(11-17-2016, 03:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: And the voters who wanted "change" last Tuesday, and before, seem unable to grasp that there are 3 branches of government. Imagine that, allegedly voting for Trump because he promised change, better trade deals that would bring jobs back, so what do they do? Vote for Pat Toomey and Ron Johnson, the most typical GOP Republican stooges imaginable who don't care a thing even about better trade deals? Anyone in the right mind call THAT "voting for change?" How many GOP congress-critters were thrown out? Just 6; is that "voting for change??" NO, it isn't!

(11-17-2016, 12:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: To the contrary, private insurance is far more able to negotiate for lower prices.  As you point out, government is subject to lobbying from the suppliers, keeping prices high; private insurance doesn't have that problem.

Obama Wrote:In an age of social media where so many people are getting their information in sound bites and snippets off their phones, if we can't discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems," he said. "If people, whether they're conservative, liberal, left or right, are unwilling to compromise and engage in the democratic process and are taking absolutist views and demonizing opponents, then democracy will break down.

(11-18-2016, 04:16 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN is covering Obama's visit to Berlin, Despite reassurance, Obama warns Europe of a 'meaner world'  

One paragraph in particular raises some of the same themes we've been discussing here.

Obama Wrote:In an age of social media where so many people are getting their information in sound bites and snippets off their phones, if we can't discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems," he said. "If people, whether they're conservative, liberal, left or right, are unwilling to compromise and engage in the democratic process and are taking absolutist views and demonizing opponents, then democracy will break down.

Now, is he talking about this forum specifically, or the world in general?  That's my problem with extreme partisans in a nutshell.

Basically, Stresemann meets Hoover. Nice talk, but now largely irrelevant.

(11-17-2016, 04:59 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(11-17-2016, 12:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: To the contrary, private insurance is far more able to negotiate for lower prices.  As you point out, government is subject to lobbying from the suppliers, keeping prices high; private insurance doesn't have that problem.

Whatcha talkin' about Warren?   Health insurance companies are useless intermediaries , man.

The money going to them is utter waste. Just think about all the money going to them that could just go to health care providers directly.  Like, I'll take the Medicare starts at age 0 over the crap we had before Obamacare and the  sort of messed up stuff with Obamacare.  Health care does not work under free enterprise do to a mismatch in  the ability to afford what is actually needed.

(11-18-2016, 04:16 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

Obama Wrote:In an age of social media where so many people are getting their information in sound bites and snippets off their phones, if we can't discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems," he said. "If people, whether they're conservative, liberal, left or right, are unwilling to compromise and engage in the democratic process and are taking absolutist views and demonizing opponents, then democracy will break down.

Now, is he talking about this forum specifically, or the world in general?  That's my problem with extreme partisans in a nutshell.

(11-18-2016, 11:42 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 04:16 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

Obama Wrote:In an age of social media where so many people are getting their information in sound bites and snippets off their phones, if we can't discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems," he said. "If people, whether they're conservative, liberal, left or right, are unwilling to compromise and engage in the democratic process and are taking absolutist views and demonizing opponents, then democracy will break down.

Now, is he talking about this forum specifically, or the world in general?  That's my problem with extreme partisans in a nutshell.

Pretty clear he's talking about himself, even if he doesn't realize it.  No one took absolutist views, demonized opponents, and refused to compromise more than Obama.

(11-18-2016, 11:42 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 04:16 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

Obama Wrote:In an age of social media where so many people are getting their information in sound bites and snippets off their phones, if we can't discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems," he said. "If people, whether they're conservative, liberal, left or right, are unwilling to compromise and engage in the democratic process and are taking absolutist views and demonizing opponents, then democracy will break down.

Now, is he talking about this forum specifically, or the world in general?  That's my problem with extreme partisans in a nutshell.

Pretty clear he's talking about himself, even if he doesn't realize it.  No one took absolutist views, demonized opponents, and refused to compromise more than Obama.

(11-18-2016, 11:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-17-2016, 04:59 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(11-17-2016, 12:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: To the contrary, private insurance is far more able to negotiate for lower prices.  As you point out, government is subject to lobbying from the suppliers, keeping prices high; private insurance doesn't have that problem.

Whatcha talkin' about Warren?   Health insurance companies are useless intermediaries , man.

The money going to them is utter waste. Just think about all the money going to them that could just go to health care providers directly.  Like, I'll take the Medicare starts at age 0 over the crap we had before Obamacare and the  sort of messed up stuff with Obamacare.  Health care does not work under free enterprise do to a mismatch in  the ability to afford what is actually needed.

Of course you'll take a system that allows you to spend other peoples' money as freely as you want.

Quote:For those of us who care about societal efficiency and the financial stability of the health care system, though, private insurance does a very good job on cost controls.  Perhaps you don't look at your insurance statements, but I do, and typically private insurance pays about 1/3 of the health care providers' "normal" rates.

Quote:There are absolutely problems with employers making decisions on employees' health care, but for medicare that permitted the individuals to choose their insurers, that problem would be ameliorated to a great extent.

(11-18-2016, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 11:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: For those of us who care about societal efficiency and the financial stability of the health care system, though, private insurance does a very good job on cost controls.  Perhaps you don't look at your insurance statements, but I do, and typically private insurance pays about 1/3 of the health care providers' "normal" rates.

If you want health care costs to rise several times the rate of inflation, then private insurance is your cup of tea.

(11-18-2016, 02:43 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 11:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: For those of us who care about societal efficiency and the financial stability of the health care system, though, private insurance does a very good job on cost controls.  Perhaps you don't look at your insurance statements, but I do, and typically private insurance pays about 1/3 of the health care providers' "normal" rates.

If you want health care costs to rise several times the rate of inflation, then private insurance is your cup of tea.

