Political Discussion

The following rates provided for healthcare have people divided. Some people see it that our healthcare system is broken and prices can wildly fluctuate to very high amounts and no way to shop around to prevent that from happening. Other people see this as a perfect example of why Medicare For All would bankrupt hospitals and healthcare providers.

The average cost Medicare pays out for getting an gall bladder removed is $5685.

However, some hospitals have billed private insurance much much higher. One person stated their total bill was nearly $44k charged to their insurance. The insurances negotiated the rate down to $31k. Because they have a high deductible plan, they owed $4500 out of pocket.

People are viewing this very black and white.

Either that bill is outrages and we need to fix the system.
Or that there is nothing wrong with our system and medicare for all would bankrupt it.

Why is it so black and white. And I wonder if the divide falls down party lines.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
The following rates provided for healthcare have people divided. Some people see it that our healthcare system is broken and prices can wildly fluctuate to very high amounts and no way to shop around to prevent that from happening. Other people see this as a perfect example of why Medicare For All would bankrupt hospitals and healthcare providers.

The average cost Medicare pays out for getting an gall bladder removed is $5685.

However, some hospitals have billed private insurance much much higher. One person stated their total bill was nearly $44k charged to their insurance. The insurances negotiated the rate down to $31k. Because they have a high deductible plan, they owed $4500 out of pocket.

People are viewing this very black and white.

Either that bill is outrages and we need to fix the system.
Or that there is nothing wrong with our system and medicare for all would bankrupt it.

Why is it so black and white. And I wonder if the divide falls down party lines.
Click to expand...


I believe people that advocates for Medicare for all believe the main reason for increased health costs is the motivation for profit off of people. The medicare billing in the above statement is sustainable compensation, while the $44K rate included needs to profit off of human suffering.

Other aspects of savings that are projected are drug prices and low administrative costs. The idea is to increase taxes, but you would have less taken out of you pocket to pay for substandard health care.

I know advocates like to say Health care is a right. Honestly I don't care what people view as a right or not. It's about what makes sense and what benefits society the most.

I remember during the midterms people saying that lack of health care is what united people the most or Republican's weakness. this would make me think that it was the least partisan issue.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
The following rates provided for healthcare have people divided. Some people see it that our healthcare system is broken and prices can wildly fluctuate to very high amounts and no way to shop around to prevent that from happening. Other people see this as a perfect example of why Medicare For All would bankrupt hospitals and healthcare providers.

The average cost Medicare pays out for getting an gall bladder removed is $5685.

However, some hospitals have billed private insurance much much higher. One person stated their total bill was nearly $44k charged to their insurance. The insurances negotiated the rate down to $31k. Because they have a high deductible plan, they owed $4500 out of pocket.

People are viewing this very black and white.

Either that bill is outrages and we need to fix the system.
Or that there is nothing wrong with our system and medicare for all would bankrupt it.

Why is it so black and white. And I wonder if the divide falls down party lines.
Click to expand...
There's a key demo left out of that, which is the uninsured who end up in the emergency room and have no insurance for the hospital to charge. Who do we think is ultimately footing that bill while the uninsured person sinks even further into debt/bankruptcy?
 
He is nothing if not consistent even if you disagree with his critiques.

Here he is criticizing the media for a lack of coverage on climate change... a whole two years after I was born.

ijr.com

Resurfaced Video Shows Bernie Sanders Criticizing Media for Not Covering Climate Change in 1989

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has made tackling climate change a key issue in his 2020 presidential campaign, but a video that resurfaced Tuesday shows that the independent was on top of the problem decades before it became a national focus.
ijr.com
 
Trumps Tweet this morning: "Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend!"

This comes in response to Times naming her the person of the year.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Trumps Tweet this morning: "Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend!"

This comes in response to Times naming her the person of the year.
Click to expand...

She's a teenager. He is picking on a teenager. He is a grown ass man. He is the Pres of the US. We have yet to reach the lowest of how low he can go, have we? Ugh.
 
Can someone with more knowledge of Congress/congressional law tell what’s going to happen next now that the Impeachment is going to the House for a vote?
 
wokeupnew said:
Can someone with more knowledge of Congress/congressional law tell what’s going to happen next now that the Impeachment is going to the House for a vote?
Click to expand...
House votes. And they only vote to impeach. That does not mean he is removed from office. The Senate will decide that through a trial. So once the House vote is doen, it goes to the Senate. Then Senate will decide how to proceed with the trial. They'll decide who will testify, how (live or just through depositions), when, who will interrogate witnesses, etc. Then the Senate will vote to remove from office. And he likely won't be removed because the votes just are not there. I think something like 27 Republicans would have to break ranks to actually reach the majority needed to remove him. It will be just like the Bill Clinton impeachment.

