It's pretty clear that when Hillary said 'Russian Asset' she meant that if she were elected, Russia would benefit more than if any other Dem won. Not that she was a Russian spy or had any sort of loyalty to Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by diggydow
he's running on a platform of abolishing private health insurance in favor of medicare for all. that's not in disputeQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
its hard for me to imagine bernie depriving people of health care when he's spent his entire adult life fighting to improve the quality of lower and middle class lives. he's barely a politician, he's an activist who allowed himself to be elected so he could do more good on a broader scale. so again i think the concerns that bernie is going to yank the rug out from people who cant afford their rug to begin with is unfounded and very much in line with the anti-left hysteria twitter narrative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakehe's running on a platform of abolishing private health insurance in favor of medicare for all. that's not in disputeQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
and yet you seem to be very game on the assertion that he will do so in a way that negatively impacts people who currently have private health care, which is super weird considering he literally penned the 'lets curb stomp the medical industry lobbyist' theme song and that they are the exact reason why people in the united states thinks it actually costs thousands of dollars to fix a broken arm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
and yet you seem to be very game on the assertion that he will do so in a way that negatively impacts people who currently have private health care, which is super weird considering he literally penned the 'lets curb stomp the medical industry lobbyist' theme song and that they are the exact reason why people in the united states thinks it actually costs thousands of dollars to fix a broken arm.
actually, i didn't say his plan would be a negative and even mentioned that maybe his plan would help things. what i am concerned about is the fact that running on a platform of taking away your private insurance in favor of medicare is politically unpopular. my main concern is beating trump. to his credit, i'm sure bernie knows his plan makes him politically vulnerable, but he's sticking to his guns cause he genuinely believes it's what's needed.
it's an admirable quality (and the opposite of the way most politicians think) but i'm scared of the impact on moderates in a general election. then again, his opponent would be an honest-to-god retard, so i'm not sure what to think.
If Biden dropped dead, what do you guys think Petes chances would be?
Better but he still probably can't overcome the fact that black people won't vote for him. They hate the gay thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
Do you guys think this is true?Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
How do people poll regarding their private health insurance satisfaction?
Maybe the whole notion of making money off health care is morally wrong. All I know is it’s not working now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanlmarDo you guys think this is true?Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
How do people poll regarding their private health insurance satisfaction?
Maybe the whole notion of making money off health care is morally wrong. All I know is it’s not working now.
a lot of countries have affordable health care, its 100% a thing. coincidentally they dont have huge insurance/mediscam lobbies.
Bribery should be illegalQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by Sanlmar
a lot of countries have affordable health care, its 100% a thing. coincidentally they dont have huge insurance/mediscam lobbies.
If we can't fix our shit at least the Boomers will be gone quicker.Quote:
Originally Posted by SanlmarDo you guys think this is true?Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
How do people poll regarding their private health insurance satisfaction?
Maybe the whole notion of making money off health care is morally wrong. All I know is it’s not working now.
I love my healthcare. My wife is a nurse so I’m on Her plan instead of through my employer. The plan is top top. We had a baby about a year ago, $250. Any trip to emergency room, $50. I’m going to get snipped in a couple weeks, $75. We’d be super pissed if someone took our healthcare away. From my military days I’ve experienced what it’s like when everyone has “free healthcare”, I sure as shit don’t want to go back to that. Gay Pete’s plan of Medicare for everyone that wants it sounds better to me if it’s actually feasible.Quote:
Originally Posted by SanlmarDo you guys think this is true?Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
How do people poll regarding their private health insurance satisfaction?
Maybe the whole notion of making money off health care is morally wrong. All I know is it’s not working now.
