In These Eight Midterms Races, Health and Medicine Are Front and Center (statnews.com) 230
An anonymous reader shares a report: In Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah, voters will directly decide whether their states should expand their Medicaid programs. In Wisconsin, they could elect a candidate for governor who has pledged to sharply curtail drug prices. And across the country, Democratic congressional candidates are running on platforms highlighting their support for protecting insurance coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and lowering drug prices. Health care is on the ballot across the country, with issues ranging from medical marijuana to abortion rights to insurance coverage dominating the conversation.
Market solutions (Score:4, Insightful)
Do any of these candidate propose anything that makes sense like expanding the market supply by building medical schools or rolling back some of the regulations that do nothing but block lower cost solutions? Or will they just continue with the tried and true "we'll regulate cost and then be surprised when the market doesn't comply with our fondly held wishes."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Market solutions (Score:5, Interesting)
I was under the impression that the costs for supplies, equipment, and medicines are what has been growing so fast.
The biggest contributor to rising medical costs is administration. Many clinics and hospitals have more people dealing with insurance and regulatory compliance forms than treating patients.
The second biggest contributor is big ticket equipment. It is questionable how much value these bring. When hospitals install MRI machines, costing millions of dollars each, there is no measurable improvement in patient outcomes.
Re: (Score:2)
Which regulations? (Score:2)
Speaking of which what I really want is to expand Medicare to everyone. It's got over 95% efficiency and similar programs work in every country they've been tried. Not like our insurance industrie
Re: (Score:3)
There have always been other manufacturers of ephedrine injectors. But they were different enough that the 'generic' equivalent laws didn't cover them.
Doctors could just write a different script.
Just magic answers (Score:2)
It will get cheaper, we promise. It’s cheaper in Iceland (or somewhere — it doesn't matter where) so we can magically make the US into Iceland, grab all the benefits of the system in Iceland, with none of the drawbacks. Nothing bad could possibly happen from our schemes. And if it does, it's because the bogeymen on the other team, because we didn't throw that extra $1 Billion on the fire, because these deplorable people can't be governed, or because of bad luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You believed in the magic stories, didn't you? Santa won't be giving you that pony.
Re: (Score:3)
well the did recently roll back a regulation that prevented a pharmacist from telling you that there was a cheaper way to get the same drug your paying for. (example those $4 and $7 prescriptions at walmart are cheaper than a $20 copay). But nobody noticed. Half the time I think trump gets on twitter to say stupid shit to get the media spun up so they can create conflict about this particular repeal, or kushner going to iran, etc. Its probably the only way to get shit done. Its in the media's best interest
Re: (Score:2)
should say 'cant create conflict'
s/"media spun up so they can create conflict "/"media spun up so they can't create conflict"/
Beg to differ (Score:2, Flamebait)
This is fake news. I saw Hair Furor on the TV last night and he said the only thing on the ballot is him.
Re: (Score:2)
This is fake news. I saw Hair Furor on the TV last night and he said the only thing on the ballot is him.
And he is only saying that because the Democrats said it first. In fact, he is probably annoyed it didn't occur to him to say it first.
Re: (Score:2)
its Herr Fuhrer, at least spell it right ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
OMG.
CNN (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What is this? CNN?
If it was CNN, they'd be connecting dots between medical care and Russian election hacking, with Stormy Daniel's lawyer weighing in on both.
Re: (Score:2)
What is this? Stuff that Matters. (Score:4, Insightful)
What is this? It's "stuff that matters"
Many Americans are of the opinion that proper healthcare isn't something people should have to go bankrupt over. Only one party has even attempted to approach this issue in the last 2 decades that a majority of Americans very much care about. The other party simply wants to blindly move forward in a system that is clearly broken.
And by broken I mean spending twice or more per capita than any other first world country spends on its socialized medicine.
Sure what the Democrats have done so far is middling at best but it's still far better than business as usual for a failing system.
