(05-02-2017 10:54 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 04:01 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  So one GOP congressman says if you have a pre-existing condition and your state drops the protection, just "move to another state".

Another says "people who live good lives" don't have preexisting conditions.

vs.

Jimmy Kimmel's heartfelt plea about his newborn son.


Hmmmm.... Who's winning the PR war today? Tough call.


(The "good lives" guy did at least walk it back...)

Excuse me, but I'll take the guy who straightforwardly acknowledges what proposed changes might mean, even if they may not be what some people want to hear, over limousine liberals using emotional manipulation (Kimmel) and disingenuous statements (Jonathan Gruber, Jon Favreau, Obama) to sell something they have readily acknowledged they could not do straight up. I guess it must be "war" because nothing seems to be off limits. For one side, anyway.

And on a tangential point, I fail to see how incentivizing people to move out of states/areas they can't afford, or to where the jobs are, is so abominable. Yes, I would be in favor of some government subsidies toward that end - that's what compassionate conservatism would look like if people gave it a chance instead of snarkily declaring it an oxymoron. Vast swaths of the high-cost-of-living metro area I live in (Chicago) are dead-end job deserts, the lower cost-of-living states on all sides of us (Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana) have far lower unemployment (not to mention crime) rates, yet the only "solution" people want to talk about is raising the minimum wage to $15 - which we all know will not only speed up automation of low-skill jobs, but advantage higher-educated, higher-skilled job seekers (i.e., not the people the "Fight for $15" crowd is ostensibly fighting for) in the race for the few minimum-wage jobs remaining - so they can magically afford to continue living right where they want to. Meanwhile if they moved just a couple of hours in any direction their standard of living would unquestionably, immediately, and significantly improve.

Similarly there are lots of economically depressed rural counties in this country, especially in the Rust Belt, Appalachia, and the Southeast, where people essentially try to get on Social Security disability on rather flimsy pretenses (and many succeed) because they wouldn't think of moving to where the jobs are.

And in both otherwise completely different places, a similarly diseased culture of dependence and narrow thinking develops that fetishizes the infertile ground around them. (I am aware that I am channeling Hillbilly Elegy now although I honestly haven't read it.) It's madness. Interstate mobility has plummeted in this country and it's a pernicious trend that needs to be reversed. There is no reason that present generations should be above the migratory travels that were much more common in previous generations, even in just the last century.

But the first guy doesn't recognize what the proposed changes might bright - he makes the false equivalency that good choices must = good health. Plenty of healthy people who live good lives fall victim to health issues that are outside of their control every day.

So yeah, I'd rather stick with the limousine liberals over the let 'em die conservative when it comes to the foundational belief of what our healthcare system should do - and that is to attempt to assist those in need without risk of bankrupting them and ruining their life. Be that through direct government intervention (e.g. a single payer) or a more conservative approach (the Bismark model Owl#s always talks about). I firmly disagree with the notion, in this day and age, that you must have done something wrong to get a preexisting condition.

(05-02-2017 11:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I firmly disagree with the notion, in this day and age, that you must have done something wrong to get a preexisting condition.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes maybe yes and no.

Smoking, bad diet, alcohol and drug use, lack of exercise, lots of things can lead to preexisting conditions - diabetes, cancer, cirrhosis.

Or you may develop those diseases and others without the bad lifestyle choices.

I have two of the three diseases above, and did I do anything to cause these diseases? Maybe. I don't know. I didn't use drugs. I did all the others.

(05-02-2017 11:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 10:54 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 04:01 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  So one GOP congressman says if you have a pre-existing condition and your state drops the protection, just "move to another state".

Another says "people who live good lives" don't have preexisting conditions.

vs.

Jimmy Kimmel's heartfelt plea about his newborn son.


Hmmmm.... Who's winning the PR war today? Tough call.


(The "good lives" guy did at least walk it back...)

Excuse me, but I'll take the guy who straightforwardly acknowledges what proposed changes might mean, even if they may not be what some people want to hear, over limousine liberals using emotional manipulation (Kimmel) and disingenuous statements (Jonathan Gruber, Jon Favreau, Obama) to sell something they have readily acknowledged they could not do straight up. I guess it must be "war" because nothing seems to be off limits. For one side, anyway.

