Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 26, 2017, 09:50:42 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
103798 Posts in 2387 Topics by 1091 Members
Latest Member: Phorize
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Politics of Health Care
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] Print
Author Topic: The Politics of Health Care  (Read 377258 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40636


« Reply #1600 on: June 05, 2017, 12:00:56 PM »

https://mises.org/blog/lower-health-care-costs-try-freedom
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14997


« Reply #1601 on: June 05, 2017, 01:56:45 PM »


No opportunities for graft and rent-seeking with freedom. That's why politicians frown on it.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8939


« Reply #1602 on: June 13, 2017, 12:41:25 PM »

Dropping at a rate of 4 million per year.  Dropping faster left in place than CBO predicted under repeal.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/1-9-million-obamacare-cancellations/
« Last Edit: June 13, 2017, 01:09:18 PM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14997


« Reply #1603 on: June 13, 2017, 02:50:40 PM »

Dropping at a rate of 4 million per year.  Dropping faster left in place than CBO predicted under repeal.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/1-9-million-obamacare-cancellations/

They had to pass it to find what's in it.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7238


« Reply #1604 on: June 24, 2017, 08:54:34 PM »



Making the House Health Bill More Conservative
By Bobby Jindal
 
President Trump has finally achieved unity and consensus in our nation’s capital. Pundits, Republican and Democrat members of Congress, and the media all seem to agree that everything must stop so that we can endlessly speculate on Russia, special counsels, the FBI, the last election, and criminal charges. Nonsense. Voters elected President Trump and the Republican majorities in Congress to drain the swamp, i.e., to make big and fundamental changes in the direction of our country. Let Mueller, and the appropriate Congressional committees, talk to Comey, Flynn, and even Putin if they want, but in the meantime, do not let Democrats run out the clock. Our country faces too many dire challenges, thanks in large part to the Obama years, that must be addressed now. Congress is, despite its earned reputation, actually capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. I have a radical idea – why don’t our political leaders do what they promised when they asked for our votes just a few months ago? They could start by actually repealing and replacing Obamacare.

Now that the House has finally passed its health care legislation, attention turns toward the Senate. House leadership claimed certain popular provisions could not be added, e.g., allowing the sale of insurance across state lines, and other unpopular provisions could not be removed, e.g., the special treatment for Members of Congress and their staff, to ensure rapid Senate approval of the House legislation. Despite these assurances and compromises, Republican Senators are now talking about writing their own legislation. While the House compromise that allows states the option to apply for a federal waiver to repeal many of Obamacare’s regulations disappointed conservatives wanting a full repeal, early indications from the Senate are their changes will be to make the legislation less and not more conservative. (Indeed, why not at least require states to apply to keep, rather than to replace, Obamacare’s regulations?)

Senate Republicans should adopt as their guideposts the conservative goals of reducing federal spending, dependence on subsidies, and government intrusion. President Obama’s unprecedented Medicaid expansion to cover millions of able bodied adults violates all three. It wasn’t that long ago when Republicans were in near unanimous agreement that reducing welfare rolls, through policies like time limits and work requirements, was a positive thing. A safety net should be provided for the neediest amongst us, but it should be temporary, targeted, and locally governed.

Senate Republicans should strengthen the House bill’s provisions by giving states even more flexibility to design and run their Medicaid programs. Multi-year federal grants for states should be tied to some measures of eligibility, but not simply to enrollment. Just as states currently benefit when they reduce their welfare rolls, they should not be rewarded for keeping people on Medicaid longer than necessary or punished for encouraging individuals to afford private coverage. States should also have the flexibility and financial incentives to design wrap-around coverage or premium assistance plans rather than one size fits all benefits packages that often crowd out private coverage. Current rules technically allow but actually discourage states from pursuing such policies. A beneficiary with employer provided or individual coverage might require targeted assistance, for example, affording prescription drugs or cost sharing, but should not have to choose between keeping their private coverage and getting help.

Just as the House bill gives states the option to manage their own individual insurance marketplaces, as they did before Obamacare, so should the Senate give states the ability to manage their own Medicaid programs. States should no longer have to come begging to Washington to design benefit packages, cost sharing provisions, or eligibility requirements that meet the unique needs of their constituents. Washington can and should require accountability through overall performance measures, to ensure states are focused on improving health outcomes and not just complying with complicated rules, and special protections for the most vulnerable populations, e.g., the elderly and disabled.