Re: (Score:2)
Healthcare is issue #1 for me (Score:5, Interesting)
I want Medicare for All. Saves money, works in every country that tried it and covers everyone. 45,000 Americans die of treatable illnesses every year. I don't want to be one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I want Medicare for All. Saves money, works in every country that tried it and covers everyone. 45,000 Americans die of treatable illnesses every year. I don't want to be one of them.
45,000 you say?
200,000 - 400,000 deaths occur every year in the United States due to medical error. It's considered one of our top leading causes of death now. And we question why people tend to avoid hospitals?
Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.
That's a Strawman (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We tried that -- a ban didn't mean people stopped drinking, just that criminal gangs controlled the trade. More deaths, more adulterated alcohol (methanol blindness, anyone?). The cheaper alternative? Provide treatment and counseling on the public dime to people who abuse alcohol, before it becomes a problem.
There's also a psychological difference between saying: we're giving you something more for your tax money vs no, you can't drink that. Why? Because we said so! It's BAD!
Re: (Score:2)
How would that be worse under medicare for all?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course you want more benefits than you are willing to pay for. Someone else will pay. Fuck them.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you want more benefits than you are willing to pay for. Someone else will pay. Fuck them.
That is the exact definition of "preexisting condition" , i.e., A chronic health problem that someone has and wants someone else to pay for.
Maybe I do (Score:2)
If all else fails they hassle the doctor until he gives up and stops prescribing you your meds. It's called the "Wallet Biopsy", your doc will silently (perhaps u
Re: (Score:3)
Why bother banning things like the typical American Puritan? There's a better way. Figure out what they cost the healthcare system, then tax them accordingly. If the government is paying for healthcare, it can also tax things to recoup the costs seamlessly.
Motorcycles and cars? Bake it into the registration fee.
Alcohol/drugs? Sales taxes.
Extreme sports? Tax the equipment.
Sports? Not clear that the costs outweigh the health benefits.
Too complicated (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This $16 billion includes compensation payouts by insurance for wrongful deaths, lost income, etc, which won't be the business of a public health insurer, but will be baked into car and motorcycle insurance. Mostly car, since most fatal motorcycle accidents involve the rider being hit by a brain-dead idiot in a car. Early deaths may in fact REDUCE long-term medical costs, since people who crash their bikes and die at age 20 or 40 won't live to develop diabetes and Alzheimer's at age 80.
As far as the alcoh
Re: (Score:2)
Uptight stress ridden type a that nopes everything? NOPE!
Re: (Score:2)
Write a smartphone app. That applies for health and car insurance if it detects high Gs.
National Candidates and Marijuana (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. In Missouri, I only just found out a few days ago that there are THREE medical MJ items on the ballot, two that change the state Constitution and one that is a law change.
Only one can win (per a couple of articles I've been reading).
Everyone against such will vote no on all three. Other people might have a favorite (and split the votes that are in favor).
No news coverage, no politician mention, nothing. Silence. A couple of medical groups and police associations have put forth opinions (for
On Wisconsin... (Score:2)
It's not like he can force drug companies to give him lower prices due to the massive market that Wisconsin represents. A stupid cap on drug prices in Wisconsin will just cause drug companies to shrug and stop selling there....
Re:And I thought Obamacare FIXED healthcare?!?!? (Score:5, Informative)
GOP has been gradually sabotaging it via various SCOTUS rulings; removing the mandate, which makes it more expensive for seniors and those with pre-existing conditions (Legislative branch); and intentionally mis-managing the implementation and oversight of it (Executive branch).
Obama has often said that if someone presents a better plan than ACA tied to real numbers, not just talking points, he would back it. One should have realistic alternatives before complaining.
GOP can promise flying cars that get 200 mph and cost only 3 grand. The hard part is delivering a blue-print that doesn't violate physics and math.
Re: (Score:2)
And all, repeat, ALL of the Republicans who fought ACA tooth and nail are now swearing they were for it, for protecting coverage of preexisting conditions, all along! Lying bastards.
