Chat Forum
It is currently Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:51 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2788 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 ... 70  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:01 pm
Posts: 4343
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
I have no strong opinion of Kamala Harris but surely when the entire point of a story is about how a person wsa smoking pot at the time, they should probably get a bit of a pass on misremembering some of the details?


Thing is, the whole smoking pot thing is kind of done and dusted by now. Harris strikes me as another neo-liberal trying to up her progressive credentials by doing things like this. It comes across fake.


She is getting a hell of a lot of flack for her record as a prosecutor of really going after drug users https://thinkprogress.org/harris-record-weed-history-ce37afd239ce/

Also her criminal justice record makes me shudder, especially the wrongful convictions https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10317
Last night on Finding Your Roots (like Who Do You Think You Are) Tulsi learned that she has Kiwi ancestry. Her great-great grandfather was born in Auckland, moved to Apia and married a Samoan lady. Graham Henry should check his family tree because there’s a resemblance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f3VNRLub-s&t=22m50s


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7978
Bowens wrote:
Last night on Finding Your Roots (like Who Do You Think You Are) Tulsi learned that she has Kiwi ancestry. Her great-great grandfather was born in Auckland, moved to Apia and married a Samoan lady. Graham Henry should check his family tree because there’s a resemblance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f3VNRLub-s&t=22m50s


She should definitely work "No Dickheads" into her campaign slogan or platform.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8449
Location: Indiana
How long til the 1st debates, 6 months?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10317
One for Kamala

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8449
Location: Indiana
Re drug and health care costs, a few things. Some of these come from my mother who has ran finances at public hospitals for about 25 years now in a not prosperous region of the country.

1. She once told me Medicare pays 19 cents to the dollar. So if the hospital says a person on Medicare has a $100 bill, the government pays $19. So for one of the two examples of federal healthcare (the other being the VA, which my dad is a veteran and he refuses to use, not for political reasons), they just won't pay more than 80% of the bill.

2. When Obamacare was agreed, I'd occasionally ask her what it would mean for her. She'd always answer "we don't know yet". That went on for 2 years. I was visiting one week when she was reading through the paperwork for the 1st time at home of the "what does Obamacare mean for your hospital?", and she at one point incredulously said "they want to take $50 million away from us over the next 10 years". Her hospital system is it for that region, there's no one else, and there was a Guardian story a couple years ago I read of one remote corner of that region losing their hospital and the impact on the community. I can't sit and tell you "this caused that", but there's a good deal of probability that's what occurred.

3. The poor use the emergency room as a doctor's office. In a public hospital, they're required to take everyone (privates are only required to see someone if they could die). What that means is they come in, get whatever service they need, leave, bills get sent to them for a few months that go unpaid, and then it's written off as bad debt. In the end the people that can pay their bills are the ones that cover them. Part of being a public hospital from the financial side is they're required to give out so much free healthcare.

4. This is a general statement, but anecdotally, it's become more difficult to get stuff looked at post-Obamacare. To see a specialist you require a referral.

5. People overmedicate for everything. I'm not sure what if anything can be done about that. But that is the drug companies' best friend. I personally try to stay away from any medication unless I'm really sick and really need it. I'm young too, so I'm not representative of say the elderly. But I look at my grandparents who had it seems 6 pills they took every morning, and if you think a doctor actually knows how all those medications play well together and there's no side effects from random medication X being mixed with random medication Y, you're dreaming.

6. A lot of my personal problem with insurance companies is more the processing is ridiculous. I played a rugby match up in Detroit in the summer of 2015, an idiot teammate ran his head into mine running into a tackle, and I went to a Detroit urgentcare to get 17 stitches in my forehead from a Syrian doctor. Out of market, the urgentcare place didn't recognize my insurance card I gave them. I listed as a secondary the USA Rugby insurance (AIG), part of being a CIPP'd member. I think my insurance didn't take at all, AIG paid $10 (I'm not kidding), and TWO YEARS LATER I get the bill for the balance. Now that I'm a dad of young children, we get bills more regularly that insurance takes care of. I keep up on financial things better than most people I'm sure, but the actual process of saying what the bill is, who is paying for it, and how long it takes for that all gets accomplished is incredibly confusing. I hate to frame it this way because I hate Six Sigma, but as a guy that has worked his whole adult life in manufacturing, the whole thing is begging for a Six Sigma project to simplify it.

7. Market forces being a cure-all is not always correct. But in a business such as health care, competition is sometimes not allowed. This is an article about the air ambulance business from last year I remembered reading.

https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2018 ... idies.html

Quote:
Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Cross-subsidies

Cross-subsidies are an under-appreciated original sin of economic stagnation. To transfer money from A to B, it would usually be better to raise taxes on A and to provide vouchers or otherwise pay competitive suppliers on behalf of B. But our political system doesn't like to admit the size of government-induced transfers, so instead we force businesses to undercharge B. Since they have to cover cost, they must overcharge A. It starts as the same thing as a tax on A to subsidize B. But a cross-subsidy cannot withstand competition. Someone else can give A a better price. So our government protects A from that competition. That ruins the underlying markets, and next thing you know everyone is paying more for less.