A second conservative change would be for the Senate to transform the House’s refundable tax credit into a tax deduction. This would have to be accompanied by funding for state designed programs to assist needy individuals who do not earn enough income to pay taxes and benefit from the deduction, but at least this subsidy would be explicitly identified as spending and could thus be managed, rather than hiding a new federal entitlement program in an increasingly complicated tax code. A deduction would incentivize consumers to buy health care more efficiently, as they would keep the savings, and insurers and providers to compete to reduce costs. Independent scoring of this provision previously has shown it to be one of the more effective ways to “bend the cost curve down.”

Conservatives have waited many years to repeal and replace Obamacare. Perhaps it is too ambitious to hope the Senate improves the House legislation, rather than merely playing defense and trying to minimize the ways they will make it worse. However, President Obama himself campaigned on the promise to be transformational and not merely incremental – surely, we should aim no lower.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14997


« Reply #1605 on: June 25, 2017, 08:30:11 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIXK2cjcbPg


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angeles-veterans-affairs-hospital-patients-died-waiting-for-care/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab8a&linkId=39052106

Nearly 100 patients died waiting for care from Los Angeles VA

LOS ANGELES -- President Trump signed a bill today giving top-ranking officials at the department of Veterans Affairs more power to fire incompetent workers and protect whistle-blowers. The agency has struggled to provide health care and other services to military veterans.

The legislation was prompted by a 2014 scandal at the Phoenix VA medical center, where many veterans died while waiting months to see a doctor.

The problem was even worse at the Los Angeles VA hospital, CBS News correspondent Melissa Villarreal reports.

A new report by the VA inspector general shows 43 percent of the 225 patients who died between October 2014 and August 2015 at the Los Angeles VA were waiting for appointments or needed tests they never got. However, the report does not conclude these patients "died as a result of delayed consults." 

Susan and Allen Hoffman were happily married for 43 years -- but Allen, a U.S. Navy veteran, was living in pain.

"He had an enlarged prostate and they just kept saying it's not a problem you know, whatever, and then, it started to get worse," Susan says.

He was scheduled to see a specialist in May 2013, but she says that didn't happen.

"She said, 'No, you're here just for a consult. You have to understand people have cancer and he doesn't,'" Susan Hoffman says. "I think we were there for 15 minutes."

Four months later, Hoffman was diagnosed with stage IV prostate cancer.

Dr. Christian Head is a surgeon at the Los Angeles VA. He says 140,000 patient consults were deliberately deleted.

"The number of patients waiting for care, the deletion of consults, and the wait list were much more significant here than at Phoenix," Head says.

"I first noticed an unusual number of patients who are presenting with delay in diagnosis, meaning that they present into the system, they disappeared for a number of years and then they presented late with advanced cancers. Those consults were being deleted, literally removed from the system," Head says.

Allen Hoffman died a year and a half after he was diagnosed. The VA has settled out of court with his widow.

"Was there any doubt in your mind that they were responsible for your husband's death?" Villarreal asked.

"Definitely they were," Susan Hoffman says.

The VA would not comment about Hoffman's case or Head's allegations, but Los Angeles' hospital director admits the problems in the report are serious.

To fix them, they've hired new leadership, are retraining employees and now posting wait times on-line.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8939


« Reply #1606 on: June 26, 2017, 10:38:33 AM »

About as good as the rest of the promises, you can keep your doctor, your plan, costs will go down $2500 per family, insured 24 million fewer than CBO predicted, "won't add one dime to the deficit", will not raise taxes on the middle class. etc.

'Can we all say it together - Unexpectedly!'

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/er-visits-by-medi-cal-patients-up-75-under-aca-data-says.html

ER visits by Medi-Cal patients up 75% under ACA, data says
Written by Alia Paavola | June 12, 2017

Despite predictions that the ACA would ease the strain on emergency rooms, the number of ER visits by Medi-Cal patients rose 75 percent over five years, according to data released by California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development.