Re:And I thought Obamacare FIXED healthcare?!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
sure, tackle the issues one at a time.... starting with cost. The lower your cost the more people will be able to have it.
stop tying health insurance to EMPLOYMENT. This is a SCAM. No other insurance on the planet works this way. If I hate my job, I dont have to worry about driving without insurance, or my house catching on fire and not being covered, as a result of this. With healthcare I may have to stick with a completely shitty place to work merely because I am currently using benefits (kids physical therapy or something similar) where changing jobs threatens this. This has existed since Nixon and its a tool that employers can use to stagnate wages and underpay employees. Employers are not even required to subsidize. They literally can charge the employee the full cost of coverage. So if employers want to continue to subsidize they can come up with a way that employers can direct deposit an amount directly to the premium.
limit the costs of procedures. Constantly you get an EOB that says medical billed some ridiculous price and that the insurance lowered it to some lower value. This value is generally based on reasonable acceptable amounts. A 8 min office visit does not need to cost $186, hell it shouln't even cost $45. Make the requirement that the facility or practice most present the same charge to uninsured as those with insurance. There are plenty of plans that suck that have $40 copays for an office visit. If you read your EOB you will see that the charges got reduced down to $48, meaning they only paid $8 anyway. By forcing the providers to charge everyone $48, even the uninsured are not paying much more than those with the shittiest insurances. These $4000 procedure discounted to $1500 come back in 'income losses' and claimed against their taxes.
limit the costs of malpractice and malpractice insurances - they constantly claim that those $4000 MRI bills (that are only $150 in europe) are padded with malpractice insurance and malpractice payouts and these crazy prices are to recover those expenses. Make class actions (the type where the class gets $50 while the lawfirm gets hundreds of millions) banned. Each malpractice should have its own case with its own determination of Tort and actual damages.
Require all medical fields to meet the requirements of 503(c) non-profit status. They must re-invest a percentage of their profits back into their mission statements. Allowing hospitals and medical facility to be for-profit is unethical. 503(c) can turn a profit, they just are limited in how much profit they can turn by making them re-invest in whatever their mission is such as new medical equipment or newer technologies and research.
Solve the cost issues FIRST... once these are stable, THEN start going over what services should or should not get serviced. Because with a stable and affordable cost structure in place. Does this earn me the right to complain?
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think providers will agree to perform their services under the rules you want? What if they don't?
Re: And I thought Obamacare FIXED healthcare?!?!? (Score:2)
What if they prescribe pain medication in spite of KASPER or whatever state law limiting the amount and/or frequency they can prescribe? Its no different than any other consumer protection law on the books.
Re: (Score:2)
What if they prescribe pain medication in spite of KASPER or whatever state law limiting the amount and/or frequency they can prescribe? Its no different than any other consumer protection law on the books.
What if they just go into a different line of work that doesn't treat them like government property?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And I thought Obamacare FIXED healthcare?!?!? (Score:2)
The very fact that they accept a fixed amount already agreed-upon, in contract from an insurance company, or several, is all the evidence you need to argue that the amount was deemed acceptable add appropriate payment for rendering Syd service
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone agrees to accept one fixed amount doesn't mean they'll automatically accept a different, lower fixed amount.
Re: And I thought Obamacare FIXED healthcare?!?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Noone said lower. If youre already accepting $48 from the insurance companies, then always bill $48 not $158 regardless. You might be surprised to learn the doctors are currently prohibited, via contract, from actually doing this right now. The insurance companies are the issue in the case of inflating non covered pricing. It helps the insurance company look like they are doing more than just payjng 20% of your bill. Do away will all of this fake numbers-game bullshit. Allow Doctors to offer pricing comparible to insurance allowed amounts. Prohibit doctors from listing extraneous âretailâ(TM) pricing in order to game taxes or gouge uninsured the same way they prohibit gouging gas prices or utility prices. This is the easiest part of the whole thing to solve. We already do this sort of thing for many other types of products.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree. If lowering costs of both premiums and healthcost is successful, then you get a lot less push-back from the population. Who in their right mind would argue that. Once that gets stabilized, people will generally not make waves about changes if the net result doesnt affect their bottom line. You want to cover Lasik and found a way to do it without increasing my costs or premiums? knock yourself out. You can be a lot more effective at fixing things if you start from a strong economic position.
