$ilver Bullets

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to $ilver Bullets

  1. rl crabb says:

    While Uni-care is a noble idea, it won’t come cheap. There is no such animal… http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/17/new-yorks-single-payer-proposal-would-re

  2. Judith Lowry says:

    It surely is worrisome Bob,
    But, then there is also the good medical news, almost daily.
    Better ability to understand our individual bodies and properly care for and maintain them and could help us beat back the rising cost of being sick.

    Here’s something wonderful from Apple.

    http://www.imedicalapps.com/2014/09/apple-watch-diabetes-care/

    • Judith Lowry says:

      And just because you are sounding a tad gloomy today, here’s a bit of cheer.
      Julian had those sexual harassment charges dropped, Chelsea got sprung from prison and Roger just went to meet his Maker.
      Have a great weekend.

  3. fish says:

    State Sen. Jeffrey Klein (D-34), the head of the Independent Democratic Conference, told The Huffington Post that he would support the single-payer plan because it would provide “peace of mind” for New York residents.

    Yeah…..you can totally trust us this time that it’ll work! No really…..pinkie swear!

    • Chris Peterson says:

      “This time”?

      We’ve never had single payer in this country on a nationwide scale, which is how it optimally works. Everybody pays, just like for our military, and schools, and infrastructure, and police and fire protection. And everybody is served; the old, the sick, the young and healthy; everyone. No unicorns need apply.
      If our representatives were forbidden to take bribes from the insurance companies, we would have had single payer before all the rest of the industrialized nations who passed us by on this issue decades ago. same with fossil fuels; the horse and carriage have left the barn, and instead of leading the world in innovation, we make sad little gestures that keep us barely in the group that’s heading gainfully into the future.
      Money makes us the most powerful nation on Earth, but it also makes us one step behind it; a position that cannot be sustained.

      • fish says:

        I could have a discussion with you about how the government is running multiple health care programs that are not Obamacare and that they are either poorly run or going broke but you’re such a ridiculous cardboard cutout of a progressive I’m not gonna!

        If you’d like, the local marketing rep for the state has posted a comment just below! I’m sure he’ll be happy to chat with you!

        • Chris Peterson says:

          Cardboard cutout. Interesting assumption.
          I agree that there are govt. programs of many different interests which are inefficient, but unlike “cardboard cutouts” of other persuasions, I would rather work to fix them, rather than simply throw them out.
          The ACA was flawed by an enormous give away to many vested participants, mostly in the insurance industry, but did conservatives work to fix it? Not on their life. It would have meant going back on their promises to their biggest donors. (Hint: not the majority who supposedly they work for.)
          Aw well, I guess we can agree to be too far apart in our frivolous dialogue to really accomplish anything.

  4. Steve Frisch says:

    With all due respect to the Reason Foundation and other private analysis as Chris noted single payer on a national scale is an entirely different thing. In both Great Britain and Canada where single payer is the norm health care costs on a per capita basis are less than half what they are in the United States and health outcomes across the board are generally better. The best comparison, although still not accurate due to restrictions, would be comparing the per capita cost of private insurance in the US to Medicare.

    I suspect the Republicans are going to rue the day they dug in on the ACA…my guess is that we have a Democratic majority in the House and Senate 4 years from now….and we get single payer as a result of their recalcitrance..which would in my humble opinion be the preferred outcome. Cheaper for people, cheaper for business, cheaper for government in the long run. As a matter of fact single payer may be worth more to “business” than tax reform since for many it is the single highest cost of doing business other than labor.

    • rl crabb says:

      I asked an Englishman what he thought of his nation’s healthcare system. He told me that if you are in a bad car accident, it is wonderful. If you need to have your gall bladder removed, get in line and be prepared to wait for months.
      I have no doubt that California will adopt single payer at some point. Maybe not this year, due to the sticker shock to taxpayers who just got handed a huge new gas/registration tax. It will eliminate a lot of middlemen, at first anyway.
      Eventually it will become another huge bureaucracy. After all, government exists to grow itself. I’m looking for a government entity that has ever said; “We have enough money, thank you. We’ll be rebating the leftover cash to you taxpayers.”
      No, they will be saying they need more, and more, and more….

