|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 17 2019 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2019 02:40 Plansix wrote:On April 17 2019 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 17 2019 02:17 Plansix wrote:I have to give it to Fox news, they have turned AOC, Pelosi and Ilhan Omar into a full blown liberal/left lady pro-wrestling. There isn't a single day they don't run a story like the one below, trying to throw more read meat into the ring. This article has had three headlines as far as I can tell, so they really want ti to get that traction. This recent headline is real smart if the people reading it don't understand how congress works or how voting in the House functions(there are a lot of votes that just work on party lines) https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-vote-ocasio-cortez-pelosiI've been happy to see how AOC has navigated this and managed to not feed into the narrative that she can't handle the Speaker of the House, or that there is even a feud. Pelosi gave some choice quotes during a few interviews, but AOC is smart enough not to feed into the division machine by jumping on that fight. At least in public. Of course centrist democrats in the house will bitch and moan, but that is sort of what they do all the time anyways. The disturbing part is how quickly Fox New and the social media grifters latched onto these women in congress and how obsessed they seem with them. Just yesterday there were the typical characters on twitter talking about Ilhan Omar and Notre-Dame like the two are somehow connected. AOC, Omar, Katie Porter, and handful of others are exposing both parties for the shells they are imo. Observing their environment and very rudimentary questions are being hailed as visionary and unprecedented because both parties have just been pretending for so long that someone actually doing their job looks out of place. As to the conflict it's real between Omar and Pelosi but because of their rush to condemn her and silence to stand up for her when her life was threatened. AOC is already showing signs of being groomed imo, just hoping she doesn't get too coopted. Pelosi has never been the left’s problem, IMO. She is the leader of a group of centrist, but no one that wouldn’t push the party left if she thought it would stand a chance of being law. Without her, I don’t believe the ACA or any healthcare law would have passed back in 2008 because of assholes like Joe Liberman and others trying to kill it. Of course, she is in a position of power and that makes her part of the problem as well, even if she is the most malleable part of the problem. The bitching about her has always come from the centrists, moderate democrats as long as I have been alive. If AOC learns one thing from her, it should be how to slap around shitty centrist democrats. From her position (leader) it's hard to tell sometimes whether she's speaking for herself, her district, or the party. That makes it a bit difficult to know definitively whether she supported more centrist aspects or she backed them because it was the only way to get something further left passed (and to what degree that is an excuse for the former). I don't see her opposing capitalism strong enough to seriously slow down/reduce global climate catastrophe (regarding the steps we need to take immediately), so the sooner she's gone the better in my view but pretty much everyone else has got to be replaced too so she's a small part of the political calculation overall as I see it.
My understanding of her is she is as left leaning as a boomer era democrat could get and function in the party. Honestly, she agrees with you that she needs to go, from her own statements. Her job on the way out seems to be making sure there is a viable replacement in leadership that isn’t some Paul Ryan –ass democrat that is just using the speaker position as a stepping stone to the presidency. They need someone who isn’t interested in climbing that ladder.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland25467 Posts
On April 17 2019 02:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2019 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 17 2019 02:17 Plansix wrote:I have to give it to Fox news, they have turned AOC, Pelosi and Ilhan Omar into a full blown liberal/left lady pro-wrestling. There isn't a single day they don't run a story like the one below, trying to throw more read meat into the ring. This article has had three headlines as far as I can tell, so they really want ti to get that traction. This recent headline is real smart if the people reading it don't understand how congress works or how voting in the House functions(there are a lot of votes that just work on party lines) https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-vote-ocasio-cortez-pelosiI've been happy to see how AOC has navigated this and managed to not feed into the narrative that she can't handle the Speaker of the House, or that there is even a feud. Pelosi gave some choice quotes during a few interviews, but AOC is smart enough not to feed into the division machine by jumping on that fight. At least in public. Of course centrist democrats in the house will bitch and moan, but that is sort of what they do all the time anyways. The disturbing part is how quickly Fox New and the social media grifters latched onto these women in congress and how obsessed they seem with them. Just yesterday there were the typical characters on twitter talking about Ilhan Omar and Notre-Dame like the two are somehow connected. AOC, Omar, Katie Porter, and handful of others are exposing both parties for the shells they are imo. Observing their environment and very rudimentary questions are being hailed as visionary and unprecedented because both parties have just been pretending for so long that someone actually doing their job looks out of place. As to the conflict it's real between Omar and Pelosi but because of their rush to condemn her and silence to stand up for her when her life was threatened. AOC is already showing signs of being groomed imo, just hoping she doesn't get too coopted. Pelosi has never been the left’s problem, IMO. She is the leader of a group of centrist, but no one that wouldn’t push the party left if she thought it would stand a chance of being law. Without her, I don’t believe the ACA or any healthcare law would have passed back in 2008 because of assholes like Joe Liberman and others trying to kill it. Of course, she is in a position of power and that makes her part of the problem as well, even if she is the most malleable part of the problem. The bitching about her has always come from the centrists, moderate democrats as long as I have been alive. If AOC learns one thing from her, it should be how to slap around shitty centrist democrats.