All those numbers would be $0 with medicare (maybe not the snip, not sure).Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishI love my healthcare. My wife is a nurse so I’m on Her plan instead of through my employer. The plan is top top. We had a baby about a year ago, $250. Any trip to emergency room, $50. I’m going to get snipped in a couple weeks, $75. We’d be super pissed if someone took our healthcare away. From my military days I’ve experienced what it’s like when everyone has “free healthcare”, I sure as shit don’t want to go back to that. Gay Pete’s plan of Medicare for everyone that wants it sounds better to me if it’s actually feasible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanlmar
The number that really matters though are what your wife is paying for healthcare. The real questions are will the tax increase be less than what you're paying annually right now and will you have access to the same or better quality care.
This is mostly correct, but believe it or not, the absurdly high cost of American healthcare is NOT the fault of insurance companies. Sure, insurance companies have their issues, and they are profiting handsomely for the most part, but they aren't the problem. They are just along for the ride.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by Sanlmar
a lot of countries have affordable health care, its 100% a thing. coincidentally they dont have huge insurance/mediscam lobbies.
Due to the insane expenditures on healthcare in this country ($3.6 trillion per year last I checked), the "Big 8" health insurance companies' collective profits of about $35 billion accounted for just 1% of all healthcare expenditures in the US.
Simply put, take insurance companies out of the equation, and we save 1% on our healthcare costs. Not the solution we're looking for, obviously.
The problem is that the entire cost structure of healthcare in the US is broken, and every single healthcare providers -- from hospitals down to single-doctor offices -- employs billing experts to squeeze the most out of every single office visit, test, and procedure.
It's a complicated, opaque, non-free-market system where the patient has zero visibility into what he's buying until after he's bought it, and insurance is usually forced to foot the lion's share of that bill. Then insurance passes the increasingly staggering costs onto the patients via higher premiums. Rinse and repeat.
It's a "billing code" driven system. The more codes which can be applied for one visit, the better. Often multiple codes are possible for a service provided, and the billing expert makes sure to bill the most expensive one, which is totally legal. Then lobbyists sometimes get absurdly expensive codes slipped into Medicare reimbursement schedules, which also drive private insurance rates, and doctors take advantage of this until that loophole is closed. A big one recently is/was the "nuclear stress test" in cardiology -- something which is crazy expensive, usually unnecessary, and actually harmful to the patient.
Other countries don't have this nonsense. Their billing systems are simpler, and the charges are much more sane.
So why don't we just switch to socialized medicine to do away with this problem?
Because none of the single payer proposals include an overhaul of this billing code system. It stays in place, with the only change being who pays. You may hear that the government will get "Medicare rates" and save money, but that's nonsense. Medicare rates are the problem in the first place.
You might hear that socialized medicine in the US will save a ton of money due to cutting out insurance profits (see above why that is BS), or that easy access to preventative care will save money later. We already have free preventative care on Obamacare, and that has not decreased overall costs. While preventative care has its place, it's naive to believe that it saves much money in the long run, and in fact sometimes incurs extra costs because it leads to "discovering" non-problems and engaging in unnecessary treatments.
The entire billing/cost structure must be overhauled to get the US system in line with other first-world countries cost-wise. Neither party has stated a plan to do this, because lobbyists within the very powerful healthcare industry would scream bloody murder. It would result in hugely decreased profits, and they know it.
To use an analogy, say a pipe is broken in your house and leaking water all over the floor. The broken pipe is the broken medical billing system, and the water is the wasted money.
Democrats are showing up with towels and saying that if we keep wiping up the floor and making the rich buy us more towels, everything will get better, while not at all paying attention to where all the water is coming from.
Republicans are laughing at the foolish Democrats spending all that needless money on towels, but they're also not attempting to stop the flow of water, and they just shrug their shoulders and assume that as long as the water doesn't drown us, there's no point to do very much to attempt to stop it.
Both approaches are very wrong.
