United States Congress

[AnywhereButHere]

 

I never understood the whole hatred of waiting for a doctor’s appointment.  What do they think happens here in the US?  Anytime I make an appointment for a routine physical, I have to do it months in advance, and then once I go for the appointment, I have to practically pack a lunch and expect to hang out in the waiting room for an hour or so before the doctor actually comes in.  Even for non-emergency illnesses, I’m waiting a couple of days to see the doctor.  It’s like people have been terrified into thinking that with national healthcare they’ll be waiting years and possibly drop dead before they get to see their doctors.  Add to that this, I think, unspoken fear that if they’re not seen as visibly paying for healthcare, then doctors will treat them dismissively and without proper care.

 

And all this reminds me that I need to start planning for my son’s physical in August…

 

And "poor" Sean Spicer drawing the ire of Pete Sessions. You know when someone refers to you as "a nice young man" it isn't always complimentary. 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-house-chair-tells-sean-spicer-to-mind-his-own-business-on-obamacare-repeal/ar-AAo2CSZ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=msnbcrd

 

Quote

But Sessions wasn’t on board with Spicer’s suggestion. He said he had never talked to the White House about whether there would be an open rule and stressed that the administration doesn’t get to control Congress.

“That is in an entirely different article of the Constitution,” he said. 

Sessions was clearly annoyed by the situation the White House put him in, and there was silence after he spoke, punctuated by Democrats then trying to lighten the mood by joking that they’d pass Sessions’ message along to Spicer.

“He [Spicer] can be in his lane, and I can be in my lane, but he’s in my lane now. ... I did not pre-clear that and he did not call me,” Sessions continued, adding that he knows Spicer and considers him a “fine young man” nevertheless. 

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, sawasdee said:

snip

WHY does the US hate the idea of an 'everyone pays' system like this? Pure greed by the insurance industry? The for profit hospitals?

Several reasons. First, as stated in an article I posted somewhere here on the political forum yesterday or the day before, Republicans absolutely, positively, despise the thought of paying a penny to help others. They see poverty as a moral failing on the part of the person who is poor. Secondly, there is still significant sexism and racism, and women and minorities are overrepresented in the ranks of the poor. Thirdly, anything that sounds like "socialism" will garner an automatic NOPE from Republicans, except for police, fire, and rescue. Finally, the insurance companies spend billions lobbying congress to ensure they can continue paying their executives and boards ridiculous amounts of money while finding ways to avoid paying claims. Because of that, congress passes laws that favor the insurance companies. Lost in all the back and forth about Russia and wiretapping is that one of the measures that was introduced last week removes tax penalties for companies that pay their executives super high salaries.

 

I still hate the smug Bitch McConnell, but this made me laugh: "Mitch McConnell’s refreshingly honest answer about Mexico paying for the border wall"

Quote

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was asked by Politico's Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer on Thursday morning whether he believed that Mexico would, ultimately, foot the cost for the border wall President Trump wants built on our southern border.

“Uh, no,” was McConnell's blunt response, according to CNN's Manu Raju.

That's the general feeling within the GOP political establishment when it comes to the prospect of Mexico paying the estimated $12 billion to $15 billion cost of the border wall. But it's not something they usually say aloud because Trump continues to insist — and insist — that Mexico will, eventually, pay for the costs of the wall.

...

'nuff said.

[sawasdee]

I'm sorry for double posting, but this whole evisceration of ACA is killing me. I live in a non 1st world country - Thailand - and even here, if you are employed, a tax registered person - not necessarily tax paying -  or pensioned, you and your family can receive treatment at a government hospital for 30 baht  - a grand sum of about 80 cents!

If Thailand can do this for its people - WTF is your Congress doing?

[Cartmann99]

58 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

If you have a chronic condition, you can buy an annual 'season ticket', which gives you all your medication for a set sum.

Can you please explain more about how this works? Do you pay your lump sum in January and get a year's worth of medication all at once? Or do you sign up and then get charged every month for your supply for each month? Thanks! 

My husband has medical conditions that require him to take daily medication. Some of his meds only have to be taken during a portion of the year, while others are year-round. We have a prescription benefit through his health insurance at work, and he can get a 30 day supply of his meds at certain local pharmacies that are in our network, but it is cheaper to get his docs to write his prescriptions for a 90 day supply and then use the mail order pharmacy that his insurance recommends.

