The Well-Mannered Politics Thread

[Somerset Ravens]

When my party wins Congress back in 2018 and the White House in 2020 it'll happen, as they've intended before.

As I've said before, one party has pledged to be sensible and helpful by funding the risk corridors, and one party has been an obstructionist and sent premiums flying. I'll let y'all decide which party's doing the right thing.

The Democrats should have a shot in 2018 and 2020. Sadly I do not share your optimism about your party, I don't think either party is worth a hoot.

Funding the risk corridors would help keep premiums more stable. Don't you feel it would have been more appropriate to develop a plan to control costs as opposed to paying off the health insurance companies?

 

[The Raven]

The Democrats should have a shot in 2018 and 2020. Sadly I do not share your optimism about your party, I don't think either party is worth a hoot.

Funding the risk corridors would help keep premiums more stable. Don't you feel it would have been more appropriate to develop a plan to control costs as opposed to paying off the health insurance companies?

Actually, Senator Ben Cardin, right here in the great state of Maryland, has introduced a bill to do just that, but it's going nowhere. As I understand it, his bill goes had after big Pharma as one of the culprits for criminally high health insurance costs.

As for the risk corridors, it was the Democrats who came up with the idea, so I think they'd want to fund it.

There are three big ways to cut cost in the world of healthcare and insurance:

1. Cut administrative costs. This is the advantage of single payer. Medicare/medicaid have less overhead costs associated with them than insurance providers. Fewer administrative costs means more money actually going to care and not overhead costs. Remarkably, the government is actually more efficient than the private sector when it comes to health care. Imagine that.

2. Improve maintenance of care. More frequent "maintenance" care is less costly than emergency care, but it's cost-prohibitive for the poor, who are also more likely to need care. Improve access, spend less money.

3. Get everybody on insurance. When everybody is on insurance, the cost goes down because healthy people pay into it. Does it suck for the healthy people? Sure it does, but everybody needs healthcare and and it's the best way of balancing the moral need for universal coverage and the costs associated with it. We're all required to have car insurance. Most renters are required to have renter's insurance. Why doesn't the GOP want to require health insurance?

 

[Somerset Ravens]

Actually, Senator Ben Cardin, right here in the great state of Maryland, has introduced a bill to do just that, but it's going nowhere. As I understand it, his bill goes had after big Pharma as one of the culprits for criminally high health insurance costs.

As for the risk corridors, it was the Democrats who came up with the idea, so I think they'd want to fund it.

There are three big ways to cut cost in the world of healthcare and insurance:

1. Cut administrative costs. This is the advantage of single payer. Medicare/medicaid have less overhead costs associated with them than insurance providers. Fewer administrative costs means more money actually going to care and not overhead costs. Remarkably, the government is actually more efficient than the private sector when it comes to health care. Imagine that.

2. Improve maintenance of care. More frequent "maintenance" care is less costly than emergency care, but it's cost-prohibitive for the poor, who are also more likely to need care. Improve access, spend less money.

3. Get everybody on insurance. When everybody is on insurance, the cost goes down because healthy people pay into it. Does it suck for the healthy people? Sure it does, but everybody needs healthcare and and it's the best way of balancing the moral need for universal coverage and the costs associated with it. We're all required to have car insurance. Most renters are required to have renter's insurance. Why doesn't the GOP want to require health insurance?

You certainly have more faith in Ben Cardin than I do. He talks a good game but rarely delivers.

I agree administrative costs can always be reduced but that is 20% of the total cost at most. It is the 80% that goes to the healthcare providers that really needs to be addressed. Have you looked at the waste and fraud rates in Medicare and Medicaid? How do you figure the government is more efficient than the private sector when it comes to health care?

You are certainly correct about maintenance/preventative health care. This pays for itself many times over in the long run.
The company I retired from held a health fair every year. The did various screenings and provided educational presentations. Several people found health issues that they needed to deal with.They also provided employees incentives to maintain a healthy lifestyle. After a few years I feel it helped lower our claim history, but that is difficult to measure.

 

[The Raven]

You certainly have more faith in Ben Cardin than I do. He talks a good game but rarely delivers.

