Originally Posted by MrTickle
I don’t think he’s libertarian, but he’s definitely the most right wing politician I’ve ever had a soft spot for.
its more of a closet libertarian / crypto libertarian vibe, where you get the feeling that all his leftist benevolence is basically the tip of an iceberg and the 96% that's underwater and out of site = tax cuts for the wealthy and a thriving private sector prison industry dolled up like middle class protectionism.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
These things have become cheaper over time:
Food
Clothing
Cars
Electronics
While these things have soared in price:
Health care
Child care
Education
The solution is simple.
We outsource everything to the Chinese.
Agreed. That being said regarding the opposition who will use such ads...Beto writing his own opposition’s negative ads for them.
_____________________________________________
you're right but i respect the honesty. besides, if we're not there already, we're only a few years away from public sentiment being behind outright banning of semi-auto rifles. let the right be the pro-AR-15 partyBeto writing his own opposition’s negative ads for them.
Let’s be honest... Given the ridiculous number of AR and AK type guns sold in the US since the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, it would kind of fruitless to ban them being sold, and ridiculously expensive/difficult to get them out of the hands of private owners in the US.you're right but i respect the honesty. besides, if we're not there already, we're only a few years away from public sentiment being behind outright banning of semi-auto rifles. let the right be the pro-AR-15 party
Medicare costs are still very high per capita. It's not like Medicare is a fine example of efficient healthcare.
The problem in medical costs today lies in the lack of free market competition (doctors get paid the same for the same work, no matter how good or bad they are, unless they refuse to accept insurance entirely), and the archaic billing system which allows them to bill for each test/procedure/exam piecemeal, which makes it impossible for the consumer to understand how much anything will cost until they receive the bill. The entire medical billing system needs to be torn down and rebuilt, but neither party is willing to say we need to do it. Republicans think that returning to the pre-Obamacare model is fine (it's not), and Democrats think that Medicare For All will fix everything (it won't).
As I said, that argument sucks. Even Bernie claims that the insurance companies only made $21 billion profit last year, which seems like a lot, but in reality was just 0.6% of all healthcare expenditures. The administrative and marketing costs of insurance companies are even a smaller drop in that bucket. It just sounds good to say, "Support Medicare For All, let's make health insurance cheaper by cutting out insurance company profits", but in reality that's not at all the solution.
Les, stick to talking about Canadian politics.You can't be serious. The reason for higher costs are already known. Doctors/hospitals can more or less charge what the market will allow. There are no real controls. You already have free a market system but because they are not selling Ho Ho's the number of providers is limited. This takes away the benefits of free market competition.
You have no idea how the US system works. The bolded part is the exact opposite of what is the truth.
Insurance companies tell doctors what they can charge. If doctors want to accept insurance (which almost all of them have to if they want to remain in business), they have to charge those exact rates -- not more, not less.
So Dr. John Smith, who graduated in the top of his class from Harvard Medical School, and is extremely well-liked and sought-after by patients, has to charge the exact same price for the same service as Dr. Kevin Jones, who couldn't get into US medical school, went to some crap place in the Caribbean, is rated 1/10 on most review sites, and constantly battles malpractice suits. And that price is high in both cases.
How does a doctor make more money in the US? Rush through as many patients as possible, and push for expensive tests/procedures/exams to be done on site, even if unnecessary. And hire a good biller to engage in as many sneaky billing practices as possible, to where as many "procedure codes" are entered as possible, and the most expensive possible way to bill is always utilized.
The whole thing is a fiasco.
Private insurance companies have agreed upon set prices? State to state? So you're already under a socialized system?Les, stick to talking about Canadian politics.
You have no idea how the US system works. The bolded part is the exact opposite of what is the truth.
Insurance companies tell doctors what they can charge. If doctors want to accept insurance (which almost all of them have to if they want to remain in business), they have to charge those exact rates -- not more, not less.
So Dr. John Smith, who graduated in the top of his class from Harvard Medical School, and is extremely well-liked and sought-after by patients, has to charge the exact same price for the same service as Dr. Kevin Jones, who couldn't get into US medical school, went to some crap place in the Caribbean, is rated 1/10 on most review sites, and constantly battles malpractice suits. And that price is high in both cases.
How does a doctor make more money in the US? Rush through as many patients as possible, and push for expensive tests/procedures/exams to be done on site, even if unnecessary. And hire a good biller to engage in as many sneaky billing practices as possible, to where as many "procedure codes" are entered as possible, and the most expensive possible way to bill is always utilized.
The whole thing is a fiasco.
And "sneaky billing practises" is a phrase that should never be heard in conjuction with health care. You have faith in a system with even less regualtion. Doctors are going to be inclined to charge less because why?
It's not a free market business.
An example of how truly fucked up the US health care system is.
