Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The Hondo plan
Comments
-
You're not eliminating it you're shifting the costs from private sector to public. You could make an argument that there would be added benefits to the money freed up from reserves that insurers currently have to carry that the government won't but you aren't. You either buy healthcare services, you pay a private sector purchasing agent(private insurance), or you pay the government to act as a purchasing agent.2001400ex said:
Why do you ignore the fact we'd eliminate medical insurance costs? That's the biggest number. Well we'd replace it with Medicare tax. But none of that is taken into account to simpletons like you.UW_Doog_Bot said:
It's less than 20% of total cost for administration and profit combined so...not as much as you would want to believe.2001400ex said:
Are you truly that dumb? First off, that's only one side of the equation. I know you like it when Fox news scares you and you can't imagine something they report would be missing information.pawz said:
So your solution is to spend $32 TRILLION and you want me to be happy b/c we might save $300 billion??ThomasFremont said:
Save $300 billion AND get everyone covered. According to a libertarian think tank.pawz said:
It says more that you're afraid to answer the question.ThomasFremont said:
The guy asking this shit hole how to short the market now expects a fully cooked Medicare for all plan explained to him in detail.pawz said:
So you just want to copy somebody? Who?ThomasFremont said:
I already told you my plan. What’s your fucking plan, salt crystals in every yurt?pawz said:
Still dodging the question.ThomasFremont said:
Not really the religious type, but thanks. I’ll pray for you.pawz said:
It appears you have multiple sacred cows above questioning.ThomasFremont said:
I’m not gonna get lectured about basic understanding or healthcare by an anti vax nut.pawz said:
Why is that?ThomasFremont said:
Oh I thought you were joking.pawz said:
Your Hondo-dodge-the-point game is skrong.ThomasFremont said:
An abortion is cheaper than raising a kid. Want some more #tips ???pawz said:
When, in the economics of medicine, has anybody EVER saved money?ThomasFremont said:
You skipped the part where we save $300 billion over 10 years...Sledog said:The Hondo medical plan seems a tad expensive.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/30/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-bill-estimated-at-32-6t-study-says.html
Let me know when the producers are competing for the customers. TIA
We pay more than prettying much every other developed country in healthcare costs. So maybe just copy those folks? Or do you prefer the status quo of pretending that we are all helpless victims of circumstance?
Try to answer the question in a way that makes the reader think you understand basic economic principles.
Nothing else matters. Your other two questions are FS.
HTH
This discussion has nothing to do with care, or types of care. It's economics stupid.
If you don't actually understand economics, just say so.
What part of their plan controls costs?
what's in the box.gif
I want providers to compete for the business. Just like every other efficient economy in the word.
It says you cant.
Your solutions at this point amount to Pollyanna bullshit.
I’d take that deal for $0 savings.
And since unlike you I’d actually have to pay more in that system, I think you can shut the fuck up about it. This is all theoretical for you. Go short the market or something.
That's Hondo Fucking Stupid.
If you made the producers compete for the business, and allow the market to control costs, the savings are unfathomable.
It's really that simple.
What do you think the cost savings would be if we got profit out of the equation, ended paying for insurance, and ended the whole medical billing practice?
Think about it.
The rosiest of estimates that I've read put savings at 10% for administration (that's putting it at what Medicare's admin costs are which don't capture all government overhead minus the difference from private sector).
The only other two major savings would be from economies of scale and from the government's ability to negotiate rates with providers. Both of those things are full of pitfalls as any government contractor can tell you. Show me one industry where the government remotely captures these efficiencies and I can give you 20 where they don't.
ALL OF THIS would still leave us as #1 in costs for health care by a wide margin even by the most polyana estimates. Call me skeptical that we'd launch far ahead in health outcomes. There's little evidence that care or services would markedly improve.
Somewhat related: The dems had a golden opportunity to simply tax people that didn't buy insurance and give a tax break for those that do. They fucked it all up by calling it a mandate bc they can't get out of their own way and bc they are pussies and didn't want to call a tax a tax. Universal care could have been achieved through simple financial tax incentives while allowing people freedom in an open market. We do it in housing and 10,000 other circumstances so why not health insurance? < super libertarian opinion right?