This was the story of airlines and telephones: The government wanted to subsidize airline service to small cities, and residential landlines, especially rural. It forced companies to provide those at a loss and to cross-subsidize those losses from other customers, big city connections and long distance. But then the government had to stop competitors from undercutting the overpriced services. And as those deregulations showed, the result was inefficiency and high prices for everyone.

Health care and insurance are the screaming example today. The government wants to provide health care to poor, old, and other groups. It does not want to forthrightly raise taxes and pay for their health care in competitive markets. So it forces providers to pay less to those groups, and make it up by overcharging the rest of us. But overcharging cannot stand competition, so gradually the whole system became bloated and inefficient.

A Bloomberg article "Air Ambulances Are Flying More Patients Than Ever, and Leaving Massive Bills Behind" by John Tozzi offers a striking illustration of the phenomenon, and much of the mindset that keeps our country from fixing it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... sive-bills

The story starts with the usual human-interest tale, a $45,930 bill for a 70 mile flight for a kid with a 107 degree fever.

Quote:
At the heart of the dispute is a gap between what insurance will pay for the flight and what Air Methods says it must charge to keep flying. Michael Cox ... had health coverage through a plan for public employees. It paid $6,704—the amount, it says, Medicare would have paid for the trip.

The air-ambulance industry says reimbursements from U.S. government health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, don’t cover their expenses. Operators say they thus must ask others to pay more—and when health plans balk, patients get stuck with the tab.

Seth Myers, president of Air Evac, said that his company loses money on patients covered by Medicaid and Medicare, as well as those with no insurance. That's about 75 percent of the people it flies.


Image

According to a 2017 report commissioned by the Association of Air Medical Services, an industry trade group, the typical cost per flight was $10,199 in 2015, and Medicare paid only 59 percent that.

So, I knew about cross-subsidies, but $45,950 vs. $6,704 is a lot!

OK, put your economics hats on. How can it persist that people are double and triple charged what it costs to provide any service? Why, when an emergency room puts out a call, "air ambulance needed, paying customer alert" are there not swarms of helicopters battling it out -- and in the process driving the price down to cost?

Supply is always the answer -- and the one just about everyone forgets, as in this article.

I don't know the regulation, and the article doesn't go near it, so I will hazard guesses.

a) Not just any helicopter will do. Look at any small airport. There are a lot of helicopters hanging around whose owners would jump in a flash for an uber-helicopter call that pays $45,000. So, it must be true that in every such case you have to have an air-ambulance. Which makes a lot of sense, of course -- the helicopter should have the standard kind of life-saving equipment on it. But clearly the emergency room is only going to call and allow a air ambulance.

b) Air-ambulances must be properly certified and licensed. OK, but there are still lots of people who could go in to this business, or the ones who are there could bid aggressively. That brings us to

c) I'm willing to bet part of the conditions for license is that operators must carry anyone regardless of ability to pay, and not ask any financial questions.

Competition for paying customers must be banned. Only such a ban can explain the crazy situation. If there were any way to compete for the paying customers, it would happen and the problem would evaporate.

The article comes close to confirming this suspicion.

Quote:
“I fly people based on need, when a physician calls or when an ambulance calls,” he [Seth Myers] said. “We don’t know for days whether a person has the ability to pay.”


The alternative? Well, pass a tax on air ambulance rides, and use the proceeds to pay for rides for the poor or indigent. It's the same thing -- except with a tax, there needs to be no regulation or bar on competition. Or pass an income tax surcharge and do the same thing. Yes, I don't like taxes any more than you do -- but given we're going to grossly subsidize air ambulance rides, a tax and subsidy is much more efficient than banning competition and allowing an ex-post free-for-all price gouge.

The article is most revealing, I think, that neither the author nor anyone he interviews even thinks of supply. Their explanations are as usual: demand, negotiating ability, and lack of regulation.

It is true that when faced with an emergency, a loved one needs an air ambulance and is in danger of dying, you are in a very poor position to negotiate. But supply competition should solve that problem. If you can get $45,000 for a 70 mile helicopter ride, competing helicopter companies would have representatives sitting in the emergency rooms! When you arrive at an airport at 11 pm and want a rental car, you're not in a great negotiating position either. Somehow they don't charge $45,000 then! Why not? Supply competition -- and the need to have good reputations in any business.

The ex-post negotiation is surreal.

Quote:
For people with private insurance, short flights in an air ambulance are often followed by long battles over the bill.

