Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[TheGreatBuzz]

9 minutes ago, bearrock said:

To me the real elephant in the room is.....

the cost of care itself!  No one seems to ever want to talk about that.  I’d LOVE a candidate to make that the focus.  Worry about how to make the price reasonable before figuring out how everyone will pay for it.  I get a few people have mentioned this but I’d like a candidate to make the costs itself a primary part of their campaign.

[bearrock]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

the cost of care itself!  No one seems to ever want to talk about that.  I’d LOVE a candidate to make that the focus.  Worry about how to make the price reasonable before figuring out how everyone will pay for it.  I get a few people have mentioned this but I’d like a candidate to make the costs itself a primary part of their campaign.

 

Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg have all done that.  They are proposing to negotiate reimbursement rates with the whole country as a single negotiating block.  It has worked for other countries and in terms of keeping price low, there's no reason why it wouldn't work here (setting aside the systemic shock to the doctors and hospitals)

[Cooked Crack]

12 hours ago, DoneMessedUp said:

Hmmmm

So is Pete's plan "revolutionary" or is Bernie a Republican? I'm so confused. 

It's more about ****ting on the other plans with this line of attack. No one was talking about his plan till he started attacking others with some kids of millionaires nonsense.

 

 

 

[Renegade7]

9 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Tbf, Buttigieg has come out and said he would call for uniform reimbursement rates regardless of insurance.  That would essentially fix the reimbursement at what Medicare or Medicaid negotiates, which would be the primary cost control measure under MFA.  

 

That's what I'm saying, if you going to do that, you might as well take private insurance out the picture because the government will be trying to cover healthcare costs and keep them in business.  That's going to cause their contraction, too, but how much of private insurance expenditures is actually going to healthcare?

 

9 minutes ago, bearrock said:

To me the real elephant in the room is the scope of coverage under MFA.  Bernie's plan is the most expansive single payer plan in the world.  That comes with a hefty price tag.  What he is essentially proposing is that we take the saving (and possibly more) from going to private insurance delivery system to single payer and use it to provide the type of expansive coverage that doesn't happen in a typical single payer program.

 

Using hypothetical numbers, suppose we spend 10k per capita on healthcare.  We can save it to 5k per with a typical single payer.  Instead, Bernie is proposing to reinvest that 5k savings in providing more coverage and eliminate deductibles that would typically be left up for people to insure on their own (as with most if not all single payer and current medicare).  

 

It's a proposal we can debate.  It may be the most meritorious.  But to me, it's a little disingenuous to call it MFA when it really is nothing like the current medicare that enjoys extremely high popularity.

 

This is better for the healthcare thread, Bernie has tried to say he's changing what Medicare is and just because no one else is doing isn't a reason why we shouldn't to me.  Who was doing social security before us?

[Renegade7]

17 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg have all done that.  They are proposing to negotiate reimbursement rates with the whole country as a single negotiating block.  It has worked for other countries and in terms of keeping price low, there's no reason why it wouldn't work here (setting aside the systemic shock to the doctors and hospitals)

 

But how many other countries allow private insurance to compete with the single payer system across the board vs augmenting it like Sanders is proposing?  From what I'm reading, Canada doesn't say this by law but explitly discourages it via fines and other disicentives.  Their Supreme Court has said if they want to enforce it by law, they can.

 

The problem with looking at other countries is most other countries don't have the problem of a potential transition phase that wed have to go through and we have some states that are bigger then some countries. Our single-payer system is going to be different then anyone else.  This is relevant to the thread because we keep being told by centrist that Sanders has plan no one else has to address a problem most other developed countries have already figured out via universal healthcare systems.

 

But again, back to what the rest of the world is doing...

 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/

 

That map and article is from 7 years ago.  7 years ago authoritarian governments like Saudi Arabia and Russia had this done and we still debating it.

[Springfield]

So, say I have a friend... let’s say at 37 years old he’s doing pretty well for himself.  He has a wife and kids, nice house in a nice neighborhood.  Makes $125k a year, maybe more or maybe less.  Only problem is that he dropped out of college about 2 years in.

 

Yall gonna pay for his college also?

[Renegade7]

11 minutes ago, Springfield said:

So, say I have a friend... let’s say at 37 years old he’s doing pretty well for himself.  He has a wife and kids, nice house in a nice neighborhood.  Makes $125k a year, maybe more or maybe less.  Only problem is that he dropped out of college about 2 years in.