-
If Fox news says universal coverage would cost $32 trillion. You have to take into account the savings you get. Your first sentence is my whole point. But simpletons like @pawz and @Sledog read $32 trillion from Fox news and shit themselves. Without thinking about anything else.UW_Doog_Bot said:
You're not eliminating it you're shifting the costs from private sector to public. You could make an argument that there would be added benefits to the money freed up from reserves that insurers currently have to carry that the government won't but you aren't. You either buy healthcare services, you pay a private sector purchasing agent(private insurance), or you pay the government to act as a purchasing agent.2001400ex said:
Why do you ignore the fact we'd eliminate medical insurance costs? That's the biggest number. Well we'd replace it with Medicare tax. But none of that is taken into account to simpletons like you.UW_Doog_Bot said:
It's less than 20% of total cost for administration and profit combined so...not as much as you would want to believe.2001400ex said:
Are you truly that dumb? First off, that's only one side of the equation. I know you like it when Fox news scares you and you can't imagine something they report would be missing information.pawz said:
So your solution is to spend $32 TRILLION and you want me to be happy b/c we might save $300 billion??ThomasFremont said:
Save $300 billion AND get everyone covered. According to a libertarian think tank.pawz said:
It says more that you're afraid to answer the question.ThomasFremont said:
The guy asking this shit hole how to short the market now expects a fully cooked Medicare for all plan explained to him in detail.pawz said:
So you just want to copy somebody? Who?ThomasFremont said:
I already told you my plan. What’s your fucking plan, salt crystals in every yurt?pawz said:
Still dodging the question.ThomasFremont said:
Not really the religious type, but thanks. I’ll pray for you.pawz said:
It appears you have multiple sacred cows above questioning.ThomasFremont said:
I’m not gonna get lectured about basic understanding or healthcare by an anti vax nut.pawz said:
Why is that?ThomasFremont said:
Oh I thought you were joking.pawz said:
Your Hondo-dodge-the-point game is skrong.ThomasFremont said:
An abortion is cheaper than raising a kid. Want some more #tips ???pawz said:
When, in the economics of medicine, has anybody EVER saved money?ThomasFremont said:
You skipped the part where we save $300 billion over 10 years...Sledog said:The Hondo medical plan seems a tad expensive.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/30/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-bill-estimated-at-32-6t-study-says.html
Let me know when the producers are competing for the customers. TIA
We pay more than prettying much every other developed country in healthcare costs. So maybe just copy those folks? Or do you prefer the status quo of pretending that we are all helpless victims of circumstance?
Try to answer the question in a way that makes the reader think you understand basic economic principles.
Nothing else matters. Your other two questions are FS.
HTH
This discussion has nothing to do with care, or types of care. It's economics stupid.
If you don't actually understand economics, just say so.
What part of their plan controls costs?
what's in the box.gif
I want providers to compete for the business. Just like every other efficient economy in the word.
It says you cant.
Your solutions at this point amount to Pollyanna bullshit.
I’d take that deal for $0 savings.
And since unlike you I’d actually have to pay more in that system, I think you can shut the fuck up about it. This is all theoretical for you. Go short the market or something.
That's Hondo Fucking Stupid.
If you made the producers compete for the business, and allow the market to control costs, the savings are unfathomable.
It's really that simple.
What do you think the cost savings would be if we got profit out of the equation, ended paying for insurance, and ended the whole medical billing practice?
Think about it.
The rosiest of estimates that I've read put savings at 10% for administration (that's putting it at what Medicare's admin costs are which don't capture all government overhead minus the difference from private sector).
The only other two major savings would be from economies of scale and from the government's ability to negotiate rates with providers. Both of those things are full of pitfalls as any government contractor can tell you. Show me one industry where the government remotely captures these efficiencies and I can give you 20 where they don't.
ALL OF THIS would still leave us as #1 in costs for health care by a wide margin even by the most polyana estimates. Call me skeptical that we'd launch far ahead in health outcomes. There's little evidence that care or services would markedly improve.
Somewhat related: The dems had a golden opportunity to simply tax people that didn't buy insurance and give a tax break for those that do. They fucked it all up by calling it a mandate bc they can't get out of their own way and bc they are pussies and didn't want to call a tax a tax. Universal care could have been achieved through simple financial tax incentives while allowing people freedom in an open market. We do it in housing and 10,000 other circumstances so why not health insurance? < super libertarian opinion right? -
I have a longform post from another forum that I'll dig up that is a "free market" based approach to universal care. I'll try to post it this week if I can find it. You're welcome to criticize it.CirrhosisDawg said:UW_Doog_Bot said:I heart the clean air and water act for one example. I'm also not at all opposed to transfers and social programs that work efficiently or manage to avoid significant negative externalities.
It's shocking! Shocking that someone with a degree in economics would argue for free market solutions! Nevermind my professional experiences...