Consumer groups and insurers counter that air-ambulance companies strategically stay out of health-plan networks to maximize revenue.


[This is an increasingly common scam. The hospital may be in network, but many emergency room teams are out of network contractors. You find out when you wake up.]

Quote:
...the Cox family went through two appeals with their health plan. After they retained a lawyer, Air Methods offered to reduce their balance to $10,000 on reviewing their tax returns, bank statements, pay stubs, and a list of assets. The family decided to sue instead. [My emphasis]

“I felt like they were screening us to see just how much money they could get out of us,” Tabitha Cox said.


You got it Mrs. Cox. On what planet do you get on a helicopter with no mention of cost, and then the operator afterwards looks at your tax returns, bank statements, pay stubs and lists of assets to figure out how much you can pay? Only universities get away with that outside of health care!

The reporter put the blame squarely on ... wait for it... the lack of price controls and other regulations.

Quote:
Favorable treatment under federal law means air-ambulance companies, unlike their counterparts on the ground, have few restrictions on what they can charge for their services. Through a quirk of the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act, air-ambulance operators are considered air carriers—similar to Delta Air Lines or American Airlines—and states have no power to put in place their own curbs.

Air-ambulance operators’ special legal status has helped them thwart efforts to control their rates. West Virginia's legislature passed a law in 2016 capping what its employee-health plan—which covered West Cox—and its worker-compensation program would pay for air ambulances


It is a sad day in America that the average reporter, faced with insane pricing behavior, can only come up with the lack of price control and regulation as an explanation. If voters don't understand that consumer protection comes from supply competition, we cannot expect politicians to shove that enlightenment down our throats.

Does it take a genius to figure out what price controls mean? Well, Medicare, Medicaid and indigent people aren't about to pay the cost. So if the companies can't cover costs by looking at our tax returns and coming up with a tailored price gouge for each of us, that means less air ambulance flights. The kid with the 107 degree temperature will end up driving in rush hour traffic to the hospital that can help him. Some will die in the process. Actually, it means who "needs" an air ambulance will depend on connections.

That's the problem with negotiation as the answer to everything. Negotiation can shift costs from one person to another, but we can't all negotiate for a better deal.

Actually, there is some supply competition -- just not competition of the sort that brings down costs for non-indigent customers. The business has grown in response to its overall profitability.

Quote:
The number of aircraft grew faster than the number of patients flown. In the 1990s, each helicopter flew about 600 patients a year, on average, according to Blumen’s data. That's fallen to about 350 in the current decade, spreading the expense of keeping each helicopter at the ready among a smaller pool of patients.

While adding helicopters has expanded the reach of emergency care, “there are fewer and fewer patients that are having to pay higher and higher charges in order to facilitate this increase in access,” Aaron D. Todd, chief executive officer of Air Methods, said on an earnings call in May of 2015, before the company was taken private. “If you ask me personally, do we need 900 air medical helicopters to serve this country, I'd say probably not,” he said.

If there are too many helicopters for the number of patients who need them, market forces should force less-efficient operators out of business.


Now pick up your jaw off the floor. So, the answer to inadequate supply competition is to ... reduce supply!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7978
Quote:
5. People overmedicate for everything. I'm not sure what if anything can be done about that. But that is the drug companies' best friend. I personally try to stay away from any medication unless I'm really sick and really need it. I'm young too, so I'm not representative of say the elderly. But I look at my grandparents who had it seems 6 pills they took every morning, and if you think a doctor actually knows how all those medications play well together and there's no side effects from random medication X being mixed with random medication Y, you're dreaming.


No doubt. Doctors would rather overmedicate than undermedicate for legal reasons and possibly due to pressure from patients. Then you've got the people who think they need every drug even tangentially related to something they've experienced. I've seen data where a patient will be taking 20+ drugs a day, and we're not talking about truly necessary stuff like cancer, HIV, MS, etc. drugs. Drug advertising is partially responsible for this type of thing and really should not be allowed.

Speaking of which, I'd like to see some immediate tweaks to our drug system:

1. No drug advertising
2. Medicare allowed to negotiate on price
3. Require pharmacies to print the total cost (not just the copay) of a drug on the label
4. No more patent protection for "new" drugs that are either stereoisomers or extended release versions that don't show substantial clinical benefit over the existing drug. This is a real trick of the drug companies. Shortly before a major drug goes generic, they'll come out with with an extended release version, often with very little improvement over the original drug (example: Ambien CR vs regular Ambien was worth like an extra 8 minutes of sleep a night on average), and will get doctors to switch their patients over to the extended release version, which will have a much longer patent life with no generic competitors for years. Switch over the majority of your patients and you just basically doubled the patent life. They'll do similar with stereoisomers (same molecular formula, just flipped) and then come out with extended release versions of those too. It's a total gaming of the system.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8449
Location: Indiana
goeagles wrote:
Quote:
5. People overmedicate for everything. I'm not sure what if anything can be done about that. But that is the drug companies' best friend. I personally try to stay away from any medication unless I'm really sick and really need it. I'm young too, so I'm not representative of say the elderly. But I look at my grandparents who had it seems 6 pills they took every morning, and if you think a doctor actually knows how all those medications play well together and there's no side effects from random medication X being mixed with random medication Y, you're dreaming.


