|
SimonCat posted:So shut the gently caress up and get out of the thread if you're not going to contribute anything meaningful. If we made people contribute there wouldn't be enough traffic for a thread. About 2/3rds of this thread is just shitposting and people virtue signalling that they support the "Right" solution and everyone who doesn't is horrible and evil.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
Vox asked the Governors of the 18 states that did not expand Medicaid if they will still turn down the free money now that Obamacare is "the law of the land" and there is no replacement plan. All 18 states are still going to reject expansion. The only slight change is that the Governor of South Dakota has gone from opposed to "not considering it at this time." http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/29/15072636/medicaid-expansion-florida-texas-ahca-obamacare-repeal
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Vox asked the Governors of the 18 states that did not expand Medicaid if they will still turn down the free money now that Obamacare is "the law of the land" and there is no replacement plan. That's actually not what the piece says.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
E: nevermind its in the article
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The Democratic Party's philosophy on the ACA was very simple: get as much done as possible in a bill that will become law. To do that, they needed as many stakeholders on board as possible, and pretty much nailed exactly the outer limits of what could get passed. You are fundamentally incapable of thinking about things in that way because it's complex thinking instead of just trying to declare Good and Evil in some way that lets you comfortably feel like you've explained the world in simple terms and no ambiguity is left. So, to be one hundred percent clear, you are in agreement that the Democratic Party's philosophy on the ACA was to, wherever possible, defer to health insurance companies over the american people wherever the interests of the two did not coincide ("needed as many stakeholders on board as possible-" excellent euphemism!) but object to that acknowledged reality being presented as a thing that hurt the Democratic party. You protest that is all that could have been done at the time, and that waving away even the pretense of negotiation for them before the discussion began was the only way to get what we ultimately got. That this defense can be unfalsifiably applied to literally any change, in any policy, at any point in human history, no doubt bugs you only a little. I suggest to you, o acolyte of pragmatism, that if your definition of political victory involves losing every single level of government after the people the victory was supposedly for get a taste of it, your definition of "victory" needs some work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:So, to be one hundred percent clear, you are in agreement that the Democratic Party's philosophy on the ACA was to, wherever possible, defer to health insurance companies over the american people wherever the interests of the two did not coincide ("needed as many stakeholders on board as possible-" excellent euphemism!) but object to that acknowledged reality being presented as a thing that hurt the Democratic party. I appreciate your abandonment of materialism in favor of the Triumph of the Will being coupled with these half-assed supervillain speeches.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:So, to be one hundred percent clear, you are in agreement that the Democratic Party's philosophy on the ACA was to, wherever possible, defer to health insurance companies over the american people wherever the interests of the two did not coincide Yeah, who would have thought that insurance companies wanted a Medical Loss Ratio restricting what they can spend their revenue on, Essential Health Benefits mandating what they have to pay off on, and a ban on unilaterally cancelling people's policies when they get sick. The democrats negotiated with terrorists to get expanded health care coverage. It's distasteful, but they judged that to be better than picking through the rubble and casualties. Again. I'll accept resentment over whether they could have made a better deal. But claiming all they wanted to is feed money and customers to those companies is ridiculous. There are plenty of easier ways to do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:So, to be one hundred percent clear, you are in agreement what I said is what i meant. your ideas are garbage for the resons specified in that post. your attempts to paraphrase what i said into your garbage ideas are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I appreciate your abandonment of materialism in favor of the Triumph of the Will being coupled with these half-assed supervillain speeches. If I thought the acolytes of pragmatic centrism were moved by materialist analysis, I'd try to speak to them in that language. If I thought we disagreed on anything more substantial than the motivations that should drive the tactics we agree on, with goals we agree on, with concerns we agree on, I'd talk materialism with you! But as long as the pragmatic centrists are speaking in terms of grand finality and extravagant metaphor, about how their will alone defines the limits of possibility, about the hard complexities of a hard, complex world, and in short about how idealists are meddling with the primal forces of nature and they must atone, well, half the trick to education is speaking each others' language.