Explicit Conspiracy/Espionage by Trump v. Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez

posted by BoatShoes

I don't think "Socialist" really has any objective meaning anymore - same goes for "Fascist", "Conservative" and whatever else. I thought Conservatism was for free trade but Trump has support from 90% of the party that is supposed to be "Conservative". If you ask Bernie Sanders or Cortez to tell you what socialism is they'll tell you something about putting the power in the people's hands and not the 1% or whatever. Does Medicare for All make us socialist while Medicare/Medicaid for most (Our Current system before and after Obamacare really) make us not? Why does Medicare for All make us collapse like Venezuala but Medicare for Most doesn't???

 

Considering a study at George Mason calculated the cost at over $32 trillion over 10 years (yes, that's trillion with a T) or over $3T/year...I wouldn't say Venezuela would be far off if government spending went that far.

The current system is NOT medicare for most as more people are still on private or employee provided health care and not on government health care.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-population/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

49% on employee based health care

7% bought their own

That's 56% on private

19% on Medicaid

14% on Medicare

2% on other public

That's 35% on public health care

(9% uninsured).

So, how are we already "medicare for most"? Statistics don't back up your asertation. 

posted by BoatShoes

I don't think "Socialist" really has any objective meaning anymore - same goes for "Fascist", "Conservative" and whatever else. I thought Conservatism was for free trade but Trump has support from 90% of the party that is supposed to be "Conservative". If you ask Bernie Sanders or Cortez to tell you what socialism is they'll tell you something about putting the power in the people's hands and not the 1% or whatever. Does Medicare for All make us socialist while Medicare/Medicaid for most (Our Current system before and after Obamacare really) make us not? Why does Medicare for All make us collapse like Venezuala but Medicare for Most doesn't???

 

Uhh that is a conservative value.  The GOP simply doesn't hold conservative values anymore.  You're confusing conservatism vs the current state of the GOP.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Medicare for All costs more than the total wealth of the 1%. Yes it would cause an economic collapse that would make Venezuela and Cuba combine hold our beer.

Also add in their other beliefs of free college and a living wage. Keeping my money in my pockets is my number 1 political care. I don't want "Power" in the hands of the people, who are mostly idiots.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Medicare for All costs more than the total wealth of the 1%. Yes it would cause an economic collapse that would make Venezuela and Cuba combine hold our beer.

Even that study that came from the Conservative Mercatus Center intended to make this point projected Medicare-for-All would cost less for the economy overall - meaning it would use less supply-side resources overall and therefore would not cause an economic collapse - (FWIW I don't even want Medicare for All - Conservatives should have the liberty to use shittier & more expensive health insurance if their distrust of public administration makes them happy to do so). 

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7

• A new report from the libertarian Mercatus Center found that Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for All" plan would cost the federal government an additional $32.6 trillion over 10 years.
• But the Mercatus report also found that the national health expenditure — the total amount spent on healthcare in the US by the federal government, states, businesses, and individuals — would come in below current projections under Sanders' plan.
• So while the price tag for the federal government would increase, the total cost of healthcare would go down, and more than 30 million uninsured Americans would get access to healthcare, according to Mercatus' model.

So credit to those libertarians at Mercatus who are likely morally/philosophically opposed to Medicare For All but still put out a study showing more efficiency for the economy overall. 

So that's my evidence that there wouldn't be an "economic collapse". What is your evidence that there would be an "economic collapse"?

Also from the report:

Provider Payment Reductions

To offset the substantial cost increases created by stimulating additional consumer demand for and utilization of healthcare, the M4A bill would constrain expenditures by subjecting healthcare providers—including hospitals, physicians, and others—to Medicare payment rates.19 Under current law, Medicare reimburses healthcare providers at much lower rates than private health insurance does. In 2014, Medicare hospital payment rates were 62 percent of private insurance payment rates and are currently projected to decline to below 60 percent by the time M4A would be implemented, and to decline further afterward. Medicare physician payment rates were 75 percent of private insurance rates in 2016 and, per the terms of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), are projected to decline sharply in relative terms in future years, also falling below 60 percent within the first full decade of M4A.20

The M4A Act as introduced specifies that provider payment amounts are to be consistent with those paid under current Medicare law.21 The adoption of Medicare payment rates would represent a substantial reduction in provider reimbursements for care provided to everyone now covered by private insurance (though it would also be a temporary increase in physician payments for those now covered by Medicaid, which currently pays physicians at lower rates

This appears to require slashing salaries across the board as spending has to decrease by 40%. I bet that'll incentivize the best and brightest to enter the medical profession.

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf

posted by justincredible

Also from the report:

This appears to require slashing salaries across the board as spending has to decrease by 40%. I bet that'll incentive the best and brightest to enter the medical profession.

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf

Weird that boatshoes would have left that super important piece out. So it costs that absurd amount after significant reductions to reimbursements?  Does it say how they could ever fund it besides tax increases?

I'm also certain my employer insurance is 10000 times better than what Medicare for all would offer. Also, haven't we all seen how the VA works? 