They also want us to use generic meds as much as possible, and if there is no generic drug available, you need to make sure the brand name drug is on the approved list, or you will pay through the nose for that drug. I always ask my docs to please subscribe meds for me that have a generic available whenever possible.

1 hour ago, sawasdee said:

WHY does the US hate the idea of an 'everyone pays' system like this? Pure greed by the insurance industry? The for profit hospitals?

It's a combination of factors.

Some people desire an "underclass", so that they can feel superior. For them, what's the point of being wealthy if you receive the same standard of care that the poorest person in your country receives? 

Some people are making money off of the existing system, and will fight tooth and nail to preserve their income stream.

Some people believe that healthcare is not a right, government should never be involved in providing healthcare to its citizens, nor should government force its citizens to participate in such a system.

Some people believe that government will never do as good a job as the free market.

 

Some people think they would be forced to use contraception or have abortions if the government provided healthcare.

Some people don't want a government system because they wouldn't have a say over who received care.

Some people are fine with the current system. It meets their needs, and they don't want it to change.

As for me, my geeky dream would be for the United States to do in depth study of the various healthcare systems in the world, have a national discussion about what we want our system to be like, and then get busy building our own system. We need to be humble enough to learn from the successes and failures of other countries around the world, and use that knowledge to build a system that provides healthcare for all Americans.

My dream requires sane people who want to be part of a community, and are okay with the knowledge that some folks are going to require more care than others. Unfortunately, based on what I see in my community, the conservatives are never going to get on board with such a system. 

[sawasdee]

@Cartmann99I can't understand those who would deny care to others. Don't they realise they are a step away from a 'catastrophic' event that might leave themselves or a family member dependent on expensive care?

Do people really believe they would be forced to use contraception/have abortions in a comprehensive system? Hell, no! If they don't want to use birth control, it saves the NHS money! It's another department that has to pick up the bill to feed, house and educate their child....

And some want to decide WHO ELSE receives care? Dumbfounded.

And as for those that believe the government shouldn't be involved, and they shouldn't be forced to participate - just wait for the first major health crisis, which would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And government will never do such a good job as the free market? I remember vividly when British Railways was privatised, and split into companies - not only MUCH worse service, but also many more accidents - as they cut maintenance to maximise profit. My local train company was actually fined because its service fell below the (very low) level they were supposed to provide. (For Brits - it was SouthWest trains in London.)

As for the season ticket, you buy it, valid for one year, at any point in the year, and then produce it when you pick up your meds. My brother had one until he retired and then it was all free!*

*But he paid all his working life for it through National Insurance.

ETA I was born after the NHS was founded - I never knew anything else until I moved to Thailand. And I cannot believe the over diagnosing and over prescribing of the private hospitals here.

And when I worked with Americans visiting the UK they were quite upset when asked to pay for treatment - 'But I thought it was free here' - no, WE pay for it through NI - you haven't paid into that system! (Although sometimes emergency departments waived payment, saying it cost more than the fee  to collect, as they weren't set up for payment!)

[candygirl200413]

@Cartmann99 I graduated with a bachelors in Public Health and we watched this documentary in my intro to health insurance delivery in the US class I think via pbs? Sick around the World. I remember my class being so frustrated watching it because it showed out hot mess of a system in the US in comparison to England (NHS) and Japan (Social Insurance) among a few other countries and while they also aren't prefect, it would just be amazing if we channeled this in cause it was in comparison between industrialized western world nations (besides Japan).

But I agree with all of your reasons, and it just makes me mad again! Especially how I just watched this video of a Republican congressman who was SO mad that he would have to pay for prenatal care while he has a penis but yet I don't hear too many women complaining about how we pay for their viagara.

 

[sawasdee]

@candygirl200413      He really said that?  I know that abstinence instead of sex ed is a goal of the repugs, but doesn't he realise there was a PENIS involved before the need for pre natal care?

But Viagra should be available on insurance - really, the mindset hasn't changed much since  - oh, about the year 1100?

ETA 7th century Ireland was more advanced - see Brehon Law.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Debating health care bill, GOP congressman asks why Democrats haven’t proposed a tax on the sun"

Quote

The Republican plan to repeal Obamacare was approved by the House Ways and Committee in the early Thursday, capping an 18-plus-hour debate over the legislation. And the marathon session was not without its testy moments.

Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., argued that the “tanning tax” imposed by former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act unfairly targets American women who use indoor tanning beds.

