health care, you CANNOT have the government managing it. If the government is the least bit involved with COST, they're going to be making the decisions.

A world where the government pays the bills but you retain the control and decision-making is a dreamland.

Costs are currently controlled by insurance companies. Haven’t you heard of prior use authorization? Prescriptions follow a schedule based on cost-where lowest cost options are prescribed first. It’s not like a doctor can just prescribe a medicine and boom you get it covered by the insurance company. I have spent hours on the phone with my insurance company on this issue.

[JL25and3]

When has our government EVER controlled costs?That's not ever going to be an option when the government is managing the health care system. Those are mutually exclusive. If you want them to control costs, you're going to need to live with their decisions. If you want you and your doctor to be in charge of your health care, you CANNOT have the government managing it. If the government is the least bit involved with COST, they're going to be making the decisions.

A world where the government pays the bills but you retain the control and decision-making is a dreamland.

We don't retain control and decision-making now.

[ClownPickle]

Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

Yikes...

That said, the American left should work toward abolishing the Constitution someday—either for a new document or a new democratic order without a written constitution.

but in the meantime...

without hesitation, guilt, or apology—should pack the Supreme Court to its advantage

https://newrepublic.com/article/1598...-supreme-court

[Yankee Tripper]

Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

Yikes...

but in the meantime...

https://newrepublic.com/article/1598...-supreme-court

I don't know about abolishing the constitution but an amendment to get rid of the electoral college sure would be nice, but the Republicans have been court packing and Gerrymandering for the past 12+ years. So the Democrats doing it wouldn't be anything new or original.

[Texsahara]

Yikes...



but in the meantime...



https://newrepublic.com/article/1598...-supreme-court

The constitution is a mess. Staring over would be easier than trying to fix it but that's not happening. As for packing the court, why not? There is nothing in the constitution that says nine justices. Reforming it would be better but if you can't get that, why shouldn't they make it work for them?

[Texsahara]

When has our government EVER controlled costs?That's not ever going to be an option when the government is managing the health care system. Those are mutually exclusive. If you want them to control costs, you're going to need to live with their decisions. If you want you and your doctor to be in charge of your health care, you CANNOT have the government managing it. If the government is the least bit involved with COST, they're going to be making the decisions.

A world where the government pays the bills but you retain the control and decision-making is a dreamland.

The negotiated prices for medicare and medicaid are as good or better than the prices private insurance negotiates. The control over care is in basically the same spot. How much money you make should not determine the level of care you get. How do you get there without any gov control?

[RhodyYanksFan]

Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

I don't know about abolishing the constitution but an amendment to get rid of the electoral college sure would be nice, but the Republicans have been court packing and Gerrymandering for the past 12+ years. So the Democrats doing it wouldn't be anything new or original.

McConnell held up over 100 court seats in Obama's 2nd term not even counting Garland. There should be something to keep the opposition party from doing that.

Hell, they held up an ambassadorship for so long the woman literally died waiting for a hearing.

Ted Cruz said that he'd keep the SCOTUS at 8 seats for the entirety of Hillary's term if she had won.

[Yankee Tripper]

Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

McConnell held up over 100 court seats in Obama's 2nd term not even counting Garland. There should be something to keep the opposition party from doing that.

Hell, they held up an ambassadorship for so long the woman literally died waiting for a hearing.

Ted Cruz said that he'd keep the SCOTUS at 8 seats for the entirety of Hillary's term if she had won.

That's part of what I meant by they have been court packing for 12+ years.