Obamacare is on its knees because of the GOP. The ACA as originally proposed would be thriving if the Republicans hadn't demanded x y and z concessions from Obama's Dems. At least that's what I'm led to believe.
Totally wrong, the original premise was flawed. That was that young healthy people would be paying premiums that would support the care of the sick and elderly. Young people think they won't get sick, so they didn't sign up.
I think you can argue that Donny and Kim are as bad as each other in the hairstyle dept, but Kim then takes the lead pretty significantly in the odious stakes in most other areas. So far.
Before the internet, to become a journalist, you had to do a degree and work for small media outlets and work your way up. Sure, the media was far from perfect - all the newspapers have a slant, largely influenced by the owners of the media companies. But the general premise of journalism didn't allow for much bullshit news, outside of the likes of The National Enquirer. But few were ever stupid enough to believe that stuff.
In the days of the internet, anybody can write the news. And I include myself in that - I used to run a news shift where I'd happily twist the knife on celebrities I didn't like.
Today, as a reader, you have to be fairly smart when reading the news. The big name outlets still stick to the rules that journos always did, because anybody can build a website and write what they want, you have to consider the source, the author, the site and decide, am I being an idiot by citing DailyCaller.com as my reference? And an author with 600 Twitter followers?
Before the internet, to become a journalist, you had to do a degree and work for small media outlets and work your way up. Sure, the media was far from perfect - all the newspapers have a slant, largely influenced by the owners of the media companies. But the general premise of journalism didn't allow for much bullshit news, outside of the likes of The National Enquirer. But few were ever stupid enough to believe that stuff.
In the days of the internet, anybody can write the news. And I include myself in that - I used to run a news shift where I'd happily twist the knife on celebrities I didn't like.
Today, as a reader, you have to be fairly smart when reading the news. The big name outlets still stick to the rules that journos always did, because anybody can build a website and write what they want, you have to consider the source, the author, the site and decide, am I being an idiot by citing DailyCaller.com as my reference? And an author with 600 Twitter followers?
Yes, yes you are.
To be a print journo you still need to have an NCTJ, but you're right, now anyone can build a website and say whatever they want with "facts".
If it's me you are referring to as an idiot, there's no reason for that. I have a different opinion from yours, and don't have the time or inclination to search the internet for back-up that some on here have. I don't have to get information about Obamacare from ANY news source, I live in the U.S. and run a small business. The premiums under Obamacare are through the roof, and the deductibles are such that people might as well be self-insured. Imagine having to spend 15,000 dollars of your own money before your insurance starts paying, this after spending a thousand dollars a month on your premium. It's unfortunate, but the big name news outlets are the ones who have become the least likely to report the news without bias, at least here in the U.S.
The way this thread has digressed makes me feel very glad that we have a NHS. I hope the people in government realise exactly how precious it really is.
Point of interest : I once had an American tell me the NHS was communism.
The way this thread has digressed makes me feel very glad that we have a NHS. I hope the people in government realise exactly how precious it really is.
Point of interest : I once had an American tell me the NHS was communism.
The NHS is "a miracle", and as you say SHG, precious. . Whenever there is a glitch in the NHS, the press over here prints stories of "the problem with socialized medicine". The fear is of somebody in Washington deciding who lives or dies, who gets treatment or who is past saving. The biggest problem, in my view, is that healthcare is such a huge part of the economy, and that too many people who are not directly involved in healthcare make their living from it.
From what I can tell about the American health system you're not really a proper doctor or dentist unless you own your own golf course and work only one day per week. They are able to exploit people who are vulnerable and distressed and screw them over. Some years ago there was a report about a British charity providing some kind of care to uninsured sick Americans, and people living in tents in the woods whilst having chemotherapy. The health workers justify their fees by saying they had to pay their way through their education to get qualified. We are heading that way with the increasingly scandalous student fee system here (6% interest) and of course creeping privatisation of the NHS. Health care in general needs a philosophical re think anyway because eventually we are all going to die. Maybe there should be proper investment in Afghanistan to produce better heroin and morphine so when we die it is softened somewhat. I exaggerate because good healthcare can help tremendously, but the American system (60 dollars for a father to hold his new born child FFS!) Stinks to high heaven.
The way this thread has digressed makes me feel very glad that we have a NHS. I hope the people in government realise exactly how precious it really is.
Point of interest : I once had an American tell me the NHS was communism.
The NHS is "a miracle", and as you say SHG, precious. . Whenever there is a glitch in the NHS, the press over here prints stories of "the problem with socialized medicine". The fear is of somebody in Washington deciding who lives or dies, who gets treatment or who is past saving. The biggest problem, in my view, is that healthcare is such a huge part of the economy, and that too many people who are not directly involved in healthcare make their living from it.
