Corrected title: Now the GOP has accomplished massive tax reform

[Chromagnus]

Please. Ben Shapiro is an ideologue. The French system provides all three.

I could be wrong on this because I'm not as well versed on the French system but I believe the French system is a hybrid public/private system and not a full single payer. These hybrid systems are my preference though.

Off to read more about the French system.

 

[fskimospy]

quality healthcare is irrelevant if it's not affordable or only affordable by the top few %, which is the general direction we're headed.

and should the US subsidize the rest of the world's medicine? it's well known that identical drugs are vastly cheaper elsewhere in the world. of course, lower drug prices doesn't mean pharma companies don't profit. it just means they don't profit quite as much.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-drug-prices/

More importantly, if subsidizing medical development is what we want to do then we should just directly subsidize it instead of throwing money at the companies and hoping they make something useful instead of more dick pills.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Its not as easy as that. Single payer has to give up some things in order to work. Ben Shapiro put it best when he said this, "You can have affordability; you can have universality, or you can have quality."

Right now, for the majority, we have none of the three. Health care is not affordable for most, it certainly is not universal, and the quality is quite low for those that can't afford it. Even by Sharpiro's definition we have the close to the worst of the possible systems.

If you look at any single payer system, they look for the first two and it effects the 3rd. By no means am I saying that the US system is net better, but the effects of the US system benefit the world. Right now the US is the innovator in the medical sector. In the past 10 years the US has produced over half of the new medicines. This is due to the money flowing into our system. If you take that away, innovation is greatly reduced which means globally we are effected.

If there is money to do it via the free market the same money is there to do it via government spending. Government overhead costs less than corporate profit.

 

[bshole]

Its not as easy as that. Single payer has to give up some things in order to work. Ben Shapiro put it best when he said this, "You can have affordability; you can have universality, or you can have quality."

If you look at any single payer system, they look for the first two and it effects the 3rd. By no means am I saying that the US system is net better, but the effects of the US system benefit the world. Right now the US is the innovator in the medical sector. In the past 10 years the US has produced over half of the new medicines. This is due to the money flowing into our system. If you take that away, innovation is greatly reduced which means globally we are effected.

Um right.... in terms of cost, quality and satisfaction, the data is pretty clear.

In terms of quality.... nearly sucking hind teat (the lower number the better)...

In terms of cost, sucking hind teat by a country fucking mile

In terms of satisfaction, clearly sucking hind teat,

 

[realibrad]

Please. Ben Shapiro is an ideologue. The French system provides all three.

Do you believe the French system is single payer? I was under the belief it was a hybrid that offers public and private.

 

[realibrad]

quality healthcare is irrelevant if it's not affordable or only affordable by the top few %, which is the general direction we're headed.

and should the US subsidize the rest of the world's medicine? it's well known that identical drugs are vastly cheaper elsewhere in the world. of course, lower drug prices doesn't mean pharma companies don't profit. it just means they don't profit quite as much.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-drug-prices/

Again, I'm not saying the US system is on net better. There are better systems than what we had pre ACA and I do not support going back.

 

[realibrad]

Right now, for the majority, we have none of the three. Health care is not affordable for most, it certainly is not universal, and the quality is quite low for those that can't afford it. Even by Sharpiro's definition we have the close to the worst of the possible systems.

Correct. Sharpiro was not saying that what we have is all three. He literally has said that our system was not great. But, you will not see any system that has all three.

If there is money to do it via the free market the same money is there to do it via government spending. Government overhead costs less than corporate profit.

This is generally incorrect. government overhead is almost always more costly than corporate profit. A perfect example of this is the transportation of Chile when it went from private to public.

 

[realibrad]

Um right.... in terms of cost, quality and satisfaction, the data is pretty clear.

In terms of quality.... nearly sucking hind teat (the lower number the better)...

In terms of cost, sucking hind teat by a country fucking mile

In terms of satisfaction, clearly sucking hind teat,

Is your point that the US system is shitty? I think we agree on that.

 

[Sunburn74]

Do you believe that there is literally nobody that should not need to have it?

In theory there are people who don't need health insurance.

In practice, these people don't exist. The lifetime risk of severe medical disease or injury is 100%.

Thus the difference between legislating for theory and not practice.

 

[mect]

A person who has been given 6 months to live and has elected not to go on chemotherapy. It would be stupid if that person were up for renewal to sign up for insurance.

A person that is moving to another country where the current medical insurance is not valid. It would be stupid to pay into something that you will not and cannot use.

