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

[DarkAudit]

If there's a silver lining to all this, it's listening to Meghan McCain's week-long full-on white girl meltdown on the drive home. She is the most establishment of GOP cheerleaders who basically got her radio show because her father is John McCain. She's done nothing but "liek omg ewwww" about both Trump and Cruz for weeks. Now, her sorority-girl squalling is musical.[DOUBLEPOST=1462497403,1462497161][/DOUBLEPOST]
Ha ha ha ha... hang on, lemme dig deep into the archives for this old gem....

Just a few short weeks ago, people would call me a scary would-be domestic terrorist for posting that.

You're a scary would-be domestic terrorist for posting that.

I'm thinking more along the lines of those who do not serve "at the pleasure of the President," whose jobs are secure no matter who is in charge. The ones who also take an oath to defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC." If at some point they come to the stark realization that "no way no how can we let this wackjob fucknugget take the oath," and do their sworn duty.

No blood has to be spilled, and as long as the veep-elect isn't a complete shit-for-brains as well, the Constitution is preserved for another couple of hours.

But if we wind up with another Palin for VP, this all goes out the window and the bombing begins in five minutes.

 

[Tress]

Yeah, I can't stand Trump either but let's not cheer for a mother fucking military COUP, okay?

 

[strawman]

We need to move to single payer soon...

The government does a fantastic job with all its other social programs, I'm sure nothing will go wrong when they take control of the health care system.

 

[Tiger Tsang]

The government does a fantastic job with all its other social programs, I'm sure nothing will go wrong when they take control of the health care system.

The government doing its job seems to have a problems when some Oligarchs want their *fair* share.

For Profit prisons, For Profit healthcare, For Profit Military Industrial Complex at the expense of Soldiers, For Profit the War on Drugs and the Militarization of Police, For Profit Fossil Fuel Companies and Sorry We Spilled Oil.

It's kind of hard for the government, when "We the People" want it to do it's job, to do it when an avalanche of money is being thrown at it to make sure the folks getting rich, keep getting richer.

 

[DarkAudit]

The government doing its job seems to have a problems when some Oligarchs want their *fair* share.

For Profit prisons and kids sold by judges, For Profit healthcare, For Profit Military Industrial Complex at the expense of Soldiers, For Profit the War on Drugs and the Militarization of Police, For Profit Fossil Fuel Companies and Sorry We Spilled Oil.

It's kind of hard for the government, when "We the People" want it to do it's job, to do it when an avalanche of money is being thrown at it to make sure the folks getting rich, keep getting richer.

Amended that for you.

 

[strawman]

The government doing its job seems to have a problems when some Oligarchs want their *fair* share.

It'sconvenient to lay the blame at the feet of the private sector, but even programs that don't touch the private sector have problems - social security, for instance.

Further, there are programs where the private sector is winning against the government's version - many people decry the defunding of NASA, but what is actually happening is that private companies are providing services far cheaper than NASA managed - we're resupplying the space station with SpaceX rockets, launching satellites, etc. NASA can focus on the robots and middle transfer ships while the private sector provides the means to get into orbit cheaper than before. The USPS is essentially a government mandated monopoly, but privatized, and so far postage has kept track with inflation, and the service hasn't folded or become more expensive in other ways.

People will always take advantage of the government where possible, and the larger and more complicated the system, such as taxation, the more people will find and exploit loopholes - but worse, the more people will abuse it using bad legislation. The oligarchs are paying congress to pass bad laws - most frequently in the name of job creation. Sure the jobs are created, but a task that a computer could do in seconds per week is instead done by hand by 400 full time workers in Ohio because a few people got together, made a backroom deal, and all the public hears is that unemployment is down. Yet we're paying millions a year for worse work that could be done nearly for free on existing systems. It adds cost, errors, and increases the time between transactions.

To top it all off, the government keeps getting larger, taking more power unto itself, and removing liberty, money, and power from the people in order to do so.

It's not a good deal, it's never a good deal, and it's always the most expensive way to do anything.