I agree administrative costs can always be reduced but that is 20% of the total cost at most. It is the 80% that goes to the healthcare providers that really needs to be addressed. Have you looked at the waste and fraud rates in Medicare and Medicaid? How do you figure the government is more efficient than the private sector when it comes to health care?

You are certainly correct about maintenance/preventative health care. This pays for itself many times over in the long run.
The company I retired from held a health fair every year. The did various screenings and provided educational presentations. Several people found health issues that they needed to deal with.They also provided employees incentives to maintain a healthy lifestyle. After a few years I feel it helped lower our claim history, but that is difficult to measure.

He's done more than Andy Harris, an actual doctor. That asshole hasn't done shit to help his district.

Medicare costs have increased at a slower pace than the private sector. Also, per the link I shared, Medicare's administrative cost is about 2 percent of operating expenditures -- that number includes fraud costs -- compared to as much as 17 in the private sector.

 

[Somerset Ravens]

He's done more than Andy Harris, an actual doctor. That asshole hasn't done shit to help his district.

Medicare costs have increased at a slower pace than the private sector. Also, per the link I shared, Medicare's administrative cost is about 2 percent of operating expenditures -- that number includes fraud costs -- compared to as much as 17 in the private sector.

Honestly I think the numbers in your link are bogus. It would be interesting to know what they consider administrative cost. Obviously improper payments are not included in that number.

In May,2016 the GAO issued a report on Medicare. In that report they state in fiscal year 2015 Medicare paid $568.9 billion for health care and related services. CMS estimates $59.6 billion ( about 10.5% ) of that total was paid improperly.
The link for that report is www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-703T

In my thinking all Medicare costs incurred that are not paid to health care providers for proper claim are administrative costs.
That 2% figure seems very questionable at best.


I really cannot anything good about Andy Harris other than he will respond to constituents. I have reached out to Senator Cardin over a dozen times and never once received a response.

 

[Ice Bowl]

I see Eminem is still trying to start a fight with our President lol.

 

[RavensMania]

I see Eminem is still trying to start a fight with our President lol.

Lol, btw don’t forget to start your thread a little later....

 

[Dom McRaven]

I see Eminem is still trying to start a fight with our President lol.

Eminem is washed as an artist and is unfortunate because I'm a big fan of his music sans Revival.

 

[arnie_uk]

The uk has free healthcare. Its not perfect but its available to everyone free. We also have private schemes for those that want to pay.

The benefits is effectively a queue skip

 

[The Raven]

Anyone consider the economic benefit to singlepayer healthcare? Businesses won't have to offer healthcare, which would be a boon for small businesses with tight margins. Could result in higher wages and would definitely create more disposable income -- and therefore more economic growth. Single payer means one less burdensome expense on mom and pop shops.

 

[Somerset Ravens]

Anyone consider the economic benefit to singlepayer healthcare? Businesses won't have to offer healthcare, which would be a boon for small businesses with tight margins. Could result in higher wages and would definitely create more disposable income -- and therefore more economic growth. Single payer means one less burdensome expense on mom and pop shops.

How would you propose singlepayer healthcare be paid for?

 

[The Raven]

How would you propose singlepayer healthcare be paid for?

My man Bernie has a somewhat reasonable plan laid out. It's not perfect but as you can see, it's estimated to save money for families and businesses. Yes, it's expensive, but think of how much you won't be spending. You're saving money this way.

"While, depending on your income, your taxes may go up to pay for this publicly funded program, that expense will be more than offset by the money you are saving by the elimination of private insurance costs," he's said on the bill.

My only reservation about singlepayer is how it impacts the private insurance industry and all the jobs within. Other than that, I see no reason why not to pursue it.

 

[JAAM]

Eminem is washed as an artist and is unfortunate because I'm a big fan of his music sans Revival.

I no longer respect him. These sheep in entertainment just do this shit to stay relevant and be liked. I thought most of them were going to move out of the country for the next four years (hopefully 8), yet they're still here..........

 

[Inqui]

How would you propose singlepayer healthcare be paid for?

It may come as a surprise, but single-payer is actually cheaper than what the US does. It's cheaper per person (inb4 the population excuse gets used again) and the governments that use it (which is basically every developed economy in the world) spend less of their budget and less of their GDPs on healthcare stuff.

