6 ms·

I think you’re misguided if you think this is a partisan issue. It’s an American issue where neither party has really adequately done anything about affordable

I think you’re misguided if you think this is a partisan issue. It’s an American issue where neither party has really adequately done anything about affordable healthcare and gouging like this.

rtkwe 6y ago
Everything that has been done or been tried has had to pass or be written under the specter of the filibuster though. It fundamentally limits the type of options that get through. The only major change in the last decade was Obamacare which is remarkably similar to the system passed under a the Republican Governorship of Mitt Romney. Democrats have some options they'd like to do that might help but cannot because of the filibuster. Reconciliation which is the only way around the filibuster guaranteed is pretty limited in scope due to the rules around it. Whether those could pass a vote if there was no filibuster is unknown because they all get completely blocked by Republican filibuster.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The only major change in the last decade was Obamacare which is remarkably similar to the system passed under a the Republican Governorship of Mitt Romney. Which itself was a state level implementation of a program the insurance industry and national Republicans were talking up as an alternative in the 90s when, i the wake of the failure of Clinton’s healthcare reform, it seemed there was enough residual demand for something to be done in that regard nationally that they thought they needed to bring something to the table.
- tdeck 6y ago
  The filibuster is a set of rules that both parties agreed to. One might well ask why Democrats in the senate agreed to this rule once again, knowing full well it would impede their ability to accomplish their publicly touted platform over the next few years.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    The obvious answer is eventually they will be out of power again and will want it. In fact until a few years ago they had it for judges, but they got rid of it when Republicans filibustered. Then when Trump nominated a judge they didn't like, well they discovered the filibuster was gone by their own doing and they were powerless.
    - pasquinelli 6y ago
      that obvious answer is not a good one. when democrats got material gains for working people they controlled congress from 1933 to 1980 except for two years. getting rid of the filibuster and packing the supreme court to pass and see to fruition real material gains would make democrats the ruling party for the foreseeable future. they don't do that because that's not what they want.
      - nickff 6y ago
        You don’t get elected for doing things, you get electing for promising to do things.
    - brendoelfrendo 6y ago
      The obvious answer isn't really applicable here, though it does cross the lips of plenty of moderates. The reality is that the Democratic party is forced into being a "big tent" party of "everyone left of the Republicans," which represents a simply massive spectrum, and therefore they have less consensus than the Republican party. Take, for example, Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia who drew some ire after FiveThirtyEight found he sided with Trump's priorities 58% of the time. He's been vocal that he would never agree to eliminate the filibuster, because he's basically a Republican in all but name.
      - Naracion 6y ago
        As an international who is not as familiar with American politics (but wants to understand), why is this comment being down voted? Are the claims incorrect? Are they unsubstantiated?
- IncRnd 6y ago
  > Democrats have some options they'd like to do that might help but cannot because of the filibuster. Repetitively, issues are raised and forgotten by politicians, and never actually solved by the party in power. For various reasons, many people have come to believe propaganda about the filibuster. For example, Sen. Warren and others say that the filibuster is racist and a relic of the past, yet Democrats (including Warren) filibustered the Republican's $500 billion coronavirus relief bill in September of last year. They were really saving their votes to send you money after the election. They also filibustered a Republican police-reform bill last year. While the parties do not necessarily hold the same platforms as each other, many of the Senators literally went to school in order to become politicians. They are not your friends. They are prevaricating in order to remain in power and make money. Not all - but many of them. Warren has some redeeming qualities, but facts are facts. She has been a Senator since 2013 and has had her own share of "clarified statements". Definition: A wedge issue is a divisive political issue, especially one that is raised by a candidate for public office in hopes of attracting or alienating an opponent's supporters. These wedge issues are used to keep people's emotions going, so as to vote for one party and hate the other. Then, the issues are not solved a the times they could. There is a reason for the existence of an actual term, wedge issue, for the concept - because it constantly happens.
pfisch 6y ago
Obamacare has an annual out of pocket cost cap of ~$6300 on healthcare including prescriptions. Sure, that is still pretty high, but it basically saved my life. If not for Obamacare I would need to come up with over 300k per year to not get very sick. This isn't an either party is the same situation. One party would let me be seriously ill. One would give me a possible solution.
- disabled 6y ago
  The problem is that it can always be taken away from you. Remember, the Affordable Care Act ruling is supposed to come out this summer. I am on an orphan drug myself (subcutaneous immunoglobulin, which I am self-infusing at the moment...) which costed $278,000/year under contract, when I lived in the US. Of course the provider bills a much higher amount. But the figure I gave is the one that is paid out, over the course of a year. You should know that the third leading cause of death in the US is believed to be preventable medical errors. This has been corroborated via multiple follow-up studies, just google "third leading cause of death US medical errors". But, here is the original article: https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139 https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139 You can go to the "best hospitals", have the "best insurance", and "be able to pay for care", but you cannot evade a statistic like that. The medical error rate is on par with developing countries, by the way. Also, 7-8% of the general population collectively has some sort of rare disease, which is theoretically treated by orphan drugs. There are now orphan drugs that cost $2 million/year per person, and the cost is so extortionate that it is literally going to screw over the US health system. Such meds have to be taken for life.: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/25/health/drug-prices-rare-diseases.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/25/health/drug-prices-rare-d... Also, life expectancy does not look so good in the US. How healthy will we be in 2040? http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/how-healthy-will-we-be-2040 http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/how-healthy-will-we-b... US was 43rd worldwide in life expectancy in 2016. In 2040, we are expected to be 64th. Honestly, this kind of stuff is why I emigrated and I am a dual US|EU (Croatian) citizen. As an EU citizen, I have Freedom of Movement rights to live/work/retire in 30+ countries within the EU and EFTA (minus Liechtenstein--has an immigration quota). Because of your health status, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are off limits because they have strict medical inadmissability clauses in their immigration laws. I would stay away from the UK too, because they could implement such rules post-Brexit. But, I have studied healthcare systems, logistics of healthcare, along with rules for acquiring citizenship, for hundreds of hours. If you want any help or advice, feel free to shoot me an email (check my profile).
dudeinjapan 6y ago
It's not a partisan issue at all. Both parties are aligned with Big Pharma to screw over the American people. Partisan gridlock is terrible, but it's even worse when the parties agree...

