|
Just out of curiosity, what's the legal argument that didn't apply to the six states?
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
Lycus posted:Just out of curiosity, what's the legal argument that didn't apply to the six states? The old six states proposal? It never got enough signatures to make it to the ballot so there was no need to rule on its legality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Morbus posted:"Yes let's turn down an immediate boost to our bottom line on the basis of plausible negative medium term consequences" --literally no corporation ever
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
I've noticed that of the course of the last three months houses have gone up for sale in Riverside and Norco at a rapid rate. In the past three months they are also barely selling. Could it be that market has reached peak and nobody wants to buy at these rates, or is it something far more concerning?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 01:27
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:I've noticed that of the course of the last three months houses have gone up for sale in Riverside and Norco at a rapid rate. In the past three months they are also barely selling. Could it be that market has reached peak and nobody wants to buy at these rates, or is it something far more concerning? Inventory is up because it's the summer and that's when most home sales occur (when the kids are out of school).  I'm not sure where you're getting your sales data from, but days on the market is down much lower than last year.  As long as OC and LA are still 2x the price then IE's prices will remain attractive. FCKGW fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Jul 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
How do things like private party sales affect those numbers or are they able to track the home sale even if its not officially "on the market"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
cheese posted:How do things like private party sales affect those numbers or are they able to track the home sale even if its not officially "on the market"? It's likely just data pulled from the MLS Riverside isn't a crazy hot market like the bay area or anything so there's not that many private party sales. It's one of the few areas of the state where construction is keeping pace with demand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
cheese posted:What makes you think it would even be a boost to the bottom line? If we actually passed medicare for all, increased corporate tax rates would very likely be a part of it but more importantly, we would almost certainly be greatly increasing taxes on the rich. It would be a massive net loss for the bottom lines of the board members and CEO's who benefit most from the current system. You forget that companies are run by really, really rich people. You forget that medicare is funded (overwhelmingly) disproportionately by not-really-really rich people. The 1.45% employer contribution to medicare is, like, an order of magnitude lower than what employers typically pay for company healthcare plans. Also, the other 1.45% comes from employee's paychecks, whereas company healthcare plans are funded mostly by employers with minimal direct employee funding. Also, employer funding to medicare comes entirely from what is essentially a payroll tax, which means every year corporate profits increase while wages remain stagnant is a year that the relative cost of this tax is reduced for corporations. So, any conceivable expansion of medicare, unless it dramatically increases the total cost of healthcare (it should do the opposite), would result in a significant net savings to corporations as long as it retains a funding structure similar to or more regressive than what exists now--which is certainly what corporations would lobby for and is probably a safe bet if one looks at the last ~40 years of government spending and how its been funded (or not). And in any case, who said anything about medicare for all? The ideal healthcare system from a corporation's standpoint is one that essentially retains the inefficient grift-laden burdensome shitpile we have now, just paid for more by someone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
Morbus posted:
they tried that already it was called obamacare e: also, in reply to the rest of your post, obamacare was explicitly "we will make healthy people pay for insurance to lower the cost for sick people", aka exactly what you are suggesting would be what the rich and the ownership class would support (making other people who arent the rich pay for it) in lieu of just having the government give people healthcare, and it turned out that no, they didnt actually like that at all and killed it anyway. Morbus posted:So, any conceivable expansion of medicare, unless it dramatically increases the total cost of healthcare (it should do the opposite), would result in a significant net savings to corporations as long as it retains a funding structure similar to or more regressive than what exists now--which is certainly what corporations would lobby for and is probably a safe bet if one looks at the last ~40 years of government spending and how its been funded (or not). e2: medicare expansion was used as a vehicle to drastically inflate the price of healthcare within living memory by passing part D and letting the pharma companies decide on their own how much medicare would pay them, and then the pharma companies decided that the amount of money they would like to be paid was $infinity Shear Modulus fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Jul 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:they tried that already it was called obamacare
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 08:40
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:It's likely just data pulled from the MLS Yeah also Riverside has a bunch of price pressure put on it by build-outs in Perris and Menifee and that area. But here's something REALLY COOL - price per square foot by county - look at how Riverside, which includes those less-pricey high desert areas I just mentioned - does compared to the rest of the country. It's only not a "hot market" in relative terms. http://www.visualcapitalist.com/interactive-map-price-per-square-foot-us-housing-markets/ And look at CA in general. Really interesting I think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
 NYCWill use that the next time my parents make a passive aggressive dig about the fact that I'm nowhere near owning a home to point out that where they live the average is $99/ft2 vs my $612/ft2 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
Morbus posted:You forget that medicare is funded (overwhelmingly) disproportionately by not-really-really rich people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Obama care was still a 2 payer system. They used private organizations to provide public service. Wont work. We need a single payer system now with government operated hospitals. If we had healthcare for all we could lower health costs by getting the population healthier over time with consistent doctor visits. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but that's not what single payer is. Single payer means one insurance entity for everyone (the government).