Aye, she has a certain alacrity as a politician and ‘playing the game’ as it where.
While I don’t really like the game, it does exist and you probably want a few good players on your vague side.
|
Northern Ireland25467 Posts
On April 17 2019 03:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2019 01:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2019 01:05 JimmiC wrote:
If the US decided to go actual universal health care, or end the insane practice of having for profit jails. How would they go about doing that? Would they have to buyout all the companies that are running them currently? Could they just take them over? I'm guess the courts wouldn't allow that.
Like is there really any legal way to do it? Or is regulation on insurance and government funding that insurance the only way? In my ideal world: The rough gist of it: Some new tax, probably about $2000/year for me. As a result of this tax, everyone just has medicare. Insurance companies totally left alone. If someone decides they want extra lavish coverage, they can get extra coverage. But the insurance industry is basically made irrelevant and they completely collapse. As a result, I never pay a dollar when I need anything medical/dental/vision done. As for private prisons, all we need to do is stop jailing people for substance related crimes and suddenly the private prisons go belly up as well. Ending the war on drugs would shoot the prison industry in the dick like 10 times. I get that approach. But considering what you guys pay for health care (over double per person to what we do) I think the hospitals will just continue to up their profits to keep the share holders happy which will continually up costs. As inefficient as the public sector is that it can not make profits often makes these must have industries cheaper when run by the government. To your second point I'm on board. Legalize and regulate everything, kill the black market and the private prisons. Then put your money spent on the drug war on education campaigns and therapy.
Aye, the current state of affairs even untethered from my moral objections isn’t even efficient either, on a micro or a macro level.
Insurance companies having the position they do largely only benefits them, what they’re taking off people is money that people can’t spend in other ways in all sorts of other economic sectors.
Not to mention cost cutting in what insurance will pay for actually ends up with other associated, larger costs down the line. The US has higher rates of people dependent on all sorts of drugs in comparison to equivalent Western countries, opioid painkillers being a common example. Cheaper to prescribe x drug than offering alternatives that don’t have as many negative externalities.
Outside of the repugnant morality of it to me, it’s also not in any way efficient for a country to lose that much potential labour in prisons where locking people up is actively incentivised, and that’s even without people getting trapped in the prison/release/prison cycle.
|
The opioid crisis has seen no signs of stopping and can't seem to rise above the din of Trump's manufactured immigration crisis, better known as his reelection campaign.
|
On April 17 2019 03:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2019 01:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2019 01:05 JimmiC wrote:
If the US decided to go actual universal health care, or end the insane practice of having for profit jails. How would they go about doing that? Would they have to buyout all the companies that are running them currently? Could they just take them over? I'm guess the courts wouldn't allow that.
