Healthcare Reform

teachercd said:
I would be MORE in favor of food stamps being used to purchase booze and cigs. 

For two reasons.

1.  They are awesome (I don't smoke but I used to chew and I loved it and ZYN's are amazing)

2.  Food stamps are already sold to other people.  400 dollars in food stamps sold for 300 dollars cash.  So that those people selling the stamps can buy the actual stuff they want.  That just means they are getting ripped off.  
Click to expand...
It’s crazy that the government hasn’t figured out a way to make them non-transferable.   Heck I can’t even give my wife one of my free Marriott nights because it isn’t even transferable to her.  Her and my daughter are going to NYC this weekend and I would have had to be there to check in, in order to use them.     Why can’t food stamps work that way? 

 
Archy1221 said:
It’s crazy that the government hasn’t figured out a way to make them non-transferable.   Heck I can’t even give my wife one of my free Marriott nights because it isn’t even transferable to her.  Her and my daughter are going to NYC this weekend and I would have had to be there to check in, in order to use them.     Why can’t food stamps work that way? 
Click to expand...
Good question, I have no idea.

 
teachercd said:
Good question, I have no idea.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure any state actually issues "stamps" anymore that can be sold for cash.  I'm 99% certain that NE issues cards to people who qualify and the balance is shared electronically every month.  If a person sells their card, they will only get a new one if the old is cancelled.  I would imagine the state would get a bit curious is someone is losing their card each month, and only an idiot would pay cash for it only to have the rightful owner report it as "missing" after selling it.  

But some folks are really desperate and might take a friend grocery shopping and trade those groceries for cash, I guess.  At that point, I'm not sure how the government would be able to stop it.

My wife and I were on SNAP for a year when kids were first born and I was finishing school.  We got a "coupon" at the start of the month and it was a "use it or lose it" type thing.  If you didn't buy everything that was approved at one time, it didn't carry over.  And we had to present ID's to use it.

I don't really see how selling them for cash is as common as people think it is.

 
funhusker said:
I'm not sure any state actually issues "stamps" anymore that can be sold for cash.  I'm 99% certain that NE issues cards to people who qualify and the balance is shared electronically every month.  If a person sells their card, they will only get a new one if the old is cancelled.  I would imagine the state would get a bit curious is someone is losing their card each month, and only an idiot would pay cash for it only to have the rightful owner report it as "missing" after selling it.  

But some folks are really desperate and might take a friend grocery shopping and trade those groceries for cash, I guess.  At that point, I'm not sure how the government would be able to stop it.

My wife and I were on SNAP for a year when kids were first born and I was finishing school.  We got a "coupon" at the start of the month and it was a "use it or lose it" type thing.  If you didn't buy everything that was approved at one time, it didn't carry over.  And we had to present ID's to use it.

I don't really see how selling them for cash is as common as people think it is.
Click to expand...
It is a card and you are right, it is usually (from what I know) a "take them shopping" for the cash exchange.  

I can't imagine it happens all that much either.

 
RedDenver said:
RedDenver said:
This is some of the craziest stuff you've posted. Sanders has been saying the same things for decades. And what possible reason would he have for being opportunistic now? He's been winning his elections by large margins for a long time and isn't running for higher office. This seems more like you have an ax to grind with Sanders and are grasping at straws.

Have you been living under a rock for the past decade? Bernie Sanders is more annoying than Trump, MTG, and their ilk? Laughable.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
My issue with Bernie Sanders is that he's a left wing populist that rarely passes bills and uses his influence to push other Democrats into taking very unpopular policy positions. Elisabeth Warren, who less successfully embodies the populist left, is very similar. Warren, however, is one of the least valuable Senators in the Democratic coalition, running considerably behind Harris because she's not very popular, liked, or have good policy ideas.

