Let me fix that for you: a politician’s attempt to court disengaged voters by presenting a popular proposal. AKA democracy.
An interesting cause to embrace two weeks before an election, then.
(White House does anything)
This person: Why are they interfering with the election?!
They've been in office for 4 years and they finally think about the voters. What reaction do you expect?
Perhaps the voting public to have a bit more reflection than you seem to. It's not like this is the one thing they've done in four years.
Harris is in serious danger of losing to Trump. It takes a special kind of terrible candidate to be able to do that. Only Hillary Clinton accomplished it in the past. If Trump gets re-elected though, maybe the Dems can try for a new world record by launching three failed impeachments next term instead of two.
Who exactly should they have run, and did you canvass for that person?
Remember, that person also has to want to run.
they finally think about the voters.
Okay so apparently you've been burying your head in the sand because it's been nothing but progress in the past four years. From college forgiveness, to decriminalization, drop in violent crime, expanding overtime...
But nah it's cool bro THANKS BRANDON or whatever y'all say
I wouldn't say "nothing but progress". There was that railroad union busting thing. And the student loan thing (though that was the Republicans' fault). And currently there's the whole genocide thing.
But on the other other hand there was the CHIPS act which is massively expanding chip foundries within the country, the IRA which has crap loads of federal money for energy efficient upgrades to homes and businesses, or the Build Back Better act which provided a crap load of federal money for infrastructure improvements. Most of these will be extremely slow burn bills that will be incredibly instrumental in the long term improvement of the country but won't be immediately obvious to voters
So do they just have to stop governing at some point in order to receive your blessing. Exactly how many weeks/months out should they stop governing?
Is it tho?
It's better than pretending to work at a fast food restaurant while also ignoring health codes.
Damn those dems using common sense policies to win votes!!
I want my representatives to use fear mongering and do absolutely nothing!
No, thats not what I think
...I think
The White House: *does anything*
Idiots: DERE JEST DOING IT FUR VOTES!!!
Also idiots: DA DUMOCRATES HAVUNT DUN ENYTHING DURRING DERE TURM!!!1!!
Shhhhhh... The adults are working...
Go finish your beer.
I don't really think of proposing new policies as "desperate" so much as just trying to outline her goals to people who are still undecided.
Now if she went out and did some weird photoshoot stunt, I might start to pull out the desperate label.
The good ol' Mickey D's strategy
A desperate attempt by Kamala to limit the number of women dying from pregnancy complications since they have little to no access to abortion?
How dare she... Give people the things they want for votes... The outrage!
that's the hardest ratio on this site I've SEEN. The only upvote from one hundred and six people was from yourself.
I've got plus around 500 and minus around 500 on Reddit once EDIT: in the same day. Don't remember which was which. The upvoted comment was vague approval of USSR's actually existent checks and balances. I suspect the other one was generally the same at the same subreddit. I suspect when Redditors see something vague, they just guess, and then the next Redditor only looks at the vote count.
What is your specific issue with this policy?
I get that you think it is being done as a political stunt, but what is the actual issue you have with it aside from that?
Insurance is why the cost of healthcare is out of control in the US.
Its a handout to condom companies and stores that otherwise would have to compete on price. Granted, I don't know how it would be implemented, but these tend not to be implemented well
So it's better to make people pay for their own condoms and other OTC contraceptives rather than have insurance cover it? Because that sounds worse to me.
Yes, insurance exists for unexpected events, that's why its insurance. A condom is a cost you willingly accept. And to be honest, primary care often shouldn't be insurable, but since plans are required to cover it without price discrimination it kills direct primary care- so this is something that has to be accepted. Now, if medicare/medicaid and other programs choose to cover it that's a different thing, but requiring all plans cover it is dumb. But I guess plans don't really have to compete that much on price and value-added that much anymore post-ACA anyways
Then insurance should also not cover things like breast exams and colonoscopies, right?
They are not unexpected events.
As I said in theory insurance shouldn't cover primary care, but this is required post-ACA, and I think before too but I'm not sure starting from when. I think direct primary care could be great(but there are also otherways to do it, like optional primary care insurance).
For some preventative things insurance would choose to cover it if it weren't required to save them money in the long run.
You didn't answer my question.
Should breast exams and colonoscopies be covered by insurance?
I did answer, I think that should be negotiated between the insurer and insuree, and should not be required to be covered.
and should not be required to be covered.
Got it. You want to cost everyone more money in the long term.
