|
BarbarianElephant posted:To do that, you'd need to lower tuition fees at universities. No-ones gonna go $400k in debt for a $75k salary. Specifically not clever doctor folks. There's other stuff they could do. Law school demonstrates this isn't true at all. Also you can pay doctors six figgies still in a single payer system. Specialists are gonna see a cut in pay more than anything else.
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
The bottom line is, doctor pay and doctor liability aren't the real issues and are boogeymen used to distract people from the real problem. Insurance companies are making billions off of people's lives and it costs our society 3x the rest of the world to cover it. Cut them out, pay doctors medicaid rates for everything, and on the whole our healthcare costs will plummet without really impacting doctors too negatively if at all.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Cutting doctor pay by 50% or even 25% would probably be a greater cost savings than forcing health insurance companies to run at cost. I don't think that you can attribute your 3x number mostly to them. Hospitals and pharmaceutical companies are way more profitable than health insurance companies. Paying out medicaid rates to doctors would entail a reduction in some doctor wages in addition to eliminating the insurance bite of the apple.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
Xae posted:Medicaid's reimbursement rate can be as low as half of cost. So far anything I've had done via VA choice has been paid at medicaid rates. My vasectomy, for example, cost $700. That's the flat medicaid rate they said. They charge $1200-1400 without insurance, they said, and insurance negotiates to near medicaid rates anyways.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
The government negotiated rates already represent fairly what the actual costs are while still providing quality pay for the doctors.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The true socialized program is still going to have an insurance-like beuracracy. This beuracracy[sic] already exists. Of course there will be additional overhead adding people to it, but it isn't near what the current insurance overhead costs us now. Xae posted:Medicaid rates are way below private insurance rates. They refuse to accept medicaid because of greed not because the payout is too low. And I didn't mean that they actively negotiated and using the word negotiate was incorrect. I meant the fixed government price that has already been tabulated.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
I was mainly wanting to give you poo poo for misspelling bureaucracy, EW. I know that its not an easy fix, and I don't really think most doctor pay is remotely part of the issue.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I can't spell most words to save my life but my spellchecker must have fritzed out there bureaucracy is one of the silliest looking words in the language, which is pretty appropriate given what it entails. I got rid of autocorrect on all my devices because it changes correctly spelled words far more often than it actually corrects incorrect ones. My spelling has always been decent enough so the only thing that occurs really is I have a lot of lower case 'i's because I don't care to capitalize them.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:These are stupid ideas because people are not and should not be expected to be able to determine what medical procedures were needed and then pay for them out of pocket. Being the informed buyer is the job of the insurer and/or UHC org. These are 'merican ideals, though. I should get to choose my own plan! Why do I, a single white male, need maternity coverage?!
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I wasn't pretending doctors are. But if you break it down, then getting doctor salaries in the US down to the ratio they are in the most efficient European countries would reduce total healthcare costs by about 10%. Doctors would still be making 6-figures in this scenario. It is also highly concentrated in certain fields that make some procedures almost 8x more expensive in the US. Specialists are what you're after, not doctors. Your average GPs in America aren't making vastly more now than what they are anywhere. Specialists are the major source of doctor price gouging.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:GPs in the US actually do make much more than doctors anywhere else in the world. You're right, but it's not much more. Australia is lower than pretty much all of europe. https://journal.practicelink.com/vital-stats/physician-compensation-worldwide/  I suspect that if that was broken down by locality that there are GPs in certain areas of the country that skew the USA's average wage up significantly.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
If you're not watching he got crushed by a teenager and then got her kicked out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBUP_UxHYLs
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Tom MacArthur (R) New Jersey posted:I have found government bureaucrats can be very dangerous when they have power.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:Oh man, what's the timestamp on that? This is the gal in question. Not sure how far into her question I got I was just randomly clicking around and got lucky. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBUP_UxHYLs&t=4604s
