Support NeoGAF

[Chichikov]

Honest question... if individual states try a single-payer system, how do they keep costs in check while providing for an effective minimum standard of care if they're only one (or a small handful) of the states doing it in a country as large as ours?

It seems like a big problem to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

The big states are big enough to do it on their own.
I didn't ran the numbers so I'm not sure exactly where the line's at, but I'm certain California, NY, Texas and Florida are big enough, especially if they decide to negotiate together (though I honestly not sure what the state rights crowd would think of that move).

 

[empty vessel]

Politically, sure, they allow you to do the reverse starving of the beast thing (wherein you fund services by deficit spending, thus making tax increases more palatable to public, as those services had time to prove their worth) but practically?
That really shouldn't matter that much.
MMT or no MMT, you still want to reach a long term balance of revenue and spending to avoid the inflationary pressures that a chronic and systemic deficit brings.

It's not MMT or no MMT, because MMT demonstrates that a government has to have a "chronic and systemic" deficit for an economy to grow. Which means that a government has to create more financial assets for the private sector to use in the economy over time. If you look at the history of the US government, it (appropriately) has a "chronic and systemic" deficit. In the last 30 years, the government has only net taxed four. And those were four consecutive years that then produced a recession. The only exception to this is if you maintain a positive trade balance with the rest of the world (e.g., Australia). But that basically just means that you are sending more real wealth (physical goods) out of the country than you are bringing in from other countries, i.e., a net loss to the society in real wealth.

A chronic and systemic deficit does not bring inflationary pressures. Spending too much too quickly does. A chronic and systemic deficit is merely a record of past spending. It has no further implications. Inflation can't occur now because of how much money the government net spent in 1985.

The only real problem of relying exclusively on taxation are times of serious economic slowdowns (recessions, natural disasters), and that's what federal aid should be for.

I do not believe states will be able to successfully implement single payer systems. They will be subject to all kinds of forces--fiscal, (then) political, and economic--that will almost guarantee them to be inadequate. Not to mention that such systems will not have full monopsony buying power. A state's ability to set prices will be compromised by the sellers having other convenient options (next state over!). Another problem with federalism!

We should just do it rationally and implement a national health insurance program. And people should organize politically for that demand.

 

[Chichikov]

It's not MMT or no MMT, because MMT demonstrates that a government has to have a "chronic and systemic" deficit for an economy to grow. Which means that a government has to create more financial assets for the private sector to use in the economy over time. If you look at the history of the US government, it (appropriately) has a "chronic and systemic" deficit. In the last 30 years, the government has only net taxed four. And those were four consecutive years that then produced a recession. The only exception to this is if you maintain a positive trade balance with the rest of the world (e.g., Australia). But that basically just means that you are sending more real wealth (physical goods) out of the country than you are bringing in from other countries, i.e., a net loss to the society in real wealth.

A chronic and systemic deficit does not bring inflationary pressures. Spending too much too quickly does. A chronic and systemic deficit is merely a record of past spending. It has no further implications. Inflation can't occur now because of how much money the government net spent in 1985.

Deficit is not a problem when it's small enough for growth to overcome it, but that's not the point I was trying to make.
The important thing I was trying to get across is that the relation between spending and revenue matters, a lot.
So long term, more spending should mean higher taxation, on the federal or the state level alike.

I do not believe states will be able to successfully implement single payer systems. They will be subject to all kinds of forces--fiscal, (then) political, and economic--that will almost guarantee them to be inadequate. Not to mention that such systems will not have full monopsony buying power. A state's ability to set prices will be compromised by the sellers having other convenient options (next state over!). Another problem with federalism!

We should just do it rationally and implement a national health insurance program. And people should organize politically for that demand.

No argument here.
Insurance is more efficient the bigger the pool and I've never heard a persuasive argument as to why states have specific needs when it comes to medical insurance.

p.s.
I think the big state can implement such system, probably not politically any time soon, but they're big enough to make it work.

 

[makingmusic476]

It's not MMT or no MMT, because MMT demonstrates that a government has to have a "chronic and systemic" deficit for an economy to grow. Which means that a government has to create more financial assets for the private sector to use in the economy over time. If you look at the history of the US government, it (appropriately) has a "chronic and systemic" deficit. In the last 30 years, the government has only net taxed four. And those were four consecutive years that then produced a recession. The only exception to this is if you maintain a positive trade balance with the rest of the world (e.g., Australia). But that basically just means that you are sending more real wealth (physical goods) out of the country than you are bringing in from other countries, i.e., a net loss to the society in real wealth.

