Off Topic Thread 3.0

So the San Diego Chargers are moving to LA.

Hard luck there San Diego fans. Maybe the Padres care about you.

Podge_irl wrote: »

How the whole medicare not being able to negotiate thing ever came to pass is beyond me. How on earth is it spun as a good thing when being put in law?

Very easy really. "Big Government, blah, blah..", "Unfair competition, blah, blah...", "Socialist policy, blah, blah...".

How hard is that for a Republican dominated legislature to sell?

errlloyd

Off topic thread discussing US domestic healthcare policy is probably the pinnacle. Fair play gents, we're obviously a well informed bunch.

Podge_irl

awec wrote: »

Healthcare and drug company lobbyists would never allow it.

It's all about the $$$.

Or more to the point the legislators who receive obscene sums of money from them and are incapable or unwilling to take them on in the media would never allow it.

How the whole medicare not being able to negotiate thing ever came to pass is beyond me. How on earth is it spun as a good thing when being put in law?

Podge_irl wrote: »

Unfortunately a lot of people are paying the fines instead of paying for health care.

It's a ridiculously cobbled together system - what they really needed was a complete gutting of the whole healthcare system there and rebuilding it. The set up they have is absurd with expensive healthcare plans linked to employment and the government legally forbidden from negotiating on drug prices.

Healthcare and drug company lobbyists would never allow it.

It's all about the $$$.

awec wrote: »

It also forced everyone to have health insurance too and republicans had a field day with that.

It actually forced people to have insurance so that everyone would be paying into the system rather than people just taking out insurance when they got sick.

Not actually true

Podge_irl

awec wrote: »

It also forced everyone to have health insurance too and republicans had a field day with that.

It actually forced people to have insurance so that everyone would be paying into the system rather than people just taking out insurance when they got sick.

Unfortunately a lot of people are paying the fines instead of paying for health care.

It's a ridiculously cobbled together system - what they really needed was a complete gutting of the whole healthcare system there and rebuilding it. The set up they have is absurd with expensive healthcare plans linked to employment and the government legally forbidden from negotiating on drug prices.

sullivlo

Bazzo wrote: »

Fox defending CNN is huge. I find it hilariously ironic that Donald ****ing Trump is losing his **** over unsubstantiated rumours being spread about him.

Imagine how the world would have reacted had Obama lost the plot in the way that Trump did last night, when Trump made the #FakeNews up about him not even being American...

It also forced everyone to have health insurance too and republicans had a field day with that.

It actually forced people to have insurance so that everyone would be paying into the system rather than people just taking out insurance when they got sick.

bilston

Bazzo wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not bad. Nearly every other first world country has it. For it to have worked well though it needed a state run insurer that would have pulled premiums back. Obamacare passed but this aspect of it didn't so while people got insurance (because insurers could no longer prejudice) they just hiked the prices and made it unpopular for people who already had insurance.

The reason by the way that the state run insurer wasn't included was because republicans blocked it.

So Obamacare is a good thing, but without creating competition in a market that runs like a cartel the cost for existing policy holders went up.

It will go back to the way it was or they will bring in a new act that was what the original affordable care act was meant to be. Having a state run business though that acts as a competitor to reduce the profits of other corporations wouldn't fit the republican ideology so it's hard to know.

I try to see both sides of things and be fair and critical in my thinking of things, but the Republicans really are a despicable and fairly hateful crowd.

It'll definitely go back to the way it was, because everybody was content with the status quo of 26,000 American dying every year because they couldn't afford health insurance.

Yeah just like they are content with 100000 Americans dying in 10 years as a result of gun crime...but hey it wouldn't be right for other people to tell them how to run their country...who would do that...

Glad to finally hear the coherent arguments against Obamacare, or at least the reasons why it maybe isn't as strong as it could be.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not bad. Nearly every other first world country has it. For it to have worked well though it needed a state run insurer that would have pulled premiums back. Obamacare passed but this aspect of it didn't so while people got insurance (because insurers could no longer prejudice) they just hiked the prices and made it unpopular for people who already had insurance.