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
canadian healthcare is a single-payer system but the providers are private entities the government directly employing the doctors happens in other countries eg the uk a government-paying but private-party-providing system is of course going to be susceptible to the same perverse incentives of overbilling, unnecessary procedures to generate revenue, the pharma companies colluding to drive up prices, etc that the fee-for-service model of medicare has
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
Yeah, I’m pretty socialist but I absolutely do not want government owned hospitals. Our culture leads to the scenario that Doctors are working for the government and not patients, and our nihilistic corporate-backed party will see fit to introduce laws loving over the oldest and sickest from getting care in the name of cost overrun prevention. I realize it works elsewhere. But those countries don’t have major political swings to people promoting a “Work Hard, Die Quickly” agenda. They have conservative politicians who say things like, “single payer is one of the things that makes us great as a nation”, and “I campaigned against it, but now I’m all for it.” Our country has conservative politicians who use weasel words to signal, “we gotta compete with countries where labor standards are low and workers regularly kill themselves, and you poor fucks are key because you have no choice.” Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Jul 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Yeah, I’m pretty socialist but I absolutely do not want government owned hospitals. Our culture leads to the scenario that Doctors are working for the government and not patients, and our nihilistic corporate-backed party will see fit to introduce laws loving over the oldest and sickest from getting care in the name of cost overrun prevention. So better leave it in the hands of corporations who at least don’t pretend they care if you live or die?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Single payer does not = government operated hospitals
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Yeah, I’m pretty socialist but I absolutely do not want government owned hospitals. What on earth do you think socialism involves if not the state owning industries including hospitals?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:What on earth do you think socialism involves if not the state owning industries including hospitals? The workers???????
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:What on earth do you think socialism involves if not the state owning industries including hospitals? ...have you read literally anything about socialism besides some InfoWars chyron?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Is this where we argue for several pages about what "real" socialism is? Socialism = worker control of production. That can be via state ownership if the state is ultimately controlled by the workers, or it can be via direct control with things like worker co-ops etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So better leave it in the hands of corporations who at least don’t pretend they care if you live or die? The corporations stand to make more money keeping me alive. The government only has to treat everyone equally. They can push policy to deem people not worth saving and refuse to treat them, so long as they do so to anyone regardless of who they are. Of course, a single payer insurer can also refuse to pay for things, but at least you’re not also giving the government a large ownership stake in the assets and technologies. It’s even harder to pay your own cancer treatment when the government also owns all the best doctors and the only machinery in your area. forkboy84 posted:What on earth do you think socialism involves if not the state owning industries including hospitals? This is some ignorant, George Will inspired take and I will not bite on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:The corporations stand to make more money keeping me alive. Alive yes, but not necessarily cured and healthy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:The corporations stand to make more money keeping me alive. I worked in the medical field for 5 years on the contracts and payment side and this is shockingly naive. You are 100 percent wrong, a huge chunk of a person's medical expenses are done in the last 6 months of life and it would be better for everyone in the industry if you died as quickly as possible. Then we get to keep your money and not give you any service. That's on the insurance side. From the hospital's perspective there is stuff that is "loss leader" and stuff that isn't, and the administrative staff would prefer you got a packet of $10 ea, cough drops and 4.1 hours in a bed (that they can bill at 8) after an upset tummy and mild cough. Hospitals would pull all kinds of poo poo with us, they didn't care at all about their patients. The question was a) how they could bill us at the maximum possible while b) still ostensibly following the law (but not really) Literally was in negotiations where we gave doctors metrics we knew they couldn't hit for performance bonuses but allowed them to overbill us on certain items to help close the gaps Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jul 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:The corporations stand to make more money keeping me alive. lol you're not a socialist at all. You're blaming the government for poo poo companies already do right now. quote:It’s even harder to pay your own cancer treatment when the government also owns all the best doctors and the only machinery in your area. also you also apparently don't know what single payer means you corporate shill
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