Single payer will absolutely be a worse situation than what we have now, which is clearly worse than what we had before. We'll be doubling our federal taxes (losing 50% of our income), and receiving worse care than we are now, which is vastly worse care at double the cost than we had merely 8 years ago.

 

[GasBandit]

The government doing its job seems to have a problems when some Oligarchs want their *fair* share.

For Profit prisons, For Profit healthcare, For Profit Military Industrial Complex at the expense of Soldiers, For Profit the War on Drugs and the Militarization of Police, For Profit Fossil Fuel Companies and Sorry We Spilled Oil.

It's kind of hard for the government, when "We the People" want it to do it's job, to do it when an avalanche of money is being thrown at it to make sure the folks getting rich, keep getting richer.

On the other hand, apparently everybody can't wait for all health care to be run with the efficiency and caring that the VA has.

I also can hardly believe you slipped in a veiled assertion that we should nationalize the oil industry, especially since the big spill wasn't even an American company.

 

[Shakey]

Single payer will absolutely be a worse situation than what we have now, which is clearly worse than what we had before. We'll be doubling our federal taxes (losing 50% of our income), and receiving worse care than we are now, which is vastly worse care at double the cost than we had merely 8 years ago.

If my federal income tax doubled, it wouldn't even be half of what my insurance costs. If I include what my employer pays and what I put in to my hsa, it's $1300 a month for a family of 4. Just what I myself pay, is about $400 a month. I pay $325 a month right now in federal withholding. If my federal only doubles, I'd say that's a pretty good deal.

 

[Dave]

And that's pretty much the whole point.

 

[Dei]

The fact of the matter is, our government can be pretty fucking terrible when you put them in charge of this shit. Bureaucramancers everywhere. So then you have to ask if you will get out of it what you pay for it, and will it actually be an improvement. For the people who can finally have insurance, it will be better than nothing. But what will it mean for everyone else?

 

[strawman]

If my federal income tax doubled, it wouldn't even be half of what my insurance costs. If I include what my employer pays and what I put in to my hsa, it's $1300 a month for a family of 4. Just what I myself pay, is about $400 a month. I pay $325 a month right now in federal withholding. If my federal only doubles, I'd say that's a pretty good deal.

Then that's a great deal for you, specifically. What about the rest of the US? Also, are you really ok trading your current situation for one where the VA system is your future?

I don't think we should go to single payer. But whether we do or not, there's a lot more broken about the health care system that should be fixed under any system, and I'd much rather have the government look at that, apply regulation where helpful, deregulation where helpful, and change the game so it's profitable enough to run a clinic/urgent care/hospital to encourage people to do so, but removing enough of the overhead, middlemen, and litigation that causes useless price inflation.

It doesn't matter what system we go to - if this isn't fixed on a fundamental level then costs are going to up, up, and up for the foreseeable future.

 

[Shakey]

Then that's a great deal for you, specifically. What about the rest of the US? Also, are you really ok trading your current situation for one where the VA system is your future?

I'd be interested in seeing the actual impact on the rest of the people in the US. From what I've seen, even though I have a high deductible plan, I have it pretty good. If my wife went through her company, we would be paying out of pocket 3 times what I do for less coverage.

We wouldn't be going to a VA system. A better example would be Canada, and I'd be OK with that.[DOUBLEPOST=1462548380,1462548247][/DOUBLEPOST]

It doesn't matter what system we go to - if this isn't fixed on a fundamental level then costs are going to up, up, and up for the foreseeable future.

I do agree with this though. I just don't believe that insurance costs will go down with the cost of medical care, unless we regulate that industry as well. All it will do is pad their profits.

 

[GasBandit]

We wouldn't be going to a VA system. A better example would be Canada, and I'd be OK with that.[DOUBLEPOST=1462548380,1462548247][/DOUBLEPOST]

That sounds like wishful thinking to me.

