News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Wuhan Corona virus

Started by Sal1981, January 28, 2020, 09:04:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

PopeyesPappy

Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 13, 2020, 11:33:31 PM
We could have universal healthcare tomorrow. Congress could pass a law saying all healthcare providers must accept and treat patients regardless of their ability to pay or lose their license to practice. Tada! Universal coverage.

This is exactly what I think the current Medicare for all plans will do with the exception of instead of saying you are going to lose your license they are going to be told, and you are going to do it for half of what you get paid now.
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.

trdsf

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on April 13, 2020, 08:59:11 AM
Define affordable healthcare.
I would start with taking corporate profits out of it.  That would make an immediate and definite difference.  Also, stop the shell games and sweetheart deals -- we happened to see my uncle's final expenses when he died in '00.  If he hadn't had insurance, the hospital would have billed my grandparents something in the vicinity of $90,000.  What they accepted as payment in full from the insurer was $9,000.  That's not being in business, that's fucking racketeering.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

SGOS

#1127
Quote
No Hydra, I'm sorry but you have it backwards.
I understand your thoughts on administrative costs, but there is more math to figure in, and other considerations.

From what I can see, your calculations assume no increase in taxes to cover the extra trillion or so.  No reasonable person assumes this does not involve tax increases.  Although that will raise the hairs on the backs of the right, it's only an emotional response.  If taxes went up that $3,700 per person, and their medical expenses go down $5,000, there's an extra $1,300 per person to add to their bank account.  And the highest estimate I've seen from right wing fear mongers was actually $2,700 extra in taxes.  But these are figures just being pulled out of thin air, because no one knows what they are.  I have not seen any data from GAO, and it's my understanding they don't bring out the calculators until there is an actual bill on the table.

Medical costs do need to come down, and they should.  Drugs are 5 times higher here than in other countries, where governments set limits on manufacturers.  I buy my meds from Canada and this saves me 6000 dollars a year, and that's just on two of the drugs I buy.  So there is 6000 X [whatever multiplier you are using to calculate extra costs] for at least part of the population, and that can be subtracted from your figures.  Will our government take that step? They certainly need to and have needed to for years.  Will they?  I don't know.  That's one huge industry vs the American people, and so far our government seems to support the wealth.

Hospital costs are high, admittedly so by hospitals who say they  need to care for the uninsured.  I'm not sure how to do that math, but it seems to me that eliminates part of the expense since there will be no uninsured poor people at the doors looking for free care.

Medical costs are high, partly because of insurance.  Raise medical costs and insurance companies get higher premiums.  They don't care, and the insured sick don't care, although that should be a concern of the insured right now.  At the same time, that so called $60,000 knee operation is not what the insurance company pays, which is far less than an uninsured person pays.  You see the $60,000 on the bill, but that is not what is actually paid.  Medical costs can come down.

But I think the way to address this finance problem that exists is by getting rid of insurance companies strangle hold, and lowering medical costs, ideally at the same time.  Granted a big task for those in Washington that would rather do nothing, but certainly possible.

Also keep in mind that Medicare for all is not total coverage for anyone.  I pay an extra $350 each month to insurance companies to get all my bills paid, but that is not covering all catastrophic expenses or any of my meds.  So Insurance companies will always be with us lobbying away in Washington to reduce Medicare payments for everyone so the insurance companies can regain their strangle hold, which will always be an option for those who don't want Universal coverage for themselves, or if Medicare For All bombs.

I think the changes will be big, but not as big as the overly enthusiastic hope, or as drastic as conservatives think.  Both extremes tend to exaggerate the effect, but it won't be a Utopia or a world wide depression.

GSOgymrat

#1128
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on April 14, 2020, 12:29:35 AM
In the US when you go in for a procedure like knee replacement your insurance company/the government gets itemized bills from the hospital, the surgeon, the anesthesiologist, and who knows who else. The hospital bill includes lines for use of the surgery suite, room charges, charges for food, separate charges for changing bandages, charges for the nursing staff, ect... My understanding of the way it works in places like the UK is you get a bill that says "knee replacement surgery: £24,000". In the US it's 3 different bills with a total of forty line items totaling $60,000. It takes forty times the time to process on both payable and receivable end. This is the biggest driver of our higher administrative cost, and we won't start realizing real savings on our administrative costs until we change the way we do paperwork. None of the single provider plans I've seen even mention this. We have to get to that £24,000 point for knee replacement surgery before we can afford knee replacement surgery for everyone. That is going to take a lot more than just changing the system over to single payer. It is going to require making fundamental changes to the way hospitals and the government works before we can get there.