ACA advocates argued ER visits would decrease once people received health coverage since they could afford to see primary care physicians instead. However, ER visits by California's Medicaid population jumped from 800,000 in the first quarter of 2012 to 1.4 million in the final quarter of 2016, according to the data.
--------------
Also see:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14725/7-key-promises-obamacare-broke-aaron-bandler#
-------------
"you're going to be able to choose your doctor and not have to go through some network in an emergency situation as a consequence of these rules."
"What happens is, you don't have health insurance, you go to the emergency room. You weren't getting a checkup; something that might have been curable with some antibiotics isn't caught. By the time you get to the hospital, it's much more expensive. The hospital cares for you because doctors and nurses, they don't want to just turn somebody away. But they've got to figure out how do they keep their doors open if they're treating all these people coming into the emergency room."
"that's not fair, because all the rest of us are going to be paying for those folks when they go to the emergency room"
   - President Barack Obama, September 22, 2010
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=88480
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 10:56:19 AM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40636


« Reply #1607 on: June 27, 2017, 11:08:22 AM »

Among the howls and yowls over the Senate bill about cutting Medicare blah blah I discovered some fascinating factoids.

*Actual Medicare spending will go UP 18%.  The purported "cuts" are but baseline cuts.

*As we here already know, it is a serious misnomer to define the decrease in enrollee numbers as a matter of people being kicked out of coverage.  In point of fact many/most are returning to what they did before Obamacare compelled them to join.  Furthermore, because the CBO must use the data fed to it (GIGO=Garbage In Garbage Out) apparently it is required to assume 7 million more enrollees than are actually there?!? (Don't have citation for this).  Anyway, in this vein, here is this: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448991/senate-health-care-bill-will-reduce-coverage-15-million-good

No doubt there is much more malarkey of this sort out there , , ,
« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 11:24:21 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40636


« Reply #1608 on: June 30, 2017, 03:27:26 PM »

https://www.wsj.com/articles/senators-urge-trump-to-back-wholesale-obamacare-repeal-if-gop-bill-fails-1498825462
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14997


« Reply #1609 on: July 02, 2017, 03:19:22 PM »

Remember, you belong to the state. Don't get any funny ideas...



https://pjmedia.com/parenting/2017/06/29/baby-charlie-denied-life-by-british-health-system-eu-courts/

Baby Charlie Denied Life by British Health System, EU Courts
 BY JEFF REYNOLDS JUNE 29, 2017 CHAT 155 COMMENTS

On June 27, the parents of 10-month-old Charlie Gard lost their final appeal to travel to the United States to have him treated for a rare brain disorder. The European Court of Human Rights (EHCR) denied the appeal of London parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates, which means that his life support will be removed and, at some point, he will be allowed to die.

Charlie's parents raised over £1.4million in private donations via GoFundme to pay for the treatment and their travel expenses. Charlie Gard suffers from a mitochondrial disease that causes muscle weakness and brain damage. His parents wanted to bring him to the United States for experimental nucleoside treatment, but the administrators and doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children denied the request. Their alternative? Withdraw life support, administer palliative care, and let Charlie "die with dignity."

Let that sink in a minute: This treatment would have come at no cost to the hospital or the National Health Service (NHS), and would have been covered completely by private donations. They denied the parents their right to determine care for their own child.


Notably, nucleosides are prevalent in breast milk, but in an interview, the couple said they had been denied the ability to give Charlie breast milk while in hospital:

   YouTube ‎@YouTube
 Follow
 LG @laurakinz
Nucleosides are abundant in unpasteurized breast milk but Charlie isn't allowed it https://youtu.be/wHROVTovpo0  #charliesfight #breastisbest
1:46 PM - 22 Jun 2017
  27 27 Retweets   30 30 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
That's right. The hospital refused to allow the mother to breast feed her child and refused to allow them to seek alternative treatment on their own dime, at no cost to taxpayers.

Chris and Connie filed appeal after appeal, all the way up to the Supreme Court. The courts sided with the doctors and hospital administrators each time.

The parents are reportedly "utterly distraught." Social media reactions to the decision were heart-wrenching.

27 Jun
 Evening Standard  ✔ @standardnews
European court rejects Charlie Gard parents' plea to intervene in case http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/charlie-gard-european-court-rejects-parents-plea-to-intervene-in-battle-to-save-terminally-ill-baby-a3574436.html
 Follow
 Catholic State Org. @LaCatholicState
@standardnews very evil people.....$entencing a child to death! What an anti-child pagan $ociety we are. I pray for #CharlieGard!
9:34 AM - 27 Jun 2017
  91 91 Retweets   138 138 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
 Follow
 Bev @bevvyboo22
@Fight4Charlie his amazing parents couldn't have fought any harder - a system that has lost its soul should be ashamed of this decision
9:48 AM - 27 Jun 2017
  25 25 Retweets   77 77 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
 Follow
 TomDUK @TomDUK1
The #CharlieGard case is terrible. Shame on the UK judges allowing him to die, shameful, terrible decision.
9:34 AM - 27 Jun 2017
  126 126 Retweets   230 230 likes

The decision by the EHCR was as cold as it was final:

Today the European Court of Human Rights has by a majority endorsed in substance the approach by the domestic courts and thus declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final.