and yet, people in Cuba get better health care than we do Like, all the hand-wringing about the potential dangers of government-owned hospitals and government-paid doctors is theoretical, vs. the very real and actual situation of Americans presently dying early and generally having worse health than every other modernized country, and a lot of developing countries as well. My position is I'll try anything that gets more health care to the people, and if it has serious problems in the future, we can agitate to solve those problems then. All the arguing about what form of single payer and whether govt' run hospitals and oh dear the congressional death panels is all part of the concerted long-term conservative propaganda machine preventing us from doing anything at all, while they gleefully cripple the lovely system we have now with every dirty trick they can conceive of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
By the way there's a significant percentage of doctors who don't care about their patients at all, you're a dollar sign to 'em. People who think that education = morality should deal with doctors and their service contracts sometimes, they're crooks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
If you are ever unsure about quality of Craptacular!'s posts, just read the username again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:lol you're not a socialist at all. You're blaming the government for poo poo companies already do right now. No. To draw a comparison to another industry where governments compete with corporations: you can support the BBC without wanting it to be the only channel on television. bawfuls posted:If you are ever unsure about quality of Craptacular!'s posts, just read the username again. I mean my posts about politics are pretty consistent, I just fall into be divide where I’m to the left of the current Overton window while also being a soft moderate in this forum. I also hate talking about politics, because people want you to step in a verbiage landmine such as what is really socialist and then use that to discredit what you say. This is considered a win on substance somehow. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jul 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:No. To draw a comparison to another industry where governments compete with corporations: you can support the BBC without wanting it to be the only channel on television. You're still ignoring the fact that you have the very idea of single payer wrong. Your claim that government run single payer who drive up the individual's cost of cancer treatments because they'd hoard doctors or equipment doesn't make sense at all. You wouldn't pay for your cancer treatment under single payer. That's the whole point. You're not a socialist because you're trusting companies to not do things they're already doing, while opposing nationalizing healthcare on the grounds that it is too risky that the government might do what corporations already do day in and day out. edit: besides your opposition has entirely been to the government running healthcare, not single payer so your bbc analogy doesn't even make sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
I don't care what people do with healthcare as long as you take pricing control away from my industry (pharmaceuticals). We clearly can't be trusted with it, so whatever plan you do, make sure it involves price controls and/or distribution nationalization.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're still ignoring the fact that you have the very idea of single payer wrong. Your claim that government run single payer who drive up the individual's cost of cancer treatments because they'd hoard doctors or equipment doesn't make sense at all. You wouldn't pay for your cancer treatment under single payer. That's the whole point. I say this not because I support very wealthy people trying to live forever (though I could see myself being one of those loons if I was stupid wealthy), but because I don’t trust Republicans to not try to sabotage the system and lower the bar over what we will and won’t pay for. That said, I’m not strident in health policy and this place has made me do 180s on beliefs before. Anyone who can speak from a better position can try to change my mind, but I am knee jerk on putting all hospitals in the hands of a government that I feel already has mood swings where it doesn’t care about my nutritional health, my ecological health, etc. Until Republicans stop being destructive assholes who seem to wish for me to hurry off and die somewhere where it won’t inconvenience them, I don’t want them to have a chance to own the hospitals, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
Craptacular's point about how corporate hospitals "get paid to keep me alive" reminds me of a friend of mine who thought that corporate schools "get paid to educate the kids" and it's like, well, no. Turns out corporate schools "get paid" to select only the brightest kids who can be educated with minimal effort, inflate their grades, and pay their teachers jack poo poo. Just because the purpose of the institution is "provide an education" doesn't mean that the profit motive aligns with it. Same with hospitals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Just because the purpose of the institution is "provide an education" doesn't mean that the profit motive aligns with it. Same with hospitals. Are not for profit hospitals, and publicly owned hospitals, a thing that already exists? Because I wasn’t opposed to either, just opposed to monopoly on them. Meaning I’d rather Canada than NHS. And again, both Canada and the NHS are better than our shitshow, but if I had to import one I’d rather the one that doesn’t put a Trump appointee at the head of all our hospitals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:No. I’m concerned the government might deem people to be not worth the cost of treatment. We admitted that all insurance models do this back when Palin went around lying about “death panels”. But I don’t want the government also controlling the only means of treatment, I.e. a hospital monopoly, because if I’m extraordinarily wealthy I should be able to use that wealth to buy myself the treatment the government won’t. But I can’t if the government also owns the doctors and surgical equipment and refuses to use their resources on me for the same reasons. Under single