A chronic and systemic deficit does not bring inflationary pressures. Spending too much too quickly does. A chronic and systemic deficit is merely a record of past spending. It has no further implications. Inflation can't occur now because of how much money the government net spent in 1985.



I do not believe states will be able to successfully implement single payer systems. They will be subject to all kinds of forces--fiscal, (then) political, and economic--that will almost guarantee them to be inadequate. Not to mention that such systems will not have full monopsony buying power. A state's ability to set prices will be compromised by the sellers having other convenient options (next state over!). Another problem with federalism!

We should just do it rationally and implement a national health insurance program. And people should organize politically for that demand.

I just wish there was something more we could do.

We need to get groups in the U.S. involved in actively pushing for this agenda. Have videos going viral like that Kony video (only without all the baggage of a questionable means and end). Make the case for universal healthcare in a clear cut and unassailable manner and make sure people see it.

After our general economic well being, I feel like this is the most important issue on the table for Americans, yet it's been going nowhere for decades.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Did see that post. Obama requesting documents from another candidate, rich.

I know, where is that birth certificate, right?

 

[Clevinger]

I know, where is that birth certificate, right?

It's the school records these days. He's hiding something, somewhere!

I just wish there was something more we could do.

We need to get groups in the U.S. involved in actively pushing for this agenda. Have videos going viral like that Kony video (only without all the baggage of a questionable means and end). Make the case for universal healthcare in a clear cut and unassailable manner and make sure people see it.

After our general economic well being, I feel like this is the most important issue on the table for Americans, yet it's been going nowhere for decades.

The left really, really, really needs to have cross country protests for single issues. Like, a mass protest across the country specifically for UHC. But NOT under the Occupy label. Occupy was good for raising awareness in a general way, but not really for specifics. Too unorganized and convoluted.

The message/label could be really simple: Medicare For All.

 

[irishcow]

Ok, te absolvo for the sin of ebaum. I'll try to be more constructive and less silly, but that guy's "analysis"....geez.

Your patronizing is pretty rude. I'm not attempting to give a publishable analysis of the current political spectrum.

Do you have some sort of credentials I'm not aware of that warrant such pompous behavior?

All I can contribute are short posts due to time constraints while studying in medical school. As a result I'll refrain from joining this collaboration of enlightened individuals who so far have proven themselves beyond my capacity for understanding.

 

[elrechazado]

Your patronizing is pretty rude. I'm not attempting to give a publishable analysis of the current political spectrum.

Do you have some sort of credentials I'm not aware of that warrant such pompous behavior?

All I can contribute are short posts due to time constraints while studying in medical school. As a result I'll refrain from joining this collaboration of enlightened individuals who so far have proven themselves beyond my capacity for understanding.

Just rational thought, common sense, and a dislike for hyperbolic nonsense. I'm not the thread police, don't stop sharing on my account. I also reserve the right to comment on your comments, cool?

 

[Chichikov]

The message/label could be really simple: Medicare For All.

I'm really surprised no one has start running with it already.
Even if you don't like the idea, you have to agree it's remarkably marketable.
And attacking it without being painted as attacking Medicare will be a political tight-rope act.

I also happen to think it's a genuinely good solution, pretty close to perfect actually, as far as the insurance side of healthcare goes, which is not the whole story.

 

[makingmusic476]

I'm really surprised no one has start running with it already.
Even if you don't like the idea, you have to agree it's remarkably marketable.
And attacking it without being painted as attacking Medicare will be a political tight-rope act.

I also happen to think it's a genuinely good solution, pretty close to perfect actually, as far as the insurance side of healthcare goes, which is not the whole story.

I just found out there was a bill titled the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act that went through the house early last year. Even had 76 co-sponsors. I'm quite surprised.

There's an entire organization dedicated to bringing Medicare to the the entire populace, I've also discovered:

http://www.healthcare-now.org/

Edit:

Seems Rep. John Conyers is related to that organization, and has been introducing similar bills yearly since 2003:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conyers

Looks like we already have a "Medicare for all!" guy.

 

[sc0la]

I liked the name people were throwing around:
Medicare Part E
With the E being Everyone.

Played of the current naming system in a clever way.