Every new case of breast or colon cancer that isn't caught early raises everyone's premiums. You know what prevents those? Breast and colon cancer.
You know what costs taxpayers a lot of money? Unwanted kids.
So your "let's have everyone pay more money rather than have insurance do basic preventative care" plan still makes no sense to me.
Got it. You want to cost everyone more money in the long term.
No?
Every new case of breast or colon cancer that isn’t caught early raises everyone’s premiums. You know what prevents those? Breast and colon cancer.
Insurance companies want lower costs, if that is the reality they would offer screening even if not required. I'm not educated on the topic enough to evalutate it, but there is growing evidence that cancer(and other things) are over-screened. Tumors and other things that may not become cancerous or spread quickly are identified, causing stress and harmful surgery for patients that might not actually need it. I tend to believe more information is better, but, I'm not a doctor, and a lot of doctors are critical of overscreening in terms of outcomes for patients.
You know what costs taxpayers a lot of money? Unwanted kids.
The job of an insurer is not to save tax payers money. If you want free condoms, just give out free condoms, why does it have to be tied to health insurance?
So your “let’s have everyone pay more money rather than have insurance do basic preventative care” plan still makes no sense to me.
Where did I say that?
I am not seeing any doctors in a cursory search saying that people should not be screened for breast and colon cancer at all.
Also, why is the job of an insurer not to save taxpayer money? Because you say so? Maybe if we made that part of the cost of owning a business, we would be able to have more social services.
But something tells me you don't want more social services just like you apparently want unwanted babies from people who would otherwise be able to afford birth control if their insurance took care of it.
I am not seeing any doctors in a cursory search saying that people should not be screened for breast and colon cancer at all.
Where did I say that?? If you don't stop engaging in bad faith I won't respond.
Also, why is the job of an insurer not to save taxpayer money?
Do you think McDonald's should be required to open a shipyard as a loss to save the navy money on warships? Because its simply not their job.
Maybe if we made that part of the cost of owning a business, we would be able to have more social services.
Businesses already pay tax, also insurers are already required to cover screening>
But something tells me you don’t want more social services just like you apparently want unwanted babies from people who would otherwise be able to afford birth control if their insurance took care of it.
Do you think health insurance should be required to buy homes for people? Or help them pay for gas? No? So you want people to be homeless?
What you're advocating is a type of fascism called corporatism. You want a merger between the responsibilities and goals of the state and "private" companies. This type of merger tends to be deeply profitable for politicians and companies- see the military industrial complex.
You're not giving a good reason why the government just buying a condom factory and giving condoms out for free wouldn't be more efficient, since you're so concerned about saving money for the tax payer.
A desperate attempt by Kamala to win more votes?
Let me fix that for you: a politician’s attempt to court disengaged voters by presenting a popular proposal. AKA democracy.
An interesting cause to embrace two weeks before an election, then.
(White House does anything)
This person: Why are they interfering with the election?!
They've been in office for 4 years and they finally think about the voters. What reaction do you expect?
Perhaps the voting public to have a bit more reflection than you seem to. It's not like this is the one thing they've done in four years.
Harris is in serious danger of losing to Trump. It takes a special kind of terrible candidate to be able to do that. Only Hillary Clinton accomplished it in the past. If Trump gets re-elected though, maybe the Dems can try for a new world record by launching three failed impeachments next term instead of two.
Who exactly should they have run, and did you canvass for that person?
Remember, that person also has to want to run.
Okay so apparently you've been burying your head in the sand because it's been nothing but progress in the past four years. From college forgiveness, to decriminalization, drop in violent crime, expanding overtime...
But nah it's cool bro THANKS BRANDON or whatever y'all say
I wouldn't say "nothing but progress". There was that railroad union busting thing. And the student loan thing (though that was the Republicans' fault). And currently there's the whole genocide thing.
But on the other other hand there was the CHIPS act which is massively expanding chip foundries within the country, the IRA which has crap loads of federal money for energy efficient upgrades to homes and businesses, or the Build Back Better act which provided a crap load of federal money for infrastructure improvements. Most of these will be extremely slow burn bills that will be incredibly instrumental in the long term improvement of the country but won't be immediately obvious to voters
So do they just have to stop governing at some point in order to receive your blessing. Exactly how many weeks/months out should they stop governing?
Is it tho?
It's better than pretending to work at a fast food restaurant while also ignoring health codes.
Damn those dems using common sense policies to win votes!!
I want my representatives to use fear mongering and do absolutely nothing!
