ronntaylor
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2020
- Posts
- 1,361
They jumped the shark when Murdock bought them out.
Biden administration to pay migrants separated at border millions of dollars
ronntaylor
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2020
- Posts
- 1,361
Exactly! If the obscenely wealthy paid their fair share of taxes, we would be able to cover everyone at much lower costs. But socialism, right?!
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
- Posts
- 7,862
- Solutions
- 1
Even if we didn’t do anything to the ultra-rich… if we taxed everybody and used it for a single-payer system, we’d save tons of money. Health insurance companies don’t want you to know that so they buy lots of ads to scare people. Just look at Canada. I have relatives there and I can attest to their healthcare being equal, if not better than America’s, and they don’t have to pay other than taxes. They spend way less than half what we do (as a percent of GDP) on healthcare and have longer life expectancy.
EVERYBODY should be demanding we switch to their system immediately. But… if people are dumb enough to vote for Trump, they’re dumb enough to believe the ads of the health insurance companies.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2020
- Posts
- 8,206
The only mental gymnastics defense I can think of is if you’ve already forked over tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in premiums then you might feel a little peeved that you flushed it all down the toilet if the government just provides the same thing to everybody for a slight tax bump. How much of a tax bump? Whatever it is I imagine it would be substantially less than what these monthly premiums are costing you. Oh, and healthcare providers will no longer be able to drain your bank account claiming everybody needs to subsidize those who don’t have health insurance. “You need to pay $18 for this aspirin pill because the 10 people before you don’t have insurance”.
Also, this isn’t a government takeover of the entire healthcare industry. That’s like saying car insurance providers run the auto industry. They don’t, in case anybody was wondering.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Posts
- 5,392
Because as I posted, my experience with Medicare makes me suck it up and pay it. Would rather have control of my HC than the money.
What does irk me is that I am forced to pay for insurance I don't need or want. My premiums would probably be 1/3 cheaper if I wasn't forced to buy mental health insurance (yeah, go ahead and laugh) or maternity care. That is a direct result of the ACA forcing insurers to include these in everyone's policies whether they want them or not. I bet a lot of people would be pissed if the government all of a sudden said everyone must now buy collision insurance on their cars or earthquake insurance on their homes.
lizkat
Watching March roll out real winter
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2020
- Posts
- 7,341
Well my cable TV bills would have been cheaper back in the day when the basic bundle included ESPN which I never watched and had to pay for anyway, but any cord cutter knows by now that prices of the a la carte streaming options do keep creeping up, while bundles tend to get price-jacked somewhat less often. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Plus you never know, hanging out here talking with lefties might send you over the edge and you'll like that mental health care option in your health insurance policy.
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
- Posts
- 7,862
- Solutions
- 1
Before the ACA, the insurers could refuse to take somebody on if they had pre-existing conditions. They could impose lifetime care limits. People would get cut-rate coverage, thinking “X will never happen to me” and then it does happen, and it bankrupts them. There NEED to be minimum limits on what plans offer.
That being said, the ACA has problems for sure. It was way too easy to kill the mandate (by lowering the penalty to $0), which then caused rates to go up. Medicare expansion was optional for many states, so people in those states with deep red governments refused it, leading to worse care for people in those states.
They should have gone all the way to the Sanders or Warren plans for healthcare. Obama was definitely too ”centrist” on this legislation.
There will come a time where you end up dealing with the same problem on the expensive health care plan that you encountered with Medicare, or worse. Did you see the post about the person who was charged $700 for just sitting in an ER waiting room? In the end, your insurance company has way more control over your healthcare than you think, and it will be limited in the way that makes them the most money.
When I settled my mother’s estate, her health insurance company kept taking her premiums out of her bank account for months even after I sent them the death certificate. I stopped them by emptying the account and closing it. Then it took me over a year of constant calls and letters and threats to get lawyers involved to get premiums stolen from her bank account after her death back to the estate to pay for the funeral costs. Insurance companies don’t give a flying F about you. They care about profit. Period. Abolish them, install a humane system.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2020
- Posts
- 8,206
Not to ignore the bulk of your post, but hold up. I supposedly have good insurance through my employer. When I checked into getting something that would fall under mental health they told me I first needed to go through $3,000 in copays before they would even kick down a dime. And that resets every year. The ACA actually specifies mental health coverage? I wonder if it’s any good.
