[Discussion] Health Policies and ACA Reform/Repeal

The existing health thread is for discussion on how changes to current policy will/have personally affected you or those you know. This thread is for more general discussion of the subject.

bekkilyn wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6VsgCgUoAA6bPQ.jpg)

p0wn3d

I'm gonna put this here, since I think it might be related to what I posted. To be honest,, I had thoughts of this even before I saw this story on CBS News.

Woman sues fake news site for stealing identity, turning her into right-wing blogger

SEATTLE -- Laura Hunter is a photographer, beauty queen and, politically, someone who leans “a bit more to the liberal side.”

But since August, she has been turned into a fake far-right blogger, one espousing anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and very pro-Trump views. On the internet, her identity has been hijacked, causing her very real problems in the real world.

“That’s a picture of me. That’s my name,” Hunter said, looking at the articles that appear on a site called the Conservative Daily Post using her name and likeness. “It’s bigoted. It’s racist. I’m not those things.”

Since filing the lawsuit, Hunter’s picture on the site has been replaced by a generic avatar. Then something bizarre happened: fans of Hunter’s online persona got angry, and came after her.

“They think I’m the fake,” she said. “They go ballistic, and ‘how dare you,’ and ‘she is such a wonderful woman and you are just riding her coattails.’”

Fake news sites can generate thousands of dollars in ad revenue, but they operate in the shadows. Laura isn’t sure she’ll receive damages. She just wants to restore her damaged reputation.

I have to wonder just how many Russian trolls we are reacting to. What I never considered was how these twitter accounts can not only be fake, but using the real identities of people. The real life Carol Bannon may not have any idea what is being posted under her name. I don't know that her Twitter count is fake. But it would make more sense than her being real, once you look at her feed.

Stengah wrote:

AMA isn't a government agency.

It won't mean he won't try. The choice of a British ambassador is not up to the SCROTUS either.

Jayhawker wrote:

]

I have to wonder just how many Russian trolls we are reacting to. What I never considered was how these twitter accounts can not only be fake, but using the real identities of people. The real life Carol Bannon may not have any idea what is being posted under her name. I don't know that her Twitter count is fake. But it would make more sense than her being real, once you look at her feed.

Quite sad if it turned out to be true. I don't use Twitter much anymore other than looking at various links people post, so would have very little idea of this sort of thing happening.

I actually suspect that this is very, very, incredibly common. The reason is that that pattern is far harder for Twitter to catch. While a new account isn't necessarily a bot (after all I created a twitter account in the last three months solely with the intent of following this politic stuff better) it's still more suspicious. However an account that has already been around for a couple years has quite possibly already passed any "is this a real account" checks that Twitter has implemented. Whatever markers they may be looking for: number of friends, frequency of adding new friends/followers, etc, etc, are unique and more real, and hence safer, than whatever generation algorithm they've derived for new accounts.

There are some services that make your account credentials stale after a quarter/ half of a year/year of absence for just this reason. Sometimes they only make you re-verify your email address, sometimes they may make you reset your password, not because the password would have expired if you had continued using the account, but because of the chance that your account has been abandoned and then taken over from re-used passwords or whatnot.

Jayhawker wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6VsgCgUoAA6bPQ.jpg)

p0wn3d

I'm gonna put this here, since I think it might be related to what I posted. To be honest,, I had thoughts of this even before I saw this story on CBS News.

Woman sues fake news site for stealing identity, turning her into right-wing blogger

SEATTLE -- Laura Hunter is a photographer, beauty queen and, politically, someone who leans “a bit more to the liberal side.”

But since August, she has been turned into a fake far-right blogger, one espousing anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and very pro-Trump views. On the internet, her identity has been hijacked, causing her very real problems in the real world.

“That’s a picture of me. That’s my name,” Hunter said, looking at the articles that appear on a site called the Conservative Daily Post using her name and likeness. “It’s bigoted. It’s racist. I’m not those things.”

Since filing the lawsuit, Hunter’s picture on the site has been replaced by a generic avatar. Then something bizarre happened: fans of Hunter’s online persona got angry, and came after her.

“They think I’m the fake,” she said. “They go ballistic, and ‘how dare you,’ and ‘she is such a wonderful woman and you are just riding her coattails.’”

