Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|4007|London, England
#KeepAmericaGreat
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+350|2368
No. We are using the other thread.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|4007|London, England
Nah its old and dusty
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+286|2101
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/DetentionBedQuota4.png
c. 2014 figures.

but jay thinks the system is working when one man can spunk that sort of money up the wall as pocket change. meanwhile proposing basic free healthcare for hardworking americans is akin to authoritarianism.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|4007|London, England
It is. When has political control of anything ever led to reduced costs in America?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+286|2101
i agree, basic healthcare should be denied in the name of reducing already spiralling costs. we can't be doing with political overlords controlling our lives, can we, jay?

us military budget 2019/2020: $686.1 billion.
uziq
Member
+286|2101
unrelated but has anyone actually ever seen mike pence do or say anything?

the guy has a default pose in EVERY press conference in ANY context, in which he stands basically right behind the speaker, cocks his head, and STARES AT THE BACK OF THEIR HEAD for the entire time. he does this in every single video. his face barely registers any emotion. it's incredible.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,695|4755|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

It is. When has political control of anything ever led to reduced costs in America?
Why would 'reduced costs' be a good thing?
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+286|2101
reducing the state is an end-in-itself, duh. just like perpetual war.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,695|4755|eXtreme to the maX
I suppose it would be good if wars could be cheaper, then we could have more of them.
Epstein didn't kill himself
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,861|5281|949

Jay wrote:

It is. When has political control of anything ever led to reduced costs in America?
a single payer healthcare system would reduce costs because of the increased bargaining power and the spread of risk across the whole population. It would be a competitor to private healthcare. It ticks all your ideological fetishes, but you argue against it.

Capital control leads to increased costs too. Increasing competition is a main driver of cost reduction in business. Concentration of power is bad, no matter public or private.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,808|5420|USA

Should I change the title of this thread to "Trump 2020." That's about as much thought as OP put into it.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|4007|London, England

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Should I change the title of this thread to "Trump 2020." That's about as much thought as OP put into it.
I figured that you of all people would appreciate a thread that is talking about the correct election
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|4007|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

It is. When has political control of anything ever led to reduced costs in America?
a single payer healthcare system would reduce costs because of the increased bargaining power and the spread of risk across the whole population. It would be a competitor to private healthcare. It ticks all your ideological fetishes, but you argue against it.

Capital control leads to increased costs too. Increasing competition is a main driver of cost reduction in business. Concentration of power is bad, no matter public or private.
How would it reduce costs? By refusing to pay for things? Because that's what medicaid does and there are a lot of places that don't accept medicaid because of it. Medicare doesn't, and if you ever go to Florida you'll see just about as many doctors as residents (feels like it, anyway), feeding off those geezer pill poppers. Yes, I am being hyperbolic to some degree. But this is America, you go and set up a single payer system and what you're really setting up is a cash cow for the political campaigns of all the people in Congress. Every hospital will have its own army of lobbyists asking for special consideration etc.

How do you keep costs down? The one thing that is always floated is efficiencies in administration. Ok, I can buy that right up until the point you realize that the newly formed agency will be staffed with an army of union government bureaucrats making six figure salaries with ironclad benefits packages and pensions and, this is key, no incentive to work efficiently. I don't begrudge people being paid well. I begrudge them being paid well to work poorly, which is inevitable within any government bureaucracy.

No one has proposed a NHS system here. No one is talking about seizing the hospitals and forcing every doctor into the civil service wage scales. No one is going to set up "death panels" that will cut costs. I'm not saying that any of these things are preferable to what has been proposed, but if the goal were to reduce costs, these are the steps that would need to be taken.

In the end, you're transferring the premiums that I and my employer pay into a tax by the government and I have to go through a government bureaucracy instead of a private one. In what way does this benefit anyone but the Democratic Party who gain a new set of reliable union government worker voters? I'll more than likely end up paying more for something I already have, is already frustrating to deal with, and will not be made less so by government control.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,808|5420|USA

Jay wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Should I change the title of this thread to "Trump 2020." That's about as much thought as OP put into it.
I figured that you of all people would appreciate a thread that is talking about the correct election
Rooting for 10 more years of EE Chat 2019.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|4007|London, England

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Jay wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Should I change the title of this thread to "Trump 2020." That's about as much thought as OP put into it.
I figured that you of all people would appreciate a thread that is talking about the correct election
Rooting for 10 more years of EE Chat 2019.
Might hit 35 pages!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+740|5333|United States of America
I'm sure you could badly create a single payer system that is somehow worse than the inefficient and wasteful system we already have. That's probably why you shouldn't cater to special interests when legislating it. You think there's a good, logical reason that you can pay $10 for a single Halls cough drop in our healthcare system now? Services aren't based on what they cost, but what the insurance will pay for. Unsurprisingly, it's a tall order, but the status quo is unsustainable and people are already dying because of it.