If we don't do that first what do you think is going to happen when the government steps in and tells our healthcare providers they are going reduce their expenses by a few points by cutting out the middleman, but also going to cut their income in half for the same amount of services? Oh and by the way. Volume is going to go up because everyone is going to be coming to you now.

If everyone has Bernie's Medicare doesn't that solve the administrative cost problem? There is only one payer, one set of reimbursement codes and prices are set not by the market buy by Medicare. For example, the average cost of a hip replacement is $39,299 and let's say that is how much Medicare will reimburse. In Bernie's plan, there are no deductibles or copays, so every doctor in America is getting $39,299 for a hip replacement and nothing more because Medicare patients can't be billed for more than Medicare pays, in fact, no patient will ever see a bill. Medicare pays on average 85% of what insurance companies pay, so physicians and hospitals will be taking a financial hit. Will providers save 15% through reduced administrative reimbursement costs? I'm not sure. In Bernie's Medicare system, prices will be whatever Medicare sets.

Keep in mind that Bernie's plan isn't the only plan. The Swiss system provides universal healthcare but doesn't eliminate insurance companies.

https://youtu.be/gniCVinKkSo

Hydra009

#1129
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on April 14, 2020, 12:29:35 AMOther countries spend less than we do because they pay less for services.
Yeah, that's kind of why people want to change our current system.

QuoteWe can't afford to provide everyone with healthcare until our costs are comparable to theirs. Just implementing a Medicare for all system without making fundamental changes to the way we do business won't get us there.
Change will require change?  Who knew!

QuoteAdministrative costs account for about 1/3 of US healthcare spending.
An obvious problem and hence the need for changing it.

QuoteThe $600 billion in savings number comes from this study. It assumes medicare for all would cut our administrative costs in half.
Every single time experts analyze this stuff, they say that a single-payer system would be cheaper.  You can't tell me they're talking bullshit and expect me to take your opinion seriously.  The far more likely explanation is that the experts are right and you're the one talking bullshit here.  You just dress it up to sound far more intelligent and reasonable than it really is.

QuoteThat is going to take a lot more than just changing the system over to single payer. It is going to require making fundamental changes to the way hospitals and the government works before we can get there.
Once again, saying that a lot of stuff needs to be changed isn't exactly a compelling argument for why nothing needs to change.

QuoteOh and by the way. Volume is going to go up because everyone is going to be coming to you now.
Overloaded hospitals?  That's the argument you're going with?  You know, there are plenty of countries with single payer.  They don't have overloaded hospitals.  You can't tell me to disbelieve my lying eyes and expect to be taken seriously.

Baruch

#1130
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on April 13, 2020, 07:51:17 PM
Healthcare in the US is not affordable. Period. It costs too much. We can't have universal coverage until it becomes affordable. Rich people don't have enough money to fund universal care at it's current costs, and it would take a bigger piece of the middle class's income than we can afford. It would make us poor. Defunding the military, and getting rid of insurance and drug manufacturer, hospital profits wouldn't be enough even with huge tax increases. I've done the math. Uncle Joe and Bernie can promise it all they want. The rest of us can talk about how nice it would be. But everybody can't have it until it costs less.

Other countries do it doesn't address the problem. Other countries don't spend nearly as much on healthcare per person as the US, and all their people are covered. They can have it because their healthcare costs less than ours does. We can't until our costs come down.

How are we going to make that happen?

Unfortunately true.  But politics runs on innumeracy.  Taxation is unnecessary.  Just look at the "liquidity" created out of nowhere since 2008.  Look at all these $1,200 stimulus checks.  The government could send $1,000,000 instead, and nobody would have to work for a living, we could afford expensive medical care.  People all over the world, all thru time, don't understand money.  And that is part of the reason why they get less, save less and waste more.  Ultimate failure to understand money, leads to ends of civilizations.