It wa
I'll tell you who would argue that (Score:5, Informative)
There is a mountain of data that shows socialized medicine in first world countries provides great healthcare for half or less the overall cost of our own (both public and private expenditures). The people arguing against it are the same who claim to be economic conservatives but consistently do nothing to balance the budget. Health care for all has been shown to be far more affordable than our current system for decades, the problem is this country is full anti government paranoids and blindly partisan types.
Sure, once a system is in place that works most of these idiots will come around seeing the obvious results that every other first world country has shown but until then they will kick, scream, and flail their little hands. The challenge is getting a system in place that works over the heads of these ignorant masses.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that GOP has changed ACA from the original. Perhaps "sabotage" is loaded word. Okay, substitute "change" instead.
Yes, but the court also reduced the scope of the planned medicaid expansion that was part of ACA.
Obamacare was a good start but the GOP stopped the (Score:3, Informative)
Obamacare was a good start but the GOP stopped the next steps from happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obamacare was a good start but the GOP stopped the next steps from happening.
The main problem with the Affordable Care Act is that it's goal was "Health Insurance For Everyone". Health Insurance is the main problem why we have the inflationary costs in Medical Care in the first place.
Medical Providers set high prices because they assume patients have insurance and that insurance companies will try to negotiate down so set ridiculous prices. Insurance companies under pressure to cover as many doctors as possible, so pay ridiculous fees that some of the higher priced doctors charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It only works for residents of northern Europe. It's an unmitigated disaster every time anyone else tries it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Really bad troll, troll.
For one, it was in the news a few weeks ago that the insurance premiums purchased though the ACA are going *down* this year, in spite of the GOP fighting tooth and nail to sabotage it.
For another, "keep your doctor"? Do you actually *have* medical insurance? Ever company I've worked for in the last 25 years has changed insurance companies every 2-3 years, and our "contributions" keep going up. And there are plenty of doctors who accept one insurance, and not another... and ot
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And exactly what has the GOP done to improve healthcare in thie US?
How is your medical care the goverment's responsibility?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cunts like you are nothing more than anti-social pieces of shit. I would much rather have the government working on making sure people get the health care they need than murdering people in a foreign land. When the day finally comes when worthless piece of shit sociopaths like you die out, the world will be a far better place.
Are you really that desperate for government freebies? Why not just pay your own way rather than spending every day of the year simmering with rage and hatred?
Why not? (Score:3)
Why not?
Every other first world country on the planet has a socialized medicine system that delivers first world medical care at half or less the over all cost of our own (both private and public costs).
What kind of idiot keeps on with such a massively unproductive system in the name of blind ideology? Communists maybe?
That's not to say anti socialized medicine types are communists mind you. Obviously they wouldn't be, It's that they are just as stupid in their blind ideology before easily observable fact.
Re: (Score:2)
No one has a genuine plan to lower costs by half — or anything close to that. Lowering costs by a large amount has never been accomplished by anyone anywhere. You can complain about costs, but no one has a way to actually fix them in the real world.
If you have a time machine, you can go back in time and keep costs from increasing to current levels though.
Re: (Score:3)
"Lowering costs by a large amount has never been accomplished by anyone anywhere."
Except by every other first world country on the planet relative to our own system you mean, right?
"If you have a time machine, you can go back in time and keep costs from increasing to current levels though."
No need. We have plenty of modern examples to go off of in keeping healthcare costs down.
