Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

[Null]

I won't wade into the Planned Parenthood morass because I don't honestly know enough to offer an informed opinion.

I will just say this: legal obstacles to abortion do not stop abortions from being done, nor do they equally effect all levels of income. They do, however, impede people of lower income levels from having access to safe abortions done in a sanitary facility. I am Pro-Choice because I believe that if someone finds themselves with a child they can't support, don't want, is a product of rape or incest (hard numbers are impossible to find, and estimates vary between 3,200 and 50,000 cases per year depending on who you ask, but it seems that at any rate a few thousand cases of this occur each year), or if the fetus is a threat to the mother's health, they should have access to safe and qualified medical care, not have to meet a disgraced doctor after hours with cash.

 

[Dei]

Colorado to vote on single payer health care system next year

I guarantee if this passes it will be a budget clusterfuck. And no, the pot money would not go towards it.

 

[Null]

Problems with the private insurance health marketplace prior to the ACA:

If you had a pre-existing condition, almost all providers would deny you coverage.
You were assigned a lifetime limit on your insurance value, and if you got really sick and exceeded it, they would cancel your coverage.
Almost all preventative care was considered to be out of pocket, making it financially untenable for most people.
Insurance companies did not have to explain why a certain treatment was denied, making it hard to find consistent care.

 

[Denbrought]

Colorado to vote on single payer health care system next year

I guarantee if this passes it will be a budget clusterfuck. And no, the pot money would not go towards it.

Colorado is one of the 2-3 states I've been looking at moving to for the long-term, so this'll be interesting to watch.

 

[Dei]

Colorado is awesome. I really don't know how I feel about this health care plan though. I will have to see more details first.

 

[jwhouk]

How about decriminizalize non-violent drug possession/sales. Bet that would take some of the strain off the penal system.

Yes and no. There'd be fewer prisoners, but they'd all be closer in scale to your Arkham Asylum-level prisoners. I'm already up to my neck in violent offenders (not to mention names, of course).

What would happen is - and it's already happening - is that violent offenders would be all we would see in prisons.

 

[Null]

Yes and no. There'd be fewer prisoners, but they'd all be closer in scale to your Arkham Asylum-level prisoners. I'm already up to my neck in violent offenders (not to mention names, of course).

What would happen is - and it's already happening - is that violent offenders would be all we would see in prisons.

Also, that's one of the issues with for-profit prisons. See, when a state hires a for-profit prison company, one of the terms is a mandatory occupation rate: the state has to guarantee the prison has at least a certain percentage of occupancy (on average, 85-90%) or else be charged for empty beds and possibly even sued for breach of contract. To fill the prisons, lobbyists then support candidates with harsher penalties for minor crimes: zero tolerance laws, third strike for non-violent offenders, harsh sentences for minor narcotics offenses, etc. The prison then gets paid to house and feed the inmates by the state, then hires them out as cheap labor to various other entities: the California fire brigade, for example, uses convicts at the rate of $2 / day to help fight major fires. Essentially it's slave labor.

 

[GasBandit]

Problems with the private insurance health marketplace prior to the ACA:

If you had a pre-existing condition, almost all providers would deny you coverage.
You were assigned a lifetime limit on your insurance value, and if you got really sick and exceeded it, they would cancel your coverage.
Almost all preventative care was considered to be out of pocket, making it financially untenable for most people.
Insurance companies did not have to explain why a certain treatment was denied, making it hard to find consistent care.

Problems with insurance after the ACA:

The money isn't there to pay for it. The cost projections double dipped medicaid savings and budgeted 10 years of income to pay 6 years of expense.
Despite being told otherwise, if you had a medical plan you liked previously, you didn't get to keep it.
Despite being told otherwise, you will still be told which doctors you can see, very possibly losing access to the doctor you had.
You can still be dropped by the insurance company for any number of reasons.
The mandate, without which the ACA purportedly can't function, is being waived in 90% of uninsured cases.
and more...


And, of course, when it all flies apart (as it was designed to do, really), politicians will shrug and sigh and say "Welp, we gave the private sector one last try and it just couldn't work, so I guess there's no option but to go single payer now."