The reason by the way that the state run insurer wasn't included was because republicans blocked it.

So Obamacare is a good thing, but without creating competition in a market that runs like a cartel the cost for existing policy holders went up.

It will go back to the way it was or they will bring in a new act that was what the original affordable care act was meant to be. Having a state run business though that acts as a competitor to reduce the profits of other corporations wouldn't fit the republican ideology so it's hard to know.

I try to see both sides of things and be fair and critical in my thinking of things, but the Republicans really are a despicable and fairly hateful crowd.

It'll definitely go back to the way it was, because everybody was content with the status quo of 26,000 American dying every year because they couldn't afford health insurance.

[Deleted User]

bilston wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the argument against Obamacare is? I just keep hearing from Republicans that is bad for America, but then I read that 20m more Americans can now afford health insurance and I'm genuinely left scratching my head wondering why this is a bad thing.

It's not bad. Nearly every other first world country has it. For it to have worked well though it needed a state run insurer that would have pulled premiums back. Obamacare passed but this aspect of it didn't so while people got insurance (because insurers could no longer prejudice) they just hiked the prices and made it unpopular for people who already had insurance.

The reason by the way that the state run insurer wasn't included was because republicans blocked it.

So Obamacare is a good thing, but without creating competition in a market that runs like a cartel the cost for existing policy holders went up.

It will go back to the way it was or they will bring in a new act that was what the original affordable care act was meant to be. Having a state run business though that acts as a competitor to reduce the profits of other corporations wouldn't fit the republican ideology so it's hard to know.

I try to see both sides of things and be fair and critical in my thinking of things, but the Republicans really are a despicable and fairly hateful crowd.

Buer

bilston wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the argument against Obamacare is? I just keep hearing from Republicans that is bad for America, but then I read that 20m more Americans can now afford health insurance and I'm genuinely left scratching my head wondering why this is a bad thing.

With the poorer elements of society now being provided with healthcare, someone has to foot the bill. Taxes have increased for the wealthier.The cost of private insurance has risen too. There's a knock on impact on the health system too. If there are going to be 20m additional people now able to afford healthcare, is the infrastructure in place to cope with those numbers?

I'm not hugely versed on the situation but it did strike me as a touch of running before being able to walk. It's a massive change to a fundamental element of society and was always going to be extremely controversial.

bilston wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the argument against Obamacare is? I just keep hearing from Republicans that is bad for America, but then I read that 20m more Americans can now afford health insurance and I'm genuinely left scratching my head wondering why this is a bad thing.

For a lot of low-mid income Americans Obamacare has significantly increased the cost of their health insurance. Of course the Obamacare of today is nothing like what was originally envisioned. The Republican congress fought Obama on it every step of the way and the programme ended up being a gutted weak compromise because of that. Which means the Republicans who are largely responsible for its failings can point at it and say "See! We were right!"

bilston wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the argument against Obamacare is? I just keep hearing from Republicans that is bad for America, but then I read that 20m more Americans can now afford health insurance and I'm genuinely left scratching my head wondering why this is a bad thing.

Well there's this kind of misunderstanding (to put it very mildly)

display?key=fd92ebbc52fc43fb98f69e50e7893c13&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redditmedia.com%2Frw3nPEObaPGkAKhh5fautFXXjxGqkz5IiWXH1DaVcJw.png%3Fs%3D553313d55bf4d679093fbeb2880c0226

bilston wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the argument against Obamacare is? I just keep hearing from Republicans that is bad for America, but then I read that 20m more Americans can now afford health insurance and I'm genuinely left scratching my head wondering why this is a bad thing.

Well it's not good for the insurance industry who have to insure people they wouldn't have in the past.

