The Democrat Thread

[BigSqwert]

There really are two Americas.

[StrangeSox]

There really are two Americas.

 

Yes, North and South. Duh.

[BigSqwert]

Yes, North and South. Duh.

[Balta1701]

Link

As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or paying more for coverage.

 

The secretary of health and human services released the study on Tuesday, hours before the House plans to begin considering a Republican bill that would repeal the new law to overhaul the health-care system.

 

A vote is expected on Wednesday. But while Republicans may muscle through a repeal bill in the House, its prospects are slimmer in the Senate, where Democrats andindependents will enjoy a 53-47 majority.

 

The new report is part of the Obama administration's salesmanship to convince the public of the advantages of the law, which contains insurance protections for people with preexisting medical conditions.

 

Republicans immediately disparaged the analysis as "public relations." An insurance industry spokesman acknowledged that sick people can have trouble buying insurance on their own but said the analysis overstates the problem.

 

The study found that one-fifth to one-half of non-elderly people in the United States have ailments that trigger rejection or higher prices in the individual insurance market. They range from cancer to chronic illnesses such as heart disease, asthma and high blood pressure.

 

The smaller estimate, by Health and Human Services Department researchers, is based on the number of Americans whose medical problems would make them eligible for states' high-risk pools - special coverage for people denied insurance because of their medical history. The researchers arrived at the larger figure by adding in other ailments that major insurers consider a basis to charge customers higher prices or to exclude coverage for some of the care they need.

[Jenksismyhero]

Link

 

"I live in a flood plain and have to buy flood insurance for my house?! Blasphemy! I shouldn't have to pay more than someone else!!"

 

As much as there are really tough situations out there with pre-existing conditions, there's a good reason those patients have to pay more - they're medical care costs more. And I'm willing to bet more often than not those problems are self inflicted (smoking, obesity, etc). I don't think people should be left on the street, but I don't have a problem with insurance companies asking for more money from them.

[Steve9347]

"I live in a flood plain and have to buy flood insurance for my house?! Blasphemy! I shouldn't have to pay more than someone else!!"

 

As much as there are really tough situations out there with pre-existing conditions, there's a good reason those patients have to pay more - they're medical care costs more. And I'm willing to bet more often than not those problems are self inflicted (smoking, obesity, etc). I don't think people should be left on the street, but I don't have a problem with insurance companies asking for more money from them.

This post is so ridiculously incorrect it's unfathomable.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Steve9347

[BigSqwert]

So, Amazon, Visa, PayPal, Was It Worth Accepting Government Lies?

 

Mark Hosenball reports that aside from some pockets of short-term damage, the impact of the Wikileaks leak of diplomatic cables has been embarrassing, but not damaging.

 

Internal U.

S

. government review

s

have determined that a ma

s

s

lea

k

of diplomatic cable

s

cau

s

ed only limited damage to U.

S

. intere

s

t

s

abroad, de

s

pite the Obama admini

s

tration

’

s

public

s

tatement

s

to the contrary.

 

A congre

s

s

ional official briefed on the review

s

s

aid

the admini

s

tration felt compelled to

s

ay publicly that the revelation

s

had

s

eriou

s

ly damaged American intere

s

t

s

in order to bol

s

ter legal effort

s

to

s

hut down the Wi

k

iLea

k

s

web

s

ite and bring charge

s

again

s

t the lea

k

er

s

.

“

I thin

k

they ju

s

t want to pre

s

ent the toughe

s

t front they can mu

s

ter,

”

the official

s

aid.

 

But

S

tate Department official

s

have privately told Congre

s

s

they expect overall damage to U.

S

. foreign policy to be containable,

s

aid the official, one of two congre

s

s

ional aide

s

familiar with the briefing

s

who

s

po

k

e to Reuter

s

on condition of anonymity.

 

“

We were told (the impact of Wi

k

iLea

k

s

revelation

s

) wa

s

embarra

s

s

ing but not damaging,

”

s

aid the official, who attended a briefing given in late 2010 by

S

tate Department official

s

.

 

[

s

nip]

 

National

s

ecurity official

s

familiar with the damage a

s

s

e

s

s

ment

s

being conducted by defen

s

e and intelligence agencie

s

told Reuter

s

the review

s

s

o far have

s

hown

“

poc

k

et

s

”

of

s

hort-term damage,

s

ome of it potentially harmful. Long-term damage to U.