 

[AshburnerX]

To be fair, the issue with doctors not being in network for some insurance plans is entirely the fault of the company. Doctors drop the plans that don't pay on time or fight payments, to put it simply. That is their right and it's one of the reasons why it's not too hard to find a doctor that will accept Medicaid/Medicare: Uncle Sam is consistent in his bureaucracy and they've learned how to deal with it. But when CareSource or Buckeye Health decide to fight you, there is often no reason to fight it because you'd lose more money in lawyer fees than you'd get for the service. Again, that is a problem with the INSURANCE side of things, not the ObamaCare side.

That said, Obama really did Molyneux it up when he was trying to sell it. Where are my real-time growing trees, Obama/Molyneux!?

 

[GasBandit]

Meanwhile, if you tell the hospital you'll be paying cash up front, you get a massive discount. Sometimes as much as 90% off.

(following prices from the article, rounded off)

Insurance patient's CT scan price quote: $6700.
Cost to patient after insurance: $2300.
Price if she'd pretended she didn't have insurance and paid cash up front: $1000.
Price quoted to newspaper reporter when they called and asked how much for a CT scan if he paid cash up front: $250.

Insurance patient's routine bloodwork bill: $800.
Cost to patient after insurance: $400
Cost if paid cash up front to the hospital: $100.


Really, the way to have fixed health care cost problems would have been to get everybody off of insurance, except for catastrophic (Cancer/Hit by a bus and dragged 2 blocks) medical care. Turn insurance into actual insurance instead of a layaway installment plan on healthcare. Pay out of pocket for the routine stuff, save way more money in the long run. Cost of health care suddenly goes down by amazing amounts. Replace employer-provided insurance as a perk with contributions to a HSA.

 

[Denbrought]

NRA-Backed Legislator: We Can’t Take Syrian Refugees Because It’s Too Easy For Them To Buy Guns

I can't decide whether to go "ayyy lmao" or so here's both.

 

[AshburnerX]

Really, the way to have fixed health care cost problems would have been to get everybody off of insurance, except for catastrophic (Cancer/Hit by a bus and dragged 2 blocks) medical care. Turn insurance into actual insurance instead of a layaway installment plan on healthcare. Pay out of pocket for the routine stuff, save way more money in the long run. Cost of health care suddenly goes down by amazing amounts. Replace employer-provided insurance as a perk with contributions to a HSA.

Again, the reason health insurers became a thing at all is because the common man was simply unable to manage this sort of thing on their own and because people recognized the value in keeping their neighbors healthy enough to provide work as well. There IS room for managed healthcare providers... it's just that the current system cannot hold. There is no accountability and the people you rely on to provide your care are more than happy to take your money and use it against you. We need stronger beneficiary protections and the ACA was at least a step in the right direction in that regard.

And really, part of this problem is NO ONE negotiates for something that isn't a major appliance or car anymore... and people aren't level headed to negotiate while sick ANYWAY, which is why we built the managed healthcare provider system to begin with.

 

[GasBandit]

Again, the reason health insurers became a thing at all is because the common man was simply unable to manage this sort of thing on their own and because people recognized the value in keeping their neighbors healthy enough to provide work as well. There IS room for managed healthcare providers... it's just that the current system cannot hold. There is no accountability and the people you rely on to provide your care are more than happy to take your money and use it against you. We need stronger beneficiary protections and the ACA was at least a step in the right direction in that regard.

And really, part of this problem is NO ONE negotiates for something that isn't a major appliance or car anymore... and people aren't level headed to negotiate while sick ANYWAY, which is why we built the managed healthcare provider system to begin with.

Actually, no. We built the managed healthcare provider system as a way of getting around wage control laws. Prior to WW2, employer-provided health insurance as we know it wasn't a thing. In order to entice people to work, employers started offering to provide health insurance at their cost, which technically wasn't a "wage," so it broke the salary cap legally.