Your wife's plan is very inefficient, and her employer is spending a fortune to cover her. You just don't see that side of it. Your deceptively low co-pays don't mean you're getting reasonably-priced care. You're just not directly seeing the bills.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishI love my healthcare. My wife is a nurse so I’m on Her plan instead of through my employer. The plan is top top. We had a baby about a year ago, $250. Any trip to emergency room, $50. I’m going to get snipped in a couple weeks, $75. We’d be super pissed if someone took our healthcare away. From my military days I’ve experienced what it’s like when everyone has “free healthcare”, I sure as shit don’t want to go back to that. Gay Pete’s plan of Medicare for everyone that wants it sounds better to me if it’s actually feasible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanlmar
Regarding what Democrats want, yes, that's even worse. See my post above.
like everyone knows im not a bernie bro but this is one of those issues where i think bernie has a lot of potential.
but i also think that if the dems dont control the house and senate, the republicans will allow exactly zero meaningful med reform.
like i dont even want to paint that with a partisan brush, its just physics at this point. the best we can hope for if the republicans hold either the house or senate is a democrat president eliminating these tard-fest tariffs and getting us back in the anti-proliferation / climate change games at least on paper. team retard is going to vote anyone out of power who doesnt stand up against 'deep state globalism' or whatever, i cant even be mad at republican politicians for doing exactly what they did under obama. because its going to be so much worse for them if they dont this time.
My favourite candidates atm
1. Bernie
2. Gabbard
3. Yang
Would be happy if either of those won. Of the two favourites I high favour Warren over Biden.
Druff I know you think this is the cause and have first hand experienced it but it’s a very small percentage of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThis is mostly correct, but believe it or not, the absurdly high cost of American healthcare is NOT the fault of insurance companies. Sure, insurance companies have their issues, and they are profiting handsomely for the most part, but they aren't the problem. They are just along for the ride.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Due to the insane expenditures on healthcare in this country ($3.6 trillion per year last I checked), the "Big 8" health insurance companies' collective profits of about $35 billion accounted for just 1% of all healthcare expenditures in the US.
Simply put, take insurance companies out of the equation, and we save 1% on our healthcare costs. Not the solution we're looking for, obviously.
The problem is that the entire cost structure of healthcare in the US is broken, and every single healthcare providers -- from hospitals down to single-doctor offices -- employs billing experts to squeeze the most out of every single office visit, test, and procedure.
It's a complicated, opaque, non-free-market system where the patient has zero visibility into what he's buying until after he's bought it, and insurance is usually forced to foot the lion's share of that bill. Then insurance passes the increasingly staggering costs onto the patients via higher premiums. Rinse and repeat.
It's a "billing code" driven system. The more codes which can be applied for one visit, the better. Often multiple codes are possible for a service provided, and the billing expert makes sure to bill the most expensive one, which is totally legal. Then lobbyists sometimes get absurdly expensive codes slipped into Medicare reimbursement schedules, which also drive private insurance rates, and doctors take advantage of this until that loophole is closed. A big one recently is/was the "nuclear stress test" in cardiology -- something which is crazy expensive, usually unnecessary, and actually harmful to the patient.
Other countries don't have this nonsense. Their billing systems are simpler, and the charges are much more sane.
So why don't we just switch to socialized medicine to do away with this problem?
Because none of the single payer proposals include an overhaul of this billing code system. It stays in place, with the only change being who pays. You may hear that the government will get "Medicare rates" and save money, but that's nonsense. Medicare rates are the problem in the first place.
You might hear that socialized medicine in the US will save a ton of money due to cutting out insurance profits (see above why that is BS), or that easy access to preventative care will save money later. We already have free preventative care on Obamacare, and that has not decreased overall costs. While preventative care has its place, it's naive to believe that it saves much money in the long run, and in fact sometimes incurs extra costs because it leads to "discovering" non-problems and engaging in unnecessary treatments.
The entire billing/cost structure must be overhauled to get the US system in line with other first-world countries cost-wise. Neither party has stated a plan to do this, because lobbyists within the very powerful healthcare industry would scream bloody murder. It would result in hugely decreased profits, and they know it.