Your post still had no substance other than to attack me(and not any of what I had to actually say). Lmk when you've got higher level policy to discuss. Still waiting for more than hand waving about Europe and Medicare.
You’ve proved you read the text book and showed up to Kane for the test. Still waiting for you to advocate a policy based on your extensive experience analyzing efficiencies, and externalities — not to mention your professional experiences...
You are full of shit.
Still haven't heard anything other than an attack out of you. You seem angry that people have an opposing view. -
Because the commie asshats would not have control of 1/6th of the economy and your life.UW_Doog_Bot said:
You're not eliminating it you're shifting the costs from private sector to public. You could make an argument that there would be added benefits to the money freed up from reserves that insurers currently have to carry that the government won't but you aren't. You either buy healthcare services, you pay a private sector purchasing agent(private insurance), or you pay the government to act as a purchasing agent.2001400ex said:
Why do you ignore the fact we'd eliminate medical insurance costs? That's the biggest number. Well we'd replace it with Medicare tax. But none of that is taken into account to simpletons like you.UW_Doog_Bot said:
It's less than 20% of total cost for administration and profit combined so...not as much as you would want to believe.2001400ex said:
Are you truly that dumb? First off, that's only one side of the equation. I know you like it when Fox news scares you and you can't imagine something they report would be missing information.pawz said:
So your solution is to spend $32 TRILLION and you want me to be happy b/c we might save $300 billion??ThomasFremont said:
Save $300 billion AND get everyone covered. According to a libertarian think tank.pawz said:
It says more that you're afraid to answer the question.ThomasFremont said:
The guy asking this shit hole how to short the market now expects a fully cooked Medicare for all plan explained to him in detail.pawz said:
So you just want to copy somebody? Who?ThomasFremont said:
I already told you my plan. What’s your fucking plan, salt crystals in every yurt?pawz said:
Still dodging the question.ThomasFremont said:
Not really the religious type, but thanks. I’ll pray for you.pawz said:
It appears you have multiple sacred cows above questioning.ThomasFremont said:
I’m not gonna get lectured about basic understanding or healthcare by an anti vax nut.pawz said:
Why is that?ThomasFremont said:
Oh I thought you were joking.pawz said:
Your Hondo-dodge-the-point game is skrong.ThomasFremont said:
An abortion is cheaper than raising a kid. Want some more #tips ???pawz said:
When, in the economics of medicine, has anybody EVER saved money?ThomasFremont said:
You skipped the part where we save $300 billion over 10 years...Sledog said:The Hondo medical plan seems a tad expensive.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/30/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-bill-estimated-at-32-6t-study-says.html
Let me know when the producers are competing for the customers. TIA
We pay more than prettying much every other developed country in healthcare costs. So maybe just copy those folks? Or do you prefer the status quo of pretending that we are all helpless victims of circumstance?
Try to answer the question in a way that makes the reader think you understand basic economic principles.
Nothing else matters. Your other two questions are FS.
HTH
This discussion has nothing to do with care, or types of care. It's economics stupid.
If you don't actually understand economics, just say so.
What part of their plan controls costs?
what's in the box.gif
I want providers to compete for the business. Just like every other efficient economy in the word.
It says you cant.
Your solutions at this point amount to Pollyanna bullshit.
I’d take that deal for $0 savings.
And since unlike you I’d actually have to pay more in that system, I think you can shut the fuck up about it. This is all theoretical for you. Go short the market or something.
That's Hondo Fucking Stupid.
If you made the producers compete for the business, and allow the market to control costs, the savings are unfathomable.
It's really that simple.
What do you think the cost savings would be if we got profit out of the equation, ended paying for insurance, and ended the whole medical billing practice?
Think about it.
The rosiest of estimates that I've read put savings at 10% for administration (that's putting it at what Medicare's admin costs are which don't capture all government overhead minus the difference from private sector).
The only other two major savings would be from economies of scale and from the government's ability to negotiate rates with providers. Both of those things are full of pitfalls as any government contractor can tell you. Show me one industry where the government remotely captures these efficiencies and I can give you 20 where they don't.
ALL OF THIS would still leave us as #1 in costs for health care by a wide margin even by the most polyana estimates. Call me skeptical that we'd launch far ahead in health outcomes. There's little evidence that care or services would markedly improve.