I think you’re misguided if you think this is a partisan issue. It’s an American issue where neither party has really adequately done anything about affordable healthcare and gouging like this.

rtkwe 6y ago

Everything that has been done or been tried has had to pass or be written under the specter of the filibuster though. It fundamentally limits the type of options that get through. The only major change in the last decade was Obamacare which is remarkably similar to the system passed under a the Republican Governorship of Mitt Romney. Democrats have some options they'd like to do that might help but cannot because of the filibuster. Reconciliation which is the only way around the filibuster guaranteed is pretty limited in scope due to the rules around it. Whether those could pass a vote if there was no filibuster is unknown because they all get completely blocked by Republican filibuster.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> The only major change in the last decade was Obamacare which is remarkably similar to the system passed under a the Republican Governorship of Mitt Romney. Which itself was a state level implementation of a program the insurance industry and national Republicans were talking up as an alternative in the 90s when, i the wake of the failure of Clinton’s healthcare reform, it seemed there was enough residual demand for something to be done in that regard nationally that they thought they needed to bring something to the table.
tdeck 6y ago
The filibuster is a set of rules that both parties agreed to. One might well ask why Democrats in the senate agreed to this rule once again, knowing full well it would impede their ability to accomplish their publicly touted platform over the next few years.
- bluGill 6y ago
  The obvious answer is eventually they will be out of power again and will want it. In fact until a few years ago they had it for judges, but they got rid of it when Republicans filibustered. Then when Trump nominated a judge they didn't like, well they discovered the filibuster was gone by their own doing and they were powerless.
  - pasquinelli 6y ago
    that obvious answer is not a good one. when democrats got material gains for working people they controlled congress from 1933 to 1980 except for two years. getting rid of the filibuster and packing the supreme court to pass and see to fruition real material gains would make democrats the ruling party for the foreseeable future. they don't do that because that's not what they want.
    - nickff 6y ago
      You don’t get elected for doing things, you get electing for promising to do things.
  - brendoelfrendo 6y ago
    The obvious answer isn't really applicable here, though it does cross the lips of plenty of moderates. The reality is that the Democratic party is forced into being a "big tent" party of "everyone left of the Republicans," which represents a simply massive spectrum, and therefore they have less consensus than the Republican party. Take, for example, Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia who drew some ire after FiveThirtyEight found he sided with Trump's priorities 58% of the time. He's been vocal that he would never agree to eliminate the filibuster, because he's basically a Republican in all but name.
    - Naracion 6y ago
      As an international who is not as familiar with American politics (but wants to understand), why is this comment being down voted? Are the claims incorrect? Are they unsubstantiated?
IncRnd 6y ago
> Democrats have some options they'd like to do that might help but cannot because of the filibuster. Repetitively, issues are raised and forgotten by politicians, and never actually solved by the party in power. For various reasons, many people have come to believe propaganda about the filibuster. For example, Sen. Warren and others say that the filibuster is racist and a relic of the past, yet Democrats (including Warren) filibustered the Republican's $500 billion coronavirus relief bill in September of last year. They were really saving their votes to send you money after the election. They also filibustered a Republican police-reform bill last year. While the parties do not necessarily hold the same platforms as each other, many of the Senators literally went to school in order to become politicians. They are not your friends. They are prevaricating in order to remain in power and make money. Not all - but many of them. Warren has some redeeming qualities, but facts are facts. She has been a Senator since 2013 and has had her own share of "clarified statements". Definition: A wedge issue is a divisive political issue, especially one that is raised by a candidate for public office in hopes of attracting or alienating an opponent's supporters. These wedge issues are used to keep people's emotions going, so as to vote for one party and hate the other. Then, the issues are not solved a the times they could. There is a reason for the existence of an actual term, wedge issue, for the concept - because it constantly happens.

