Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Who will run against Trump in 2020? Who will run against Trump in 2020?

02-23-2019 , 12:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33
Among a million other things, I don't see the physician lobby being much in favor of a plan that will likely radically reduce their salaries with the stroke of a pen.

I always hear that the US spends more on healthcare than other countries. True. We also have more/better specialists than other countries. We consume more medicine in the US, especially with regards to specialists. Becoming a specialist is difficult, expensive, and time consuming. They rightly feel they deserve to be well compensated for their training and expertise.

Most people want everyone to be covered (hence the strong polling for Medicare for all, which I suspect many people just interpret as "coverage for everyone.") However they also want access to the best specialists and no rationing of care.

The US does in fact have the best healthcare system in the world, IF you have insurance. Focus on a public option to cover the uninsured. Turning the whole thing over to Medicare is a terrible idea. You can quote any polls you like, when push comes to shove it won't fly. Even with public support it wouldn't work just based on the math. They tried it in Vermont and (surprise), it was a massive failure.
Physician salaries are not the primary thing driving healthcare costs in the US. Just as an example here is graph of change in number of physicians and change in number of healthcare administrators (this is just change in total numbers of each, not salary but still shows useful concept).

02-23-2019 , 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kafja
Don't you think deciding that people should be forced to pay for ambulances on the basis of your one anecdotal example of someone misusing the system is kind of stupid?


'I saw someone spending their welfare check on cigarettes and a flat screen TV while ignoring their hungry kids. This is why we can't have nice things. If we take it away from them they'll learn to be responsible'

How is what you're saying substantively different than this argument? Is this a good argument?
I don't think people should have to pay for ambulances. I do think that people who call ambulances for constipation should have their ambulance rights revoked to some extent. I don't think these beliefs are contradictory.

Your analogy is not apt because in your scenario, whatever harm is being done is happening inside the family. In the case of this woman, she was doing damage to other people who were trying to use the medical system.
02-23-2019 , 01:09 PM
LOL revoking ambulance rights. You do realize that in many places in the Southern United States ambulances would stop going to black residential areas or would start going slowly on purpose?
02-23-2019 , 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
I don't think people should have to pay for ambulances. I do think that people who call ambulances for constipation should have their ambulance rights revoked to some extent. I don't think these beliefs are contradictory.
Ok but these beliefs are bad. What happens when you revoke someone's ambulance rights and then they have a real emergency and they're poor and cannot afford the $650?

As noted above, who revokes these rights, under what basis? What is to stop certain groups of people being disproportionately punished for abusing the system and having their rights revoked while other groups of people are mysteriously not? Love to fix healthcare by turning the ambulance service into the ****ing police.


edit: removed the second part of this post cos i'm dumb and can't read and was arguing with a point that wasn't made, the rest stands tho

Last edited by Kafja; 02-23-2019 at 01:44 PM.
02-23-2019 , 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Question: When people talk of Medicare For All, are they including the fact that it only supposedly pays 80% in most cases?


Probably not but that’s how much my private plan pays fwiw after the deductible is met
02-23-2019 , 02:05 PM
There was a policy suggestion a while back to post facto charge ambulance users if it were determined that they didn't have an emergency that required an ambulance.

I think they axed it because it was too difficult to clearly differentiate between illegitimate and legitimate uses. Some heart attack symptoms sound pretty mundane. So if you're having chest pains and you think you're having a heart attack but it ends up it was bronchitis or indigestion or something what do you do then? Then you have the issue of mobility of older people who may choose to use an ambulance rather than risk driving themselves even for more mundane things.
02-23-2019 , 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Question: When people talk of Medicare For All, are they including the fact that it only supposedly pays 80% in most cases?
So this is inaccurate?
Quote:
For individuals, there would be no costs — no deductibles, no copays or coinsurance. The two exceptions would be for some prescription drugs — though that would be limited to $200 a year — and possibly for long-term care.
Medicare for All: What it is, what it isn't
02-23-2019 , 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor
In usa#1 you get an ambulance if 1) unconscious 2) bone sticking out 3) hole from a bullet or knife
I wish this were true. We go on ambulance calls for absurd things every day. That said, most of the people that do this use the ER as their PCP due to lack of options.
02-23-2019 , 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
Read better? I broke a chunk off the tibia inside the knee joint. Needed surgery to put in a plate with 12 screws. The ACL got torn in half. Haven't had it repaired.
eh, proly still not getting an ambulance in usa.
02-23-2019 , 07:18 PM
Woman: Please send an ambulance!

Dispatch: Ok what symptoms are you experiencing ma'am?

Woman: I can't poop.

Dispatch: You're constipated? Is that your only symptom? How many days has it been?

Woman: 2 days.

Dispatch: Please call your doctor tomorrow, this is not an emergency and you don't need an ambulance.

