Chickens in the Roost

"You have to sign it to read it."

I find it funny that the Dems are freaking out how the new health care plan is being fast tracked.

I heard one complain they only had a few "legislative hours" to go over it, another complain they didn't have enough time to read the less than 500 pages.

It's as if they don't remember their own stunt, or maybe they just always knew how underhanded it was. It's still funny watching them freak out over something that's there for them to read before they sign it or not.

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (25)

  1. stevehayes13

    Double standards is their everyday practice.

    March 08, 2017
    1. Munkyman

      & that’s why I have a hard time finding any respect for the people who follow that line. I try to find something to respect about others, it makes getting inside their head easier & then I can work on figuring out their reason that much better… it’s hard to change a mind until you understand how it got wired the way it is. This takes us back to my issues with the education system & our educators in general, they do nothing to help children learn to think & reason, they are more concerned with memorization & indoctrination. I wanted to respect Bernie & I did until he began supporting Hillary after saying all those truthful things about her.

      March 08, 2017
      1. stevehayes13

        Bernie’s betrayal of his supporters was worthy of a tragedy.

        March 08, 2017
        1. Brn2bfree

          Bernie was a place holder for Hillary. He was a disgrace who folded like a cheap suit. They either paid him off or threatened him.

          March 08, 2017
  2. Brn2bfree

    The Republicans want to see what’s in it before they pass it.

    March 08, 2017
    1. Munkyman

      I’m bummed about this new plan, I don’t think it’s a very good fix. I favor a tax write off for the 1st $10k in premiums & 100% of non elective medical expenses. 100% deduction. I favor allowing those who have no insurance & who earn less than $50k/year & more than the state or regional poverty line to get on Medicare for an additional pretax deduction. Leave Medicaid as it was service for those at or below the poverty line. This way everyone is paying in that has ever payed in, those doing right get a write-off, those on the margin aren’t left to twist in the wind & those “most vulnerable” still get as good a care as Medicaid can offer.
      .
      IN other news I like the idea of offering psychiatric & reintegration services for veterans with an other than honorable discharge, but not a dis-honorable discharge. Not too crazy about giving them the full array of VA benefits, but a lot of them got an OtH discharge because of early signs of PTSD & were booted before they were diagnosed in order to deny them benefits.

      March 08, 2017
      1. wirelessguru1

        Well, they are still reviewing it…

        March 08, 2017
  3. wirelessguru1

    Unlike Obamacare, it is also being openly reviewed…

    March 08, 2017
  4. fuall

    ‘The ’Ol Double Standard’ is the Democrat “go to” move. They use and execute it better than anyone. As far as the “healthcare” bill goes, I’m against ALL of them…because none/neither gives anyone “healthcare.” All either plan does is force commerce in the insurance industry. There’s NOTHING about actual “healthcare” even being discussed. It’s all about access to INSURANCE, affordability of INSURANCE, costs of premiums of INSURANCE,portability of INSURANCE, and number of providers of…you guessed it, INSURANCE! Until we achieve actual healthcare like so many other westernized civilizations, I will oppose ALL OF IT. I realize that actually puts me to the far left on this issue, but I don’t care. Healthcare SHOULD be a ‘right’ and not simply available to those that can pony up the cost assigned by a third party more worried about their profit margin than keeping you alive.
    .
    Look at it this way…there’s no incentive to cure/repair/help you as long as it’s a for-profit scheme controlled by the insurance industry. If you get seriously sick or injured, it’s better for them if you simply die. Treating you on a continuing basis only reduces profits, so there’s no incentive to help you do anything else but expire. If you’re simply sick and can continue to pay, they will treat you, but there’s no incentive to cure you as the profit here is in the return visits and associated fees, as well as the multitudes of prescriptions. As long as you’re continuing to put $$ in, they’ll keep the mill churning to harvest all they can. “There ain’t no money in the cure!” ~Chris Rock
    .
    I get why this is the preferred route taken by both sides. A single-payer system is massive and requires the government to either authorize a new department and increase the government, or authorize some other entity to administer the entitlement for them. Additionally, entitlements already make up 2/3 of the federal budget as it is, and this CANNOT be done, no matter what anyone says, without a substantial tax increase. Not to mention all of the proposed and promised tax cuts would have to be eliminated as well. Add to that the fact that the US economy has been hurting terribly over the last several decade due to the steady decline in manufacturing. We no longer have enough industries to adequately support our workforce, and this adds an entire system of mandated products to sell in the insurance and healthcare sectors. That means more service industry jobs for many people. Everything from insurance to medical equipment and supplies, to transportation and technology.
    .
    The most important thing, though, IMHO, is that there won’t be any fixing it when it’s ingrained into our society, as the ACA has almost managed to become already. Once firmly established, there won’t ever be a way to get rid of it and we will all be stuck needing fucking INSURANCE forever, without the hope of ever seeing any real “healthcare.”