U
User.168
Guest
.
Last edited by a moderator:
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
- Posts
- 7,862
- Solutions
- 1
What is easier? Fixing the problem or blaming China? Trump’s policies were all like this. Don’t actually tackle a problem, blame it on somebody else and then punish them. The wall, the Muslim ban, separating kids from parents, tariffs on China, blaming COVID-19 on China….none of it accomplished anything other than stirring up hatred and white supremacist terrorists.Never mind the fact that the West chose to outsource their emissions to India and China. The West has been the main contributor to the emissions crises for over a century until the relatively recent outsourcing.
Oh, but look at China and India!!! The pointing at China and India is a weak minded red counter point to battling climate change that is old and has been refuted so many times that I believe only the intellectually lazy would still dare to use it in 2021. I am just waiting for the "but why should we slow down our economy" for the full climate change bingo. Meanwhile, China has embraced green manufacturing and has become a leader in it. Something that the US could have done, if it wasn't desperately trying to protect a few billionaires with major interests in the opposite camp to the green economy.
On the ball climate deniers are no longer spewing shit about China and India. The new counter point is that switching to a green economy is actually bad for the environment. Please could all of the right wing media brain washed imbeciles switch to the new talking point, instead of regurgitating bullshit refuted over 5 years ago.
Many thanks in advance.
Pure nonsense: Debunking the latest attack on renewable energy
What a terrible anti-renewable-power video reveals about the US energy market.arstechnica.com
Solving problems takes thought, planning, and execution. I‘m glad the Democrats are trying to actually solve things, but sad that we have a few Dem Senators who are more like Trump…
U
User.168
Guest
.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2020
- Posts
- 8,206
There are people on the right who agree with the left on what the real source of our problems are, but for some reason people on the right are way easy to point in other directions.
“The cause of a lot of our problems is the greed of corporations and the ultra rich, and our complicit corrupt government.”
“What about Mexicans?”
“Good point. I’m going to glare at our southern border now.”
hulugu
Site Champ
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 461
The whole immigration debate has turned into an absolute garbage fire. Most people don't know anything about how the immigration system works and cling to stupid metaphors about lines, while thinking that fence—a big one!— will solve a complex legal, humanitarian and economic problem.
What we need is a fair, transparent legal system that quickly adjudicates claims and processes cases. This is true with the Green Card system, this is true with visa modifications, and it's true with the asylum and refugee systems.
A rational approach would solve most problems and let CBP focus on moving trade and catching bad actors. Our current approach is an irrational mess that fails everyone involved.
But, the "zero tolerance" policy was an unmitigated disaster, and now people are demanding that Biden force the DOJ to defend Trump's garbage policy because of the "optics."
Fine. Let them. The DOJ is going to get mauled in court, and they'll lose a class-action lawsuit easily. And, you can be certain that the whole issue will get dragged on for years, and arguably, this will hurt CBP and DHS. Even individual civil suits are going to suck, burning up far more resources than $450,000 a head. Maybe they win some, maybe they lose some.
Right. Trump's administration didn't solve a single issue. Mostly they set new fires, and created whole new problems.
On immigration, under the Trump administration, apprehensions across the border were on average 18 percent higher than they were during Obama's eight years. And, by all reasonable measure, apprehensions were tracking downward year-to-year until Trump, and since his administration, they've spiked to new levels.
And, even after building 452 miles of his vaunted wall—including "primary" and "secondary" barriers—CBP was inundated by 1.7 million encounters this year. So, apparently, this didn't work.
Joe
Elite Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2020
- Posts
- 1,557
As someone that has a lot of experiences with illegal immigrants, you are right on a few points. A fence/wall will not keep people out. Trump supporters who think "the wall" will keep people out are delusional. But hey, fear tactics work in the Republican party. I have family members that have brought people illegally from Mexico, but hey, I don't know what I'm talking about to some people here.
