You didn't. Simply questioning what somebody thinks the answer is when they make such big assertions should be expected. They should not be commenting if they don't want to engage in good faith.
Cowlitz
joined 8 months ago
I have 2 cats. One yells and one does not. The one that yells previously had food insecurity so her behavior is unsurprising. Its how she is. Ive tried waiting to feed her until she stops but its ineffective. She stops after a while but does it again next time. Ive accepted its just how she is and occasionally poke fun at her to lighten myself up. Some are just like that. Id rather my cats bother the hell out me than not because I know they trust and care about me.
The cat who doesn't yell takes the opposite approach. He rubs up against me and gets extra purry and friendly. He prefers trying to get me to do his bidding with honey instead of vinegar.
Are you serious? There's a big difference. Anything related to student loans already has a big hurdle in that it effects a segment of the population and not the entire population. For that reason, its not going to be the #1 issue for many voters. In situations like that, incremental progress is good because its not a prioritized issue simply due to numbers. It sucks but its true. The list of things we need to fix is huge. Things fewer people prioritize need any help they can get. Same reason enshrining abortion rights wasn't a priority. People thought it was already settled law and were less likely to prioritize it if they weren't personally effected.
In the case of healthcare it artifically created a similar problem, which was probably the intent. Giving some people healthcare makes them prioritize it less, which is why there hasn't been much movement (though pretending nothing has changed is disingenuous, even requiring insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions is a big deal). It isn't even a matter of individual voters being against giving other people healthcare despite having their own, though theres certainly some of that. Its about the fact that a voter is not likely to find a politician they agree with on every position. Let alone several for various offices. The things they are willing to compromise on disagreeing about will be things they prioritize less.
Even if more did, would it change anything? Most politicians seem to have the same shitty stance. At least most politicians that the average American will vote for. Biden stance sucks but its not something that differentiates him from most other politicians. I wouldn't expect it to play out much differently with someone else.
I'm not a fan of him either. Though he hasn't done much of what I've wanted, he's been more progressive than I expected. Tbh it sounds like he would have been better off politically if he hadn't touched student loans. Im finding other progressives aren't realistic on this issue and do not seem to want to encourage behavior they want from politicians. Way to encourage other politicians not to make attempts like this. Biden would be getting raked over the coals less if he had done nothing. That doesn't mean dont be critical when its warranted, but don't expect anybody to take you seriously when you claim he didn't try. Were you a fly on the wall listening in? You not being there doesn't mean conversations didnt happen. Its an unfounded claim that doesn't acknowledge the good changes he HAS accomplished. You just don't care about those because you weren't personally impacted. No different than every other selfish voter who gave us Trump.
You are foolish if you think individual politicians can make more progressive shit happen on their own. So many "progressives" only care about the end results and how they are personally helped. That makes you no different than any other voter and its also why we will never make progress until people like you cut the crap and grow up. Incremental progress is still progress. The only time it is not is when its something like setting up a healthcare program and underfunding it so bad it makes the masses hate it. In cases where shit is already fucked, making it slightly less fucked is a good thing.
Personally I actually want politicians to move left. So I celebrate when they make steps in that direction. You are playing into exactly what the Supreme Court was trying to accomplish with its bs decision. The point was to hurt him politically. If you do not reward politicians for moving left and are extra critical of any who make attempts to do what you want, you are only telling them not to bother.
He wasn't my choice but he's what we have. We may as well try to use him instead of throwing a tantrum about what could have been. Most neolibs wouldn't have done anything and he surprised me when he did. The primaries are the place for idealism. The general is the place for realism.
Keep at arms length. Her unhappiness isn't your problem and you can't fix it anyway. Someone who rants about how other people greet them will never be happy. They will always be unhappy if something doesn't go exactly like they want. Not worth wasting energy trying to please them. Everyone will know how she is from her rants.
Whats funny is you cite Medicare fraud. Medicare has a very short list of things they require preauths for. They are the easiest to work with. They do audits and if they spot any issues will take back all of the money. People are genuinely scared of that happening as it can be a lot at once if we did something wrong for a while.
