The Hondo plan
Comments
-
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.