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Genuine question: A lot of americans aren't happy with their employer plan. My dad's plan left him hanging for 20k in hospital bills that weren't covered when he had to stay four days for pneumonia. I know multiple people that have to carry two insurance plans because their employer plan doesn't cover everything.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
The thing is, those who have an employer plan and are happy with it are dwarfed by those on medicaid/care, an exchange plan they can't afford, or just flat out have no coverage. It's a matter of getting those people off their asses just as much as it is convincing the guy that makes 40k and has to carry secondary insurance because his employer HSA is actually poo poo that he has bad insurance. I think part of it is shifting compensation that previously went to healthcare to the worker, but  at employers raising someone's wages.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:I've been saying this since the start of the thread. I'll have to be on it anyway when my backbone plan bankrupts me anyway. I'd rather just pay into that system. Then give a company money to tell me to pound sand when I actually get hurt. You see, I don't think healthcare is a right, though. It's just a commodity. Plus, all of those socialized healthcare systems have horrible problems I heard about. Busses of canadian seniors coming to the USA because the wait times in Canada would kill them. I also don't trust the government and think that this should be a state issue. I like my employer provided HSA because if I don't get sick it's just free money coming to me and a break in taxes. Sure I have to pay for a secondary insurance plan, but that's just being prudent. Those aren't my thoughts, btw, but rather what Republicans really believe. I have been given these answers among a myriad of others why I shouldn't have to pay for susy fatcakes insurance she should quit guzzling soda and cupcakes and get a job to pay for her own.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Who gives a poo poo about what republicans believe right now? Implement UHC and they'll defend it to the hilt once they see that they'll benefit from it personally. For an example, see the furor over repealing the ACA once the GOP base realized that it was going to take away their healthcare. I'm talking about the republican base. I'm talking about the general population of west texas, north florida, kansas, oklahoma, etc. Like it or not, these are the people that you have to reach out to right now because they're the only people that actually get the gently caress out and vote. These are the people I argue with and try to convince daily because they're the ones we have to convince. It won't happen unless these people specifically vote out sitting republicans. These are the mid term voters. If you've got another route to actually get poo poo done I'm all ears, but progressive gotv is a hot garbage fire at actually getting people to pull loving levers. I'm attempting to help locally as much as possible, but realistically there are only two ways to enact change via the 2018 election: get republicans to vote a different republican into office or get democratic voters to the polls. The latter option is a far cry based upon historical trends. However your rural republican base (also the source of most of the senate seats up for grabs) does show up at mid terms. If I can convince enough people that Mac Thornberry has got to go, we might be able to get a seat that supports better healthcare. It's still going to be a republican. You won't flip the Amarillo area to the democratic party without something drastic happening between now and then. It might be possible to convince republicans, though, that they'll save money in a single payer system and get them on board that people like Mac Thornberry or Ted Cruz are out to gently caress them personally. I've convinced some already that would vote against the incumbent for a primary challenge, but that's really the only way you're going to see change in these districts.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
My basic argument that has worked with a few is this: we pay 3-4x per capita for healthcare with nowhere near the best quality than any other place in the world does. Everyone else in the world has moved to a single payer system or some sort of universal coverage because it is flat out more efficient. A move to a single payer system will benefit the wallet of your "middle class (~50k/year)" republican rural voter in actual take home pay if nothing else by eliminating the profit margins the insurance company faces now. These are the people hit hardest by the ACA and are the ones that by and large voted in Trump. These are the people we have to convince to change.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
To steal a metaphor from Citizen Tayne aka Tori CMOS: people from rural areas only know one or two people on welfare or any kind of government assistance. The only really destitute/poor people they see is Tom the town drunk and everyone knows Tom is a fuckup, therefore anyone who uses the programs Tom uses is a fuckup also. People extrapolate their life experiences to paint stuff they haven't ever really experienced or will understand. They don't understand anything beyond "I'm going broke paying for a bum's insurance."