I do agree with this though. I just don't believe that insurance costs will go down with the cost of medical care, unless we regulate that industry as well. All it will do is pad their profits.

Speaking as a guy whose employer has changed insurance providers 3 times in the last 8 years to get lower costs, market competition IS a thing, and a thing we could increase.

 

[Shakey]

That sounds like wishful thinking to me.

The VA, and the issues with it, come from being both the insurance company and the service provider. We're not talking about taking over all of the hospitals and doctor offices.[DOUBLEPOST=1462549929,1462549537][/DOUBLEPOST]

Speaking as a guy whose employer has changed insurance providers 3 times in the last 8 years to get lower costs, market competition IS a thing, and a thing we could increase.

How much have you actually saved without gutting the benefits?

 

[GasBandit]

How much have you actually saved without gutting the benefits?

I don't have access to the numbers for everybody, only my own numbers and what management told me the reason for switching was - that the insurance company we were on was hiking rates and so we were switching to avoid the rate increase. As it was, the first switch was a large premium increase for me anyway, because we were switching away from a company where I had a high deductible plan and my employer made contributions to an HSA, and the new insurance company didn't offer that plan. The second and third switches, though, ended up being about a 5% or so increase in monthly premiums for me each time, which I was assured was much smaller than the increase we'd have gotten had we stayed put.

The point I was trying to make, though, was that it can be a market where competition is a thing, and it could be even moreso if a lot of the regulatory folderol was removed (remember there was one state pre-obamacare that required health insurance providers to cover hair plugs?). Furthermore, insurance needs to be insurance, not a pre-payment plan for medical care. If we could get back to that mindset, where the little stuff comes out of pocket/HSA but you still have insurance in case of cancer/getting hit by a bus, you'd see medical care prices start to come down (perhaps to what they are already when you tell a doctor you'll be paying up front out of pocket instead of insurance, and that difference is MARKED).

 

[Shakey]

The point I was trying to make, though, was that it can be a market where competition is a thing, and it could be even moreso if a lot of the regulatory folderol was removed (remember there was one state pre-obamacare that required health insurance providers to cover hair plugs?). Furthermore, insurance needs to be insurance, not a pre-payment plan for medical care. If we could get back to that mindset, where the little stuff comes out of pocket/HSA but you still have insurance in case of cancer/getting hit by a bus, you'd see medical care prices start to come down (perhaps to what they are already when you tell a doctor you'll be paying up front out of pocket instead of insurance, and that difference is MARKED).

I'd be interested in seeing a successful example of a system like that. Medical prices will never go down if we allow people to not have health insurance and yet force medical facilities to care for people whether they can pay or not. Those who are covered will always pay for those who aren't one way or another.

I'm not sure health insurance companies want to go too far towards only paying for emergencies. Yearly preventative care is cheaper than hospital visits. I do think HSA's are the way to go though.

 

[Covar]

If my federal income tax doubled, it wouldn't even be half of what my insurance costs. If I include what my employer pays and what I put in to my hsa, it's $1300 a month for a family of 4. Just what I myself pay, is about $400 a month. I pay $325 a month right now in federal withholding. If my federal only doubles, I'd say that's a pretty good deal.

You shouldn't count what your employer pays as part of your insurance cost. You certainly wouldn't get a raise for that amount if they didn't have to pay for it because of the government taking over.

 

[GasBandit]

You shouldn't count what your employer pays as part of your insurance cost. You certainly wouldn't get a raise for that amount if they didn't have to pay for it because of the government taking over.

Wellll, to be fair, I think there's an argument to say you could, if you were essential enough and made an aggressive enough fuss about it. Or if you changed employers, the employer's new calculation about how much they could afford to pay you would be affected. Sort of like the tax calculations post-FairTax.

 

[Shakey]

You shouldn't count what your employer pays as part of your insurance cost. You certainly wouldn't get a raise for that amount if they didn't have to pay for it because of the government taking over.

There's a good chance you would. Insurance is a big selling point for new employees. Without that, they may increase things like pay, 401k matching, or other types of insurance.