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:If I thought the acolytes of pragmatic centrism were moved by materialist analysis, I'd try to speak to them in that language. If I thought we disagreed on anything more substantial than the motivations that should drive the tactics we agree on, with goals we agree on, with concerns we agree on, I'd talk materialism with you! Oh for sure dude. For sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Look, if only people would agree with me on everything, then I'd stop saying stupid poo poo, guys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:what I said is what i meant. your ideas are garbage for the resons specified in that post. your attempts to paraphrase what i said into your garbage ideas are wrong. Your ideas resulted in losing every level of federal government, most state governments, and the total extent of the Democratic Party's voice on health care for the next thirty months being whoever crafts the sickest burn on twitter, barring the district that elected Ted Cruz deciding they want a Democrat. The pragmatic view suggests an adjustment of strategy is warranted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Why does all this poo poo focus entirely on single-payer, which a) has historically been a massive initial expenditure, destroying the entire sovereign wealth fund of the UK when the NHS was established, and this with highly inadequate levels of care (very limited dental and optical options, for one thing), b) is by no means the only option to deliver universal healthcare, nor is it noticeably better at doing so than various multipayer healthcare systems c) runs up against the issue that the majority of insured Americans are satisfied with the insurance they receive through their employer, d) doesn't even deal with two-thirds of the reasons why healthcare costs have been spiraling, and e) is an extremely liberal policy. Multipayer systems, which would be easier to integrate than single-payer, would be an obvious endgoal to adopt as they would incorporate the high-quality private insurance people already have and wouldn't as obviously risk its destruction, and advocating for the nationalization of healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies would deal with other major sources of spiraling healthcare costs and would allow for substantially better outcomes by redistributing care providers to serve disadvantaged areas and by prioritizing areas of pharmaceutical research that aren't inventing microvariants of existing drugs and finding reasons for them to exist and extend patent profitability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Why does all this poo poo focus entirely on single-payer, which a) has historically been a massive initial expenditure, destroying the entire sovereign wealth fund of the UK when the NHS was established, and this with highly inadequate levels of care (very limited dental and optical options, for one thing), b) is by no means the only option to deliver universal healthcare, nor is it noticeably better at doing so than various multipayer healthcare systems c) runs up against the issue that the majority of insured Americans are satisfied with the insurance they receive through their employer, d) doesn't even deal with two-thirds of the reasons why healthcare costs have been spiraling, and e) is an extremely liberal policy. As far as I can tell, because people on the left are by and large just as ignorant as people on the right, and healthcare is an incredibly complex problem with no obvious perfect solution. "Single-payer" was a term that got batted around a bunch, and described a system people thought they would like, so they've latched onto it without a deep investigation of suitable alternatives, because not everyone wants to bother doing that level of research -- least of all progressive politicians who will then be faced with the unenviable task of selling a new system to conservatives, but also to progressives who have convinced themselves it's single-payer or the highway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Honestly, I haven't seen someone aggressively misinterpret Evilweasel like this while emphatically missing the point since.... holy poo poo... Welcome back Willa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:o acolyte of pragmatism Ze Pollack posted:the acolytes of pragmatic Note: These are used as insults Ze Pollack posted:The pragmatic view Note: This is used as a personal prescription Definition of Pragmatism posted:1: a practical approach to problems and affairs tried to strike a balance between principles and pragmatism Ze Pollack has an opinion, this much is certain - it's not founded in reality and not supported by history. Still, he/she claims the upper hand in these discussions with scant evidence and no proposals. That opinion is worth less than the storage space it requires to preserve it. He/she is a loving idiot who does not understand the term he's using or, as shown in the past, have any sort of material backing to his/her claims. In refutation of an academic study, he once posted about the factual loss of governing seats as if a single policy in the course of 8 years was the only explanatory factor, and not, as is customary, the fact that the opposition party held the White House, the historical nature of said White House, the abandonment of the milestone policy by the losing party, the continuing stratification of wealth, the bottoming out of the economy due to the once-in-a-lifetime recession, or any wide variety of factors that ALSO explain said losses but are conveniently ignored. He/she is at this point worthy of anyone's ignore list. Boon fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Pragmatic as an insult marks a former Bernie thread poster, I wouldn't even bother to try.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, but candidates promising awesome-sounding platitudes is not really anything new. The fact that Obama promised big things for health care, then lost support once he got elected and had to govern, doesn't change the fact that promising big things got him elected in the first place. The ACA remains the law of the land, and most Americans are better-off now because of it than they were before. I don't see why this has to be any different with economically progressive Dems going forward: they promise Medicare for all, they get elected partially on that promise (because people broadly support the idea), they try to implement it, they make a good show of fighting for it, and if they can't succeed, they at least try to come up with something that improves upon the existing system. The public isn't automatically going to throw them out of power if they don't succeed; they WILL throw them out of power if they don't look like they're fighting for their constituencies, though. Horseshit. 2010. Oh wait, lemme guess, by sheer coincidence, the dems failing to succeed was forgiven but house constituencies all simultaneously were not represented. The Dems 2010 platform was based on making people understand that these promises don't come true instantly, and they got crushed. How did you forget that? Hieronymous Alloy posted:We need huge tax increases on the very wealthy anyway just for economic fairness and to prevent wealth stratification. Thats nice. And when we realise taxing the rich will not cover the program, and you do need to raise taxes on the middle class?