The 2016 US General Election

[JAD_333]

WRT to Trump picking up Tsai's call--at the end of the day, it's just a phone call. It does not add to, or subtract from, the overall US position in Asia Pacific, which is why Beijing's response has been muted.
I suspect the very likely demise of TPP, Trump's management of the next business cycle downturn, and the health of US economy and therefore armed forces into midcentury are matters much closer to Chinese leaders' hearts.

Amen. And he isn't even president yet, not even a bona fide president-elect until December 13, when the Electoral College votes. He can't enjoy a few more days of private citizenhood? Please, spare me the shrieks from the dems. They're the ones making a big-deal out of this. Now if he did this after he took office, that's a more serious matter.

[Wooglin]

Medicine given to Old codgers who are not able to get it up so they can have recreational sex is something I should be paying for?

Don't think birth control should be taxpayer funded but viagra should? Then how about we only prescribe/pay for Viagra when its prescribed to a child bearing age (20-30s) male in a relationship where ED is keeping them from having children. And then it should only be dispensed in a few pills a month to be used when the wife is ovulating so they can have sex at the prime time a pregnancy should occur.

Cause prescribing it to a man that isn't needing it to get his partner pregnant is enabling recreational sex on the taxpayers dime. And thats the argument against taxpayer subsidized birth control for women.

One is a treatment for a biological dysfunction. The other is not.

It's that simple.

[JAD_333]

One is a treatment for a biological dysfunction. The other is not.

It's that simple.

It's not a dysfunction, Wooglin. It's natural for some functions to slow down when you get old, and sex is one of them; and there's no way to treat that, but you can revive it medically. That doesn't invalidate the gist of your point--that there should be a line between natural and unnatural causes when it comes to deciding how public money should be used in government medical programs.

[GVChamp]

On what do you base this claim? I'm in the VA system--about 10 years now. While it's not perfect, it has given me as good and sometimes better care than what I used to receive in the private sector. Medicare did right by my mother. Aside from those examples, I can't speak to other USG health care programs. They may be "extremely expensive" but to say they are "extremely shitty" seems unwarranted.

Which VA system do you attend? My familiarity with the VA system is not with the VA specifically but with people who have done rotations through both the VA and other facilities. VA facilities might prove better than certain private systems but they aren't world-class by any means. Same with most county hospitals, though they'll be superior to medical practices you find in most rural areas.
The tech and knowledge in frontier-firms (both profit and non-profit) is way, way ahead than anything any level of government is doing.

This becomes a lot more apparent when you are dealing with things on the provider side, particularly at a mass level. You know how we get payments and remittances from Medicare? Printed out, individual checks to every single store. You know how we get payments from major insurance companies? With a single bulk electronic payment, weekly, like clockwork, with an industry-standard file to tell us exactly what it's paying for. It's been standard for over a decade, but gov't can't keep up.

From the consumer-side, Medicaid is absolutely a nightmare, even in the "good" states like Illinois (family members have tried to use it in the past!) and Medicare still requires supplemental coverage to be useful: and Medicare is increasingly administered through private payers anyways, and all goes through private providers. If you like Medicare, that means you like private healthcare!
Medicare Part D would be a DISASTER if administered by the federal government, because, again, they don't have the tech to support tens of millions of transactions, because they don't want to implement it. Most of my headaches with insurance companies come from completely poorly-designed federal audit programs. This isn't consistent across ALL the medical system, I should add, but that was MY particular headache.

I have a better understanding of the Australian system far more than the Canadian or the British one. Here we have medicare and it covers medical care for all citizens apart from dental (thats only covered for the poor). You go to the doctor, he/she bills medicare and the doctor gets paid what the schedule considers appropriate. Some doctors (usually in wealthier areas) ask for a small co payment but if you want to get free medical its not difficult to find. Public hospitals are available for all at no cost. If you choose to have medical insurance it tends to cover things like elective surgery in private hospitals, better dental and all the extras.
Drugs are basically single payer, if a drug is on the pharmaceutical benefits list (most are apart from things like viagra and other recreational type drugs) then they are heavily subsidized and you only ever pay up to $30 a month, if you are a pensioner or poor you pay no more than $3.30 per perscription.

Yet for all these benefits we spend significantly less (both personally and as a nation) on health care per capita than the US. You still can't see that there is a better way.

I'm not saying there's not another way, I'm saying the explanations for why the other way works are stupid. "We eliminate wasteful competition and marketing expenses and remove the profit motive because certain things shouldn't be profit-motivated" is a garbage explanation. It's garden-variety socialism, and we've been hearing the same crap for over a century, and it's always bull-crap.

Just because the US healthcare system has problems does not mean market-based healthcare in general is terrible.

Aside from VA guess you don't know much about Tricare?


