|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 29 2013 21:01 DoubleReed wrote:
There's a couple states with single payer I think. Hawaii maybe?
Not the best source, but it seems Vermont is the closest source
Equally
...
More than 20 years ago, two Harvard professors published an article in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine showing that health-care administration cost somewhere between 19 percent and 24 percent of total spending on health care and that this administrative burden helped explain why health care costs so much in the U.S. compared, for instance, with Canada or the United Kingdom. An update of that analysis more than a decade later, after the diffusion of managed care and the widespread adoption of computerization, found that administration constituted some 30 percent of U.S. health-care costs and that the share of the health-care labor force comprising administrative (as opposed to care delivery) workers had grown 50 percent to constitute more than one of every four health-sector employees.
...
source Bloomberg Businessweek
And it sites overhead for Standford university which is self insured and has it claims are dealt by BlueShield as 3% of claims for their revenue; however, there is no incentive to spent less since it's percentage base money for them and medicare overhead at at 1%.
I know Canada overhead is 1.3% (2003 source) and I don't know if universal coverage would promote prevention (so lower % of GDP) since everyone could see a doctor once a year for a checkup + blood work every year 2-3 years.
Here are some administrative terms, the sources are 1994 articles I'm having a hard time getting through the pay walls but here it is :
...
The U.S. pays $911 per person per year in administrative costs. Canada by contrast pays $270 per person.
The disproportion in insurance overhead costs is even more marked: insurance overhead per capita comes to $212 in the U.S., $34 in Canada. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts, a typical major insurer, employs 6680 people to administer insurance for 2 1/2 million customers, more than are employed to administer public health insurance for all 28 million Canadians.
...
source
|
Not that this counts for much but I don't think sami is that far off in most of what he says 
Everyone worships something 
|
On August 29 2013 22:44 NPF wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 21:01 DoubleReed wrote:
There's a couple states with single payer I think. Hawaii maybe? Not the best source, but it seems Vermont is the closest sourceEqually Show nested quote +
...
More than 20 years ago, two Harvard professors published an article in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine showing that health-care administration cost somewhere between 19 percent and 24 percent of total spending on health care and that this administrative burden helped explain why health care costs so much in the U.S. compared, for instance, with Canada or the United Kingdom. An update of that analysis more than a decade later, after the diffusion of managed care and the widespread adoption of computerization, found that administration constituted some 30 percent of U.S. health-care costs and that the share of the health-care labor force comprising administrative (as opposed to care delivery) workers had grown 50 percent to constitute more than one of every four health-sector employees.
...
source Bloomberg BusinessweekAnd it sites overhead for Standford university which is self insured and has it claims are dealt by BlueShield as 3% of claims for their revenue; however, there is no incentive to spent less since it's percentage base money for them and medicare overhead at at 1%. I know Canada overhead is 1.3% (2003 source) and I don't know if universal coverage would promote prevention (so lower % of GDP) since everyone could see a doctor once a year for a checkup + blood work every year 2-3 years. Here are some administrative terms, the sources are 1994 articles I'm having a hard time getting through the pay walls but here it is : Show nested quote +
...
The U.S. pays $911 per person per year in administrative costs. Canada by contrast pays $270 per person.
The disproportion in insurance overhead costs is even more marked: insurance overhead per capita comes to $212 in the U.S., $34 in Canada. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts, a typical major insurer, employs 6680 people to administer insurance for 2 1/2 million customers, more than are employed to administer public health insurance for all 28 million Canadians.
...
source
Some caveats:
As far as admin costs go, cost as a percent of revenue can vary based on how sick the insured pool is. An insurance company with a lot of really sick customers will have a lower admin expense as a percent of revenue than an insurance company with relatively more healthy customers.
Admin costs are also difficult to compare when looking government to private sector as accounting methodologies are often different. Intergovernmental work (work between agencies) can also be difficult to allocate, and government budgets won't do that for you.
Regardless, if we roll with the numbers in your last quote, by switching to a single payer we'd be saving $212 - $34 = $178 per capita in insurance administrative costs. In the US we spend almost $4K per capita more than Canada on healthcare, so it would be nice, but we really need something more powerful than insurance admin savings.
Overall healthcare admin costs are pretty significant, but that goes well beyond the payer system.
|
On August 29 2013 09:16 sam!zdat wrote:that's right, I am full of ressentiment. i am, after all, a member of priestly caste remember kids, whatever you do, DON'T READ BOOKS. all literature is a dangerous communist plot. be a good boy and watch your television now edit: @below: when you are older you will see what I mean <3. just remember that some crazy communist on the internet said it one time and let it brew as you go through life. on the day that you realize I'm right, all I ask is that you burn one for ol' sam 
You're going to be the person I remember the most from my time on any forum. I think its because I feel like when you speak, its always reflective of some intense cataclysm that is occurring in society that no one else sees (or only very few). Its like when I was younger and I was reading conspiracy theories, only to be disappointed when they were false and I had to go with the boring truth.