      • Chris Peterson says:

        I’ve received a “kicker”, as they call it here in Oregon, of several hundred dollars twice since moving here. Whenever we pay more in taxes than is needed to run the state, it’s written into law that we get a rebate. So, in effect, the state has said several times what you’ve been searching for.

        • rlcrabb says:

          When we lived on Boulder Street in the 70’s, California used to give us a renter’s rebate. Then when I moved back here from Seattle, the state charged me $450 to register my car, which was built in the bay area and conformed to all smog-related rules. It was just a way to screw us and to pay off their bad debts. Fortunately, the Republicans filed suit and a few years later I got the money back, without interest of course. The Jarvis people also put Prop 13 on the ballot in the way long ago, and without it we would be hard pressed to live in this state. Those Republicans are downright crazy about many things, but every once in awhile they do something right.
          I see that the state Dems are raising hell to get single payer passed at their convention. Cooler heads might point out that you can only raid our wallets so far before people start voting for the opposition again. Jerry Brown remembers.

  5. Steve Frisch says:

    Here is an interesting page aggregating just some of the research on single payer…so “marketing rep for the state…” or not, I base my ideas and ‘opinions’ on data and search for new information.

    BTW even as a supporter of single payer I think there is still a role for private health insurance and private research and development. One of the issues to deal with in creating single payer would be how do you appropriately compensate individuals engaged in medical research and innovation in order to ensure there is a market driver to continuously improve the system. Bottom line is that the people who innovate and invent leading to saving millions of lives with new treatments should get rich as sin. I don;t really mind people getting filthy rich if they are driving innovation forward and saving lives.

    http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost

  6. Chris Peterson says:

    I think the part of the equation that many miss is that, while the thought of another $5K in taxes every year may cause the eyeballs of average family bread-earners to pop out like a 40’s cartoon, the fact is that that same average family pays around $18,000 a year for health coverage, which would produce a net savings of over $10 per year, assuming everyone paid, (and everyone was served).
    And as sure as the sun rises, the program would eventually suffer the same fate as all other government enterprises; that of graft, bureaucracy, and corruption. Still, that’s no reason to not attempt to implement the only logical solution, which, for all it’s foibles, has worked elsewhere for decades. And the insurance industry will still be a viable business model as a supplement to the program, also as elsewhere, except rather than a pretty much mandatory expense, it will return to it’s original form; serving those who wish faster, or more expensive, attention.

  7. rl crabb says:

    It should be noted that California’s single payer bill is not exactly “Medicare for all.” SB562 includes vision, dental, hearing aids, and long term care, all not covered in Medicare. Long term care at a convalescent facility runs about $6500 a month.

    • fish says:

      Yeah…..about bending the cost curve thing……

      California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.

      The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to create a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.

      Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish a publicly funded, universal health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.

      http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.html

      • Chris Peterson says:

        CA has a GDP of over $2.6 TRILLION, by far the richest, and spends WAY lees than the average percentage of that on health care. $200 billion sounds lie a lot, but it’s a spit in the ocean compared to the states’ GSP, and will save businesses and citizens hundreds of millions, if done correctly. Catering to the insurance companies and pharmaceutical industry, like Obamacare did, will make it unworkable.
        And it will take a progressive state with the GDP of nearly 20% of the US to make this happen. After that, we could have OR and WA join in a regional program, setting the stage for the rest of the nation.
        It would be nice if the Sac Bee, and others, would put things in their proper perspective, rather than scaring themselves with their own ignorance of just how much $2.6 trillion is.

  8. rl crabb says:

    A 15% hit on payroll taxes, along with the gas tax and whatever else the legislature can dream of funding. http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SINGLE_PAYER_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=CASON&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-05-22-19-05-10

    • Chris Peterson says:

      A simple 10% health tax on all income generated by the CA economy would pay for every man, woman, and child in the state, and actually only bring the state into line with what all other states are paying for health care, as a percentage of their GSP. Taking it only out of peoples’ wages is just plain wrong.
      And bringing public employees into the program, along with prison health care, which for CA is the highest in the nation, would be an added bonus.