My 73 yr old mother is on medicare and gets all her scripts from CVS. They bill automatically, she just goes to the pickup counter and gets her meds. No paperwork

Yes it is. When Viagra is covered with no co-pay. That was the argument

Oh Tricare? What do you want to talk about with Tricare? I used to deal with Tricare quite a bit because I was head of the audit-team for Tricare. They're administered by Express Scripts, and guess what? No one who uses Tricare can use CVS after January 1st, because Tricare just changed their network to Walgreen's instead of CVS.
Fabulous program, administered through a private company, with still a lot of crappy rules due to the government. I can go to pretty much any Chicago-based hospital network I want and any pharmacy I want. This is increasingly NOT the case, because the private sector is beginning to implement the cost controls that already exist in many nations. But it's those cost controls and effectiveness bars that make other nation's healthcare more efficient, not the garden-variety crap socialist arguments that have been peddled for the last century.

Viagra for ED is not covered by Medicare and Medicaid and hasn't been for over a decade. This is what irritated me about the "argument." It's even in a specific section of the CMS manual, from what I remember. It should be covered if prescribed for non-ED related reasons, because Viagra does have medical uses besides ED. Should it be covered?
The NHS covers it:
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/882.aspx?CategoryID=61
The NHS covers certain kinds of contraception, too, I believe, but these are entirely different conditions that have nothing to do with each other and wouldn't be considered to have anything to do with each other in any REASONABLE health debate. If you have government coverage, you have government evaluations that judge cost vs. QALY. You don't have discussions about fairness between genders because my woman's studies class says the US is a patriarchy.

[Red Team]

One is a treatment for a biological dysfunction. The other is not.

It's that simple.

Birth control is often prescribed to regulate hormone irregularities (i.e., PCOS). Contrary to it's namesake, it has plenty of medicinal utility beyond delaying the menstrual cycle.

[tbm3fan]

Birth control is often prescribed to regulate hormone irregularities (i.e., PCOS). Contrary to it's namesake, it has plenty of medicinal utility beyond delaying the menstrual cycle.

Ah, someone who knows something

[Wooglin]

Birth control is often prescribed to regulate hormone irregularities (i.e., PCOS). Contrary to it's namesake, it has plenty of medicinal utility beyond delaying the menstrual cycle.

Ok. Good point.

But unless the vast majority of women are using it as a prescribed medicinal treatment and not getting covered it really doesn't lend anything to the argument, which according to the logically challenged is that it's sexist not to cover birth control because you can get viagra covered. When their argument changes to the more logical "it should be covered if prescribed as a treatment" then your apples to apples argument becomes relevant.

[Red Team]

Ok. Good point.

But unless the vast majority of women are using it as a prescribed medicinal treatment and not getting covered it really doesn't lend anything to the argument, which according to the logically challenged is that it's sexist not to cover birth control because you can get viagra covered. When their argument changes to the more logical "it should be covered if prescribed as a treatment" then your apples to apples argument becomes relevant.

I think JAD made a good point about Viagra being used as a "life enhancer," since maintaining a healthy sex life even at an older age can be great for a man's overall health. One could use the same logic for covering birth control for women.

Also from an economic perspective, I would rather have my taxpayer/employee contribution money going to effective 2-way birth control (implemented by both sexes) than accidental pregnancies.

[GVChamp]

If you think additional people might be an economic burden, what's your stance on illegal immigration and refugees again?

[JRT]

Thought some here might find this one interesting.

Smith, National Security Ranking Members Send Letter to President Obama Urging Briefings on Russian Interference in U.S. Election

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Washington, DC – Today, Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Eliot Engel, Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson, Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, and Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff sent a letter to President Obama asking for Administration officials to brief all Members of Congress on Russian efforts to influence or interfere in the recent federal election.

Citing concerns that “Russia may have succeeded in weakening Americans’ trust” in our democratic institutions through its actions, the authors of the letter call attention to the hacking of American organizations, publication of private emails sent to or from campaign officials, as well as disclosures by WikiLeaks and fabricated news stories.

“By eroding Americans’ and foreigners’ trust in U.S. institutions,” the letter states, “Russia both weakens our country and sows global instability and uncertainty. …To evaluate Congress’s response appropriately, we would like all Members to have a comprehensive understanding of what the U.S. Intelligence Community knows regarding Russia’s involvement in these actions and attempts to interfere in our election.”

Dear Mr. President:

We are deeply concerned by Russian efforts to undermine, interfere with, and even influence the outcome of our recent election. This Russian malfeasance is not confined to us, but extends to our allies, our alliances and to democratic institutions around the world.

The integrity of democracy must never be in question, and we are gravely concerned that Russia may have succeeded in weakening Americans’ trust in our electoral institutions through their cyber activity, which may also include sponsoring disclosures through WikiLeaks and other venues, and the production and distribution of fake news stories.