S

. intelligence and defen

s

e operation

s

, however, i

s

unli

k

ely to be

s

eriou

s

, they

s

aid. [my empha

s

i

s

]

 

More important than yet another indication that the Obama Administration has oversold the damage done by Wikileaks is the reason given by Hosenball’s Congressional source as to why they oversold that damage: to bolster legal efforts to shut down Wikileaks’ website.

 

The Administration lied, says a congressional official, to make it easier to shut down Wikileaks.

 

Now that’s important for several reasons. First, all this time the government has been pretending that the series of decisions by private corporations to stop doing business with Wikileaks were made by the businesses on their own. Surprise surprise (not!), it seems that the government was affirmatively trying to shut down Wikileaks.

 

Just as importantly, Hosenball’s story seems to suggest, the government was going to service providers–the same service providers they routinely go to on terrorist investigations–and lying to get them to do the government’s bidding. The government was making claims about the damage of the leak to convince service providers to shut down Wikileaks.

 

And companies like Amazon, Visa, and PayPal complied.

 

So, to these companies, now tainted with cooperation in government censorship, was it worth it? Was it worth being branded as a collaborator, knowing you were lied to?

 

And to Philip Crowley, whom Hosenball quotes talking about “substantial” damage: given your critique of Tunisia’s suppression of social media, and given that we now know you lied in the service of similar repression, do you still want to claim there’s no disjunct between claiming to support free speech while squelching that of Wikileaks?

[Jenksismyhero]

This post is so ridiculously incorrect it's unfathomable.

 

Prove it. I might very well be wrong, but I'd like to see some evidence.

[Steve9347]

Prove it. I might very well be wrong, but I'd like to see some evidence.

Pre-existing conditions are basically ANY health problem a human has prior to applying for health insurance. If you ever lose your job and go off health insurance for a given period (without paying out the ass for COBRA) then your given problems (be they from obesity, to diabetes, to ulcerative colitis, to f***ing cancer) can all be considered pre-existing conditions when applying to a future health insurance provider and thusly denied.

 

That's why "Obamacare" is so monumental.

 

A pre-existing condition can be something as common and as serious as heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and asthma – chronic health problems that affect a large portion of the population. Even if you have a relatively minor condition such as hay fever or a previous accidental injury, a health plan can deny coverage.

 

google is your friend

Edited January 18, 2011 by Steve9347

[Balta1701]

Pre-existing conditions are basically ANY health problem a human has prior to applying for health insurance. If you ever lose your job and go off health insurance for a given period (without paying out the ass for COBRA) then your given problems (be they from obesity, to diabetes, to ulcerative colitis, to f***ing cancer) can all be considered pre-existing conditions when applying to a future health insurance provider and thusly denied.

 

I did cartwheels when this was included in "Obamacare" but of course the Republicans are going to do their best to get that monumental bill retracted.

You're missing the issue there Steve...he said that "Most" of those issues were self-inflicted. No where in this post does it establish that most of them are things like cancer. You in fact include obesity and Diabetes in there as things that can be reasons for an insurer to deny you, which is exactly his point.

[Steve9347]

You're missing the issue there Steve...he said that "Most" of those issues were self-inflicted. No where in this post does it establish that most of them are things like cancer. You in fact include obesity and Diabetes in there as things that can be reasons for an insurer to deny you, which is exactly his point.

The difference between "most" and "some" is huge... and whoever said all cases of diabetes are self-inflicted?

 

I'd say a vast majority of "pre-existing conditions" are not self-inflicted.

[Jenksismyhero]

Pre-existing conditions are basically ANY health problem a human has prior to applying for health insurance. If you ever lose your job and go off health insurance for a given period (without paying out the ass for COBRA) then your given problems (be they from obesity, to diabetes, to ulcerative colitis, to f***ing cancer) can all be considered pre-existing conditions when applying to a future health insurance provider.

 

 

 

google is your friend

 

How is what I said "so ridiculously incorrect it's unfathomable?" Obesity, diabetes, heart conditions.....self inflicted and/or a result of self-inflicted conditions. I didn't say any potential condition is self inflicted. Nor did I say that pre-existing conditions should be a basis to deny someone coverage. I said I don't see a problem with making people pay more if they've got one.