Sanders is a lot more interested in being a cunning politician than he is working with Democrats to win (which I very much want). It's why his 2016 supporters included Tulsi Gabbard, his former press secretary Briahna Joy Gray is a podcast grifter who attacks Democrats because they don't embody her extremely unpopular (and unserious) positions, and several other cranks and grifters in his orbit that do more to harm Democrats than they do to help. His entire orbit is full of people who, similar to Trump, aren't serious about policy but are serious about turning their influence into a self-serving platform. 

I could go on and on about Bernie Sanders, but I think my point has been sufficiently made. His stances are not helpful, his policy is not serious, and the people around him have been toxic. 

RedDenver said:
You conveniently left out where UHC leads the industry in rejecting claims. Perhaps most ironic is that your least favorite politician has been championing the solution to this for decades.
Click to expand...
My best guess is that they lead the industry in rejecting claims because their profit margins are razor thin. The solution to healthcare is not Medicare for All, which I assume you are implying.

Yes, it would help. But the reality is, American healthcare is expensive because doctors in the United States get paid a lot more. Healthcare in the UK, for example, is cheaper because nurses in the UK make 37-42k a year and doctors make 100k a year. Nurses there make half as much in the UK as they do in the US, while doctors make 70% less. The same would be true if you looked at all other countries - their providers are simply paid much, much less. In addition, the United States is old, so the costs will only go up over time.

That's why healthcare is expensive here, not because of industry greed. But because Bernie is a dishonest grifter and cunning politician, he conveniently leaves out the part where huge swaths of the healthcare industry are going to have to see their pay cut dramatically in order to realize the cost savings other Western countries enjoy.

 
Dr. Strangelove said:
Yes, it would help. But the reality is, American healthcare is expensive because doctors in the United States get paid a lot more. Healthcare in the UK, for example, is cheaper because nurses in the UK make 37-42k a year and doctors make 100k a year. Nurses there make half as much in the UK as they do in the US, while doctors make 70% less. The same would be true if you looked at all other countries - their providers are simply paid much, much less. In addition, the United States is old, so the costs will only go up over time.
Click to expand...
And then add on top the hospital charges that greatly inflate the costs associated with care.  Hospital services and physician services payments account for roughly about 60% of all healthcare expenditures.   

 
Dr. Strangelove said:
My issue with Bernie Sanders is that he's a left wing populist that rarely passes bills and uses his influence to push other Democrats into taking very unpopular policy positions. Elisabeth Warren, who less successfully embodies the populist left, is very similar. Warren, however, is one of the least valuable Senators in the Democratic coalition, running considerably behind Harris because she's not very popular, liked, or have good policy ideas.

Sanders is a lot more interested in being a cunning politician than he is working with Democrats to win (which I very much want). It's why his 2016 supporters included Tulsi Gabbard, his former press secretary Briahna Joy Gray is a podcast grifter who attacks Democrats because they don't embody her extremely unpopular (and unserious) positions, and several other cranks and grifters in his orbit that do more to harm Democrats than they do to help. His entire orbit is full of people who, similar to Trump, aren't serious about policy but are serious about turning their influence into a self-serving platform. 

I could go on and on about Bernie Sanders, but I think my point has been sufficiently made. His stances are not helpful, his policy is not serious, and the people around him have been toxic. 
Click to expand...






This all reads like you don't like him because he's uncompromising in serving what he thinks is right vs serving the DNC as you think he should.

 
Dr. Strangelove said:
My issue with Bernie Sanders is that he's a left wing populist that rarely passes bills and uses his influence to push other Democrats into taking very unpopular policy positions. Elisabeth Warren, who less successfully embodies the populist left, is very similar. Warren, however, is one of the least valuable Senators in the Democratic coalition, running considerably behind Harris because she's not very popular, liked, or have good policy ideas.

Sanders is a lot more interested in being a cunning politician than he is working with Democrats to win (which I very much want). It's why his 2016 supporters included Tulsi Gabbard, his former press secretary Briahna Joy Gray is a podcast grifter who attacks Democrats because they don't embody her extremely unpopular (and unserious) positions, and several other cranks and grifters in his orbit that do more to harm Democrats than they do to help. His entire orbit is full of people who, similar to Trump, aren't serious about policy but are serious about turning their influence into a self-serving platform. 

