Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

The table says what it says.  Your twitter people are misrepresenting what it says by telling you to only look at 2 numbers.  

 

So let me get this straight.  And I'm saying this as someone who supports instituting a single-payer model.  You believe that covering every man, woman and child in America is actually going to be cheaper than what Americans currently spend on healthcare, and you believe this because someone on Twitter said so.  I think i just figured out how MAGA works.  

 

As a layperson, I know nothing but this came from one of those twitter people we shouldn't trust:

 

Quote

It should be noted that M4A’s elimination of employer-sponsored insurance, including the federal tax preferences now accorded to it, should increase worker wages net of employer provided health benefits. These estimates incorporate the increased federal revenues CBO projects to arise from subjecting these higher expected wages to federal taxation. Thus, at the same time that M4A would dramatically increase federal spending, it would increase taxable worker wages net of employer-provided benefits, while also relieving individuals, families, and employers of the substantial health expenditures they would experience under current law. It would also relieve states of such Medicaid expenditure obligations as are transferred to the federal government. These offsetting effects should be considered when weighing the implications of requiring federal taxpayers to finance the enormous federal expenditure increases under M4A.


These estimates should be understood as projecting the added federal cost commitments under M4A, as distinct from its net effect on the federal deficit. To the extent that the cost of M4A is financed by new payroll taxes, premium collections, or other revenue increases, the net effect on the federal budget deficit would be substantially less.

 

Again, I am a lay person, but that sounds like a good deal to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

Two things:

 

1.  We pay a ridiculous amount of overhead with the private insurance industry.  Eliminating much of that (Canada still has private insurance, but at a much smaller scale) would save a lot of money that could be put into actual health care.  And interestingly, computers aren't actually reducing that costs.

 

2.  The government negotiating prices for health care, especially pharmaceutical drugs would save a lot of money.  Ten years ago, if you looked a true prescription drug costs between us and Canada, it was actually a bit of a toss up because we tended to pay less for generics, but more for newer non-generic drugs.  But the price of widely used generics in the US have gone up.

 

So yes, in totality, it is possible (I'm not sure if it is a sure thing when you take into total costs (e.g. fraud), but it isn't something to dismiss out of hand either.))

 

 

 

Yep, I am aware of the arguments that certain costs would go down or be eliminated, which is one of the reasons I support single-payer in theory.  I'll note that a lot of the overhead cost will be transferred but not eliminated.  Also, according to this whitepaper, the negotiating of drug prices does not have a huge impact.  From page 13:

 

Quote

There are limits to the potential effectiveness of this approach to lowering healthcare costs. Generics have prices 75 to 90 percent lower than those of brand-name drugs, but they already make up roughly 85 percent of all prescription drugs sold.  Additionally, prescription drugs account for only 10 percent of total national health expenditures.33 This analysis assumes virtually perfect success for M4A in replacing brand-name drugs with generics, both for those now on Medicare as well as for the population as a whole; therefore, actual savings are likely to be less than assumed under these projections.34 It is a
matter of wide speculation whether granting negotiating power to the HHS secretary could produce savings beyond these aggressive assumptions with respect to generic drug penetration.35 Even if such a grant of power achieved greater savings, however, such additional savings are likely to be offset by imperfect success in eliminating brand-name drug purchases in favor of generics.36 These cost estimates do not reflect other potential effects of the proposed policy, such as lessened pharmaceutical innovation.

 

In any event, all of that is baked in to the chart, but the biggest driving force of higher total cost is the fact that everyone will get coverage and, therefore, everyone will use that coverage.  That's obviously a good thing, but it ain't cheap.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

The table says what it says.  Your twitter people are misrepresenting what it says by telling you to only look at 2 numbers.  

 

So let me get this straight.  And I'm saying this as someone who supports instituting a single-payer model.  You believe that covering every man, woman and child in America is actually going to be cheaper than what Americans currently spend on healthcare, and you believe this because someone on Twitter said so.  I think i just figured out how MAGA works.  

I just looked at the table, it says total spending would decrease by trillions in 10 yrs. Add the change in healthcare spending (-482billion) and savings admin savings (1.572 trillion). Like I said earlier, I'll wait for more knowledgeable people to pick it apart.

Edited by Cooked Crack
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it would cost a lot for single payer healthcare if you look at the gross amount.  I am not sure who would argue that point on it's face.  Where the investigating needs to be, which needs to be done honestly by both sides without trying to only report aspects that might help their own ideology, is what other costs are offset by single payer.

