American Politics

Status
Not open for further replies.
The filibuster of course. Plus 4 Democrats voted against it (5 including Reid, who did it in order to have the opportunity to bring the bill back up).
 
Saliph said:
The filibuster of course. Plus 4 Democrats voted against it (5 including Reid, who did it in order to have the opportunity to bring the bill back up).
Click to expand...

Just looked up the votes. It would have failed 59-41 had all the Dems voted in favor.

To be fair, I am not a gun control advocate by any stretch but I am sick of the 60 vote rule that is pretty much needed all the time now.

That said barring some strange procedural reason I find Reids vote pretty sickening given he wants gun control. I think he' might be playing both sides of the fence here.
 
Reid had to vote no, so that the bill can be brought up again. A procedural vote. Had he had the 60 votes he'd have voted yes.
 
I'm back mfers!

Looks like I've missed quite a bit in here.

Today's latest... conspiracy nut Alex Jones claims Obama met with Saudi PM in an unscheduled meeting (this confirmed by press secretary) and now is deporting Boston Marathon bombing suspect (unconfirmed). And of course the FB right-wing loons are running with it when they didn't while hack Jones was accusing Bush of 9/11 inside jobs.

Sigh.
 
MrMarcello said:
I'm back mfers!

Looks like I've missed quite a bit in here.

Today's latest... conspiracy nut Alex Jones claims Obama met with Saudi PM in an unscheduled meeting (this confirmed by press secretary) and now is deporting Boston Marathon bombing suspect (unconfirmed). And of course the FB right-wing loons are running with it when they didn't while hack Jones was accusing Bush of 9/11 inside jobs.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

Not trying to give the Alex Joneses of the world any credit but doesn't the timing and situation seem a bit odd? Especially if the guy gets deported? I mean a guy who was a suspect, then wasn't, gets deported after an unscheduled meeting by the president with a Saudi diplomat?

Just seems odd.
 
Michael Gove once used the term 'Welshed' (in similar context and meaning as 'Jewed') during a debate in Parliament. Funny how some people don't engage their brains before speaking.
 
Estimates for insurance increases for the Obamacare deal coming out at a 20%-30% increase for 2014 ... the Democrats are going to get slammed over this once people realize how much more money the health insurance corps are stealing from them to pay for the dying baby boomers.
 
ooeat0meoo said:
Estimates for insurance increases for the Obamacare deal coming out at a 20%-30% increase for 2014 ... the Democrats are going to get slammed over this once people realize how much more money the health insurance corps are stealing from them to pay for the dying baby boomers.
Click to expand...

Yeah going to be a shock to many. The Health Insurance Companies love Obamacare.
 
The only way to truly fix the problem is to get the profit motive out of healthcare. America spends more money on healthcare than any other country in the world by far, but their system scores pathetically poor compared to other developed countries (all of whom have universal healthcare). Of course most people in Congress already know this, but they're bought off by the insurance lobby, so I think it'll still take many years (and some politicians with actual balls to advocate for universal healthcare) before the American people are finally fed up.
 
Grinner said:
I don't really see how health insurance can get much more expensive. It's crazy how much they charge now.
Click to expand...

It's obscene. The prices on everything are stupid. A tylenol costs something like $1.50 a pill. The healthcare system in the US would be infinitely better, without nationalizing it, if everything involved was a B-corp. Currently, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, insurance companies, etc ignore the benefit to society they provide.

If a medication can't be patented, companies won't produce it even if it cures cancer. A piece of medical equipment(or medication) may be no more effective than currently available yet it will still be released and cost a fortune. Unless they have something that might harm its current products.

I don't mind the people working in healthcare making loads of money. Doctors go through a ridiculous amount of very expensive school, devote long hours, need malpractice insurance, etc. I don't agree with shareholders or executives reaping enormous profits from the health of the population. Merck made billions off products like Vioxx yet paid out less than they made. What incentive do they have to adequately evaluate the dangers of such medications when they'll make a profit even if it doesn't work or is harmful?
 
I have a deductible of $750 before my insurance kicks in. I needed to see a doctor the other week and so I called round to see how much it would be and nobody could give me a price. They just said that they negotiate with Blue Cross once you've been in. So I had to gamble that it wouldn't be exorbitant and hope that the fee would also be covered since it was for a routine physical which are normally covered 100% irrespective of the deductible. The trouble is because I told the doc about some back pain and she prescribed some Ibuprofen for it, Blue Cross might decide that it wasn't a routine visit and I'll have to pay for the whole thing myself.

It's fecking scandalous.
 
:lol: I had the flu at New Years and was prescribed Tamiflu, which is $100 per course. I got the medicine on NYE and have a $150 deductible. If I had gotten it then, I would have had to pay the full deductible again the next time I went. Thankfully, I didn't get it "filled" until New Years Day and had that $100 go towards my deductible.
 
I haven't followed this thread lately but it is incredible how retarded Republicans are about setting up exchanges. For all their talk about fiscally responsible, they threw away hundreds of millions of dollars (not to mention the ability to control their state's exchange) to make a principled stand against something that was going to happen either way.