The case concerned Charlie Gard, a baby suffering from a rare and fatal genetic disease.

In February 2017, the treating hospital sought a declaration from the domestic courts as to whether it would be lawful to withdraw artificial ventilation and provide Charlie with palliative care.

Charlie's parents also asked the courts to consider whether it would be in the best interests of their son to undergo experimental treatment in the US.

The domestic courts concluded that it would be lawful for the hospital to withdraw life sustaining treatment because it was likely that Charlie would suffer significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect of improvement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit.

The domestic court decisions had been meticulous, thorough and reviewed at three levels of jurisdiction with clear and extensive reasoning giving relevant and sufficient support for their conclusions; the domestic courts had direct contact with all those concerned.

The domestic courts had concluded, on the basis of extensive, high-quality expert evidence, that it was most likely Charlie was being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress and that undergoing experimental treatment with no prospects of success would offer no benefit, and continue to cause him significant harm.'

Did you notice that? High-quality experts meticulously determined that staying alive would offer no benefit and would continue to cause Charlie significant harm. His parents were removed from the equation entirely by a single-payer health care system -- the NHS -- and bureaucrats who know better.

 
Of course, we already know that the bureaucrats who know better are motivated as much by fiscal concerns as medical concerns. I've written many times about QALY -- Quality Adjusted Life Years -- the model that helps bureaucrats determine how many healthy, taxpaying years a patient has left so that they can pay back into the system. It's basically a determination of the return on investment on providing care. If you don't show enough ability to pay back into the system over a prolonged lifetime, care is denied.

Hospital administrators insisted that their decision was humane -- to allow Baby Charlie to "die with dignity." One wonders, however, if in the bowels of the bureaucracy it was determined that the poor boy was likely to suffer from permanent brain damage, and thus become too heavy a burden on society.

Another similar case is playing out in Liverpool. Alfie Evans is a 13-month-old baby in a coma. He's been unconscious since December, and his parents now believe they will face a similar legal fight just to keep their baby alive. No diagnosis has happened, and no prognosis for the future has been offered. The baby showed signs of delayed development, but doctors dismissed him as a late bloomer. He subsequently suffered seizures and slipped into a coma and has been unconscious ever since.


The doctors are applying increasing pressure on Alfie's parents to turn off life support.

Death panels have been operating in Great Britain for some time, and reports indicate that the quality of care is further deteriorating in the NHS. It's incumbent upon every member of our society to determine what we're going to do about this -- both in Great Britain and in America. The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is Ezekiel Emanuel's creation that brings health care rationing to America under Obamacare. Should we fail to act, these ghoulish horrors are what await us too.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2017, 09:17:08 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8939


« Reply #1610 on: July 10, 2017, 08:45:15 AM »

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/update-obamacares-impact-small-business-wages-employment/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40636


« Reply #1611 on: July 10, 2017, 12:57:13 PM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449296/ted-cruz-mike-lee-obamacare-repeal-amendment-sound-policy
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8939


« Reply #1612 on: July 10, 2017, 01:16:34 PM »


It looks good to me.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40636


« Reply #1613 on: July 13, 2017, 05:07:14 PM »

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/07/13/doj-arrests-hundreds-in-largest-combined-health-care-fraud-case-in-history/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7238


« Reply #1614 on: July 13, 2017, 07:00:33 PM »

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/freedom-and-the-gop-are-dying-under-leader-mcconnell
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7238


« Reply #1615 on: July 13, 2017, 07:02:32 PM »

Crafty Dog post

Frankly the doctors who are involved in these schemes have always been obvious to those of us in the healthcare field

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/07/13/doj-arrests-hundreds-in-largest-combined-health-care-fraud-case-in-history/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14997


« Reply #1616 on: July 14, 2017, 02:41:18 PM »

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/370663.php

July 14, 2017
Judge to Allow US Specialist to Examine Charlie Gard
As Ed Morrissey notes, Time magazine (but are they really a magazine?) either credits, or blames, conservatives with pushing this issue out from under the smother blanket of leftwing media embargo.