As for "nobody can negotiate while sick," once insurance is out of the picture for every runny nose and broken bone, hospitals can publish their cash rates (as many already are, actually), so that it becomes a matter of public record, which then starts competition. Suddenly getting a CT scan inexpensively has the same thought process as deciding which fast food joint you want your burger from. It's not rocket surgery. I mean, you can't negotiate while you're starving, right?

"People can't handle their own adultness" should not be a reason for more government intervention in day to day life.

 

[Null]

Then there's the chargemasters, which is a billing system that has *nothing* to do with the costs to the hospital, and which assign costs essentially at random. That's why a $1 bag of saline costs you $800 on the bill. Now, if you have insurance, the chargemaster presents the bill to your insurer, and your insurer says, "Well, we'll pay 80% of that." So you wind up with the remaining 20%. Except it's 20% of a 5000% markup. If you don't have insurance? You don't get to negotiate at all.

 

[GasBandit]

Then there's the chargemasters, which is a billing system that has *nothing* to do with the costs to the hospital, and which assign costs essentially at random. That's why a $1 bag of saline costs you $800 on the bill. Now, if you have insurance, the chargemaster presents the bill to your insurer, and your insurer says, "Well, we'll pay 80% of that." So you wind up with the remaining 20%. Except it's 20% of a 5000% markup. If you don't have insurance? You don't get to negotiate at all.

That, along with a lot of other bullshit, as shown above, magically goes away when they hear the magic words "cash up front." As is the case in almost any industry.

 

[Null]

That, along with a lot of other bullshit, as shown above, magically goes away when they hear the magic words "cash up front." As is the case in almost any industry.

So remember, when you're having a pulmonary embolysm, tell the ambulance to stop at an ATM first.

 

[Dei]

Pretty sure that falls under catastrophic.

 

[Null]

Yeah, it would. I guess just the idea of having that much cash on hand for a medical problem struck me as absurd, because I'm used to everything being horrifically expensive. I mean, there's a reason more than half of bankruptcies are due to medical bills.

 

[Necronic]

Backing up what gasbandit said about insurance being a back door around wage control. There was a piece on NPR about this years ago. It's actually a fairly fascinating bit of history.

 

[AshburnerX]

As for "nobody can negotiate while sick," once insurance is out of the picture for every runny nose and broken bone, hospitals can publish their cash rates (as many already are, actually), so that it becomes a matter of public record, which then starts competition. Suddenly getting a CT scan inexpensively has the same thought process as deciding which fast food joint you want your burger from. It's not rocket surgery. I mean, you can't negotiate while you're starving, right?

"People can't handle their own adultness" should not be a reason for more government intervention in day to day life.

I suppose it's mostly an issue with emergency stuff, which is what I was getting at. Even something as minor as a broken leg isn't the kind of thing you can shop around for; after the "golden hour" it becomes harder to deal with. But it's also not serious enough to need insurance for ether.

We're going to see a different sort of business arise from this kind of thing... sort of "Price Watch" for medical needs. That's actually kind of neat, but then I'll need to worry about hospitals cutting corners. So I'm going to need an Angie's List as well.

 

[DarkAudit]

So...

Either Trump is literally Hitler at this point, or he's really the teacher from the Third Wave and he's just waiting to pull back the curtain to reveal he's trolled us all into voting for Hitler.

 

[strawman]

This issue is a ridiculous requirement for on hand surgical facilities that has led to all of these clinics to be shut down. I haven't heard a single one of you make a claim to the necessity of this requirement.

Well, it was four pages ago, and it was contained in a longer post, but still:

The fact that the abortion clinic itself tells patients NOT to come back if things aren't going well, but to go to a hospital, suggests that Texas's legislation requiring hospital admitting privileges or similar support, and/or requiring the abortion clinics to maintain emergency standards of care and facilities to provide such is reasonable.

Note that I'm not defending the law as perfect, merely suggesting that it doesn't seem unreasonable.