No doubt. Doctors would rather overmedicate than undermedicate for legal reasons and possibly due to pressure from patients.


That's a contributing cause for the opioid crisis.

Quote:
Speaking of which, I'd like to see some immediate tweaks to our drug system:

1. No drug advertising


TV Media would throw a fit. I'd be for it on principle, just don't see it have any success of becoming law.

Quote:
3. Require pharmacies to print the total cost (not just the copay) of a drug on the label


It'd be in the smallest font print they could find. It's not like regular people read the labels anyway.

Quote:
4. No more patent protection for "new" drugs that are either stereoisomers or extended release versions that don't show substantial clinical benefit over the existing drug. This is a real trick of the drug companies. Shortly before a major drug goes generic, they'll come out with with an extended release version, often with very little improvement over the original drug (example: Ambien CR vs regular Ambien was worth like an extra 8 minutes of sleep a night on average), and will get doctors to switch their patients over to the extended release version, which will have a much longer patent life with no generic competitors for years. Switch over the majority of your patients and you just basically doubled the patent life. They'll do similar with stereoisomers (same molecular formula, just flipped) and then come out with extended release versions of those too. It's a total gaming of the system.


The blame there also lies with lazy and/or corrupt doctors. Not sure when a few doctors became dumb idiots that do as little work as possible and just parrot drug companies' talking points, but they should probably have their license stripped.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7978
Flyin Ryan wrote:
That's a contributing cause for the opioid crisis.


Definitely

Quote:
TV Media would throw a fit. I'd be for it on principle, just don't see it have any success of becoming law.


They probably would, but it's definitely worth it. They probably threw a fit when they had to stop allowing cigarette companies to advertise on TV too.

Quote:
It'd be in the smallest font print they could find. It's not like regular people read the labels anyway.


Require it to be in the same font as everything else on the label. Maybe they won't read it, but it's a start.

Quote:
The blame there also lies with lazy and/or corrupt doctors. Not sure when a few doctors became dumb idiots that do as little work as possible and just parrot drug companies' talking points, but they should probably have their license stripped.


It's not just lazy or corrupt doctors. The vast majority of doctors do not concern themselves with price or cost/benefit and frankly have either zero idea what a drug costs or even if they do, they don't care as long as the patient's copay is roughly the same. Going back to Ambien, from their perspective if Ambien CR gets you an extra 8 minutes of sleep, then it is objectively better. Nevermind that it might cost our health care system substantially more. It's clinically better and that's that in their mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9720
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
https://youtu.be/flIsRYN6vx8

Thought the Fox work has been done and the lie is the truth. The breakfast club went on Ari Member to call out the Fox lie on Harris.

Do better people!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9720
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
White males, evangelicals, WWC, etc are also identity politics. So let's not act like it's new. When it is not about the aforementioned, it is identity politics but when it is, I guess it is the way things should be right?


What? Total bollocks.

You act like people haven't slaughtered and mocked these groups for the past two decades. How else was the Tea party received outside of it's narrow group? Or any republican to courted them against Obama? This board, the internet, the mainsteam media has for years mocked any extremist political ideology and identity politics under any brand for the most part. You seem to have a need to want to believe we need to go through the civil rights movement again despite the patent fact the vast majority of people are past that.


Try again. When a candidate discusses affirmative action, they are accused of pandering to blacks and minorities. When they discuss manufacturing jobs in the heartland, it is economic policy. You are the one full of shite.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9720
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bernie might stand a chance but his lane is being eaten up and this time he has policy wonks to deal with so his whole "big thinker," light on the details shtick, like break up the banks, will be tougher to pull off.

Tulsi is DOA. She has to overcome the other legs of the Dem chair/stool and how she will win over gays after being pro conversion therapy and minorities with supportive tweets from Bannon, Duke and Spencer is funny to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9720
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
FR and Goey, what are your thoughts on the US incorporating a Healthcare system similar to Germany that allows Insurers to exist and have variations in packages and what is covered but is heavily regulated to make sure prices are affordable and everyone is covered. I truly see this as the only way forward since we can't just get ride of insurers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10317
Deadtigers wrote:
https://youtu.be/flIsRYN6vx8

Thought the Fox work has been done and the lie is the truth. The breakfast club went on Ari Member to call out the Fox lie on Harris.