And on a tangential point, I fail to see how incentivizing people to move out of states/areas they can't afford, or to where the jobs are, is so abominable. Yes, I would be in favor of some government subsidies toward that end - that's what compassionate conservatism would look like if people gave it a chance instead of snarkily declaring it an oxymoron. Vast swaths of the high-cost-of-living metro area I live in (Chicago) are dead-end job deserts, the lower cost-of-living states on all sides of us (Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana) have far lower unemployment (not to mention crime) rates, yet the only "solution" people want to talk about is raising the minimum wage to $15 - which we all know will not only speed up automation of low-skill jobs, but advantage higher-educated, higher-skilled job seekers (i.e., not the people the "Fight for $15" crowd is ostensibly fighting for) in the race for the few minimum-wage jobs remaining - so they can magically afford to continue living right where they want to. Meanwhile if they moved just a couple of hours in any direction their standard of living would unquestionably, immediately, and significantly improve.

Similarly there are lots of economically depressed rural counties in this country, especially in the Rust Belt, Appalachia, and the Southeast, where people essentially try to get on Social Security disability on rather flimsy pretenses (and many succeed) because they wouldn't think of moving to where the jobs are.

And in both otherwise completely different places, a similarly diseased culture of dependence and narrow thinking develops that fetishizes the infertile ground around them. (I am aware that I am channeling Hillbilly Elegy now although I honestly haven't read it.) It's madness. Interstate mobility has plummeted in this country and it's a pernicious trend that needs to be reversed. There is no reason that present generations should be above the migratory travels that were much more common in previous generations, even in just the last century.

But the first guy doesn't recognize what the proposed changes might bright - he makes the false equivalency that good choices must = good health. Plenty of healthy people who live good lives fall victim to health issues that are outside of their control every day.

So yeah, I'd rather stick with the limousine liberals over the let 'em die conservative when it comes to the foundational belief of what our healthcare system should do - and that is to attempt to assist those in need without risk of bankrupting them and ruining their life. Be that through direct government intervention (e.g. a single payer) or a more conservative approach (the Bismark model Owl#s always talks about). I firmly disagree with the notion, in this day and age, that you must have done something wrong to get a preexisting condition.

I wasn't defending the "preexisting conditions won't be a problem if you live a healthy lifestyle" guy. I agree that is asinine. I was defending the first guy, who I presume was advocating a 50-states experimental laboratory approach. Is there some fundamental reason Kansas simply has to have the same healthcare system as Massachusetts?

(05-03-2017 12:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 11:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I firmly disagree with the notion, in this day and age, that you must have done something wrong to get a preexisting condition.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes maybe yes and no.

Smoking, bad diet, alcohol and drug use, lack of exercise, lots of things can lead to preexisting conditions - diabetes, cancer, cirrhosis.

Or you may develop those diseases and others without the bad lifestyle choices.

I have two of the three diseases above, and did I do anything to cause these diseases? Maybe. I don't know. I didn't use drugs. I did all the others.

Yes OO, that's what I said the notion that you MUST have done something wrong to get a preexisting condition. Plenty of people develop them because of the poor life choices you mention, but plenty have no control in it.

My statement did not rule out the former being true.

(05-03-2017 02:10 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 11:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 10:54 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 04:01 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  So one GOP congressman says if you have a pre-existing condition and your state drops the protection, just "move to another state".

Another says "people who live good lives" don't have preexisting conditions.

vs.

Jimmy Kimmel's heartfelt plea about his newborn son.


Hmmmm.... Who's winning the PR war today? Tough call.


(The "good lives" guy did at least walk it back...)

Excuse me, but I'll take the guy who straightforwardly acknowledges what proposed changes might mean, even if they may not be what some people want to hear, over limousine liberals using emotional manipulation (Kimmel) and disingenuous statements (Jonathan Gruber, Jon Favreau, Obama) to sell something they have readily acknowledged they could not do straight up. I guess it must be "war" because nothing seems to be off limits. For one side, anyway.