Fake news sites can generate thousands of dollars in ad revenue, but they operate in the shadows. Laura isn’t sure she’ll receive damages. She just wants to restore her damaged reputation.

I have to wonder just how many Russian trolls we are reacting to. What I never considered was how these twitter accounts can not only be fake, but using the real identities of people. The real life Carol Bannon may not have any idea what is being posted under her name. I don't know that her Twitter count is fake. But it would make more sense than her being real, once you look at her feed.

I would have disagreed until I got to this particular part (each word a separate link there).

Either she's SUPER into talking about how celebrities just need to shut up about politics (while championing a celebrity turned politician)... or she might be a fake-ish account, hard to tell, but that's the point we're at too. -_-;;

Tkyl wrote:

-A tax on not having insurance encourages people to buy insurance. An increased premium encourages people to not buy insurance if it lapses.

Could Republicans have been any more transparent here? It literally punishes people for wanting to get health insurance.

bekkilyn wrote:

I was reading a comment somewhere this morning from a person who was listing expenses from having broken an ankle during white water rafting, with the implication that even a small accident would cost way, way more than a $500 phone, and someone responded that injuries from such activities shouldn't be covered by insurance as others shouldn't have to pay for people making "stupid, dangerous" choices.

So in their mind, there needs to be people who have the final say on whether or not an injury was caused by a stupid, dangerous choice?

And when this "panel" of experts decide insurance won't pay for treatment of a life-threatening injury, but the injured party can't afford treatment and dies...

that would make it some kind of "death panel", wouldn't it?

I don't think anyone is naive enough to think republicans were opposed to death panels - they simply want to be the sitting on the panel.

They're called "Life Panels" when the Republicans do it.

Yonder wrote:

They're called "Life Panels" when the Republicans do it.

LOL

Alt-life panels?

Chaz wrote:

Alt-life panels?

Or even Alt-Life-Delete!

SuperPACs Pay Jason Chaffetz's Phone Bills

TrumpCare Loaded With Tax Cuts For The Rich (NONE For Middle Class)

Trump to conservative leaders: If this plan fails, I'll blame Democrats

In an Oval Office meeting featuring several leaders of conservative groups already lining up against the House Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, President Donald Trump revealed his plan in the event the GOP effort fails: Allow Obamcare to fail and let Democrats take the blame, sources at the gathering told CNN.
During the hour-long meeting, sources said Trump chastised the groups -- including Club for Growth, the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Patriots -- for calling the House GOP proposal "Obamacare lite," warning the tea party activists, "you are helping the other side."

The American Health Care Act: A Republican Response to The Affordable Care Act

They spent 6 of their 66 pages talking about how lottery winners won't be eligible for medicaid? Is this really an issue? I mean, all these millions of lottery winners?

*edit*
I also liked the summary where he was like yeah, this is basically obamacare lite with the major differences being shifting aid from the poor to the "not so poor" and radically changing medicaid after 2020. Ugh.

Gotta love how he chastised the Heritage Foundation, otherwise known as the original writers for a good portion of the individual mandate.

Kehama wrote:

They spent 6 of their 66 pages talking about how lottery winners won't be eligible for medicaid? Is this really an issue? I mean, all these millions of lottery winners?

edit: Remember the obsession with 'pork'? Cutting the 'waste'? The 'government fat'? I think to a large extent Republican/Conservative thinking on economics is guided by the belief that if you spend money in accordance with their ideas about morality, the economics will magically take care of itself.

It's almost a perfect example of that kind of thinking: lottery winners getting Medicaid is a big moral problem. Therefore, it must be a big economic problem.

That thinking is perfectly in line with the often stated belief of if we make this a "Christian Nation" following "Christian principles" then God will bless the nation with prosperity. To many conservative Christians there is no problem here. I was raised in the Church of God and I was constantly bombarded with this idea. If the US government says it's "okay" to be a homosexual then God will punish the nation. If the government outlaws abortion God will bless all of us for following His law.