 

Yall gonna pay for his college also?

 

Warren has an income cap in regards to paying off tuition, Sanders does not, i believe.  That's tough, because i don't like either idea, but understand if higher income folks are going to have their taxes raised to do this, why not just pay off their tuition as well to be fair? 

 

That's completely different them paying for college for folks just getting to college or want to go.  Our best bet is to not try to do both in the same bill, paying for folks wanting to go to college is more important then the people that already have because we don't want more folks with huge student loan debt.  We don't people that want to go to college but can't.

 

We haven't even talked about the kids of the rich who's parents don't support their plan for college and refuse to pay for it because they want them to do something else. FAFSA doesn't care, they'll see the parents tax returns, if the parents will even give them to their kid, and say "no"

[bearrock]

30 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That's what I'm saying, if you going to do that, you might as well take private insurance out the picture because the government will be trying to cover healthcare costs and keep them in business.  That's going to cause their contraction, too, but how much of private insurance expenditures is actually going to healthcare?

 

I think he's saying that we need to show the people that government run single payer and a large scale for everyone, not just the seniors, can work in this country before totally scrapping the private system.  

 

This can come with it's own boondoggle because things that makes sense on paper like non-profit co-op under ACA failed because of myriad of reasons.  And I believe the meddling of traditional for profit insurers had a part in it.  But one would think it would be harder for insurers to meddle with a single payer.

 

Quote

This is better for the healthcare thread, Bernie has tried to say he's changing what Medicare is and just because no one else is doing isn't a reason why we shouldn't to me.  Who was doing social security before us?

 

My problem is with what he calls the plan moreso than what's in the plan.

 

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Warren has an income cap in regards to paying off tuition, Sanders does not, i believe.  That's tough, because i don't like either idea, but understand if higher income folks are going to have their taxes raised to do this, why not just pay off their tuition as well to be fair? 

 

That's completely different them paying for college for folks just getting to college or want to go.  Our best bet is to not try to do both in the same bill, paying for folks wanting to go to college is more important then the people that already have because we don't want more folks with huge student loan debt.  We don't people that want to go to college but can't.

 

We haven't even talked about the kids of the rich who's parents don't support their plan for college and refuse to pay for it because they want them to do something else.

 

What about dramatically increasing pell grant amounts for low-mid income families and setting a percentage of income cap on monthly payment for student loan (w/ heavy forgiveness for people who go into military, teaching, etc)?  Wouldn't this achieve college affordability in a much more politically palatable way?

[Renegade7]

8 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I think he's saying that we need to show the people that government run single payer and a large scale for everyone, not just the seniors, can work in this country before totally scrapping the private system.  

 

This can come with it's own boondoggle because things that makes sense on paper like non-profit co-op under ACA failed because of myriad of reasons.  And I believe the meddling of traditional for profit insurers had a part in it.  But one would think it would be harder for insurers to meddle with a single payer.

 

I get that, but the response will come back to other countries already doing it and we arent other countries loop.

 

8 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

My problem is with what he calls the plan moreso than what's in the plan.

 

 

I mean he had to call it something, is that really worth getting upset about?

 

8 minutes ago, bearrock said:

What about dramatically increasing pell grant amounts for low-mid income families and setting a percentage of income cap on monthly payment for student loan (w/ heavy forgiveness for people who go into military, teaching, etc)?  Wouldn't this achieve college affordability in a much more politically palatable way?

 

Define dramatically then we can compare to what's being proposed.  I want to agree with you, but dramatically is to vague a term to not look at what's already being proposed.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[bearrock]

15 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I mean he had to call it something, is that really worth getting upset about?

 

I think upset is too strong a word (if I used it, that's my bad.  I'll take that back).  More like, I see that being a political/marketing problem because people will see that what they are getting is not medicare when they pay attention to the details.

 

Quote

Define dramatically then we can compare to what's being proposed.  I want to agree with you, but dramatically is to vague a term to not look at what's already being proposed

 

Hmm, I'm not sure where the line should be.  I'm thinking something along the lines of maybe like enough pell grant to make college free (and include private colleges in there too) for 75k and below, gradually phasing out until maybe 150k for total phase out.  Asset cap as a disqualifier regardless of income (maybe add in some discount for primary residence and cars).  That feels, emphasis on feels, reasonable to me, but we'd have to breakdown the numbers to see cost and feasibility.