Yes, the current system is a hot tranny mess. I dated someone from El Salvador and he told me it took 10 years for him and his family to become citizens. That is just crazy to me. That is way too long. Now I wish they would have kept his sorry ass there lololol
So while I agree with you on some points, I'm still against paying illegal immigrants $450k each for being caged at the border.
The majority just want to come, work, and live the American dream and send money back home to their families. If they can get here, survive, and work for what they have then more power to them. But the ones that want a handout because they were locked up temporarily? FOH, take your ass back. #SorryNotSorry
hulugu
Site Champ
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 461
To be clear, the agreement isn't going to give everyone $450K who was detained. Rather, the agreement would be specifically for the parents of children who suffered under the Trump administration's disastrous, and temporary, "zero tolerance" policy from May 2018 to June 2018.
Remember that this program was declared illegal, and was such an unmitigated disaster that even Trump could read the tea leaves and abandoned the policy. About 5,500 children were separated under the policy.
It's worth reviewing one federal court's decision allowing civil lawsuits to move forward, explaining how the government violated the law and exceeded "due care" exemptions.
Also read the OIG's report on how the U.S. Marshal's Service was involved with HHS.
And, it's clear that negligence will be easy to prove because CBP implemented the policy in El Paso a year earlier and it was a mess then. Nonethless, CBP decided to do it anyway under Miller's approval.
Pushing dozens of individual cases through the U.S. courts, requiring jury trials and a formal defense, will be a costly and doomed affair. It's clear that someone in the DOJ sought to torpedo the settlements, hence the discussion about $450,000 per family, and they've managed to undo months of work.
Some cases could return to court on Nov. 30, and it's clear that the Justice Department will have to spend resources to defend a policy that by all manner of analysis was a shitshow.
lizkat
Watching March roll out real winter
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2020
- Posts
- 7,341
Next up and in concert with that: argument that subsidizing a switch to solar power is foolish because the physical facilities don't support transmission of excess power from residence back to grid in too many locales, and fixing the grid (ahem, intrasructure) is prohibitively expensive
(you know, compared to just having an old fashioned full fledged war in Africa pretty soon to keep the defense industry profitable).
I'm old and getting really fed up with the oil and gas guys in K-street (and Manchin as a separate PITA). They are literally banking on the USA being able to go into crisis mode when someone sounding authoritative enough finally says ok looks like the planet has jusssssst about say 93 days left on the game clock... at which point these guys figure we can turn on a dime and flip the grid into reliance on solar with 45 days to spare and plenty time to arbitrage profits off the chaotic ebb and flow of contracts and workarounds meanwhile.
If I were half my current age now I'd be out there in front of the White House 2/47 reminding the TV cameras that the Sun around which our Earth travels is both potentially lethal and a boundless source of free power. I'm sometimes still tempted to join local demonstrations against our laggard energy policy changes but usually settle for phone calls to pols.
Anyway whichever renewable options we end up more focused on "real soon now" should not by default (or by plain bribery of our politicians) depend on how many dead dinos and swampy forests are still buried under our bedrock.
We can still make a really green choice now and invest in a longer future for the planet as a habitat for its shrinking pool of still vibrantly diverse species. But not by remaining silent and hoping someone else "takes care of whatever needs to be taken care of" as Dave Matthews once memorably sang.
We can't just let big money talk to Congress for us, because that money isn't meant to talk on our behalf at all. Those fossil fuel energy sector bastards and their dark money spokesmen lie like a rug and the pols know it and shrug it off: the apocalypse of climate change is not quite yet but the next election is right around the corner and pols spend half their time dialing for dollars in exchange for foot-dragging on energy policy changes...
[edit: sorry: or for that matter, immigration policy].
Duh.
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
- Posts
- 7,862
- Solutions
- 1
Funny as a toothache… He should have stuck to office humor instead of getting into politics.Scott Adams of Dilbert fame had a great idea. Just give them all Hunter Biden painting that are worth $450K.
Thomas Veil
Suspended
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2020
- Posts
- 3,450
ronntaylor
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2020
- Posts
- 1,361
Yeah, not believing a word that comes out of your shitty mouth.