Problem solved.
02-23-2019 , 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by synth_floyd
Kamala Harris is the most electable candidate IMO. She has a solidly progressive platform. She endorsed the GND and even proposes a universal basic income inspired tax cut that pays out in 12 monthly installments. But she also frames her positions that don't make her out to be a "loony lefty."
If she goes hard in in the paint for universal basic income, reparations and the GND in a general election, she will absolutely be cast as a "loony lefty."
02-23-2019 , 09:07 PM
If she is the Democratic nominee in the general election, she will absolutely be cast as a "loony lefty."
02-23-2019 , 09:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bored5000
If she goes hard in in the paint for universal basic income, reparations and the GND in a general election, she will absolutely be cast as a "loony lefty."
kamala won the prosecutor election by running to the right of a guy who was known as one of the most progressive prosecutors of all time and under whom convictions dropped consistently.

she painted him as allowing criminals to run rampant and ran a bunch of ads and pictures of scary dudes putting up gang signs coming to getchya.

then she supported 3 strikes your out and threw ppl in jail for life for piddily amounts of drugs or shoplifting.

then she prosecuted parents who kids were truant from school.

oh an she laughed about all of those things after the fact and when acknowledging them.

she is a horrific person and candidate.
02-23-2019 , 10:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor
kamala won the prosecutor election by running to the right of a guy who was known as one of the most progressive prosecutors of all time and under whom convictions dropped consistently.

she painted him as allowing criminals to run rampant and ran a bunch of ads and pictures of scary dudes putting up gang signs coming to getchya.

then she supported 3 strikes your out and threw ppl in jail for life for piddily amounts of drugs or shoplifting.

then she prosecuted parents who kids were truant from school.

oh an she laughed about all of those things after the fact and when acknowledging them.

she is a horrific person and candidate.
link please.

did search, can't find any evidence to support claim that she prosecuted parents of truant children and those parents did time in a california jail.
02-23-2019 , 11:23 PM
Did you try googling: prosecuted parents who kids were truant? It's the first result for me https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...secutions-clip. Or are you just trolling with the "did time in a california jail" part?
02-23-2019 , 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
My understanding is that this isnt largely the case. Americans don't use more healthcare than other countries. On the utilization metrics we are on par with everyone else. Americans don't go to the doctor more etc. The per unit costs are more though so healthcare consumes more of GDP than other countries.
US has higher prices across the board but not by as much as some people assume for procedures also available in other countries. Diagnostic tests and drugs are WAY out of line but surgeries aren't much higher (given salary differentials and GDP/capital differentials) than what you'd expect.
02-24-2019 , 01:11 AM
Mods ? Can we nuke this massive derail please ?
02-24-2019 , 01:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio
Did you try googling: prosecuted parents who kids were truant? It's the first result for me https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...secutions-clip. Or are you just trolling with the "did time in a california jail" part?
No parents were arrested, and none were jailed, according to a prosecutor who still works on the issue in the current district attorney’s office. Instead, the parents were issued citations to come to court, where they could avoid a fine by completing a plan to improve their child’s attendance.
02-24-2019 , 01:41 AM
The claim in the post you quoted and the part you emphasized is that she prosecuted parents of truant children, which is undeniably true, so why are you going on about jail? That has nothing to do with anything. Who's saying she sent the parents to jail? You're arguing against a make believe foe.
02-24-2019 , 10:12 AM


booker trying to get the fox news watchers vote?
02-24-2019 , 10:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio
The claim in the post you quoted and the part you emphasized is that she prosecuted parents of truant children, which is undeniably true, so why are you going on about jail? That has nothing to do with anything. Who's saying she sent the parents to jail? You're arguing against a make believe foe.
Read the article, why are we supposed to hate Harris for this? They made the parents come up with a plan to increase attendance to avoid a fine. My understanding is in Europe it’s completely standard to fine parents of truant kids and thought I remember reading England collects about 25 million in these fines each year.
02-24-2019 , 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio
The claim in the post you quoted and the part you emphasized is that she prosecuted parents of truant children, which is undeniably true, so why are you going on about jail? That has nothing to do with anything. Who's saying she sent the parents to jail? You're arguing against a make believe foe.
as i understand prosecution in the United States, the first step in that process is an arrest. from the source you linked, it appears as though the number of parents prosecuted for refusing to send their children to school, under Harris as AG, is zero.

perhaps this quote from Mehdi Hasan (KAMALA HARRIS WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT. BUT WHAT ABOUT HER RIGHT-WING PAST?) better describes what Victor was referring to;

Sorry, Senator, that’s bull****. That’s a complete evasion. It’s not that prosecutors shouldn’t exist, it’s that prosecutors, especially Democrats who one day want to run for president, shouldn’t have a record of such awfulness on drug cases, or police use of force cases, or official misconduct cases, or legal marijuana or the death penalty. They shouldn’t brag about being a cop who used their badge to scare the **** out of the parents of truant kids — disproportionately poor and non-white parents, I might add.
02-24-2019 , 11:16 AM
Quote:
As San Francisco’s district attorney, Harris had prosecuted at least 25 truancy cases as of late 2010. No parents were arrested, and none were jailed, according to a prosecutor who still works on the issue in the current district attorney’s office.
Read the article
02-24-2019 , 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAdvantage
Mods ? Can we nuke this massive derail please ?
Do you realize the thread you are in?
02-24-2019 , 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor
Read the article
Other posters trolling aside, why are we supposed to be upset about this? Looks like they didn’t actually fine the parents, whereas is Europe it sounds standard to fine parents for truanacy of kids.

      
m