And on a tangential point, I fail to see how incentivizing people to move out of states/areas they can't afford, or to where the jobs are, is so abominable. Yes, I would be in favor of some government subsidies toward that end - that's what compassionate conservatism would look like if people gave it a chance instead of snarkily declaring it an oxymoron. Vast swaths of the high-cost-of-living metro area I live in (Chicago) are dead-end job deserts, the lower cost-of-living states on all sides of us (Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana) have far lower unemployment (not to mention crime) rates, yet the only "solution" people want to talk about is raising the minimum wage to $15 - which we all know will not only speed up automation of low-skill jobs, but advantage higher-educated, higher-skilled job seekers (i.e., not the people the "Fight for $15" crowd is ostensibly fighting for) in the race for the few minimum-wage jobs remaining - so they can magically afford to continue living right where they want to. Meanwhile if they moved just a couple of hours in any direction their standard of living would unquestionably, immediately, and significantly improve.

Similarly there are lots of economically depressed rural counties in this country, especially in the Rust Belt, Appalachia, and the Southeast, where people essentially try to get on Social Security disability on rather flimsy pretenses (and many succeed) because they wouldn't think of moving to where the jobs are.

And in both otherwise completely different places, a similarly diseased culture of dependence and narrow thinking develops that fetishizes the infertile ground around them. (I am aware that I am channeling Hillbilly Elegy now although I honestly haven't read it.) It's madness. Interstate mobility has plummeted in this country and it's a pernicious trend that needs to be reversed. There is no reason that present generations should be above the migratory travels that were much more common in previous generations, even in just the last century.

But the first guy doesn't recognize what the proposed changes might bright - he makes the false equivalency that good choices must = good health. Plenty of healthy people who live good lives fall victim to health issues that are outside of their control every day.

So yeah, I'd rather stick with the limousine liberals over the let 'em die conservative when it comes to the foundational belief of what our healthcare system should do - and that is to attempt to assist those in need without risk of bankrupting them and ruining their life. Be that through direct government intervention (e.g. a single payer) or a more conservative approach (the Bismark model Owl#s always talks about). I firmly disagree with the notion, in this day and age, that you must have done something wrong to get a preexisting condition.

I wasn't defending the "preexisting conditions won't be a problem if you live a healthy lifestyle" guy. I agree that is asinine. I was defending the first guy, who I presume was advocating a 50-states experimental laboratory approach. Is there some fundamental reason Kansas simply has to have the same healthcare system as Massachusetts?

Ah, I assumed only the tangential reply was about the moving comment - that each section was related to each of the two non-Kimmel comments.

There's no reason each state needs to have the same healthcare, but I would still argue that we shouldn't be forcing citizens to move states based on the condition of their health, unless they absolutely desire to do so to get treatment above a standard level. I think you have a much stronger argument for employment than for getting treatment for say, a heart abnormality that is a sudden development.

Is it really a good idea to basically tell people they need to uproot their family just to move to a state where, if your body craps out on you suddenly, you will have slightly better coverage?

(05-03-2017 06:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 12:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 11:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I firmly disagree with the notion, in this day and age, that you must have done something wrong to get a preexisting condition.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes maybe yes and no.

Smoking, bad diet, alcohol and drug use, lack of exercise, lots of things can lead to preexisting conditions - diabetes, cancer, cirrhosis.

Or you may develop those diseases and others without the bad lifestyle choices.

I have two of the three diseases above, and did I do anything to cause these diseases? Maybe. I don't know. I didn't use drugs. I did all the others.

Yes OO, that's what I said the notion that you MUST have done something wrong to get a preexisting condition. Plenty of people develop them because of the poor life choices you mention, but plenty have no control in it.

My statement did not rule out the former being true.

Ah, so the difference is between "must" and "may"? I agree few of those factors "must" cause a disease that later becomes a preexisting condition, but it is well known that they have an effect. Some smokers live to be 100, and attribute their long life to a daily cigar. But playing the odds, I do not advocate smoking for my grandchildren. And if the odds say that more people who do activity X will develop Disease Y, and you do Activity X anyway, and develop Disease Y, are you truly blameless?

I sure wish I had never smoked, never drank, and always exercised and watched my diet, but those were not the choices I made. Glad to hear I am blameless for my current plight.

I was finally able to quit smoking when it reached a point where I got a direct one-to-one bad result - bum a cigarette, get a sore throat. Too bad the bad effects of lifestyle choices are not so clear.

