YaketySass posted:

Are we officially in Increasingly Nervous Man territory now?

KingNastidon posted:

Sanders is supporting free point of service everything. A pack of antibiotics won't cost insured patients $5 according to his plan.

YaketySass posted:

Are we officially in Increasingly Nervous Man territory now?

Ytlaya posted:

I'm starting to feel like this "pharma revenue -> r&d spending -> new treatments, ergo anything that isn't good for pharma companies is bad because it will harm ~innovation~" logic is like the pharma version of the "it hurts liquidity" arguments used to defend against any new financial regulation.

Trabisnikof posted:

Where does Sanders plan actually say that?

Chilichimp posted:

These loving questions...





edit: The list in the box is poo poo I wrote down and didn't remove for the screenshot.

The most substantial question on this "Survey" is "So... Joe was a great veep, eh?!?!"

KingNastidon posted:

By expanding coverage to the uninsured, adding new benefits and wiping out cost sharing, Medicare for all would encourage more Americans to seek health care services.

The plan Sanders proposes has no analog among the single-payer systems that currently exist. By covering a more comprehensive set of benefits and asking no cost sharing

Sanders' plan would also prohibit private plans from competing with Medicare and would eliminate cost-sharing

Mr Sanders' proposal would see an end to the "cost sharing" that makes up the current system: No deductibles, no premiums, no co-payments for care. The only out-of-pocket expense under Mr Sanders' plan would be for some non-generic prescription drugs, but any cost to the patient would be capped at $200 annually.

I guess some sources say there could be some cost sharing for certain drugs, but a $200 annual cap might as well be nothing. The vast majority of pharmaceutical spend is concentrated in older patients with multiple prescriptions with deductibles, coinsurance, copays, etc that exceed $200 a year. For younger patients with a serious condition like diabetes, cancer, or other condition that require a biologic/novel oral the $17/month out of pocket is inconsequential.

WampaLord posted:

You realize those "surveys" are just donation emails with a few questions thrown in there? After you submit your answers, all they do is hit you up for money.

Chilichimp posted:

Yeah, I'm just bringing it here so we can laugh at it, friend.

Libertine posted:

It's hard for me to process people talking about which candidate is proposing the best basket of new social services when all the polls posted so far seem to show that the largest voting constituency in the Democratic party is FYGM moderate/conservative senior citizens. Welcome to the helldome.

KingNastidon posted:

... a $200 annual cap might as well be nothing. ... inconsequential...

KingNastidon posted:

Insurers lose the profit margin and fail to have a reason to exist.

WampaLord posted:

Okay, fair enough, lol. I honestly have no idea if the candidates even bother looking at the data those things generate or just use them as a fundraising technique.

Chilichimp posted:

It's so, so, so loving sleazy. Every question is just "how great is that joe guy?" and the only real substantive question is a free-answer box that they will 100% ignore even if it came with money attached.

Typo posted:

the average Democratic voter is your grandma and not your fellow posters on dnd

Chilichimp posted:

It's so, so, so loving sleazy. Every question is just "how great is that joe guy?" and the only real substantive question is a free-answer box that they will 100% ignore even if it came with money attached.

Trabisnikof posted:

You said he wanted free point of sale everything and your linked quote says Sanders plan would have point of sale costs for some prescriptions. You contradicted yourself faster than most.

quote:

SEC. 202. NO COST-SHARING.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall ensure that no cost-sharing, including deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or similar charges, be imposed on an individual for any benefits provided under this Act, except as described in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—The Secretary may set a cost sharing schedule for prescription drugs and biological products
(1) provided that—
(A) such schedule is evidence-based and encourages the use of generic drugs;
(B) such cost-sharing does not apply to preventive drugs;
(C) such cost-sharing does not exceed $200 annually per individual, adjusted annually for inflation; and
(D) such cost-sharing is not imposed on individuals with a household income equal to or below 200 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved; and
(2) under which the Secretary may exempt brand-name drugs from consideration in determining whether an individual has reached any out-of-pocket limit if a generic version of such drug is available.

Typo posted:

remember when trump went before the national audience on the debate stage shat his pants and everybody just cheered

Gyges posted:

Honestly, I'm kind of looking forward to the stock market rising and falling on Bernie's polling. Just massive sell offs every time he's looking good. When he becomes the nominee another black day for the stock market.

And the whole time normal people are as unaffected as they are when the stock market is soaring and the rich are making money hand over fist. I'd love it if the economy keeps going as it is and the stock market is low, just on the off chance we finally stop pretending the stock market is the economy.

WampaLord posted:

https://twitter.com/mviser/status/1124859712548290561

Reset the Gaffe Clock!

Wicked Them Beats posted:

Old man is sundowning so hard he thinks it's the 80's.

WampaLord posted:

https://twitter.com/mviser/status/1124859712548290561

Reset the Gaffe Clock!

Wicked Them Beats posted:

Old man is sundowning so hard he thinks it's the 80's.

WampaLord posted:

https://twitter.com/mviser/status/1124859712548290561

Reset the Gaffe Clock!

KingNastidon posted:

These are fundamental questions that influence how medicine is developed, commercialized, and provided to patients as well as what it'll cost to do so in terms of aggregate spend and taxation. We could eliminate formularies and make reimbursement rates $0 such that every current medicine is "free." That would have some uh minor ramifications on the number of companies willing to manufacture existing drugs and willingness to invest in the clinical development and commercialization of future drugs. On the other end of the spectrum you could have something like Part D expansion but ban negotiation or the ACA where you expand coverage with nothing to encourage negotiation.

The answer is somewhere in the middle and is pretty important in determining who thinks the proposal is good/bad and the feasibility of its passage. If you want to lower uncertainty then you should demand democrats provide slightly more guidance than "we will have a formulary" on their #1 issue that touches every single voter. Otherwise they're opening themselves up to endless speculation and fear mongering that opponents will exploit. Such speculation and skepticism increases the further your proposal is from the status quo, which is why there are seemingly higher standards for Sanders than say Biden.

Crabtree posted:

Except he can't recognize or call out alzheimer's because that's the last cognizant thought he'll ever have.

WampaLord posted:

https://twitter.com/mviser/status/1124859712548290561

Reset the Gaffe Clock!

theblackw0lf posted:

Biden is making me yearn for the days of Hillary. That’s saying something.

The Muppets On PCP posted:

Pakled posted:

I feel like Hillary has a strong grasp of policy and could go on about all kinds of technical details like any good policy wonk (when her consultants who are constantly weighing the political calculus of every single move she makes say it would be advantageous for her to do so), whereas Biden is an empty suit who's good at spouting platitudes and will do anything to avoid having a detailed discussion of policy.