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Max Baucus was able to dictate what could not be in the bill because he was one of the necessary votes. No Max Baucus, no 60 votes, same as with Liberman. To get 60 votes, you need red state senators. Liberman existing was intolerable because there's no reason a blue state should have a shithole senator, but when you're talking Montana, you take what you can get. I mean, you even had all the fact in front of you when you said there was a reason that the bill Baucus worked on is the one that emerged from committee: because Baucus was one of the wavering votes that had to be kept in line to get to 60. Something real quick I think you may have forgotten. Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in 2006 to Ned Lamont, then formed the Lieberman for Connecticut Party where he won the statewide election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Max Baucus was able to dictate what could not be in the bill because he was one of the necessary votes. No Max Baucus, no 60 votes, same as with Liberman. To get 60 votes, you need red state senators. Liberman existing was intolerable because there's no reason a blue state should have a shithole senator, but when you're talking Montana, you take what you can get. I mean, you even had all the fact in front of you when you said there was a reason that the bill Baucus worked on is the one that emerged from committee: because Baucus was one of the wavering votes that had to be kept in line to get to 60. We should be careful about this kind of analysis. Rural white voters definitely trend socially conservative: God, guns, no abortions, no fags. But they're not very economically conservative: they don't want their Medicare and welfare and handouts cut, and they don't want corporations loving them over*. So while I understand "red state" politicians (I put red state in quotes because Montana elects Democratic governors pretty regularly and voted for Clinton in 1992 and Obama only lost it by 2 points in 2008) voting conservatively on social issues because that's what their voters want (even though I violently disagree), I don't think this excuses Democrats who are owned by corporations. Yes there may be a pragmatic argument for letting Baucus or Manchin buck the party line on social issues (whenever their votes aren't required for something to pass anyway), but I don't think there's a pragmatic argument for defending them selling out to big business. No voters want that, and assuming "red state" voters do want corporations to gently caress them because they also don't like abortions is a mistake: political identity is more complicated than that. For Max Baucus' seat the """pragmatic""" strategy of letting him help kill the public option turned out not to be so pragmatic. He won in a 45-point landslide in 2008. In 2014 the Republicans took the seat by 18 points and oh yeah it was the first time that seat went Republican in a century. We didn't even keep the damned seat so how exactly did Baucus benefit the party or America by making the ACA worse? *In fact Trump recognized and exploited this divide between the Republican establishment and their constituents by promising to hit corporations with tariffs and export taxes for offshoring, pull out of free trade agreements, never cut social security or medicare, and that the government would pay for everyone's health care. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:We should be careful about this kind of analysis. Rural white voters definitely trend socially conservative: God, guns, no abortions, no fags. But they're not very economically conservative: they don't want their Medicare and welfare and handouts cut, and they don't want corporations loving them over. Their meficare. Them. You add in minorities to this and they will burn the loving country to the ground rather than let a person two shades darker than them get any benefit. That's what you fail to realise - that economic issues are inherently social in a multiethnic society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Their meficare. Them. You add in minorities to this and they will burn the loving country to the ground rather than let a person two shades darker than them get any benefit. That's what you fail to realise - that economic issues are inherently social in a multiethnic society. Some of them sure, but those people are a lost cause by definition. You'll never get those people to vote Democrat, and the pragmatic strategy of letting corporations gently caress them a little bit isn't going to make single-issue white supremacist voters vote D either. But those people aren't the majority in Montana; if they were then Democrats wouldn't have had a senate seat to lose in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:For Max Baucus' seat the """pragmatic""" strategy of letting him help kill the public option turned out not to be so pragmatic. He won in a 45-point landslide in 2008. In 2014 the Republicans took the seat by 18 points and oh yeah it was the first time that seat went Republican in a century. We didn't even keep the damned seat so how exactly did Baucus benefit the party or America by making the ACA worse? I don't really understand this kind of analysis, can you explain? It seems like hte textbook example of hindsight bias - how would anyone, especially Max Baucus, know he'd lose the seat based on a stance that seemed applicable to his position? Boon fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Some of them sure, but those people are a lost cause by definition. You'll never get those people to vote Democrat, and the pragmatic strategy of letting corporations gently caress them a little bit isn't going to make single-issue white supremacist voters vote D either. Once again the problem is you are reducing it to a binary distinction. They're either klan members or woke. You don't think there a little bit more to it than that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You add in minorities to this and they will burn the loving country to the ground rather than let a person two shades darker than them get any benefit. Fulchrum posted:Once again the problem is you are reducing it to a binary distinction. They're either klan members or woke. You don't think there a little bit more to it than that?  VitalSigns posted:But those people aren't the majority in Montana; if they were then Democrats wouldn't have had a senate seat to lose in the first place. Fulchrum posted:Once again the problem is you are reducing it to a binary distinction. They're either klan members or woke. You don't think there a little bit more to it than that?  Boon fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Boon posted:
