What's outraging you today?

posted by O-Trap

I'll remind you of this when single-payer eventually comes to the US.

Single-payer is going to be like watching a trainwreck.  It's going to completely bifurcate the healthcare industry in the US.  People will say it already is, but that's not exactly true.  Currently, if you have decent coverage you can generally get the best treatment available.

What will happen with single-payer is private supplementary coverage, in some form, will emerge.  It won't be cheap, and very few employers [outside of lucrative professional service firms] will offer it.  Which means you'll have to go deep into your pocket for the best doctors, and most people won't be able to afford that.

The way it works now, most doctors only take so many medicare/medicaid patients.  Single-payer means more of that.  So it will be a lottery for the best doctors, or even keeping your own doctor, unless you have the cash to get to the front of the line.

It's also true when you pay doctors less, they have to treat more patients to pay the bills.  With a fixed number of hours in the day, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that plays out.

There's this awful myth fueling demand for single-payer that drugs and insurance are what's driving healthcare cost.  That's not even 20% of it.  Most people don't understand single-payer means paying doctors and hospitals a lot less.  A lot less for research.  If this debate was honest, people would want a different solution.

posted by gut

I'll remind you of this when single-payer eventually comes to the US.

Single-payer is going to be like watching a trainwreck.  It's going to completely bifurcate the healthcare industry in the US.  People will say it already is, but that's not exactly true.  Currently, if you have decent coverage you can generally get the best treatment available.

What will happen with single-payer is private supplementary coverage, in some form, will emerge.  It won't be cheap, and very few employers [outside of lucrative professional service firms] will offer it.  Which means you'll have to go deep into your pocket for the best doctors, and most people won't be able to afford that.

The way it works now, most doctors only take so many medicare/medicaid patients.  Single-payer means more of that.  So it will be a lottery for the best doctors, or even keeping your own doctor, unless you have the cash to get to the front of the line.

It's also true when you pay doctors less, they have to treat more patients to pay the bills.  With a fixed number of hours in the day, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that plays out.

There's this awful myth fueling demand for single-payer that drugs and insurance are what's driving healthcare cost.  That's not even 20% of it.  Most people don't understand single-payer means paying doctors and hospitals a lot less.  A lot less for research.  If this debate was honest, people would want a different solution.

I just threw that one out there as an example of why "If you don't like what's happening, you can just leave" isn't actually that helpful.  I'm vehemently opposed to single-payer personally.

posted by gut

I'll remind you of this when single-payer eventually comes to the US.

Single-payer is going to be like watching a trainwreck.  It's going to completely bifurcate the healthcare industry in the US.  People will say it already is, but that's not exactly true.  Currently, if you have decent coverage you can generally get the best treatment available.

What will happen with single-payer is private supplementary coverage, in some form, will emerge.  It won't be cheap, and very few employers [outside of lucrative professional service firms] will offer it.  Which means you'll have to go deep into your pocket for the best doctors, and most people won't be able to afford that.

The way it works now, most doctors only take so many medicare/medicaid patients.  Single-payer means more of that.  So it will be a lottery for the best doctors, or even keeping your own doctor, unless you have the cash to get to the front of the line.

It's also true when you pay doctors less, they have to treat more patients to pay the bills.  With a fixed number of hours in the day, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that plays out.

There's this awful myth fueling demand for single-payer that drugs and insurance are what's driving healthcare cost.  That's not even 20% of it.  Most people don't understand single-payer means paying doctors and hospitals a lot less.  A lot less for research.  If this debate was honest, people would want a different solution.

Affordability, universality, and high quality. 

Most people don't realize all 3 are impossible.  They foolishly believe single payer will bring us all three.

posted by like_that

Affordability, universality, and high quality. 

Most people don't realize all 3 are impossible.  They foolishly believe single payer will bring us all three.

So long as quality requires expertise, it's true.

posted by O-Trap

So long as quality requires expertise, it's true.

And it will in the medical industry.  

posted by like_that

Affordability, universality, and high quality. 

Most people don't realize all 3 are impossible.  They foolishly believe single payer will bring us all three.

I'd guess, through lobbying or otherwise, DC will realize they can't make it cheaper, can't chisel the doctors and hospitals.

Which means just about everyone in this thread is going to take it on the chin to cover 30M people, and probably subsidize 30M more.  And then, like I said, if you want the best coverage and access you're going to have to pay even more.

It's a huge tax on the middle class.  When people talk about Europe, etc and wanting to expand the safety net here....no one talks about how much higher their taxes are.  The one thing you can count on is even the most devoted bleeding heart would never voluntarily agree to 10-15% more of their income for the "greater good".