To use an analogy, say a pipe is broken in your house and leaking water all over the floor. The broken pipe is the broken medical billing system, and the water is the wasted money.
Democrats are showing up with towels and saying that if we keep wiping up the floor and making the rich buy us more towels, everything will get better, while not at all paying attention to where all the water is coming from.
Republicans are laughing at the foolish Democrats spending all that needless money on towels, but they're also not attempting to stop the flow of water, and they just shrug their shoulders and assume that as long as the water doesn't drown us, there's no point to do very much to attempt to stop it.
Both approaches are very wrong.
The actual problem is obesity, 20% of all healthcare costs go to treat Type 2 diabetes and it’s related issues. They also believe that obesity is the cause of about another 30% of the healthcare costs either as a primary or secondary reason (for example, early heart disease).
It’s not popular to tell people their insurance is so expensive because they and their neighbors are fat though.
Solve the obesity epidemic, solve healthcare costs.
Sorry, but I can't agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by abrown83Druff I know you think this is the cause and have first hand experienced it but it’s a very small percentage of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
The actual problem is obesity, 20% of all healthcare costs go to treat Type 2 diabetes and it’s related issues. They also believe that obesity is the cause of about another 30% of the healthcare costs either as a primary or secondary reason (for example, early heart disease).
It’s not popular to tell people their insurance is so expensive because they and their neighbors are fat though.
Solve the obesity epidemic, solve healthcare costs.
You would be correct if the costs of healthcare were constant (inflation adjusted), but we are simply utilizing more expensive procedures due to the obesity problem. However, everything is much more expensive -- it's not a matter of what services we're utilizing.
Even if we had the same obesity rate as 1970, our healthcare costs would still be skyrocketing.
Not an expert here but I read somewhere recently that it's the administration costs that would be the biggest source of savings in a single payer system, not just Insurance Company administration but the entire industry. Every procedure would cost the same, doctors would spend far less time filling out paperwork and would also pay less in their own liability insurance, Hospitals would need fewer lawyers and fewer Hospital administrators etc.Quote:
Due to the insane expenditures on healthcare in this country ($3.6 trillion per year last I checked), the "Big 8" health insurance companies' collective profits of about $35 billion accounted for just 1% of all healthcare expenditures in the US.
Simply put, take insurance companies out of the equation, and we save 1% on our healthcare costs. Not the solution we're looking for, obviously.
I don't think the plan is to just pass along Insurance Companies profit and that's it.
in a weird way, i think the medicare for all model might advance farther if a biden-type won, than bernie. we've seen this play out a million times. the more "radical" the newly-elected president is, the more his political party gets wiped out in the midterms.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
if bernie somehow won, what do you think would be the effect on congressional seats in 2022, where half the country would be terrified of a socialist in the white house?
Yeah that's more left wing nonsense. First off, do you really think something administered by the government will save on administration costs?Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
Also, how much do you think the administration costs add up to be? Even if it's another $35 billion (it's not even close), that would just be another 1%.
I also look at mainstream media and see how they distort Tulsi's message and present her in dishonest ways + "gaslight" their audiences w/ purposely-incorrect messages. If you think the mainstream media is there to inform you, you are utterly delusional. Do you contend that the US is intervening in all of these other countries (8 at the moment) to spread our "high-minded ideals," or is it actually to profit / plunder / dominate? Do you not think the MSM is complicit in cheerleading and extending these wars and buoying the American Empire?Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by diggydow
thing is, you are basically zero degrees removed from her message, so you get all these incredibly nuanced takes and see the entire spectrum of her campaign as she wishes it presented.
the rest of us are like 'wtf why is she on fox news and why did she stand up at the debates and say that pursuing charges against donald trump is partisan and divisive?'
so i get why youre frustrated but those of us who are just out here calling it like we see it, she's a hot republican with an antagonistic personality disorder, regardless of what her pamphlets say.
also this is absolutely batshit: "The double-standard in claiming Tulsi is a "fucking lunatic" for taking on an accusation OF AN EXECUTABLE CRIME head-on and confronting her accuser directly is mind-boggling, and I do not understand how you can make this criticism in good faith".
if your response to a baseless accusation is to escalate it, you arent presidential material.
also you can lecture me on the intelligence community when you get clearance.
