|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:- bernie is the man but a loving terrible campaigner who just gave the same stump speech at every single event and refused to meaningfully criticize his opponents i hadnt seen bernie talk really until the primary debates and i'd agree with this. as an outsider looking at him he was really not very good at trying to preach to people outside the choir or think on his feet. he was obviously the most correct of the candidates but one of the weakest campaigners the switching back to his stump speeches got comical and frustrating vs biden where you could see bernie and biden would get angry, the exchange would heat up and you'd be like "nail the fucker, bernie!" then bernie would go "why is it- that 1% of americans - own 99% of the wealth?" into a stump speech and that useable moment would pass and everyone would calm down and get bored again
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 12:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Get the primary relitigation/electoralism stuff out of this threads except where is directly pertains to stated healthcare plans. Absolutely no one accuse each other of brown-nosing the democratic establishment or loving trump and wanting him to be re-elected.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 16:10
|
|
fool of sound posted:Get the primary relitigation/electoralism stuff out of this threads except where is directly pertains to stated healthcare plans. Absolutely no one accuse each other of brown-nosing the democratic establishment or loving trump and wanting him to be re-elected. The thread is already pretty dead so don't see what this sort of discussion hurts. You aren't going to find much substantial disagreement on various healthcare policies [or those disagreements won't be permitted]. If we're going on assumption that Bernie style single payer is unequivocally best and healthcare always polls as one of the most important issues for voters then it's useful to discuss why those voters didn't choose Bernie. Potential flaws in Sanders' messaging and how other candidates were able to counter-message (e.g., muddy waters on what M4A is) is important if others want to do better in the future.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 16:41
|
|
|
I've asked this question before in other threads from time to time but: What stopping a collective of citizens in a certain neighborhood, town or city from buying a group healthcare plan together, similar to what companies do? I guess getting everyone to actually pay would be a problem since there's no automatic paycheck deduction but as far as negotiating a group rate, what's stopping it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
Being called a socialist or commie or unamerican?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I've asked this question before in other threads from time to time but: There's nothing that would make that impossible, but it would be difficult to get everyone to buy in, and if it were based around purchasing a plan from an existing insurance company, you'd still have to deal with all the rancid bullshit they pull, not to mention out-of-network issues and the like. Sure, the primary issue with the US healthcare system is being uninsured, but it's far from the only problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
I really thought this thread would get more action and assumed it effected more of us. Don't worry. It will. Honestly surprised there's not more horror stories here. The lack of activity in this thread leads me to believe that I'm either an outlier or that anyone else experiencing the horrors of the US health care system is too sick to post. Cross posting from USPOL/Update: Tying healthcare to employment still makes me sick. Especially since every job I can track down doesn't offer coverage and is low balling me real hard since the UE rate is so high. Even those jobs that DO offer benefits don't offer enough flexibility or time off to even see the doctor and work out your poo poo. I'm almost 100% certain I was let go from my job due to my physical appearance, but of course they can't say that. The prep and procedural requirements for my colonoscopy and endoscopy basically took 48 hours and needed me to arrange transportation to and from along with a caregiver that I really don't have. Thankfully I found a friend that could take 4 hours out of their weekday to help me out. I was let go from my job last month and had a ton of health tests scheduled for September, every one of which was denied and required a different preliminary test that I had to reschedule. So I did, since my employer extended my coverage for the month and I tried to jam as many procedures in there as I could. And I was still out $2500, thanks to my deductible, and denied coverage for all the tests my PCP ordered to determine why I had lost 25 lbs in 6 weeks. Without coverage, it would have been $22,000 I was told. I was "One of the Good Ones", who WORKED for their coverage and still got hosed over every other day. Even when they DID cover me, I had to do all the leg work and make all phone calls, fax everything, work the phones and basically do everyone else's job to make it happen. Most jobs won't LET YOU be on your phone except during your "break", assuming you get one, and, trust me, you have to work the phones to squeeze a dime out of these people. Text confirmations, online forms, emails, etc. exhausting. I can't tell you how many lunch hours I wasted dealing with this poo poo. Not being able to EAT since I'm on the phone and digging through emails or looking for cards and papers as I turn into a human skeleton. I'm 6'1" and weigh 130 lbs. I average around 155. I'm not making this poo poo up. It's a loving disgrace. I can't be the only one, can I? My coverage runs out in 2 days and I am quite "literally" facing