The same idea came up in regards to tithing. If you're not familiar, when you tithe to the church you're supposed to pay 10% of your income to the church. My dad was a mechanic and my mom didn't work so money was extremely tight. Often my dad would say there was no way we could give the church 10% of his paycheck because we would either have to not pay some bills or not buy food. My mom's response was always if he would just give the money as God instructed then God would make it possible for us to pay our bills. We just had to have faith. That's perfectly in line with this moral financing of the country. If we enact laws that is in line with "God's will" then He will make sure everything can get funded. It really is magical accounting. If those policies get put in place and things go belly up then obviously it's because not ALL of the people in the country are following God's law and because some place like California lets people use whatever bathroom they want, God is punishing the nation as a whole. There's always an out and the answer to fixing things is just "more faith".

I'm still digesting this. I'm not sure I can comment civilly. Twitter Video Clip

Great. I don't have cancer. I should be able to pick a plan that excludes coverage for cancer, since I don't have it. Then, when I get cancer, I'm sure I'll be able to find a plan that includes cancer coverage for virtually the same price, because that's how insurance works, right?

I'm really unclear if the GOP members just don't understand how insurance and shared risk pools work, if they understand and are just pretending they don't, or if they understand and have a fundamental moral disagreement with sharing the costs. In which case, I look forward to their impending crusade against mandatory car insurance.

It feels like we're just a single Supreme Court seat away from a GOP lawmaker coming up with A Modest Proposal For preventing the Children of Poor People From being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and For making them Beneficial to the Public.

Honestly, I think the Republican plan is dead in the water. I might kick around for a few weeks or months, but this isn't going to become law. It is objectively awful, and many Republicans are not comfortable with it either.

Jayhawker wrote:

Honestly, I think the Republican plan is dead in the water. I might kick around for a few weeks or months, but this isn't going to become law. It is objectively awful, and many Republicans are not comfortable with it either.

I think, at this point, the GOP plan is to not pass anything, to completely defund the ACA and Medicaid and then stand back as millions die and say "see! It was a disaster!".

And sadly people will believe that.

I read "sadly" as a Trumpian adjective there, farley...

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/NaGjh7E.jpg)

I'm starting to think (maybe just being hopeful) the writing might be on the wall for a Trump presidency. GOP attempted to pass rushed and objectively awful ACA legislation and get Gorsuch through the Senate as fast as possible because the backlash and fracturing after a GOP impeachment of their own president is going to destroy any party unity for years. If they want to do something, anything, it's got to be now. Ryan's plan is already being attacked from both sides, which leads me to think he tried to split the difference without really understanding how to pull everyone in (a process that takes months and months, normally) and just got it out there as his one and only shot at it.

I mean, there's the less extreme scenario where Ryan knows that the Tea Party House GOP is about to defect based on the delay in the repeal, but I just don't see that happening. They may be unhappy, but there is nothing to do about it if leadership sits on their hands.

Oddly (sadly?), moving to Canada or Hawaii seems like sound advice in those cases RG...
I wish this was snark. Why is it so hard for some to feel awful about people dying for tax cuts and sustained growing margins?

Jolly Bill wrote:

Ryan's plan is already being attacked from both sides, which leads me to think he tried to split the difference without really understanding how to pull everyone in (a process that takes months and months, normally) and just got it out there as his one and only shot at it.

It's really hard to see how it is possible for Ryan to pass a healthcare plan now. His one and only shot was to come out with a legitimately good healthcare plan that the Democrats would vote for. The Republicans chose not to do that. Without a legitimately good plan (almost?) no Democrats will vote for it. That means that Ryan is going to need a huge majority of Republicans to vote for it, and the Republican party is, if not irreconcilably split on how to handle healthcare, is still very, very ,very split on how to handle it.

Now we're early on, so maybe they'll go back to the drawing board and come back with something that isn't a pile of murderous garbage, but... it's sort of seeming like that's not going to happen.

What I would really like to see is the Democrats come forward with a bill that has a lot of the fixes that we've seen would be nice based on the past 7 years of refusing to improve Obamacare. Who knows, maybe before the 2018 elections some of these Republicans will be flailing around enough that they will grab a lifeline from the Democratic Party. They can (and will) go ahead and market it as something other than Obamacare 2.0, but I don't give a f*ck, I just want better legislation. They can call it "Whites Rule, Blacks Drool, Women are Icky" plan if it's actually f*cking better. Also WRBDWI rolls right off the tongue.