Either way, it even just going by what I pay, which is much less than most people, I'd end up with little to no difference.

 

[PatrThom]

I generally get a refund every year, I would not mind doubling that at all!
(yes I realize the illogic of this statement, just trying to head off the inevitable Facebook posts)

--Patrick

 

[Null]

HRC's dirty trick of the day: Hillary Clinton Bagwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schulz stacks the Convention against Sanders.

In a letter to the chairwoman, Sanders noted that of the 45 names he submitted to Democratic National Convention committees, Wasserman Schultz appointed only three people in total, to three committees. None of the people Sanders submitted were chosen to be on the Rules Committee of the Democratic National Convention. Sanders has garnered 45% of the available delegates to this point, and is projected to have a rather favorable boost in May. For the Drafting Committee, DWS suggested each candidate get 4 members, with her selecting the final 7 (for a total of 15). Sanders countered that each campaign get 7 members, with the final 1 to be agreed on by both campaigns. He also noted that the chairs of the Rules Committee and Platform committee have been aggressively campaigning for Hillary, which makes the notion of impartiality rather dubious.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...ratic-national-committee-222895#ixzz47uKr3TmF
http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=Politico

 

[Dave]

Dat bitch needs ta go.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Dat bitch

unnecessary

 

[Denbrought]

unnecessary

Indeed, two syllables where one would rhyme much better: "Dat ho needs ta go" for example.

 

[Null]

Indeed, two syllables where one would rhyme much better: "Dat ho needs ta go" for example.

How do you pronounce "bitch" with two syllables?

 

[Hailey Knight]

How do you pronounce "bitch" with two syllables?

Bi-itch.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[PatrThom]

How do you pronounce "bitch" with two syllables?

"heifer?"

--Patrick

 

[Covar]

Wellll, to be fair, I think there's an argument to say you could, if you were essential enough and made an aggressive enough fuss about it. Or if you changed employers, the employer's new calculation about how much they could afford to pay you would be affected. Sort of like the tax calculations post-FairTax.

Well sure, but that like saying that someone could get a 10% raise every year. When enrollment time comes around look at what is made available to you now if you were to opt out (a reasonable thing to do, if say your spouse had better options). A big change like that would do a lot of harm in the short term. Interestingly enough though it would help highlight causes of the wage gap, at the expense of widening it unfortunately.

 

[Denbrought]

How do you pronounce "bitch" with two syllables?

"Bit-shh", obviously.

I think I meant to highlight how using a word without a coda would work much better, but I was way too tired to use the right term.

 

[Dave]

It's also quite obviously said in a joking fashion. And I will NEVER apologize for anything I say in a joking fashion unless said joking fashion is one specifically designed to be offensive.

To whit: Whatevs.

 

[Sara_2814]

unnecessary

What's uneccessary is White Knighting. It's sexist and offensive to treat women like they are not adult humans with flaws and bad behavior who sometimes deserve vitriol thrown their way. You know, equal to men.

It's also sexist and offensive to speak for women when we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves. If a woman is offended by the usage of 'bitch' here, then she will say something.

BTW, I'm not offended, because Wasserman-Schulz really is a bitch.

 

[PatrThom]

I marked it "LOVE IT!!" because of course I read it in Slappy's voice.

--Patrick

 

[Gruebeard]

It's been a long time since I've heard Slappy's voice, so I can't picture this post as well as you, man. So I could only mark it "Like"

 

[Dei]

Animaniacs is on Netflix now.

 

[Hailey Knight]

What's uneccessary is White Knighting. It's sexist and offensive to treat women like they are not adult humans with flaws and bad behavior who sometimes deserve vitriol thrown their way. You know, equal to men.

It's also sexist and offensive to speak for women when we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves. If a woman is offended by the usage of 'bitch' here, then she will say something.

BTW, I'm not offended, because Wasserman-Schulz really is a bitch.

But Charlie is a man, and that means he knows what's best for women.