(05-03-2017 06:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 02:10 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 11:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 10:54 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 04:01 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  So one GOP congressman says if you have a pre-existing condition and your state drops the protection, just "move to another state".

Another says "people who live good lives" don't have preexisting conditions.

vs.

Jimmy Kimmel's heartfelt plea about his newborn son.


Hmmmm.... Who's winning the PR war today? Tough call.


(The "good lives" guy did at least walk it back...)

Excuse me, but I'll take the guy who straightforwardly acknowledges what proposed changes might mean, even if they may not be what some people want to hear, over limousine liberals using emotional manipulation (Kimmel) and disingenuous statements (Jonathan Gruber, Jon Favreau, Obama) to sell something they have readily acknowledged they could not do straight up. I guess it must be "war" because nothing seems to be off limits. For one side, anyway.

And on a tangential point, I fail to see how incentivizing people to move out of states/areas they can't afford, or to where the jobs are, is so abominable. Yes, I would be in favor of some government subsidies toward that end - that's what compassionate conservatism would look like if people gave it a chance instead of snarkily declaring it an oxymoron. Vast swaths of the high-cost-of-living metro area I live in (Chicago) are dead-end job deserts, the lower cost-of-living states on all sides of us (Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana) have far lower unemployment (not to mention crime) rates, yet the only "solution" people want to talk about is raising the minimum wage to $15 - which we all know will not only speed up automation of low-skill jobs, but advantage higher-educated, higher-skilled job seekers (i.e., not the people the "Fight for $15" crowd is ostensibly fighting for) in the race for the few minimum-wage jobs remaining - so they can magically afford to continue living right where they want to. Meanwhile if they moved just a couple of hours in any direction their standard of living would unquestionably, immediately, and significantly improve.

Similarly there are lots of economically depressed rural counties in this country, especially in the Rust Belt, Appalachia, and the Southeast, where people essentially try to get on Social Security disability on rather flimsy pretenses (and many succeed) because they wouldn't think of moving to where the jobs are.

And in both otherwise completely different places, a similarly diseased culture of dependence and narrow thinking develops that fetishizes the infertile ground around them. (I am aware that I am channeling Hillbilly Elegy now although I honestly haven't read it.) It's madness. Interstate mobility has plummeted in this country and it's a pernicious trend that needs to be reversed. There is no reason that present generations should be above the migratory travels that were much more common in previous generations, even in just the last century.

But the first guy doesn't recognize what the proposed changes might bright - he makes the false equivalency that good choices must = good health. Plenty of healthy people who live good lives fall victim to health issues that are outside of their control every day.

So yeah, I'd rather stick with the limousine liberals over the let 'em die conservative when it comes to the foundational belief of what our healthcare system should do - and that is to attempt to assist those in need without risk of bankrupting them and ruining their life. Be that through direct government intervention (e.g. a single payer) or a more conservative approach (the Bismark model Owl#s always talks about). I firmly disagree with the notion, in this day and age, that you must have done something wrong to get a preexisting condition.

I wasn't defending the "preexisting conditions won't be a problem if you live a healthy lifestyle" guy. I agree that is asinine. I was defending the first guy, who I presume was advocating a 50-states experimental laboratory approach. Is there some fundamental reason Kansas simply has to have the same healthcare system as Massachusetts?

Ah, I assumed only the tangential reply was about the moving comment - that each section was related to each of the two non-Kimmel comments.

There's no reason each state needs to have the same healthcare, but I would still argue that we shouldn't be forcing citizens to move states based on the condition of their health, unless they absolutely desire to do so to get treatment above a standard level. I think you have a much stronger argument for employment than for getting treatment for say, a heart abnormality that is a sudden development.

Is it really a good idea to basically tell people they need to uproot their family just to move to a state where, if your body craps out on you suddenly, you will have slightly better coverage?

Well, if another state has some specific element of coverage you need, such as coverage of your specific preexisting condition, it's not just "slightly better," it's lifesaving, right? Health insurance prevents death, or so I've been told. So the coverage that you allegedly need to live would seem worth moving for. There are worse things in life than uprooting one's family, death being one of those. Or there is always the option of staying in place and advocating through the political process for your state to reform its healthcare system to your liking. But as I said, I would be in favor of helping the truly needy to move (maybe through tax deductions or credits for moving expenses?) to access the coverage they truly need if their state doesn't have it.