    March 08, 2017
    1. Munkyman

      I have to fight you on healthcare being a right, it’s no more a right than US Highways, it’s a benefit of association. The only “rights” are things you can do for yourself & should be allowed to do for yourself.
      That said I think that a “basic” standard of healthcare is a reasonable benefit & it profits the individual as well as society. I see no reason that a person should fear a broken arm will cost them a year’s wages & for that person to suffer that broken arm without care they become a deep drain on the economy as they are now disabled. So I am fine with what I call triage & trauma as well as vaccinations being a taxpayer funded thing. I favor buyers’ clubs for things like diabetes & heart medication… epilepsy drugs, those are not insurable events, they are maintenance drugs… you don’t insure maintenance you insure malfunction & injury.

      March 08, 2017
      1. fuall

        No surprise I’m going to disagree with you on the “right” aspect. Our government spends several shit-tonnes (absolutely the best measuring system when speaking of gov., by the way) on medical research, subsidies for health research, subsidies for drug/pharmacology development, grants and subsidies for technology development for medical related research, and provides any number of tax breaks and incentives for medically related institutions and businesses, not to mention providing grants and endowments to institutions of higher learning where the advancement of health-related fields are taught. Why? Because funding and helping these efforts is supposed to benefit everyone. Their words, not mine. Every time there’s another justification required for more funding that’s what they say, “to benefit all Americans.” But that doesn’t ever seem to be the case in practice.
        .
        And let’s not lose sight of how this all started to begin with. Remember the 48M “uninsured” citizens that were the impetus for this debacle? Oh, wait, you may remember them from the ACTUAL number of approx. 18M that couldn’t get insurance, which is what it all came down to. Our DEMOCRAT leaders decided for everyone that it would be okay to fuck up the whole system for 300M+ people, to maybe help those 18M that couldn’t get insurance, or access to healthcare any other way. And how many of those have been “helped” by the ACA? Last I heard it was approx. 4M of the 12M registered at that time. Don’t know what portion it is currently, because it doesn’t even matter. Without coverage in every state (expanded Medicaid) there will always be millions of people that have no insurance, no access, and STILL no “healthcare.”

        March 08, 2017
        1. Munkyman

          You could hold ground with that argument, I can get with a right to see value for money invested… instead of being ass raped (really the best term for extortionist practices that employ the government as the element of force) after being generous enough to kick start the research, I’ve heard the argument against it & it holds some water too… that government research is usually just the ground work in 10 years or more of clinical research that could vaporize overnight with one really bad side effect. The pharmaceutical companies are gambling & they have to get new speculation capital out of their successes. The doctors spend a fortune on an education & then on insurance & compliance… they have to earn it back. I have a single shift that would piss off a lot of people invested in the insurance market & profitable hospital groups, the idea is simple… health is not a for profit industry, it is a beneficent endeavor & as such it should be un-taxed, malpractice costs a license not millions in settlements, medical professionals should get “free” education in exchange for working a few years in the public health system. There would still be for profit healthcare & it would be taxed… there’s a difference between evening out a partial mastectomy & going for the world’s largest bra. Take away the profits & most of the BS vanishes. Doctors should earn a good living, but they shouldn’t become multi-millionaires unless they were born millionaires or patented the next new prosthetic….
          .
          All of that aside healthcare isn’t a right, it requires someone else to do something for you, we have no right to expect that… until we give value & then we have every right to expect value in return.

          March 08, 2017
          1. fuall

            Just by your own definition of, “it requires someone else to do something for you, we have no right to expect that” you have to see that this is literally the case…required by law, that patients requiring care cannot be turned away or denied care. That’s part of the argument for requiring the rest of society to participate. Giving away free emergency care, THE most expensive type of care, is a huge burden on the hospitals, the government, and ultimately, the taxpayers that are already having to pay the high price of their insurance. Which may or may not be worth a shit, because there’s no quality standards for those “plans.”
            .
            I like where you’re going with the medical industry as whole, though, and had similar thoughts about the shifting of for-profit care versus elective care. I was thinking of something MUCH more radical though. [Who would’ve guessed! lol!] Like, partially nationalizing the healthcare industry, for starters. I would offer, as you also suggest, free tuition for new doctors. But I would take it a lot further and open that offer up to a whole host of fields, from surgeons to phlebotomists. The caveat, because there has to be one, is that they would all have to serve at least an equivalent amount of time in their respective fields working for the government at public hospitals and clinics. They would be paid a reasonable wage determined by an appropriate committee and would know what that would be in advance. At the end of their pretty literal residency, providing a final review board determines they performed satisfactorily during that time, would then be free to sell their skills to anyone that wished to hire them, and at whatever outrageous salary they can command. This allows for controlled costs for actual healthcare that really is needed by so many Americans today, provides said actual healthcare, and allows for those that can afford their own insurance to go ahead and buy it as they see fit to address whatever expenses may arise from elective procedures as well as treatment at private facilities and private doctors. Couple this with expanding Medicaid nationwide to cover those at or below the poverty level, and then simply update the current anti-discrimination law to include another protected class to address those with pre-existing medical conditions. The wording can be derived from whatever is decided is broad enough to appropriately cover most any/everything you can think of. Easy peasy!!! lol!