Do better people!


Wait so she was smoking weed and listening to Snoop in 1994 when she was a DA getting people locked up for doing the same thing? Sorry man this makes no sense. Read the comments under the original video. People (the usual audience) ain’t having it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh_wQUjeaTk

Also she was publicly against legalization until last year. Her home state legalized recreational marijuana in 2016. So she’s a hypocrite, a liar, or both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10317
Deadtigers wrote:
Bernie might stand a chance but his lane is being eaten up and this time he has policy wonks to deal with so his whole "big thinker," light on the details shtick, like break up the banks, will be tougher to pull off.


By who? Of the announced candidates only Tulsi, Warren and Andrew Yang (marginal at this point but seriously smart guy) have similar policies. The rest of the field are closer to the non-Bernie 2016 candidates. Most assume Tulsi and Bernie would run together if either made it through. So the competition “in his lane”’ is basically Warren who is polling at 7% and probably not going up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21263
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
White males, evangelicals, WWC, etc are also identity politics. So let's not act like it's new. When it is not about the aforementioned, it is identity politics but when it is, I guess it is the way things should be right?


What? Total bollocks.

You act like people haven't slaughtered and mocked these groups for the past two decades. How else was the Tea party received outside of it's narrow group? Or any republican to courted them against Obama? This board, the internet, the mainsteam media has for years mocked any extremist political ideology and identity politics under any brand for the most part. You seem to have a need to want to believe we need to go through the civil rights movement again despite the patent fact the vast majority of people are past that.


Try again. When a candidate discusses affirmative action, they are accused of pandering to blacks and minorities. When they discuss manufacturing jobs in the heartland, it is economic policy. You are the one full of shite.



Those aren't even comparable. You really are stretching once again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21263
Bowens wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
Bernie might stand a chance but his lane is being eaten up and this time he has policy wonks to deal with so his whole "big thinker," light on the details shtick, like break up the banks, will be tougher to pull off.


By who? Of the announced candidates only Tulsi, Warren and Andrew Yang (marginal at this point but seriously smart guy) have similar policies. The rest of the field are closer to the non-Bernie 2016 candidates. Most assume Tulsi and Bernie would run together if either made it through. So the competition “in his lane”’ is basically Warren who is polling at 7% and probably not going up.



Now, now. Facts and accurate observation are no way in which Deadtigers forms his opinions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7978
Deadtigers wrote:
FR and Goey, what are your thoughts on the US incorporating a Healthcare system similar to Germany that allows Insurers to exist and have variations in packages and what is covered but is heavily regulated to make sure prices are affordable and everyone is covered. I truly see this as the only way forward since we can't just get ride of insurers.


Do you have any suggested reading material on the German system? I don't know enough about it to comment intelligently.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8449
Location: Indiana
goeagles wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
FR and Goey, what are your thoughts on the US incorporating a Healthcare system similar to Germany that allows Insurers to exist and have variations in packages and what is covered but is heavily regulated to make sure prices are affordable and everyone is covered. I truly see this as the only way forward since we can't just get ride of insurers.


Do you have any suggested reading material on the German system? I don't know enough about it to comment intelligently.


Ditto.

goeagles wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
That's a contributing cause for the opioid crisis.


Definitely

Quote:
TV Media would throw a fit. I'd be for it on principle, just don't see it have any success of becoming law.


They probably would, but it's definitely worth it. They probably threw a fit when they had to stop allowing cigarette companies to advertise on TV too.


If you look at how things have gone on advertising, with the exception of tobacco, they've allowed everything. Hard alcohol was banned from advertising. That's been lifted for at least a decade. Gambling ads are all over. I know of companies that are trying to push CBD and marijuana advertising in Supercross where the fanbase demographics are very young.

Quote:
Quote:
The blame there also lies with lazy and/or corrupt doctors. Not sure when a few doctors became dumb idiots that do as little work as possible and just parrot drug companies' talking points, but they should probably have their license stripped.


It's not just lazy or corrupt doctors. The vast majority of doctors do not concern themselves with price or cost/benefit and frankly have either zero idea what a drug costs or even if they do, they don't care as long as the patient's copay is roughly the same. Going back to Ambien, from their perspective if Ambien CR gets you an extra 8 minutes of sleep, then it is objectively better. Nevermind that it might cost our health care system substantially more. It's clinically better and that's that in their mind.