No, thats not what I think
The White House: *does anything*
Idiots: DERE JEST DOING IT FUR VOTES!!!
Also idiots: DA DUMOCRATES HAVUNT DUN ENYTHING DURRING DERE TURM!!!1!!
Shhhhhh... The adults are working...
Go finish your beer.
I don't really think of proposing new policies as "desperate" so much as just trying to outline her goals to people who are still undecided.
Now if she went out and did some weird photoshoot stunt, I might start to pull out the desperate label.
The good ol' Mickey D's strategy
A desperate attempt by Kamala to limit the number of women dying from pregnancy complications since they have little to no access to abortion?
How dare she... Give people the things they want for votes... The outrage!
that's the hardest ratio on this site I've SEEN. The only upvote from one hundred and six people was from yourself.
I've got plus around 500 and minus around 500 on Reddit once EDIT: in the same day. Don't remember which was which. The upvoted comment was vague approval of USSR's actually existent checks and balances. I suspect the other one was generally the same at the same subreddit. I suspect when Redditors see something vague, they just guess, and then the next Redditor only looks at the vote count.
What is your specific issue with this policy?
I get that you think it is being done as a political stunt, but what is the actual issue you have with it aside from that?
Insurance is why the cost of healthcare is out of control in the US.
Its a handout to condom companies and stores that otherwise would have to compete on price. Granted, I don't know how it would be implemented, but these tend not to be implemented well
So it's better to make people pay for their own condoms and other OTC contraceptives rather than have insurance cover it? Because that sounds worse to me.
Yes, insurance exists for unexpected events, that's why its insurance. A condom is a cost you willingly accept. And to be honest, primary care often shouldn't be insurable, but since plans are required to cover it without price discrimination it kills direct primary care- so this is something that has to be accepted. Now, if medicare/medicaid and other programs choose to cover it that's a different thing, but requiring all plans cover it is dumb. But I guess plans don't really have to compete that much on price and value-added that much anymore post-ACA anyways
Then insurance should also not cover things like breast exams and colonoscopies, right?
They are not unexpected events.
As I said in theory insurance shouldn't cover primary care, but this is required post-ACA, and I think before too but I'm not sure starting from when. I think direct primary care could be great(but there are also otherways to do it, like optional primary care insurance).
For some preventative things insurance would choose to cover it if it weren't required to save them money in the long run.
You didn't answer my question.
Should breast exams and colonoscopies be covered by insurance?
I did answer, I think that should be negotiated between the insurer and insuree, and should not be required to be covered.
Got it. You want to cost everyone more money in the long term.
Every new case of breast or colon cancer that isn't caught early raises everyone's premiums. You know what prevents those? Breast and colon cancer.
You know what costs taxpayers a lot of money? Unwanted kids.
So your "let's have everyone pay more money rather than have insurance do basic preventative care" plan still makes no sense to me.
No?
Insurance companies want lower costs, if that is the reality they would offer screening even if not required. I'm not educated on the topic enough to evalutate it, but there is growing evidence that cancer(and other things) are over-screened. Tumors and other things that may not become cancerous or spread quickly are identified, causing stress and harmful surgery for patients that might not actually need it. I tend to believe more information is better, but, I'm not a doctor, and a lot of doctors are critical of overscreening in terms of outcomes for patients.
Edit: here's a link to read a bit about this
The job of an insurer is not to save tax payers money. If you want free condoms, just give out free condoms, why does it have to be tied to health insurance?
Where did I say that?
I am not seeing any doctors in a cursory search saying that people should not be screened for breast and colon cancer at all.
Also, why is the job of an insurer not to save taxpayer money? Because you say so? Maybe if we made that part of the cost of owning a business, we would be able to have more social services.
But something tells me you don't want more social services just like you apparently want unwanted babies from people who would otherwise be able to afford birth control if their insurance took care of it.
Where did I say that?? If you don't stop engaging in bad faith I won't respond.
Do you think McDonald's should be required to open a shipyard as a loss to save the navy money on warships? Because its simply not their job.
Businesses already pay tax, also insurers are already required to cover screening>
Do you think health insurance should be required to buy homes for people? Or help them pay for gas? No? So you want people to be homeless?
What you're advocating is a type of fascism called corporatism. You want a merger between the responsibilities and goals of the state and "private" companies. This type of merger tends to be deeply profitable for politicians and companies- see the military industrial complex.
You're not giving a good reason why the government just buying a condom factory and giving condoms out for free wouldn't be more efficient, since you're so concerned about saving money for the tax payer.