I could go on and on about Bernie Sanders, but I think my point has been sufficiently made. His stances are not helpful, his policy is not serious, and the people around him have been toxic. 

My best guess is that they lead the industry in rejecting claims because their profit margins are razor thin. The solution to healthcare is not Medicare for All, which I assume you are implying.

Yes, it would help. But the reality is, American healthcare is expensive because doctors in the United States get paid a lot more. Healthcare in the UK, for example, is cheaper because nurses in the UK make 37-42k a year and doctors make 100k a year. Nurses there make half as much in the UK as they do in the US, while doctors make 70% less. The same would be true if you looked at all other countries - their providers are simply paid much, much less. In addition, the United States is old, so the costs will only go up over time.

That's why healthcare is expensive here, not because of industry greed. But because Bernie is a dishonest grifter and cunning politician, he conveniently leaves out the part where huge swaths of the healthcare industry are going to have to see their pay cut dramatically in order to realize the cost savings other Western countries enjoy.
Click to expand...
Bernie Sanders is one of the most honest politicians almost to a fault. Seems like you didn't like him calling out the Dem establishment, which makes sense given your hate for populism.

As for American healthcare costs, a Medicare for All or other government insurance systems will always cost less because of not having a profit margin. And there are efficiencies to be had from a single administrative entity.

That's before any cost cutting within the healthcare providers including nurses and doctors pay. And you should look at a more comparable system like Canada's since your UK example is an entirely government run healthcare system not a government healthcare insurance provider like Medicare for All.

 
RedDenver said:
That's before any cost cutting within the healthcare providers including nurses and doctors pay. And you should look at a more comparable system like Canada's since your UK example is an entirely government run healthcare system not a government healthcare insurance provider like Medicare for All.
Click to expand...
With this just I understand you correctly, are you advocating for Medicare for all to replace all other existing payers or for Medicare for All to be an option that people can buy into? An option that would have supplements, advantage plans etc and private insurance plans competing with it also?  Thanks. 

 
RedDenver said:
That's before any cost cutting within the healthcare providers including nurses and doctors pay.
Click to expand...
This will make for an interesting conundrum.   The US is already understaffed from a medical provider standpoint and won’t be corrected until more MD programs are implemented or increase the number of graduates per year in existing programs.   Then more specialty residents are needed on top of that, then more sub-specialty fellows are needed on top of that number.   That is at current reimbursement rates.   Cutting physician fees will make these recruitment numbers much much harder to achieve.  I’m sure not impossible, but very hard.   
 

People will have to get more used being cared for my RN’s and PA’s and LPN’s.   Specialists will be harder to get to because of payments go down, there will be less of them.  Too much schooling for not enough of a reward they will say.   

 
Archy1221 said:
With this just I understand you correctly, are you advocating for Medicare for all to replace all other existing payers or for Medicare for All to be an option that people can buy into? An option that would have supplements, advantage plans etc and private insurance plans competing with it also?  Thanks. 
Click to expand...
It would be the same as Medicare is today. You have it available but you aren't forced to use it. The cost comes out of taxes, so everyone would be paying for it either way.

 
Archy1221 said:
This will make for an interesting conundrum.   The US is already understaffed from a medical provider standpoint and won’t be corrected until more MD programs are implemented or increase the number of graduates per year in existing programs.   Then more specialty residents are needed on top of that, then more sub-specialty fellows are needed on top of that number.   That is at current reimbursement rates.   Cutting physician fees will make these recruitment numbers much much harder to achieve.  I’m sure not impossible, but very hard.   
 

People will have to get more used being cared for my RN’s and PA’s and LPN’s.   Specialists will be harder to get to because of payments go down, there will be less of them.  Too much schooling for not enough of a reward they will say.   
Click to expand...
I just picked nurses and doctors pay because that's what the post I was responding to mentioned. I agree with you that the low hanging fruit is administrative costs, especially at hospitals.

 
Back
Top