payer, the government does not have a monopoly on health care. It only means the government pays for a health insurance plan for everyone. In Canada most people with good jobs buy supplemental health insurance. It is also patently absurd to think that under any possible system, rich people would not be able to find a way to get any medical services they desired. Even if we had a fully socialized medicine system where government owned and ran the hospitals and all medical staff of those hospitals were directly employed by the government, there would still be people with medical skills opening and running clinics or institutions or whatever, catering to the wealthy. You're apparently imagining a system whereby the government literally banned and made illegal all private provisioning of medical services; that's not a plausible scenario for the foreseeable future... but even if we somehow got to that point, you can still presume that a black market of underground medical services for the wealthy would develop, because that's what happens whenever the government bans something that people really want, and especially that rich people really want. It's not until we're actually banning being rich that we get to a point where the tyrannical government is capable of denying rich people medical services. I urge you to worry less about the plight of the rich. But more importantly, under typical single payer proposals, people with even modestly good jobs have the option of purchasing additional insurance and services beyond what the government decides is included in the basic single player coverage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Good post You have a point, and I suppose you’re right. There is a lot of evidence there. I’m sort of tripping on personal anecdotes, because my mother possibly has cancer that she can recover from but will require use of expensive machinery located in the city, and I worry that such resources would be out of reach of most clinics and practices operating outside of whatever program (in all likelihood a civilian VA) would be set up. If the people with the most advanced tools of recovery won’t use them unless the single payer insurer says it’s okay to, because they’re part of the same administration as the insurer, then in essence our access to those methods and tools are at the whims of legislators who often vote against our interests. In essence if our democracy wasn’t structured to support the whims of the few and terrible, this wouldn’t be a problem. It’s not a problem in foreign countries because their democracies are less rigged and cash-tainted to produce outcomes opposing the majority will.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
I thinn what most people dont undertand about sibgle payer system is that the end result is the improved prevention of worse diseases, if women had free breast exams yearly or every 6 months imagine how many less cases of death from breast cancer over time. Its easier to prevent needing hundreds of thousands in care if know at the beginning instead of the end or near end. Most of the weight on the healthcare system is the long term illnesses that are finally trrated after decades of having the disease. We save $ by not amputating a diabetes patients leg because he or she can still produce if the disease is not ignored. A healthier society is a more productive one. Billions are lost from people exiting the work force prematurely. Its just like a car. If you maintain it it will last longer and cost less than if you put it off until a major piece breaks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
Craptacular! posted:You have a point, and I suppose you’re right. There is a lot of evidence there. Most likely the result of adding millions of people to the rolls of the insured is that demand for those high-cost pieces of equipment declines, as more cases are caught early and treated early. But also, anyone who needs cancer treatment to save their lives is going to be willing to relocate from the very rural area where it's too infrequently used to be cost-effective. Nobody's going to say "well I need to have this tumor treated, but I just can't leave the farm, so I'll choose to stay here and die instead." Is your mother contemplating not going to get her cancer treated because of the commute? If the treatments were completely free, at least you and your family could subsidize a hotel room or some other arrangement to get her to her services, right? Here's another one for you: medical bankruptcies are more than half of all personal bankruptcies. They're always for essential health services (because nobody voluntarily goes into bankruptcy over nonessential medical services) and eliminating them takes a huge burden off of the courts, not to mention meaning money is actually collected for the cost of all the services they used, which in turn radically lowers how much providers have to charge for those services. Currently, entire families wipe out their wealth trying to cover poo poo like cancer treatments for one family member, who then winds up bankrupt anyway, and of course even after bankruptcy, is wiped out and will be dependent on family and the state for the rest of their lives. quote:In essence if our democracy wasn’t structured to support the whims of the few and terrible, this wouldn’t be a problem. It’s not a problem in foreign countries because their democracies are less rigged and cash-tainted to produce outcomes opposing the majority will. This is a problem for every aspect of American life, not just medical care. It makes little sense to single out medical care as being the one thing the corrupt government will ruin; rather, fixing our hosed up system has to be a top priority as well. In the meantime, single payer - the thing being discussed right now - is unlikely to be any more hosed up than, say, Medicare or the VA hospital system - both already government-run health programs that, while certainly messed up in their own ways, at least manage to save millions of people's lives by providing essential medical services.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 22:13
|
|