The basis of economics isn't the stock or bond market.  It is agriculture.  Without food, everyone dies.  When the economy collapses, the city populations drop, because they are parasitic on the farmers/ranchers.  Rome went from 1,000,000 people to 50,000 people in about 800 years.  Things move much faster now.  With a collapse of a modern economy like that, the cities would empty in a few years.

What does money do?  How did it start?  Started in Lydia, in W Anatolia.  The king there had a natural source of electrum (gold + silver).  Bullion traded hands.  Much of this was state-to-state trade, because the gold was the king's monopoly.  But it leaked out into the economy, into the elite, connected to the king.  Electrum wasn't a very good medium of exchange/store of value.  Money is both of those.  The king issued pre-weighted, pre-purified lumps of electrum, stamped with his symbol.  To make your own was death.  To be a corrupt mint-master was death.  But you could still use bullion.  But it was much more convenient to trade, to have government approved (monopoly) bullion in small sizes.  This came in seven sizes.  The 1/6th unit would pay for a family about a week.  But only upper class people had coins.  Just like in the US, only upper class people had checking accounts before 1946.  This electrum wasn't ideal, because the gold-silver ratio varied, and this made it easier to counterfeit.  So a new Lydian king, divided the gold from the silver, making two series, one of pure gold and another of pure silver.  Gold/electrum continued to be connected closely to the king and his cronies.  But silver coins were revolutionary (we had those in the US until 1965).  This allowed the convenience of money go out to the middle class (but 90% were still peasants doing everything by barter).  This created a capitalism partly independent of the state.  And there was much more silver in the world, than gold.  A large supply of silver, finance many states and empires (and crippled your state if you didn't have any).  In early Rome, they had no gold or silver.  To make large transactions in the market, Senators had to bring bronze bullion (aes rude, aes grave, aes signatum) in a wagon, instead of using their iPhone app, when they needed to even make a moderate purchase.  This retarded the development of the economy (which was Mafia army going all over Italy running a protection racket).  In Athens, are a large supply of silver found, that was publicly owed, led to the creation of the Athenian fleet that defeated the Persians.  The rowers were citizens, not slaves.  This led to the reinforcement of recently invented democracy.  A rower, or a juryman on a jury, got 2.11 grams of silver as his state salary.  Salary?  This is a Latin term.  Early Roman soldiers were paid in salt (salarum).  Only after Rome became a successful Empire, did they pay their soldiers in silver (a denarius a day or 3.9 grams of silver in the time of Emperor Tiberius).  Eventually Rome was reduced to buying off barbarian hordes, who only took gold coins.  This greatly damaged the Roman economy (that and rampaging barbarian hordes).

During hyperinflation (Yuan/Mongol dynasty of China, Revolutionary America, Revolutionary France, Confederacy, Germany in the 20s, Hungary in the 40s, numerous Latin American countries, Zimbabwe in the 90s) ... this has been enabled by paper money, first invented by the Sung Dynasty which preceded the Yuan.  Right on the Yuan paper money, it said you must accept this in trade (basically the Mongols were using this to buy supplies from the conquered Chinese) or the Mongol Emperor will cut off your ugly head.  This is still true in the US, if you don't accept US money in trade in the US, you can go to jail.  Today, we don't even need to print money, we have magic spreadsheets.  This is Isaac Newton's nightmare.  He was British mint-master for awhile, and was in charge of investigating and punishing counterfeiters.  Torture and execution were his methods.  You only had to have a habit of clipping (cutting off corners of silver coins to save part of the silver for yourself) to get a horrible execution.

Why didn't we have hyperinflation in 2008/2009?  Because liquidity was created out of nothing, not money.  The broken banks took that liquidity and didn't spend it (make loans to the main street), they used it for collateral in bank to bank transactions.  This is what just happened again, 4 trillion dollars in liquidity was added to the bank's balance sheets.  For the second time (firstly the pitiful Obama stimulus) we are seeing inflationary money being created out of nothing.  But inflation won't happen, because it is in the context of a deflationary period (depression).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjrvsTf6ew

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=15&v=g55oTqKWONA&feature=emb_logo

The smallest unit was 1/96th.  Half the size of a grain of rice.  True small change.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#1131
Quote from: trdsf on April 14, 2020, 05:13:39 AM
I would start with taking corporate profits out of it.  That would make an immediate and definite difference.  Also, stop the shell games and sweetheart deals -- we happened to see my uncle's final expenses when he died in '00.  If he hadn't had insurance, the hospital would have billed my grandparents something in the vicinity of $90,000.  What they accepted as payment in full from the insurer was $9,000.  That's not being in business, that's fucking racketeering.