 

For example, taking the burden of healthcare off of employers.  Does that help with people's wages, and employment overall.  Does access to healthcare from the cradle to the grave encourage people to go to the doctor more regularly so things that would initially be treated at a lower cost, aren't put off until they become medical emergencies aka Preventative care.

 

The boondoggle is always going to be end of life care for senior citizens where a lot of the expensive care and procedures are unavoidable.  There is no way to get around those costs.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

EVERY other developed country in the world does healthcare better than us.

 

I'm not an expert in the field of political science but it seems to me that a system where people with a whole lot of money can give some of it to politicians and have them pass policies to help those really, really rich people get a little more rich at the expense of everyone else is fatally flawed.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

For example, taking the burden of healthcare off of employers.  Does that help with people's wages, and employment overall.  Does access to healthcare from the cradle to the grave encourage people to go to the doctor more regularly so things that would initially be treated at a lower cost, aren't put off until they become medical emergencies aka Preventative care.

1

Ironically, that is what the report says even though it is not in support of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

I just looked at the table, it says total spending would decrease by trillions in 10 yrs. Add the change in healthcare spending (-482billion) and savings admin savings (1.572 trillion). Like I said earlier, I'll wait for more knowledgeable people to pick it apart.

 

It also says that "added induced demand from increased coverage" adds $5.6 trillion.  Again, this is people that wouldn't otherwise have insurance getting insurance, which is a good thing IMO, but that's a lot of money.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

 

Trump's despicable, and the lesser of two evils, but in the next paragraph you're repeating his dumb phrases. Drain the swamp, witch hunt, Democrat dossier. 

 

The Ax doth protest too bigly, methinks

The thing is, Chang, you don't have to like the terms. But they're accurate.

 

Draining The Swamp: I, and many others, have, will, and do believe, that term limits are desperately needed for Congress. Far too often we're stuck, for years, with the likes of Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond, Nancy Pelosi, etc... That's one form of draining the swamp. Getting rid of dumb laws, regulations, and backroom deals grandfathered in from year to year, is another form of draining the swamp. There's more than that, but I'm sure you get my meaning. Using the phrase is just quick and easy. But it covers a lot.

 

Witch Hunt: With little more than a Hillary financed dossier, filled with unverified drivel, supplied by those rascally Russians, Bob Mueller, who tried to ruin the life of a previous target, based on the testimony of 2 barking dogs, is now using a team filled Democrat hacks, to try and find something, anything, to bring down the President. Although he hasn't laid a glove on him, to date, the left wing media has been reporting that, "soon" the smoking gun is coming, since the day Mueller was named to investigate...something. There were no witches. That's why the hunt was ridiculous. Unless and until Trump is proved to have committed a crime, and not by some internet Marcia Clark wannabe, it's just another witch hunt. Or, if you prefer, a farce.

 

Democrat Dossier: See above.

 

The left, doth convict without proof, too much.

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

EVERY other developed country in the world does healthcare better than us.

 

 

 

Yet they come here for treatment for some reason.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Of course it would cost a lot for single payer healthcare if you look at the gross amount.  I am not sure who would argue that point on it's face.  Where the investigating needs to be, which needs to be done honestly by both sides without trying to only report aspects that might help their own ideology, is what other costs are offset by single payer.

 

For example, taking the burden of healthcare off of employers.  Does that help with people's wages, and employment overall.  Does access to healthcare from the cradle to the grave encourage people to go to the doctor more regularly so things that would initially be treated at a lower cost, aren't put off until they become medical emergencies aka Preventative care.

 

The boondoggle is always going to be end of life care for senior citizens where a lot of the expensive care and procedures are unavoidable.  There is no way to get around those costs.

The last line is the key one.  There is a way.  Nobody is willing to address it though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

The last line is the key one.  There is a way.  Nobody is willing to address it though.

 

I mean if we are going to revisit the "death panels" thing, then fine. I will go down that road, I just want a logical argument about why no one seems alarmed if it's an insurance company denying procedures but if the gov't does it.....etc etc etc....

4 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Yet they come here for treatment for some reason.

 

You're conflating two separate issues with that statement.  Having the best doctors/surgeons is different than having the best access to healthcare for the general population. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

It also says that "added induced demand from increased coverage" adds $5.6 trillion.  Again, this is people that wouldn't otherwise have insurance getting insurance, which is a good thing IMO, but that's a lot of money.  