[Jenksismyhero]

The difference between "most" and "some" is huge... and whoever said all cases of diabetes are self-inflicted?

 

I'd say a vast majority of "pre-existing conditions" are not self-inflicted.

 

 

That statement is so ridiculously incorrect it's unfathomable.

 

Seriously though, I dunno how you can dispute my statement so seriously given how incredibly unhealthy our country is. I might be wrong, and I might be overstating it a bit. But it's certainly not "so ridiculously incorrect."

Edited January 18, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

I'm only putting this in this thread since we don't get the chance to beat him outright.

 

Joe Lieberman will not run for Re-election in 2012.

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

The real problem with preexisting conditions and allowing insurance companies to set the price is that they make the policy unacceptable.

 

I had this issue with one of my clients, the insurance company was "ending" its specific policy and therefore no longer wanted to cover the client. Keep in mind the insurance policy was in effect, paid for and the insurance company is going to keep existing in Illinois. Due to that the insurance company was required to offer another policy. The company offered my client a policy, with something like a $20k deductible saying it was due to a preexisting condition.

 

He had been previously insured by them and he had always paid them.

 

These are the situations that we need to prevent. I completely understand where you are coming from, if I am a low risk insured, why should I pay more than a high risk insured?

 

But insurance companies try and make it impossible for some people to get insurance, even if that person was always insured. I think that there should be some protection for people who have been insured their entire life and then an insurance company tries to drop them or force them to drop.

 

Every case is its own situation, which is why its hard to create all encompassing laws. I hope that there is a middle point some where, I dont think most people have a problem with higher risk people paying more, its just I have a problem with insurance companies creating ways to stop insuring people.

 

I hate dealing with insurance companies, they always want their money, but when it comes time to pay out, they will do everything in their power to cancel the policy. Its ridiculous how many Declaratory Actions insurance companies file.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks,

 

The real problem with preexisting conditions and allowing insurance companies to set the price is that they make the policy unacceptable.

 

I had this issue with one of my clients, the insurance company was "ending" its specific policy and therefore no longer wanted to cover the client. Keep in mind the insurance policy was in effect, paid for and the insurance company is going to keep existing in Illinois. Due to that the insurance company was required to offer another policy. The company offered my client a policy, with something like a $20k deductible saying it was due to a preexisting condition.

 

He had been previously insured by them and he had always paid them.

 

These are the situations that we need to prevent. I completely understand where you are coming from, if I am a low risk insured, why should I pay more than a high risk insured?

 

But insurance companies try and make it impossible for some people to get insurance, even if that person was always insured. I think that there should be some protection for people who have been insured their entire life and then an insurance company tries to drop them or force them to drop.

 

Every case is its own situation, which is why its hard to create all encompassing laws. I hope that there is a middle point some where, I dont think most people have a problem with higher risk people paying more, its just I have a problem with insurance companies creating ways to stop insuring people.

 

I hate dealing with insurance companies, they always want their money, but when it comes time to pay out, they will do everything in their power to cancel the policy. Its ridiculous how many Declaratory Actions insurance companies file.

 

I agree, and I don't really want to take the position of defending the greedy ass insurance companies (which is why i was for actual healthcare reform, not just "government will pick up the check" reform). But on the other hand this whole healthcare debate just defined for me what America has become - we demand the moon and want nothing to do with the work it takes to get it. We're (generally) a bunch of lazy asses who eat fast food and then b**** and moan that we're fat and have health problems and don't have the money to pay to see a doctor. All that does is feed the line of thinking that is "we need government to step in and provide for us!" which i'm sure you know I despise.

 

No one should be screwed out of insurance. No one should be left to die because of a terrible, unavoidable disease or condition. But if you're a 300 lb smoker and you develop lung cancer and diabetes and all sorts of orthopedic problems, well, I don't have a problem with an insurance company saying "hey wait a minute, a normal policy isn't going to cover the hundreds of thousands of dollars you're going to cost me."

Edited January 18, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[bmags]

We're (generally) a bunch of lazy asses who eat fast food and then b**** and moan that we're fat and have health problems and don't have the money to pay to see a doctor.

 

I'd say we're not. In general, in terms of hours work, we work our ass off.

[Balta1701]

There is no catch-all thread so don't take this post's location as me thinking this only affects Democrats.

 

The FBI is reporting that a bomb capable of inflicting multiple casualties was found and disarmed at the location of the Spokane, WA Martin Luther King Jr. Parade yesterday.