And this is one of those great lies I was talking about.  When conservatives/Republicans try to talk about the costs, the left brings out their phony economic shills to call it a lie.  Then, conveniently, here comes MMT to say we can just print the money.  But why stop there?  Why not just keep printing until everyone is rich?

posted by gut

But why stop there?  Why not just keep printing until everyone is rich?

You obviously know why that's impossible, but it reminds me of Hillary Clinton saying that schools shouldn't stay open if they're not doing a 'better-than-average' job.

posted by gut

And this is one of those great lies I was talking about.  When conservatives/Republicans try to talk about the costs, the left brings out their phony economic shills to call it a lie.  Then, conveniently, here comes MMT to say we can just print the money.  But why stop there?  Why not just keep printing until everyone is rich?

If we can do it here, couldn't we just do a massive air drop of greenbacks over Caracas and solve all their issues? Havana?

https://twitter.com/TomiLahren/status/1129094589267173376

Never thought I would ever agree with Tammy on an issue

posted by geeblock

I just read there are 475,000 kids in foster care in Ala

That would be kids in foster care in the whole US...not Alabama...

Good Lord geeblock, take 10 seconds to think about the number compared to the population of Alabama...

https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/6243-children-in-foster-care#detailed/1/any/false/871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38,35/any/12987

posted by geeblock

A person wrote it on Twitter it wasn’t an article. They are usually pretty accurate so maybe I misread it. Looking back it was  4700. They also said Alabama leads the nation in death penalties (per capita) but I didn’t post that or fact check it. The point unwanted children don’t get adopted like in a fairy tale that is being portrayed by some. Also an 11 year old girl just got raped in Ohio and got pregnant which I can’t remember if it was in here was called a strawman argument. 

Foster care system is a bad argument for abortion to be honest. On average most infants get adopted and don't spend much time in the "system". It's the older kids that parents looking to adopt, unfortunately, don't want. Most want an infant.

Baby's don't sit in the system at all for the most part. It's the older kids and teenagers that do.

posted by geeblock

https://twitter.com/TomiLahren/status/1129094589267173376

 

Never thought I would ever agree with Tammy on an issue

She's actually been openly pro-choice for several years now.  She gets lambasted by Republicans practically any time she talks about it.

However, her tweet's metrics look good, so it seems like the response to it is generally positive.

posted by jmog

That would be kids in foster care in the whole US...not Alabama...

Good Lord geeblock, take 10 seconds to think about the number compared to the population of Alabama...

 

https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/6243-children-in-foster-care#detailed/1/any/false/871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38,35/any/12987

I already apologized for the mistake bud 

posted by geeblock

Never thought I would ever agree with Tammy on an issue

I predict this whole abortion thing is going to end with the courts affirming Roe v. Wade.  Unfortunately, that probably won't end it as a political issue.

posted by geeblock

I already apologized for the mistake bud 

No link for that tweet though?

posted by gut

I predict this whole abortion thing is going to end with the courts affirming Roe v. Wade.  Unfortunately, that probably won't end it as a political issue.

I am not really passionate about the issue, but conservatives are blowing their wad too early if they want to reverse Roe v Wade. 
 

posted by like_that

I am not really passionate about the issue, but conservatives are blowing their wad too early if they want to reverse Roe v Wade. 

I really thought this might be some 5th-level behind the scenes string pulling to take abortion away from Dems as a campaign issue.  But I don't think that's actually the case, and there's probably not enough time for the courts to rule on this definitively.  Although it could, theoretically, get fast-tracked to SCOTUS and they just decide not to hear the case (assuming the law is overturned at lower levels based on precedent).

It would be a brilliant tactical move if that was the case.  Your buddies in AL take some heat, but probably survive it.  The rest of the party gets to point to it and say Roe v Wade is settled law, once and definitively for all.

Doesn't make much sense to me.  I don't see the pro-life agenda helping Repubs to win many elections.  You gotta go with the "I'm pro-life, but I recognize abortion will remain legal and I don't oppose that".

posted by like_that

I am not really passionate about the issue, but conservatives are blowing their wad too early if they want to reverse Roe v Wade.

Also, if it did somehow get overturned, that would pretty much guarantee Dems would add seats to SCOTUS to reverse the reversal.

What do you want to read the tweet for?

Screw New York/New England ……let them buy their gas from abroad for ten times the NYMEX price.

Williams permit for $1B shale gas pipeline denied

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has rejected a permit application for a planned $1 billion shale gas pipeline, but Williams Cos., the company behind the project, plans to resubmit. Williams has also struggled to get a water permit for its Constitution pipeline in New York.

Bloomberg (tiered subscription model) (5/16) 

posted by gut

I predict this whole abortion thing is going to end with the courts affirming Roe v. Wade.  Unfortunately, that probably won't end it as a political issue.

As long as it buys votes, it'll be around.