But that's of course naive because traditionally someone in an office in an insurance company decides who lives and who dies and more often than not that decision will be made based on profit margin. And the way in which insurance companies make these decisions is incredibly opaque as they claim "trade secrets" over what they cover and what they pay for what they cover.
Now, the ACA came along and changed a lot of that by setting a standard for what insurance companies HAD to cover. These are called the "Essential Health Benefits" and it meant that insurers now have to cover most if not everything related to services like pregnancy, cancer, mental health, addiction treatment, preventative care like check-ups, and various other things. These Essential Health Benefits, which the Republican House Bill allowed states to opt out of, poll at around 66% (fig. 9). They're one of a handful of things in the ACA(not allowing people to be charged extra for pre-existing conditions, allowing children to stay on their parents plan until they're 27, and the expansion of Medicaid), which poll in the 60%s and higher.
In the past, insurers would either not cover these things, would cover only certain select versions of these things, or would have a cap on how much they paid. So for example my Godmother's cancer has just come back unfortunately, and she needs a surgery to remove a tumor, then Chemo/Radiation. In the past an insurance company might cover the surgery, for example, but not the radiation. And one without the other isn't any good. Or they'd have a $5,000 cap on "Cancer Coverage," so my god mother might be able to get a couple treatments of radiation before she had to pay out of pocket. This lead to bankruptcies and death. Under the ACA, it is estimated that bankruptcies due in large part of medical debt is down by ~50%. Calculating this number is very difficult, but it is certainly significant. The fact that we still have bankruptcies because people get sick is appalling and a sign that ACA doesn't go far enough, but it has at least made a positive difference.
Now, on the subjects of deaths due to people not having health insurance. The most commonly used number is that around 43,000 MORE people per year would have died without the ACA because they don't have health insurance. How that's calculated is again very difficult, but it's clear the number is in the tens of thousands. So when people say they don't want Washington making decisions on who lives and who dies (or "death panels," as it was falsely called when ACA was originally proposed), they completely misunderstand that those decisions were made before ACA, and they are made now with a profit in mind. A public health system would remove that profit motive and put care as the top goal.
Now, limey you make a very good point about how many people work in or in industries related to healthcare. I'm one of them, although what I do wouldn't really go away with a switch to universal/single-payer/NHS style system. But a lot of people would lose their jobs at places like insurance companies. And most of them wouldn't be executives, they'd be working and middle class people. How we shift toward universal coverage/single payer/an NHS style system would not be easy. There are some ideas out there. But it's certainly something that would take a lot of time and considered and deliberate thought. It's something I'm happy to go into in more detail.
Obamacare is on its knees because of the GOP. The ACA as originally proposed would be thriving if the Republicans hadn't demanded x y and z concessions from Obama's Dems. At least that's what I'm led to believe.
Totally wrong, the original premise was flawed. That was that young healthy people would be paying premiums that would support the care of the sick and elderly. Young people think they won't get sick, so they didn't sign up.
What you're describing is insurance, spreading out actuarial costs. You're right in that there was a hope that more young, healthy people would sign up for coverage to help offset the costs of making insurers cover older people, people with pre-existing conditions, and Essential Health benefits. Your the root of your issue here is health insurance.
Which is fine if everyone participates in the "spreading". When then number of people using the benefits far exceeds the number paying in, it doesn't work. This was predicted long before the Democrats stuck us with this unworkable, economy killing plan.
Which is fine if everyone participates in the "spreading". When then number of people using the benefits far exceeds the number paying in, it doesn't work. This was predicted long before the Democrats stuck us with this unworkable, economy killing plan.
Again, your issue is with insurance. Insurance companies continue to make record profits. To maintain that profitability they've needed to increase premiums and costs to the consumer.
What would your alternative be for having people be covered and lowering premiums and overall costs?
Obamacare is on its knees because of the GOP. The ACA as originally proposed would be thriving if the Republicans hadn't demanded x y and z concessions from Obama's Dems. At least that's what I'm led to believe.
Totally wrong, the original premise was flawed. That was that young healthy people would be paying premiums that would support the care of the sick and elderly. Young people think they won't get sick, so they didn't sign up.
What you're describing is insurance, spreading out actuarial costs. You're right in that there was a hope that more young, healthy people would sign up for coverage to help offset the costs of making insurers cover older people, people with pre-existing conditions, and Essential Health benefits. Your the root of your issue here is health insurance.
Anyway.....getting back on track, is there free medical care in North Korea, indeed, do the general populace have any medical treatment of any nature worth talking about? I very much doubt it.
Trump or Kim Jong Ill? I find it highly offensive that they should even be compared.