Like is there really any legal way to do it? Or is regulation on insurance and government funding that insurance the only way? In my ideal world: The rough gist of it: Some new tax, probably about $2000/year for me. As a result of this tax, everyone just has medicare. Insurance companies totally left alone. If someone decides they want extra lavish coverage, they can get extra coverage. But the insurance industry is basically made irrelevant and they completely collapse. As a result, I never pay a dollar when I need anything medical/dental/vision done. As for private prisons, all we need to do is stop jailing people for substance related crimes and suddenly the private prisons go belly up as well. Ending the war on drugs would shoot the prison industry in the dick like 10 times. I get that approach. But considering what you guys pay for health care (over double per person to what we do) I think the hospitals will just continue to up their profits to keep the share holders happy which will continually up costs. As inefficient as the public sector is that it can not make profits often makes these must have industries cheaper when run by the government. To your second point I'm on board. Legalize and regulate everything, kill the black market and the private prisons. Then put your money spent on the drug war on education campaigns and therapy.
I always pictured big insurance companies being pushed by the post MCA world into a supplemental role. As someone who has dealt with insurance for years and is an RN, I can tell you with certainty that it would be popular. Give them the ability to offer replacement plans, and there's no reason they have to go belly up. In my dealings with Medicare patients, I have seen that a majority of them have one or the other. It can work.
As far as hospitals trying to squeeze more profits from people or the government... well that's a different but related issue that needs to be tackled.
|
On April 17 2019 03:44 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2019 03:15 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2019 01:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2019 01:05 JimmiC wrote:
If the US decided to go actual universal health care, or end the insane practice of having for profit jails. How would they go about doing that? Would they have to buyout all the companies that are running them currently? Could they just take them over? I'm guess the courts wouldn't allow that.
Like is there really any legal way to do it? Or is regulation on insurance and government funding that insurance the only way? In my ideal world: The rough gist of it: Some new tax, probably about $2000/year for me. As a result of this tax, everyone just has medicare. Insurance companies totally left alone. If someone decides they want extra lavish coverage, they can get extra coverage. But the insurance industry is basically made irrelevant and they completely collapse. As a result, I never pay a dollar when I need anything medical/dental/vision done. As for private prisons, all we need to do is stop jailing people for substance related crimes and suddenly the private prisons go belly up as well. Ending the war on drugs would shoot the prison industry in the dick like 10 times. I get that approach. But considering what you guys pay for health care (over double per person to what we do) I think the hospitals will just continue to up their profits to keep the share holders happy which will continually up costs. As inefficient as the public sector is that it can not make profits often makes these must have industries cheaper when run by the government. To your second point I'm on board. Legalize and regulate everything, kill the black market and the private prisons. Then put your money spent on the drug war on education campaigns and therapy. I always pictured big insurance companies being pushed by the post MCA world into a supplemental role. As someone who has dealt with insurance for years and is an RN, I can tell you with certainty that it would be popular. Give them the ability to offer replacement plans, and there's no reason they have to go belly up. In my dealings with Medicare patients, I have seen that a majority of them have one or the other. It can work. As far as hospitals trying to squeeze more profits from people or the government... well that's a different but related issue that needs to be tackled.
It is also less efficient if there is only one group negotiating for basically all patients. Which happens if they are all within one system, or within a similar structure that guarantees same prices being paid for the same medical service.
And the biggest advantage of a system that has to care for all citizens, forever, is that that system is not interested in giving them the cheapest short-term solution, but in making them healthy again. If you as an insurance company can be pretty sure that the patient isn't you problem in 3 years, you do what is cheapest over 3 years, and if the patient totally collapses afterwards, that is not your problem. If you know that you are stuck with paying for him, you are suddenly much more interested in whether that patient gets, for example, addicted to opioids. Because that is really expensive in the long term. Suddenly it pays to give monetary benefits to people doing sports etc...
|
|
|
The whole point of Medicare for all is to implement cost controls over the Medical industry. Theres no way to do it in the private sector because your health/life isnt bound by supply/demand when the alternative can be death. If you are having a heart attack and are on the operating table youd pay anything to have your life saved and sort out the cost later. That doesnt sound like something that can be driven by the market.
Two things
1)The idea that doctors will opt out of Medicare 4 all and only take patients with private insurance that pay more is ridiculous. They will have no patients to take in if everyone is covered by Medicare and go out of business if they operated that way. Not to mention theres plenty of hospitals and doctors offices today that cater almost exclusively to Medicare patients and they still make boatloads of money. Its not as if Medicare doesnt pay fair prices or even inflated prices to Doctors already.