As we have seen, finding a "standard level" to apply across all 50 states is a rather tendentious process and resulted in a raw power play, top-down diktat that all policies must include all sorts of bells and whistles. Which is why we are still having a national debate about this issue 8 years later.

(05-03-2017 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 06:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 12:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 11:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I firmly disagree with the notion, in this day and age, that you must have done something wrong to get a preexisting condition.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes maybe yes and no.

Smoking, bad diet, alcohol and drug use, lack of exercise, lots of things can lead to preexisting conditions - diabetes, cancer, cirrhosis.

Or you may develop those diseases and others without the bad lifestyle choices.

I have two of the three diseases above, and did I do anything to cause these diseases? Maybe. I don't know. I didn't use drugs. I did all the others.

Yes OO, that's what I said the notion that you MUST have done something wrong to get a preexisting condition. Plenty of people develop them because of the poor life choices you mention, but plenty have no control in it.

My statement did not rule out the former being true.

Ah, so the difference is between "must" and "may"? I agree few of those factors "must" cause a disease that later becomes a preexisting condition, but it is well known that they have an effect. Some smokers live to be 100, and attribute their long life to a daily cigar. But playing the odds, I do not advocate smoking for my grandchildren. And if the odds say that more people who do activity X will develop Disease Y, and you do Activity X anyway, and develop Disease Y, are you truly blameless?

I sure wish I had never smoked, never drank, and always exercised and watched my diet, but those were not the choices I made. Glad to hear I am blameless for my current plight.

I was finally able to quit smoking when it reached a point where I got a direct one-to-one bad result - bum a cigarette, get a sore throat. Too bad the bad effects of lifestyle choices are not so clear.

OO, you are just in a different world right now.

The difference is the suggestion by the person quoted that there is a direct correlation between preexisting conditions and lifestyle choices, an if A then B type relationship, which frankly doesn't exist.

But the opposite, which you're suggesting, that B will happen no matter what, is not something I am advocating for. I was not trying to suggest that there are no activities that increase your cancer risk - hell, I work in a field where that is one of our primary concerns.

I'm frankly confused as to what point you're trying to make.

(05-03-2017 09:59 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 06:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 02:10 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 11:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 10:54 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Excuse me, but I'll take the guy who straightforwardly acknowledges what proposed changes might mean, even if they may not be what some people want to hear, over limousine liberals using emotional manipulation (Kimmel) and disingenuous statements (Jonathan Gruber, Jon Favreau, Obama) to sell something they have readily acknowledged they could not do straight up. I guess it must be "war" because nothing seems to be off limits. For one side, anyway.

And on a tangential point, I fail to see how incentivizing people to move out of states/areas they can't afford, or to where the jobs are, is so abominable. Yes, I would be in favor of some government subsidies toward that end - that's what compassionate conservatism would look like if people gave it a chance instead of snarkily declaring it an oxymoron. Vast swaths of the high-cost-of-living metro area I live in (Chicago) are dead-end job deserts, the lower cost-of-living states on all sides of us (Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana) have far lower unemployment (not to mention crime) rates, yet the only "solution" people want to talk about is raising the minimum wage to $15 - which we all know will not only speed up automation of low-skill jobs, but advantage higher-educated, higher-skilled job seekers (i.e., not the people the "Fight for $15" crowd is ostensibly fighting for) in the race for the few minimum-wage jobs remaining - so they can magically afford to continue living right where they want to. Meanwhile if they moved just a couple of hours in any direction their standard of living would unquestionably, immediately, and significantly improve.

Similarly there are lots of economically depressed rural counties in this country, especially in the Rust Belt, Appalachia, and the Southeast, where people essentially try to get on Social Security disability on rather flimsy pretenses (and many succeed) because they wouldn't think of moving to where the jobs are.

And in both otherwise completely different places, a similarly diseased culture of dependence and narrow thinking develops that fetishizes the infertile ground around them. (I am aware that I am channeling Hillbilly Elegy now although I honestly haven't read it.) It's madness. Interstate mobility has plummeted in this country and it's a pernicious trend that needs to be reversed. There is no reason that present generations should be above the migratory travels that were much more common in previous generations, even in just the last century.