Re: (Score:2)
"Lowering costs by a large amount has never been accomplished by anyone anywhere."
Except by every other first world country on the planet relative to our own system you mean, right?
No. No one ever went from high costs to substantially lower costs. All they did was keep costs from increasing over a long period of time. We can't do that, because costs are already high.
You understand that time moves forward, right? (This is honestly not that hard to understand.)
"If you have a time machine, you can go back in time and keep costs from increasing to current levels though."
No need. We have plenty of modern examples to go off of in keeping healthcare costs down.
Then you should go back in time to 1960 and implement them for the US. Then we will have lower costs, because the increases in 1965 will be smaller, and the increases in 1970 will be smaller, and so on for 58 years until now.
Re: (Score:2)
"No. No one ever went from high costs to substantially lower costs. All they did was keep costs from increasing over a long period of time. We can't do that, because costs are already high.
You understand that time moves forward, right? (This is honestly not that hard to understand.)"
What I understand is that right here and now there are systems in place that we can emulate that are half the cost of out current system. Please explain to me why my repeated claims on said front or not valid or stop bothering m
Re: (Score:2)
What I understand is that right here and now there are systems in place that we can emulate that are half the cost of out current system. Please explain to me why my repeated claims on said front or not valid or stop bothering me.
Your back in time thing is completely baffling to me. Today, this very day, every other first world country has a medical system that is half the cost of our own shit hole private one. Why can these other countries systems not be emulated by us?
Because doctors and nurses won't meekly accept a 50% pay cut. And voters like doctors and nurses, so doctors and nurses have political power.
Here is a link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That would make sense if doctor and nurses wages were the major driver of our over the top healthcare costs. As with all things, labor makes up a very small amount of overall costs.
The nail in the coffin for your overall claim though, is that doctors and nurses are still well paid people in every other first world country.
Re: (Score:2)
That would make sense if doctor and nurses wages were the major driver of our over the top healthcare costs. As with all things, labor makes up a very small amount of overall costs.
The nail in the coffin for your overall claim though, is that doctors and nurses are still well paid people in every other first world country.
Doctor and nurse salaries are a part of the issue. You want to claim you can magically transform the system and everything will magically work out. Except the doctor and nurse salaries, but it'll still magically work out even then.
Did you read the article at the link? Did you follow the links from that?
- Hospital rooms are bigger in the US. You plan to remodel all the hospitals? That won't be expensive?
- Drugs are more expensive. Do you plan to completely change the pharma industry? That will take a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No. Obamacare was always about the rich/healthy subsidizing the poor/sick. Nobody ever said that everyone's premiums would go down.
It turns out, that Obama (you know, the guy after whom "Obamacare" was named), gave an Address on Health Care at George Mason University [americanrhetoric.com] on March 19, 2010, where he said this:
Now, the third thing that this legislation does is it brings down the cost of health care for families and businesses and the federal government. Americans who are buying comparable coverage in the individual market would end up seeing their premiums go down 14 to 20 percent. Americans who get their insurance through the workplace, cost savings could be as much as $3,000 less per employer than if we do nothing. Now, think about that. Thatâ(TM)s $3,000 your employer doesnâ(TM)t have to pay, which means maybe she can afford to give you a raise.
Maybe I am misreading, but it sure seems like President Obama is saying there that everybody's costs (premiums for families) were going to go down. While I know of plenty of people getting raises after the recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts helped boost the economy, I have never heard of a single person getting a raise fro
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Care to comment?
No.
Sure, the GOP sabotaged the law (Score:2, Insightful)
The GOP plays to win. They don't care what the outcome is for America. They just want to win. The means when Obama compromised he was being tricked. He's smart. He knew this. But people where dying, and he did the
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Meanwhile the law made phony plans with no coverage illegal. So people who were paying $50+/mo for basically nothing suddenly had to have insurance for pay the fine.