 

[RustyNails]

More like medicare part F

 

[Chichikov]

I just found out there was a bill titled the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act that went through the house early last year. Even had 76 co-sponsors. I'm quite surprised.

There's an entire organization dedicated to bringing Medicare to the the entire populace, I've also discovered:

http://www.healthcare-now.org/

Edit:

Seems Rep. John Conyers is related to that organization, and has been introducing similar bills yearly since 2003:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conyers

Looks like we already have a "Medicare for all!" guy.

I follow politics much closer than the average American voter, and that's the first I hear of this.
Still, good, nothing will come from these early tries but that's fine, those things take time and hardly ever happen without large public pressure (or at the very least active support).

 

[cartoon_soldier]

 

[AlteredBeast]

Wouldn't Medicare for all + private insurance for those that want other coverage work? Or would having the government run healthcare be enough. I would think that private insurance companies could still work out a way to be involved somewhere.

It is interesting to think, if the government were to have a total takeover of healthcare, it would potentially put hundreds of thousands (millions?) of private insurances workers out of jobs...

 

[Chichikov]

Wouldn't Medicare for all + private insurance for those that want other coverage work? Or would having the government run healthcare be enough. I would think that private insurance companies could still work out a way to be involved somewhere.

It is interesting to think, if the government were to have a total takeover of healthcare, it would potentially put hundreds of thousands (millions?) of private insurances workers out of jobs...

I don't know what you mean by government run healthcare there (I understand what the term mean, I don't get its use in the context of your post).
But yes, I think single payer system will work great, and yes, a single payer does not preclude complementary insurance (at exists in most if not all countries that have that system).
I have yet to hear a compelling argument against it, but I'm all ears, conservogaf.

 

[Aaron Strife]

WI recall, from GQR:

http://elections.wispolitics.com/2012/03/walker-about-even-with-barrett-falk-in.html

Against Tom Barrett, Scott Walker trails by a point (48-47). Against Falk, he leads by a point (47-48).

In spite of PD's poo-pooing, it's no worse than a toss-up for Democrats. No reason they shouldn't have done this.

 

[Chichikov]

No reason they shouldn't have done this.

I don't really like recall elections, I think we use them way to much in this country.
I hate the fucker but I'm not sure I'm 100% behind that, but then again, I'll be the first to admit that I don't really follow Wisconsin politics, so really, my opinion should pretty much be ignored.

 

[RDreamer]

WI recall, from GQR:

http://elections.wispolitics.com/2012/03/walker-about-even-with-barrett-falk-in.html

Against Tom Barrett, Scott Walker trails by a point (48-47). Against Falk, he leads by a point (47-48).

In spite of PD's poo-pooing, it's no worse than a toss-up for Democrats. No reason they shouldn't have done this.

Kind of interesting it's so close. For a while I was thinking Walker would run away with it since he had been bombarding the TV stations with ads, and the Democrats hadn't even picked anyone at all yet. I'm still kind of worried about that. The guy's got a lot of Koch money to spend.

 

[PantherLotus]

Well, when you have PantherLotus who had predicted an even bigger margin than 2008, of course you are right, but Barack Hussein Obama, the magic negro, is going to win again, despite what rightwing raido shows would have you believe. This thing is about as good as over.

whoa whoa wtf is this

Ain't no "had predicted" about this. Shit's still true. We're talking Reagan '84.

 

[AlteredBeast]

whoa whoa wtf is this

Ain't no "had predicted" about this. Shit's still true. We're talking Reagan '84.

Avatar bet time? I am not insane, a la PD, but if you think that Obama is going to beat Romney like he beat down McCain, that is a bet I am willing to take.

 

[Chichikov]

whoa whoa wtf is this

Ain't no "had predicted" about this. Shit's still true. We're talking Reagan '84.

Clinton '96.
And you better hope it's Republicans keep the house and not Obama gets a BJ from a chubby white intern.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I don't really like recall elections, I think we use them way to much in this country.
I hate the fucker but I'm not sure I'm 100% behind that, but then again, I'll be the first to admit that I don't really follow Wisconsin politics, so really, my opinion should pretty much be ignored.

I think recalling Walker is important because it deals with the broader issue that's come about with the GOP wave in 2010.

Plenty of Republicans ran on jobs and the economy only to get elected and enact massive social issue bullshit agendas.