“What I found on Google is roughly 80 percent of who’s taxed is women,” Smith said. “Today is International Women Day. It’s interesting that no one is bringing that up.”

“Whoever decided to impose this tax seven years ago, before I was here, I’d be quite curious of why did they just randomly pick this tax to have it paid for on the backs of so many females,” he continued.

Smith brought up other products, like ice cream, that can pose health risks.

“You can tax a lot of different items if you want to stop behavior,” he said. “You know, I love ice cream. Ice cream’s probably not the most healthy thing to eat. Why is there not a tax on that? You know what? If you look at the No. 1 cause of skin cancer, it’s not tanning beds. Do a Google search — it’s the sun.”

Smith said he “noticed” that Democrats “haven’t found too many taxes that they dislike — so why have they not proposed a tax on the sun instead of tanning beds?”

Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., countered that scientific research shows indoor tanning poses an increased cancer risk, and that taxing their use is akin to taxing cigarettes.

“The tanning provision wasn’t picked randomly,” Levin said.

Reps. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., and Jim Renacci, R-Ohio, then got into a scrap over whether tanning beds do, in fact, pose a health risk.

“There’s nothing that shows that it is not healthy,” Renacci said. “It actually could be healthy if you look at some of the studies. So I want to make sure we can say it’s healthy. I’m not a doctor; you’re not a doctor.”

“Some of your figures are wacky,” Pascrell replied

You couldn't make this up.

[Childless]

1 hour ago, sawasdee said:

@Cartmann99I can't understand those who would deny care to others. Don't they realise they are a step away from a 'catastrophic' event that might leave themselves or a family member dependent on expensive care?

Because they never think it will happen to them and they could care less about how a relative will pay for expensive care so long as they themselves aren't saddled with paying for it.  If you haven't figured it out yet, Americans are selfish and greedy in general.  It's part of our culture and most people see nothing wrong with that.  The only time they get upset about it is when they are in trouble and need help and no one will help them.  Americans also have a very large special snowflake complex.

41 minutes ago, candygirl200413 said:

@Cartmann99 I graduated with a bachelors in Public Health and we watched this documentary in my intro to health insurance delivery in the US class I think via pbs? Sick around the World. I remember my class being so frustrated watching it because it showed out hot mess of a system in the US in comparison to England (NHS) and Japan (Social Insurance) among a few other countries and while they also aren't prefect, it would just be amazing if we channeled this in cause it was in comparison between industrialized western world nations (besides Japan).

But I agree with all of your reasons, and it just makes me mad again! Especially how I just watched this video of a Republican congressman who was SO mad that he would have to pay for prenatal care while he has a penis but yet I don't hear too many women complaining about how we pay for their viagara.

 

Then why should I have to pay for their limp dick meds?  Or their prostate cancer screenings?  Are Republicans really this dense?  The whole point of paying to support gender specific things even if you aren't that gender is because it makes for a healthy, productive society and chances are, at some point in time, someone on their insurance policy is going to use it.

[47of74]

1 hour ago, Childless said:

Because they never think it will happen to them and they could care less about how a relative will pay for expensive care so long as they themselves aren't saddled with paying for it.  If you haven't figured it out yet, Americans are selfish and greedy in general.  It's part of our culture and most people see nothing wrong with that.  The only time they get upset about it is when they are in trouble and need help and no one will help them.  Americans also have a very large special snowflake complex.

Then why should I have to pay for their limp dick meds?  Or their prostate cancer screenings?  Are Republicans really this dense?  The whole point of paying to support gender specific things even if you aren't that gender is because it makes for a healthy, productive society and chances are, at some point in time, someone on their insurance policy is going to use it.

Exactly.  Why should people have to pay for boner pills for Republican men who spend their days screaming about birth control and abortion.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Ryan presses case for health care bill in the face of ‘frustration’ and ‘confusion’"

Quote

The rollout of a new health care law to replace Obamacare has produced “a lot of frustration” among conservatives and “a lot of confusion,” House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., acknowledged Thursday.

Ryan sent a clear message to conservative House members who want the bill to go even further: This is as good as it gets.

...

It was a classic performance by Ryan, who has always been known as a policy nerd. But it was an indication that just three days after releasing the text of their plan Monday evening, Republican leaders and the White House realize that the first major initiative of the Trump presidency is in trouble.

...