_____________________________________________
Watched the video. I sympathize with David Pakman here, as I have had to deal with my own billing problems at doctors, which were even dumber than this one. I've also helped my girlfriend (and past girlfriends) deal with their medical billing issues. The entire medical billing system in the US is a complete disaster, but guess what? This WILL NOT CHANGE under a socialized plan, it would just shift around who gets the bill (the government instead of the insurance/patient combo). The whole thing needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
Regarding Pakman's own situation, he's doing a few things wrong, though I don't blame him for this occurring in the first place.
First, he is incorrect that he was billed due to the "diagnosis". One is never billed for a diagnosis. He was billed for the reason for the visit, and there are various codes the office can use for this. Billing people specialize in finding the most lucrative code (for the office) to bill, and this sometimes fucks people. They also attempt to find (legal or quasi-legal) ways to submit multiple billing codes. A common trick, for example, is for the doctor during your annual physical to bill for "GI exam" (in addition to the code for the physical) if he asks you how you've been feeling and you mention your stomach hurts sometimes, even if he doesn't actually perform a real exam for the stomach issues, or if it apepars to the patient that it's part of the physical.
It appears in Pakman's case, the billing person submitted that he came in because he has flat feet and wants help with it, which is probably the most lucrative code. He didn't come in saying he had flat feet -- he just said he had pain. But they submitted it as if he came in with a flat feet complaint. Unfortunately, some insurances probably see this as cosmetic, and don't cover it, so they reject the claim, and he's on the hook for the entire office visit billed amount.
Pakman's mistake is that he's being too understanding about this, and too passive. When this shit occurs, you need to just put your foot down, and say you aren't sending them a penny, and that they need to recode it. From the video, it sounds like that he will ultimately back down and pay the $400-something bill if they can't rectify it. That's ridiculous. Absolutely never do that. Always refuse to pay a penny until the bill is correct, and threaten legal action if they dare talk about collections. In some cases, you can also get the insurance to simply cut a check for the amount, because of the confusion. You just need to get the right rep on the phone (and make sure they're US-based) and talk them into it.
This is also a good time to bring up another point: Never, never, never give your social security number to a doctor's office. They don't need it. They cannot require it by law. If asked, state that you don't give it out due to identity theft concerns, and stand firm. This makes it more difficult for them to ding your credit if there ends up being a dispute.
Beto says that people would voluntarily turn in their AR-15s if illegal, and cops wouldn't be going door-to-door to find them.
Because everyone obeys the law to the letter. For example, nobody ever drives drunk, right Beto?
https://twitter.com/twt/status/1172915376583335937
A more moderate version of Warren would actually be a tough opponent for Trump.
The actual version, who is too obsessed with free stuff and other far left proposals, is going to be a tough sell in those same swing states Trump grabbed in 2016.
I watched the entire debate. I heard very little disagreement on that stage, aside from a few attacks on Biden. Everyone was afraid to stray too much from the far left narrative, even the candidates who aren't actually far left. It's like they haven't learned anything from the failures of 2016. Swing voters do not relate well to the current far left, and they find the hyper-focus on identity politics and free stuff to be extremely off-putting.
This reminds me a bit of 2010, when Republicans basically made the same mistake, attempting to out-right-wing each other, and sending some awful candidates to very winnable Senate races. The result? Republicans tossed away five Senate seats they easily could have won that year. How nice would those be to have right now? I complained a lot at the time about that, and lamented the rise of the thankfully-now-inconsequential "Tea Party".
Now Dems are making the same mistake, and it might just earn Trump a second term.
If one thing was made perfectly clear in the last election it's that style wins over substance. The Democrat's eventual nominee should immediately tone down anything the average white Republican hates and focus on all the missteps and failures of the current administration.
Trump lied his way in, the Democrats only have to play their cards close to the vest.
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
it's not that i disagree with your analysis, but an actual ham sandwich would get 48% of the vote against trump and the turnout would be record breaking. (dead serious btw.)
so any traditional analysis of politics might not apply here
More preciously, 48% of the populace that pays nothing in but takes something out would vote against anyone with an (R) next to their name.
this is obv true as well. but this time, they will be more motivated to vote than we've ever seen.
More preciously, 48% of the populace that pays nothing in but takes something out would vote against anyone with an (R) next to their name.
i truly anticipate greater-than-obama-2008 level turnout (for both parties).
This is a common theme/misconception for many right wingers it seems. Where do you come up with this number?
More preciously, 48% of the populace that pays nothing in but takes something out would vote against anyone with an (R) next to their name.
Who are these 48% that pay nothing yet take something?
Which candidates do you consider far left?
This is a common theme/misconception for many right wingers it seems. Where do you come up with this number?
Who are these 48% that pay nothing yet take something?
WHERE DID BLAKE COME UP WITH 48% OF PEOPLE VOTING FOR A HAM SANDWICH?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chaps' 2017-18 NFL $$ Thread
i stand by my ham sandwich analysis
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