I do not understand what is wrong with going on Fox News (and NBC, and MSNBC, and CNN, and tons of independent media) and speaking to all voters, + repeating anti-war and anti-establishment messages. Tulsi's message does not change, regardless of the platform. She is attempting to win a general election, and appealing to all voters. It's part of why she said nobody is "deplorable" to her.
You keep repeating that Tulsi's a Republican so I'll repeat the facts, which you ignore:
Claim:
"Tulsi's a Republican."
Actual Positions:
Anti-regime change war,
Weed legalization + expungement of records
Prostitution legalization
Medicare for all
Free college/debt forgiveness
$15 min wage
End fracking; 100% energy from renewables by 2035
NRA rating: F
Planned Parenthood rating: 100%
Universal basic income
Supported Bernie in 2016
Election security via paper ballots
Get money out of politics / Overturn Citizens United
Bring back Glass-Steagall
What about Tulsi is a Republican? Besides the fact that you've been receptive to MSM propaganda pounding its messages into your head, in lieu of actually addressing Tulsi's criticisms, because they cannot.
I do not understand how you think Tulsi's supposed to respond to Hillary Clinton's baseless claim. HRC, the 2016 Democratic Nominee, has credibility and a huge audience. You cannot ignore what she says. Also: it allows Tulsi to speak the truth + fight the war machine establishment, and it gets her name recognition and headlines, which she lacks most of all.
"She's also a Russian asset." AKA "in addition to Tulsi."Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
And, as you already know, HRC's assistant Nick Merrill said, "If the nesting doll fits," confirming that HRC was accusing Gabbard of being a Russian asset.
As an active-duty Major in the US military, actually being a Russian asset / agent is treason, an executable offense.
I am amazed that you'd defend Hillary Clinton and her bullshit.
Tulsi (and Dennis Kucinich, who she went with) also met with Assad's opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8I02I7uMgY
That fact is consistently left out.
And I don't understand what is incorrect about a Congressperson meeting with foreign leaders, in the interests of maintaining peace. Congress is part of the legislative branch of gov't. It is the one that declares war. Not the president.
If you're still confused about why Tulsi would meet with Assad and his opposition in Syria:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ5_wLmgXfM
More b-roll footage of Tulsi's trip to Syria in 2017:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zY8k1BAIzo
Spreading this bullshit is so embarrassing. I hope you don't believe what you're writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
she's also an alt-right conspiracy theorist who hangs out on tucker carlson's show and loOooOooOoOves the pm of india, so fuck a tulsi gabbard.
also im sure a lot of people polling at 1.2% would be the most liberal president of all time by miles.
1) Tulsi Gabbard is a former Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans. It's literally her job to meet w/ the PM of India and maintain positive relationships. She also met with Modi's opposition.
- also super lol: you never said shit - and neither did anyone else (in fact, it was celebrated) - when Obama's "bromance" with Modi was flourishing.
2) In what world is Tulsi Gabbard alt-right or a conspiracy theorist? I have no idea where that's coming from. (Predicting no answer on this.)
Jesus. I think Tine should nap it out. This is just embarrassing bro.
The only legit criticism I've seen of Tulsi is about her weird-ass religion that she's still connected to. She has still not confronted it head-on and becomes super defensive + relatively emotional when it's mentioned.
All else, so far, is absolute bullshit.
We pay $150 a month for the entire family for healthcare, us and the two kids. I’m assuming we would pay thousands a month in taxes for the “free” Medicare for all. Saying this shit is free should be illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanAll those numbers would be $0 with medicare (maybe not the snip, not sure).Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
The number that really matters though are what your wife is paying for healthcare. The real questions are will the tax increase be less than what you're paying annually right now and will you have access to the same or better quality care.