But the first guy doesn't recognize what the proposed changes might bright - he makes the false equivalency that good choices must = good health. Plenty of healthy people who live good lives fall victim to health issues that are outside of their control every day.

So yeah, I'd rather stick with the limousine liberals over the let 'em die conservative when it comes to the foundational belief of what our healthcare system should do - and that is to attempt to assist those in need without risk of bankrupting them and ruining their life. Be that through direct government intervention (e.g. a single payer) or a more conservative approach (the Bismark model Owl#s always talks about). I firmly disagree with the notion, in this day and age, that you must have done something wrong to get a preexisting condition.

I wasn't defending the "preexisting conditions won't be a problem if you live a healthy lifestyle" guy. I agree that is asinine. I was defending the first guy, who I presume was advocating a 50-states experimental laboratory approach. Is there some fundamental reason Kansas simply has to have the same healthcare system as Massachusetts?

Ah, I assumed only the tangential reply was about the moving comment - that each section was related to each of the two non-Kimmel comments.

There's no reason each state needs to have the same healthcare, but I would still argue that we shouldn't be forcing citizens to move states based on the condition of their health, unless they absolutely desire to do so to get treatment above a standard level. I think you have a much stronger argument for employment than for getting treatment for say, a heart abnormality that is a sudden development.

Is it really a good idea to basically tell people they need to uproot their family just to move to a state where, if your body craps out on you suddenly, you will have slightly better coverage?

Well, if another state has some specific element of coverage you need, such as coverage of your specific preexisting condition, it's not just "slightly better," it's lifesaving, right? Health insurance prevents death, or so I've been told. So the coverage that you allegedly need to live would seem worth moving for. There are worse things in life than uprooting one's family, death being one of those. Or there is always the option of staying in place and advocating through the political process for your state to reform its healthcare system to your liking. But as I said, I would be in favor of helping the truly needy to move (maybe through tax deductions or credits for moving expenses?) to access the coverage they truly need if their state doesn't have it.

As we have seen, finding a "standard level" to apply across all 50 states is a rather tendentious process and resulted in a raw power play, top-down diktat that all policies must include all sorts of bells and whistles. Which is why we are still having a national debate about this issue 8 years later.

But what if it isn't a condition you are aware of until you need emergency care, a la Kimmel?

I understanding moving around based on career, but not because one state offers health care plans that better cover catastrophic injuries or sudden illness. To me, that seems a bit off.

But this gets to the crux of the disagreement between a lot of liberals and conservatives - the idea of whether or not the federal government should (or can) dictate where the bottom is with regards to healthcare coverage.

I'm all for letting states experiment with ways to provide better coverage, but I think all of them should have a robust bottom.

(05-03-2017 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 06:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 12:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 11:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I firmly disagree with the notion, in this day and age, that you must have done something wrong to get a preexisting condition.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes maybe yes and no.

Smoking, bad diet, alcohol and drug use, lack of exercise, lots of things can lead to preexisting conditions - diabetes, cancer, cirrhosis.

Or you may develop those diseases and others without the bad lifestyle choices.

I have two of the three diseases above, and did I do anything to cause these diseases? Maybe. I don't know. I didn't use drugs. I did all the others.

Yes OO, that's what I said the notion that you MUST have done something wrong to get a preexisting condition. Plenty of people develop them because of the poor life choices you mention, but plenty have no control in it.

My statement did not rule out the former being true.

Ah, so the difference is between "must" and "may"? I agree few of those factors "must" cause a disease that later becomes a preexisting condition, but it is well known that they have an effect. Some smokers live to be 100, and attribute their long life to a daily cigar. But playing the odds, I do not advocate smoking for my grandchildren. And if the odds say that more people who do activity X will develop Disease Y, and you do Activity X anyway, and develop Disease Y, are you truly blameless?

I sure wish I had never smoked, never drank, and always exercised and watched my diet, but those were not the choices I made. Glad to hear I am blameless for my current plight.

I was finally able to quit smoking when it reached a point where I got a direct one-to-one bad result - bum a cigarette, get a sore throat. Too bad the bad effects of lifestyle choices are not so clear.

OO, you are just in a different world right now.