 

I would make everyone eligible for income percentage cap on repayment and forgiveness for public service.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Rate setting is in his senate bill and the house bill for MFA.  What i believe will happen is the consumption will go up, the block grants will as well, and the decision will be made in whether to raise medicare rates or the size if the block grants.  Either way, the government is paying for it directly, we would be paying for it indirectly via taxes.  For now, the limited affect I'm seeing would be in my standard deduction, it will be hard to say what it will take for the situation to stabilize, but that's the goal with MFA. 

 

From what i can tell, that's not the goal of public option.  Everytime it comes it, it's presented as price controls being separate with only Khobuchar bringing it.  This is where i agree with you Bernie doesn't want to address the other ways countries do this, but the centrist don't want to address this at all, missing that this is the actual source if this conversation.  The closest we have to government insurance rates being fair to private insurance rates is Maryland and it's failing miserably. 

 

You can't price control and keep private insurance happy, their goal is to make as much money as possible.  So will centrist still have the spine to require all healthcare entities to accept public option recipients knowing the rates will be different then private insurance?  I Expect the health care contraction commercials to go into overdrive to stop this, which will allow costs to continue to skyrocket for the half that doesn't do public option at minimum, again, not solving the problem.  

 

If the Public Option candidates would come forward with their plans for price control and why they'd work better then MFA I'd be all ears.  I'm not disagreeing with everything you saying, i just feel both sides are running from the price control problem, which is the source of this debate in the first place.  It's frustrating as I'm watching my health care costs go up, this directly affects me.

 

1.  Consumption can go up to the point that it will make it difficult to cover costs with taxes and go up to the point that we are paying taxes with no (significant) benefit in terms of healthcare.

 

This has been posted here several times before, but I'll post it again:

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/06/01/the-cost-conundrum

 

If through Bernie's plan (with no co-pays and deductibles) you create a McAllen TX scenario through the country you are going to end up with people paying large amounts of taxes.  Essentially every country in the world other than the likes of Cuba include some sort of mechanism to control consumption in their healthcare.

 

2.  In addition to a public option, Biden is suggesting several things that will directly control prices, including directly allowing the FDA to set drug prices on new drugs that don't have competition and regulating the prices of generics.  To paint Biden (and other centrists) as public option ONLY people is inaccurate.  There are various ways to do that with out going to Bernie's plan (which I refuse to call Medicare for all because it isn't actually Medicare for all).  On this, you are just wrong.  On his website, Biden has extensive information about plans to control costs.

 

3.  Through the ACA, we can clearly see that it is possible to regulate and control health insurance profits.  To claim otherwise is just false.

 

4.  I don't see why a public option would have to pay less, especially in the context of profits being regulated for everybody.

 

If you believe insurance company profits are really an issue, a public option should even be able to pay more than private insurance.

 

We know why healthcare costs are going up.  It isn't a mystery.  We can go directly to the underlying factors without doing something that essentially no country in the world does.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

But how many other countries allow private insurance to compete with the single payer system across the board vs augmenting it like Sanders is proposing?  From what I'm reading, Canada doesn't say this by law but explitly discourages it via fines and other disicentives.  Their Supreme Court has said if they want to enforce it by law, they can.

 

The problem with looking at other countries is most other countries don't have the problem of a potential transition phase that wed have to go through and we have some states that are bigger then some countries. Our single-payer system is going to be different then anyone else.  This is relevant to the thread because we keep being told by centrist that Sanders has plan no one else has to address a problem most other developed countries have already figured out via universal healthcare systems.

 

But again, back to what the rest of the world is doing...

 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/

 

That map and article is from 7 years ago.  7 years ago authoritarian governments like Saudi Arabia and Russia had this done and we still debating it.

 

But none of them have done it with no copays or deductibles or to the extent that Bernie is suggesting (i.e. the Canadian healthcare system doesn't include dental), and other than Cuba, I don't think any of them have done it in a manner that makes private insurance illegal.

 

What Bernie is pushing isn't what the rest of world is doing.  What he's pushing is an extremely left position even globally.

 

To equate Bernie's plan with what is happening in Canada is a false comparison and realistically a lie.

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  Consumption can go up to the point that it will make it difficult to cover costs with taxes and go up to the point that we are paying taxes with no (significant) benefit in terms of healthcare.

 

This has been posted here several times before, but I'll post it again:

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/06/01/the-cost-conundrum

 

If through MFA (with no co-pays and deductibles) you create a McAllen TX scenario through the country you are going to end up with people paying large amounts of taxes.  Essentially every country in the world other than the likes of Cuba include some sort of mechanism to control consumption in their healthcare.