Somewhat related: The dems had a golden opportunity to simply tax people that didn't buy insurance and give a tax break for those that do. They fucked it all up by calling it a mandate bc they can't get out of their own way and bc they are pussies and didn't want to call a tax a tax. Universal care could have been achieved through simple financial tax incentives while allowing people freedom in an open market. We do it in housing and 10,000 other circumstances so why not health insurance? < super libertarian opinion right? -
Opposing? I’ll let you know. All I see is tequila-esque posts of meaningless dense text.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I have a longform post from another forum that I'll dig up that is a "free market" based approach to universal care. I'll try to post it this week if I can find it. You're welcome to criticize it.CirrhosisDawg said:UW_Doog_Bot said:I heart the clean air and water act for one example. I'm also not at all opposed to transfers and social programs that work efficiently or manage to avoid significant negative externalities.
It's shocking! Shocking that someone with a degree in economics would argue for free market solutions! Nevermind my professional experiences...
Your post still had no substance other than to attack me(and not any of what I had to actually say). Lmk when you've got higher level policy to discuss. Still waiting for more than hand waving about Europe and Medicare.
You’ve proved you read the text book and showed up to Kane for the test. Still waiting for you to advocate a policy based on your extensive experience analyzing efficiencies, and externalities — not to mention your professional experiences...
You are full of shit.
Still haven't heard anything other than an attack out of you. You seem angry that people have an opposing view. -
Another attack, good. Still waiting for anything with depth as to why a socialized medical system would be more efficient and result in better health outcomes.CirrhosisDawg said:
Opposing? I’ll let you know. All I see is tequila-esque posts of meaningless dense text.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I have a longform post from another forum that I'll dig up that is a "free market" based approach to universal care. I'll try to post it this week if I can find it. You're welcome to criticize it.CirrhosisDawg said:UW_Doog_Bot said:I heart the clean air and water act for one example. I'm also not at all opposed to transfers and social programs that work efficiently or manage to avoid significant negative externalities.
It's shocking! Shocking that someone with a degree in economics would argue for free market solutions! Nevermind my professional experiences...
Your post still had no substance other than to attack me(and not any of what I had to actually say). Lmk when you've got higher level policy to discuss. Still waiting for more than hand waving about Europe and Medicare.
You’ve proved you read the text book and showed up to Kane for the test. Still waiting for you to advocate a policy based on your extensive experience analyzing efficiencies, and externalities — not to mention your professional experiences...
You are full of shit.
Still haven't heard anything other than an attack out of you. You seem angry that people have an opposing view.
I guess you prefer shorthand talking points?
I would try to be more concise but I'm playing to a new and mixed audience. I'd hate to be pigeonholed and dismissed for views I don't even hold.
-
For those that actually want to read beyond $32 trillion.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me. -
Vox, an extremely reliable, non-partisan website that isn't filled with despicable fake news hacks.2001400ex said:For those that actually want to read beyond $32 trillion.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me. -
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.2001400ex said:For those that actually want to read beyond $32 trillion.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
From the article
“Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat. -
Keep waiting Milton. In the meantime, why don’t you entertain yourself by reading your Principles of Econ 101 textbook. No need to keep posting it here. They are not really “your” views and no one cares anyway.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Another attack, good. Still waiting for anything with depth as to why a socialized medical system would be more efficient and result in better health outcomes.CirrhosisDawg said:
Opposing? I’ll let you know. All I see is tequila-esque posts of meaningless dense text.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I have a longform post from another forum that I'll dig up that is a "free market" based approach to universal care. I'll try to post it this week if I can find it. You're welcome to criticize it.CirrhosisDawg said:UW_Doog_Bot said:I heart the clean air and water act for one example. I'm also not at all opposed to transfers and social programs that work efficiently or manage to avoid significant negative externalities.
It's shocking! Shocking that someone with a degree in economics would argue for free market solutions! Nevermind my professional experiences...
Your post still had no substance other than to attack me(and not any of what I had to actually say). Lmk when you've got higher level policy to discuss. Still waiting for more than hand waving about Europe and Medicare.
You’ve proved you read the text book and showed up to Kane for the test. Still waiting for you to advocate a policy based on your extensive experience analyzing efficiencies, and externalities — not to mention your professional experiences...
You are full of shit.
Still haven't heard anything other than an attack out of you. You seem angry that people have an opposing view.
I guess you prefer shorthand talking points?