To make the healthcare system more efficient, lower cost, the entire concept of "skin in the game" needs to occur. People on Medicare and Medicaid have no skin in the game, someone else pays for it, so if it's $100 or $10,000 literally does not matter to them. (Efficiency and subsidization do not mix in most fields. A person that has the electricity bill paid by someone else is not going to care about how much electricity they use.) Doctors, mostly no skin in the game, again, someone else pays for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10317
It’s all about the Benjamins baby

Quote:
Small individual contributions (2018):

75.55% - Bernie Sanders
61.60% - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
39.29% - Tulsi Gabbard

Superdelegates who have endorsed Kamala Harris:

20.91% - Barbara Lee
9.12% - Nanette Barragán
5.42% - Ted Lieu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 15900
Deadtigers wrote:
FR and Goey, what are your thoughts on the US incorporating a Healthcare system similar to Germany that allows Insurers to exist and have variations in packages and what is covered but is heavily regulated to make sure prices are affordable and everyone is covered. I truly see this as the only way forward since we can't just get ride of insurers.

I was talking to a friend who lives in Germany and was talking to him about this. The packages are progressively priced so a six figure household will pay c9-12k depending on coverage. That’s ex taxes which are already higher than the US. I said it already but if you want a European style system you’ll need higher taxes/ charges on lower and middle income households. You’ll probably need to get rid of state level exchanges and intro a system of fiscal transfers from wealthier areas to poorer ones. I get the impression from FRs post that the same problem(50m being taken away) didn’t happen in a lot of blue states and maybe in parts of red states.

There’s other things about the Germans that’s different too. Their union culture is less selfish than say Ireland’s or other places. They’re more conscious that a big pay increase for doctors will be carried by fellow workers. I’ll see if I can find the economist article on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21263
paddyor wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
FR and Goey, what are your thoughts on the US incorporating a Healthcare system similar to Germany that allows Insurers to exist and have variations in packages and what is covered but is heavily regulated to make sure prices are affordable and everyone is covered. I truly see this as the only way forward since we can't just get ride of insurers.

I was talking to a friend who lives in Germany and was talking to him about this. The packages are progressively priced so a six figure household will pay c9-12k depending on coverage. That’s ex taxes which are already higher than the US. I said it already but if you want a European style system you’ll need higher taxes/ charges on lower and middle income households. You’ll probably need to get rid of state level exchanges and intro a system of fiscal transfers from wealthier areas to poorer ones. I get the impression from FRs post that the same problem(50m being taken away) didn’t happen in a lot of blue states and maybe in parts of red states.

There’s other things about the Germans that’s different too. Their union culture is less selfish than say Ireland’s or other places. They’re more conscious that a big pay increase for doctors will be carried by fellow workers. I’ll see if I can find the economist article on it.



Indeed. I've been jealous of Germany's more sensible government-union-industry dynamic. Unions in the UK are highly political and one sided. It's simpleton "We protect workers" myopic thinking with goals which refuse to accept accept there is a bigger picture, a globalised world and is overall is damaging to workers jobs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9720
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
White males, evangelicals, WWC, etc are also identity politics. So let's not act like it's new. When it is not about the aforementioned, it is identity politics but when it is, I guess it is the way things should be right?


What? Total bollocks.

You act like people havshit slaughtered and mocked these groups for the past two decades. How else was the Tea party received outside of it's narrow group? Or any republican to courted them against Obama? This board, the internet, the mainsteam media has for years mocked any extremist political ideology and identity politics under any brand for the most part. You seem to have a need to want to believe we need to go through the civil rights movement again despite the patent fact the vast majority of people are past that.


Try again. When a candidate discusses affirmative action, they are accused of pandering to blacks and minorities. When they discuss manufacturing jobs in the heartland, it is economic policy. You are the one full of shite.



Those aren't even comparable. You really are stretching once again.


So once again you are full of shite. Two important issues to different demographics. One is pandering and one is not. You cry about the WWC all the time but issues that effect them is not pandering or identity politics but anything that effects minorities is identity politics. Affirmative action can be wrapped up as part of Education as well as economic policy just like manufacturing jobs is considered policy and not pandering to the WWC and non-highly educated.


Last edited by Deadtigers on Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9720
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bowens wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
Bernie might stand a chance but his lane is being eaten up and this time he has policy wonks to deal with so his whole "big thinker," light on the details shtick, like break up the banks, will be tougher to pull off.


By who? Of the announced candidates only Tulsi, Warren and Andrew Yang (marginal at this point but seriously smart guy) have similar policies. The rest of the field are closer to the non-Bernie 2016 candidates. Most assume Tulsi and Bernie would run together if either made it through. So the competition “in his lane”’ is basically Warren who is polling at 7% and probably not going up.


Gillibrand wrote the actual technical aspects of the Medicare for all bill since Bernie is a big thinker only. She also proposed the Post Office banking system which is brilliant. Warren has him beat in being real policy wonk and fighting for consumer rights and against the banks. Klobuchar is going for climate change.