Again, if it's not awfully implemented, there is no way you should be paying more than you already do. With the individual mandate, it offsets the risks of providing care to sicker individuals with healthy people who likely won't need it. You know, how every other insurance works. It's why we should have competent professionals in government to do a job the people want.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|4007|London, England

DesertFox- wrote:

I'm sure you could badly create a single payer system that is somehow worse than the inefficient and wasteful system we already have. That's probably why you shouldn't cater to special interests when legislating it. You think there's a good, logical reason that you can pay $10 for a single Halls cough drop in our healthcare system now? Services aren't based on what they cost, but what the insurance will pay for. Unsurprisingly, it's a tall order, but the status quo is unsustainable and people are already dying because of it.

Again, if it's not awfully implemented, there is no way you should be paying more than you already do. With the individual mandate, it offsets the risks of providing care to sicker individuals with healthy people who likely won't need it. You know, how every other insurance works. It's why we should have competent professionals in government to do a job the people want.
Trust me, I'm well aware that the current system sucks. I went to the emergency room in November and got hit with a $2000 bill. My insurance will eventually cover it, but the price is nuts for 3 hours in an ER.

I wish I could find the article now, but someone wrote a pretty fantastic history of the medical billing system. Basically, doctors used to charge random numbers and insurance companies had their own numbers. They'd meet in the middle. Then Medicare published a rate schedule and everyone uses that now. So no, costs wouldn't go down because everyone is already using the government rate schedule.

An additional byproduct to the transparent rates is that a new industry sprang up to maximize medical billing. What should've been a good thing led directly to our spiraling medical costs, because these billing manipulations have been the primary driver of our skyrocketing costs.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+286|2101
imagine spending $2,000 for 3 hours in an ER, and still defending the system as if every other developed country in the world hasn’t managed to devise one that doesn’t cost the patient fucking $2,000 for 3 hours in a goddamned ER.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|4007|London, England

uziq wrote:

imagine spending $2,000 for 3 hours in an ER, and still defending the system as if every other developed country in the world hasn’t managed to devise one that doesn’t cost the patient fucking $2,000 for 3 hours in a goddamned ER.
But I'm not going to pay $2000. That's what the bill would be to the insurance company. Insurance would say no I'll pay $1200 and it's done. I will ultimately pay a $50 copay.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+350|2368
How much did you pay in insurance premiums last year?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|4007|London, England
$12,400 but I changed jobs and my premium this year will be $8,000.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+350|2368
How does your insurance from your first job compare to your second? Have you investigated it at all? And don't just say "it's better". Have you looked into the specifics of what would or would not be covered or how more or less wide your network is?

That's a lot of mental work and wondering a universal healthcare system would eliminate. A lot of stress relief too for the most stressed and depressed western nation.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|4007|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

How does your insurance from your first job compare to your second? Have you investigated it at all? And don't just say "it's better". Have you looked into the specifics of what would or would not be covered or how more or less wide your network is?

That's a lot of mental work and wondering a universal healthcare system would eliminate. A lot of stress relief too for the most stressed and depressed western nation.
It's the same plan and network, my new employer just covers more of the cost than my wife's company did.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+350|2368
Hmm I am still skeptical. When I signed my aunt for ACA, the same insurance companies would have different levels of plans: bronze, silver, gold. The ACA website did explain the specific differences in plans. My teacher insurance doesn't have a simple metal classification system. I don't know what I actually have compared to the police, nurse, fire fighter insurance.

That's unacceptable and I would like to see reform in order for us to get a universal classification system. But I assume that it is kept vague so that people like you think you got a good deal when they really knocked you down from silver to bronze.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard