aceluby Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Yeah this conflation of "Fake News" is becoming problematic in multiple directions. No one published these reports as facts. The story was "Intelligence agencies alert Trump to unverified reports". It was a leak that probably shouldn't have been reported, but it wasn't "Fake News". I've been expecting the term to be thrown around loosely for months now. Don't be surprised when those who only get their news from a single biased source to explain away anything that doesn't fit their preconceived notions as 'fake news'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Decent joke, but I don't know if he was even the first person to make it. The point of this is that Jon Favreau has a lot of attractive women following him on twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 I didn't say they are better than their European counterparts. Though European is a bit of a very broad term. There are some surgeries (likesay in utero surgeries or cardio surgeries for infants) that are not broadly available in Europe (or the all over the US). I posted that article a while ago, to make that point, and to show the differences in costs. So apparently there were quite a few countries in between Georgia and Germany unable to perform the surgery on her daughter. So it was possible to have the procedure performed in the US (that's the part with the available top quality and state of the art medicine in the US). The differences in costs (60.000 in Germany versus 1.000.000 in the US) is the other half of the story. Anyway what I wanted to say is this, at the very top you have the very best medical treatment available. And that's something you really can'T deny. The costs are somewhat of a different issue. That has to do with the wages (which has a lot to do with student loans and such), and that law suits (and settlements) are ridiculously high in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 16 minutes ago, larrytheimp said: Who cares? They are literally profiting off the suffering of others if costs are prohibitive because we need to pay a bunch of people to file papers. Over time the money spent on these jobs could be used for more actual medical and support staff to accommodate the new patients that currently go untreated. I bet a bunch of plummers were pissed that new buildings stopped having double the water fountains and bathrooms post-segregation. I know this is an extreme example and I'm not saying people in the health insurance field are bad people, but my concern for someone losing a health insurance job is vastly outshined by a desire to see accessible affordable care for all. And people with a lot of money will probably still have a private plan. Are you saying you are a bad person about whom no one should care if you work for a health insurance company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 13 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said: My reaction to the 'golden shower' thing is very similar to my reaction upon learning that Rex Ryan had a foot fetish. It didn't change change my opinion of him at all, but it was good fodder for decent puns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, Notone said: I think there is a strong case to be made, that overall, countries, like Germany, Switzerland, France, Australia, the UK, Sweden, and so forth do better than we do on a variety of metrics. We may have to give up on a few things. But, if you want to expand coverage and lower cost, something probably has to give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Are you saying you are a bad person about whom no one should care if you work for a health insurance company? Not to speak for Larry, but I highly doubt it (based on, y'know, reading his post?) are you saying a few thousand jobs are more important than poor and sick folks being able to access care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 OGE, People lead long and fulfilling lives with full hearing loss and with blindness. In the single payer model should the State bear the cost of curing deafness or blindness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: That's fake, right? Edit: Obviously fake, Trump doesn't love his family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, r'hllor's dirtbag lobster said: Not to speak for Larry, but I highly doubt it (based on, y'know, reading his post?) are you saying a few thousand jobs are more important than poor and sick folks being able to access care? Nope. Just pointing out those job losses are a drawback to single payer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: OGE, People lead long and fulfilling lives with full hearing loss and with blindness. In the single payer model should the State bear the cost of curing deafness or blindness? Maybe. Scott, you know, I have to just say:1. You want single payer, 2) No Regulations, 3) An extremely high degree of medical innovation, along with probably obtaining lower cost. Good luck making that all work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Nope. Just pointing out those job losses are a drawback to single payer. Well at least those job losses wouldn't mean they would lose their ability to get medical care. So there's that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Oh boy, I am watching the Trump Press Conference on youtube, well more listening to it. That one is really bizarre. Now that's somewhat of a contrast to an Obama Press conference. Anyway, you have to put the axe to the costs (obvious, I know). The question is how to do it. I would argue giving the insurance providers more negotiating power would be one step. (Btw. wasn't there another US health care thread?). Part of the problem is, that it's simply not a perfect market (if there's any such thing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Not if we also enact a robust UBI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 1 minute ago, aceluby said: Well at least those job losses wouldn't mean they would lose their ability to get medical care. So there's that. It is a plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Maybe. Scott, you know, I have to just say:1. You want single payer, 2) No Regulations, 3) An extremely high degree of medical innovation, along with probably obtaining lower cost. Good luck making that all work. Why? If these individuals can lead long and productive lives without such surgery why should the State bear the cost? I've never said I want no regulations under Single payer. I think you are confusing what I said about de-regulation as a potential alternative to single payer. Without question there will be regulation of the practice of medicine with single payer. Look, all I'm doing is pointing out that when we get single payer things are not going to be sunshine and lollipops because we have Single payer. Difficult issues will remain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Why? If these individuals can lead long and productive lives without such surgery why should the State bear the cost? If there is little marginal benefit in spending those dollars on those things, then no. Spend the money elsewhere. 3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I think you are confusing what I said about de-regulation as a potential alternative to single payer. So just de-regulating the market will work? How did you get from that to single payer?I'm really confused about what your argument is here at this point with respect to this. 8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Look, all I'm doing is pointing out that when we get single payer things are not going to be sunshine and lollipops because we have Single payer. Difficult issues will remain. Didn't know that. Thanks for explaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 42 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: Our only hope is that the Republican Party destroys itself with its own power, as it did 2001-2006. No. Our only hope is that the 10 or so Republican Senators I laid out a few weeks ago stand up and oppose Trump. Otherwise, @Kalbear's nightmare scenario is all but inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said: If there is little marginal benefit in spending those dollars on those things, then no. Spend the money elsewhere. So just de-regulating the market will work? How did you get from that to single payer?I'm really confused about what your argument is here at this point with respect to this. Didn't know that. Thanks for explaining. I think deregulating the market might work to lower costs. However, there is not poltiical will for that. As such I think Single payer is the least bad option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I think deregulating the market might work to lower costs. Once again, if their is an informational issue between a supplier and buyer, then your standard micro 101 model probably doesn't apply. And then you have barriers to entry in the practice of medicine that probably undermines that model too. And then when you decide to provide healthcare to people with pre-existing conditions, then regulations become necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.