Sure, it doesn't solve the problem. It'd be more of a symbolic gesture. I'm completely cool with recalls if someone runs on one platform, wins, and turns into a complete party hack once in office.

 

[Chichikov]

I'd rather speak in the abstract, as again, I don't follow Wisconsin politics close enough to have an inform opinion.
I think the recall bar should be very high.
I think we should only use it in unusual situations.

Generally, I believe that it is best to let an elected official complete his term and judge him on the results.
Politicians are thinking too short term in this country as it is.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I think recalling Walker is important because it deals with the broader issue that's come about with the GOP wave in 2010.

Plenty of Republicans ran on jobs and the economy only to get elected and enact massive social issue bullshit agendas.

Sure, it doesn't solve the problem. It'd be more of a symbolic gesture. I'm completely cool with recalls if someone runs on one platform, wins, and turns into a complete party hack once in office.

I wonder if there is a graph out there showing the amount of job growth experienced by each state and whether or not the state was led by Republican governorships or legislatures.

 

[Oblivion]

What what in the butt? Republican attorney suing against Obamacare is doing it...cause it DOESN'T go far enough?!

ThinkProgress spoke with Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday. Caldwell opposes Obamacare and the individual mandate, but for a different reason than most of his fellow litigants: it props up the private health insurance industry. “Insurance companies are the absolute worst people to handle this kind of business,” he declared. “I trust the government more than insurance companies.” Caldwell went on to endorse the idea of a single-payer health care system, saying it’d “be a whole lot better” than Obamacare:

KEYES: You don’t think the subsidies for low-income people are going to be helpful?

CALDWELL: No, no. The worst thing you can do is give it to an insurance company. I want to make my point. All insurance companies are controlled in their particular state. If you have a hurricane come up the east coast, the first one that’s going to leave you when they gotta pay too many claims is an insurance company. Insurance companies are the absolute worst people to handle this kind of business. I trust the government more than insurance companies. If the government wants to put forth a policy where they will pay for everything and you won’t have to go through an insurance policy, that’d be a whole lot better.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/30/454261/buddy-caldwell-private-insurance/

 

[makingmusic476]

whoa whoa wtf is this

Ain't no "had predicted" about this. Shit's still true. We're talking Reagan '84.

lol

Even if Santorum gets the nom, there's just no way Obama takes all but one state.

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

Panther ain't really known for his smart predictions.

 

[Puddles]

Question for PsychologyGAF: what is the name of the psychological phenomenon where we tend to underestimate the odds of negative, low-probability events affecting us? Like if we have a 10% chance of suffering some particular misfortune, we tend to act as though it were only a 1% chance, or something like that?

 

[Puddles]

It might be Optimism Bias.

"Young, healthy adults often choose not to purchase health insurance despite the statistical certainty that some of them will need it, because of _________"

 

[makingmusic476]

Question for PsychologyGAF: what is the name of the psychological phenomenon where we tend to underestimate the odds of negative, low-probability events affecting us? Like if we have a 10% chance of suffering some particular misfortune, we tend to act as though it were only a 1% chance, or something like that?

Probably this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias

Edit:

Ah, you're already there.

 

[Aaron Strife]

lol

Even if Santorum gets the nom, there's just no way Obama takes all but one state.

Probably not an EC sweep, but Reagan only ("only") won 58.8% of the national vote. If the economy picked up jobs like it did in 1984, that'd be totally feasible. Romney's a shitty candidate anyway.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I don't know what you mean by government run healthcare there (I understand what the term mean, I don't get its use in the context of your post).
But yes, I think single payer system will work great, and yes, a single payer does not preclude complementary insurance (at exists in most if not all countries that have that system).
I have yet to hear a compelling argument against it, but I'm all ears, conservogaf.

There is no compelling argument against PO/SP, as long as it does not reduce the overall level of care that is experienced in hospitals and doctors offices around the country. If there are several weeks/months of waiting lists for things like ingrown toenails or surgeries, then count me out.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Who makes these things? The door kick one and this one are amazing.

 

[speculawyer]

Who makes these things? The door kick one and this one are amazing.

Going by the NBC logo, I'm guessing SNL?

 

[Oblivion]

Who makes these things? The door kick one and this one are amazing.

If it's from the same guys that did the one gif where Obama angrily kicks the door open, then it's the guys from The Jimmy Kimmel Show.