He won't find it as easy to label his opposition corporatists. I can't wait for the income Tax disclosure, let's see if he does it this time or cheats an cries foul again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9720
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bowens wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
https://youtu.be/flIsRYN6vx8

Thought the Fox work has been done and the lie is the truth. The breakfast club went on Ari Member to call out the Fox lie on Harris.

Do better people!


Wait so she was smoking weed and listening to Snoop in 1994 when she was a DA getting people locked up for doing the same thing? Sorry man this makes no sense. Read the comments under the original video. People (the usual audience) ain’t having it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh_wQUjeaTk

Also she was publicly against legalization until last year. Her home state legalized recreational marijuana in 2016. So she’s a hypocrite, a liar, or both.


No! He smoked weed in college and she use to listen to Snoop. It is two separate questions. You know the comments are the worst. Someone said not another fraud like Obama, which just tells you all you need to know.

How long did it take for Obama to evolve on gay marriage? When it was politically expedient to do so. Her past as a DA is gonna be a problem for her, I admit but you gotta be kidding me if you think this is major but Gabbard's issues are minor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10317
What! Dude it happened and we have tape. There’s no point in making up alternate explanations for this. Breakfast Club played themselves with that Comical Ali appearance on MSNBC and their listeners know it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh_wQUjeaTk&t=38m11s

Warren has her pluses but I just don’t see her climbing much above where she is now. When you look at name recognition and polling numbers, she has the worst ratio - ie most know her name but don’t consider her a strong candidate. Klobuchar and Gillibrand are centrists. Not in Bernie’s (or Tulsi’s or Yang’s) lane. Gillibrand was in the Blue Dog Coalition man! She’s one of the most conservative Dems left.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21263
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
White males, evangelicals, WWC, etc are also identity politics. So let's not act like it's new. When it is not about the aforementioned, it is identity politics but when it is, I guess it is the way things should be right?


What? Total bollocks.

You act like people havshit slaughtered and mocked these groups for the past two decades. How else was the Tea party received outside of it's narrow group? Or any republican to courted them against Obama? This board, the internet, the mainsteam media has for years mocked any extremist political ideology and identity politics under any brand for the most part. You seem to have a need to want to believe we need to go through the civil rights movement again despite the patent fact the vast majority of people are past that.


Try again. When a candidate discusses affirmative action, they are accused of pandering to blacks and minorities. When they discuss manufacturing jobs in the heartland, it is economic policy. You are the one full of shite.



Those aren't even comparable. You really are stretching once again.


So once again you are full of shite. Two important issues to different demographics. One is pandering and one is not. You cry about the WWC all the time but issues that effect them is not pandering or identity politics but anything that effects minorities is identity politics. Affirmative action can be wrapped up as part of Education policy just like manufacturing jobs is considered policy and not pandering to the WWC and non-highly educated.


No, two false equivalent once again. You weren't discussing affmirative action, you were ranting about how your identity politics is fine but others is not. You trying to move goal posts again when you have no counter. I simply pointed out the Tea parties identity politics were demonised in the Obama era (except obviously by their supporters) as we criticise identity politics on the other end of the political spectrum today.

Also the idea I lean towards accept the right wing end of things is rather ridiculous. My political history on this forum singled me out as the ultra feminist, Bush hater who discussed how racist and unacceptable the Tea party was 10 years ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 35317
Location: For Wales the Welsh and Leinster
Right this is for the Yanks
Not EDf and his DT vendetta.
Wtf is it with this Democratic Socialist wing of the Democrats?
It's a Social Democratic thing Ffs not a Democratic Socialist thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21263
c69 wrote:
Right this is for the Yanks
Not EDf and his DT vendetta.


Keep trying

Quote:
Wtf is it with this Democratic Socialist wing of the Domocrats?
It's a Social Democratic thing Ffs not a Democratic Socialist thing.


The point I made not so long ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10317
Just ignore him, everyone else does.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4695
Bowens wrote:
Just ignore him, everyone else does.


:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9720
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
eldanielfire wrote:
etc.

You seem to lack comprehension. I made a general point about the two faced identity politics debate. I then gave an instance using affirmative action and how that is treated as opposed to manufacturing jobs in the heartland. How in the duck is that moving goalposts? When we're tea party identity politics demonized? I don't remember the media talking about it as such? It wasn't until Obama was gone and all the supposed issues that mattered didn't matter.

I don't think you lean toward the right end. I think you lean toward the I have never been in the USA but I know more about it than you who live there end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9720
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bowens wrote:
What! Dude it happened and we have tape. There’s no point in making up alternate explanations for this. Breakfast Club played themselves with that Comical Ali appearance on MSNBC and their listeners know it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh_wQUjeaTk&t=38m11s

Warren has her pluses but I just don’t see her climbing much above where she is now. When you look at name recognition and polling numbers, she has the worst ratio - ie most know her name but don’t consider her a strong candidate. Klobuchar and Gillibrand are centrists. Not in Bernie’s (or Tulsi’s or Yang’s) lane. Gillibrand was in the Blue Dog Coalition man! She’s one of the most conservative Dems left.