The cheap plans were not for "nothing". They were for catastrophic-only plans. That is how insurance should work.
Car analogy: Catastrophic-only health insurance is like car insurance that pays for collision repairs. "Normal" health insurance is like car insurance that covers gasoline, and requires three forms and a $100 admin fee every time you fill your tank.
Nope, they were for nothing (Score:4, Interesting)
The plans were that cheap because they didn't work. Their purpose was to soak up money from rubes and (more often) divorced guys with a court order to have insurance. Reading the fine print they weren't worth the paper it was printed on.
fake insurance where the min med stuff mcdonalds (Score:2)
fake insurance where the min med stuff mcdonalds had like.
$1000 year for an $2000 max payout
Hey, that brings me back (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A separate source, the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform, revealed a somewhat larger jump from 2014 to 2015. It concluded that gross premiums (those before subsidies) climbed by an average of 6% for the least-expensive plans on the exchange.
While a 6% uptick may sound significant, it actually looks pretty attractive in comparison to pricing trends before the healthcare law. The Commonwealth Fund, another nonpartisan research organization, studied the three-year period prior to the passage of the ACA – from 2008 to 2010 – and found that premiums on the individual market were rising by 10% or more per year nationwide.
Prices didn't skyrocket. You're either too stupid, too partisan, or too much of a fucking liar... to get that. It is clear, however, you don't have a fucking clue how insurance works in general.
Again, not really (Score:4, Insightful)
See, insurance is wildly profitable when you don't have to insure high risk customers. And with modern big data you know exactly who's high risk. Plus with all that sweet, sweet data you can always find some "pre existing" condition (my personal fav is skin cancer. Ever had acne medication? Congrats, you've had treatment for cancerous skin lesions, no more cancer meds for you, pre-existing).
The actual solution is to expand the risk pool to the largest possible: everyone. In otherwords, medicare for all. But we've had our heads stuffed full of insurance industry propaganda. They spent billions making sure you think the way you do because if you ever figure out the truth [go.com] they and their blood sucking parasitic business model are through. They're fighting for their lives, so they're gonna be real nasty about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (Score:3)
While I know of plenty of people getting raises after the recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts helped boost the economy,
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc [wikipedia.org]? Just because something follows doesn't mean it was caused by what it follows. You might know people getting raises because the economy is doing rather well for the last several years (no Trump did not cause that, nor did Obama) but I defy you to prove that anyone you know got raises because of the recent tax cuts.
I have never heard of a single person getting a raise from their employer because of all the money Obamacare saved them.
Why would someone get a raise because of a cheaper health care plan? Employers will pocket the difference if there is any. When the AC
Re: (Score:3)
Now, the third thing that this legislation does is it brings down the cost of health care for families and businesses and the federal government. Americans who are buying comparable coverage in the individual market would end up seeing their premiums go down 14 to 20 percent. Americans who get their insurance through the workplace, cost savings could be as much as $3,000 less per employer than if we do nothing. Now, think about that. Thatâ(TM)s $3,000 your employer doesnâ(TM)t have to pay, which means maybe she can afford to give you a raise.
Maybe I am misreading, but it sure seems like President Obama is saying there that everybody's costs (premiums for families) were going to go down. While I know of plenty of people getting raises after the recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts helped boost the economy, I have never heard of a single person getting a raise from their employer because of all the money Obamacare saved them.
Care to comment?
I think you are misreading, he wasn't talking about a drop in premiums as much as a drop in the rate of increase in premiums [shrm.org].
I don't know what the numbers come out to, but it certainly seems like employers are paying less than they would have in the pre-ACA system.
Premiums did go down (Score:2)
This isn't to say Obamacare is a "good" law. It's terrible. It was terrible when the right wing Heritage Foundation created it. But it was the best we could get with a House and Senate full of right wing Blue Dog Dems and a milk toast right of center president.
We know what the solution is, it's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The young subsidize the old in every company health pool and always have.
