And no ice cream until you pass tax cuts Mitch McConnell is serious about at least looking like he's going to kill Obamacare, and has announced the Senate's August recess will be delayed by two weeks so it can catch up on the important work of leaving tens of millions of Americans without health insurance, because those darned Democrats keep preventing Republicans from agreeing on whether the bill should be merely brutal, horrible, and deadly to the poor, or extra-brutal, double-horrible, and mega-deadly to the poor. Also, McConnell is astounded that Democrats
It really is hard to comprehend. I guess for a certain segment of the population, their racism, xenophobia, etc outweighs virtually every other concern. But some large (too lazy to google) percentage of McConnel's constituents are on Medicaid. If he gets away with trashing it, I hope they vote him out. But even that might not be enough.
I am puzzled by this comment. If I understand it, your concern is that a proposed bill regarding healthcare insurance coverage should not be swayed by the estimated impact on healthcare outcomes (i.e., loss of life) through lack of real access to healthcare through insurance. It seems, at a minimum, that you are missing the point of the legislation. Is it deliberate?
I guess it clarifies, but only for arguments based *solely* on the estimated loss of life due to lack of access to health care. It seems to me to be a valid side effect tomention for those who claim that no one has died from lack of health care. Somewhere around here is a video of a congresscritter claiming this very thing at his town hall so there are some who don't get the connection, and some with the power to impact our laws to boot.Oh, here it is, along with commentary by Politifact.http://www.politifact.com/t...
Commemorative? Or are we worried about costs, in which case, maybe 30+ years of cutting revenue (taxes) while expecting the economy to "trickle down" in a golden shower on the masses was a really stupid fucking idea. Or maybe having an incredibly bloated military-industrial complex was a really stupid fucking idea. But yes, let's focus on the UN, NATO, and NAFTA (huh? how the fuck did a free trade agreement get lumped in with diplomatic/protection organizations?).
"After all, during McConnell’s first two years as majority leader, Republicans rushed to confirm a whopping 20 Obama judicial nominees"https://media2.giphy.com/me...
I suggest that the Democrats try to push a bill that guarantees jet fuel for the military for the next 5 to 7 years, then after that, eliminates it. Maybe give the captains of the aircraft carriers and generals of the Air Force bases a voucher for about half the cost and let them use competition and Great Deals™ to supply all the fuel they need. Joe's Exxon and Randy's BP will fight so hard for the local business they can probably get it for 10 cents a gallon. I admit it may be a little harder to get bids for delivery in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, but they have several years to figure something out. After all, as the immediate leaders, they know how to get the most out of a buck. Or a gallon of jet fuel. The Pentagon has no need to get involved.
That makes as much sense as the constant barrage of "competition" from the GOP congressasses that they insist will make health insurance affordable to everyone. And shifting responsibility to the states, who already spend a huge chunk of their budgets for Medicaid. In addition to the fact that the GOP hates competition and has never seen a merger or buy out they didn't love, you cannot get the price of an item below it's cost to produce. At least not for long. So as long as competent doctors want to make enough to pay off their loans and earn a comfortable living, along with experienced nurses, and the bottom level health care workers at least $10 an hour, there is a limit to how low you can get the price of health care. Dumping this on the states will not magically make prices go down. Medicaid is already setting reimbursement rates so low that many health care providers do not take Medicaid patients. And since many states spend at least a third of their budgets on Medicaid and another third on education, they do not have a lot of room to increase spending there.
It really is hard to comprehend. I guess for a certain segment of the population, their racism, xenophobia, etc outweighs virtually every other concern. But some large (too lazy to google) percentage of McConnel's constituents are on Medicaid. If he gets away with trashing it, I hope they vote him out. But even that might not be enough.
I am puzzled by this comment. If I understand it, your concern is that a proposed bill regarding healthcare insurance coverage should not be swayed by the estimated impact on healthcare outcomes (i.e., loss of life) through lack of real access to healthcare through insurance. It seems, at a minimum, that you are missing the point of the legislation. Is it deliberate?
I guess it clarifies, but only for arguments based *solely* on the estimated loss of life due to lack of access to health care. It seems to me to be a valid side effect tomention for those who claim that no one has died from lack of health care. Somewhere around here is a video of a congresscritter claiming this very thing at his town hall so there are some who don't get the connection, and some with the power to impact our laws to boot.Oh, here it is, along with commentary by Politifact.http://www.politifact.com/t...
bingo.
is that true? do they hate each other?
Mine are Ryan and Merkley
I like Dwayne but he's no Terry Crews.
Acronyms?
Pay the person, Shirley.
The Turtle watched a re-run of "Cocoon" and got an idea....
Commemorative? Or are we worried about costs, in which case, maybe 30+ years of cutting revenue (taxes) while expecting the economy to "trickle down" in a golden shower on the masses was a really stupid fucking idea. Or maybe having an incredibly bloated military-industrial complex was a really stupid fucking idea. But yes, let's focus on the UN, NATO, and NAFTA (huh? how the fuck did a free trade agreement get lumped in with diplomatic/protection organizations?).
Those poor acronyms never had a chance.
"After all, during McConnell’s first two years as majority leader, Republicans rushed to confirm a whopping 20 Obama judicial nominees"https://media2.giphy.com/me...
Nonchalant Racist
I suggest that the Democrats try to push a bill that guarantees jet fuel for the military for the next 5 to 7 years, then after that, eliminates it. Maybe give the captains of the aircraft carriers and generals of the Air Force bases a voucher for about half the cost and let them use competition and Great Deals™ to supply all the fuel they need. Joe's Exxon and Randy's BP will fight so hard for the local business they can probably get it for 10 cents a gallon. I admit it may be a little harder to get bids for delivery in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, but they have several years to figure something out. After all, as the immediate leaders, they know how to get the most out of a buck. Or a gallon of jet fuel. The Pentagon has no need to get involved.
That makes as much sense as the constant barrage of "competition" from the GOP congressasses that they insist will make health insurance affordable to everyone. And shifting responsibility to the states, who already spend a huge chunk of their budgets for Medicaid. In addition to the fact that the GOP hates competition and has never seen a merger or buy out they didn't love, you cannot get the price of an item below it's cost to produce. At least not for long. So as long as competent doctors want to make enough to pay off their loans and earn a comfortable living, along with experienced nurses, and the bottom level health care workers at least $10 an hour, there is a limit to how low you can get the price of health care. Dumping this on the states will not magically make prices go down. Medicaid is already setting reimbursement rates so low that many health care providers do not take Medicaid patients. And since many states spend at least a third of their budgets on Medicaid and another third on education, they do not have a lot of room to increase spending there.
You want to penalize pediatric cancer patients?
Why not a % of income everyone pays?
I think the top 0.02% of the population in some rich states have as much income as the bottom 48%.