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:They've already been thwarted once in a humiliating fashion due to their base rebelling, and that's when we're talking about a half-measure like the ACA. If you have a truly universal system you eliminate a huge chunk of the criticisms people have about Obamacare and make the program so much harder to attack. This is literally why you go for big and universal solutions when it comes to welfare services. I never said we're going to get them to vote against republicans. I said get them to vote for a different one. I've already seen some pushes for primary challengers.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Hell if I know what he's paying for his secondary plan. I'm a welfare queen that uses VA coverage. I was just parroting standard republican retorts.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Almost $900 billion into the pockets of the 1%. That's the purpose of the AHCA.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:seriously, the author is dumb as poo poo and if your eyes don't roll into the back of your head reading it i dont know what to tell you I can't stand to read anything written in that fashion anyways and I instantly discount any opinion the author may have.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
There is nothing that the democrats in the senate can do to prevent the AHCA if McConnel has 50 votes. They can delay poo poo and drag their heels, but there's nothing that can stop it. The ACA is gone. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:far more important for Senate Democrats to preserve their precious Posting Energies than to be seen visibly fighting for something, indeed, anything. so you would have them throw a fit for what purpose? They're going to delay the bill a trivial amount of time at most. It's not about saving up political capital. It's about being realistic. There's not a god damned thing they can do, so instead they must be pragmatic and work where they can.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
The senate democrats could all just stay home and not show up and the same bills are going to pass regardless. There is nothing they can do. They cannot effectively stall anything. So would you rather them cry and do nothing or actually do their job and influence the legislation that they can?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
It's not going to last a week. It's going to delay it by minutes. They have zero ways to effectively delay the bill at all. If McConnel has 50 votes, the democrats have two options: throw a fit that does nothing, refuse to participate in senate business and get zero say in any legislation, and get called out by every media outlet for it OR continue working on legislation where they have input instead. If they're pushing the bill, they have the votes. If they have the votes, 49 democrats cannot do a loving thing. They can grandstand all day, but there's nothing that can be done to delay or prevent it. Not even a week. And if they're putting the bill to a vote, no amount of town halls are going to change the minds of the people voting yes. The only thing that you, me, or anyone else can do is try to influence the 2018 elections.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
So, pray tell, how do the democrats in the senate delay this bill? What makes you think that any republican is not going to vote yes on a trillion dollar tax cut for the 1%? If the turtle has 50 votes - how do you stop it? What should they do, in your mind, that would be effective?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:goodness. called out by every media outlet for throwing a fit about Republicans trying to kick millions of people off health insurance. They're going to call out the republicans constantly in media and otherwise. They're going to do it on the floor of the senate. They're going to do it at townhalls across the country. That's not what they're talking about when they're saying they're not going to quit working over the AHCA.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
They can't gel up the senate. 51 senators are needed for a quorum. They cannot stop anything at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
The democrats have two options for what they can do inside the senate: they can refuse to work or even show up to work for everything and effectively stop nothing and get no input onto any legislation OR they can continue to work on legislation that they can influence and vote no on garbage bills like the AHCA that they cannot stop. Edit: the 60 vote threshold is only for cloture and not really required for anything that the republicans don't want as shown by the appointment of the best writer on the SCOTUS. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Jun 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:it's not even this, this is not what's being discussed, what is being discussed is a tiny tactical issue that's even dumber.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Nothus posted:Guys just quietly roll over on the healthcare poor people genocide bill, it's way more important to focus on more nebulous Russia poo poo that absolutely has more of an effect on everyday Americans than their soon to be gone healthcare. It isn't rolling over. There's nothing they can do about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Make a stink so that Republican voters who depend on it notice it is happening? They are. There's still nothing they can do in the senate to stop or delay it in any way whatsoever. Like that's how we change things for 2018 but there ain't a drat thing that can be done any earlier than that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
The good news is Trump has been trying to torpedo the bill today so who knows what the gently caress will happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Also it only "required" 60 votes because the senate still pretended its rules mattered. McConnel doesn't give a gently caress about norms and will change rules if dems try to block anything at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's very unlikely that Republicans abolish the filibuster, but Democrats absolutely should in 2020. I have no doubt whatsoever that if they have 50 votes for the senate AHCA that they cannot pass via reconciliation that they will kill the filibuster over it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:There is no cute trick to convincing people who are okay with tens of thousands of people dying a year of preventable illnesses and injuries that actually it's a bad thing. But vaccines cause autism!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
they're going to just simply preach about the trillion in tax cuts and how horrible stuff was under obamacare (because the worst parts are delayed).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 22:01
|
|