down which medicines to take and tests to schedule based on how much money I have left and what is covered over the next 2 days ALONG with looking for work and and dealing with Florida's broken unemployment website. I'll be shocked if I live another 10 years and/or don't go broke trying, whichever comes first. I'm not going to live in the streets or beg for someone to help me pay to figure out what's wrong. I'll honestly retire myself first and hang on to my humanity at least. Only positive thing that's happened, aside from (so far) no lung, stomach, throat, colon cancer diagnosis, is that my insurance agreed to 100% cover Chantix to help me quit smoking/vaping, which was shocking since it's insanely expensive. EDIT: Sorry TL/DR: I'm having a lot of trouble here and wondering if I'm on an island or something. Seriously weighing doctor visits against my bank account, trying to determine which is worth it. Honestly surprised this thread died on the vine. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Sep 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Sorry TL/DR: I'm having a lot of trouble here and wondering if I'm on an island or something. Seriously weighing doctor visits against my bank account, trying to determine which is worth it. Honestly surprised this thread died on the vine. Hop on over to CSPAM and into the Goonbucks sticky. You're not alone in dealing with the US's healthcare system and there is help available.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
edit nm i found it
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
I don't think anyone disagrees that the US healthcare system is absolute garbage and a complete travesty for human rights. I find it unbelievable that there are still a lot of states that haven't accepted the Medicaid expansion, when Medicaid is by and large a fuckton better than private insurance and anything on the state exchanges, and should be the default option for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 14:52
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:I don't think anyone disagrees that the US healthcare system is absolute garbage and a complete travesty for human rights. I find it unbelievable that there are still a lot of states that haven't accepted the Medicaid expansion, when Medicaid is by and large a fuckton better than private insurance and anything on the state exchanges, and should be the default option for everyone. That, and the fact that it's almost free for the state welfare budgets, makes it pretty absurd and partisan not to expand. The greatest share of expenses is a 10/90 percentile split, with feds covering the 90. (frustrated NC resident here) sweart gliwere fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Sep 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 16:19
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:I don't think anyone disagrees that the US healthcare system is absolute garbage and a complete travesty for human rights. I find it unbelievable that there are still a lot of states that haven't accepted the Medicaid expansion, when Medicaid is by and large a fuckton better than private insurance and anything on the state exchanges, and should be the default option for everyone. It's an obvious and effective play. A lot of the people in those states don't realize their politicians blocked them from getting healthcare and think they DO get Obamacare and that it just sucks. Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Sep 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 21:47
|
|
|
love to be held hostage by my depression meds. My doctor will not fill a prescription with refills. I have to go see the pusher man every single month to get a one time prescription. It's a loving racket. Was going to look for another one but then COVID hit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I really thought this thread would get more action and assumed it effected more of us. It’s not your fault dude. It’s so close to the election and poo poo’s moving so fast that just staying semi-caught up on USPOL + a handful of non-politics threads eats up like 99% of my free browsing time. I admittedly let GOONPAC wither a few months ago when labwork got to be too much and tried to kinda-sorta bring it back recently with zero success as well. I am very, very, interested in collating healthcare horror stories—and policing stories as well (I’ve saved a ton from various threads when the protests started)—for the purposes of doing some kind of outreach with them. At various times over the last few years there have been a great many posted. Maybe we make videos for people to post online, maybe we make images that can be shared, maybe we combine them all into some kind of free e-book or document, or a periodical, or put them all on some kind of offsite for people to find and read. I definitely think that goons have a wealth of (lovely) experiences, and also a wealth of talents and skills that we could be applying to effect change more broadly, outside of the confines of this often-toxic subforum. People used to steal poo poo from these forums all the time and make it go viral.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2020 04:55
|
|
|
Zapf Dingbat posted:love to be held hostage by my depression meds. The only way this makes sense is if you're starting pharmacotherapy for your depression and the doctor expects to feel things out and change your drug or dose with follow-up visits, which is normal. However, if you're already on a safe, effective therapy than that whole dog and pony show is unnecessary. Depression meds aren't even scheduled, so the doctor can't use that excuse. It's not unusual to have patients on a maintenance antidepressant or two with an entire year's worth of refills once they've felt they landed on something good. It sounds like your doctor has some odd personal feelings about treating depression, or is just milking you for visits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2020 05:56
