Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[visionary]

6 minutes ago, Destino said:

I absolutely do not see a problem with it.  It’s not even remotely racist or sexist.  Not even a tiny bit.  There isn’t a sports fan on the planet that doesn’t hear that term thrown around constantly, and it’s certainly not sexist or racist or even slightly negative.  And this being a sports related forum everyone here is well aware of this.  

 

I do think it can be seen as insulting, depending on their relationship and relative ages.

She should have said, 'You wish, old man.' 

[Springfield]

Obama was easily the best president of my lifetime.  Shame on them.

[Destino]

6 minutes ago, visionary said:

I do think it can be seen as insulting, depending on their relationship and relative ages.

She should have said, 'You wish, old man.' 

The commonly used expression “take it easy on me, kid” is not insulting on its own.  People can choose to take offense to anything, however, and anything can be sneered and made into something derisive.  You can sneer a persons own name at them and make it feel insulting if you’re particularly gifted at it.  I don’t think Biden did that.  

 

If he had said “take it easy on me, girl” we might have something to talk about.

[PF Chang]

People who dislike Biden will interpret anything he says in the worst possible way. The ancient guy calling someone he knows "kid" seemed lighthearted to me. I think this kind of stuff is rarely in good faith and makes Democrats look ridiculous. 

[visionary]

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

2 hours ago, HOF44 said:

Love my health insurance.  300 deductible, 3000 max out of pocket per year.  Drugs are all free, to $20.  The only way you ever get to the 3K is if you choose an out of network doc and you go the 80/20 route.  In network is 20 per visit, 35 for specialist.  Then pretty much 100%

 

Im 32 and never seen a plan like that in my life. Also how much does it cost per month? 

[88Comrade2000]

2 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

Wrong ****.  Joe Biden showed he was old and feeble.  Trump, who is only 3-4 years younger; despite his Dementia is far more nimble than Joe.  Joe is basically, Hillary 2.0.  He won't be able to respond to Trump's attacks on stage.   The other candidates, while their policy positions will turn them with some voters; they will be able to attack Trump and hit back. 

 

 

[Llevron]

So who yall feeling right now? Any change from last time?  

 

edit: (Also the post above is amusing haha) 

[88Comrade2000]

Just now, Llevron said:

So who yall feeling right now? Any change from last time?  

Nothing has changed.  It's Elizabeth Warren's race to lose.

 

 

Michael Moore urges Michelle Obama to run against Trump

 

[visionary]

Did Biden say we can't afford 8 more years of Trump at the end?

[tshile]

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

@TheGreatBuzz

 

 

No convo about hospitals the last two nights. That is a legit issue, which you brought up a few days ago.

Uh... the ACA put the responsibility of cost control entirely on the hospitals and healthcare providers. 

 

It isnt working well. They didn’t respond the way the ACA architects thought they would. 

 

Asking for them to be responsible for more seems kind of silly and uninformed. 

1 hour ago, Destino said:

I absolutely do not see a problem with it.  It’s not even remotely racist or sexist.  Not even a tiny bit.  There isn’t a sports fan on the planet that doesn’t hear that term thrown around constantly, and it’s certainly not sexist or racist or even slightly negative.  And this being a sports related forum everyone here is well aware of this.  

 

But she’s a WOC!!?!?11

[Bozo the kKklown]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

Uh... the ACA put the responsibility of cost control entirely on the hospitals and healthcare providers. 

 

It isnt working well. They didn’t respond the way the ACA architects thought they would. 

 

Asking for them to be responsible for more seems kind of silly and uninformed. 

I think you read my post wrong.

 

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I think you read my post wrong.

 

How so?

you took a tweet that said hospitals have escaped scrutiny about the cost of healthcare.

