General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 99

Huh?

That's not what single payer is. Single payer involves the function of the state as the *wait for it* payer and eliminates the gross price inflation necessary to accommodate the overhead and profit margins of private insurers

And single payer has paid out in well, I don't know, every single first world country in the world other than the United States. Also, believe it or not, going to the doctor isn't regarded by most as the super-fun activity you seem to think it is. Most people only see a doctor when they are sick and do thing like racquetball or skeet shooting when they're looking for some fun.

 

I don't think the bleeding heart angle is effective in this conversation.

Private medicine is less efficient and is a drain on the economy and an apparatus for upward flow of capital.

 

So is there still any decent chance of a Sanders presidency or is it time for me to start prepping for being in a fouler mood than normal for the next four years? I know superdelegates don't vote until July 25 (correct me if that's wrong) and there is always a chance Hillary's delegates might ditch her since they did it back when it was Clinton vs. Obama, but regardless.

 

There isn't a chance, really hasn't been much of a chance since the NY primary tbh. The Sanders camp definitely knows this internally, the continued push has been for the future of the party more than anything.

 

Everyone has the right to healthcare, that's why you aren't turned away from an ER, regardless of the injury.

I think it's the preventative care or the surgery/post-surgery follow up that is problematic in terms of not being able to pay for things.

A hospital isn't just going to let you die.

For me, I'd like to have the option to pay for something private that may better suit my needs rather than be lumped in with something which may not make sense.

 

After last night it's basically done. If he could have won Cali by the margin he actually lost by, kept it close in NJ AND won SD and MT by bigger margins than he did, he certainly would have a case and I could see superdelegates switching. But they didn't, so the only way I can see him having any shot is if Hillary gets indicted, which is very unlikely. Honestly think he probably should concede after DC left week, as he really has no reason to stay in.

 

Like I said, healthcare, including those things you mentioned, is a right. Health should not be subject to market forces.

 

Why is everyone so sarcastic when discussing these things? You literally know nothing about me and yet you feel the need to make fun of my medical experiences. Makes it impossible to actually discuss things. I hate going to the doctor, for the record.

That's exactly what single payer is. The state dictates that they will pay x for y procedure. That is price determination.

Sweden has gravitated towards private insurance, Canadians have been facing rising healthcare costs for years, and single payer failed to even get off the ground in Vermont due to insurmountable costs. Healthcare, like any other good or service, is still subject to supply and demand, no matter how it is pitched. Calling it a universal right doesn't make it appear out of thin air. Couple that with a country of 400 million people, compared to an order of magnitude less in most first world countries that have adopted single-payer, and you have quite a challenge.

 

No chance of a Sanders presidency as a Democrat.

If there is major movement with regard to third parties, who knows. In the event of 4 or 5 major candidates in the running, I'd place Bernie as the second most likely winner after Trump because of the voracity of his supporters and their work on the ground.

Man, I would love that. You give me a choice between Stein (G) and Sanders (D) as president, and I'm going Jill all the way.

 

But isn't the splitting up of left-wing voters exactly what Trump wants? This seems a tad counter-productive to me, forgive me if I sound ignorant.

 

i mean, that won't happen anyway. right-wing independents entering is probably much more likely

 

Sanders said he wouldn't run independent anyway

 

^ That too.

 

With four or five major candidates running wouldn't it be unlikely that either of them would reach 270 electoral votes? In that case a House of Representatives led by Paul Ryan would choose the next president.

 

ehh...maybe. The more likely outcome is with Clinton, Stein, and Sanders splitting the votes, Trump would win a whole bunch of blue states with like 40% of the vote and get to 270

 

An entity, like the government, can more effectively negotiate prices, for example. If the industry itself is completely nationalized, then there are no middle men that would mark up costs. But to address your other point regarding costs. Sweden is instructive, but not for the reasons you're providing. For the past twenty years, it has privatized much of the healthcare sector, which hasn't reduced the cost in anyway whatsoever. If anything, it has contributed to costs as a result of their orientation towards profit and the displacement of costs on to taxpayers and so on. Costs are also related to a complex of medical institutions, of which pharmaceutical companies are a part, that are develop products, services, etc., that are not actually beneficial to patients, but have become fixtures in care because they've been determined to be of valuable, i.e., profitable.