|
|
|
Dr. Red Ranger posted:The only way this makes sense is if you're starting pharmacotherapy for your depression and the doctor expects to feel things out and change your drug or dose with follow-up visits, which is normal. Not true. I suppose it depends on the medication but I have to be seen at least every 90 days for mine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2020 11:14
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Not true. I suppose it depends on the medication but I have to be seen at least every 90 days for mine. Hmmm, may be best practices or a state law thing. But to be honest every 90 days sounds reasonable too. One of the big indicators of clinical success for antidepressants and antipsychotics is the length of time a patient will keep taking them. The original post about going back once a month indefinitely did sound weird though. I expect usually the patient and doctor take a few months to dial things in, but once they find something that works they stick to it and go longer without checkups.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
Is there a concise argument/research against capping healthcare costs at x% of income? I got into this the other day and just wasn't able to formulate my thoughts very well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 16:22
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Is there a concise argument/research against capping healthcare costs at x% of income? Such a mechanism already exists, it's called income tax and universal healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Such a mechanism already exists, it's called income tax and universal healthcare. Something that's not really talked about much is the concept of universal healthcare (intentionally) becomes non-viable once a plurality of the citizenry sink deep into 'lower class' wages. If most folks are no longer making enough money to even be taxed, how does the system pay for the medical care? Following the current trends of middle class shrinkage and the entirety of wealth (99%+) being consolidated into a couple hundred families doesn't leave any room or functional requirement to provide healthcare to the masses, especially when getting to that point puts a big incentive on the upper class to cull the lower class as quickly/efficiently as possible without endangering themselves directly (and I suspect just letting people die because they weren't boot-strappy enough to save for their own care is just that ticket). This makes even more sense when viewed from the lens of current conservative/oligarchy propaganda convincing a large swath of poor uneducated American's that not paying for their own healthcare is the root of all evil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Is there a concise argument/research against capping healthcare costs at x% of income? Wouldn't this be subject to all kinds of %calculation games, like straight income vs investment vs tips vs gift/inheritance etc? Then there's the option that someone chooses to incorporate, and to play games with their practical vs on-paper allocation of money for personal use. You could pay yourself poverty wages while living comfortably via your job. Separate from that, income and (liquid) wealth are both equally useful for paying medical bills, but very few people have the latter as an option for a $50000 medical bill. Cheesy examples could be a party-boy heir or a trophy-wife, they're maybe equal to a waiter on straight income while being obviously capable of paying for care via wealth. I would think unless you somehow measure everyone's actual net worth and actual lifestyle, it's not hard to imagine a dumber version of our various tax tricks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Something that's not really talked about much is the concept of universal healthcare (intentionally) becomes non-viable once a plurality of the citizenry sink deep into 'lower class' wages. If most folks are no longer making enough money to even be taxed, how does the system pay for the medical care? Tax the rich. They have all of the money. This isn't complicated at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Tax the rich. You'd have to convince them to allow it....... Good luck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:You'd have to convince them to allow it....... I said it's not complicated, I didn't say it would be easy. Your post asking "how can we pay for it if there are so many poor people?" has a very simple answer. We are the wealthiest nation on earth and yet have worse healthcare than dozens of other nations. Taxing the wealthy could pay for universal healthcare and it would actually save the country money because right now we spend a ton of money that gets hoovered up by middlemen like insurance companies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I said it's not complicated, I didn't say it would be easy. Yes, that's correct; I should have clarified my supposition under the auspices of the current political climate wherein the wealthy control everything. Its easy to answer the question if we assume make-believe situations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Yes, that's correct; I should have clarified my supposition under the auspices of the current political climate wherein the wealthy control everything. What's the make-believe situation? That taxes can be raised?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