I don't like that just one guy is being asked his opinion -- I'd rather have two - and I would like it less if, as I'd assume, the Judge, who seems to have a nearly personal stake in this dispute, didn't get to pick the expert here.

Per Time magazine (Huh), here is how one of Britain's many worthless #FakeChurch clergymen responded:

Thomas Williams, an Auxiliary Bishop for the British city of Liverpool, questioned the motives of some external actors. “It’s a terrible situation for both the family and the hospital,” he told TIME. “I’ve always accepted, as a priest and a hospital chaplain, that people need to be allowed to die and sometimes nature needs to take its course. The right-wing element of these evangelicals, I’m afraid I’m not down that line at all… I can’t read their minds, but I do think that people will stand on soapboxes when situations arise.”
Here's my take:

I am not a strong sentimentalist, though I do have some sentimentalism in me. I am not a life-absolutist -- there are many cases in which I'd say a life isn't worth fighting for. If the person is in pain, and his death is inevitable -- I'd say it's a justifiable position to pull the plug.

But note the very large difference between a "justifiable" decision and a mandatory one. If the people who the law has previously put in charge of these decisions -- the people closest to the stricken patient, who usually have the most love and affection for him -- made this choice, I wouldn't agree with that choice, but only because I would not have even heard of this choice -- such decisions are made every single day, and no one hears about them, and no one judges them much either way.

But in this case, the parents -- who are the most physically, emotionally, and spiritually conntected to Charlie Gard -- have expressed their strong desire to fight for the kid's life, and it's a bunch of disinterested beancounters and bureaucrats, and one judge who really seems to take "playing God" as the ultimate in judgecraft -- who are deciding he must die. Or, as the National Laughingstock would say, "must be permitted to die," as if Charlie Gard is desperately fighting for his right to die in dignity, and his square bullying parents are fighting him over this.

I doubt many people have illusions about Charlie Gard's ultimate fate: He will almost certainly die, whether by state mandated euthanasia or the natural (and often cruel) betrayals of biology, and even if he lives, it will not be for long, and even if he lives, the chances of him having much of a functioning mind are quite low.

That's my opinion. That's the opinion of the NHS and this judge.

We all have opinions. As the man said, they're like assholes. We've all got 'em, and most of them stink pretty foully.

But we are not the people to make this decision. We are not the people whose opinions count.

The opinions that count belong to this kid's flesh-and-blood parents, the ones who made him, the ones who have cared for him and suffered with him since birth.

What is the irreversible harm that will occur if Charlie Gard is permitted a few more days in this world, which may be -- for a nonbeliever like myself -- the only world he will ever exist in?

Is he in great pain? They seem to be saying he's in vegetative state; how then would he feel pain?

Death is irreversible. Unlike a reporter manufacturing news and getting stories 100% wrong, there is no Free Pass for death. There's no coming back from it.

My general instinct is that you give hope a chance.

Hope is often a silly thing. And hope often leads to hearbreak.

And yet, without hope, there is no humanity. Literally. I don't mean that metaphorically -- I mean that hope is a key component of the human survival instinct.

What does a man do without hope? Why would he carry on in a world that is usually pretty tough and often sad?

Well, he'd kill himself. Killing himself would be the rational choice for a man without hope.

Hope is often irrational -- but it is the irrational things like love, a desire to have children who you'll have to care for 20 years (or more), and who may, God forbid, die before you do and break your heart harder than you could have ever imagined, and hope for a better tomorrow that has kept this species from not simply committing mass suicide 100,000 years ago.

The parents are choosing hope. The parents are the natural (as the law would say) guardians and custodians of this child. The parents make the decisions for this child, even if disinterested third-parties might disagree with their opinion.

It's their fucking kid, man. What is so hard to grasp about this?

Here's a fact of biology: When a living thing is stricken and can endure no more, it will allow itself to die.

When someone is in critical condition, and family members ask if he'll pull through, doctors will sometimes ask, "Is he a fighter?"

Some will cling to life longer; some will find the anguish too much, and their bodies will just shut down.

I don't see much of a downside in letting Charlie Gard decide how much fight he has in his little stricken body.

I do see an enormous downside in taking such an intensely personal decision out of the hands of the mother -- don't progressives tell us that mothers, and only mothers, may decide if a child shall live or die? -- and hand it over to beancounting bureaucrats and unaccountable politicians-in-robes.