“What people are sort of learning is: This reconciliation tool is pretty tight. There’s a lot of stuff we would love to put in the bill, but unfortunately, the Senate rules don’t allow us to do that,” he said.

Two things: "this is as good as it gets". Um, no. Just no. And, what is this "first major initiative of the Trump presidency"? Wasn't the fiasco of a travel ban the first major initiative? I couldn't bear to watch the video as I think I'll start bleeding from the eyes and ears if I have to watch Ryan. I do love how now he's blaming the "Senate rules" too. It is everybody's fault but his.

 

BTW, a major fuck you to the GOP for saying that men shouldn't have to cover prenatal care because men don't get pregnant. Um, I have no children and won't ever have any (thank you, menopause), but I understand that insurance should cover everyone. If we cherry-pick specific conditions or treatments, the costs will skyrocket.

 

"GOP health-care bill would drop addiction treatment mandate covering 1.3 million Americans"

Quote

The Republican proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act would strip away what advocates say is essential coverage for drug addiction treatment as the number of people dying from opiate overdoses is skyrocketing nationwide.

Beginning in 2020, the plan would eliminate an Affordable Care Act requirement that Medicaid cover basic mental-health and addiction services in states that expanded it, allowing them to decide whether to include those benefits in Medicaid plans.

The proposal would also roll back the Medicaid expansion under the act — commonly known as Obamacare — which would affect many states bearing the brunt of the opiate crisis, including Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia expanded Medicaid under the ACA.

“Taken as a whole, it is a major retreat from the effort to save lives in the opiate epidemic,” said Joshua Sharfstein, associate dean at Johns Hopkins Medical School.
Advocates and others stress that mental-health disorders sometimes fuel drug addiction, making both benefits essential to combating the opioid crisis.

Nearly 1.3 million people receive treatment for mental-health and substance abuse disorders under the Medicaid expansion, according to an estimate by health care economists Richard G. Frank of the Harvard Medical School and Sherry Glied of New York University.

...

Joe Kennedy and Peter Welch introduced an amendment to mandate mental health and substance abuse treatment, but it was voted down by Repubs.

[Ali]

Screaming about not wanting to pay for prenatal care while claiming to be pro life. Wow!

The out of pocket expense for the prenatal care and birth of my second child could have bought 21 $600 iphones and I still would have  money leftover for diapers.

[GreyhoundFan]

I love this Photoshopped take on Ryan:

[Cartmann99]

5 hours ago, sawasdee said:

@Cartmann99I can't understand those who would deny care to others. Don't they realise they are a step away from a 'catastrophic' event that might leave themselves or a family member dependent on expensive care?

Sadly, Americans in general are an extremely shortsighted group. Look at our lackluster response to climate change for proof. Combine shortsightedness with the Christian conservative belief that God will intervene in some fashion if you are worthy enough, and you get folks that don't want to "waste" their "hard earned" money on health insurance. Crazy, huh?

5 hours ago, sawasdee said:

Do people really believe they would be forced to use contraception/have abortions in a comprehensive system? Hell, no! If they don't want to use birth control, it saves the NHS money! It's another department that has to pick up the bill to feed, house and educate their child....

Some do. American conservatives are a very fearful group in general, and unfortunately it is becoming more and more common for conservative Christians to believe in a variety of conspiracy theories. The government and government employees are frequent boogymen plotting against "Godfearing Christians" in these sort of groups.

These folks are also afraid that any money they are forced to pay into such a system, would be used to provide contraceptives or abortions for others. Think about the folks we talk about here who use Samaritan instead of actual health insurance, and the reasons they give for that choice.

6 hours ago, sawasdee said:

And some want to decide WHO ELSE receives care? Dumbfounded.

They don't want their money going to help those they despise.

6 hours ago, sawasdee said:

And as for those that believe the government shouldn't be involved, and they shouldn't be forced to participate - just wait for the first major health crisis, which would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars

They think God will somehow provide or heal you if you are worthy enough, and if he doesn't, then you are obviously living a secretly sinful life.

6 hours ago, sawasdee said:

And government will never do such a good job as the free market? I remember vividly when British Railways was privatised, and split into companies - not only MUCH worse service, but also many more accidents - as they cut maintenance to maximise profit. My local train company was actually fined because its service fell below the (very low) level they were supposed to provide. (For Brits - it was SouthWest trains in London.)