If her employer is spending a fortune to cover her that’s fine by me. This is a benefit she has earned, even more reason not to take it away. Also, it might not be as inefficient as you think. When I go to the doctor/hospital I’m going to one of the 11 hospitals that her employer owns (unless an extreme emergency situation). So her employer is actually providing the healthcare and healthcare insurance, that has to be cheaper for the employer than other situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffYour wife's plan is very inefficient, and her employer is spending a fortune to cover her. You just don't see that side of it. Your deceptively low co-pays don't mean you're getting reasonably-priced care. You're just not directly seeing the bills.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
Regarding what Democrats want, yes, that's even worse. See my post above.
So they are paying your wife ~$15k less than she's worth to them a year and picking up the insurance bill instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishWe pay $150 a month for the entire family for healthcare, us and the two kids. I’m assuming we would pay thousands a month in taxes for the “free” Medicare for all. Saying this shit is free should be illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
Druff is just pissed off that he is still on ObamaCare instead of the new great TrumpCare plan.
What is the new great TrumpCare plan?
It gives rich Republican donors tax breaks and discounts on health insurance coverage.
It gives a big fuck you to Democratic liberals who want free health insurance.
http://jensorensen.com/wp-content/up...umpcare600.png
https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13466411_f520.jpg
i basically saw a lot of very emotional rebuttals that somehow missed the point of 90% of what i said, which i got used to with the bernie bros cult and am not going to get sucked into again, but modi's become a fucking nightmare since obama left office because he's openly quoted trump as his cart blanche for ethnic cleansing against muslims, shelling pakistan, and treating kashmir like some sort of open air prison.
the fact that things like this arent on your radar is unfortunate.
"Were you fucking asleep during her stint as SecState under Obama??? She was all-in for sending US troops around the world to change other cultures at the point of a gun!"
this is why people regard you as the worst thing to happen to this community perhaps ever.
implementing obama's policies does not make those her policies.
you're a lonely, desperate, boring, morbidly obese, trucker. keep your eyes on the road and stay out of our conversations.
Correct, and if they take our medical care away and force us to pay for medicare for all we will net be paying more and she will lose that part of her compensation package. It's not like if they take the benefit away employers will make up for that lost benefit with a bump in pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanSo they are paying your wife ~$15k less than she's worth to them a year and picking up the insurance bill instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThis is mostly correct, but believe it or not, the absurdly high cost of American healthcare is NOT the fault of insurance companies. Sure, insurance companies have their issues, and they are profiting handsomely for the most part, but they aren't the problem. They are just along for the ride.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Due to the insane expenditures on healthcare in this country ($3.6 trillion per year last I checked), the "Big 8" health insurance companies' collective profits of about $35 billion accounted for just 1% of all healthcare expenditures in the US.
Simply put, take insurance companies out of the equation, and we save 1% on our healthcare costs. Not the solution we're looking for, obviously.
The problem is that the entire cost structure of healthcare in the US is broken, and every single healthcare providers -- from hospitals down to single-doctor offices -- employs billing experts to squeeze the most out of every single office visit, test, and procedure.
It's a complicated, opaque, non-free-market system where the patient has zero visibility into what he's buying until after he's bought it, and insurance is usually forced to foot the lion's share of that bill. Then insurance passes the increasingly staggering costs onto the patients via higher premiums. Rinse and repeat.
It's a "billing code" driven system. The more codes which can be applied for one visit, the better. Often multiple codes are possible for a service provided, and the billing expert makes sure to bill the most expensive one, which is totally legal. Then lobbyists sometimes get absurdly expensive codes slipped into Medicare reimbursement schedules, which also drive private insurance rates, and doctors take advantage of this until that loophole is closed. A big one recently is/was the "nuclear stress test" in cardiology -- something which is crazy expensive, usually unnecessary, and actually harmful to the patient.