They already do for big services. Thats why its called a preauthorization. It just doesn't work well in emergencies and they dont do it for shit like routine blood draws. Ive had them tell me I could get a CT now and hope they approve it or take my chances. There is still incentive for the provider to fight the battle because patients getting big bills often don't pay them at all (it helps if you tell them though, they are busy and not necessarily keyed into every patients bill status).
Thats what Medicare does. People around the hospital are afraid to fuck anything up because they will go back and take all of their money back.
It isn't about what's actually medically necessary. Insurance companies will use any excuse to pull bs. It greatly matters how a court would view it. People are stupid and could buy the insurance companies arguments that it wasn't made clear that it was medically necessary. Its also important that scheduled procedures are generally termed "elective" even if they are something like a necessary heart procedure. That terminology could be confusing to people who are not medically literate. Making it harder to make a case against them should something happen. They know this and fuck around. CPT codes only tell them what the condition is. There are some conditions that are not life threatening but still God awful to deal with having. You better believe they try to make people try treatments their doctor already knows won't work and otherwise try to find excuses for why its not medically necessary.
It doesn't matter that you don't think such language should be necessary. This is the real world. Not some fantasy land in your head. Our Supreme Court is clearly incapable of reading the constitution. Why on earth would you think anybody else in this country would be able to read? Especially when they already have policies to intentionally hassle people because it saves them money. Its obvious you've never interacted extensively with the American Healthcare system or have only used it with Medicare. Preauths are one of the worst things I have to deal with at my job.
I'm not commenting on the journal or the article specifically. My bf used to work with primates in harem groups. His facility put a young male in with a group of females who's male had passed away. They beat the shit out of him and they had to remove him. They were dumb enough to try again and got the same result and a male who was now afraid of females.
The premise is obviously not wrong across all primates because there are species with female leadership such as bonobos. I think even in male dominanted societies females could potentially gain power by banding together (they are often close relatives) against a male. I could see other males using that as an opportunity to move in. While the males are larger and more aggressive. Most primate groups have a single male with several females. They may not be as strong but they have numbers. The biggest issue is their baby. Males are the biggest danger to babies, even their own. They also have reason not to oust males because a new male often kills all the babies.
This may not be the study to provide evidence for this due to some issues but its still an interesting topic to think about.
Lmao seems to me the best solution is to seize all of Texas' land around the border. If the border is such an inconvenience, surely they won't mind the feds taking it off their hands? Unless of course its just something for them to whine about. California has more illegal immigrants than Texas yet somehow manages to thrive. Yet somehow Texas can't do the same?
The biggest issue with this is not sending them to other states. Its using people as pawns and making their lives more difficult just to stick it to other states. They should be coordinating for that reason alone. They dont because they care more about sticking it to other states than about being decent humans. In my opinion that is not the act of a "united" state. Its the act of an enemy. Texas has decided to start a cold war with its hostile actions. The intent matters. They are intentionally making this a bigger issue than it needs to be just so they can act hostile toward other states. Thats fucked on so many levels. Im perfectly fine accepting refugees from Texas whether it be healthcare, their trans witch hunt, or their behavior toward illegal immigrants. That isn't the issue here. The issue is their hostile behavior.
Im of the mind they should not receive a federal penny while they are making attacks on other states and preventing the feds from doing their jobs at the border. I didnt elect Texans to oversee foreign policy. Its about time biden nationalized the national guard and reminded Texas that it doesn't run the show. Its about time Texans had to suffer for the suffering they inflict on others. Sucks for those not inflicting it but thats why I support a refugee program. Terrible people can keep being terrible because they never suffer for it. Making them feel the weight of their choices probably won't change them as they are rotten to the core, but enabling them only makes the rest of us complicit in their lack of humanity.
The only problem it makes anyone realize is how inhumane Texas and the people who support this are. Texans aren't very bright if they think its sending any kind of message about immigration itself. Its only showing more people how awful Texans are and how they care more about sticking it to other states than having any basic humanity. Anybody who supports this is a horrible person who thinks its acceptable to use human lives as pawns to throw tantrums with.