Ease Up, O'Haters

  • This topic has 59 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by Amus.
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 60 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3373
    duxrule
    Participant

    “Judge Jeanine Pirro”? What, you couldn’t exhume Wapner?

    #3377
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    BTW, as few as 6-10 Republican votes would have made a whole lot more possible with the ACA.

    Just a few.

    It is completely laughable today to see all the bitching and whining over the Republicans own policy vision implemented.

    I often write Stupid Party for good reason. 🙂

    Here is the brutal truth:

    Obama got the successful Republican policy passed. Bernie Sanders made sure there was a carve out for Vermont to implement universal health care to show Americans what is possible.

    People understand progress is needed. See the ugly data I put above. That track is the default, and it is completely unacceptable and unsustainable too.

    A mere call to repeal is not a viable option and most people understand that.

    A repeal and replace is plausible, but that means the Republicans are going to have to post up a better idea for that to make any sense and get traction!

    This puts the Stupid Party in the highly entertaining position of having to reject their own policy vision, and wait for it… 🙂

    …essentially embrace what Democrats and Americans overwhelmingly support; namely, universal health care policy, ideally a single payer one like most of the world is succesful with.

    Even better is the desire to cut costs. Everybody understands that graph I put above. The ACA is a reasonable way to do health care, but is more expensive than everybody would like. This is because DELIVERY policy remains unreformed. Bulk buying medicine would save a lot. Standardized, efficient primary care using known, lean, effective treatment would further reduce costs.

    Insurers and medical tech, drug, and service providers all are profit based right now, and cannot realistically be regulated down to more acceptable costs.

    A market solution would involve competition, and that is best done with socialized alternatives, which would not have a profit motive, meaning the for profit entities would need to add real value to profit, good for everyone.

    Eliminating insurers would also improve on costs, which is what Single payer does.

    What alternative are Republicans really going to offer?

    We got the ACA, which is about the minimum viable, conservative policy. And it works, but not as well as we need it to work.

    Republicans are forced to deny Americans health care policy overall, or present all the alternatives to their own policy that Democrats have pushed hard for years to get done!

    Obama is awesome.

    What he did was get marginal Republican policy passed, knowing people want and need more, also knowing more means Democratic Party type policy, because that is the better, more viable, proven, effective, policy in use throught out the world.

    Isn’t that beautiful?

    I sure think so.

    Just remember that when you read all this shit. The Stupid Party could have tossed in with Democrats to do ordinary people real good. They could today be running on an arguably progressive, conservative platform with a very real shot at seeing many other elements of their agenda competing with Democrats.

    Instead, they got boxed in, their own opposition used to great effect!

    Love it.

    Now Republicans stand for, DON’T GET SICK AND DIE QUICKLY as their primary health care policy vision, unless they want to actually do people a solid and work to improve the ACA.

    I like Obama, and it took me a while to realize how this will go. That ACA fight was worth every cost.

    Early on, all of us here were experiencing confusion and angst over the ACA, many obvious policy options seemingly off the table for no reason.

    We were told what is possible, and that turned out to be true.

    Getting started was the most important thing and today we know why.

    Go ahead Republicans! Post up your better ideas. This Democrat can’t wait to work with you to get them done.

    #3379
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Regarding the election, many progressive Democrats, who ran as Democrats did just fine.

    Negative policy isn’t viable long term. Costs and risks growing through mere opposition don’t go away. They need to be remedied, or we won’t be able to compete and improve, which will continue to diminish the prospects for ordinary people to live meaningful lives.

    Anybody willing to step up and do people right will do just fine in most parts of the USA.

    Remember, always ask what the positive, possible, practical, viable, policy alternative is. Where you don’t get an answer, know that advocate or office holder is a dead end.

    What I think needs to happen is the same thing we saw with the ACA, are seeing with pot, minimum wage, gay rights and a number of other issues in need of progress.

    Notice the Republicans are advancing their policy visions in the same way. The difference is failure compared to the relative success associated with basic liberal policy ideas.

    If you aren’t hearing solutions, you are hearing the cause of the problems.

    #3380
    jerry1949
    Spectator

    “A market solution would involve competition, and that is best done with socialized alternatives, which would not have a profit motive, meaning the for profit entities would need to add real value to profit, good for everyone.”

    I disagree with this reasoning. The cost of profit is more than offset by the efficiency and better prices that competition forces, especially when unaccountable and overpaid bureaucrats are running the show.

    #3387
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    The world health care data does not support that position, unless there are significant regulations.

    There is an inherent conflict between for profit and health care and it centers on people being mandatory customers for most cases, save cosmetics, lifestyle, etc type care.

    When they compete with non profit entities, they profit by adding real value people are willing to pay for and can potentially elect out of.

    And like I said, Republicans are completely free to take that idea, have it vetted, studied, and present us with a case.

    We have lots of data on what works well. Whether you agree isn’t material. Since the US is painfully behind, and bleeding money hard, reform advocates have the advantage of the data from the many other nations to work from. This stuff isn’t new.

    Beating that data is material.

    If Republicans cannot do that, the ideology does not matter, which is the beauty of where we are right now.

    #3391
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Going forward in health care is going to need to be data driven, fact based policy, due to the costs and risks involved.

    Republicans need to do the work on this, not just say stuff.

    #3392
    duxrule
    Participant

    “The cost of profit is more than offset by the efficiency and better prices that competition forces, especially when unaccountable and overpaid bureaucrats are running the show.”

    Who is this good for? The consumer or the nameless suit in the corner office?