Without profit, you are saying, draft all doctors into the Public Health army.  Doctors love profit, not just health management/health insurance companies.  You are a communist (as are many other Dems).  See Dr Zhivago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGGr21PilKY
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#1132
Quote from: Shiranu on April 13, 2020, 10:06:57 PM
Even if we kept a private insurance/out of pocket health care system, one single step would make an astronomical difference in our costs; give the government the ability to negotiate prices on medicines. As it stands, lobbyists have set up a system where the pharmaceutical companies are just about literally free to charge what ever they want for their product, which costs the individual paying for them hundreds, thousands of more dollars than the item would cost in other countries... as well as costing the federal government and insurance companies millions upon millions of dollars more.

But as Hydra pointed out, our system is already more expensive than a universal healthcare system anyways; economists, medical experts have all run those numbers and have concluded we pay far more per person as well as the state paying significantly more than it would under a universal program.

Nationalize the drug companies is even faster.  Enslave the drug researchers, for the common good.  The ends justify the means, if it is for the common good.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: Munch on April 13, 2020, 09:27:00 PM
One thing we can certainly say about this event in history, is that it tests the real mantle of whoevers in charge, and what their decisions determine.

Say whatever you like about boris, at least he is repeating the message, stay at home, save the NHS, save lives.

I do feel very sorry for you over in the states, that your president is touting lines like 'staying at home is another kind of death', while thousands are dying and he doesn't have a clue what to do.

This event really does expose people down to their most base level, some are cowards, some are courageous. Some are selfish, some are selfless. Some are smart enough, some are thoughtless.

Just do yourselves a favor, stock up, stay at home, and get into that routine, since it looks like things will get worse before it gets better over there. As someone said in one of the UK covid-19 updates, the virus is rapid to expose, and slow to decline. Its gonna be some time before we can reach 'normal' again.

Most Americans (Dems and Repubs) should die, they are traitors ;-) All people must die eventually.  Yes, politicians are mostly useless, not just Trump or Biden, but Corbyn and Johnson too.  And I have a crush on Boris.  None of these leaders will cure a single patient or grow a single ear of corn.  Useless.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: trdsf on April 14, 2020, 05:13:39 AM
I would start with taking corporate profits out of it.  That would make an immediate and definite difference.  Also, stop the shell games and sweetheart deals -- we happened to see my uncle's final expenses when he died in '00.  If he hadn't had insurance, the hospital would have billed my grandparents something in the vicinity of $90,000.  What they accepted as payment in full from the insurer was $9,000.  That's not being in business, that's fucking racketeering.

The alternative to pricing, is at-cost.  But you can't keep an economy going long term that way, only short term.  Profits are necessary to incentivize people (no, political ideology fails, see Soviet Union) and for investment in future resources, machinery etc.  Usually bureaucrats (see Soviet Union) don't even budget for maintenance of the existing machinery, because it seems day to day, to be unnecessary.  Many corporations are run into the ground by their own bureaucrats, they don't need government help.  The idea that all prices are "ala Skreli" is false.  Some things actually are expensive.  But firing squads can cure that.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#1135
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 13, 2020, 11:33:31 PM
We could have universal healthcare tomorrow. Congress could pass a law saying all healthcare providers must accept and treat patients regardless of their ability to pay or lose their license to practice. Tada! Universal coverage.

But seriously, the US can certainly afford to provide universal healthcare but there are trade-offs and different systems for delivering and funding care. You are correct that healthcare costs in the US are higher than in other countries. One reason is that the cost of treatment is artificially inflated through a net of disorganized programs designed to cover people who can't afford to just write a check to pay for their care, which is almost everyone. There is Medicare, each state has a different version of Medicaid, there are approximately 6000 private insurance companies, there are tax write-offs, community funding, medical trial reimbursement, direct billing, collection agencies, pharmaceutical payment programs... It's insanely inefficient and expensive.