[BigSqwert]

Sullivan's take on the Tea Party:

To my mind, there are two widely believed myths about the Tea Party. The first is that they care about debt. I don't believe this, because a movement that actually cared about debt would have run a campaign specifically designed to propose ways to reduce it. They produced no such plan. Immediately after the election, moreover, they did a deal borrowing a huge amount more and adding $700 billion to the debt by refusing to let the Bush tax cuts sunset - the condition for the cuts' original passage, remember? The Tea Party is not an anti-debt movement; they are an anti-tax movement, that came about during a period in which taxes were lowered, while debt soared.

 

The second myth is that they are somehow unlike the Christianist right, and more tolerant and easy-going on social issues.

Again, I think this is wishful thinking. My own view is that they are hard-line Christianists in a different outfit - powdered wigs, muskets and red cheeks - and are outliers on issues of modernity - racial integration, women's rights, gay equality.

 

I mention this because PPP has just done a poll on marriage equality, something they are going to repeat to test trendlines. There is almost no difference between Tea Party views and regular Republicans. 52 percent of TPers and 52 percent of GOPers want no rights whatever for gay couples, either in civil unions or civil marriage. Only self-described "conservative" Republicans have a higher opposition at 57 percent. Moreover, on civil marriage for gays, TP support is at 17 percent, compared with 42 percent support for non-TPers.

 

Tea Partiers and Republicans are more anti-gay than all the over-65s.

[Jenksismyhero]

Sullivan's take on the Tea Party:

 

I enjoy they fact that he lumped in women's rights and minority rights there, when all he did was provide evidence of 50% of them not being in favor of gay marriage/union. "Half of them hate gays so the party as a whole hates everyone who isn't a white male."

 

Also, there's something to be said about being anti-debt and also being realistic about the s***ty economy we're in. The tax cuts are an attempt to help the economy grow. You know, kinda like how Obama is going to look into changing existing law that hampers business growth. Basically the same idea. I don't think those views are necessarily inconsistent.

[BigSqwert]

I enjoy they fact that he lumped in women's rights and minority rights there, when all he did was provide evidence of 50% of them not being in favor of gay marriage/union. "Half of them hate gays so the party as a whole hates everyone who isn't a white male."

 

Also, there's something to be said about being anti-debt and also being realistic about the s***ty economy we're in. The tax cuts are an attempt to help the economy grow. You know, kinda like how Obama is going to look into changing existing law that hampers business growth. Basically the same idea. I don't think those views are necessarily inconsistent.

 

They still haven't demonstrated anything that proves that they truly care about debt.

 

Plus they don't look any more tolerant than the GOP.

Edited January 19, 2011 by BigSqwert

[NorthSideSox72]

Sullivan's take on the Tea Party:

This is one of the things that the GOP is going to struggle with, with the emergence of the Tea Party. Tea Partiers do include actual libertarians, and at a local level, the movement may have in part been generated by libertarian-like ideas. But its become clear that what the current people who call themselves Tea Party members are, in great part, is angry Republicans, pure and simple.

 

Which actually sucks for the true libertarians in the crowd.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

This is one of the things that the GOP is going to struggle with, with the emergence of the Tea Party. Tea Partiers do include actual libertarians, and at a local level, the movement may have in part been generated by libertarian-like ideas. But its become clear that what the current people who call themselves Tea Party members are, in great part, is angry Republicans, pure and simple.

Which actually sucks for the true libertarians in the crowd.

 

Yep.

[Balta1701]

Want to hear Mr. Limbaugh spend 20 seconds mocking how silly Asian speech sounds to him?

"We're not gonna gyp Fox," Rush Limbaugh said. "I wanted to gyp it because the -- well, the -- Hu Jintao, he was speaking, and they weren't translating. They normally -- you have some translator every couple of words. But Hu Jintao was just going [mocking Chinese speech for 20 seconds]. Nobody was translating. But that's the closest I can get."

 

Stephen Colbert does a deliberately and patently offensive Chinese character that sounds exactly the same.

[BigSqwert]

Want to hear Mr. Limbaugh spend 20 seconds mocking how silly Asian speech sounds to him?

 

 

Stephen Colbert does a deliberately and patently offensive Chinese character that sounds exactly the same.

 

You obviously don't get his satire.