In Michigan it was even worse. Last year, the Senate passed a bill setting up an exchange but the House said "we don't need to do that, the Supreme Court will overturn Obamacare". Then the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare so our Republican Governor said we needed to set up an exchange. After a bunch of political grandstanding, the House finally came around and agreed to do it. But then the Senate said "you didn't want to do it last time so we aren't going to do it now" and the deadline passed with nothing done. Millions upon millions wasted.
 
Saliph said:
The only way to truly fix the problem is to get the profit motive out of healthcare. America spends more money on healthcare than any other country in the world by far, but their system scores pathetically poor compared to other developed countries (all of whom have universal healthcare). Of course most people in Congress already know this, but they're bought off by the insurance lobby, so I think it'll still take many years (and some politicians with actual balls to advocate for universal healthcare) before the American people are finally fed up.
Click to expand...

Can you dig up some stats so I can combat the inevitable right wing blitzkrieg down the road?
 
MrMarcello said:
Can you dig up some stats so I can combat the inevitable right wing blitzkrieg down the road?
Click to expand...

I'm on my phone, but it's on google. It's well-known that the US spends waay more on healthcare per capita than any other country without the results to back it up. Everybody in Congress knows that this doesn't make any sense economically, but they're bought off by lobbyists to not advocate changing the system. Too much money involved, and the American people continue to pay the price.
 
An Air Force officer friend of mine is increasingly becoming a paranoid right-wing fanatic, constantly posting anti-Obama, anti-Democratic stuff on facebook and seemingly stepping into the conspiracy realm too (recently posting a link from infowars and also posting pics about the Obamas). Today, he posted this gem. Sigh. You mad, bro?

http://news.yahoo.com/hatred-heart-white-america-070000325.html
 
MrMarcello said:
Can you dig up some stats so I can combat the inevitable right wing blitzkrieg down the road?
Click to expand...

Here's a decent article, albeit it only covers one aspect of the system:

Americans’ bad medication-related decisions accounted for $418 billion in waste last year, and the impact was most deeply felt in those states that could least afford it.


That is the finding of new research from Express Scripts released today and shared with clients attending the company’s 17th annual Outcomes Symposium in Orlando, Fla.



“Our nation pays a huge price for bad medication-related decisions, and it is clear that the price is even more costly for those at the lowest end of the economic spectrum,” says Steve Miller, MD, senior vice president & chief medical officer.



The analysis shows that pharmacy-related waste is significantly disproportionate among the poorest states. Mississippi, which has the lowest median household income in the country, had the most wasteful spending, totaling $1,622.76 per resident. The other low-income states that top the list in unnecessary pharmacy-related costs include Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, New Mexico and Oklahoma.



“The good news is that our country can save billions of dollars for patients, employers and the government simply by driving better decisions within the pharmacy benefit, and Express Scripts has solutions to make that possible,” Steve says. “We combine three unique capabilities — behavioral sciences, clinical specialization and actionable data — to create Health Decision Science℠, our innovative approach to help individuals make the best drug choices, pharmacy choices and health choices. And better decisions mean healthier outcomes.”



For the research study, waste was defined as extra medication-related spending that provided no additional clinical benefit. This includes the use of high-priced prescription drugs and pharmacies when clinically equivalent or superior alternatives existed, as well as unnecessary medical expenses that could have been avoided by patients adhering to their medication therapies.



The research revealed the following:



· $55.8 billion was spent unnecessarily on higher-priced medications when more affordable, clinically equivalent alternatives were available.



· $93.1 billion could have been saved if patients would have used the most cost-effective and clinically appropriate pharmacies, including home delivery and specialty. This savings includes $33.5 billion in lower drug costs, as well as $59.6 billion in avoided medical costs attributed to the higher adherence rates associated with home delivery and specialty pharmacies.



· An additional $269.4 billion was spent on avoidable medical and pharmacy expenses as a result of patients not remaining adherent to their medication treatments. This total does not include the $59.6 billion in adherence savings directly associated with better pharmacy choices.



According to the research, the most wasteful one-third of states spent between $1,404.82 and $1,622.76 per capita in avoidable costs. States with high levels of waste were found to be primarily located in the southern region of the country — an area also associated with higher rates of chronic disease. States with the lowest levels of avoidable costs were predominantly in the Midwest and Northeast. Vermont wasted the least amount per capita among all states in the U.S. yet still experienced an average of $1,004.39 in unnecessary costs per resident.



“It’s hard to believe, but when we consider associated medical expenses, bad pharmacy-related decisions waste more money than what the country spends in total on prescription drugs,” Steve says. “We are at a pivotal moment and have the solutions necessary to help our clients manage drug spend instead of having it manage them.”
Click to expand...
 
From watching Fox News for myself, I've noticed that they don't seem to give a shit about any of the constitutional right apart from the second one, so not only are they bigots, they're hypocrites too.
 
BI_MpAFCIAA4EFI.jpg:large
 
Stewart lets stuff like this go sometimes, he could of destroyed Herman Caine to the point of obliteration, but let him off.
 
Guess a certain lady didn't much like the charity event of the White House Correspondents Dinner. Ouch!



Sarah Palin ✔ @SarahPalinUSA

That #WHCD was pathetic. The rest of America is out there working our asses off while these DC assclowns throw themselves a #nerdprom
 
Status
Not open for further replies.