You mean he neglected to acknowledge that the books are cooked? Imagine my surprise.

posted by iclfan2

Also add in their other beliefs of free college and a living wage. Keeping my money in my pockets is my number 1 political care. I don't want "Power" in the hands of the people, who are mostly idiots.

That is a perfectly fine viewpoint. I just think it is likely inaccurate that the world collapse if the United States had similar economic policies to European countries. 

posted by jmog

Considering a study at George Mason calculated the cost at over $32 trillion over 10 years (yes, that's trillion with a T) or over $3T/year...I wouldn't say Venezuela would be far off if government spending went that far.

 

The current system is NOT medicare for most as more people are still on private or employee provided health care and not on government health care.

 

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-population/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

 

49% on employee based health care

7% bought their own

That's 56% on private

19% on Medicaid

14% on Medicare

2% on other public

That's 35% on public health care

(9% uninsured).

 

So, how are we already "medicare for most"? Statistics don't back up your asertation. 

You're right. I was wrong about "Medicare For Most." Let's Call it Socialism for a Third then. 

posted by justincredible

Also from the report:

This appears to require slashing salaries across the board as spending has to decrease by 40%. I bet that'll incentivize the best and brightest to enter the medical profession.

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf

I'm sure that will be part of the equation. Part of the reason other countries pay less for healthcare is they use the bargaining power of their governments to pay their providers a lot less. In our system the provider networks like Cleveland Clinic, etc. have the major bargaining power and extract much higher prices. As the old trope goes - we pay way more and are less healthy than other countries. 

posted by iclfan2

Weird that boatshoes would have left that super important piece out. So it costs that absurd amount after significant reductions to reimbursements?  Does it say how they could ever fund it besides tax increases?

I'm also certain my employer insurance is 10000 times better than what Medicare for all would offer. Also, haven't we all seen how the VA works? 

How did I "leave it out" - if that's part of the assumptions then so be it lol. I didn't write the thing - just pointing out a libertarian study showed that medicare for all (with the assumptions you mention) would cost less for the economy as a whole. 

Indeed - would you libertarian minded folk be getting the vapors over lower provider salaries (much of which is unearned economic rent in our system where provider networks have all the power) if - well gee - instead Rand Paul came out with a healthcare proposal that would cost by way of lower provider salaries through much greater free market competition than our current system of massive provider monopolies?

My guess is no. Whether it is a more libertarian solution or a more "socialist" solution - for America's healthcare system to be more efficient and cost less - providers will have be to paid less. One side says let's find away for that to happen by introducing market forces - the other side says let's give the government more bargaining power than the providers to set lower prices. 

posted by queencitybuckeye

You mean he neglected to acknowledge that the books are cooked? Imagine my surprise.

Afraid not friend. I doubt you'd call it "cooking the books" if Rand Paul's plan forecasted lower provider salaries due to increases in competition, etc. 

posted by BoatShoes

How did I "leave it out" - if that's part of the assumptions then so be it lol. I didn't write the thing - just pointing out a libertarian study showed that medicare for all (with the assumptions you mention) would cost less for the economy as a whole. 

 

Maybe you didn't "leave it out" per se, but I'm still having trouble how a study can conclude something will cost less, but only because the government forces the markets to accept a lower reimbursement. 

posted by BoatShoes

Afraid not friend. I doubt you'd call it "cooking the books" if Rand Paul's plan forecasted lower provider salaries due to increases in competition, etc. 

 

Nice straw man. 

posted by BoatShoes

How did I "leave it out" -  

Best case scenario is you didn't read the whole thing, but most likely is you purposely were being misleading.    LOL at thinking this plan would make healthcare cheaper, but also provide us the same quality (or better) of healthcare.  
 

posted by BoatShoes

How did I "leave it out" - if that's part of the assumptions then so be it lol. I didn't write the thing - just pointing out a libertarian study showed that medicare for all (with the assumptions you mention) would cost less for the economy as a whole. 

Indeed - would you libertarian minded folk be getting the vapors over lower provider salaries (much of which is unearned economic rent in our system where provider networks have all the power) if - well gee - instead Rand Paul came out with a healthcare proposal that would cost by way of lower provider salaries through much greater free market competition than our current system of massive provider monopolies?

My guess is no. Whether it is a more libertarian solution or a more "socialist" solution - for America's healthcare system to be more efficient and cost less - providers will have be to paid less. One side says let's find away for that to happen by introducing market forces - the other side says let's give the government more bargaining power than the providers to set lower prices. 

3 paragraphs of CYA, come on O-Trap, no diatribe just admit you left it out because it didn't fit your narrative.

I'd take a much harder look at expatriating.  The truth is that most of us are willing to live in a system that we don't entirely agree with, and the amount of compromise we're willing to make will vary, but that might be beyond what I'd see as a manageable leak in the ship either way.

So I might look at getting my ass somewhere else.  Maybe Andorra, Uruguay, or Mauritius.