Random Politics & Religion #14

Or you could look at Texas. Republicans have been holding office for almost 20 years now. And we are one of the most economically and socially sound states in the nation.

We aren't perfect, but we are a damn sight better than most states in the nation.

And people going into generational crippling family debt because someone got hurt at work, or can't work due to piling medical bills, then being tossed out onto the street was the solution that didn't work. Ever.

Most of the people, even those who are paying the full amount, are happy having insurance when they'd otherwise be denied coverage. It left them uninsured - in a state of unease that they'd be the next statistic of a growing homeless problem.

But I've already recognized a lot of the problems that the PPACA had, and still has. There are those, like Altima, who's clearly voiced his disdain for paying for insurance quite clearly, that end up becoming dependent on welfare and charity instead of using the insurance to pay their medical bills, to get them back to work, or to find ways to keep them working, or with some kind of constructive income. $100 bucks a month to be covered is nothing to sneeze at when basic medication for common illnesses without insurance can inflate to as much as 5x what you'd pay for vaccinations, much less hospital bills.

It also works on keeping people employed in the medical field (and has been a great lure on bringing in Doctors from Canada to the US) to help alleviate waiting times for patients, reduces hospital stays, and has a ripple effect on other areas of every day life.

It's one of those overhauls where the benefits are seen gradually over time. There is no instant fix for either problem, but they can alleviate each other when there is a successful compromise, and clear cut plan, instead of "Make it constitutional", or "I don't like this, go fix it, and bring me a shrubbery"

But if it's really the whole cost issue for the lower and middle class, or less successful businesses, I thought the old credence of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps was the go to response to not being poor?

The Health Insurance lobby is pretty powerful with "YUGE" coffers.

Politicians say they want to touch it because their base, who doesn't understand what's really going on with it nor understands who profits from it, likes hearing it.

However politicians won't be doing anything that negatively impacts the profits of the a lobbying health insurance industry.

To really fix the problem of health care in our country you need to address the price gouging of pharmaceuticals and the health care industry in general. That would require *gasp* regulations.

One of the reasons why Alberta is often compared to Texas.

Not saying they are or not but take a look at Cosby... they all came out pretty late against him but yeah...

And how often did that happen? I mean, seriously.

You do know that one of the reasons why healthcare was so expensive in the first place was because people were treating emergency rooms like the doctor's office, and when it came time to pay, they didn't.

After a while, that bill get's paid for by the taxpayers, or written off. If it's written off, that makes it harder for that hospital to stay open, or give quality care.

But to get back to the point, with the ability to not pay hospital bills and not get punished for it, how often did what you say actually happen?

Generally speaking, most people, when faced with a large bill like that, would seek financial assistance or come to an agreement with the hospital to pay over time. And now, with super-high deductibles, they still have to do that, on top of having a high insurance premium to pay. How is that any solution?

Look, I will give credit when credit is due. One of the very few ideas that came out of PPACA that was good was the non-denial of existing conditions clause. That should stay regardless on how Obamacare is handled in the near future.

It also relied heavily on people buying insurance and not using it. Which didn't happen, as healthy, young people would rather pay a small penalty than to get insurance they will more than likely not use.

Even at full force, the penalty is cheaper than insurance is today.

And it will always be cheaper, because the government will never have the guts to charge a penalty worth charging to get people on insurance. But that point is moot, because that part of Obamacare is going away on day 1.


Except we aren't seeing an influx of doctors in the field. It's actually the opposite, in reality.

More doctors are going cash-only instead of taking insurance, or outright retiring, than coming into the field. That's not exactly helping the situation either.

There is no incentive to stay in the field, and a lot of disincentive to retire early....

That's what liberal pundits say the conservative argument is.

It's better to grow the economy so people can afford insurance by their choice, without assistance from the government than it is to enforce laws requiring insurance that the government dictates people have, at the expense of the economy. I hate to break it to the liberals, but Obamacare is a perfect example of government mandate will never grow the economy, ever.

Which would be interesting to see if it holds, as federal law on statue of limitations is pretty clear on this. If they rule against him, the appeals will just be because of this law.

The assault cases against Trump were civil cases, which means statute of limitations doesn't apply. I recall hearing the case involving the 13 yo was dropped, but I'm not completely sure on that one. Either way, a civil case wouldn't have any of the same legal ramifications as a criminal conviction would.

Yes, because one example tells everything, even though multiple examples of the opposite of your point should be ignored for the sake of your point.

I mean, seriously. I understand that you are very bitter that your candidate lost, and your hero and savior's legacy will be destroyed for the betterment of society, but you should really learn from this lesson and do better next time. Otherwise, you are going to get somebody worse than Clinton in 2020. Like Lordgrim.

Bill's rape allegations in at least one case were done within the statute of limitations, and some states have multiple laws for the statute of limitations, based on the scenario.

In Pennsylvania that statute of limitations was 12 years. The allegations were brought against him 2 weeks before the limit was up.

Which means that, when brought to court, they will have civil penalties only and are not considered criminal in nature.

I will be honest, I didn't pay attention to these charges because honestly, the timing of them being brought up smelled fishy.

Thanks for bringing up the fact that these are civil in nature, not criminal.

There will be no felony conviction.

It's not a question of guilt in a civil case. OJ was found not guilty in criminal court but held liable in a civil case. Different legal definitions.

And I'm not super clear on impeachments but doesn't the action need to occur in office?

You forgot to add treason charges too.

But keep grasping for those straws.

That bit of information pleebo provided should be worthy of a +, KN.

That's possible, but even if it happens it's not like it would be any different with a Clinton presidency. She wasn't getting all of those Wall St. and hedge fund donations because they wanted her to help the poor.

He got my yearly ration of Pleebo pluses already. He got it yesterday.

Well fine then, give him one you normally reserve for me.

[+]s are non transferable!

You should have read the FFXIAH guidelines!

I'm pushing Rooks to implement a 30 day money back guarantee.

Reading is for suckers and scholars, and I'm a ringpop.

The question remains can either one of you cite where that economic policy was successful? Plenty of data to suggest it doesn't work, especially for the average joe.

To say "Well your guy/gal policy wasn't going to help poor either", isn't a convincing counter point.

There are no guidelines for FFXIAH!
How do you think we let fonewear post in here?

By sheer irony?

There wasn't an economic policy stated in the quote thread, but I'm assuming you're referring to trickle-down? If Trump can successfully bring jobs back from overseas through clever tax initiatives (I'm not holding my breath), then it would help both the rich and poor. It's not a mutually exclusive thing, it just hasn't been done right. Clearly whatever we've got going on now hasn't helped much, and "More of the Same" version 2.0 with the limited edition Goldman Sachs plating isn't exactly ideal either.

I didn't know they sold anything sheer at Huffpost, much less grasped the concept of irony.

There also isn't a Simpson's clip about sheer or irony either.