US Politics: Ask Fox News

[James Arryn]

3 hours ago, Durckad said:

Hey, if you can successfully monologue for 50+ pages, I'm more than willing to call that a form of sentience.

Clearly you've spent little time in Irish pubs.

[Seli]

9 hours ago, Commodore said:

If you want to be covered for something that may be desirable to make happen and that you have direct control over, a premium commensurate with that reality would be relatively high.

And surprise, when you make that benefit mandatory (regardless of whether you personally need/want it), premiums go up. 

No. At least not in a system where insurance companies are incentivized to keep lifetime cost of care down.

Now, in an immature market or in a situation where parasitic companies get away with externalizing costs you are right. Which is the reason to regulate a health insurance market to the hilt.

[butterbumps!]

10 hours ago, Commodore said:

Even accepting this premise, insurance (a hedge against uncertain events) is not the appropriate vehicle. And neither is the federal government. 

It should be at the state level, or through private charity. 

What's the virtue of the "state level" argument for something like this?    I thought you had an issue with having to paying into a pool that offers services you don't plan to use.   Isn't that still an issue at the state level, since we haven't organized into "breeders" vs "nonbreeders" by state?   I know "leave it to the state" is a common refrain on the right for a number of issues, but why? (at least in cases where doing something federally would be most efficient?)

As a second question, are the states -- usually red and "states rights"- leaning-- against taking federal money to help their states run?  I guess my question is whether the "small federal government" people in many of these states understand that they don't pay federal taxes-- it's mostly the blue states that do-- and that they're actually receiving a ton of federal help?  I suppose some do, but maybe resent having it contingent on conforming to federal standards/ regulations?

[Ser Reptitious]

12 hours ago, Commodore said:

Have you considered why maternity coverage as an essential insurance benefit might (and has) result in higher premiums?

Isn't this a price society should be prepared to pay in order to ensure the safety and well-being of the fetus?

[mormont]

22 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Isn't this a price society should be prepared to pay in order to ensure the safety and well-being of the fetus?

I think you've misunderstood the Republican position on foetuses. It's simple. Men who don't plan to have kids are entitled to tell women whether they should carry a foetus to term, but at the same time should never be asked to pay a cent towards looking after those foetuses. Foetuses are precious lives that are everyone's business except when it comes to paying for them.

It's actually a remarkably philosophically consistent position if you take it back to first principles, which is that women should never have sex unless they're willing to pay for it for the rest of their lives.

[LongRider]

33 minutes ago, mormont said:

It's actually a remarkably philosophically consistent position if you take it back to first principles, which is that women should never have sex unless they're willing to pay for it for the rest of their lives.

And if they actually enjoy sex they must be punished. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

What's the virtue of the "state level" argument for something like this?  

Hatred of the Federal Government on principle.

[OldGimletEye]

9 hours ago, Commodore said:

Have you considered why maternity coverage as an essential insurance benefit might (and has) result in higher premiums?

Yes, yes, deny the wimminez healthcare. What a great argument. I've changed my mind about universal healthcare. You've found a winner! It must have taken the boys down at the Cato Institute months to think up this one.

But, more seriously, I want women to have adequate healthcare. And that includes maternity care. I am not sure why you think women should have to completely bear the entire financial burden of child rearing, when we all benefit. I'm not sure why you'd think most men would care about this, when most of us have women in our lives that we care about.

Now let me posit question here to myself: What I am more concerned about: Paying a bit more so women can have adequate maternity care or paying monopoly prices to pharmaceutical companies? Hmm. Thinking about this. Thinking real hard. Oh, yeah, more worried about paying monopoly prices to big pharma. Guess that's why I'm not a "libertarian".

I just don't understand why conservatives have such a bur up their ass over this.

[LongRider]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I just don't understand why conservatives have such a bur up their ass over this.

I think it's because girls are >icky< and also ............................blood.

[MerenthaClone]

13 hours ago, Commodore said:

Why would it be worth paying for such coverage if you don't plan on having children?

Because that's how insurance works?  A la carte insurance is pointless.  

[OldGimletEye]

Okay, conservative sorts of people: This just shows, that just as soon as you think you're plenty conservative, ya gotta dig real deep and do a gut check and ask, “How can I get more conservative!”

The competition to be the most conservative is mighty fierce these days.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/how-paul-ryan-sold-out-one-chart

Quote

Why is Paul Ryan having such a hard time selling his Obamacare repeal to the ultra-conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus? One chart tells the story:

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Okay, conservative sorts of people: This just shows, that just as soon as you think you're plenty conservative, ya gotta dig real deep and do a gut check and ask, “How can I get more conservative!”

The competition to be the most conservative is mighty fierce these days.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/how-paul-ryan-sold-out-one-chart

To be fair to Ryan, it's likely that he's remained more or less the same, and that there's just been a massive influx of even more extreme types.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

To be fair to Ryan, it's likely that he's remained more or less the same, and that there's just been a massive influx of even more extreme types.

That was largely the point I was making.

[LongRider]

Paul Ryan, not hateful conservative enough.  serious lol on that one!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

You really have to love that @Commodore posts here. It gives us all a little peak into the right wing fever swamp.

Also, it's not surprising at all that the guy who refers to abortions as "chopping up babies" doesn't want to contribute a single cent to help the not chopped up babies once they're born. 

[Rippounet]

54 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

I think it's because girls are >icky< and also ............................blood.

And it goes without saying, to promote a patriarchal vision of society in which women have to rely on men as much as possible.

I wonder how a movement called "conservatism," whose name appropriately says what it's all about, came to be seen as being about individual liberty (which it's not).

[Ice Queen]

1 hour ago, Nasty LongRider said:

I think it's because girls are >icky< and also ............................blood.

Did you see this?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-meets-30-men-102315264.html

 

[denstorebog]

The whole discussion about the battle to be conservative enough takes an unpleasant turn when you consider that:

• Paul Ryan is the face of the health care bill
• There's a good chance that Ryan is done if the bill goes down; in fact, Bill O'Reilly just brought up this proposal on his show.
• Paul Ryan and Steve Bannon really don't like each other

I'm not gonna go all the way and propose that Bannon wanted this to fail to begin with (the damage to Trump's political capital is gonna be massive), but he can certainly count this as a win if it leads to the instatement of an even more conservative House leader.

EDIT: And sure enough, this is now the Breitbart leading article: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/24/report-steve-bannon-says-american-health-care-act-written-insurance-industry/

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Nasty LongRider said:

I think it's because girls are >icky< and also ............................blood.

Well, I suppose, if it makes conservative sorts of people feel better then perhaps we should include cootie vaccinations as an essential health benefit.

Though from my experience, I caught the cooties, when I was about 10 or 11. But, I made a full recovery, just to let conservatives know that getting the cooties isn't that bad.

[mormont]

2 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

The whole discussion about the battle to be conservative enough takes an unpleasant turn when you consider that:

• Paul Ryan is the face of the health care bill
• There's a good chance that Ryan is done if the bill goes down; in fact, Bill O'Reilly just brought up this proposal on his show.
• Paul Ryan and Steve Bannon really don't like each other

I'm not gonna go all the way and propose that Bannon wanted this to fail to begin with (the damage to Trump's political capital is gonna be massive), but he can certainly count this as a win if it leads to the instatement of an even more conservative House leader.

EDIT: And sure enough, this is now the Breitbart leading article: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/24/report-steve-bannon-says-american-health-care-act-written-insurance-industry/

This has always been the script. If the bill passes, it proves Trump to be a brilliant negotiator. If it fails, it proves Ryan to be useless. No-lose for the White House.