            March 09, 2017
            1. Munkyman

              That’s not the same as a right, the requirement is that if you serve anyone you must offer a minimum level of service to everyone… you don’t have to serve anyone, you can be a private facility that only serves members & the person you would have to serve couldn’t even get to the door to ask for help.
              .
              I liked the idea of giving the National Guard back to the Governors, that’s another experiment that has not gone well for the people most affected. The setting up NGuard aid stations at major crossroads in less populated areas, this gets Guardsmen real practice & provides a real benefit to the community beyond disaster response. I think that the poor who have weird diseases should get preferred entry to studies at publicly funded research hospitals & universities, give their families dorm lodgings in the end the difference between poor & rich would be the poor have to go to the treatment & the rich can afford to bring the newest treatments to themselves. I’m big on using what we’ve already got. Put prison labor on road crews & use the Guard infantry & engineers to work with them. No lifers, just people who could use job skills that pay well enough to stay out of prison. The ones who show aptitude get to work on high speed rails & dams when they’re free. It’s not rocket surgery, it just requires putting the partisan BS aside & getting to work on what’s most reasonable & justifiable without adding a bunch of new regulation & ideally cutting/simplifying existing regulations in many areas. The average person commits 3 felonies a day & has no idea what they are…mixing chemicals from under the sink is one of the more common ones, several others involve what people put in the trash.

              March 09, 2017
            2. fuall

              I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree I suppose:

              https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1867.htm#t
              .
              The problem with using NG and Reserve personnel is that they are not permanent and can be called away at any moment, and they usually only have weekend-type commitments, and maybe a couple of weeks. What was their slogan? ‘One weekend a month and two weeks a year,’ I think?. That kind of temporary fix should be avoided and would be absolutely horrible for continuity of care, which is a big deal for many with pre-existing conditions. Shooting for the lowest possible rung is how we got here. Rather than going for what would work, our leaders chose what they could “sell.” (And are apparently okay with that model moving forward.)

              March 09, 2017
            3. fuall

              Remember, the current model isn’t about “healthcare,” it’s about Insurance and commerce.

              March 09, 2017
            4. Munkyman

              I’m for using the NG to staff far flung triage centers that could never make it in a profit model & might not even be justifiable using any other staff. We have a lot of mountainous areas that get shafted when it comes to local care.

              March 09, 2017
            5. fuall

              I get that. But my point is that’s unreliable, and it’s really unfair to get those people used to care that may not be available except on a temporary basis rather than shoot for something permanent that can be applied to EVERYONE and not just one small segment of the poor and HC deprived. What happens if another Iraq-type conflict comes up and the NG has to start doing active duty rotation? Do you think they’ll leave those vital medical supplies and personnel there in the hills of VA, or do you suppose they’ll send them to whatever third-world shit-hole is currently on fire? My guess would be the latter. By setting up permanent facilities and infrastructure there is a reliability factor that can be quantified and calculated to produce results for everyone. Will it still be difficult to get from some remote location? Sure, but it always has been and always will be unless you build a hospital in every nook and cranny in the country. That’s simply not doable, and is far from the most efficient method. By creating the stable infrastructure and services a consistent level of care can be achieved for the vast majority. There will always be “outliers” from any system, which can be addressed in a way appropriate to the circumstance. In the case you mention, it would be far better for everyone to establish a place for consistent care that is accessible to the most people, and then work out transportation and accessibility issues as needed.

              March 10, 2017
            6. Munkyman

              See I want it to be reliable, I don’t think the Guard should be placed under the control until there’s a draft, until then the Guard should belong to the governors as it was supposed to be.