The only way to avoid that is to ration or to have the people who are getting the medical service to pay for it themselves.  I agree that the current system that ties health care to the employer has problems in that respect.  Better would be for the employer to pay that money to the employee and for the employee to choose his own health care freely.

(11-18-2016, 03:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 02:43 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 11:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: For those of us who care about societal efficiency and the financial stability of the health care system, though, private insurance does a very good job on cost controls.  Perhaps you don't look at your insurance statements, but I do, and typically private insurance pays about 1/3 of the health care providers' "normal" rates.

If you want health care costs to rise several times the rate of inflation, then private insurance is your cup of tea.

The only way to avoid that is to ration or to have the people who are getting the medical service to pay for it themselves.  I agree that the current system that ties health care to the employer has problems in that respect.  Better would be for the employer to pay that money to the employee and for the employee to choose his own health care freely.

Why would that way be the "only way?" Only because you don't believe in "socialized medicine." No, single payer is the way to "avoid that."

(11-18-2016, 04:31 PM)Galen Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 03:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 02:43 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 11:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: For those of us who care about societal efficiency and the financial stability of the health care system, though, private insurance does a very good job on cost controls.  Perhaps you don't look at your insurance statements, but I do, and typically private insurance pays about 1/3 of the health care providers' "normal" rates.

If you want health care costs to rise several times the rate of inflation, then private insurance is your cup of tea.

The only way to avoid that is to ration or to have the people who are getting the medical service to pay for it themselves.  I agree that the current system that ties health care to the employer has problems in that respect.  Better would be for the employer to pay that money to the employee and for the employee to choose his own health care freely.

Why would that way be the "only way?" Only because you don't believe in "socialized medicine." No, single payer is the way to "avoid that."

Probably because he understands economics enough to know that having a third party payer is about the worst way to do things.  If the consumer is the one paying then they will weigh the costs and benefits of the treatments they are getting.  The current system that ties insurance to employment is a direct consequence of the wage controls implemented during the war and making such benefits non-taxable.

(Insult redacted)

(11-18-2016, 01:04 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 08:06 AM)Odin Wrote: If the Dems want to fight back and win they need to adopt the model of "alt-left" parties like the Scottish National Party in the UK and Podemos in Spain. The main problem with the mainstream Center-Left parties through much of the Western World is that they have completely ignored the rising tide of anti-globalization and anti-technocratic sentiment among the working class, dismissing it as the "stupid plebs not knowing what is best for them". This has given an opening for the Far Right and now the Far Right are reaping the fruits of wooing the working class and riding the wave of anti-globalism and anti-technocratic elitism.

Those on the Left who defend Free Trade and Globalization, you have a choice to make. What do you care about more, your own ideological purity, or fighting off the rising tide of the Far Right?

Right on. And in many ways, what you describe is a quite patriotic Left wing.

Irony - were there to be an efficacious "Alt-Left" it would be far more patriotic (in fact, diametrically opposed in terms of patriotism) versus the "Alt-Right." The "Alt-Right" in addition to not being all of the Right, is actually faux "Right."

No real Rightist (or any patriot of any polity) aligns with a trans-national "pan" movement such as "Eurasianism" aka "National Bolshevism."

The US "Alt-Right" are actually enemies of the US and Western Civilization in general. To be fair, most of them probably do not realize this and they have been steered via the "Alpha Method" and other tactics into their current position. But operationally speaking, they are enemies.

#RealNationalism

(11-18-2016, 11:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Of course you'll take a system that allows you to spend other peoples' money as freely as you want.

Uh, and how are we denizens of McWages supposed to pay for health insurance. Is it OK for health insurance companies to deny based on pre existing conditions?  Now, here's one place I'll agree with you.  Let's abolish all laws that allow health insurance companies to remain an oligopoly.   I'll go further, let's abolish all laws that allow Big Pharma to remain an oligopoly. All laws that present barriers to entry in the health field should be abolished. I want to gore a bunch of sacred cows that way.

Quote:For those of us who care about societal efficiency and the financial stability of the health care system, though, private insurance does a very good job on cost controls.  Perhaps you don't look at your insurance statements, but I do, and typically private insurance pays about 1/3 of the health care providers' "normal" rates.

I see nothing wrong with single payer with deductibles.  I rather doubt anyone would go to a doc if they had to pay something instead of getting the latest heavy metal DVD.

Quote:There are absolutely problems with employers making decisions on employees' health care, but for medicare that permitted the individuals to choose their insurers, that problem would be ameliorated to a great extent.

Like someone else mentioned, that's a WWII price control legacy. It needs to go. I'll agree that price controls are utterly stupid. Look at how well they work in Venezuela.

(11-18-2016, 03:52 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 02:43 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 11:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: For those of us who care about societal efficiency and the financial stability of the health care system, though, private insurance does a very good job on cost controls.  Perhaps you don't look at your insurance statements, but I do, and typically private insurance pays about 1/3 of the health care providers' "normal" rates.

If you want health care costs to rise several times the rate of inflation, then private insurance is your cup of tea.

The only way to avoid that is to ration or to have the people who are getting the medical service to pay for it themselves.  I agree that the current system that ties health care to the employer has problems in that respect.  Better would be for the employer to pay that money to the employee and for the employee to choose his own health care freely.

Here's a hypothetical for you.

Let's say we have a company you never heard of. Joe's Computer Garage. The reason you haven't heard of it is, it's an army of 1.

Now, let's say we have Dell.

Joe's Computer Garage goes to negotiate a contract with Mega Chip Inc. I wonder what the terms and conditions will be?

Now, Dell goes to negotiate their contract with Mega Chip. Hmmm ... you don't suppose ... Dell might get better Ts and Cs? Maybe, just maybe?

Well, health insurance is no different.