The biggest problem with passing universal healthcare is no one wants to lose their current slice of the pie. Insurance companies, hospitals, clinics, physicians, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment companies, universities, lobbyists, patients, politicians... Everyone is afraid they will get shafted. So we keep the status quo even though it's expensive and results in poor health outcomes.

AOC is god?  How atheist is that? ;-)  It takes time for Congress to accomplish anything.  And in my experience, about half of what they do is harmful, and half is helpful.  Because they are manipulating potential futures, which nobody understands.  Rebalance the economy so a greater percentage is going for health care, and take out the middle men ... and you can have a better system, at an indirect cost.  Many people are willing to pay that cost.  To be alive is to choose.  It is possible, given evidence of other advanced countries, to have as good a health system as at present, at half the current cost.  We could have twice as good a health system, properly spending at the current level.  But that shifts costs around from the private sector to the public sector.  Unless you print money in an inflationary way (See other post on what money is), you have to cut other government programs.  And that can be done.  But many doctors already have a max regular patient load.  You can't make doctors by magic, particularly if you enslave or impoverish them.  Don't worry, just shoot the doctors if they don't obey your irrational orders.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#1136
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 14, 2020, 10:53:36 AM
Yeah, that's kind of why people want to change our current system.
Change will require change?  Who knew!
An obvious problem and hence the need for changing it.
Every single time experts analyze this stuff, they say that a single-payer system would be cheaper.  You can't tell me they're talking bullshit and expect me to take your opinion seriously.  The far more likely explanation is that the experts are right and you're the one talking bullshit here.  You just dress it up to sound far more intelligent and reasonable than it really is.
Once again, saying that a lot of stuff needs to be changed isn't exactly a compelling argument for why nothing needs to change.
Overloaded hospitals?  That's the argument you're going with?  You know, there are plenty of countries with single payer.  They don't have overloaded hospitals.  You can't tell me to disbelieve my lying eyes and expect to be taken seriously.

Everyone wants revolutionary dictatorship, because they think it benefits them.  They also think they will be the commissar who gets to decide who lives and who dies.  People here are fantasizing as if they were the Chinese Health Minister.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33mJRSKipbw
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hydra009

The dumbest thing I've seen today:


Baruch

#1138
Damn those deplorables ... shoot them, shoot them!

The Hollywood and media was in favor of communism the last time too ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUwsrapJcA0

They had feminists back then too.  Most people follow Leon Trotsky today, not Josep Stalin.  But Stalin knew you have to get tough.  That is why he had an agent put a mountaineering pick in Trotsky's forehead.  in the end, all you arm chair revolutionaries, you will fail like Trotsky, unless you murder millions of deplorables ;-(

Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

"US State Department Cables Warned Of Potential 'SARS-Like Pandemic' After Visiting Wuhan Lab Experimenting With Bat Coronavirus - 2018" ... too bad they didn't follow good protocol, properly.

"Whistleblower: COVID-19 Patients Need Oxygen Therapy Not Ventilator" ... group think in medicine kills.

"'You'll See Bodies In The Streets Of Africa' Warns Melinda Gates; Says Vaccine Is 'Ultimate Solution' To COVID-19" ... unfortunately the Gates Foundation uses poorly tested vaccines in Africa, the Africans are guinea pigs, while the new colonialists, Red China, exploits their resources and work.

"China Quietly Reimposes Restrictions On Movement As Outbreak's 'Second Wave' Looms" ... so much for their fake return to work.

"Veteran CIA Analyst: What if Ignored COVID-19 Warnings Had Been Leaked To WikiLeaks?" ... Assange wasn't a bad guy, the US is.

"Dr. Fauci Defies The Media, Says Trump Approved 'Mitigation' "The First Time I Recommended It"" ... Media narrative, OMB, and Dr Fauci is a Democrat, so is a god.

"Army's Seattle Field Hospital Closed After 3 Days, Without Seeing A Single Patient" ... models are just that, frequently wrong on the upside and downside.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.