              March 10, 2017
            7. fuall

              But that’s the point. It’s NOT reliable. Simply because their “mission” is one of national defense, and as such, are subject to being called up at any time. That’s simply NOT reliable if your whole hospital/clinic/etc. can simply disappear overnight with no concrete plan to ever return. It’s really unfair to get people used to having care to just rip it out from under them. BUT…if the hospitals and clinics are not for profit public facilities, they could be relied upon to continue providing services. And as I said before, we can’t put a facility in every nook, crack, and cranny in the country, especially if they’re the NG & reserve. But every county would have a hospital and/or clinic that would operate for the public good, and transportation for the minuscule population that can’t get there can be addresses as a transportation/access issue instead of making it part of the “healthcare” issue. There’s no need to complicate one with the other for less than a % or two of the overall population of a given area. Look around the tree right in front of you and you’ll see there’s a whole forest behind it.

              March 10, 2017
          2. Munkyman

            That’s why I’m so opposed to their current “mission” the Guard units are supposed to be homeland defense, civil works engineering, disaster response & martial law… remote medical fits with that mandate, using them to avoid a draft does not.

            March 10, 2017
            1. Munkyman

              I’m very big on the draft, not for the front lines… I think that’s where professional soldiers shine but convoys drivers, boat mechanics… cooks & doctors can all be draftees. I think every citizen should have to complete 2 years of public service before they can vote. It can be the Marine Corps, Peace Corps or AmeriCorps, but we each owe 2 years & then we’re fully vested… even if we never pay $1 in taxes.
              I think the Secret Service needs to go back to currency policing & leave the President to the Marines & the Marines to the President. He can use them without declaring war, he can use JSOC/SOCOM forces without a war, he can use subs in a defensive capacity or as deterrent, but not aggressively without a war. When war IS declared by Congress Then the Army should be filled with draftees & the Navy should select from Draftees along with the Air Force.
              .
              These Guard triage centers I’m envisioning are more basic than I think you see them. I see them as a “bus stop” they are able to deal with a broken bone & able to host a vaccination day, They can distribute basic antibiotics & they can fly more serious cases to the nearest hospital because those pilots need the flight hours anyway. They can be an actual bus stop for the medical buses that have actually proven to be the best way to provide general care to remote areas & urban ghettos alike.

              March 10, 2017
            2. fuall

              “…the Guard units are supposed to be homeland defense, civil works engineering, disaster response & martial law…” Sorry, but that’s incorrect.
              .
              “While federalized, the units answer to the Combatant Commander of the theatre in which they are operating and, ultimately, to the President.”

              “Even when not federalized, the Army National Guard has a federal obligation (or mission.) That mission is to maintain properly trained and equipped units, available for prompt mobilization for war, national emergency, or as otherwise needed.”

              .
              http://www.military.com/national-guard-birthday/army-national-guard-federal-and-state-missions.html
              .
              The clue is right there in the name, ’National Guard.’ And the money comes from the defense budget making it a military expenditure instead of an entitlement, or even a public assistance issue. The main point , again, being lost amongst the trees ie still that it is temporary at best. I really don’t see how you don’t get this. Despite how you feel the NG should be deployed, it isn’t sustainable, isn’t practical, isn’t budgeted, and isn’t reliable to any degree sine we have no idea if/when they would be called away.
              .
              As triage goes they’d be little better at that either. Not every NG unit is a M.A.S.H. unit and doesn’t have the same capability as the next. Sure, they all have some capacity for medical care, but mostly just enough to serve themselves. Unless the NG base is a medical field facility, there’s not likely to be much help they can provide to a large area. They’re designed to operate as a unit at a fixed location, just like a hospital or clinic would. And, finally, I will make yet another attempt to point out that this is a proposed fix for an ultra tiny segment of the population, when there are literally million and millions more that could be helped by doing it another way. There will still be the challenges of rural intervention and treatment no matter what is done or not done, but the NG just isn’t even close to the most practical way.

              March 11, 2017
            3. fuall

              And let’s also not forget that since healthcare isn’t a right, and you don’t think it should be, then there is no justification for spending tens of thousands of dollars on a NG deployment of personnel, supplies, and equipment to chopper out 2 old ladies to their bunion appointments. And there’s no reason a clinic can’t send in nurses for a vaccination day, they’ve been doing all around the undeveloped world for literally more than 50 years.

              March 11, 2017
            4. Munkyman

              They were nationalized, taken from the governors.
              I don’t think health care is a right & it shouldn’t be assumed as one, but it is a value we can agree is worth funding & I’m 100% behind getting your money’s worth out of the things we pay for through taxation. I don’t think anyone would call an old lady’s bunion more serious than a broken bone. A bunion could easily be taken care of by one of those lovely hospital buses that have proven their worth in rural & urban areas already.

              March 11, 2017