2)This idea that care will be rationed is ridiculous. We already pay for the most expensive group of people to take care of (the elderly). Care is now rationed by your ability to afford treatment or your insurance company. To pretend as if rationing would be a new thing with Medicare for all is dishonest at best.
Lastly, this idea that Medicare for all will lead to increased wait times is morally bankrupt. If that did happen it means we need to fix the problem (whatever is causing the delay, not enough doctors, beurocracy, etc). Also, if the only reason this is happening not happening now is because theres a ton of people who cannot afford care that is morally reprehensible. It would effectively mean we are allowing those who dont have the means to seek care to be skipped in line by those who do.
|
On April 17 2019 04:15 JimmiC wrote:
I mean one of the biggest problems with the current system say compared to ours or another nationalized one is you need the hospitals those organizations to make profits and have the continue to rise. But on top of that you have all the insurance companies that also need to make profits and have those continue to rise, so you are supporting all those employees and the double dipping profit. I don't think it can work the way it is cost effectively (for all people).
Insurance prices also only reflect the price of care. If the price of care were driven down insurance prices would lower as less people would need to have insurance to pay for care.
I agree they are an unneccesary middleman but they arent the root cause of the medical industry being out of whack. The root cause is the price of care being uncontrolled.
|
On April 17 2019 04:19 Sadist wrote:
The whole point of Medicare for all is to implement cost controls over the Medical industry. Theres no way to do it in the private sector because your health/life isnt bound by supply/demand when the alternative can be death. If you are having a heart attack and are on the operating table youd pay anything to have your life saved and sort out the cost later. That doesnt sound like something that can be driven by the market.
Two things
1)The idea that doctors will opt out of Medicare 4 all and only take patients with private insurance that pay more is ridiculous. They will have no patients to take in if everyone is covered by Medicare and go out of business if they operated that way. Not to mention theres plenty of hospitals and doctors offices today that cater almost exclusively to Medicare patients and they still make boatloads of money. Its not as if Medicare doesnt pay fair prices or even inflated prices to Doctors already.
2)This idea that care will be rationed is ridiculous. We already pay for the most expensive group of people to take care of (the elderly). Care is now rationed by your ability to afford treatment or your insurance company. To pretend as if rationing would be a new thing with Medicare for all is dishonest at best.
Lastly, this idea that Medicare for all will lead to increased wait times is morally bankrupt. If that did happen it means we need to fix the problem (whatever is causing the delay, not enough doctors, beurocracy, etc). Also, if the only reason this is happening not happening now is because theres a ton of people who cannot afford care that is morally reprehensible. It would effectively mean we are allowing those who dont have the means to seek care to be skipped in line by those who do.
I thought the point of Medicare for all was free health insurance coverage for everyone, subsidized by tax revenue?
|
On April 17 2019 04:24 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2019 04:19 Sadist wrote:
The whole point of Medicare for all is to implement cost controls over the Medical industry. Theres no way to do it in the private sector because your health/life isnt bound by supply/demand when the alternative can be death. If you are having a heart attack and are on the operating table youd pay anything to have your life saved and sort out the cost later. That doesnt sound like something that can be driven by the market.
Two things
1)The idea that doctors will opt out of Medicare 4 all and only take patients with private insurance that pay more is ridiculous. They will have no patients to take in if everyone is covered by Medicare and go out of business if they operated that way. Not to mention theres plenty of hospitals and doctors offices today that cater almost exclusively to Medicare patients and they still make boatloads of money. Its not as if Medicare doesnt pay fair prices or even inflated prices to Doctors already.
2)This idea that care will be rationed is ridiculous. We already pay for the most expensive group of people to take care of (the elderly). Care is now rationed by your ability to afford treatment or your insurance company. To pretend as if rationing would be a new thing with Medicare for all is dishonest at best.
Lastly, this idea that Medicare for all will lead to increased wait times is morally bankrupt. If that did happen it means we need to fix the problem (whatever is causing the delay, not enough doctors, beurocracy, etc). Also, if the only reason this is happening not happening now is because theres a ton of people who cannot afford care that is morally reprehensible. It would effectively mean we are allowing those who dont have the means to seek care to be skipped in line by those who do.
