Nevada Debate Thread

Maybe we are talking about different things. What do you mean gov giving money to unions? That's not happening here. Gov is giving an incentive for employer to reduce contribution (tax incentive - warren's plan). Gov is (maybe, i don't recall Bernie plan) providing a process to help Unions bargain with employer.

 

I doubt it will bankrupt drs or hospitals. A single payer system would save drs about 20 percent of their costs alone in administration costs. The idea single payer systems would bankrupt most drs and hospitals is not true if that were the case how come most developed countries in the world that have universal healthcare still have their hospitals and drs. Why does the US pay more than double for their healthcare per capital and still cover less people than other nations?

 

Wow, so much for the people not being interested.

 

I think we are somewhat. But Warren giving tax incentives (which is money) to employers is wrong. The companies will by default save billions in premiums under single payer system there is no need to give them more money

 

According to Warren, companies will spend 9T over the next 10 years on health care. Under her plan, they would move 98% of that expense to M4A, saving them 200B over 10 years. Her plan provides some flexibility to employers that offer benefits under collective bargaining. See below. The last sentence is key. They can reduce it down to the average health care cost, but not down to 0. This is simply an enforcement that these companies do not take these saving and put it back into their pocket - they either contribute it to M4A system or give it back to their employees.

"Employers currently offering health benefits under a collective bargaining agreement will be able to reduce their Employer Medicare Contribution if they pass along those savings to workers in the form of increased wages, pensions, or other collectively-bargained benefits. New companies or existing companies who enter into a collective bargaining agreement with their employees after the enactment of Medicare for All will be able to reduce their Employer Medicare Contributions in the same way. Employers can reduce their contribution requirements all the way down to the national average health care cost per employee. "

 

There are health procedures that are not medically or mentally necessary. e.g. Plastic surgery (ok, don't debate me on the mental aspect of this). I think a M4A system should only cover what is medically necessary (preventative care should be medically necessary, but if not, it should also be covered - I think no one would argue against that). Today Medicare already do this (outside of dental and vision) - not perfect, but it's one way to rein in unnecessary procedures and cost.

You can innovate through a single payer system. The government set an average price, the providers innovate to achieve average results below that price. The government set a price based on "ROI" (how successful and healthy the patient become - you are pay lower for lower quality and you are pay higher for higher quality care) and providers innovate to gain more profit by delivering on quality care at lower cost. Just some examples.

I do want to make a difference on socialize health industry. Socialize health is NOT single payer. It is single provider. The government provide the facility, the doctors, the equipment and so on. M4A single payer is the government setting price and other process and incentives. Providers are private. VA is an example of socialized medicine. Medicare is not. M4A is not.

 

Some plastic surgery is kind of necessary. People that have had their breasts removed because of cancer, people's who's faces have been disfigured in auto accidents etc. Those types of plastic surgeries are different.

 

Agree. I was thinking mostly of "beautifying" instead of restoring.

 

Yeah I think more about Germany UK and Canada's systems.

 

Account suspended .... broke twitter rules


What did it say ?

 

I get that Trump is bad .... but don't you think a candidate that's telling us his government will spend 70%+ of the entire GDP is even more dangerous ?

Those of you supporting Bernie .... have me scared , seriously. What this guy is proposing is completely and totally changing the principals our country was founded on. The American dream and American exceptionalism turn into a nightmare of uninspired clones.


Yeah , I get Trump is bad .... but think about the alternative here.

 

They have these types of tenders in Russia too but somehow they really on Western pharmaceuticals in a lot of health related fields.

Do you have a good way to prove that innovation/quality won't suffer? Is there as much innovation in say Canada as there is here?

Which country releases most new drugs?

I'm not trying to be adversarial - just curiousity/skepticism with regards to quality of care effects from M4A on my part.

The other big question is what about people who lead sh*tty lifestyle but then rely on public to bail them out which I'm sure crosses people's minds. Esp GOP/moderates. I should read the above discussions in more detail - there must be people discussing this already.

 

That's what pushing people to the wall does.

Obama somehow managed to push Republicans to extreme.

Now Trump is doing the same thing.

And there are no values - all trumped by GOP/moscow-mitch

 

I think the bottom line of that article is .... spot on.

What Bernie is proposing is insanity.

That's not to say we don't have work to do but his ideas are not reasonable - even if M4A is , the rest of it is beyond crazy.

 

I don't think Obama pushed Republicans , he was a moderate for the most part , I think Hillary scared the hell out of them , all that talk of open borders , gun grabbing , socialized helathcare (that was her baby as first lady long before Obama and ACA came along).

Yeah , Trump and Mitch have no values .... they are dirty bastards but at least they haven't screwed up the economy and most are doing ok even if they are working their asses off.
What Bernie is telling us he will do is going to break the economy beyond repair. Better than 70% GDP in government spending.