Has anybody ever had 'company insurance' where the old pay a higher copay? I doubt it would be legal.
When I was in my 20s, I led a small company wide young people's group defection. Our copay was actually higher than our individual rate, because the CFO's kid had a very expensive condition that we were all paying for. After we quit the group, their per person rate got really interesting. I moved on shortly after, place just sucked
Re: (Score:2)
- elective abortions (ie not medically necessary) - if you arent going to pay for infertility treatments, why pay for the fertility removal treatments
Is it cheaper to pay for an abortion or for a birth? Ideally, of course would be to pay, or subsidize, birth control along with education on how to use it.
- medical marijiuanna - as it would be tantamount to a doctor prescribing a glass of wine every day. Every state that has medical cannabis laws makes provisions to grow your own so that your expenses are curbed considerably. CBD oil for seizures would be the only possible exception since its impossible to extract at home without also extracting all the other cannabis
Now that it is legal here, hopefully there will many more studies, but currently, often marijuana is a cheaper option compared to most pharmaceuticals. And no, growing it yourself is often not an option. Grow it outside and it is likely to be stolen. Grow it inside and if you are a renter, yo will be kicked out for ruining the property and if you own your
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Per Godwin, Godwin's law is suspended until the political climate changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Godwin that made the rule you're citing concurs with Ryanrule. We ain't talking about HR's internet policies or non-smoking restaurants here.
Godwin is a hypocrite. So one crazy person who happens to associate with alt-right goes on a killing spree and suddenly alt-right as a whole are a bunch of murderers? I don't agree with anything those people come up with, but the logical fallacy in this is mind-boggling. By that logic every Democrat is a baseball practice murderer.
Re: (Score:2)
Benefits (Score:2)
I had better care and WAY less expenses.
Sounds like you had a decent deal going. Maybe it was a little too good?
This was a good I dea for who exactly?
Me for one. I got better coverage for similar money once the ACA was passed. Our company was able to save a decent amount of cash too. Most of the other employees at my work previously covered by our (rapidly becoming expensive) company health insurance got similar or better coverage for similar or less money. A few ended up paying more - mostly older folks who smoked.
Re: (Score:2)
Just voted Democrat all the way down, baby! If they lose tonight, I am screwed!
That has been the democrat platform for nearly 150 years, ever since the 14th amendment and other federal statutes overturned their Jim-Crow laws and they lost their 'keep those blacks in their place' platform.
I am sure they will be glad to see their propaganda is still working in your case.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you shouldn't live in a state that deliberately sabotaged the ACA.
How can one sabotage the ACA? That's like saying that someone did something to make kim-chi go bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But there is no wall and Mexico has made it quite plain that they will NOT pay for one.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also no immigration reform, which Obama ran on in 2008 and talked up for a good chunk of 2009, when democrats had control of the house AND senate.
And, amusingly, so did George Bush, when he had control of both the house and the senate.
(Interestingly, Bush's immigration reform plan [reuters.com] was nearly the same as Obama's.)
Re: (Score:2)
So Obama did do something in spite of lack of legislative support but Trump undid it?
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats DO have a platform. Unfortunately, while Republicans hold the state houses, Congress, presidency, and now the Supreme Court, they are utterly powerless to make anything on that platform come to fruition. Any bills they propose just get squashed, never even coming to the floor to be voted down, even simple, stupid stuff that has wide national bipartisan support. (Such as DACA, since you rather helpfully brought it up.)
In such a circumstance, about the only thing they CAN do productively is to keep
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...That's because the democrats are a very fractured party at the moment.
Actually, given that I don't always like what happens when a unified party gains control, there's a lot to be said for voting for a fractured party.
Neither party have a compelling message at the moment. Republicans: "Make America White Again"
Democrats: "We're not with Stupid."
Say, I support that as a slogan!
One of Akin's laws of spacecraft design [ece.uvic.ca] is "Don't do nothin' dumb."