  9. rl crabb says:

    I believe the only way to sell this plan would be to do it incrementally. As it stands now, SB562 wants to cover literally everything health related under the sun. You put that kind of financial hit on the voters all at once and they’ll start voting Republican again, even if the GOP plan sucks.

    • rl crabb says:

      “California politics is starting to feel like Berkeley politics – a competition for purity rather than progressive pragmatism.” http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/27/california-democrats-wrestle-with-proposal-to-replace-private-health-insurance-with-single-payer-system/

      • Steve Frisch says:

        Bob, I an entirely in your camp that the polarization of California Democratic politics over health care is both unwise and irrational. This is a big decision–too big to made on a single piece of legislation without real study–and it’s being made too quickly. We have no clear idea about the real cost of a single payer program, the analysis of the trade offs between California contributions to the private market and a single payer system have not been made. The externalities that can affect a California single payer market–particularly the federal contributions–are unclear. This has become a proxy fight between the Bernie forces (bless their hearts) and the pragmatists within the party (this cold hearted bastards) but the reality is that fight itself is self destructive and irrational. Get the hell over it–the Democratic primary has been over for more than a year–we need to be looking forward with clear eyes not backward with prejudice.

  10. fish says:

    Shorter Steve:

    “While I do acknowledge that you have legitimate concerns you should really shut up and not air the parties dirty laundry in a public setting. You need to be quiet and let the technocratic/political apparatus decide the course your life takes from this point forward.”

    • Steve Frisch says:

      Yeah, I did not say that Fish….I’m not sure who did.

      I have no problem with debate. I have a problem when the debate becomes so debilitating that it makes the Democratic Party the functional equivalent of the Republican Party where the Tea Party rising drew it so far to the right that it represents insanity and conspiracy thinking instead of a rational policy discussion. But I have never advocated in any way shutting off that debate.

      I do find it funny that every time I make the case for policy being clear eyed and data driven someone [either from the right or the left] responds in some way implying that is an elitist perspective.

      I am just wondering, do people have a problem with evidence, data, facts, and informed discussion? Is that an elitist? I always thought is was called being rational.

      • fish says:

        Bob, I an entirely in your camp that the polarization of California Democratic politics over health care is both unwise and irrational.

        Acknowledgment of complaint.

        This is a big decision–too big to made on a single piece of legislation without real study–and it’s being made too quickly. We have no clear idea about the real cost of a single payer program, the analysis of the trade offs between California contributions to the private market and a single payer system have not been made. The externalities that can affect a California single payer market–particularly the federal contributions–are unclear.

        All true but in the context of Bobs statement just so much blah de blah blah! I do stipulate that you are a master of bureaucratese!

        This has become a proxy fight between the Bernie forces (bless their hearts) and the pragmatists within the party (this cold hearted bastards) but the reality is that fight itself is self destructive and irrational.

        Suck it up buttercup….you got your one party state…you get to deal with the internecine battles that this entails.

        Get the hell over it–the Democratic primary has been over for more than a year–we need to be looking forward with clear eyes not backward with prejudice.

        This next part….beautiful….telling a guy on his own blog to shut up!

        As an internet asshole I salute you!

  11. rl crabb says:

    Fish 9:09 – I got the impression that Steve was telling the Bernerds to get over it, not me. And besides, he knows I’ll never shut up anyway. And while your critique is welcome here, I’m really trying to stop the personal insults. (Yeah, I’m guilty too on occasion, but I’m trying.)

  12. Steve Frisch says:

    As Bob so accurately identified my critique was not aimed at him, I was telling both the Berners and the Clintonistas to get over it, and I was not telling anyone to shut up…as a matter of fact I said.”…I have never advocated in any way shutting off that debate.”

    They way to stop the personal insults is 1) do not address comments to individual people, which I assiduously avoided, and 2) take the time to read others comments without interjecting ones own interpretation of what they said but rather respond to what they ACTUALLY said. 🙂

    • fish says:

      ….2) take the time to read others comments without interjecting ones own interpretation of what they said but rather respond to what they ACTUALLY said. ?

      This would be funny if it hadn’t come from you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What is 9 + 5 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
Please solve this math problem so we know that you are a human :-)