 

So I got halfway through the article because I have to finish homework before game comes in, but I hot your point on overconsumption being a huge driver in costs. 

 

This is part of a bigger conversation in Americans not doing enough to take care of their health and the doctors jus saying yes to everything.  Universal Healthcare by itself wont encourage healthier lifestyles of the average Americans. That's a bigger problem that comes to the food we made avaliable and pollution.

 

Healthcare is a huge problem, but we have to step back and look at this MFA thing as focusing on one part of it's how to pay for it.  I dont believe any single bill can resolve every factor in this issue, and if that's the expectation, it's never going to happen, its jus too complex.  But you have to start somewhere, right?

 

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

2.  In addition to a public option, Biden is suggesting several things that will directly control prices, including directly allowing the FDA to set drug prices on new drugs that don't have competition and regulating the prices of generics.  To paint Biden (and other centrists) as public option ONLY people is inaccurate.  There are various ways to do that with out going to Bernie's plan (which I refuse to call Medicare for all because it isn't actually Medicare for all).  On this, you are just wrong.  On his website, Biden has extensive information about plans to control costs.

 

3.  Through the ACA, we can clearly see that it is possible to regulate and control health insurance profits.  To claim otherwise is just false.

 

4.  I don't see why a public option would have to pay less, especially in the context of profits being regulated for everybody.

 

If you believe insurance company profits are really an issue, a public option should even be able to pay more than private insurance.

 

It's not enough, bro, it's too heavily focused on drug prices, every price concerning health care is going up, not jus drug prices.

 

https://joebiden.com/healthcare/

[Renegade7]

23 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

But none of them have done it with no copays or deductibles or to the extent that Bernie is suggesting (i.e. the Canadian healthcare system doesn't include dental), and other than Cuba, I don't think any of them have done it in a manner that makes private insurance illegal.

 

What Bernie is pushing isn't what the rest of world is doing.  What he's pushing is an extremely left position even globally.

 

To equate Bernie's plan with what is happening in Canada is a false comparison and realistically a lie.

And I'm not doing that, I'm saying any system we implement cant be identical to what anyone else is doing because we have different dominating factors, like the size of the our current private insurance industry and the fact this is the 3rd largest country by population in the world.  This cant be Canada, Finland, or Germany, no matter what it will be unique to our situation, even if the goal of universal health care is the same.  

 

Yes this is further then what anyone else is doing, but his arguement is theres enough money in this economy that we can afford it, this is the largest economy in the world.  Saying it's hella expensive vs we cant afford it arent the same thing.

 

Edit: one thing I wish Bernie would clarify during the debates, not side interviews, is it doesnt abolish private insurance but prevents it from offering what Medicare will.  Private insurance will become complimentary, not extinct. 

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

So I got halfway through the article because I have to finish homework before game comes in, but I hot your point on overconsumption being a huge driver in costs. 

 

This is part of a bigger conversation in Americans not doing enough to take care of their health and the doctors jus saying yes to everything.  Universal Healthcare by itself wont encourage healthier lifestyles of the average Americans. That's a bigger problem that comes to the food we made avaliable and pollution.

 

Healthcare is a huge problem, but we have to step back and look at this MFA thing as focusing on one part of it's how to pay for it.  I dont believe any single bill can resolve every factor in this issue, and if that's the expectation, it's never going to happen, its jus too complex.  But you have to start somewhere, right?

 

 

It's not enough, bro, it's too heavily focused on drug prices, every price concerning health care is going up, not jus drug prices.

 

https://joebiden.com/healthcare/

 

1.  Yes, I think attacking it in parts makes sense.  But Bernie's plan would be expected to make the other part of the problem worse.  If you have a problem that has multiple contributing factors starting to solve the problem through something that is likely to make one of your contributing factors worse doesn't make much sense.  In the US, non-beneficial over consumption is a problem that is affecting health care costs (not claiming it is the major or principle issue, but it is a contributing factor).  It is reasonable what Sanders is proposing will make it worse.  Attacking the problem in parts makes sense as long as part of attacking the problem isn't likely to make other parts of the problem worse.  Because attacking a problem in parts in ways that make parts of the problem worse doesn't probably actually help you solve the problem.