But you bring that spirit back again. I can't wait to see what the world looks like a few decades from now...but I'm afraid the boring truth of stable governments and geo-engineered climate with a few leftover problems in third world countries will remain.
|
the problem is that there actually is a horrible conspiracy, but we'll all be dead before the damage really kicks in, and so people feel they can be complacent about it and that means they are being all sophisticated and centrist and reasonable, as opposed to crazy old sam, who is just a stupid hippy who finds some sort of libidinal satisfaction in denouncing capitalism out of sheer spite. so that way you can do absolutely nothing and feeling superior about it. it's very easy to feel that you are performing an objective analysis of some situation when that analysis tells you "full steam ahead! busyness as usual!" you feel very smart but actually you've just avoided the problem. it's just yr ideology telling you to keep on keepin on, no problems here, nossir.
as philip dick said, "it is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane."
|
the problem is that there actually is a horrible conspiracy, but we'll all be dead before the damage really kicks in,
The problem might just be that saying there actually is a horrible conspiracy but you can't prove that the damage will "really kick in" until after we're all dead is incredibly weak. That might be the problem.
and so people feel they can be complacent about it and that means they are being all sophisticated and centrist and reasonable, as opposed to crazy old sam, who is just a stupid hippy who finds some sort of libidinal satisfaction in denouncing capitalism out of sheer spite.
And so people feel they can be the canary in the coal mine and that means they are even more sophisticated and radical and more reasonable than reasonable, as opposed to those cultists, who are just blind believers who get libidinal satisfaction from denying reality out of existential fear.
so that way you can do absolutely nothing and feeling superior about it.
So this way you can throw around meaningless generalities and feel superior about it because you at least are "doing something."
it's very easy to feel that you are performing an objective analysis of some situation when that analysis tells you "full steam ahead! busyness as usual!" you feel very smart but actually you've just avoided the problem. it's just yr ideology telling you to keep on keepin on, no problems here, nossir.
It's very easy to feel that you are performing an objective analysis of some situation when that analysis tells you "we're all fucked!" you feel very smart and more important than the unwashed masses but actually you're just engaging in a series of psychological defense mechanisms. It's just your ideology telling you to keep on keeping on providing your hysterical superior truth to the proles. Problems require solutions, solutions require giving someone power and credit, yessir.
as philip dick said, "it is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane."
As the guy trying to get to work said to the man on the streetcorner wailing about the end of the world, "get a shower and a job."
|
i think at this point we both know how the other person feels about it
|
On August 30 2013 02:28 sam!zdat wrote:
i think at this point we both know how the other person feels about it
Now samipanda you go pick up one of your dog-eared favorites and come back in 20 minutes full of piss and vinegar again, okay?
Or are you confirming your hypothesis that the fascists usually win?
|
As the guy trying to get to work said to the man on the streetcorner wailing about the end of the world, "get a shower and a job."
Why should he do such a thing?
|
Does anyone get the sense that sam is the left wing version of a Rand quoting doomsday prepper?
|
On August 30 2013 02:31 ZeaL. wrote:
Does anyone get the sense that sam is the left wing version of a Rand quoting doomsday prepper?
i was just addressing this point
do you guys know the story of the "boy who cried wolf". What do you guys think is the moral of that story? Class?
|
Sam is like the TL prophet. First thing that came to mind reading this discussion.
And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”
|
WASHINGTON -- The United States government took an historic step back from its long-running drug war on Thursday, when Attorney General Eric Holder informed the governors of Washington and Colorado that the Department of Justice would allow the states to create a regime that would regulate and implement the ballot initiatives that legalized the use of marijuana for adults.
A Justice Department official said that Holder told the governors in a joint phone call early Thursday afternoon that the department would take a "trust but verify approach" to the state laws. DOJ is reserving its right to file a preemption lawsuit at a later date, since the states' regulation of marijuana is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act.
Source
|
|
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Wow! StealthBlue is a banling.... woah...
And I'm going to stay out of the conversation except point out the US black budget is out there thanks to Snowden.
|
There's Holder inventing wiggle room where he deems fit. The state laws do conflict with federal laws. But since these laws do not necessarily come into conflict with our stance on the issue, we're just gonna ignore federal preemption for as long as we feel like. It's illegal, but we aren't big on enforcing laws we don't like anyways!
|
The War in Drugs has been about selective implementation since the very start, this is hardly unique to this administration.
|
On August 30 2013 02:07 sam!zdat wrote:
the problem is that there actually is a horrible conspiracy, but we'll all be dead before the damage really kicks in, and so people feel they can be complacent about it and that means they are being all sophisticated and centrist and reasonable, as opposed to crazy old sam, who is just a stupid hippy who finds some sort of libidinal satisfaction in denouncing capitalism out of sheer spite. so that way you can do absolutely nothing and feeling superior about it. it's very easy to feel that you are performing an objective analysis of some situation when that analysis tells you "full steam ahead! busyness as usual!" you feel very smart but actually you've just avoided the problem. it's just yr ideology telling you to keep on keepin on, no problems here, nossir.
as philip dick said, "it is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane."
To me "business as usual" means constantly questioning, adapting and changing. Perhaps that's one area where we fundamentally disagree?
|
On August 30 2013 02:31 ZeaL. wrote:
Does anyone get the sense that sam is the left wing version of a Rand quoting doomsday prepper?
lol!
|
On August 30 2013 03:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 02:07 sam!zdat wrote:
the problem is that there actually is a horrible conspiracy, but we'll all be dead before the damage really kicks in, and so people feel they can be complacent about it and that means they are being all sophisticated and centrist and reasonable, as opposed to crazy old sam, who is just a stupid hippy who finds some sort of libidinal satisfaction in denouncing capitalism out of sheer spite. so that way you can do absolutely nothing and feeling superior about it. it's very easy to feel that you are performing an objective analysis of some situation when that analysis tells you "full steam ahead! busyness as usual!" you feel very smart but actually you've just avoided the problem. it's just yr ideology telling you to keep on keepin on, no problems here, nossir.
as philip dick said, "it is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane." To me "business as usual" means constantly questioning, adapting and changing. Perhaps that's one area where we fundamentally disagree?
cui bono?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