That may sound too good to be true, but the intuition's actually fairly simple. Healthy people getting taxed pools the money with those who need it to keep costs down so companies can still make a profit by collecting revenue off everyone instead of internalising the profit only off those who need it. And the government can put in price controls to prevent things like Martin Shkreli buying the patent of a cancer drug and then increasing its price by 5000% as the market incentivises (I'm a believer in the market 9/10 but this is one example of the 1/10) because it's the government doing the negotiating for this stuff. And for those who can afford nothing but the very best, you can still get private insurance and private care.

Here's the OECD expenditure per capita (you'll see Norway's the only country with a higher public expenditure per capita than the US, and with everyone having to buy health insurance you can essentially treat a chunk of that private expenditure as another tax).

http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/health_financing/atlas.html?indicator=i1
Here's a WHO chart showing every country's expenditure on healthcare as a share of government revenue. The US spends 21.3% of its public budget on healthcare, compared to Canada's 18.8%, Germany's 19.7%, Britain's 16.5%, Australia's 17.3% and Sweden's 19%. NZ spends 23.4% of its budget on healthcare but over here basically everything gets covered publicly (for example if you end up in a car crash that leaves you unable to work you get 80% of your salary for something like six months plus things like wheelchairs, amendments to your home and specialist stuff like new cars). These aren't socialist utopias that tax the rich exorbitant amounts and then spend 90% of their budgets on healthcare. They're getting better outcomes for a lower price for everyone.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true
And lastly here's the World Bank on healthcare expenditure as a fraction of GDP (though this is a bit broader). 17.1% of US GDP expenditure is on healthcare and from there it isn't particularly close among the developed economies. Sweden's the next highest spender on 11.9%.

And that's before you get into stuff like infant mortality and maternal mortality (the US levels are similar atm to Pakistan and Turkey), life expectancy and doctors per person.

 

[Dom McRaven]

I no longer respect him. These sheep in entertainment just do this shit to stay relevant and be liked. I thought most of them were going to move out of the country for the next four years (hopefully 8), yet they're still here..........

It's times like these where I can separate the artist/entertainer/etc from the actual person itself. Overall body of work, I will always be a fan of his. Pertaining to his other shit, I literally don't care what he or anyone thinks.

Speaking of which, I always wondered why these celebrities say they're gonna move out of the country like it's gonna be the end of the world and they still haven't done shit. I found it hilarious that the immigration website crashed on the night of the election. LOL to those who tried to leave not realizing it's not some easy process to do. Idiots.

 

[Somerset Ravens]

It may come as a surprise, but single-payer is actually cheaper than what the US does. It's cheaper per person (inb4 the population excuse gets used again) and the governments that use it (which is basically every developed economy in the world) spend less of their budget and less of their GDPs on healthcare stuff.

That may sound too good to be true, but the intuition's actually fairly simple. Healthy people getting taxed (and no, it's not an outrageous amount) pools the money with those who need it to keep costs down so companies can still make a profit instead of internalising the profit only off those who need it. And the government can put in price controls to prevent things like Martin Shkreli buying the patent of a cancer drug and then increasing its price by 5000% as the market incentivises (I'm a believer in the market 9/10 but this is one example of the 1/10) because it's the government doing the negotiating for this stuff. And for those who can afford nothing but the very best, you can still get private insurance and private care.

Here's the OECD expenditure per capita (you'll see Norway's the only country with a higher public expenditure per capita than the US, and with everyone having to buy health insurance you can essentially treat a chunk of that private expenditure as another tax).

http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/health_financing/atlas.html?indicator=i1
Here's a WHO chart showing every country's expenditure on healthcare as a share of government revenue. The US spends 21.3% of its public budget on healthcare, compared to Canada's 18.8%, Germany's 19.7%, Britain's 16.5%, Australia's 17.3% and Sweden's 19%. NZ spends 23.4% of its budget on healthcare but over here basically everything gets covered publicly (for example if you end up in a car crash that leaves you unable to work you get 80% of your salary for something like six months plus things like wheelchairs, amendments to your home and specialist stuff like new cars). These aren't socialist utopias that tax the rich exorbitant amounts and then spend 90% of their budgets on healthcare. They're getting better outcomes for a lower price for everyone.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true
And lastly here's the World Bank on healthcare expenditure as a fraction of GDP (though this is a bit broader). 17.1% of US GDP expenditure is on healthcare and from there it isn't particularly close among the developed economies. Sweden's the next highest spender on 11.9%.