Faux Libertarian ideology and conservative Christianity are a common pair in the United States. I say faux Libertarian, because they profess to want the smaller government and more individual liberty that the Libertarian ideology promotes, but they still want the government to somehow have enough money and people to enforce the social conservatism that they desire. It is an article of faith in these groups that the free market will always provide the best answer, even when it is obviously a task better suited to government.

6 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

 

@Cartmann99 I graduated with a bachelors in Public Health and we watched this documentary in my intro to health insurance delivery in the US class I think via pbs? Sick around the World. I remember my class being so frustrated watching it because it showed out hot mess of a system in the US in comparison to England (NHS) and Japan (Social Insurance) among a few other countries and while they also aren't prefect, it would just be amazing if we channeled this in cause it was in comparison between industrialized western world nations (besides Japan).

Public Health is such an important field, good on you for pursuing it! 

I always get depressed when I watch documentaries about the healthcare systems they have in some other countries. My husband and I watch a lot of British TV shows on Netflix, and whenever the NHS is mentioned in passing, it's a sad reminder to me of what we don't have here in the United States.

5 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

But I agree with all of your reasons, and it just makes me mad again! Especially how I just watched this video of a Republican congressman who was SO mad that he would have to pay for prenatal care while he has a penis but yet I don't hear too many women complaining about how we pay for their viagara

Over the years, I've paid thousands of dollars for car insurance, yet I've never been involved in a serious car accident. I feel if I can make it to the end of my days without ending up in the hospital due to a car accident, then I'm a lucky duck. If the price for me to have such luck is paying car insurance premiums twice a year, I'm okay with that.

As for health insurance, I know I'll probably need more care as I age, so I'm fine with paying now so Fred gets a new hip and Susan gets her prenatal visits to insure that she and her baby are taken care of. Being a member of civilization means you pay in to keep everything running smoothly. I don't want to live in some Paul Ryan hellscape with Ayn Rand posters everywhere, I want the optimistic future society that Star Trek showed us was possible. 

[Audrey2]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Snip

 

BTW, a major fuck you to the GOP for saying that men shouldn't have to cover prenatal care because men don't get pregnant. Um, I have no children and won't ever have any (thank you, menopause), but I understand that insurance should cover everyone. If we cherry-pick specific conditions or treatments, the costs will skyrocket.

 

But, to paraphrase the old Shake and Bake commercial from the 1970's, "And they helped!" 

 

So these men have no wives? Girlfriends? Daughters? Did they think the women in their lives needed prenatal care? Do they realize how expensive it is? 

 

I'm so sick of these GOP men who think their contribution to civilization begins and ends with impregnating a woman. Sure wish all women who knew them would heed the advice these men so freely give to women- squeeze an aspirin between your knees. Let these men go without sex. 

[candygirl200413]

@Cartmann99 Thank you This fall I'll be getting an MPH and hopefully later on peruse a PhD! But yes the whole paying for others in terms of insurance can be applied for other insurances we pay for like car and yet I haven't heard anyone try to fight that!

Also even though it's been called ryancare and trumpcare, they don't want to be associated with it. Meanwhile Obama although wanted it to be referred to it as the ACA he never was like "I absolutely do NOT want this healthcare be associated to me!". Does that mean weasel and orange fuck face realize it's a full on disaster?!

[formergothardite]

16 hours ago, sawasdee said:

. You may wait - a long time - in an ER.

The ER waits here are insane! I've heard of people waiting for four to six hours! People have died waiting in American ERs! It isn't like we have amazing medical care here in America. I've had to wait months for appointments with specialists. 

How do we change our society to make it less awful?! 

[Childless]

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

The ER waits here are insane! I've heard of people waiting for four to six hours! People have died waiting in American ERs! It isn't like we have amazing medical care here in America. I've had to wait months for appointments with specialists. 

How do we change our society to make it less awful?! 

I had to wait 3 weeks to just get in to see a general surgeon about my hernia.  Then, I had to wait 6 weeks for the surgery.  When I arrived at the hospital on the day of the surgery, they prepped me and then I had to wait 5 hours to get into surgery (4 hours past the scheduled start time) because my surgeon was pulled into an emergency that came into the ER.  So, it's not like things happen fast here in the U.S. with our capitalistic insurance system.  How long you wait depends on how many doctors and hospitals exist where you live.  From what I gather from people in countries with government run systems, the situation is the same.  Only they don't have to worry about what will happen to them or their families if they loose their job or can't afford to buy insurance on the open market.

What I find ironic is these same people who rant against government run healthcare love their Medicare when they retire and scream at any politician who even remotely suggests changing it.  If it's good enough for them, why can't we all have it?  Special snowflake complex on full display.

[Dark Matters]

Nice jab at Ryan by Kennedy.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a53731/paul-ryan-mercy/

All night on Wednesday, the House of Representatives organized itself into committees so as to perform a pre-emptive autopsy on the dead fish of a health care bill that Paul Ryan and the congressional leadership has bestowed upon the nation. One of the committees was the House Energy and Commerce Committee on which serves Congressman Joseph Kennedy III, son of Congressman Joe, grandson of Senator Robert F., and grand-nephew of President John F. and Senator Edward M.

He had some concerns about the bill and, more to the point, he had more serious concerns about the people pushing the bill, specifically, the zombie-eyed granny starver from the state of Wisconsin who is (putatively) in charge of the House. From The Boston Globe:

"I was struck last night by a comment that I heard made by Speaker Ryan, where he called this repeal bill 'an act of mercy.' With all due respect to our speaker, he and I must have read different Scripture…The one I read calls on us to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, and to comfort the sick. It reminds us that we are judged not by how we treat the powerful, but by how we care for the least among us. There is no mercy in a system that makes health care a luxury. There is no mercy in a country that turns their back on those most in need of protection: the elderly, the poor, the sick, and the suffering. There is no mercy in a cold shoulder to the mentally ill. This is not an act of mercy. It is an act of malice."

A mark, that will surely leave.

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, Dark Matters said:

snip

All night on Wednesday, the House of Representatives organized itself into committees so as to perform a pre-emptive autopsy on the dead fish of a health care bill that Paul Ryan and the congressional leadership has bestowed upon the nation. One of the committees was the House Energy and Commerce Committee on which serves Congressman Joseph Kennedy III, son of Congressman Joe, grandson of Senator Robert F., and grand-nephew of President John F. and Senator Edward M.

snip

It seems like Joe has inherited his grandfather's gift for crafting intelligent and meaningful speeches/statements. RFK certainly had his issues, but many of his words were quite inspirational. An example is the short speech he gave in Indianapolis the night Martin Luther King, Jr was assassinated. Many consider his words to be a major part of the reason there was no rioting there that night, even as many other cities were in flames.

 

On a more unhappy note, the GOP seems to be using the uproar over TrumpedupRyanCareless to push through other initiatives that are scary: "House GOP quietly advances key elements of tort reform"

Quote

House Republicans are advancing a series of bills that would make changes to the civil justice system long sought by doctors and U.S. corporations, including a cap on some medical malpractice awards and new roadblocks for classes of people seeking to sue jointly to address harm.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups are promoting the measures, arguing that courts have grown overly tolerant of frivolous and fraudulent claims. Civil rights and consumer groups oppose the measures, saying they would severely limit the ability of average Americans to pursue legal remedies from powerful institutions.

One proposal would limit monetary awards in medical malpractice suits to $250,000 for noneconomic damages, which include pain and suffering. Currently, there is no federal limit on medical malpractice claims, and awards can run into the millions of dollars.

Late Thursday, the House narrowly passed two of the four measures along party lines: The Innocent Party Protection Act would shift some claims to the federal system from state courts, which tend to be more sympathetic to plaintiffs. The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act would permit class-action lawsuits to proceed in federal court only if every person in the class had “an injury of the same type and scope.”

...

The House has approved similar measures in recent years only to see them stall in the Senate. But the Senate may be more inclined to seriously consider the measures, advocates said, with a Republican president inclined to sign them in the White House.

...

None of the four proposals has been aired in a congressional hearing. The House Judiciary Committee quietly voted along party lines to approve them over the past several weeks.

House leaders “are turning the legislative process into a kind of subterranean operation,” said Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), a leading opponent of the bills. “While the populace is spellbound by [Trump], the conservatives in Congress are dismantling access to justice and our tort civil liability system.”

...

Guess who is at the heart of at least one of the initiatives? Our "buddy" Steve King, who the citizens of Iowa have foisted on us.

[47of74]

21 hours ago, AnywhereButHere said:

I never understood the whole hatred of waiting for a doctor’s appointment.  What do they think happens here in the US?  Anytime I make an appointment for a routine physical, I have to do it months in advance, and then once I go for the appointment, I have to practically pack a lunch and expect to hang out in the waiting room for an hour or so before the doctor actually comes in.  Even for non-emergency illnesses, I’m waiting a couple of days to see the doctor.  It’s like people have been terrified into thinking that with national healthcare they’ll be waiting years and possibly drop dead before they get to see their doctors.  Add to that this, I think, unspoken fear that if they’re not seen as visibly paying for healthcare, then doctors will treat them dismissively and without proper care.

Yeah one time I was sitting in the exam room so long and it got so close to closing time that I stuck my head out the door to make sure they hadn't forgotten me.   And with me I try to cram all the appointments into a single day to minimize the time away from work.

That's one thing I do miss with my current assignment at work is having some weekdays off on a regular basis to do stuff.  Now I'm Mon - Fri 8 to 4.   Don't get me wrong, weekends off are great, but now I gotta take time off from work for medical stuff.  My last assignment I would have at least two days off during the week and every other weekend off.  But those were 12 hour days, which I don't miss.

[fraurosena]

I think I kinda like this Earl Blumenauer, the rep. voor Oregon.

No Trump Act: US congressman introduces bill to stop taxpayer funds from going to President’s businesses

Quote

A US congressman has introduced a bill under an acronym that takes a not-so-subtle dig at Donald Trump. 

Earl Blumenauer, the representative for Oregon, said the No Taxpayer Revenue Used to Monetise the Presidency Act, or in short, “the No Trump Act”, would prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to fund any events, stays or other expenses at hotels owned or operated by a president or his or her relatives. 

“Donald Trump should not be allowed to make money off the presidency,” Mr Blumenauer tweeted on Thursday. 

Yep. I like him. 

[Cartmann99]

7 hours ago, Childless said:

I've had to wait months for appointments with specialists

Yup. My husband sees a specialist for one of his medical conditions, and his doctor had to cancel and reschedule his last appointment. The original visit was supposed to occur in January, they rescheduled him for sometime in May.

Since we are discussing healthcare, this 2009 Funny or Die video about those horrible Canadians and their awful healthcare system seems appropriate:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/618fb6cbf2/gus-porter-american-legend-with-thomas-haden-church

"Gus Porter gets mauled by a bear, but he won't let the socialist Canadian health care fix him up, so he'll hike back to America."

[GreyhoundFan]

This is an interesting opinion piece about how Democrats can try to retake the House in 2018.

Quote

There has been no shortage of reports that President Trump is still very popular in the bars and diners of the old industrial towns that decided the 2016 presidential election.

But if you want to meet the voters who will decide the biggest political story of the 2018 congressional elections, you might have to fly right over the blue-collar workers of Youngstown, Ohio, and go talk to the real housewives of Orange County, Calif.

Yes, it’s early. But if we’re already breathlessly checking in on Altoona, Pa., then add the O.C. to the mix.

Orange County was the heart of Sun Belt conservatism and one of the most reliably Republican bastions of the 20th century. It voted Republican in every presidential election from 1936 until 2016, when it voted for Hillary Clinton by a nine-point margin.

It’s hard to think of a place that was less relevant to Mr. Trump’s fortunes in 2016. Mrs. Clinton’s success in Orange County, and in well-educated and Hispanic areas elsewhere in the Sun Belt, helped her win the popular vote — though there was no payoff in the Electoral College. But it’s districts like these that will decide whether the Democrats can make a serious run at control of the House.

...

But whether the Democrats can do it will come down to places like Orange County, which is more populous than Iowa. Four congressional districts that have at least some territory in the county still have Republican representatives, and all four were carried by Mrs. Clinton.

It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that the road to a Democratic House begins and ends at Laguna Beach.

Darrell Issa, who represents the California coast from southern Orange County to part of La Jolla, is probably the nation’s most vulnerable incumbent. That’s based on factors that tend to predict which districts are likeliest to be competitive — like the result of his last election (he won by just 1 point) and how the district voted in recent presidential contests.

...

The rest of the piece is interesting. It kind of flies in the face of the whole "middle America rules" thought from 2016.

[CTRLZero]

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

No Taxpayer Revenue Used to Monetise the Presidency Act, or in short, “the No Trump Act

Catchy acronym - I like it.  This conflict of interest with Trump and his businesses is very concerning.  I read not long ago about lobbying groups booking conventions at his hotels, etc.  This concern made it into my last round of postcards to my representatives.  Pretty much everything he does is to his own benefit.  Ugh.