EPTWelcome to Trump's America.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6558
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18863 Posts
Welcome to Trump's America. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On January 13 2017 05:29 LightSpectra wrote: I'm just curious, regarding the private health insurance companies like BlueCross and Kaiser and Cigna et al.: how much of their revenue goes to research, equipment, treatments, practitioners' salaries etc. (things that are useful to society), and how much of it goes to administration, bureaucracy, lobbying, accounting, etc. (things that are only useful to them because they are for-profit businesses)? Even if we assume very generously something like a 9:1 ratio, that's still 10% of the health care industry's revenues that are a net loss to society. I suspect the actual ratio is a lot worse. Anyway, smokers, extreme alcoholics, etc. usually die when they're young, meaning they don't really tax society. The people that are healthy their whole lives and die at the ripe ole' age of 90 after being retired for decades are the ones that cost the most. Why social Darwinists don't seem to grasp this when they oppose UHC is beyond me. have you heard of the medical loss ratio? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 13 2017 06:22 LegalLord wrote: A government system would ensure access to the kind of preventative healthcare that would keep prices down. That's one of the stupidest and most avoidable problems with the US healthcare system. Being that the term "preventative healthcare" is a super gray area in the US, that's not a super easy task. Like, if someone has heart disease, and its possible to argue that it was from weight, should the hospital not give medicine to the guy because it would have been preventable had he been an athlete at a young age? The truth is that the US is a collection of states, not a unified country that has arbitrary borders. Each state has a different culture, different belief system, and different goals and opinions as to what counts as what. It would be super easy to simply have a "State Healthcare System" for CA that only people with CA residences are allowed to use. But will a state be ever brave enough to actually do that? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 13 2017 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote: Being that the term "preventative healthcare" is a super gray area in the US, that's not a super easy task. Like, if someone has heart disease, and its possible to argue that it was from weight, should the hospital not give medicine to the guy because it would have been preventable had he been an athlete at a young age? The truth is that the US is a collection of states, not a unified country that has arbitrary borders. Each state has a different culture, different belief system, and different goals and opinions as to what counts as what. It would be super easy to simply have a "State Healthcare System" for CA that only people with CA residences are allowed to use. But will a state be ever brave enough to actually do that? Can you prevent deaths and/or health complications from common but possibly deadly diseases by providing free vaccines? Can you prevent complications from weight, smoking, blood pressure, and so on, by providing free annual physicals (a test people often avoid due to cost)? Can you, in general, prevent problems from escalating by making it not a financially difficult choice to choose to get care when there is a troubling, albeit not yet serious, issue that could escalate into something deadly? All these cheap measures prevent deadlier, and more expensive, problems - a factor that is deemphasized by the incentive structure of the US system. As for a state doing it: it's possible, but it's harder without federal funds and we're ultimately not there yet. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18863 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 13 2017 05:43 LightSpectra wrote: Does that not therefore mean that 20% of the health care industry is a useless burden to society, and that all of our health care costs are 20% more expensive than they need to be because we're paying that percentage in order to keep a horde of bureaucrats, advertisers, lawyers, etc. employed? And for what--so that the shareholders in these private health insurance companies can get super rich off of their success, and those bureaucrats can be employed? yes, you could say that. though it wouldn't really be the full 20%, even if you went single payer, there'd still be some administrative costs to running the whole thing. the forms and claims process would probably be a lot simpler, but there's still potential for fraud so you gotta do some oversight, and various other administrative details. if all the doctors are employed directly by the state, then you've still got some administrative costs running the human resources work for the employees. it's done that way as a historical artifact, because that's how it used to work. also because, SOMETIMES, the costs of letting people earn a profit are offset by the savings of letting market forces keep prices down. when the government runs such things, sometimes they work fine, but sometimes they become wasteful unsound boondoggles, like the national flood insurance program has become, due to political pressures and interest groups. on the general topic: I think the republicans should do a partial single payer system. or at least, that's what seems consistent as a mix of their espoused principles on governments and markets, and the needs of people to get help in a bad situation. what I mean is a system wherein the gov't provides free, cheap preventative care, and covers the cost for some basic health care. but not all healthcare. so you have a basic minimum floor of health care provided by the gov't, but if you want high quality and cutting edge care you gotta pay for it. I'd use the ratios involved in QALYs gained, and gdp per capita, compared with cost to figure out what the gov't would cover and what it wouldn't. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 13 2017 06:38 LegalLord wrote: Can you prevent deaths and/or health complications from common but possibly deadly diseases by providing free vaccines? Can you prevent complications from weight, smoking, blood pressure, and so on, by providing free annual physicals (a test people often avoid due to cost)? Can you, in general, prevent problems from escalating by making it not a financially difficult choice to choose to get care when there is a troubling, albeit not yet serious, issue that could escalate into something deadly? All these cheap measures prevent deadlier, and more expensive, problems - a factor that is deemphasized by the incentive structure of the US system. As for a state doing it: it's possible, but it's harder without federal funds and we're ultimately not there yet. I use Kaiser, a private health insurance company, and one that does all those things you're describing for free or low cost, super low cost. Why? Because, since they are a money focused industry, they realized they save more money focusing on that. You know who doesn't do those things? People who don't have insurance. So when they are forced to do it, they now pay at cost. However, not all insurance companies operate this way. Kaiser is both an insurance company and a hospital. They will do EVERYTHING in their power to reduce costs and expenditures. Insurance companies that don't run their hospitals don't have that incentive, and so shift the burden on the patient. Heart condition? had it before you got insured, not our problem. Joint issues? had it before you got injured, not our problem. Vaccinations? Grab a doctor and tell us how much the bill is, we'll pay for a portion and you got the rest. Etc... What counts as preventative changes depending on who is being asked and what incentives they have for making that decision. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Vice President Joe Biden confirmed Thursday that he and President Barack Obama were briefed last week by intelligence officials on unsubstantiated claims that Russia may have compromising information on President-elect Donald Trump. CNN first reported that the nation's top intelligence chiefs provided both the President and President-elect a two-page written synopsis of the claims, which came from a 35-page report compiled by a former British intelligence operative based on Russian sources. Intelligence agencies appended a two-page summary of the unverified allegations to documents prepared for the briefing on Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election. Biden's office confirmed that the vice president said he and Obama were briefed about the claims but said that neither Biden nor Obama asked for more information about them. Biden's office also said the vice president told reporters that intelligence leaders felt obligated to tell Obama because they were planning on informing Trump. Biden also said he read the entire 35-page report. CNN | ||
|
dankobanana
Croatia244 Posts
 | ||
|
dankobanana
Croatia244 Posts
btw how is noone talking about this????? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 13 2017 07:15 dankobanana wrote: https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/819298681643995136 btw how is noone talking about this????? trump doing allegedly sleazy and/or dumb thing isn't exactly news. it's more like a day of the week ending in y. no need to bother going over every one of them. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22425 Posts
On January 13 2017 07:15 dankobanana wrote: https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/819298681643995136 btw how is noone talking about this????? We did, go back a few pages to before the Healthcare discussion. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 13 2017 07:24 zlefin wrote: trump doing allegedly sleazy and/or dumb thing isn't exactly news. it's more like a day of the week ending in y. no need to bother going over every one of them. Well, there is a *need* in the strictest of terms. But with volume like this you'd need to have whoever is tracking it be a paid Data Analyst. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18320 Posts
On January 13 2017 05:29 Wegandi wrote: Another person who doesn't understand. 1) The mere fact that insurance is required because healthcare costs are so high IS a major problem; it wasn't always this way before the Government grabbed their dirty paws into the industry 2) Denying insurance companies from pricing their coverage based on an individuals condition is asinine. It cannot be called insurance at that point because the entire point of insurance is PRICING RISK. Do you understand? What people want of insurance isn't actually insurance, so let's just be honest here. People have unrealistic expectation of what they want in healthcare and the way it should be structured and the associated costs. Fine you want FDA, you want licensing and the AMA, you want a billion regulatory burdens to open up a hospital or clinic, etc. You can have that - but it won't be cheap. Nationalizing healthcare more than all ready is (your lovely named "public option" [editorial: lol, you guys are like the marketing execs in a large corporation..or whoever named the patriot act]) will have a negative effect on healthcare prices, not a positive one. Well, you can still go back to the same medicine that was being used before the government got involved with healthcare. Have fun with the bloodletting and trepanning! | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 13 2017 06:55 Thieving Magpie wrote: I use Kaiser, a private health insurance company, and one that does all those things you're describing