They don't think of themselves as white supremacists, they don't endorse explicit racism, but they will still throw a shitfit if mah taxes goes towards moochers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Boon posted:I don't really understand this kind of analysis, can you explain? It seems like hte textbook example of hindsight bias - how would anyone, especially Max Baucus, know he'd lose the seat based on a stance that seemed applicable to his position? Maybe (although I should think that a senator ought to know whether a public option would help his constituents), but even if we assume there's no way Baucus could possibly have known what huge electoral losses would result from the ACA, that's no reason for us not to learn from what happened and change our strategy going forward. Fulchrum posted:Once again the problem is you are reducing it to a binary distinction. They're either klan members or woke. You don't think there a little bit more to it than that? I do. You're the one saying there's no point trying to get elected in Montana because they're all klan members who will destroy their own medicare to spite black people. There are some people like that sure. But you don't even try to appeal to them, they will never vote for you because the Republicans are the bigot party and trying to be bigot-lite would be immoral. So you don't do that. Trying to triangulate on economic issues also doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me: every non klan-member who wants corporations loving the poor already votes Republican, and the klan members already vote R by definition. Seems to me a better strategy would be to propose policies that help the poor, the working class, and the middle class as much as possible and thereby peel of some of the bigots who are still self-interested enough to put their own well-being above their bigotry. Maybe I really hate BLM and slutslutslutsluts but poo poo I really need that affordable healthcare so I'll grumble a bit and vote D.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Maybe (although I should think that a senator ought to know whether a public option would help his constituents), but even if we assume there's no way Baucus could possibly have known what huge electoral losses would result from the ACA, that's no reason for us not to learn from what happened and change our strategy going forward. Well yeah, but that's the heart of the matter. Strategy is insanely fickle and the first thing you learn about strategy is that it's incredibly situational. The second thing you learn is that the best strategy will fail, every time if you don't implement well. My take is that the Democrats couldn't possibly have predicted the massive losses they suffered from the ACA on a policy basis. The error they made wasn't in not negotiating a single-payer option, it was in unabashedly conceding the victory to an energized GOP. If they had trumpeted and steadfastly stood by their accomplishment the losses they suffered in 2010 and 2012 would have been modest and in keeping with historical losses of a party under a same-party president. Boon fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Maybe (although I should think that a senator ought to know whether a public option would help his constituents), but even if we assume there's no way Baucus could possibly have known what huge electoral losses would result from the ACA, that's no reason for us not to learn from what happened and change our strategy going forward. You seem to be operating under the idea that economic issues are the absolute last thing that I'm-not-a-racist-but folks will flip on to gently caress over minorities, not the first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
This seems like the right place to post this: The full text of California's health care bill has been revealed. Anyone here know what to make of it? I will admit I'm not an expert here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:This seems like the right place to post this: The full text of California's health care bill has been revealed. The funding source is [TBD] which is...not great. I don't think it can really be considered a serious complete proposal until you know how you're going to pay for it. The funding section is this: quote:Article 3. Healthy California Financing That basically says "We intend to pass legislation to fund this". That's not a funding plan, that's a plan to have a plan. The rest seems fairly bare-bones as well, but I'm not familiar enough with what you'd need in the enacting legislation to know if thats ok. It seems to set up a board to administer the program and just tell that board to figure it out, but I might be missing something. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Boon posted:Well yeah, but that's the heart of the matter. Strategy is insanely fickle and the first thing you learn about strategy is that it's incredibly situational. The second thing you learn is that the best strategy will fail, every time if you don't implement well. Possibly Democrats could have kept down the losses if they'd come out full force defending and trumpeting the ACA we'll never know, but even at the time it was known that a public option would be better for Americans, and obviously it's going to be easier to trumpet a better bill than a worse one. But I was responding to the argument that Democratic legislators from poor rural states should suck up to corporations because that's what "red state" voters want. I disagree with that. I'm open to the pragmatic argument that Democratic legislators from those states might vote against gun control or cast symbolic anti-abortion votes or something to pander on social issues that are actually popular among those voters. But sucking up to corporations and loving the poor aren't popular anywhere (except maybe among the affluent white suburbanites that Democrats always imagine will vote for them but never do), and just because