The difference is the suggestion by the person quoted that there is a direct correlation between preexisting conditions and lifestyle choices, an if A then B type relationship, which frankly doesn't exist.

But the opposite, which you're suggesting, that B will happen no matter what, is not something I am advocating for. I was not trying to suggest that there are no activities that increase your cancer risk - hell, I work in a field where that is one of our primary concerns.

I'm frankly confused as to what point you're trying to make.

It's the first line of post 202.

(05-03-2017 12:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 06:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 12:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes maybe yes and no.

Smoking, bad diet, alcohol and drug use, lack of exercise, lots of things can lead to preexisting conditions - diabetes, cancer, cirrhosis.

Or you may develop those diseases and others without the bad lifestyle choices.

I have two of the three diseases above, and did I do anything to cause these diseases? Maybe. I don't know. I didn't use drugs. I did all the others.

Yes OO, that's what I said the notion that you MUST have done something wrong to get a preexisting condition. Plenty of people develop them because of the poor life choices you mention, but plenty have no control in it.

My statement did not rule out the former being true.

Ah, so the difference is between "must" and "may"? I agree few of those factors "must" cause a disease that later becomes a preexisting condition, but it is well known that they have an effect. Some smokers live to be 100, and attribute their long life to a daily cigar. But playing the odds, I do not advocate smoking for my grandchildren. And if the odds say that more people who do activity X will develop Disease Y, and you do Activity X anyway, and develop Disease Y, are you truly blameless?

I sure wish I had never smoked, never drank, and always exercised and watched my diet, but those were not the choices I made. Glad to hear I am blameless for my current plight.

I was finally able to quit smoking when it reached a point where I got a direct one-to-one bad result - bum a cigarette, get a sore throat. Too bad the bad effects of lifestyle choices are not so clear.

OO, you are just in a different world right now.

The difference is the suggestion by the person quoted that there is a direct correlation between preexisting conditions and lifestyle choices, an if A then B type relationship, which frankly doesn't exist.

But the opposite, which you're suggesting, that B will happen no matter what, is not something I am advocating for. I was not trying to suggest that there are no activities that increase your cancer risk - hell, I work in a field where that is one of our primary concerns.

I'm frankly confused as to what point you're trying to make.

It's the first line of post 202.

I guess I took your response to a single line of text I wrote as a response to it and one that was not in agreement/was countering it - did I read that wrong?

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't amused how Ryan/Trump are pushing this through without even waiting for the CBO scoring after the past 7 years of whining about how the ACA was pushed through.

How many of Trump's campaign promises does this bill violate?

(05-04-2017 10:06 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I'd be lying if I said I wasn't amused how Ryan/Trump are pushing this through without even waiting for the CBO scoring after the past 7 years of whining about how the ACA was pushed through.

How many of Trump's campaign promises does this bill violate?

Hell no you can't tell us how amused you are.

(05-04-2017 10:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 10:06 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I'd be lying if I said I wasn't amused how Ryan/Trump are pushing this through without even waiting for the CBO scoring after the past 7 years of whining about how the ACA was pushed through.

How many of Trump's campaign promises does this bill violate?

Hell no you can't tell us how amused you are.

I had forgotten about that clip, LOL. In fairness, that was completely different. Obama was nefariously trying to expand access to health care, especially for the sick and the poor. Very un-Christian.

This bill takes away health care from millions, particularly the most vulnerable (and even has a little bit in there to devastate special education) all to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Just like Jesus would do if he were president.

Damn special needs kids. Bunch of takers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/us/po....html?_r=0

I hate to break into the RL15/JAAO debate. I always love watching a volleyball match where both teams are on the same side of the net.

BUT...
what do you guys want to happen?

Is it just a Trump defeat you are rooting for? I think if Hillary had won, we would be doing much the same thing, except it would be called Repair and Enhance instead of Repeal and Replace. Just about everybody felt Obamacare as it stood was teetering toward implosion.

So, IMO, the best way for Democrats to influence how this law is modified is to participate in the molding of it, rather than just being obstructionist.

We built this edifice, now it needs repair, not protection.

So, I repeat, what do you guys want to happen?

(05-04-2017 11:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I hate to break into the RL15/JAAO debate. I always love watching a volleyball match where both teams are on the same side of the net.