for free or low cost, super low cost. Why? Because, since they are a money focused industry, they realized they save more money focusing on that. You know who doesn't do those things? People who don't have insurance. So when they are forced to do it, they now pay at cost. However, not all insurance companies operate this way. Kaiser is both an insurance company and a hospital. They will do EVERYTHING in their power to reduce costs and expenditures. Insurance companies that don't run their hospitals don't have that incentive, and so shift the burden on the patient. Heart condition? had it before you got insured, not our problem. Joint issues? had it before you got injured, not our problem. Vaccinations? Grab a doctor and tell us how much the bill is, we'll pay for a portion and you got the rest. Etc... What counts as preventative changes depending on who is being asked and what incentives they have for making that decision. They are in business to line their own pockets, first and foremost. They might save you money by squeezing the medical practitioners, which is a genuine benefit of insurance, but they will squeeze you as well. If you're expensive, they will do their damnedest to avoid paying for your healthcare. If you've ever had doubts about going to the hospital because you were afraid it would be expensive, the problem is there. And that's before we get to those who are uninsured or poorly insured. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 13 2017 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote: Source Separately, Democrats should be pushing for single payer instead of trying to to save the ACA, then let a government option be the compromise with people like xDaunt (or was it danglars?) that support it from the right. Your gut instinct was right; I'm one of them opposed. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 13 2017 07:39 LegalLord wrote: They are in business to line their own pockets, first and foremost. They might save you money by squeezing the medical practitioners, which is a genuine benefit of insurance, but they will squeeze you as well. If you're expensive, they will do their damnedest to avoid paying for your healthcare. If you've ever had doubts about going to the hospital because you were afraid it would be expensive, the problem is there. And that's before we get to those who are uninsured or poorly insured. I agree. Because Kaiser runs their own Hospital, they squeeze both the hospital and the patient. Which results in them emphasizing preventive care and free classes, but also means that it take 2-3 classes before they're willing to do anything with you. So if you have chronic back pain preventing you from working? Doctor: Here's some pain killers Patient: But I want to fix it? Doctor: Here's a back care class Patient: It hurts cause I fell! Doctor: Here's a safety cass Patient: It still hurts Doctor: Fine! Lay down and lets have a look at you. If Kaiser did not have a hospital then the ways they squeeze will be different, producing a different experience. The point being that what counts as preventable depends on who is paying the bill. With governmental mandates (like it is in EU countries) there is less arguments because they are more unified. Trying to get congress and the senate to agree on what counts as what will ensure that there will never be a consensus because each state sees itself as its own nation, with its own wants, needs, and rules that it will not bend. The one out we really have in the US is if we can find a way to make healthcare an amendment--thereby circumventing states rights. But good luck getting that through. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On January 13 2017 06:02 farvacola wrote: Trump dossier: intelligence sources vouch for credibility of report's author I'm more confused about why THIS isn't being talked about more. Like, Hillary's emails accounted for a fuckton of online and in-person discussion, and in the big picture it ended up being a non-story (despite what the media and apparently Russia wanted people to believe). Yet we have the biggest political scandal in history perhaps starting to come to light, and it gets passing mention from what I am seeing and hearing. That's fucking crazy. More evidence of something shady has been put forth in this case than in half the horseshit people accused Hillary of, and yet gets far less attention. I guess that's just 'Murica for you. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 13 2017 08:09 Ayaz2810 wrote: I'm more confused about why THIS isn't being talked about more. Like, Hillary's emails accounted for a fuckton of online and in-person discussion, and in the big picture it ended up being a non-story (despite what the media and apparently Russia wanted people to believe). Yet we have the biggest political scandal in history perhaps starting to come to light, and it gets passing mention from what I am seeing and hearing. That's fucking crazy. More evidence of something shady has been put forth in this case than in half the horseshit people accused Hillary of, and yet gets far less attention. I guess that's just 'Murica for you. biggest political scandal in history? this isn't anywhere near that. this is more of a nothing really. there's some prurient trash, which is trash and nothing really new for trump anyways. and there'es the possibility of some connections between some lower levels in trump's office and some people who work for russia. The intelligence agencies are looking into it, as is congress, they've been notified and are investigating, and there's enough bipartisan support that it's a real investigation, so if there's an actual problem they'll find it, if not they won't. nothing much to bother about. America has had far worse scandals and such in its history, let alone the history of the world. you want some references to read up on them? | ||
| ||