Take a look at this list on Wikipedia ....
List of countries by government spending as percentage of GDP

Only 6 governments in the world spend greater than 60% GDP and the only one I ever heard of was

Kiribati 154.145
Tuvalu 111.037
Nauru 107.699
Libya 86.852
Federated States of Micronesia 69.085
Marshall Islands 62.833


We're talking ~20% higher than the socialist countries in Europe

Finland 53.476
Belgium 52.380
Denmark 51.302
Austria 48.494
Sweden 48.406
Norway 48.003

And a big part of what Bernie is running on is anti-exceptionalism , that and greater freedom than any other country is what sets America apart from the rest of the world.

 

We really need to decouple gdp growth with how average Americans are doing because "most doing well" is a gross generalization when 60 percent of the country lives pay check to pay check and about 40 percent avoid seeing doctors regularly because they are afraid of out of pocket costs.

Trump's economy is nothing more than an economy fueled by consumer debt. Household debt has reached record highs. Real wage growth has increased 1-3%. No way that marginal increase makes any discernible difference in how people spend their disposable income. It's just merely people willing to take on more debt. It seems to be a pattern. Americans rack up debt during booms and default when the economy crashes. Remember how people praised the soaring economy in 2006 1.5 years before one of America's largest economic crashes?

Bernie is radical. He's radical in the sense that he wants to transition our economy where it is fueled by a increase in disposable income by the consumer class rather than growth just merely being fueled by consumer debt.

 

Per your logic 50% is the number to shoot for (because countries like Sweden have the best quality of life in the world..).

Let's do it! Bernie will get us closer for sure.

Trump loves reversing Obama executive orders - must be his favorite thing to do.

Hillary was a moderate Wall Street lover...

 

I think you've put too much into propaganda against Bernie. This whole idea that he's going to destroy freedoms and turn us into socialist Russia or something is waaay out there.

He's not trying to take away the American dream at all unless that dream is getting so rich that you have almost unlimited power in the country. I don't think that is what the American dream was ever about.

One thing people are not really considering is how far to the other extreme we are at. This unchecked capitalism, or, as the millennials and zoomers like to call it, late stage capitalism. People don't seem to recognize that capitalism isn't perfect and shouldn't be taken to extremes.

The extremes are very much using gofundme to get money to pay for healthcare.

I think the reason Bernie has so many supporters isn't really his brand of socialism at all. It's his sincerity. People know that he's going to fight hard for those issues, even if the congress/senate work against him, if he doesn't get what he wants it won't be for lack of trying. He's probably one of the more sincere politicians in the country today. He simply doesn't move on issues much throughout his career so when he says M4A, affordable education, people know he means it and it isn't just something he's throwing out there because a focus group told him to do so.

You are right, Bernie is radical, but this country has moved so far right that its past Liberal candidate would be a full on right winger in almost any other nation. I think a lot of people on the left that favor Bernie do so because he's moving the overton window...it's almost the same reason people voted for Trump...the difference is though we are already as a country well right of center and another four years of Trump, more right wing judges, another far right SCOTUS judge, how far do we go to the right before we just fall over the edge?

It always feels like there is this raise the alarm moment the minute someone tries to bring actual left wing policies to the table. Conservative media does a good job making any sane liberal policy that exists in most of the civilized world as some boogeyman that will destroy the country and that if we just give MORE power to corporations, more power to the free market, everything will just work itself out.

I don't think Bernie will pass his ideal policies, but, I do think he'll get us closer to it. That's why I trust him over the rest because I know he's really sincere in his positions.

I actually trust the government to keep him in check and the Democrat party isn't going to treat him like a king like the GOP does with Trump. They will break with him often.

 

Just remember PROFIT is why companies bring new drugs to market - That's the bottom line. They aren't doing that for noble causes. There's a lot of risk involved and a hell of a lot of cost.

Found this on the subject of cost to get a drug to market and just take a look at the success rate of actually bringing those investments to market 12% according to the article below.

https://www.policymed.com/2014/12/a...oval-rate-for-drugs-entering-clinical-de.html

So these companies are spending insane amounts of money in R&D and FDA red tape to get these drugs to market .... all in an attempt to realize a profit and we wonder why the costs are so high for the consumer ?!

Do you really believe these companies are going to make those kinds of financial risks when the potential for profits is reduced or eliminated ?! I'd think that the common sense answer is .... Hell no.

 

https://other98.com/taxpayers-fund-pharma-research-development/

Most of the initial research is done with public funding. Pharma companies just like any large publicly traded company that has temporary shareholders who reshuffle there investments often combined with the executives who answer to the shareholders who are also nothing more than temporary employees who only care about maximizing profits for their short tenure of 1-5 years couldn't give two ***** about research into new endeavors in biomedical research if the research is 10-15 years away from an ability to monetize on said research. If research and development isn't profitable in a cash flow diagram within a few years, it ain't worth it for these massive publicly traded companies.

Hence why public research is so vital for pharma companies.