 

2.  The piece isn't really related to the health of the people in the US.  Over consumption can and is a problem in most every country, which is why they have practices in place to control them. (which Bernie's plan doesn't have.)

 

3.  Do you understand why other prices (e.g. hospitals) are going up?

 

It is also a little odd for somebody saying we don't have to fix all of the issues with healthcare at the same time complaining about a plan that emphasizes part of the reason that health care costs are going up.

 

Do you think it might make sense to take major steps to fix the biggest problem, some things that might help fix other things, and then sort of see what happens?

[NoCalMike]

Another issue with healthcare is that until more measures are taken to stop us from being so sick as a nation in the first place, I don't see how you control the costs efficiently.  The food companies are essentially slowly poisoning us, it is make us sicker younger, needing more medical care.

[techboy]

30 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Another issue with healthcare is that until more measures are taken to stop us from being so sick as a nation in the first place, I don't see how you control the costs efficiently.  The food companies are essentially slowly poisoning us, it is make us sicker younger, needing more medical care.

 

There's an argument that smoking, obesity, etc actually SAVE money for socialized health care systems, because such people die a lot younger. Morbid, but plausible.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/#3759e93564aa

[Larry]

6 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

There's an argument that smoking, obesity, etc actually SAVE money for socialized health care systems, because such people die a lot younger. Morbid, but plausible.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/#3759e93564aa

 

Had a (smoker) friend make that case to me, years ago.  (Supposedly from one of his college government classes.)  

 

Supposedly, yeah, smokers run up a lot of medical bills when they're old.  But non-smokers run up huge bills, too.  They just run them up 20 years later in life.  

 

And the smokers collect 20 years less social security.  

[Cooked Crack]

 

Who?

[StillUnknown]

7 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

bored rich dudes gotta find a different hobby other than running for president

[Larry]

11 minutes ago, StillUnknown said:

 

bored rich dudes gotta find a different hobby other than running for president

[PeterMP]

27 minutes ago, StillUnknown said:

 

bored rich dudes gotta find a different hobby other than running for president

 

He's also mixed up general air pollution with CO2.  Things like smog and acid rain generated from coal powered electric plants can be heavily controlled in a manner that doesn't affect CO2 output.

 

Even if China was committed to cleaning up the air from a breathing stand point due to pressure from their population, it doesn't really mean they'd do much with respect to CO2 output.

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Edit: one thing I wish Bernie would clarify during the debates, not side interviews, is it doesnt abolish private insurance but prevents it from offering what Medicare will.  Private insurance will become complimentary, not extinct. 

 

"You're damn right," Sanders wrote in a tweet in response to a Republican National Committee (RNC) Research tweet pointing out that he called for eliminating private health insurance during an interview earlier in the day.

 

In that MSNBC interview, Sanders said the "current system is incredibly dysfunctional and wasteful" and said universal health care can't be achieved "unless you get rid of the insurance companies."

 

"You are not going to be able, in the long run, to have cost-effective, universal health care unless you change the system, unless you get rid of the insurance companies, unless you stand up to the greed of the drug companies and lower prescription drug costs," he said during an appearance on MSNBC's "All In With Chris Hayes."

 

??

 

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/436033-sanders-youre-damn-right-health-insurance-companies-should-be-eliminated

[Renegade7]

19 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

"You're damn right," Sanders wrote in a tweet in response to a Republican National Committee (RNC) Research tweet pointing out that he called for eliminating private health insurance during an interview earlier in the day.

 

In that MSNBC interview, Sanders said the "current system is incredibly dysfunctional and wasteful" and said universal health care can't be achieved "unless you get rid of the insurance companies."

 

"You are not going to be able, in the long run, to have cost-effective, universal health care unless you change the system, unless you get rid of the insurance companies, unless you stand up to the greed of the drug companies and lower prescription drug costs," he said during an appearance on MSNBC's "All In With Chris Hayes."

 

??

 

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/436033-sanders-youre-damn-right-health-insurance-companies-should-be-eliminated

 

Have you watched his interview with Joe Rogan?  It frustrates me, neither his bill nor the house bill abolish private insurance, I dont get why he keeps saying that, its killing him

 

https://www.cbs.com/shows/cbs_this_morning/video/Mm2TsVsKjqTFpXWHr6aA0gEqucC2HJ3h/bernie-sanders-on-the-role-of-insurance-companies-under-medicare-for-all-/

 

Skip to 1:55 where he clarifies they will be left to conversation what Medicare doesnt, hes not abolishing them