And that's before you get into stuff like infant mortality and maternal mortality (the US levels are similar atm to Pakistan and Turkey), life expectancy and doctors per person.

It is certainly no surprise that the US pays more for healthcare. I know health insurers take plenty of blame for this but the major culprits are the healthcare providers. Your graph of cost per capital by country is very telling. I wonder if there is any difference in the quality of care by country to see if you are comparing apples to apples.

The problem in the US would be getting healthcare providers to take less for services they render. The healthcare industries pay plenty on lobbyists to protect their interests.

If a single-payer system is administered using a pay and chase methodology it will be susceptible to high fraud rates like Medicare and Medicaid. In theory the single-payer system sounds good but I doubt the US government has the fortitude to make it work here in the US.

 

[29BmoreBird22]

I hate how people act like celebrities cannot have a political view. Like they aren't a citizen or something.

 

[rossihunter2]

I hate how people act like celebrities cannot have a political view. Like they aren't a citizen or something.

Yep it’s a pet peeve of mine - like somehow they get famous and their opinion becomes invalid when “ordinary” people are allowed to cite an unevidenced opinion whenever they want with very little repercussion

All types of celebrity too: music, film/tv, sport - somehow being good at something makes their opinion less valuable and unnecessary to some people

 

[rossihunter2]

It is certainly no surprise that the US pays more for healthcare. I know health insurers take plenty of blame for this but the major culprits are the healthcare providers. Your graph of cost per capital by country is very telling. I wonder if there is any difference in the quality of care by country to see if you are comparing apples to apples.

The problem in the US would be getting healthcare providers to take less for services they render. The healthcare industries pay plenty on lobbyists to protect their interests.

If a single-payer system is administered using a pay and chase methodology it will be susceptible to high fraud rates like Medicare and Medicaid. In theory the single-payer system sounds good but I doubt the US government has the fortitude to make it work here in the US.

Then they should be held accountable for a healthcare system that is evidently broken if they won’t change it to something better and more usable and more affordable...

And in terms of healthcare quality I can’t talk about other countries but the NHS and our healthcare despite now being underfunded by a conservative government is a major export for us because of its high quality and efficiency despite being hindered by a government that wants to cut funding (in the last couple of years we had healthcare providers on strike for the first time in a long time with almost universal support from the general public)

And yet we still are “world renowned” for our healthcare

 

[Willbacker]

It is certainly no surprise that the US pays more for healthcare. I know health insurers take plenty of blame for this but the major culprits are the healthcare providers. Your graph of cost per capital by country is very telling. I wonder if there is any difference in the quality of care by country to see if you are comparing apples to apples.

The problem in the US would be getting healthcare providers to take less for services they render. The healthcare industries pay plenty on lobbyists to protect their interests.

If a single-payer system is administered using a pay and chase methodology it will be susceptible to high fraud rates like Medicare and Medicaid. In theory the single-payer system sounds good but I doubt the US government has the fortitude to make it work here in the US.

A lot of the best hospitals and best surgeons are located primarily right here in the good ol USA. See if we switch to single payer they would regulate the price that gets paid to hospitals therefore paying doctors less. Also with more people getting more care are we getting more doctors or hospitals or med equipment? See what these guys wont tell you is what taxes are gonna be slashed to pay for this cuz all these other countries might not have all the taxes we got like state and local, property, sales and whatever else you can think of and I guess they figger guys like Bernie are also gonna be on the same plan as us "regular people". We know the answer to that. In fact Mr Raven should tell us how well the single payer system worked in Vermont. It failed dramatically in possibly the bluest state in the US and he still wants to run it or better yet ask them how great our VA is run. They want to tax corporations more therefore chasing more jobs out the country or the rich. That makes me laugh. Just look at Obamacare and who's paying for the poor to get free treatment. Its the middle class who can "afford" it. Not the rich.

Its pretty amazing to me how people want more govt in their lives and put total blind faith in them. The govt keeps screwing things up so therefore we need more govt intervention. Yep.