I would try to be more concise but I'm playing to a new and mixed audience. I'd hate to be pigeonholed and dismissed for views I don't even hold. -
OBK prefers his news source to only tell half the story.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Vox, an extremely reliable, non-partisan website that isn't filled with despicable fake news hacks.2001400ex said:For those that actually want to read beyond $32 trillion.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
How about you refute the information in the article. -
What are “your” views? You just say Bot is basic and posts things from Econ 101, what’s your orginal plan? You don’t actually debate his points. Just call names and try to be clever with insults to look cool here with the Hondo crowd. I might even suggest you’re a Hondo minion.CirrhosisDawg said:
Keep waiting Milton. In the meantime, why don’t you entertain yourself by reading your Principles of Econ 101 textbook. No need to keep posting it here. They are not really “your” views and no one cares anyway.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Another attack, good. Still waiting for anything with depth as to why a socialized medical system would be more efficient and result in better health outcomes.CirrhosisDawg said:
Opposing? I’ll let you know. All I see is tequila-esque posts of meaningless dense text.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I have a longform post from another forum that I'll dig up that is a "free market" based approach to universal care. I'll try to post it this week if I can find it. You're welcome to criticize it.CirrhosisDawg said:UW_Doog_Bot said:I heart the clean air and water act for one example. I'm also not at all opposed to transfers and social programs that work efficiently or manage to avoid significant negative externalities.
It's shocking! Shocking that someone with a degree in economics would argue for free market solutions! Nevermind my professional experiences...
Your post still had no substance other than to attack me(and not any of what I had to actually say). Lmk when you've got higher level policy to discuss. Still waiting for more than hand waving about Europe and Medicare.
You’ve proved you read the text book and showed up to Kane for the test. Still waiting for you to advocate a policy based on your extensive experience analyzing efficiencies, and externalities — not to mention your professional experiences...
You are full of shit.
Still haven't heard anything other than an attack out of you. You seem angry that people have an opposing view.
I guess you prefer shorthand talking points?
I would try to be more concise but I'm playing to a new and mixed audience. I'd hate to be pigeonholed and dismissed for views I don't even hold. -
Even Hondo has more to contribute.CirrhosisDawg said:
Keep waiting Milton. In the meantime, why don’t you entertain yourself by reading your Principles of Econ 101 textbook. No need to keep posting it here. They are not really “your” views and no one cares anyway.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Another attack, good. Still waiting for anything with depth as to why a socialized medical system would be more efficient and result in better health outcomes.CirrhosisDawg said:
Opposing? I’ll let you know. All I see is tequila-esque posts of meaningless dense text.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I have a longform post from another forum that I'll dig up that is a "free market" based approach to universal care. I'll try to post it this week if I can find it. You're welcome to criticize it.CirrhosisDawg said:UW_Doog_Bot said:I heart the clean air and water act for one example. I'm also not at all opposed to transfers and social programs that work efficiently or manage to avoid significant negative externalities.
It's shocking! Shocking that someone with a degree in economics would argue for free market solutions! Nevermind my professional experiences...
Your post still had no substance other than to attack me(and not any of what I had to actually say). Lmk when you've got higher level policy to discuss. Still waiting for more than hand waving about Europe and Medicare.
You’ve proved you read the text book and showed up to Kane for the test. Still waiting for you to advocate a policy based on your extensive experience analyzing efficiencies, and externalities — not to mention your professional experiences...
You are full of shit.
Still haven't heard anything other than an attack out of you. You seem angry that people have an opposing view.
I guess you prefer shorthand talking points?
I would try to be more concise but I'm playing to a new and mixed audience. I'd hate to be pigeonholed and dismissed for views I don't even hold.
I'll be sure to put trigger warnings up for you when advocating for free markets. Hayek references might make you take the gloves off. We all wouldn't want to see that I have no doubt. -
This god damn Econ 101
-
If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, by golly, it is a rat.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Please provide a policy that posits more than statism as a solution and I'll happily give you more than a libertarian answer. You guys are just a bunch of tired socialist platitudes about helping the poor, equality, etc.allpurpleallgold said:
I should have noticed the libertarian retardation in your first post. My mistake.UW_Doog_Bot said:
You think it's corruption I'm pointing to? Lol. It's not corruption. It's inefficiency. As ever the statists will repeat, "The state would solve it all if we just got the right people in there." Socialism won't ever be efficient in the world as we know it. It's purely a matter of overhead even without the considerations for corruption and shrinkage.allpurpleallgold said:I really enjoy the patriots that want to make America great again telling me that America isn’t capable of having quality healthcare. Every country in the world with universal healthcare spends less than we do now but our costs will go up because they think America sucks so bad.
You allowing and defending corruption all so you can throw your hands up and cry about how inefficient government is doesn’t fool anyone with a brain.
Government of the people, by the people, for the people. The government isn’t it’s own thing, it’s us. If we want better all we have to do is do better.
I also don't really buy the metrics that people like to repeat as talking points about being first in spending and 37th in healthcare as reflecting our healthcare system being "broken".
Rich nations spend more on healthcare. Unhealthy nations spend more on healthcare and have poorer health overall. We are leaders in both of these categories. Of course we are going to rank high in spending and low on overall health.
I think we have had and can again have the best healthcare in the world using free markets as opposed to government planned markets. Government is part of the problem with our healthcare. Not the solution.
Do you want to talk about how to minimize administration costs or how to reform medical collections to incentivize insurance companies to pay bills properly instead of trying to forego payments?
Do you want to talk about how to deal with an aging population with expanding entitlements and how to maintain solvency of our existing programs?
Or maybe you want to actually discuss what a single payer looks like, how to pay for it, and how exactly it will affect the open market for healthcare services?
Nah, you don't want any of that because that would actually take effort instead of hand waving at Europe while never mincing out the complexity of the issue.
p.s. Not a libertarian, pigeon hole me if it makes you feel better. -
I'm pretty sure people's health determines their consumption and it's mostly not voluntary. Does anyone decide to get cancer or remove a gall bladder?UW_Doog_Bot said:
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.2001400ex said:For those that actually want to read beyond $32 trillion.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
From the article
“Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat.
That being said, there are sometimes where there's a choice. Has anyone found an insurance company decide on the most expensive option even tho it's the most practical? No they force you to the cheaper option. -
I’ll post “my” views in long post form. Like the bot does. It’s sonewhere here in the tug over the last few weeks. Hayek. Friedman. Burke. It’s a classic!MikeDamone said:
What are “your” views? You just say Bot is basic and posts things from Econ 101, what’s your orginal plan? You don’t actually debate his points. Just call names and try to be clever with insults to look cool here with the Hondo crowd. I might even suggest you’re a Hondo minion.CirrhosisDawg said:
Keep waiting Milton. In the meantime, why don’t you entertain yourself by reading your Principles of Econ 101 textbook. No need to keep posting it here. They are not really “your” views and no one cares anyway.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Another attack, good. Still waiting for anything with depth as to why a socialized medical system would be more efficient and result in better health outcomes.CirrhosisDawg said:
Opposing? I’ll let you know. All I see is tequila-esque posts of meaningless dense text.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I have a longform post from another forum that I'll dig up that is a "free market" based approach to universal care. I'll try to post it this week if I can find it. You're welcome to criticize it.CirrhosisDawg said:UW_Doog_Bot said:I heart the clean air and water act for one example. I'm also not at all opposed to transfers and social programs that work efficiently or manage to avoid significant negative externalities.
It's shocking! Shocking that someone with a degree in economics would argue for free market solutions! Nevermind my professional experiences...
Your post still had no substance other than to attack me(and not any of what I had to actually say). Lmk when you've got higher level policy to discuss. Still waiting for more than hand waving about Europe and Medicare.
You’ve proved you read the text book and showed up to Kane for the test. Still waiting for you to advocate a policy based on your extensive experience analyzing efficiencies, and externalities — not to mention your professional experiences...
You are full of shit.
Still haven't heard anything other than an attack out of you. You seem angry that people have an opposing view.
I guess you prefer shorthand talking points?
I would try to be more concise but I'm playing to a new and mixed audience. I'd hate to be pigeonholed and dismissed for views I don't even hold. -
Cool. Let’s see it. Can’t wait.CirrhosisDawg said:
I’ll post “my” views in long post form. Like the bot does. It’s sonewhere here in the tug over the last few weeks. Hayek. Friedman. Burke. It’s a classic!MikeDamone said:
What are “your” views? You just say Bot is basic and posts things from Econ 101, what’s your orginal plan? You don’t actually debate his points. Just call names and try to be clever with insults to look cool here with the Hondo crowd. I might even suggest you’re a Hondo minion.CirrhosisDawg said:
Keep waiting Milton. In the meantime, why don’t you entertain yourself by reading your Principles of Econ 101 textbook. No need to keep posting it here. They are not really “your” views and no one cares anyway.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Another attack, good. Still waiting for anything with depth as to why a socialized medical system would be more efficient and result in better health outcomes.CirrhosisDawg said:
Opposing? I’ll let you know. All I see is tequila-esque posts of meaningless dense text.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I have a longform post from another forum that I'll dig up that is a "free market" based approach to universal care. I'll try to post it this week if I can find it. You're welcome to criticize it.CirrhosisDawg said:UW_Doog_Bot said:I heart the clean air and water act for one example. I'm also not at all opposed to transfers and social programs that work efficiently or manage to avoid significant negative externalities.