There are ten abortion clinics in texas now, after closure of those that do not yet meet the bills requirements. This is because 7 already met the requirements, and 3 upgraded their facilities over the last two years to meet the requirements. The other 22 clinics that closed due to this bill had over two years to meet the requirements and chose not to, hoping they could strike the bill down. You can blame the bill, but you can also blame the practices that closed for assuming that the supreme court would choose their side, rather than the pro-abortion side.

The fact that the supreme court sided with texas legislators, suggests to me that the law is reasonable - but I understand if you disagree with the supreme court on this issue.

Yes, the requirements reflect a very high standard of care, but they are obviously not stopping abortions from happening in texas, and I suspect a lot of the clinics that closed will reopen once they also meet the standards - given the supreme court ruling, they have no other avenue of appeal, so more and more will reopen as they upgrade over the next year. And that will be because of the high demand you and others suggest exists in texas.

Not only that, but they will be state of the art medical facilities, able to handle complications and high risk abortions they couldn't handle before.

Again, please keep in mind that 20% of the abortion clinics in Texas already met all the requirements of the bill prior to the first part becoming active. These aren't new standards cut from whole cloth out of the blue, they were merely optional before the bill, and are now requirements across the board, normalizing high standards of care.

Yes, there's going to be a year or two where gaps exist, but these clinics had several years to choose to upgrade or shutter their clinics, and they chose not to upgrade. Furthermore, these aren't even emergency department standards, they are a much lessor standard following the ambulatory surgery center standards.

The gaps will ultimately be filled - mostly because they make $800 - $2,400 per abortion and the upgrades will pay for themselves - and the clinics will provide a higher standard of care for women's health than they had before.

 

[Necronic]

The supreme court hasn't decided, or even heard this case yet.

Also does anyone have any numbers on how many abortions faced complications that would need these facilities or admitting privileges?

 

[Krisken]

First trimester abortions have less than a .05% of complications. This accounts for 89% of abortions.

Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

 

[strawman]

The supreme court hasn't decided, or even heard this case yet.

I was misinformed - I suppose that'll teach me to trust pro-abortion websites.

On November 13th the Supreme Court accepted the case. What I don't understand is that the stay granted in June should have allowed a dozen or more clinics to remain open, yet the site I've been getting info from about the current status of clinics in texas indicated many had closed. Since the court accepted the case, the stay is granted and continues until the supreme court releases its judgment.

Also does anyone have any numbers on how many abortions faced complications that would need these facilities or admitting privileges?

The cases stemming from the legislation have some limited data, but as the judicial system isn't meant to evaluate the rationale, only the legality, there isn't much presented here. The legislative fact finding documents would provide more information. As it is, here are two numbers/statistics from a texas court case regarding this legislation:

During these proceedings, Planned Parenthood conceded that at least 210 women in Texas annually must be hospitalized after seeking an abortion. Witnesses on both sides further testified that some of the women who are hospitalized after an abortion have complications that require an Ob/Gyn specialist’s treatment. Against Planned Parenthood’s claims that these women can be adequately treated without the admitting–privileges requirement, the State showed that many hospitals lack an Ob/Gyn on call for emergencies. Requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges would also promote the continuity of care in all cases, reducing the risk of injury caused by miscommunication and misdiagnosis when a patient is transferred from one health care provider to another. As Dr. Thorp testified, the abortion provider is most familiar with the patient’s medical history and therefore in the best position to diagnose and correct a complication that arises from the abortion.

...medical research has shown that drug–induced abortions present more medical complications and adverse events than surgical abortions, with six percent of medication abortions eventually requiring surgery to complete the abortion, often on an emergency basis.

Note that "hospitilization" is worse than "Emergency room treatment" and better than "death" so this number doesn't show the full extent of the problem - many more people end up in the ER for outpatient treatment, and many fewer end up dying from their abortion.

Interestingly, one part of this case report says, " ...described her efforts in obtaining admitting privileges for just two of her organization’s current physicians—its primary physician in McAllen, who does not qualify for admitting privileges because he is not a board–certified Ob/Gyn"

Interesting to me because up until this bill was introduced, it appears Texas allowed people who were not board certified ob/gyns to perform abortions. This law has the side effect of making sure physicians who perform abortions are board certified.