    #3393
    jerry1949
    Spectator

    The free market is always good for the consumer. That a “nameless suit” might make some money too is irrelevant. It’s better him than 20 or 30 lifetime paper-pushers in DC, and higher prices for us.

    Look at the Post Office. It costs the same to mail a letter from Eugene to Portland as from Seattle to Key West, Florida. To a government operation, that kind of unfairness and distortion makes sense.

    I’d rather the “suits” be in charge and let them compete with eeach other.

    #3394
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    You picked a bad example. If it were not for the Bush administration hobbling the Post Office, there would be no comparison.

    Unlike those other private carriers, the Post serves everybody, and does so in a remarkably efficient way.

    If the Post were to offer some other value added, not for profit services, it would flat out rule. I’m thinking banking / check cash and other basics for low to middle income people looking for low cost, lean options.

    The Post is entirely self funded, takin no tax dollars, and it competes nicely on rates while offering universal service.

    We could only dream of health care running as well as the post does while hobbled, and it would be awesome to have it all run as the Post can.

    Again, you need to do the work, not just say stuff F&B.

    There is an inherent conflict between for profit health care and the fact that people are forced consumers for all but cosmetic, luxery, and lifestyle type services.

    Trotting out the same old free market is… bullshit doesn’t do aything meaningful in light of a ton of working, proven data accumulated from all over the world, by nations doing it better and at a lower cost than we have for some considerable time.

    #3395
    edselehr
    Participant

    “The free market is always good for the consumer.”

    Tell that to those who suffered the housing market/stock market collapse in 2008, or the stock market crash of 1929; there’s two examples that disprove your statement. Want more?

    “That a “nameless suit” might make some money too is irrelevant. It’s better him than 20 or 30 lifetime paper-pushers in DC, and higher prices for us.”

    Wow, there are so many strawmen and “assumed” facts in that statement I don’t know where to begin…

    “Look at the Post Office. It costs the same to mail a letter from Eugene to Portland as from Seattle to Key West, Florida. To a government operation, that kind of unfairness and distortion makes sense.”

    An informed electorate is key to a properly functioning democracy. A postal system, equally and fairly accessible to all Americans, is one of the cornerstones of making sure information can flow between the people freely. Having access to postal services is just as constitutional as the First or Second Amendment, yet constitution lovers like yourself conveniently forget that.

    Your problem F&B is that you think rights and democracy should be commodified and sold to the highest bidder, with the citizens paying the bill.

    “I’d rather the “suits” be in charge and let them compete with eeach other.”

    You are the quintessential plutocrat.

    #3396
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    It costs the same to sen an email anywhere in the world too, just as it costs the same to download a big movie or just a picture.

    France recently started to deploy national broadband, and they found private carriers worked well in high density areas where there are a variety of needs and a population sufficient to support for profit operations and competition.

    They also found a mix of socializd service and private worked well for moderate population areas, with the State best equipped for rural regions.

    This mirrors the Post nicely, and what people don’t realize is the entire network needs to run to provide service to all. Letters move as they move, and offering universal service at good rates makes great sense for everybody.

    Mail networks run just like data ones do. The private carriers cannot deliver to all regions, nor do they deliver to all addresses, most notably pos office boxes, used by tons of small businesses operating on both data and mail networks.

    The US is behind on broadband, and it’s wireless costs and data availability are crappy compare to other places where competition and a mix of offerings are there to insure people get good value.

    Really shitty example. You could hardly do worse.

    Successful health care systems that run at sensible costs, and remember we are double the second most expensive in the world while offering non universal coverage and lesser outcomes, either run strongly regulated private entities, or a mix of public and private or are entirely socialized.

    Germany has two tiers, one state and one private and citizens can choose one or the other, but once they go private, they cannot return to State, but for very extreme circumstances.

    Go and do some reading. The data is out there. I personally linked support for every word I’ve ever written here on this topic multiple times.

    Guess you just don’t pay attention, or you fail to get anything from what you read…

    #3397
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Besides, we have the ACA now, and it is better than what we had before.

    Improving on it is the goal.

    Anybody wanting to advocate for something better need only demonstrate it really is better and they literally have a world of data to work from.

    Bumper sticker bull shit walks. Data talks.

    #3418
    skeptical
    Participant

    “Americans are angry about Barrycare, which is now at an abysmal low for popularity.”

    O’bummer!

    #3421
    duxrule
    Participant

    I notice that Herb didn’t publish this Gallup poll, which came out on the same day as the one he posted:

    Newly Insured Through Exchanges Give Coverage Good Marks
    Over seven in 10 Americans who bought new health insurance policies through the government exchanges earlier this year rate the quality of their healthcare and their healthcare coverage as “excellent” or “good.” These positive evaluations are generally similar to the reviews that all insured Americans give to their health insurance.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/179396/newly-insured-exchanges-give-coverage-good-marks.aspx

    So, what do we learn? Despite the constant drone from Herb and the rest of the O’Hate Machine, THE ACA IS WORKING, AND PEOPLE LIKE WHAT THEY’RE GETTING. Sorry ’bout that, Herb.

    #3422
    Amus
    Participant

    If the Post Office was a bad example, perhaps Enron would be a better example.

    In one of e the first actions of Bush 43’s administration, Dick Cheney allowed Enron to write the rules for electricity markets and we saw how the “Free Market” (there’s still no such thing by the way) operates when unaccountable and overpaid bureaucrats are sidelined.

    In a “Free Market” (there’s still no such thing by the way) prices can go up as well as down.

    Do you really want these guys running healthcare?

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 60 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.