Phone posted:What's the make-believe situation? That taxes can be raised? That the wealthy will relinquish enough of their stranglehold on systems they have a hand in propagating for the sake of increasing their wealth, so that the proletariat only can benefit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that “doomposting” wasn’t permitted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I said it's not complicated, I didn't say it would be easy. True, but have you considered that the real answer is that sick people simply need to work harder? I lost my job recently and am almost 100% it was because I was having health problems, even though they didn't directly interfere with my work or job performance. Of course they can't TELL me that but it was weird how as soon as I started losing weight and needed some doctor's appointments, suddenly I was a detriment to the company. Phone posted:Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that “doomposting” wasn’t permitted. How are we supposed to discuss U.S. healthcare then? No wonder this thread is nearly dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:How are we supposed to discuss U.S. healthcare then? No wonder this thread is nearly dead. I was trying to reconcile this question DandyLion posted:Something that's not really talked about much is the concept of universal healthcare (intentionally) becomes non-viable once a plurality of the citizenry sink deep into 'lower class' wages. If most folks are no longer making enough money to even be taxed, how does the system pay for the medical care? With the solution of “raising taxes” and the response of “that’s a make-believe answer” in the context of the recent feedback thread that outlined that doomposting and doomerism is a problem within D&D. If the prospect of raising taxes is an unfathomable and impossible task, then what is there to discuss? It’s a way to squash discussion, and the only thing left to discuss is either Person A’s gofundme deserves more attention than Person B’s or a way of baiting people into posting violent fantasies of what they would do if they ever got in a room with the CEO of Aetna Healthcare... which is slightly against the rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 22:42
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Is there a concise argument/research against capping healthcare costs at x% of income? Phone posted:With the solution of “raising taxes” and the response of “that’s a make-believe answer” in the context of the recent feedback thread that outlined that doomposting and doomerism is a problem within D&D. It's important to separate debate on the initial question under the conditions as they exist today vs. possible future. Today, capping healthcare costs at % of income is just a band aid. You're solving for the acute affordability issues of an individual. The supply side costs of providing care to that patient is the same regardless of whether their personal healthcare expenditures are capped in that fiscal year. The real world implications of a %income cap are a combination of 1) that individual's premiums increase in other years where they don't hit the cap and 2) other people's premiums are increased to make up for the difference in lost revenue from the patient whose expenditures are capped. You can't just "tax the rich more" because cost of employer provided healthcare plans are not pinned to the income of the employee. Even if all insurers were non profit then they'd still need to balance inflows (premiums) vs. outflows (health expenditures). In Bernie M4A world this whole problem is solved via progressive income taxes because premiums and out of pocket costs like deductibles, co-insurance, and co-pays don't exist. You can change the progressivity of taxes based on your own personal preferences. This is still quite complicated depending on nuances of how you adjust for COL (e.g. $100k in NYC vs. Omaha means different things) and how family members are accounted for (e.g., does a single income household pay more healthcare related income taxes based on marital status, number of dependents, etc) The consumer side of single payer is pretty boring, to be honest. If you tell people in isolation they'll get free everything then they'll support it. The real challenge from electoral perspective is 1) details around tax incidence such that they know whether they'll come out ahead from personal finance perspective and 2) downstream implications of supply side policy necessary to contain costs.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
You cannot solve healthcare without first solving money in politics. All the politicians are bought and paid for, that's why Obama refused to even consider a public option. It's why Biden says he would veto medicare for all. Good luck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 00:05
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:It's important to separate debate on the initial question under the conditions as they exist today vs. possible future. Today, capping healthcare costs at % of income is just a band aid. You're solving for the acute affordability issues of an individual. The supply side costs of providing care to that patient is the same regardless of whether their personal healthcare expenditures are capped in that fiscal year. The real world implications of a %income cap are a combination of 1) that individual's premiums increase in other years where they don't hit the cap and 2) other people's premiums are increased to make up for the difference in lost revenue from the patient whose expenditures are capped. You can't just "tax the rich more" because cost of employer provided healthcare plans are not pinned to the income of the employee. Even if all insurers were non profit then they'd still need to balance inflows (premiums) vs. outflows (health expenditures). This sounds like a bunch of gobbledegook intended to say healthcare isn't a human right. The tax details are complicated, the principle is not. doverhog fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Oct 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