I heard LBC posed this question the other day and people were calling in to say they're equally as bad.
It's the most stupid question ever posed. a tenth of the North Korean population are in labour camps, stabbing rats and cooking them over a camp fire ffs.
Well, you say that, but HALF the population of the USA eat in Taco Bell at least once every month. They must be forced to do that musn't they? No one would choose to eat there, surely?
Do you think? The thing is I don't know where we go from here. I saw the Express lead with "Brink of WW3!!!!" But like, it wouldn't be.
I don't know where "we" go from here. Same problem as ever, what more can we do to North Korea? Pre-emptive strike? That will kill tens of thousands of South Koreans and Japanese, maybe more. And that would just be if they used their conventional arsenal.
Just heard an analyst say that he doubts this provocative action pushes the situation over the edge but it's pretty close and once things get that close a small unintended event can be catastrophic.
Just heard an analyst say that he doubts this provocative action pushes the situation over the edge but it's pretty close and once things get that close a small unintended event can be catastrophic.
This 100 times over. North Korea is the drunk guy spoiling for a fight at the party but China is the one who brought him along so needs to have a word.
That blonde mop headed buffoon will probably tweet another book recommendation now.
"Fire and fury" my arse, and Kim Jong Un knows it, hence launching a missile over an ally
I know we all have to hate Trump and mock him etc but I don't really see how even this is his fault, throw in Brexit and a bit of bile towards Farage, May and Davis and you've got a full house.
Just heard an analyst say that he doubts this provocative action pushes the situation over the edge but it's pretty close and once things get that close a small unintended event can be catastrophic.
This 100 times over. North Korea is the drunk guy spoiling for a fight at the party but China is the one who brought him along so needs to have a word.
That blonde mop headed buffoon will probably tweet another book recommendation now.
"Fire and fury" my arse, and Kim Jong Un knows it, hence launching a missile over an ally
I know we all have to hate Trump and mock him etc but I don't really see how even this is his fault, throw in Brexit and a bit of bile towards Farage, May and Davis and you've got a full house.
Largely you're right, this isn't his fault, this is a situation he inherited. And there is very, very little he can do, although having a fully staffed state department who have close ties with China would be incredibly helpful right now.
The problem with his comment about "reigning fire and fury down upon them" is that it was a bluff. And it's a bluff that was called by North Korea. Easily. So whatever he comes out and says now, there is no reason for North Korea, let alone our allies, to believe him. And there isn't really anywhere to go from threats of "fire and fury."
Just heard an analyst say that he doubts this provocative action pushes the situation over the edge but it's pretty close and once things get that close a small unintended event can be catastrophic.
This 100 times over. North Korea is the drunk guy spoiling for a fight at the party but China is the one who brought him along so needs to have a word.
That blonde mop headed buffoon will probably tweet another book recommendation now.
"Fire and fury" my arse, and Kim Jong Un knows it, hence launching a missile over an ally
I know we all have to hate Trump and mock him etc but I don't really see how even this is his fault, throw in Brexit and a bit of bile towards Farage, May and Davis and you've got a full house.
Largely you're right, this isn't his fault, this is a situation he inherited. But the problem with his comment about "reigning fire and fury down upon them" is that it was a bluff. And it's a bluff that was called by North Korea. Easily. So whatever he comes out and says now, there is no reason for North Korea, let alone our allies, to believe him. And there isn't really anywhere to go from threats of "fire and fury."
He painted himself into a corner.
You're spot on. The problem with loud rhetoric like that is when you start mouthing off and then don't follow through on it, you are undermined on the international stage.
Please god let China get involved, either way I don't think this is something the "West" should get involved with if we can help it.
I do feel like North Korea is a pot that is dangerously close to boiling over. In my opinion, and I would love to be wrong, it will end with a regime change through an internal revolution, an external led regime change and a "reformation" (China/South Korea/Japan coalition or any of the above) or ultimately, a war, and how that ends, no one knows, but there will be no winners, that is for sure.
Comments
So far.
In the days of the internet, anybody can write the news. And I include myself in that - I used to run a news shift where I'd happily twist the knife on celebrities I didn't like.
Today, as a reader, you have to be fairly smart when reading the news. The big name outlets still stick to the rules that journos always did, because anybody can build a website and write what they want, you have to consider the source, the author, the site and decide, am I being an idiot by citing DailyCaller.com as my reference? And an author with 600 Twitter followers?
Yes, yes you are.
It's unfortunate, but the big name news outlets are the ones who have become the least likely to report the news without bias, at least here in the U.S.
Point of interest : I once had an American tell me the NHS was communism.