rural white voters agree with Republicans on social issues doesn't mean they also agree with the Republican party line on economic issues (again Trump exploited exactly this divide by promising full on regressive and racist social issues along with universal healthcare and never cutting Medicare/Social Security ever, and again look what happened when Republicans tried to throw 25 million people off their insurance with AHCA). I don't think Democrats should be moving right on economic issues to appeal to those voters: if rural Democrats are protecting insurance industry profits then there's less benefit to voting for them instead of a Republican, and from the perspective of the rural white voter if the parties move closer together economically then the biggest differentiating factors become social issues where the Republican party appeals to them. And I think recent history bears this out. """"""Pragmatically"""""" Killing the public option did not save Max Baucus' seat for the Democrats. The next election saw a 65-point(!!!!) swing that delivered the seat to Republicans for the first time in a century. That's a stupefying loss. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:
It will if we raise them enough. We had a top tax rate of 90% under Eisenhower. The math arguing that taxing the rich wouldn't be enough usually adopts comically inadequate tax raises on said rich people. That said we probably also need price controls in healthcare. The healthcare market is in a state of market failure due to functionally infinite demand. Hospital charges are functionally legalized robbery these days. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It will if we raise them enough. We had a top tax rate of 90% under Eisenhower. The math arguing that taxing the rich wouldn't be enough usually adopts comically inadequate tax raises on said rich people. No, even with a 90% tax rate the math just doesn't cover it. You do realise that the US didn't have universal healthcare with that top tax rate, right? Refusing to acknowledge the math doesn't work and that we just need to do MORE of whatever you wanted to do in the first place is not the sort of thing that should be adopted from Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:No, even with a 90% tax rate the math just doesn't cover it. You do realise that the US didn't have universal healthcare with that top tax rate, right? Lets see that calculation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:No, even with a 90% tax rate the math just doesn't cover it. You do realise that the US didn't have universal healthcare with that top tax rate, right? Plenty of other countries make the math work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Lets see that calculation. Yeah, exactly. Everything I've ever seen shows that universal health care would be much cheaper. America's health care costs are grotesquely exaggerrated relative to other countries with public systems. Medicare and Medicaid already cover the most expensive health care needs; adding in younger, healthier, and richer people is progressively less and less expensive, especially once you factor in cost savings from things like allowing Medicare to bulk negotiate drug prices, or even outright caps on care cost (perfectly legitimate given the scammy way hospitals price health care currently). To put some numbers to this, just from a quick google: estimates for cost of ALL health care in the US if we moved to a single payer system (which I'm not necessarily advocating): according to this: http://decisiondata.org/news/how-much-single-payer-uhc-would-cost-usa/ you'd need about 562 billion additional taxation (note that that article assumes we can't have hospital price caps or drug price controls). Conversely, raising the top tax rate on the 1% to 45% would give us an additional $276 billion, and taxing the 95th to 99th percentiles (hardly middle class) at 35% would give us an additional $176 billion, or $452 billion total. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/putting-numbers-to-a-tax-increase-for-the-rich.html So we increase taxes on the rich (95th percentile of income & up) to 50%, and institute price controls on drugs and hospital charges, and we're there, fairly easily. It's a problem that's politically difficult because we live in an oligarchy, not one that's practically difficult. It's just tempting to believe that we can't have nice things because We Just Can't Afford Them but the reality is we can't have nice things because the rich have chosen not to pay for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, exactly. Everything I've ever seen shows that universal health care would be much cheaper. America's health care costs are grotesquely exaggerrated relative to other countries with public systems. The analysis is reductionist at best. It assumes that the US can have the same cost per person as the Netherlands with out explaining how that will happen. Just snap your fingers and make care in the US cost the same as the Netherlands, then he starts his analysis. The rest of the analysis isn't much better. The Hospital cost is apples and oranges on several levels. The drug adjustment assumes companies just accept huge cuts, which they won't. They'll globally jack up prices to compensate. He only adjust increased usage in the US for Diabetes and no other condition. He also assumes that covering 30+ million newly insured will only cost $111.8B (~4k/ea) which is dramatically under any of his other estimates. It is so flawed as to be utterly useless. The person who did the analysis is a developer of the webpage and he has no background in Healthcare. And Medicare and Medicaid already caps costs, they set the prices by law. Their reimbursement rates are set below cost to keep the cost down, which forces people in the public market to subsidize them. Medicaid is at or near 50% of cost in some cases. Xae fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:No, even with a 90% tax rate the math just doesn't cover it. You do realise that the US didn't have universal healthcare with that top tax rate, right? "WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!" he cries, whilst the entire developed world solved the problem decades prior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
We're already paying for Medicare and then some. We're just not getting it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 23:47
|
|