At any rate, the case is interesting reading, but unfortunately light on fact-finding information. The reason why they don't focus on this is explained early in the report and has to do with the separated powers between legislators and judges.[DOUBLEPOST=1448036577,1448036410][/DOUBLEPOST]

First trimester abortions have less than a .05% of complications. This accounts for 89% of abortions.

Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Given the number planned parenthood released in the case I discuss above, 210, out of about 70k abortions in texas (and not all of them under planned parenthood) per year, 0.05% seems six times too small.[DOUBLEPOST=1448036739][/DOUBLEPOST]

First trimester abortions have less than a .05% of complications. This accounts for 89% of abortions.

Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

That number is further complicated by the fact that that research only covered one specific abortion procedure, and most first trimester abortions are not being performed using medication.

 

[Krisken]

I was misinformed - I suppose that'll teach me to trust pro-abortion websites.

On November 13th the Supreme Court accepted the case. What I don't understand is that the stay granted in June should have allowed a dozen or more clinics to remain open, yet the site I've been getting info from about the current status of clinics in texas indicated many had closed. Since the court accepted the case, the stay is granted and continues until the supreme court releases its judgment.



The cases stemming from the legislation have some limited data, but as the judicial system isn't meant to evaluate the rationale, only the legality, there isn't much presented here. The legislative fact finding documents would provide more information. As it is, here are two numbers/statistics from a texas court case regarding this legislation:





Note that "hospitilization" is worse than "Emergency room treatment" and better than "death" so this number doesn't show the full extent of the problem - many more people end up in the ER for outpatient treatment, and many fewer end up dying from their abortion.

Interestingly, one part of this case report says, " ...described her efforts in obtaining admitting privileges for just two of her organization’s current physicians—its primary physician in McAllen, who does not qualify for admitting privileges because he is not a board–certified Ob/Gyn"

Interesting to me because up until this bill was introduced, it appears Texas allowed people who were not board certified ob/gyns to perform abortions. This law has the side effect of making sure physicians who perform abortions are board certified.

At any rate, the case is interesting reading, but unfortunately light on fact-finding information. The reason why they don't focus on this is explained early in the report and has to do with the separated powers between legislators and judges.[DOUBLEPOST=1448036577,1448036410][/DOUBLEPOST]

Given the number planned parenthood released in the case I discuss above, 210, out of about 70k abortions in texas (and not all of them under planned parenthood) per year, 0.05% seems six times too small.[DOUBLEPOST=1448036739][/DOUBLEPOST]

That number is further complicated by the fact that that research only covered one specific abortion procedure, and most first trimester abortions are not being performed using medication.

That's because it's not just Planned Parenthood, but all first term abortions. I'm also happy to supply the CDC website for informational purposes.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6311a1.htm?s_cid=ss6311a1_w

 

[strawman]

That's because it's not just Planned Parenthood, but all first term abortions. I'm also happy to supply the CDC website for informational purposes.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6311a1.htm?s_cid=ss6311a1_w

The numbers should still be in the same ballpark at least, though - a 30:1 difference isn't a small discrepancy. Abortion reporting is limited (again, I wish planned parenthood and other abortion corporations were more open and transparent) but that's still a huge difference that's not explained by "it's not just Planned Parenthood, but all first term abortions".

 

[Denbrought]

Today's the 40th anniversary of Hiptser Hitler Francisco Franco's death, and as usual there's heartfelt eulogies, church masses in his remembrance, and people publicly masturbating all over his stately mausoleum.

Feels like a good time to also remember, or learn about, the hundreds of thousands of rapes, executions, and disappearances that happened during his reign of terror. We're #2 in the world for unidentified/unrecovered bodies from political disappearances (Cambodia gets the gold medal here). The criminals were granted amnesty, and have gotten to live out their lives as free men (and politicians, ministers, ...).

This Wikipedia article is a good read for today.

 

[Necronic]

Wait there are people who look back on Franco fondly? Like, that's a thing?

 

[PatrThom]

Wait there are people who look back on Franco fondly? Like, that's a thing?