As for why there is so much public disdain for it? Well I'd imagine it has a lot to do with the Republican's masterful play of calling it 'Obamacare' instead of its real name the "Affordable Care Act".

bilston wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the argument against Obamacare is? I just keep hearing from Republicans that is bad for America, but then I read that 20m more Americans can now afford health insurance and I'm genuinely left scratching my head wondering why this is a bad thing.

People who can afford to pay for health insurance have their premiums increased a bit in order to cover those who cannot afford it.

Buer

Bazzo wrote: »

Fox defending CNN is huge. I find it hilariously ironic that Donald ****ing Trump is losing his **** over unsubstantiated rumours being spread about him.

It was put to him yesterday in the press conference that he spread unsubstantiated rumours throughout his campaign in relation to his opponent. He wouldn't answer aside from something along the lines of "It's sad when intelligence is leaked" and moved on.

bilston

Can anyone tell me what the argument against Obamacare is? I just keep hearing from Republicans that is bad for America, but then I read that 20m more Americans can now afford health insurance and I'm genuinely left scratching my head wondering why this is a bad thing.

Fox defending CNN is huge. I find it hilariously ironic that Donald ****ing Trump is losing his **** over unsubstantiated rumours being spread about him.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I thought Buzzfeed published the entire dossier? Not just the salacious stuff.

Whether they should have published anything is another matter. Everyone in teh media and the security services knew about it and were talking about it. A lot of attempts were made to try and substantiate it, but they failed.

There's a wider question of journalistic ethics. Don't publish without substantiation has always been the standard. The likes of WikiLeaks have blurred that boundary I think.

You're right, Buzzfeed just published the dossier instead of waiting to try and substantiate it. Not great practice really.

Unfortunately it gave Trump enough ammo to point at a CNN journalist, refuse to take his question and call him "Fake News" and instead take a question from a Breitbart hack.

Buer wrote: »

CNN's report was fair game. Buzzfeed were the ones who provided the lascivious details on the matter and turned it into the circus.

I thought Buzzfeed published the entire dossier? Not just the salacious stuff.

Whether they should have published anything is another matter. Everyone in teh media and the security services knew about it and were talking about it. A lot of attempts were made to try and substantiate it, but they failed.

There's a wider question of journalistic ethics. Don't publish without substantiation has always been the standard. The likes of WikiLeaks have blurred that boundary I think.

Buer

molloyjh wrote: »

So Fox News have come out against Trump for his response to CNN yesterday. They basically said that CNN followed proper journalistic standards and no reporter should ever be belittled like that by the President elect. That's no small thing at all...

CNN's report was fair game. Buzzfeed were the ones who provided the lascivious details on the matter and turned it into the circus.

sydthebeat wrote: »

its going to be an eventful presidency if he continues with both the main steam media and the intelligent services against him for the next 4 years

Is that not a bit of a stretch?

I'd leave the main steam media out of it. It's too hot a topic.

wp_rathead

molloyjh wrote: »

So Fox News have come out against Trump for his response to CNN yesterday. They basically said that CNN followed proper journalistic standards and no reporter should ever be belittled like that by the President elect. That's no small thing at all...

Shep Smith to be branded a "cuck" in 3,2,1..

sydthebeat

molloyjh wrote: »

So Fox News have come out against Trump for his response to CNN yesterday. They basically said that CNN followed proper journalistic standards and no reporter should ever be belittled like that by the President elect. That's no small thing at all...

its going to be an eventful presidency if he continues with both the main steam media and the intelligent services against him for the next 4 years

awec wrote: »

Is it snowing for anyone?

I am seeing pictures of snow in Dublin, but it's dry as a bone here?

It's going back and forth between snow and rain in the north if England. I'd rather it just snowed..

molloyjh

So Fox News have come out against Trump for his response to CNN yesterday. They basically said that CNN followed proper journalistic standards and no reporter should ever be belittled like that by the President elect. That's no small thing at all...

wp_rathead

Hailshtones out wesht