That section says the total saving would end up being 482 billion. This just makes me want to see a real bill with a real CBO score.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Wikipedia is usually very well-sourced and almost always has a reference list at the bottom.  People on Twitter just make **** up.  See Trump, Donald J.

Twitter users usually post links to various articles, anything without an article will just be opinion unless it is regarding the twitter user themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, twa said:

Yet they come here for treatment for some reason.

Sometimes. And of course we could look at what those reasons are and consider them when trying to fix our system.

 

Or we could just post that one sentence with no context and pretend like that is the be all end all in the argument and that everything is just hunkydory because the political party we like gets money from the people who are profiting while we continue to pay significantly more to get less in return.

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Yep, I am aware of the arguments that certain costs would go down or be eliminated, which is one of the reasons I support single-payer in theory.  I'll note that a lot of the overhead cost will be transferred but not eliminated.  Also, according to this whitepaper, the negotiating of drug prices does not have a huge impact.  From page 13:

 

 

In any event, all of that is baked in to the chart, but the biggest driving force of higher total cost is the fact that everyone will get coverage and, therefore, everyone will use that coverage.  That's obviously a good thing, but it ain't cheap.  

 

1.  We spend $1,000 per a person in pharmaceutacils.  Out of the next 10 countries looked at Switzerland (who also, I believe is very dependent on private insurance and not government negotiated drug prices is under $800 per a person).  If we can lower our prescription drug costs to $200 per a person to where Switzerland is at a population of 325 million people that's a savings of $7.14 billion dollars (a year).  That's a lot of money and that's only if we get to where Switzerland is.

 

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/documents/___media_files_publications_issue_brief_2017_oct_pdf_sarnak_paying_for_rx_exhibits.pdf

 

Not quite sure what you have quoted is saying, but it makes it sound like price negotiations wouldn't happen for brand names too, which is not what happens in many other countries.

 

2.  You are acting like people aren't getting health care any way and that we aren't paying for it.  Now, people get sick and walk into an ER.  There was some talk (especially among politicians) for a while about preventative care actually saving money, which doesn't seem to be true.  But the flip also seems to be about true.  Preventative care doesn't actually seem to be that much more expensive than what we are doing now (Preventative care for every American is going to raise prices some, but it isn't like we are talking about preventative care vs. absolutely no care).  And if we can do it a little smarter, we can reduce those costs even more:

 

https://www.thebalance.com/preventive-care-how-it-lowers-aca-costs-3306074

Edited by PeterMP
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

That section says the total saving would end up being 482 billion. This just makes me want to see a real bill with a real CBO score.

 

It's based on a real bill from Bernie. 

 

Edit:  Here is the text of the bill.  https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text

 

Agree about the CBO score.  I'd also like to see a bill from someone other than Bernie.  

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  We spend $1,000 per a person in pharmaceutacils.  Out of the next 10 countries looked at Switzerland (who also, I believe is very dependent on private insurance and not government negotiated drug prices is under $800 per a person).  If we can lower our prescription drug costs to $200 per a person to where Switzerland is at a population of 325 million people that's a savings of $7.14 billion dollars (a year).  That's a lot of money and that's only if we get to where Switzerland is.

 

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/documents/___media_files_publications_issue_brief_2017_oct_pdf_sarnak_paying_for_rx_exhibits.pdf

 

I imagine we are a much sicker country than Switzerland overall and probably take a lot more drugs.  Probably a chicken and egg problem though, so you may be right.  

 

 

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

2.  You are acting like people aren't getting health care any way and that we aren't paying for it.  Now, people get sick and walk into an ER.  There was some talk (especially among politicians) for a while about preventative care actually saving money, which doesn't seem to be true.  But the flip also seems to be about true.  Preventative care doesn't actually seem to be that much more expensive than what we are doing now (Preventative care for every American is going to raise prices some, but it isn't like we are talking about preventative care vs. absolutely no care).  And if we can do it a little smarter, we can reduce those costs even more:

 

https://www.thebalance.com/preventive-care-how-it-lowers-aca-costs-3306074

 

I'm just assessing this one whitepaper on the financial cost.  I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY that Americans can and should focus more on preventative care and that our healthcare system can improve in a lot of ways.  Overall, as I kind of hinted at above, this whitepaper was based on a bill from Bernie Sanders, but I'd like to see a comprehensive overhaul plan from someone more pragmatic.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Of course it would cost a lot for single payer healthcare if you look at the gross amount.  I am not sure who would argue that point on it's face.  Where the investigating needs to be, which needs to be done honestly by both sides without trying to only report aspects that might help their own ideology, is what other costs are offset by single payer.