doverhog posted:You cannot solve healthcare without first solving money in politics. All the politicians are bought and paid for, that's why Obama refused to even consider a public option. It's why Biden says he would veto medicare for all. Not really. Every single developed nation has universal care and all have money involved in politics to some degree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
It's all a matter of degrees, yeah. The US has proven that they cannot do it, so I don't really have to argue it, just point to the evidence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
doverhog posted:It's all a matter of degrees, yeah. The US has proven that they cannot do it, so I don't really have to argue it, just point to the evidence. The US will never allow miscegenation, I say, in 1965. Just look at the evidence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 00:17
|
|
|
I didn't say never. Obama, Bernie (in his utter defeat) and Biden lay down a pretty strong case. Maybe in 2030~. (Trump too but that's besides the point, which was not even the Democrats will do it) doverhog fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Oct 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
doverhog posted:This sounds like a bunch of gobbledegook intended to say healthcare isn't a human right. The tax details are complicated, the principle is not. Huh? I had a different reading of that post, I thought the OP was saying that under the current healthcare system in the US, trying to implement a %income cap as an incremental change would be extremely complicated due to the profit motives of insurance companies. Which is another argument in favor of UHC/M4A, it would actually be "easier" to operationalize at least in this specific regard I also found the OP a little tricky to parse though so I may still be misinterpreting
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 00:45
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Huh? I had a different reading of that post, I thought the OP was saying that under the current healthcare system in the US, trying to implement a %income cap as an incremental change would be extremely complicated due to the profit motives of insurance companies. Which is another argument in favor of UHC/M4A, it would actually be "easier" to operationalize at least in this specific regard It really has nothing to do with profit motives of insurance companies. Right now insurance companies may need to bring in $1.03 in revenue per $1.00 in expenditures to show profit or give dividend to stockholders or whatever. If they were non profit then the only thing that changes is they only need to bring in $1.00 in revenue. So let's say we turn them into non profits and their baseline revenue is $1.00. You implement an cap on health expenditures for individuals at a certain income level. This causes revenue to drop to $0.90. You need to collect the incremental $0.10 somewhere else to break even. This will be captured via increasing premiums by ~11% on the pool of patients not subject to the cap. You can't selectively tax higher income individuals higher because the cost of employer provided insurance is not linked to the income of any given employee. The root problem with US healthcare expenditures is our supply slide costs exceed other countries. Some portion of this is due to for profit insurance but larger portion due to hospitals and HCPs that work for them, unaffiliated support staff (e.g., paid caregivers), and other providers (e.g., pharma, med device, diagnostic/testing companies). The cost savings associated with single payer aren't realized simply through eliminating for profit insurance, but rather job cuts, lower salaries, and rationing on the other three sectors. Any serious single payer advocate needs to full-throatedly acknowledge that reality and potential trade-offs because otherwise their opponents will. They also need to tell people what they'll actually pay rather than rely on some sort of moral argument or principle. People are very much aware of how much they pay for their family's healthcare each year because everyone deals with benefit changes around this time of year. One of the many reasons democrats do not talk about this is because their voter base are college educated urbanites. What are the demographics of anyone that touches healthcare provider system? Where in the country are these companies typically located? Now that Bernie is out of the picture, the left has yet another 4 years to construct concrete plans and refine messaging rather than talk to an abstract framework. KingNastidon fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Oct 21, 2020 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Trying to phrase is at "% income cap" is eliding the whole it's an income tax thing. It's playing fast and loose with language to obfuscate that it really isn't that difficult; appealing to a hypothetical person who is staying up all night trying to figure out what the exact breakeven point is versus their current insurance through their employer (gotta cross-reference the tax savings you get with your HSA!) is analogous to Chuck Schumer's The Bailey's. Yes, turbonerds and political wonks will write spreadsheets and R programs and come up with cool interactive dashboards while trying to optimize for the thousandth digit in what the tax brackets should be. And they should be ignored. The sell is really easy: yeah, your federal income taxes are going to go up and your take home pay will be less; however, you'll never have to play hobbyist insurance liaison between your doctor and your insurance company ever again. You'll never have to jump through a million hoops, or deal with COBRA, or have a tax advantaged brokerage account that you can use on qualified medical related expenses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 01:07
|
|