But he will go down as an impeached pres - which is better than nothing, I guess.

Is that what you wanted to know? Or something more?
 
Teeeee said:
House votes. And they only vote to impeach. That does not mean he is removed from office. The Senate will decide that through a trial. So once the House vote is doen, it goes to the Senate. Then Senate will decide how to proceed with the trial. They'll decide who will testify, how (live or just through depositions), when, who will interrogate witnesses, etc. Then the Senate will vote to remove from office. And he likely won't be removed because the votes just are not there. I think something like 27 Republicans would have to break ranks to actually reach the majority needed to remove him. It will be just like the Bill Clinton impeachment.

But he will go down as an impeached pres - which is better than nothing, I guess.

Is that what you wanted to know? Or something more?
Click to expand...
Nope, I think that makes sense. So if the House votes for impeachment, and they (Dems) have majority so it should go through to the Senate for a trial.

Do either need to have super majority in votes? A quick search mentioned that but didn’t mention which branch of congress it was for.
 
Teeeee said:
House votes. And they only vote to impeach. That does not mean he is removed from office. The Senate will decide that through a trial. So once the House vote is doen, it goes to the Senate. Then Senate will decide how to proceed with the trial. They'll decide who will testify, how (live or just through depositions), when, who will interrogate witnesses, etc. Then the Senate will vote to remove from office. And he likely won't be removed because the votes just are not there. I think something like 27 Republicans would have to break ranks to actually reach the majority needed to remove him. It will be just like the Bill Clinton impeachment.

But he will go down as an impeached pres - which is better than nothing, I guess.

Is that what you wanted to know? Or something more?
Click to expand...
Not only will the senate NOT vote to remove Trump, despite all the evidence that's there, McConnell is openly working with the white house on it. It's the jury sleeping with the accused.


Can't wait til this man is rotting in hell.
 
wokeupnew said:
Nope, I think that makes sense. So if the House votes for impeachment, and they (Dems) have majority so it should go through to the Senate for a trial.

Do either need to have super majority in votes? A quick search mentioned that but didn’t mention which branch of congress it was for.
Click to expand...

The House needs a simple majority. Which is why everyone assumes it will happen. So, the House just issues the charges, really.

The Senate needs 2/3rds of the vote, which is why everyone assumes he won't be removed. The interesting part to watch on this is Chief Justice Roberts. As Chief of the SC, he presides over the trial. He was nominated by Bush, he's a conservative. But he also seems to very much value the constitution and has at times sided with the liberal leaning justices on key cases - the health care case being a huge one sticking out in my mind. So, although one might expect him to be more likely to side with the republicans (even though justices are supposed to be non-partisan), I think he'll actually be rather impartial and very fair.
 
Last edited:
Teeeee said:
The House needs a simple majority. Which is why everyone assumes it will happen. So, the House just issues the charges, really.

The Senate needs 2/3rds of the vote, which is why everyone assumes he won't be removed. The interesting part to watch on this is Chief Justice Roberts. As Chief of the SC, he resides over the trial. He was nominated by Bush, he's a conservative. But he also seems to very much value the constitution and has at times sided with the liberal leaning justices on key cases - the health care case being a huge one sticking out in my mind. So, although one might expect him to be more likely to side with the republicans (even though justices are supposed to be non-partisan), I think he'll actually be rather impartial and very fair.
Click to expand...
He also rebuked Trump for calling judges "Obama judges".
 
Teeeee said:
So, although one might expect him to be more likely to side with the republicans (even though justices are supposed to be non-partisan), I think he'll actually be rather impartial and very fair.
Click to expand...
I saw one analysis that suggested -- realistically, IMO -- that he might see a workaround by just saying these are political questions, not strictly judicial ones, and anything he doesn't want to rule on he can just kick back to the Senate to vote on.
 
Last night was my companies holiday party. The provided us a free Uber ride home.

I was talking to the Uber driver who recently relocated to Boston.

He had a realestate agent helping him find an apartment. The first place was looking for an apartment was in Boston's Seaport Distract.

The realestate agent found luxury 1 bedroom apartment. Said the cost was twenty two.

He went to look at the apartment and found it had access to a private gym, indoor virtual golf course, a pool. A parking spot.

He also found out it wasn't twenty two hundred, but rather twenty two thousand a month.