 

Stupid question. How does the transaction with the health care provider with single-payer? Does the health care provider submit a claim to the state, local, or federal government and receive payment from them on a line item basis? Does the government pay for the health care provider's equipment and continuing education?

 

I kind of got into this in my other post, but it depends on how the payment system is set up. That's more or less how Medicare/Medicaid work right now, basically a fee-for-service model. But there are also other ways out there like capitation payments where the doctors get a set amount per month per patient, regardless of if that patient uses services that month or not. Other different payment methods similar to that exist too. I wish I could find my health policy textbook

 

How do you feel about a mixed model? One where insurance exists for catastrophes and major operations, and single payer exists for basic medical and child care? Or maybe even a free-market approach to the basics? Maybe Richter can explain, but why does it cost $5,000 to fix a broken arm when we have been fixing broken arms for hundreds of years? I get that it costs tens of thousands of dollars to have major heart surgery with the newest technology and under the care of multiple medical professionals, but fixing a broken arm should cost $25.

I am probably off on some figures, but doesn't some kind of direct consumer transaction get us closer to a $25 fix for a broken arm than single payer would?

 

Elizabeth Warren reportedly going to endorse Clinton, not surprised by that. But let's face it, deep down we know she would rather it be Bernie winning the nomination.

 

Establishment Dems are going to eventually endorse Clinton one by one. Obama is going to endorse her only to keep a Dem in the White House

 

I've seen (un-detailed) proposals for mixed approaches and I wouldn't be against it. I'm not sure if it would work better to have people pay for/buy insurance for the basics and then do single payer for the bigger stuff, or the other way around. But I've seen that idea thrown around by people out there before. Just off the top of my head thinking about it, it could probably work either way. Private insurance would either be responsible for the less expensive things and thus not need to cost as much, or they'd be responsible for the more expensive things that don't happen nearly as often. That way would still probably be more expensive for people, though.


I linked to it earlier but I like this explanation of the AmeriCare Act, and think it is a good model for what I think a single payer system in this country would look like. Some cost sharing in the form of small deductibles and co-pays/co-insurance, but people below a certain income are spared those costs and there's a cap on OOP expenses.

As for the broken arm bit--The administrative costs do have a decent amount to do with it. But the real problem is that hospitals have this 'master charge list' that was, until the ACA passed, kept secret. So they decide how much they want to charge for a service, and then insurance companies try to negotiate a deal to lower that price for that insurance company's customers. But what market is determining the prices on the master charge list? And how is it a 'market' if the broken arm is going to cost two people two different prices at the same hospital? It's such a convoluted "market" and the lack of people being able to smartly shop (because the prices still aren't easy to find and let's be honest, who breaks their arm and then goes on the internet to research what hospital it'll cost less to get it fixed at) for a product that, unlike virtually every other product out there, they will 100% need to use at some point in their lives just makes it way too questionable to depend on "the market" to keep prices low.

 

Gary Johnson is just as likely to take on new republican voters who are not fond of Trump. The only way Stein makes a major impact is if she can tap into Bernie's success with either an endorsement from her or have him in her campaign, as of right now the Green party is struggling to get on the ballot at all and doesn't pose much of a threat. However, that small threat could play a significant role considering how much the major candidates are disliked. Clinton is polling ahead of Trump, but not in significant amount and she'll need all the help she can get. Especially if her server/e-mail situation worsens or if some magical way her wall street speeches become released.

There are a lot of external forces at play this upcoming election cycle and both major campaigns have ongoing investigations into them that could essentially destroy their campaigns.

 

Gary Johnson is polling at 10% in some national polls and I bet that republicans who hate Trump will go to him, and even some Sanders supporters may support him, that is what one of my friends is doing.

 

Obama has been endorsing horrific establishment dems all primary. idk why. but it blows