Foreign interference presents a win-win for Russia—which we must counter. By eroding Americans’ and foreigners’ trust in U.S. institutions, Russia both weakens our country and sows global instability and uncertainty. Both present a boon for Russia and a loss for those working to maintain peace and prosperity around the world through the leadership of the United States and its allies.

To evaluate Congress’s response appropriately, we would like all Members to have a comprehensive understanding of what the U.S. Intelligence Community knows regarding Russia’s involvement in these actions and attempts to interfere in our election. Specifically, we are requesting a classified briefing that will provide details regarding Russian entities’ hacking of American political organizations; hacking and strategic release of emails from campaign officials; the WikiLeaks disclosures; fake news stories produced and distributed with the intent to mislead American voters; and any other Russian or Russian-related interference or involvement in our recent election.

We thank you for your attention to this matter.

STENY H. HOYER
Democratic Whip

JOHN CONYERS
Ranking Member, Committee on Judiciary

ELIOT ENGEL
Ranking Member, Committee on Foreign Affairs

BENNIE G. THOMPSON
Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS
Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

ADAM SMITH
Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services

ADAM SCHIFF
Ranking Member, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

.

.

[JAD_333]

Thought some here might find this one interesting. (Smith, National Security Ranking Members Send Letter to President Obama Urging Briefings on Russian Interference in U.S. Election)

It's a political ploy to undercut Trump's win. While it's possible Moscow tried to meddle in the election, it's not possible to prove that its meddling affected the outcome. But, hey, why not try to plant the idea in people's mind that Trump might be Russia's baby. I don't mean to minimize the possibility that Russia tried to influence the election, I question the timing of the request and the innuendo that the administration has intel to prove it.

[JAD_333]

I think JAD made a good point about Viagra being used as a "life enhancer," since maintaining a healthy sex life even at an older age can be great for a man's overall health. One could use the same logic for covering birth control for women.

You could make that connection, but only as it applies to pregnancy prevention--birth control pills, etc. But abortion paid for by taxpayers, except for the usual exceptions, does not fit into the mold of health care.

I don't think abortion is right, beyond the usual exceptions, nor is it a right. It's a capability. If the woman next door wants an abortion, that's her business. I'm not going to shame her for it, but I still think it's wrong, and I shouldn't have to pay for it,

[Chunder]

Thought some here might find this one interesting.

Not really... just lost in the post election Hysteria.
OMG Trump didn't invite us along on his family dinner.
OMG Trump took a phonecall.
OMG Mattis is the worst possible choice, can we block it?
OMG Scrap the electoral college
OMG Trump said AF1 costs too much
OMG the transition is too chaotic.

The over-reaction just makes you less interested on the potential tid bits of information that may be available within. It's too hard to ascertain at a glance which side of politics those members come from without requiring 10 minutes of time to look them all up.

Anyway, Hillary was the one that wanted all options on the table with regards to a hacking attempt on the U.S.A.

But OMG the potential of Trump in control of the football. Makes you want to *switch off*. So long as they can keep the flag burners busy I suppose.

[JRT]

Not really... just lost in the post election Hysteria.
OMG Trump didn't invite us along on his family dinner.
OMG Trump took a phonecall.
OMG Mattis is the worst possible choice, can we block it?
OMG Scrap the electoral college
OMG Trump said AF1 costs too much
OMG the transition is too chaotic.

The over-reaction just makes you less interested on the potential tid bits of information that may be available within. It's too hard to ascertain at a glance which side of politics those members come from without requiring 10 minutes of time to look them all up.

Anyway, Hillary was the one that wanted all options on the table with regards to a hacking attempt on the U.S.A.

But OMG the potential of Trump in control of the football. Makes you want to *switch off*. So long as they can keep the flag burners busy I suppose.

This has nothing at all to do with what Donald J. Trump ate for breakfast yesterday. That hoopla is the sensationalized obfuscation that we should be looking past.

If US foreign and domestic intelligence services, presumably apolitical sources, have any well substantiated information indicating foreign interference and/or manipulation in US democratic election process ( heavy emphasis on "if"), then that is a serious matter and a subject worthy of attention and public dissemination.

Regardless the underlying political motivations of those seeking dissemination of information, and regardless that the information will always be incomplete, any information that is available would be coming from US foreign and domestic intelligence services and would be disseminated to all Congressmen regardless their party affiliation. Any well substantiated factual information that exists will not change relative to whomever won an election.

[JRT]

I don't mean to minimize the possibility that Russia tried to influence the election...

You say that, but you are minimizing it.

The vote stands and Trump will be POTUS regardless any foreign manipulations of information influencing the opinions of the electorate.