There are valid reasons and anyone who thinks that 100% of everyone needs to sign up is an idiot. As I said, the VAST MAJORITY should sign up, but to think it should be everyone is stupid.

As someone already pointed out, someone that elected not to undergo chemo would still be stupid not to have health insurance as they are most likely still going to need medical attention.
Your second example also doesn't work. This person still needs medical insurance. They just need medical insurance that is valid where they are moving.

 

[SMOGZINN]

This is generally incorrect. government overhead is almost always more costly than corporate profit. A perfect example of this is the transportation of Chile when it went from private to public.

Not a good example. Chile's economy was almost non-existent when they started privatizing. It took a military coup to fix what was wrong with their government.

 

[fskimospy]

This is generally incorrect. government overhead is almost always more costly than corporate profit. A perfect example of this is the transportation of Chile when it went from private to public.

This can be true, but for health care it appears not to be. Medicare and Medicaid consistently show lower overhead than private insurance.

 

[Sunburn74]

This can be true, but for health care it appears not to be. Medicare and Medicaid consistently show lower overhead than private insurance.

Overhead for Medicare is about 3%. For most private companies it's in the range of about 15%.

 

[UNCjigga]

Has the final proposal been scored yet?

 

[fskimospy]

Has the final proposal been scored yet?

Hahahahaha. You aren't serious, are you? There will be no scoring.

 

[bshole]

Is your point that the US system is shitty? I think we agree on that.

I am looking for more than that. I would like you to say that single payer is SUPERIOR to our system. Each point of data I provided backs that assertion. I would like the Republican party as a whole to acknowledge this disparity of systems and concede that our system is inferior to the socialist model. Republicans are the major roadblock to America moving to a system that works. Their donors have made it clear to them that it is completely unacceptable for America to ever have such a model.

I haven't heard a single argument for privatized health care that is anywhere near cogency or reality .

 

[bshole]

Overhead for Medicare is about 3%. For most private companies it's in the range of about 15%.

Conservatives would call that fake news and move on. Data appears to have no influence whatsoever on their opinions.

 

[realibrad]

In theory there are people who don't need health insurance.

In practice, these people don't exist. The lifetime risk of severe medical disease or injury is 100%.

Thus the difference between legislating for theory and not practice.

So, if you knew that you had 2 weeks left to live, and you were up for a renewal, you are telling me that you would renew?

 

[realibrad]

Not a good example. Chile's economy was almost non-existent when they started privatizing. It took a military coup to fix what was wrong with their government.

You do not know what you are talking about. The transportation when private worked far better and cost far less. After it was taken over by the state the costs skyrocketed. While it was private, it funded it self, as it would have to if people were making money from it. Now it requires subsidizing as its a net loss.

So explain how the system when private paid for itself and now costs far more money.

 

[realibrad]

This can be true, but for health care it appears not to be. Medicare and Medicaid consistently show lower overhead than private insurance.

There are many examples of when it can save money, but he is ignorant and made a statement which I think you and I both agree is generally wrong.

 

[realibrad]

I am looking for more than that. I would like you to say that single payer is SUPERIOR to our system. Each point of data I provided backs that assertion. I would like the Republican party as a whole to acknowledge this disparity of systems and concede that our system is inferior to the socialist model. Republicans are the major roadblock to America moving to a system that works. Their donors have made it clear to them that it is completely unacceptable for America to ever have such a model.

I haven't heard a single argument for privatized health care that is anywhere near cogency or reality .

Single payer as the only option is not, and I would disagree there.

Let me ask you this, if single payer is so much better, why did France split it? Why would they need private?

 

[fskimospy]

There are many examples of when it can save money, but he is ignorant and made a statement which I think you and I both agree is generally wrong.

Yes, as a general rule private industry is more efficient than the government, but there are a number of large and important exceptions to this.

 

[Maxima1]

So what? That doesn't support your original criticism at all. They're working the voters more than they're working McConnell. Delays favor their cause, just like they did with the healthcare vote. The more time it takes, the more pressure will come to bear on Repubs.

Where does the article explicitly say that Schumer and Leahy were doing as you say? It doesn't, and I was pointing out that it makes little sense if that was the case. I just think it's more of the same spinelessness from the dirty Dems as usual. We already know the Dems were calculating on which parts to agree with. GOP takes taxes further right, and Democrats are OK with a compromise.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hahahahaha. You aren't serious, are you? There will be no scoring.

Right wing billionaires will score, bigtime. They have the GOP by the tender bits, bet on that.

 

[realibrad]

Right wing billionaires will score, bigtime. They have the GOP by the tender bits, bet on that.

The Left wing ones wont also win big?