I thought the point of Medicare for all was free health insurance coverage for everyone, subsidized by tax revenue?
That is the desired effect yes but as a country it will allow us to stop Medical Care from eating up an increasingly larger chunk of the countries money.
Also it isnt insurance but care. Theres a distinction.
|
On April 17 2019 04:15 JimmiC wrote:
I mean one of the biggest problems with the current system say compared to ours or another nationalized one is you need the hospitals those organizations to make profits and have the continue to rise. But on top of that you have all the insurance companies that also need to make profits and have those continue to rise, so you are supporting all those employees and the double dipping profit. I don't think it can work the way it is cost effectively (for all people).
Us health care cost is a function of the fact there is no price control. Without saying no you cant charge for 8000% profit on a drug or procedure just because you can, they will.
|
On April 17 2019 04:34 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2019 04:15 JimmiC wrote:
I mean one of the biggest problems with the current system say compared to ours or another nationalized one is you need the hospitals those organizations to make profits and have the continue to rise. But on top of that you have all the insurance companies that also need to make profits and have those continue to rise, so you are supporting all those employees and the double dipping profit. I don't think it can work the way it is cost effectively (for all people). Us health care cost is a function of the fact there is no price control. Without saying no you cant charge for 8000% profit on a drug or procedure just because you can.
Exhibit A regarding the above: the cost of insulin.
|
The us medical Industry does not compete with itself. Too few players there is a ton of stuff on how drug companies even ones that focus on generics avoid each other territory. Things like proprietary prosthetics that require the company to send advisors.
So either we lower the standard for a company to sell medical crap to us. Or we subsidize start ups. Or we open up to approving forign made shit. Or we price control.
Talking coverage is fine but coverage isn't affordability.
|
True. And the rising cost of insulin is the result of over 20 years of absentee congress and a pharmaceutical industry that has zero fear of repercussions of jacking prices. And before someone says it, the free market won’t solve this problem because no one really wants to see how efficiency is obtained when making critical drugs like insulin. Hint: People die from cheaply made insulin.
|
On April 17 2019 04:43 semantics wrote:
The us medical Industry does not compete with itself. Too few players there is a ton of stuff on how drug companies even ones that focus on generics avoid each other territory. Things like proprietary prosthetics that require the company to send advisors.
So either we lower the standard for a company to sell medical crap to us. Or we subsidize start ups. Or we open up to approving forign made shit. Or we price control.
Talking coverage is fine but coverage isn't affordability. Lowering standards is unacceptable cause we're dealing with medicine.
Subsidising startups doesn't work because of cost, development time and big pharmaceuticals just buying up anyone small that actually discovers something worth making.
Foreign drugs can already be sold in the US, you need to meet FDA approval which most medicine meets anyway.
Price control is the answer but a hard sell in the US.
|
On April 17 2019 04:43 semantics wrote:
Or we open up to approving forign made shit.
Theres nothing wrong with pharmaceuticals made outside of USA. You are part of the problem.
|
On April 17 2019 04:45 Plansix wrote:
True. And the rising cost of insulin is the result of over 20 years of absentee congress and a pharmaceutical industry that has zero fear of repercussions of jacking prices. And before someone says it, the free market won’t solve this problem because no one really wants to see how efficiency is obtained when making critical drugs like insulin. Hint: People die from cheaply made insulin.
Something as basic as Metformin seems to be ~5 times as expensive for the daily dose in the US compared to Sweden. Don't really see why that should be.
|
United States42777 Posts
On April 17 2019 05:05 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2019 04:45 Plansix wrote:
True. And the rising cost of insulin is the result of over 20 years of absentee congress and a pharmaceutical industry that has zero fear of repercussions of jacking prices. And before someone says it, the free market won’t solve this problem because no one really wants to see how efficiency is obtained when making critical drugs like insulin. Hint: People die from cheaply made insulin. Something as basic as Metformin seems to be ~5 times as expensive for the daily dose in the US compared to Sweden. Don't really see why that should be.
Because they can charge more. What are the consumers gonna do? Not buy medicine?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