pfisch 6y ago

Obamacare has an annual out of pocket cost cap of ~$6300 on healthcare including prescriptions. Sure, that is still pretty high, but it basically saved my life. If not for Obamacare I would need to come up with over 300k per year to not get very sick. This isn't an either party is the same situation. One party would let me be seriously ill. One would give me a possible solution.

disabled 6y ago
The problem is that it can always be taken away from you. Remember, the Affordable Care Act ruling is supposed to come out this summer. I am on an orphan drug myself (subcutaneous immunoglobulin, which I am self-infusing at the moment...) which costed $278,000/year under contract, when I lived in the US. Of course the provider bills a much higher amount. But the figure I gave is the one that is paid out, over the course of a year. You should know that the third leading cause of death in the US is believed to be preventable medical errors. This has been corroborated via multiple follow-up studies, just google "third leading cause of death US medical errors". But, here is the original article: https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139 https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139 You can go to the "best hospitals", have the "best insurance", and "be able to pay for care", but you cannot evade a statistic like that. The medical error rate is on par with developing countries, by the way. Also, 7-8% of the general population collectively has some sort of rare disease, which is theoretically treated by orphan drugs. There are now orphan drugs that cost $2 million/year per person, and the cost is so extortionate that it is literally going to screw over the US health system. Such meds have to be taken for life.: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/25/health/drug-prices-rare-diseases.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/25/health/drug-prices-rare-d... Also, life expectancy does not look so good in the US. How healthy will we be in 2040? http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/how-healthy-will-we-be-2040 http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/how-healthy-will-we-b... US was 43rd worldwide in life expectancy in 2016. In 2040, we are expected to be 64th. Honestly, this kind of stuff is why I emigrated and I am a dual US|EU (Croatian) citizen. As an EU citizen, I have Freedom of Movement rights to live/work/retire in 30+ countries within the EU and EFTA (minus Liechtenstein--has an immigration quota). Because of your health status, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are off limits because they have strict medical inadmissability clauses in their immigration laws. I would stay away from the UK too, because they could implement such rules post-Brexit. But, I have studied healthcare systems, logistics of healthcare, along with rules for acquiring citizenship, for hundreds of hours. If you want any help or advice, feel free to shoot me an email (check my profile).

dudeinjapan 6y ago

It's not a partisan issue at all. Both parties are aligned with Big Pharma to screw over the American people. Partisan gridlock is terrible, but it's even worse when the parties agree...