It's shocking! Shocking that someone with a degree in economics would argue for free market solutions! Nevermind my professional experiences...
Your post still had no substance other than to attack me(and not any of what I had to actually say). Lmk when you've got higher level policy to discuss. Still waiting for more than hand waving about Europe and Medicare.
You’ve proved you read the text book and showed up to Kane for the test. Still waiting for you to advocate a policy based on your extensive experience analyzing efficiencies, and externalities — not to mention your professional experiences...
You are full of shit.
Still haven't heard anything other than an attack out of you. You seem angry that people have an opposing view.
I guess you prefer shorthand talking points?
I would try to be more concise but I'm playing to a new and mixed audience. I'd hate to be pigeonholed and dismissed for views I don't even hold. -
I see your point but you'd actually be surprised how variable health care demand can be. It has a high correlation to wealth. Richer people/countries spend exponentially more on health care not necessarily because they are sicker but bc in the end we all die. Rich people can just afford to put off death longer and do so.2001400ex said:
I'm pretty sure people's health determines their consumption and it's mostly not voluntary. Does anyone decide to get cancer or remove a gall bladder?UW_Doog_Bot said:
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.2001400ex said:For those that actually want to read beyond $32 trillion.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
From the article
“Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat.
That being said, there are sometimes where there's a choice. Has anyone found an insurance company decide on the most expensive option even tho it's the most practical? No they force you to the cheaper option. -
If an insurance company chooses the cheaper option people will just stop using them and they’ll go out of business. It’s called the free market, brah. Look it up.2001400ex said:
I'm pretty sure people's health determines their consumption and it's mostly not voluntary. Does anyone decide to get cancer or remove a gall bladder?UW_Doog_Bot said:
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.2001400ex said:For those that actually want to read beyond $32 trillion.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
From the article
“Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat.
That being said, there are sometimes where there's a choice. Has anyone found an insurance company decide on the most expensive option even tho it's the most practical? No they force you to the cheaper option. -
It’s also important to acknowledge what defines a rich country.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I see your point but you'd actually be surprised how variable health care demand can be. It has a high correlation to wealth. Richer people/countries spend exponentially more on health care not necessarily because they are sicker but bc in the end we all die. Rich people can just afford to put off death longer and do so.2001400ex said:
I'm pretty sure people's health determines their consumption and it's mostly not voluntary. Does anyone decide to get cancer or remove a gall bladder?UW_Doog_Bot said:
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.2001400ex said:For those that actually want to read beyond $32 trillion.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
From the article
“Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat.
That being said, there are sometimes where there's a choice. Has anyone found an insurance company decide on the most expensive option even tho it's the most practical? No they force you to the cheaper option. -
Replying to your own alt account. That’s a bold strategy, Cotton.MikeDamone said:
It’s also important to acknowledge what defines a rich country.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I see your point but you'd actually be surprised how variable health care demand can be. It has a high correlation to wealth. Richer people/countries spend exponentially more on health care not necessarily because they are sicker but bc in the end we all die. Rich people can just afford to put off death longer and do so.2001400ex said:
I'm pretty sure people's health determines their consumption and it's mostly not voluntary. Does anyone decide to get cancer or remove a gall bladder?UW_Doog_Bot said:
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.2001400ex said:For those that actually want to read beyond $32 trillion.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
From the article
“Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat.
That being said, there are sometimes where there's a choice. Has anyone found an insurance company decide on the most expensive option even tho it's the most practical? No they force you to the cheaper option. -
I don’t have an alt. @DerekJohnson please verify this.allpurpleallgold said:
Replying to your own alt account. That’s a bold strategy, Cotton.MikeDamone said:
It’s also important to acknowledge what defines a rich country.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I see your point but you'd actually be surprised how variable health care demand can be. It has a high correlation to wealth. Richer people/countries spend exponentially more on health care not necessarily because they are sicker but bc in the end we all die. Rich people can just afford to put off death longer and do so.2001400ex said:
I'm pretty sure people's health determines their consumption and it's mostly not voluntary. Does anyone decide to get cancer or remove a gall bladder?UW_Doog_Bot said:
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.2001400ex said:For those that actually want to read beyond $32 trillion.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
From the article
“Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat.