BUT...
what do you guys want to happen?

Is it just a Trump defeat you are rooting for? I think if Hillary had won, we would be doing much the same thing, except it would be called Repair and Enhance instead of Repeal and Replace. Just about everybody felt Obamacare as it stood was teetering toward implosion.

So, IMO, the best way for Democrats to influence how this law is modified is to participate in the molding of it, rather than just being obstructionist.

We built this edifice, now it needs repair, not protection.

So, I repeat, what do you guys want to happen?

OO, I wasn't debating, I was just posting a youtube clip that, in light of current proceedings, is pretty darn funny.

Do you not see the irony?

As to what I would like to happen, I would like to see Dems and Reps work together, however, I don't think either of them want to do that. As it stands, it seems like neither party is willing to stomach the foundation that the other party wants to build healthcare around. For Dems, they can't stomach that Reps want to, in essence, remove a minimum requirement for insurance that is imposed at a federal level. For Reps, they can't stomach that Dems want to use the federal government to set a minimum level.

Until either side can take a step back and actually try and think of a different approach to solving the problem our country faces, neither side will be willing to work with the other.

Cus I tell you what, the Reps appear just as willing to not work with Dems as the Dems appear to be unwilling to work with Reps.

So if I had to tell the Dems to do one thing, it would be to get the Reps to work on a minimum requirement that each state must meet, but is free to implement how they see fit (if this is even feasible). That would at least remove the federalist issue many Reps proclaim as their big opposition to the ACA.

So OO, what would YOU like the Republicans to do to get the Dems to work with them?

The only thing this cohort of Republicans and Democrats will work on together is how to f*** over everyone that isn't them.

(05-04-2017 11:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 11:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I hate to break into the RL15/JAAO debate. I always love watching a volleyball match where both teams are on the same side of the net.

BUT...
what do you guys want to happen?

Is it just a Trump defeat you are rooting for? I think if Hillary had won, we would be doing much the same thing, except it would be called Repair and Enhance instead of Repeal and Replace. Just about everybody felt Obamacare as it stood was teetering toward implosion.

So, IMO, the best way for Democrats to influence how this law is modified is to participate in the molding of it, rather than just being obstructionist.

We built this edifice, now it needs repair, not protection.

So, I repeat, what do you guys want to happen?

OO, I wasn't debating, I was just posting a youtube clip that, in light of current proceedings, is pretty darn funny.

Do you not see the irony?

As to what I would like to happen, I would like to see Dems and Reps work together, however, I don't think either of them want to do that. As it stands, it seems like neither party is willing to stomach the foundation that the other party wants to build healthcare around. For Dems, they can't stomach that Reps want to, in essence, remove a minimum requirement for insurance that is imposed at a federal level. For Reps, they can't stomach that Dems want to use the federal government to set a minimum level.

Until either side can take a step back and actually try and think of a different approach to solving the problem our country faces, neither side will be willing to work with the other.

Cus I tell you what, the Reps appear just as willing to not work with Dems as the Dems appear to be unwilling to work with Reps.

So if I had to tell the Dems to do one thing, it would be to get the Reps to work on a minimum requirement that each state must meet, but is free to implement how they see fit (if this is even feasible). That would at least remove the federalist issue many Reps proclaim as their big opposition to the ACA.

So OO, what would YOU like the Republicans to do to get the Dems to work with them?

Somebody has to make the first move. I wonder why it must be the party in the majority.

I think if dems want to have input in the baking of the cake, they first must offer an ingredient. At this point, all I hear are arguments for retaining the status quo. There has to be somebody saying "if you want our votes, we want this accommodation". I think that the current party in that role is the Dems.

The alternative is to make sure all attempts to make changes fail, a short term win for the Dems but a long term loser for them as Obamacare starts showing fatal cracks. They would then own the failure.

My guess from the debate is that you would want some accommodation on pre-existing conditions. Is that correct, and if so, what form would this take?

Things that could be considered pre-existing conditions if this bill becomes law:

- domestic violence
- sexual assault
- C-section
- postpartum depression

But what do you expect from a ticket that has one guy who lusts after 12 year olds and brags about sexually assaulting women and another that thinks it's still 1632.