 

[Chichikov]

There is no compelling argument against PO/SP, as long as it does not reduce the overall level of care that is experienced in hospitals and doctors offices around the country. If there are several weeks/months of waiting lists for things like ingrown toenails or surgeries, then count me out.

Why would it create waiting lists?
This is about insurance.
I mean, yeah, more people getting care might mean in isolated cases a temporary bump in demand that exceed supply, but demand for new physicians should correct this problem quickly. And honestly, no one is suggesting that getting more people insured is a bad thing, right?

Otherwise, why would we fuck it up?
Do people love the job the for profit insurance industry is doing?
Don't you think we can do a better job with the same amount of money?

And again, insurance is not the only problem with healthcare in this country, but it's a big one that should be addressed.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Who makes these things? The door kick one and this one are amazing.

I thought that was real. Someone please kill me.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

nm

 

[Hobbestetrician]

Who makes these things? The door kick one and this one are amazing.

I don't want to give him any credit but I think it is Leno's people.

 

[Diablos]

Regarding Walker, I still can't understand why Russ won't just step in and put this fucker out of business for good.

Epic smh.

 

[sc0la]

I'd rather speak in the abstract, as again, I don't follow Wisconsin politics close enough to have an inform opinion.
I think the recall bar should be very high.
I think we should only use it in unusual situations.

Generally, I believe that it is best to let an elected official complete his term and judge him on the results.
Politicians are thinking too short term in this country as it is.

I like to remember how much of a circus the Gray Davis recall in California was. Complete waste of money, time and resources, and I bet a large contingency of those who voted to recall him cannot even remember why they did it.

 

[thatbox]

What what in the butt? Republican attorney suing against Obamacare is doing it...cause it DOESN'T go far enough?!



http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/30/454261/buddy-caldwell-private-insurance/

Caldwell has only been a Republican for a year, he switched parties to avoid getting voted out. Also, he went into damage control right after that. It's pretty easy for you to imagine how he "clarified" his statements, but I can find the article about it that was in the New Orleans paper today if you're really that interested.

If you want to get riled up about Louisiana's take on national politics, you should see what Secretary of State Tom Schedler has been up to:

 

[elrechazado]

What's wrong with that picture? He's responding as any govt official should to these types of requests? Sec State's job is specifically to put people on ballots, and address questions and issues from the public on the same.

 

[Chumly]

What's wrong with that picture? He's responding as any govt official should to these types of requests? Sec State's job is specifically to put people on ballots, and address questions and issues from the public on the same.

Probably the fact that hes giving in to crazy conspiracy theorists.

 

[elrechazado]

Probably the fact that hes giving in to crazy conspiracy theorists.

Public officials generally have to respond for requests for information or certifications and whatnot by their own law or policy or regulation. This guy's probably sick of this stupid shit clogging his inbox, so he puts out a general statement. What's the problem? If he had said anything legitimizing the theory, that'd be one thing, but he doesn't.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Public officials generally have to respond for requests for information or certifications and whatnot by their own law or policy or regulation. This guy's probably sick of this stupid shit clogging his inbox, so he puts out a general statement. What's the problem? If he had said anything legitimizing the theory, that'd be one thing, but he doesn't.

Any responsible public official would also direct people to the fact that Obama has released his birth certificate and point out that the issue is nonsense, rather than deflect the question and tell people to contact their members of Congress with the question.

He's telling people to contact Congress about a conspiracy theory. That is irresponsible at best.

 

[elrechazado]

Any responsible public official would also direct people to the fact that Obama has released his birth certificate and point out that the issue is nonsense, rather than deflect the question and tell people to contact their members of Congress with the question.

He's telling people to contact Congress about a conspiracy theory. That is irresponsible at best.

I see it as "guys, this isn't my fucking job, go bother someone else". Read the text again. Anyway, even under the worst assumptions, nothing in that letter is offensive, so I'm having trouble seeing what the problem is, when there are actual people in government who are actively promoting the theory.

 

[FLEABttn]

If there are several weeks/months of waiting lists for things like ingrown toenails or surgeries, then count me out.

Where do you people in America live where you don't already have these things?

I waited 5 weeks for ingrown toe nail surgery.
I've waited 6 weeks to see a urologist.
Twice I've waited 2 months to see a GP.
It took 15 months from diagnosis to final surgery to have my cubital tunnel syndrome fixed.

 

[RustyNails]

I see it as "guys, this isn't my fucking job, go bother someone else".

I kinda read it this way too.