He's not my president.

Page 3 of 4<1234>
Poll
5 votes (55.55%)
1 vote (11.11%)
2 votes (22.22%)
1 vote (11.11%)
1 vote (11.11%)
3 votes (33.33%)
1 vote (11.11%)
1 vote (11.11%)
2 votes (22.22%)
3 votes (33.33%)

9 members have voted

November 14th, 2016 at 3:38:08 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Wizard
Help me understand something. A lot of the Trump protesters carry signs or they chant, "He's not my president." I recall bumper stickers saying the same thing referring to George W Bush after the 2000 election. My question is to these people -- "who is your president?" I could carry it further by asking if Trump signs a new law will you obey it? What determines who your president is?


I kicked around the idea of selling "She's Not My President" bumper stickers on eBay. It is a protest thing. It is like saying you are not living under a king I guess.

Now, rioters and protestors are something else. They are a sign of some deeper problems coming to the surface in the USA.
The President is a fink.
November 14th, 2016 at 4:37:54 PM permalink
pew
Member since: Jan 8, 2013
Threads: 4
Posts: 1232
Quote: TheCesspit
Curious who a single payer would be if not the government?

There appears to be many inefficient processes in health care, understand at least the argument that the government may not be the solution.
That's the point. It probably has to be the government but they suck at everything they do. Maybe local gov. could do it.
November 14th, 2016 at 4:42:08 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: pew
That's the point. It probably has to be the government but they suck at everything they do. Maybe local gov. could do it.


That would remove some of the economies of scale. They are what keeps the standard drug prices down in the UK. Conversely, they are also what keeps certain treatments unavailable due to high costs.

Thank you for the answer.

It's -possible- that a proper free market might drive prices down.
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
November 14th, 2016 at 4:43:35 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: TheCesspit


It's -possible- that a proper free market might drive prices down.


Want your answer? Look at the history of LASIK pricing.
The President is a fink.
November 14th, 2016 at 5:42:17 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18633
Quote: AZDuffman
Want your answer? Look at the history of LASIK pricing.


NO. Elective surgery is a lousy comparison for reducing costs. If you can't afford it, you don't get it.


Whereas non-elective surgery means you have to get something done, people have to pay or suffer or die.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
November 14th, 2016 at 7:32:37 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: rxwine
NO. Elective surgery is a lousy comparison for reducing costs. If you can't afford it, you don't get it.

Whereas non-elective surgery means you have to get something done, people have to pay or suffer or die.


I suspect it'd lie somewhere between the two. Genetic Sequencing and personalized medicine is getting rapidly cheaper, and is a big competitive market (especially for diagnosis kits... less so for the machines that do the grunt work). But it's also only just getting into the highly regulated stage.

It's possible that pricing for GPs would drive down under a pure free market, but not so much for areas with a massive barrier to entry, and a certain urgency about them. I don't the US system well enough to know if that's actually the case already... but regular access to a GP for check ups and referrals is a huge benefit for long term health. Under the high deductible/low premium system AZD proposes, I'd guess it would become a commodity... it's a relatively fungible (think I am using that word right) service.

Pancreatic Cancer care isn't, for example. And even worse, things that require palliative care, or long term care for chronic conditions are even harder to market. Interesting recent Freakonomics podcast did cover the savings made with early discussion of terminal care... people who discuss their care options and have a plan for death before the worst tend to make decisions that lead to significant cost savings to their health care providers: some large percentage of health care costs are spent on people in their last year of life (that's not always known), and I can see arguements why making informed decisions there could be advantageous to all. I think they mentioned making offers to some patients for full-term care (resuscitation, aggressive chemo, etc) or for a lump sum payment for themselves to make their last few months comfortable/interesting.

Course, this when first talked about led to the 'death panels' furore... but the same thing would happen if you removed government from out of the equations... there'd be an economic pressure. Some people would not get the same standard of care due to their bronze-plans. Some people would be under pressure to cancel their plans early. And other's would find their plan didn't cover them as well as they were sold.... and with health, it's not like buying a lemon of a car. Dead is dead, and no amount of suing the insurance company or bad press makes you any less dead.
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
November 14th, 2016 at 7:44:59 PM permalink
pew
Member since: Jan 8, 2013
Threads: 4
Posts: 1232
Single payer is different from what they have in the U.K. isn't it? It's not socialized medicine. Single payer would still have insurers like Blue cross and United health. The premiums would be paid from a single pool of money or am I missing something? Aren't the health care workers government employees in socialized/universal medicine.
November 14th, 2016 at 8:41:20 PM permalink
kenarman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 14
Posts: 4470
In Canada the medical workers are generally not government employees. They are however usually unionized with very strong unions and no government can allow strikes to go on for long if at all. The doctors professional organization also acts like a union and negotiates with the government for the rates that the doctors are paid.

Cesspit in the post before this you talked about the GP's. The model that exists in our current Canadian system is not viable for them now and needs to be changed. They typically make half of what other doctors make and work twice the hours. What medical grad in their right mind would aspire to be a GP when they see that return on their education investment. Much of the GP's time now is spent filling out government mandated paperwork (much of it is now data entry but the same thing). That is why some GP's now ask for a fee of as much as $100 to fill out a form that some other agency has demanded you get.
"but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin
November 14th, 2016 at 10:10:53 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: pew
Single payer is different from what they have in the U.K. isn't it? It's not socialized medicine. Single payer would still have insurers like Blue cross and United health. The premiums would be paid from a single pool of money or am I missing something? Aren't the health care workers government employees in socialized/universal medicine.


This is the definition of single payer from wikipedia.

Quote:

Single-payer healthcare is a system in which the state, rather than private insurers, pays for all healthcare costs.[1] Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom).

The term "single-payer" thus describes the funding mechanism, referring to healthcare financed by a single public body from a single fund, not the type of delivery or for whom physicians work. The British system is technically not single payer, as it consists of a number of financially and legally autonomous trusts.

The actual funding of a "single payer" system comes from all or a portion of the covered population. Although the fund holder is usually the state, some forms of single-payer use a mixed public-private system.
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
November 14th, 2016 at 10:14:29 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: kenarman
In Canada the medical workers are generally not government employees. They are however usually unionized with very strong unions and no government can allow strikes to go on for long if at all. The doctors professional organization also acts like a union and negotiates with the government for the rates that the doctors are paid.

Cesspit in the post before this you talked about the GP's. The model that exists in our current Canadian system is not viable for them now and needs to be changed. They typically make half of what other doctors make and work twice the hours. What medical grad in their right mind would aspire to be a GP when they see that return on their education investment. Much of the GP's time now is spent filling out government mandated paperwork (much of it is now data entry but the same thing). That is why some GP's now ask for a fee of as much as $100 to fill out a form that some other agency has demanded you get.


I know a huge shortage of GPs here on the island, and that explains a lot of it. It's because they've fixed the labour market price to low... and added extra paper work which takes away from doing the useful, skillful job. Imagine if Tom Brady had to fill out a form every time he completed a pass....
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
Page 3 of 4<1234>