Bro! We both have our biases. I don't like Bernie or Tulsi and I get you don't like Harris. But you and I both know she was answering Envy while Charlemagne was asking his question. Your better than that.

When I said lane, I mean issues that he can be at the forefront off. The difference between Hillary and Bernie's platform was 5 percent according to reports. How much smaller will it be now? How is he gonna evolve? Is he now gonna take back the things he said that lost him older minorities? He has his name recognition and his base from 2016 sure but even with all of that he did woeful in primaries. I don't think he will be able to get away with breaking agreements and blaming the Dems because you will have 4 or 5 other candidates calling him out on it. And like I said, what about when tax returns start being produced? Will he shift the topic like last time? His cult of personality will be tested this time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10317
I’m not trying to convince you on Bernie that would be pointless.

She laughed and looked at CthaG. We both know why. The two different convos spin is some real funny shit.

“What was you listening to when you was high?”
*she laughs*
“What song was... was it Snoop?”
“Oh my goodness. Oh yeah definitely Snoop, uh-huh. 2Pac for sure.”

Cmon man. No way is her Baby Boomer self answering that to what kind of music does she listen to. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9720
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bowens wrote:
I’m not trying to convince you on Bernie that would be pointless.

She laughed and looked at CthaG. We both know why. The two different convos spin is some real funny shit.

“What was you listening to when you was high?”
*she laughs*
“What song was... was it Snoop?”
“Oh my goodness. Oh yeah definitely Snoop, uh-huh. 2Pac for sure.”

Cmon man. No way is her Baby Boomer self answering that to what kind of music does she listen to. :lol:


I guess your gonna just believe that. No point in breaking down how I interpret it. It would be like showing you Tulsi's list of legislation enacted as a Rep and you saying it doesn't matter. Harris is faking but Gabbard is sincerely cool with gays now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9720
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
FR and GoEy!


https://international.commonwealthfund. ... s/germany/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38899811

https://medium.com/@liveworkgermany...r ... 829f146ca5

My friend sent me those. It is almost too informative. The Commonwealth Fund one goes into loads of detail.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10317
Tulsi’s voting record on gay rights is top notch. I think she got like the highest rating. Kamala’s record as a prosecutor and legislator on weed speaks for itself.

Then there’s stuff like this: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/3127 ... -pick-over

I expected the DNC to push her through, said it on here at least a year ago. But I was sort of hoping the super delegates would at least wait until everyone declared. We are five months out from the first debate and she is getting endorsements. If there isn’t the appearance of a fair process after 2016, I don’t see how they mobilize enough voters. Remember that most people are independents, not D or R. When no one inspires them they generally sit it out. 100 million voters did last time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9720
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bowens wrote:
Tulsi’s voting record on gay rights is top notch. I think she got like the highest rating. Kamala’s record as a prosecutor and legislator on weed speaks for itself.

Then there’s stuff like this: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/3127 ... -pick-over

I expected the DNC to push her through, said it on here at least a year ago. But I was sort of hoping the super delegates would at least wait until everyone declared. We are five months out from the first debate and she is getting endorsements. If there isn’t the appearance of a fair process after 2016, I don’t see how they mobilize enough voters. Remember that most people are independents, not D or R. When no one inspires them they generally sit it out. 100 million voters did last time.



Yeah so this is OK, https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/13/politi ... index.html no big deal but a doctored audio of liking snoop is proof of a proven liar in your world. I don't even know what to say bro.

If independents don't see what is at risk this time then that is on them. Their indifference and what happens to it was shown in 2016. Plus if they have a problem with who the Dems pick maybe you should be a dem and have a say. And why am I not surprised that a member of the Tulsa and Bernie fan club is complaining about Super delegates already? Why do they get to live in a consequence free world. Those two shit on the party, I have already gone through all the things Bernie did in 2016 against general rules and cried when challenged. Yet boo the super delegates for not liking people that block Dems from running in his state, among other things. I showed you CthaG saying Harris interview was being misused and you didnt believe them and dismissed them. So if they saying it doesn't sway you, how are the Dems gonna sway you that it was a fair process short of letting Bernie or Tulsi win?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21777
Location: Middle East
Expecting someone to know what they were listening yesterday to while stoned is an unreasonably high standard to hold anyone to, let alone 30 years ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2788 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 ... 70  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BillW, Bing [Bot], CrazyIslander, Flametop, Grandpa, guy smiley, Jay Cee Gee, Jeff the Bear, JPNZ, Jtah, Plato'sCave, SamShark, Taranaki Snapper, WoodlandsRFC, Zakar and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group