 

For example, taking the burden of healthcare off of employers.  Does that help with people's wages, and employment overall.  Does access to healthcare from the cradle to the grave encourage people to go to the doctor more regularly so things that would initially be treated at a lower cost, aren't put off until they become medical emergencies aka Preventative care.

 

The boondoggle is always going to be end of life care for senior citizens where a lot of the expensive care and procedures are unavoidable.  There is no way to get around those costs.

 

I dont understand what "problem" single payer universal heathcare is supposed to solve. I have little knowledge on this topic. Our elderly are covered under Medicare and our low to no income are covered under Medicaid.

 

Who has it better - medicaid vs BCBS?

 

BCBS:

 

My daughter and I have BCBS w a 4k deductible each. We can find and schedule w doctors pretty easy. Im sure I can also find mental health and substance abuse help fairly easy as well. Of course, I pay a ton through my paycheck deductions and that 4k deductible. I dont think BCBS has ever actually paid a penny on my behalf. I try to avoid doctors bc of my deductible. I felt like crap for about 1.5 months, finally went to doctor and he said I was close to ammonia and should have seen a doctor weeks ago and not let it get so bad. 

 

I just took my daughter to the ER for a cut finger and im guessing I will get a bill for over 1k ... that I will have to pay even though i have supposedly good insurance. If my daughter was a dependent to her mom, we would be paying $0 for that same visit.

 

I pay out of pocket for dental and vision.

 

Medicaid:

 

I am tech not married to my "wife" and she has medicaid. She has trouble finding doctors who have openings for her and the wait list is a year long (her words). I have tried looking for doctors for her and it is hard. She also cannot find mental health and substance abuse help. I tried for her and its nearly impossible. I eventually had to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket to get her into a program. 

 

Benefit is she pays nothing. She was admitted to the ER for 6 days with surgery etc and she didnt pay a penny. I would have had to pay 4k. She pays $1 for prescriptions when I pay $20-100 for prescriptions. 

 

While she has trouble finding doctors, she can just go to the ER for any headache or toothache or common cold and be seen for free (she doesnt do this - I take her to a walk in clinic and pay out of pocket). 

 

She has free dental (and I imagine vision as well).

----------------------------------

 

Who is this single payer supposed to help?

 

Will it reduce my real out-of-pocket costs but still allow me to find doctors easily?

Will it make it easier for low income to find non-ER doctors with openings?

 

If someone makes $0 a year .. how can this be single payer bc they dont have a penny to pay?

 

I feel like I will either pay the same or more for inferior service.

 

Best case scenario for me - I pay slightly less but end up finding it harder to find and schedule with doctors? 

 

Some of us pay a **** ton of money into the health care system and rarely use it .. while others pay $0 and rake up huge ER bills that get written off (aka passed onto me with higher ins premiums and tax money).

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

For example, taking the burden of healthcare off of employers.  Does that help with people's wages, and employment overall.

 

I've seen other quotes alluding to this, but just quoting this one.  

 

I think it's guaranteed that if employers don't have to insure their employees any more, they will . . . pocket the money and pay the employees the same amount they were paying.  

 

Anybody seriously want to argue otherwise?  

 

I mean, maybe eventually market forces will cause businesses to spend the money that they used to be spending.  (But I'd consider that to be unlikely.  It's been how long since we saw market forces result in any increase in worker's wages?)  

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I imagine we are a much sicker country than Switzerland overall and probably take a lot more drugs.  Probably a chicken and egg problem though, so you may be right.  

 

Why would you assume we are sicker than Switzerland (or any other country)?

 

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2017/oct/paying-prescription-drugs-around-world-why-us-outlier

 

"Various factors contribute to high per capita drug spending in the U.S. While drug utilization appears to be similar in the U.S. and the nine other countries considered, the prices at which drugs are sold in the U.S. are substantially higher. These price differences appear to at least partly explain current and historical disparities in spending on pharmaceutical drugs. "

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

I felt like crap for about 1.5 months, finally went to doctor and he said I was close to ammonia and should have seen a doctor weeks ago and not let it get so bad. 

 

 

That sounds pretty bad. :)

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Jumbo locked and unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...