By the way, I don't totally have anything against the hospital bureaucrats for having a different point of view on this than the parents. As hospital workers, they work in -- let's face it -- a place where many people come to die. It's just a sad fact of their profession --they will see many, many people die. They will see more people die than pretty much anyone, even soldiers.

So they have a (useful, and well-earned) professional detachment about death. They do have a kind of hardened wisdom about life-and-death that most of us do not.

I can understand their feeling, as they've felt about a thousand very ill patients before, that there is no hope here, and that it's time for the baby to die.

What I cannot understand is their determination that their feeling should override the parents' feeling.

Okay, NHS: This is your ten millionth death. I understand -- without being negative about it -- that you are not particularly emotional about your ten millionth death.

Can you understand that this is these parents' first death? Certainly the first death of a child!

I'm not religious, but I am pro-human, and to me, that means understanding that human beings are hardwired for hope (otherwise, as I said, the race would have simply chosen to kill itself 100,000 years ago), and that, even to a not-particularly-sentimental-about-such things, nonbelieving, cynical realist, is a precious and fragile thing which is worth rolling the dice on and worth giving a chance.

That's my opinion.

It's also my opinion that they're just delaying the heartbreak, and, by allowing themselves to be filled with hope, they're going to feel even more heartbreak.

Because hope does that. Hope may lift you, but it sometimes lifts you up just so you can fall further and harder.

That's the nature of the thing.

So those are my opinions.

But who gives a shit about my opinions on it?

My opinion doesn't matter.

If the parents chose to take their kid off life support, my opinion still wouldn't matter.

The parents, the only two people in this world who have an elemental and primal and truly emotional attachment to this kid, have decided its in his best interest to give him a chance.

And as long as they're saying that: Who the fuck has so arrogated himself to sit in the throne of God Himself to claim the right to say otherwise?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7238


« Reply #1617 on: July 18, 2017, 08:23:49 AM »



watch the feckless Repubs never
get it out of the House or it will die in Senate as soon as McCain gets back.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/congress-budget-plan-cuts/2017/07/18/id/802213/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40636


« Reply #1618 on: July 23, 2017, 09:15:51 PM »

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/343222-what-trump-can-do-to-cripple-obamacare
« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 08:01:25 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14997


« Reply #1619 on: July 23, 2017, 10:21:41 PM »


Let it burn.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40636


« Reply #1620 on: July 25, 2017, 03:43:43 PM »

Brilliant Move By Gop On Health Care Bill
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on July 25, 2017
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pulling a rabbit out of a hat by redefining what constitutes a rabbit and what is a hat.

Everyone assumed that the procedural motion to vote and bring an end to the health care debate was simply a precursor to passing the final bill.  But it was McConnell's genius to realize that it is a separate vote with its own momentum and its own context.

He realized that while the Republican Senators could not agree on what was the solution, they all agreed that one was needed.  So he floated three different ideas in order to get the Senators to vote to close debate and vote on something:
 
1.  The Full Monty -- A full repeal and replace bill.

2.  A Half Monty -- Just repeal.

3.  A Bland Monty -- Just repeal the mandate that people have to buy insurance and some of the tax hikes.

With such a broad array of choices, every Republican could find something he could vote for and use that to justify his vote to close debate.

Once the closure motion passes, then the real bargaining will begin.  Why will it succeed now?

McConnell is betting, perhaps wisely, that the momentum of the closure vote will carry over and that, at least, the mandate bill (Option 3) will pass.

President Trump and the GOP leaders rightly reckon that the requirement is to pass something and repeal some of Obamacare.  Passing anything will give Trump momentum and a reprieve and will give Republicans something to cheer about.

Back in the days when Obama was president, Republicans passed a bill stripping the mandates and leaving the rest of the Obamacare in tact.  He killed it with a veto threat, but if it was good enough for the Republicans back then, its good enough now.

Without the mandate, Obamacare cannot survive.  People will not pay its outrageous premiums unless they must.  6.5 million taxpayers paid a fine last year -- totaling $3 billion -- for not having health coverage.  The average fine was $470. Once the mandate is lifted, those folks are not going to buy insurance and many who have knuckled under an paid for plans they don't want will flock away.

To save the insurance industry, it will then be essential to permit the sale of more limited plans to bring down prices.

Obama always said that if you abandoned the mandate, the whole structure would fall apart.  He was and is right.

So, let's do it!
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!