Which had a reply from someone adding stuff to it

Who added another tweet asking why they don't get scruity

 

and then you added "no convo about hospitals the last two nights. that is a legit issue"

 

These seems like opinions of people who:

- probably don't understand how ACA implemented cost controls

- probably don't understand how hospitals responded to it

- probably don't understand how hospitals budget, where costs come from, etc

 

and as such probably don't understand why scrutinizing hospitals, at this point, about the cost of things is silly and dumb.

i'm just guessing though. Everything I know about the above items suggests that looking at hospitals for further cost control measures is really stupid. For a lot of reasons. There's a lot of other work that has to be done before hospitals should be looked at for further cost controls. It's quite clear the current cost controls measures were poorly thought out. So, adding more doesn't seem smart.

[Bozo the kKklown]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

How so?

you took a tweet that said hospitals have escaped scrutiny about the cost of healthcare.

Which had a reply from someone adding stuff to it

Who added another tweet asking why they don't get scruity

 

and then you added "no convo about hospitals the last two nights. that is a legit issue"

 

These seems like opinions of people who:

- probably don't understand how ACA implemented cost controls

- probably don't understand how hospitals responded to it

- probably don't understand how hospitals budget, where costs come from, etc

 

and as such probably don't understand why scrutinizing hospitals, at this point, about the cost of things is silly and dumb.

i'm just guessing though. Everything I know about the above items suggests that looking at hospitals for further cost control measures is really stupid. For a lot of reasons. There's a lot of other work that has to be done before hospitals should be looked at for further cost controls. It's quite clear the current cost controls measures were poorly thought out. So, adding more doesn't seem smart.

My bad, you read it right and don't seem to see an issue.

 

Yeah, hospitals costs have gone up by 20% the last decade. I don't ACA had much to say regarding hospital pricing. If they did I am fine being wrong, but that didn't seem like it was addressed.

 

Along with that, there have been a lot of mergers between major hospital chains which has lead to higher costs.

 

Now I know more patients seeking healthcare will lead to a price increase, but the issue is more about insured people going to the hospital and receiving treatment only to find their bill cost a lot more than they anticipated because the MRI machine attended, anesthetist, etc were all out of network. That;s the issue. That's why there have been bills the last two years in congress about surprise medical bills. THat is ultimately what effs people over.

 

If you don't think that's an issue, cool, but that is where a lot of our issues come. @TheGreatBuzz asked a question about this a few days ago and I am now siding with him that this needs to be talked about more to control healthcare costs.

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

. I don't ACA had much to say regarding hospital pricing.

ACA didn’t do anything to anyone regarding pricing of services. 

 

Aca put the majority (if not all) of the responsibility of cost controls on the hospitals and health care providers. It did this by significantly cutting reimbursements and implementing HCHAPS to further reduce reimbursements if he quality of care provided wasn’t high enough. 

 

The idea was to take the largest chunk of money these people receive (Medicare and medicaid reimbursements) and cut them. They will have less money to work with. Device manufacturers and suppliers and everyone else will have to lower prices because there won’t be any money to support the high prices. 

 

Except that’s not what happened. Hospitals bought lesser quality supplies; they raised patient-to-nurse ratios and tech ratios (which if you care about quality of care, that’s the worst thing you can do as these are the people doing all the care giving....)

 

they shut down research departments. They shut down initiatives. 

 

They directed a lot of resources at absolving themselves from the penalties of re-admission and hospital born infections (because these reduce reimbursements to 0)

 

i was for the idea when it was announced. It sounded good. Over the years it’s been proven to be a bad idea. 

 

Standing around know asking why we aren’t scrutinizing hospitals suggests to me you don’t know anything about how the system works and what ACA did. 

 

You want lower costs? Go after the device manufacturers and suppliers and set standards for supplies (so they don’t just buy inferior products to cut costs). They’re the ones that have successfully escaped scrutiny from the start and all along. 

Also hchaps is a terrible system. Look into it. They’re tying reimbursements to patient surveys. 

 

If you think thats that’s a good idea maybe you should go spend some time working in a hospital. You’ll find out why that’s awful really quick. 