That being said, there are sometimes where there's a choice. Has anyone found an insurance company decide on the most expensive option even tho it's the most practical? No they force you to the cheaper option.
Edit: I had a well known alt. I forgot the password. You know what it was. -
Far better to pile on with a bunch of useful idiots right?allpurpleallgold said:
Replying to your own alt account. That’s a bold strategy, Cotton.MikeDamone said:
It’s also important to acknowledge what defines a rich country.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I see your point but you'd actually be surprised how variable health care demand can be. It has a high correlation to wealth. Richer people/countries spend exponentially more on health care not necessarily because they are sicker but bc in the end we all die. Rich people can just afford to put off death longer and do so.2001400ex said:
I'm pretty sure people's health determines their consumption and it's mostly not voluntary. Does anyone decide to get cancer or remove a gall bladder?UW_Doog_Bot said:
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.2001400ex said:For those that actually want to read beyond $32 trillion.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
From the article
“Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat.
That being said, there are sometimes where there's a choice. Has anyone found an insurance company decide on the most expensive option even tho it's the most practical? No they force you to the cheaper option. -
That I agree with. One reason our health costs have exploded is actually the result of better medical care. Better care means people live longer and this require more medical care. And as Americans we spend a lot of money caring for people that are in a vegetative state or close to it. People get on the government teet at 65 for medical and can live on that for 20-30 years with exponentially higher costs. While producing nothing and not paying for much of the expense. (Tho you could argue they paid into the system for 40 years and that covers the cost).UW_Doog_Bot said:
I see your point but you'd actually be surprised how variable health care demand can be. It has a high correlation to wealth. Richer people/countries spend exponentially more on health care not necessarily because they are sicker but bc in the end we all die. Rich people can just afford to put off death longer and do so.2001400ex said:
I'm pretty sure people's health determines their consumption and it's mostly not voluntary. Does anyone decide to get cancer or remove a gall bladder?UW_Doog_Bot said:
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.2001400ex said:For those that actually want to read beyond $32 trillion.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
From the article
“Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat.
That being said, there are sometimes where there's a choice. Has anyone found an insurance company decide on the most expensive option even tho it's the most practical? No they force you to the cheaper option. -
Your denial includes an admission that your denial is a lie. Welcome to Trump’s America.MikeDamone said:
I don’t have an alt. @DerekJohnson please verify this.allpurpleallgold said:
Replying to your own alt account. That’s a bold strategy, Cotton.MikeDamone said:
It’s also important to acknowledge what defines a rich country.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I see your point but you'd actually be surprised how variable health care demand can be. It has a high correlation to wealth. Richer people/countries spend exponentially more on health care not necessarily because they are sicker but bc in the end we all die. Rich people can just afford to put off death longer and do so.2001400ex said:
I'm pretty sure people's health determines their consumption and it's mostly not voluntary. Does anyone decide to get cancer or remove a gall bladder?UW_Doog_Bot said:
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.2001400ex said:For those that actually want to read beyond $32 trillion.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
From the article
“Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat.
That being said, there are sometimes where there's a choice. Has anyone found an insurance company decide on the most expensive option even tho it's the most practical? No they force you to the cheaper option.
Edit: I had a well known alt. I forgot the password. You know what it was. -
A huge chunk of skyrocketing spending is also Medicaid and medicare which people tend to conflate into total spending while blaming the private sector for increasing costs.2001400ex said:
That I agree with. One reason our health costs have exploded is actually the result of better medical care. Better care means people live longer and this require more medical care. And as Americans we spend a lot of money caring for people that are in a vegetative state or close to it. People get on the government teet at 65 for medical and can live on that for 20-30 years with exponentially higher costs. While producing nothing and not paying for much of the expense. (Tho you could argue they paid into the system for 40 years and that covers the cost).UW_Doog_Bot said:
I see your point but you'd actually be surprised how variable health care demand can be. It has a high correlation to wealth. Richer people/countries spend exponentially more on health care not necessarily because they are sicker but bc in the end we all die. Rich people can just afford to put off death longer and do so.2001400ex said:
I'm pretty sure people's health determines their consumption and it's mostly not voluntary. Does anyone decide to get cancer or remove a gall bladder?UW_Doog_Bot said:
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.2001400ex said:For those that actually want to read beyond $32 trillion.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
From the article
“Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat.
That being said, there are sometimes where there's a choice. Has anyone found an insurance company decide on the most expensive option even tho it's the most practical? No they force you to the cheaper option.
Crowding out is also real. Lots of parallels in education, housing, etc. Markets.