The parking spot was $8000 a month.
Fees for the gym, pool and so on all included in the rent.


He left telling the agent not to call him, he doesn't like to pushed and ran never calling her back. He was in shock over how expensive it was. Which is actually the normal for all new housing built in the Seaport Distract over the last 10 years.

How can anyone afford $22,000 a month for rent. What do they do for work, deal drugs?

These luxury buildings are barely half occupied. And what has made news is those empty units are subsidized, so the owners of the apartment complexes still get their money.
 
Reading through the thread of tweets there are chilling stories after chilling stories.

A lot of people owe more today than they originally borrowed.

The graduated repayment plan or the income based repayment plan are what contributed to this according to many people. Being fresh out of college and entering the work force during the recession these repayment please were the only real options. The graduated repayment program starts with low payments and gradually grow larger as your career and salary increase. However, it results in years of only covering the interest and none of the principal. The income based repayment program based on the average salary of a millennial actual grows your loans interest as your payment is less than the interest being applied when you owe between $35k and $40k or more on your student loans.

Throw in a period of under employment or unemployment where you have had to use forbearance, deferment or you income based repayment was $0 a month? Yup, that totally screws you over putting you much further under water.


Meanwhile people outside of US are in disbelief.




Also there is some great examples of how much the cost of education has changed.

Boomer went to UConn for $5000 for all 4 years.
Boomers daughter went to UConn for $5000 a year.
Boomers daughters son is a Junior in High School and UConn is $28,000 a year.

Boomer wants grand son to go to Alma mater.

Boomers daughter says realistically that is not possible without her son setting him self up with a massive amount of debt.

There is a lot people chiming in who graduated in the 80's or 90's saying they paid off their loans in 10 years. They appear tone death to the situation giving examples of how a responsible person can easily manage their debt and pay off their student loans. Those Millennials must be financially irresponsible.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Reading through the thread of tweets there are chilling stories after chilling stories.

A lot of people owe more today than they originally borrowed.

The graduated repayment plan or the income based repayment plan are what contributed to this according to many people. Being fresh out of college and entering the work force during the recession these repayment please were the only real options. The graduated repayment program starts with low payments and gradually grow larger as your career and salary increase. However, it results in years of only covering the interest and none of the principal. The income based repayment program based on the average salary of a millennial actual grows your loans interest as your payment is less than the interest being applied when you owe between $35k and $40k or more on your student loans.

Throw in a period of under employment or unemployment where you have had to use forbearance, deferment or you income based repayment was $0 a month? Yup, that totally screws you over putting you much further under water.


Meanwhile people outside of US are in disbelief.




Also there is some great examples of how much the cost of education has changed.

Boomer went to UConn for $5000 for all 4 years.
Boomers daughter went to UConn for $5000 a year.
Boomers daughters son is a Junior in High School and UConn is $28,000 a year.

Boomer wants grand son to go to Alma mater.

Boomers daughter says realistically that is not possible without her son setting him self up with a massive amount of debt.

There is a lot people chiming in who graduated in the 80's or 90's saying they paid off their loans in 10 years. They appear tone death to the situation giving examples of how a responsible person can easily manage their debt and pay off their student loans. Those Millennials must be financially irresponsible.
Click to expand...

But don't worry. We have the best economy ever. :rolleyes:
 
RenegadeMonster said:


2008? Same time I graduated with my Bachelors and payments started towards my student loans.
Click to expand...

Same thing for me. I have made zero progress on bringing my principal down. Yet have been paying for a lot longer than I would like to admit. What is the point of me paying? I want to throw my hands up and walk away.

It is an effing scam. And this nation really needs to pay attention and do something about it.
 



Yup, what a big difference 10 or 15 years makes.


Also, our government has many other issues with Scholarships and Grants being converted into loans. The Teach Grant debacle was just crazy. Thousands of grants were converted to loans in error. And thousands more were converted of people sent in their recertification paperwork a day or more late, missed a signature, initial or date on the paperwork they were required to provide yearly to prove they were teaching where they promised they would. In low-income communities.

Also apparently things like this happen.

 
www.cnn.com

Six aides resign from office of Democratic congressman expected to switch parties

Much of the staff serving a freshman Democratic congressman resigned on Sunday after sources said the lawmaker prepares to switch to the Republican Party, according to a signed letter obtained by CNN.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

We have a Democratic congressman who is expected to change his political affiliation to Republican.

6 of his aids have now resigned saying they cannot continue to serve him under good conscience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top