Well, there are people who look back on Hitler fondly, soooo...

--Patrick

 

[Denbrought]

Wait there are people who look back on Franco fondly? Like, that's a thing?

Yes. Oh dear lord yes. For starters a lot of old people (I think the cohorts to your Baby Boomers). Also:

• There's a non-profit (the Francisco Franco foundation) dedicated to whitewashing him. Until a decade ago, this foundation received government funding.
• His family is rich due to how much he stole from the country (IIRC their net worth is either in the tens or the hundreds million Euros, depending on who you ask to count).
• There's (fringe) political parties dedicated to his ideology, from the openly Falangist parties to the more covert One-Free-United-style parties that are lead by renowned fascists. These parties are largely legal, despite their anti-democratic (and invariably xenophobic) aims, while other non-Spanish nationalist parties are made illegal and persecuted at the smallest twinge of anti-democratic leanings (i.e. ETA sympathizers). Not that I think political parties should be made illegal, but targeted laws or unevenly-applied ones tend to piss me off.
• One of the two biggest political parties at the national level, Partido Popular, has a shitload of "former" fascists in it at all levels, from the militancy to governors.
• Said Partido Popular has blocked or stalled at various times laws to condemn the dictatorship's actions, or try to bring closure to what happened, under the excuse that it would hurt the country's unity to "reopen wounds" (when the wounds are basically festering under dirty bandages).

Basically we never got proper closure, akin to a more drawn-out version of what the Indonesian Killings did to society there. But with more bureaucracy, because fascists.

 

[Necronic]

Well, for what it's worth everyone else in the world knows exactly what Franco was.[DOUBLEPOST=1448086988,1448086824][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, seriously the Republican Party is becoming a damn caricature. There are people at the top suggesting we start requiring every Muslim to register. Or saying that we should only accept Christian refugees from Syria.

Guys your party is spiraling in a legitimately frightening way.

 

[Denbrought]

Well, for what it's worth everyone else in the world knows exactly what Franco was.

Every in-group has its blindspot that's all too obvious to everyone else, yeah. Ours just happens to be a wrinkly shitsack lounging on a Khorne-worthy skull throne.

 

[Necronic]

Also I think it's certain now that Ted Cruz has wrapped his lips around Trump's trunk: that dudes a piece of shit. Toadying to Trump is just such a sleazy thing for him to do.[DOUBLEPOST=1448087337,1448087112][/DOUBLEPOST]I mean honestly, in your heart of hearts do you really want all the Muslims out of the country? Should we round them all up? Because that's pretty much what your party is saying. I mean this is some McCarthy era nonsense. You guys are going to have to live with supporting this.[DOUBLEPOST=1448087552][/DOUBLEPOST]So we have Rubio saying all Muslim hangouts, like cafes should be shut.

We have Trump saying that he would consider closing down all Mosques.

And we have Carson saying that if there were terrorists around we should probably just rush them because they can't shoot us all, unless they are just there to rob the Popeyes in which case just point them in the right direction.

This is your party. Where is your shame.

 

[AshburnerX]

Also I think it's certain now that Ted Cruz has wrapped his lips around Trump's trunk: that dudes a piece of shit. Toadying to Trump is just such a sleazy thing for him to do.[DOUBLEPOST=1448087337,1448087112][/DOUBLEPOST]I mean honestly, in your heart of hearts do you really want all the Muslims out of the country? Should we round them all up? Because that's pretty much what your party is saying. I mean this is some McCarthy era nonsense. You guys are going to have to live with supporting this.[DOUBLEPOST=1448087552][/DOUBLEPOST]So we have Rubio saying all Muslim hangouts, like cafes should be shut.

We have Trump saying that he would consider closing down all Mosques.

And we have Carson saying that if there were terrorists around we should probably just rush them because they can't shoot us all, unless they are just there to rob the Popeyes in which case just point them in the right direction.

They also just had Kasich saying he'd used government money to "promote Judeo-Christian beliefs" in the US. I guess at least he included the Jews. That's a big step for the Right.