Other countries don't have this nonsense. Their billing systems are simpler, and the charges are much more sane.
So why don't we just switch to socialized medicine to do away with this problem?
Because none of the single payer proposals include an overhaul of this billing code system. It stays in place, with the only change being who pays. You may hear that the government will get "Medicare rates" and save money, but that's nonsense. Medicare rates are the problem in the first place.
You might hear that socialized medicine in the US will save a ton of money due to cutting out insurance profits (see above why that is BS), or that easy access to preventative care will save money later. We already have free preventative care on Obamacare, and that has not decreased overall costs. While preventative care has its place, it's naive to believe that it saves much money in the long run, and in fact sometimes incurs extra costs because it leads to "discovering" non-problems and engaging in unnecessary treatments.
The entire billing/cost structure must be overhauled to get the US system in line with other first-world countries cost-wise. Neither party has stated a plan to do this, because lobbyists within the very powerful healthcare industry would scream bloody murder. It would result in hugely decreased profits, and they know it.
To use an analogy, say a pipe is broken in your house and leaking water all over the floor. The broken pipe is the broken medical billing system, and the water is the wasted money.
Democrats are showing up with towels and saying that if we keep wiping up the floor and making the rich buy us more towels, everything will get better, while not at all paying attention to where all the water is coming from.
Republicans are laughing at the foolish Democrats spending all that needless money on towels, but they're also not attempting to stop the flow of water, and they just shrug their shoulders and assume that as long as the water doesn't drown us, there's no point to do very much to attempt to stop it.
Both approaches are very wrong.
wouldn't it be much easier to make the medical industry cave to whatever demands you want if they had no other options? in other words, if private insurance is eliminated, wouldn't it be much easier than it is now to impose whatever regulations you want on the medical industry (such as reforming the billing code issues)?
they either change or they are out of business
How is it that Druff knows more about healthcare than the Republicans and the Democrats?
No, the Hospital would still compensate your wife the same. They would just put the ~$15k into her paycheck instead of her insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishCorrect, and if they take our medical care away and force us to pay for medicare for all we will net be paying more and she will lose that part of her compensation package. It's not like if they take the benefit away employers will make up for that lost benefit with a bump in pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
So you'd have the ~$15k + whatever out of pocket expenses you pay in the bank. Lets call it $19k.
If your taxes only went up, say, $13k, that would be good for you.
I'm just making the numbers up here, and not saying single payer will actually be good for you, I have no idea if it will or not. Just explaining how "I only pay $150 a month and $50 to see the doctor" is quite irrelevant.
Because TODD IS GODQuote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
What happens when the employer pockets the 15,000 and then you have to pay the $13,000 out of pocket?Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanNo, the Hospital would still compensate your wife the same. They would just put the ~$15k into her paycheck instead of her insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
So you'd have the ~$15k + whatever out of pocket expenses you pay in the bank. Lets call it $19k.
If your taxes only went up, say, $13k, that would be good for you.
I'm just making the numbers up here, and not saying single payer will actually be good for you, I have no idea if it will or not. Just explaining how "I only pay $150 a month and $50 to see the doctor" is quite irrelevant.
At least Warren’s plan makes sense to add an employer payroll tax. That prevents people from getting robbed which will happen under Bern’s plan.
Not sure. It would be the same thing as giving all of your employees a $15k pay cut though, that can't be a smart move for most businesses. Although it would probably be pretty common for companies to skim a little from everyone if there isn't anything preventing them from doing that. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some regulation making this illegal since it would make people bitch about the new healthcare even more, which would make whoever wrote the bill look bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by abrown83What happens when the employer pockets the 15,000 and then you have to pay the $13,000 out of pocket?Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
At least Warren’s plan makes sense to add an employer payroll tax. That prevents people from getting robbed which will happen under Bern’s plan.