Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
achilles return

us politics and elections thread

2,173 posts in this topic

22 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Since you posted it twice, okay. 

Twice?  You need glasses for double vision. :tiphat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:

 

I again ask why is shw running.

She's going to hope people confuse her with Gillibrand and together they'll form a "I used to be racist AND homophobic" superbrand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ojeda voted for Trump. He never had a chance. I do not see why he did this.  I thought this was suppose to raise he notoriety so he could better compete for WVGOv, but I guess he will fade. 

♒Sn4tteRBoxXeR♒ likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so two polls in a few days showing that Medicare 4 All == Public Option. 

Hopefully the left keeps pushing for Single Payer. I do not want Medicare 4 America to get watered down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:

so two polls in a few days showing that Medicare 4 All == Public Option. 

Hopefully the left keeps pushing for Single Payer. I do not want Medicare 4 America to get watered down. 

Going to be an uphill battle, but that was always known. Incremental reform and half measures do little more than maintain the rot without removing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Going to be an uphill battle, but that was always known. Incremental reform and half measures do little more than maintain the rot without removing it.

As I said, I support it because it shifts the Overton window on the healthcare debate. AOC comes out with GND and now Rs are talking about the greatness of a carbon tax after Obama failed to pass one a few years ago.

The stronger Medicare for all/ single payer does, the more likely the compromise will be a non watered down Medicare for America Act. Just having a public option is not enough, especially one that isn't open to larger employers. Repubs have been gutting Medicaid with their work requirements and Medicaid/CHIP always varied on their generosity by state. Having one federal program that includes Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP/Public Option is very important to getting universal healthcare and making sure people do not fall between the cracks or are underinsured. 

The biggest problem I see with SP actually being successful is that the plans are not living up to the expectation you are pushing. SP advocates keep talking about how other OECD countries pay less and that we pay the most, but that would still be true in an SP world. Mercatus study found a savings of 2 trillion over ten years, but that is less than 1% in savings. And what happens if M4Am is able to achieve 1 trillion or 1.5 trillion in savings? Unless you care about the destruction of private insurance, it doesn't seem like a worthwhile trade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something we should think about. Cuba has free Medicare for all. Everything else there sucks but why not free Medicare here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:

As I said, I support it because it shifts the Overton window on the healthcare debate. AOC comes out with GND and now Rs are talking about the greatness of a carbon tax after Obama failed to pass one a few years ago.

The stronger Medicare for all/ single payer does, the more likely the compromise will be a non watered down Medicare for America Act. Just having a public option is not enough, especially one that isn't open to larger employers. Repubs have been gutting Medicaid with their work requirements and Medicaid/CHIP always varied on their generosity by state. Having one federal program that includes Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP/Public Option is very important to getting universal healthcare and making sure people do not fall between the cracks or are underinsured. 

The biggest problem I see with SP actually being successful is that the plans are not living up to the expectation you are pushing. SP advocates keep talking about how other OECD countries pay less and that we pay the most, but that would still be true in an SP world. Mercatus study found a savings of 2 trillion over ten years, but that is less than 1% in savings. And what happens if M4Am is able to achieve 1 trillion or 1.5 trillion in savings? Unless you care about the destruction of private insurance, it doesn't seem like a worthwhile trade. 

You should look more into that Mercatus study. One of the main reasons M4A proponents made fun of it so much was that they underestimated the cost of our present system and projected no cost reductions that a M4A system would provide (eg. much cheaper drugs) yet they still found it would be $2 trillion cheaper. They tried to cook the books to show how bad M4A was yet still came away with it being better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

You should look more into that Mercatus study. One of the main reasons M4A proponents made fun of it so much was that they underestimated the cost of our present system and projected no cost reductions that a M4A system would provide (eg. much cheaper drugs) yet they still found it would be $2 trillion cheaper. They tried to cook the books to show how bad M4A was yet still came away with it being better.

Mercatus study isn't far off from the numbers reached by the Urban Institute, which is a left leaning group. 

I have read Matt Bruenig's critics as well as PNHP's post on it and while they have critics, Both believe we could see a greater administration cost reduction, but Mercatus already put it at 6% administration costs. Both questions increase in utilization, but neither put a dollar amount to it and neither claimed it underestimated the cost of our system. 

Quote

Drug Costs

This analysis credits the M4A proposal with approximately $846 billion in additional savings over the 2022–2031 period from negotiating lower prices for prescription drugs.

Not sure where you read it had no cost reductions, but it does. I hope it isn't the person who did Bernie's savings estimates from his plan during the primary. 

Remember this gem.

Quote
  • Sanders assumes $324 billion more per year in prescription drug savings than Thorpe does. Thorpe argues that this is wildly implausible. "In 2014 private health plans paid a TOTAL of $132 billion on prescription drugs and nationally we spent $305 billion," he writes in an email. "With their savings drug spending nationally would be negative." (Emphasis mine.) The Sanders camp revised the number down to $241 billion when I pointed this out.

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-thorpe-single-payer

 

Once Jayapal is done with revising HR 676, it will get a CBO score, which is the only analysis that matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft%20ExcelScreenSnapz2661.jpg?ito

Quote

 

For instance, right now a single 40-year adult earning $30,000/year (247% FPL) has to pay about 8.25% of their income ($2,475/year) for a Silver plan covering 70% of their medical expenses; it would likely have roughly a $6,000 deductible and a $7,900 maximum out of pocket total. Under MFA, they'd likely pay around 2% of their income ($600/year) for a plan covering well over 90% of their medical expenses; it would likely only have a nominal deductible ($35) and a $350 MOOP.

The maximum amount they'd have to pay total under the worst-case scenario would drop from $10,375 to just $950. And keep in mind that the current scenario assumes that every doctor, hospital and prescription drug they visit/take is in network; under MFA, they'd never have to worry about whether the doctor, hospital, anesthesiologist or whatever was "in network" since pretty much all of them would be.

For the same single adult, if they earned $60,000 (494% FPL), right now they'd have to pay full price...which would likely be around $7,300/year for the same plan. That's 12.2% of their income...whereas under MFA (assuming the table above is accurate), they'd only have to pay around 7% of their income ($4,200/year), with a $210 deductible and $2,100 MOOP. That's a $6,300 total worst-case scenario vs. $15,200 today.

 

1

 

We can slice up the Mercatus study, but this is going to be the big issue.  That cost structure is going to be tough to beat. No disruption, ultra low healthcare costs for most Americans, universal healthcare, and more choices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:

Mercatus study isn't far off from the numbers reached by the Urban Institute, which is a left leaning group. 

I have read Matt Bruenig's critics as well as PNHP's post on it and while they have critics, Both believe we could see a greater administration cost reduction, but Mercatus already put it at 6% administration costs. Both questions increase in utilization, but neither put a dollar amount to it and neither claimed it underestimated the cost of our system. 

Not sure where you read it had no cost reductions, but it does. I hope it isn't the person who did Bernie's savings estimates from his plan during the primary. 

Remember this gem.

 

Once Jayapal is done with revising HR 676, it will get a CBO score, which is the only analysis that matters. 

Thread goes on from there.

The Urban Institute and Vox's analysis is also on Sanders' proposal from 2015-16, which is not the same as the present one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0