 

And youll understand why the response from the industry wasn’t what the ACA architects thought it would be. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

11 hours ago, dfitzo53 said:

Well the relevant question isn't "Can he help?",  it's "Can he help enough to turn Indiana from red to blue on election day?" Like PB, I don't see that happening. 

It might be a good idea to get a better handle on the conversation you're going to jump into. I'm not going to rehash the whole thing. 

[Renegade7]

57 minutes ago, Llevron said:

So who yall feeling right now? Any change from last time?  

 

edit: (Also the post above is amusing haha) 

I wanted Harris and Warren second, now I'm all in for Warren.  Warren is progressive, but reasonable, not an old white guy and can handle most attacks against her.  I'm going to be worried if she cant handle being the front runner.

[PeterMP]

27 minutes ago, tshile said:

You want lower costs? Go after the device manufacturers and suppliers and set standards for supplies (so they don’t just buy inferior products to cut costs). They’re the ones that have successfully escaped scrutiny from the start and all along. 

Also hchaps is a terrible system. Look into it. They’re tying reimbursements to patient surveys. 

 

If you think thats that’s a good idea maybe you should go spend some time working in a hospital. You’ll find out why that’s awful really quick. 

 

And youll understand why the response from the industry wasn’t what the ACA architects thought it would be. 

 

There are standards for medical devices.  

 

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance/overview-device-regulation

 

In general on hospitals and the ACA:

 

"Recent data from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) show the first-ever documented decline in composite rates of hospital-acquired conditions nationally: 17% from 2010 to 2013 (Figure 3).¹⁴ The DHHS estimates that these safety improvements prevented 50,000 deaths and saved $12 billion, although these calculations are probably somewhat imprecise. Whether ACA programs accounted for all or part of these gains is uncertain."

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr1503614

 

Hospitals started several programs to help reduce the number of re-admissions.

 

e.g. making sure people pickup and take their prescriptions.

 

https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/cvs-joins-forces-hospitals-docs

 

Having doctors be more available.

 

https://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-9149(17)31675-2/abstract

 

Was it perfect?  No.  But there was REAL work being done to improve the situation.

 

(My mom started working in a hospital when I was 11 years old.  She's been complaining about them cutting staff/hours pretty much sense she started working there.)

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

2 hours ago, Destino said:

The commonly used expression “take it easy on me, kid” is not insulting on its own.  People can choose to take offense to anything, however, and anything can be sneered and made into something derisive.  You can sneer a persons own name at them and make it feel insulting if you’re particularly gifted at it.  I don’t think Biden did that.  

 

If he had said “take it easy on me, girl” we might have something to talk about.

Yes. As someone who would love it if Biden had to drop out of the race tomorrow, trying to stir up controversy around "Take it easy on me, kid" is ridiculous. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

There are standards for medical devices.  

Sorry poor wording. I didn’t mean to imply there were no standards. 

 

All i I was trying to say is that if you’re going to try to control costs by giving them less money to spend, then you should account for the option of just buying inferior equipment and ask yourself if that’s how you want them to respond to cost cuts or not. Because that’s how they responded (in part)

 

as for the rest of your post theres no new information there for me. I don’t see how it conflicts with what I said. 

[The Evil Genius]

I worry that some of you Dems won't vote come 2020 because the Dem nominee has flaws. As if it mattered when against the ****ing orange melanoma (and the GOP that's become his ****) 

[Renegade7]

Will a candidate that wants to get rid of private insurance lose the election because of it?  I'm fine with the position, but this seems like a hard sell.  My hope is people will say Congress wont let that happen anyway and still vote Dem, but they absolutely have to sell this better.

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Will a candidate that wants to get rid of private insurance lose the election because of it? 

 

I don’t know if anyone who would not vote for a candidate if they were for a public option

 

i know people that won’t vote for a candidate if they want to address the issue by getting rid of private insurance. 

 

I dont know if it would cost them the election. I can’t imagine it helps.