They are able to exploit people who are vulnerable and distressed and screw them over. Some years ago there was a report about a British charity providing some kind of care to uninsured sick Americans, and people living in tents in the woods whilst having chemotherapy.
The health workers justify their fees by saying they had to pay their way through their education to get qualified.
We are heading that way with the increasingly scandalous student fee system here (6% interest) and of course creeping privatisation of the NHS.
Health care in general needs a philosophical re think anyway because eventually we are all going to die. Maybe there should be proper investment in Afghanistan to produce better heroin and morphine so when we die it is softened somewhat.
I exaggerate because good healthcare can help tremendously, but the American system (60 dollars for a father to hold his new born child FFS!) Stinks to high heaven.
Now, the ACA came along and changed a lot of that by setting a standard for what insurance companies HAD to cover. These are called the "Essential Health Benefits" and it meant that insurers now have to cover most if not everything related to services like pregnancy, cancer, mental health, addiction treatment, preventative care like check-ups, and various other things. These Essential Health Benefits, which the Republican House Bill allowed states to opt out of, poll at around 66% (fig. 9). They're one of a handful of things in the ACA(not allowing people to be charged extra for pre-existing conditions, allowing children to stay on their parents plan until they're 27, and the expansion of Medicaid), which poll in the 60%s and higher.
In the past, insurers would either not cover these things, would cover only certain select versions of these things, or would have a cap on how much they paid. So for example my Godmother's cancer has just come back unfortunately, and she needs a surgery to remove a tumor, then Chemo/Radiation. In the past an insurance company might cover the surgery, for example, but not the radiation. And one without the other isn't any good. Or they'd have a $5,000 cap on "Cancer Coverage," so my god mother might be able to get a couple treatments of radiation before she had to pay out of pocket. This lead to bankruptcies and death. Under the ACA, it is estimated that bankruptcies due in large part of medical debt is down by ~50%. Calculating this number is very difficult, but it is certainly significant. The fact that we still have bankruptcies because people get sick is appalling and a sign that ACA doesn't go far enough, but it has at least made a positive difference.
Now, on the subjects of deaths due to people not having health insurance. The most commonly used number is that around 43,000 MORE people per year would have died without the ACA because they don't have health insurance. How that's calculated is again very difficult, but it's clear the number is in the tens of thousands. So when people say they don't want Washington making decisions on who lives and who dies (or "death panels," as it was falsely called when ACA was originally proposed), they completely misunderstand that those decisions were made before ACA, and they are made now with a profit in mind. A public health system would remove that profit motive and put care as the top goal.
Now, limey you make a very good point about how many people work in or in industries related to healthcare. I'm one of them, although what I do wouldn't really go away with a switch to universal/single-payer/NHS style system. But a lot of people would lose their jobs at places like insurance companies. And most of them wouldn't be executives, they'd be working and middle class people. How we shift toward universal coverage/single payer/an NHS style system would not be easy. There are some ideas out there. But it's certainly something that would take a lot of time and considered and deliberate thought. It's something I'm happy to go into in more detail.
What would your alternative be for having people be covered and lowering premiums and overall costs?
I very much doubt it.
For those wondering, second missile launch in three days, this one has flown over Japan, something that has never happened before.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/28/japanese-government-warns-north-korea-missile-headed-toward-northern-japan-report-says.html
I don't know where "we" go from here. Same problem as ever, what more can we do to North Korea? Pre-emptive strike? That will kill tens of thousands of South Koreans and Japanese, maybe more. And that would just be if they used their conventional arsenal.
Just heard an analyst say that he doubts this provocative action pushes the situation over the edge but it's pretty close and once things get that close a small unintended event can be catastrophic.
"Fire and fury" my arse, and Kim Jong Un knows it, hence launching a missile over an ally
I know we all have to hate Trump and mock him etc but I don't really see how even this is his fault, throw in Brexit and a bit of bile towards Farage, May and Davis and you've got a full house.
The problem with his comment about "reigning fire and fury down upon them" is that it was a bluff. And it's a bluff that was called by North Korea. Easily. So whatever he comes out and says now, there is no reason for North Korea, let alone our allies, to believe him. And there isn't really anywhere to go from threats of "fire and fury."
He painted himself into a corner.
You're spot on. The problem with loud rhetoric like that is when you start mouthing off and then don't follow through on it, you are undermined on the international stage.
Please god let China get involved, either way I don't think this is something the "West" should get involved with if we can help it.
I do feel like North Korea is a pot that is dangerously close to boiling over. In my opinion, and I would love to be wrong, it will end with a regime change through an internal revolution, an external led regime change and a "reformation" (China/South Korea/Japan coalition or any of the above) or ultimately, a war, and how that ends, no one knows, but there will be no winners, that is for sure.