Mexal Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Oh this is funny. The law firm that is representing Donald Trump to fix his conflicts of interest questions (they didn't at all) won the 2016 Russia Law Firm of the Year award from Chambers & Partners. You can't make this shit up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I don't think they should. I've never said they should. I'm saying that there are consequences for every "positive" action that are not necessarily positive. The job loses in the Health insurance industry if it ceased to be would be a negative consequence. So? Tell that to everyone else who has ever been downsized or outsourced. Industries come and go and with it comes a lot of pain sometimes. They won't be illegal. But if you pit universal health care vs. the insurance companies, my bet is that universal health care wins. They'll be rendered obsolete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, Mexal said: Oh this is funny. The law firm that is representing Donald Trump to fix his conflicts of interest questions (they didn't at all) won the 2016 Russia Law Firm of the Year award from Chambers & Partners. You can't make this shit up. Are you kidding me??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 1 minute ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said: Are you kidding me??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 There one area of the new administration that I have, particluar, interest in. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB). This is an Independent (not executive) agency that was created by the Dodd-Frank act. It's first Director Richard Cordray was appointed and confirmed in 2014. Under the act Cordray's term doesn't expire until 2018 mid way through Trumps term as President. Now here's the interesting part. Recently, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ("DC App.")(where Judge Garland (President Obama's nominee to replace Justice Scalia) is the chief Judge) in a three judge panel with one dissent ruled that the structure of the CFPB is unconstitutional because rather than having a board, like most independent agencies, it has a single director who doesn't serve at the pleasure of the President. The DC App. ruled that this is an unconstitutional concentration of power in a single person who can control all actions of the agency and who is in an unelected position. The DC App. further ruled that the Constitutional problem is remedied if the Director does serve at the pleasure of the President like most agencies with a single director. The CFPB and Director Cordray... disagree. They have petitioned for an En Banc review of the three judge dicision. That doesn't have to be granted and if denied or if the En Banc panel does agree with the three judge ruling the CFPB can appeal to the SCOTUS. So, the CFPB a somewhat controversial federal agency will be headed (singly) by someone who is at polar opposites with the incoming administration. What is really interesting is that Cordray can still be removed... "for cause". No board of any independent agency has ever had someone removed "for cause". But then again, no other independent agency has ever been lead by a single person before. This will be interesting.https://www.cato.org/blog/long-path-director-cordrays-removal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 11 minutes ago, Jo498 said: . And if the current system is highly inefficient should we not welcome more efficiency even if it implies that some jobs are lost? Back in the good old days, conservatives used to argue "America has the 'best' healthcare system in the world, so why change it!" Except, if you look at what other countries spend versus the US and what type of results they get compared to the US system, that was a very questionable claim to say the least. I think there are strong reasons to believe that we can improve our healthcare system at a cheaper cost and provide a minimum amount of coverage to everyone. If we can lower our cost, then there is no real reason to believe that it should cause job losses in the aggregate - at least compared to what we had. Also, our current employer sponsored system potentially locks in too many employees into their jobs, giving employers too much power. If people could get insurance by other means, other than their employers, that might encourage them to take risk, like starting a new business or working for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 32 minutes ago, Mexal said: Beyond screwed. This is insane. Step one in destroying a democratic state: discredit the established media. I think we can safely check that one off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, OldGimletEye said: Except, if you look at what other countries spend versus the US and what type of results they get compared to the US system, that was a very questionable claim to say the least. That always depended on where you look. At the very top, the US offers state of the art medical services. I don't think there's a procedure that can't be performed some place in the US; to deny that is kinda stupid. That the procedure costs ten times as much in the US, that is a different story. And it's also not accounting for the accessibility (or lack of) for many Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, Notone said: That always depended on where you look. At the very top, the US offers state of the art medical services. I don't think there's a procedure that can't be performed some place in the US; to deny that is kinda stupid. That the procedure costs ten times as much in the US, that is a different story. And it's also not accounting for the accessibility (or lack of) for many Americans. It seems that provides evidence that we can do better though. Also, "state of the art" isn't necessarily better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said: It seems that provides evidence that we can do better though. Also, "state of the art" isn't necessarily better. It's not necessarily worse either. But if a given system refuses to pay for treatments because they are new it will never be known if the new treatment is better, or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Depends on what you define as state of the art. I was thinking of surgeries and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: It's not necessarily worse either. But if a given system refuses to pay for treatments because they are new it will never be known if the new treatment is better, or worse. Actually, Scot, I think there is some fairly strong evidence out there that we do worse overall. Maybe, we're better in some areas. But, in a number of areas, we do worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said: Actually, Scot, I think there is some fairly strong evidence out there that we do worse overall. Maybe, we're better in some areas. But, in a number of areas, we do worse. OGE, Are you really arguing we shouldn't try new medical procedures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, Notone said: Depends on what you define as state of the art. I was thinking of surgeries and such. It seems to me, when it comes to a variety of surgeries, we pay a hell of a lot more. And i've yet see any evidence that American doctors are better than their European counterparts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: OGE, Are you really arguing we shouldn't try new medical procedures? Are you really arguing we should pay much more for an array of vanilla variety surgeries? To anwer your question: Of course not. But some of the innovation might not be worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 18 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Insurance makes money when it doesn't do what it is paid to do. That's the nature of insurance. Then perhaps Insurance's goal should not be to make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 15 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said: Clearing quote 1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: How many people would be put out of work if you just made private health insurance illegal? Who cares? They are literally profiting off the suffering of others if costs are prohibitive because we need to pay a bunch of people to file papers. Over time the money spent on these jobs could be used for more actual medical and support staff to accommodate the new patients that currently go untreated. I bet a bunch of plummers were pissed that new buildings stopped having double the water fountains and bathrooms post-segregation. I know this is an extreme example and I'm not saying people in the health insurance field are bad people, but my concern for someone losing a health insurance job is vastly outshined by a desire to see accessible affordable care for all. And people with a lot of money will probably still have a private plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Step one in destroying a democratic state: discredit the established media. I think we can safely check that one off. Yeah this conflation of "Fake News" is becoming problematic in multiple directions. No one published these reports as facts. The story was "Intelligence agencies alert Trump to unverified reports". It was a leak that probably shouldn't have been reported, but it wasn't "Fake News". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 53 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: This is bizarre, and frankly, rather scary. We're so screwed.... Our only hope is that the Republican Party destroys itself with its own power, as it did 2001-2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 My reaction to the 'golden shower' thing is very similar to my reaction upon learning that Rex Ryan had a foot fetish. It didn't change change my opinion of him at all, but it was good fodder for decent puns. The idea that he actually made a deal with Russia over the DNC hacks, on the other hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.