Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

If Sanders wins, the necessary strategy could be interesting for the Democrats.  Despite being old enough to have actually met Karl Marx,  I don't think he is likely to do good at all with the over 50 crowd.  And might have to punt that whole demographic, in hopes they can get enough under 30s to vote.  This is all potentially of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GM Joe said:

I'm not a tweeter, but this thread where Blake Zeff explains how Bloomberg gets elected was worth reading all 17 tweets.

https://twitter.com/blakezeff/status/1227976156936171520

 

 

Thanks for sharing this.  I find knowing 'playbooks' and 'tactics' in particular to be highly insightful.  I always encourage everyone to 'learn the rules', because that's the only way to actually understand what goes on sometimes. 

 

That and stats/science. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose IF the prices remain stagnate on medical supplies/equipment, IF doctors work for slave wages, IF hospitals don't gouge the prices, then maybe.  MORE people will be getting these procedures, and that will be money spent.   And in theory, the checkups can mitigate the cost with possible less expensive preventive measures earlier.   But, everything has to go right and more for money to be saved.  So, yeah, I can buy it not costing as much as we thought it would cost, and if that is the argument on "saving" then I apologize.  But, savings to me means the spending actually decreases.  More people + more care=less money is like saying 4+4=(-2)

 

Note: I see, it claims and then instead of explaining, chucks 50+ references at me or make me pay for the article.  And I was beginning to get optimistic.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old Man said:

Really?  What exceptions do you take to The Lancet's methodology for determining cost savings?

 

Since, they don't explain the methodology without me paying for an article.  I am expected to accept on blind faith.  I am not wasting my money throwing it out for internet articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

For many people in America today, analysis by "intellectual elites" is automatically dismissed. :(

 

I don't, and I get tired of because they are "intellectual elites" that I am supposed to accept on blind faith.

 

Edit: too often these thing turn out to be "well, we didn't expect the price to rise this high for this product or that product."   I guess I can suspend belief and say it will save 450B if everything goes right as predicted. Everything goes right as predicted, absolutely never. 

 

Note: And I should this isn't me saying Medicare For All is bad idea, just that I am quite the skeptic over money savings of it.  Saving lives, and healthier workers are indeed worth a rise in cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I am dropping it.  This is just the type of thing that p___es me off.  Saying we can have all these things, and not pay for it.  Always feels like The Nigerian Scam.  And while I hate the "dismiss the intellectual elites" narrative, I also detest the contrast "believe the intellectual elites, blindly, because they are smarter than you, and would never lie" 

 

Regardless, I've gotten worked up, and know by now, to get out of it, before I go too far in my anger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always a prudent move. Yup, blind trust is just as bad as blind dismissal. The smart consumer always reads the fine print.

 

One interesting point of comparison is between the American and Canadian health care systems, in terms of expenditures, access, and quality of service. Various studies take different perspectives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_healthcare_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Badger said:

 More people + more care=less money is like saying 4+4=(-2)

 

I didn't pay for the article, either, but we know that we pay more per capita for healthcare than any other nation, yet our outcomes aren't better. We know that other advanced nations handle healthcare in their own, individual ways. Yet they all pay less and have outcomes at least as good as ours. So there appear to be many paths to lower costs that do not sacrifice health.

 

We also know that congress barred Medicare and Medicaid from negotiating for lower drug prices, and we know that the VA is allowed to negotiate for lower drug prices, and that the VA therefore pays less for drugs. It would seem a simple matter of will to allow Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate on drug prices, saving the nation substantially.

 

In short, we know there are a lot of ways we could be saving money and getting at least as good of outcomes as we have now.

 

So to the extent that any given program does things that are shown to result in lower costs with health outcomes that are at least as good as we have now, I think we should at least consider it.

 

Medicare for All is one such. It appears to be a reasonable path to what we want: more coverage, less expenditure. Part of that is done through negotiating for lower drug costs. Part is done through eliminating the administrative overhead (we know that the overhead of Medicaid is much lower than that of any private health insurer, for example, and we know that dealing with one insurer is less costly for hospitals and doctors than dealing with many different insurers each with their own procedures and requirements). Those things seem like they're reasonable ways to reduce costs and get good outcomes.

 

Whether they're philosophically in line with American values is a different debate. How we should handle what to cover and what not to cover is yet another debate.

 

But they do seem to be ways to get where we keep saying we want to go.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Badger said:

fair enough,  I do think only one insurer will give hospitals an excuse to charge what they please for example.  But, at least that is some explanations, on the matter.  Thanks.

 

Isn't it a premise of capitalism, and the free market economy, the belief that competition between the hospitals should drive prices down?

 

When they are negotiating with the individual whose quality of life (or even continued life) depends on their services, it seems like the hospital has a lot more bargaining power than when they are negotiating with a single large organization charged with providing the best possible care to as many patients as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I share Badger's annoyance at paywalled medical and scientific journals.

 

Instead I will quote a different intellectual elitist, John Oliver:

 

Quote
  • Nobody knows what it will actually cost.  Anyone saying otherwise is full of s--t.
  • Most cost estimates come in at or below our nations current public and private sector combined health care spending, and even if it doesn’t end up that way, it’s worth it.
  • The idea of “choice” is an illusion.  Most people have one choice:  Whatever their employer offers them.
  • People often have no choice at all in emergencies but to go out-of-network — often even when they’ve gone out of their way to try to stay in network.
  • Under M4A, every provider is in network.
  • The “wait time” argument about other nations with nationalized healthcare that is currently a favorite of those opposed to M4A is basically bogus and based on non-emergency or elective procedures.
  • People wait ridiculous amounts of time now because they simply cannot afford the co-pays and deductibles needed to be met to get said procedures.
  • A system where people have to choose between one life saving medication or another due to cost is inherently unjust.
  • Yes, people in the health care bureaucracy will need new jobs, but that can be handled and is part of the plans offered by both Sanders and Warren.
  • The current system, as Oliver put it, is a “s--t sandwich”, while “Medicare for all who want it” is “still a s--t sandwich, only with avocado on it because the same s--t still remains.”
  • Anyone arguing against M4A is arguing for all of the flaws and unfairness inherent in our current system and they need to own that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Isn't it a premise of capitalism, and the free market economy, the belief that competition between the hospitals should drive prices down?

 

When they are negotiating with the individual whose quality of life (or even continued life) depends on their services, it seems like the hospital has a lot more bargaining power than when they are negotiating with a single large organization charged with providing the best possible care to as many patients as possible.

 

I live in a rural area, we got only one hospital to go within a 45 minutes drive.   Not so easy to just go to another hospital in even the best of circumstances.  My former company even filed several lawsuits against the hospital over price gouging our insurance company.   (also the neighboring county's hospital closed down 3-4 years ago, so we got one hospital servicing the greater part of 2 counties essentially).  That bargaining power is mostly theoretical for the insurance company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...