2020 Democratic Nomination Process Mega-thread

[CAA Flagship]

Right. Because you have kickass insurance. So do I. Not everyone does.

The exact question Mrs89 asked me last night. She said regardless of the FACT that Bernie can't pay for his plan, does he or anyone who supports him really believe we're better off if folks who have great insurance have to give that up to get mediocre insurance for everyone? Fuck that.

I wonder how far off we really are.
If you capture all the revenue from all the health insurance companies (that includes the profits), and add that to the current Medicare program, theoretically, everything should be the same for the people currently covered. The profits can be used to help cover those that are not currently covered.

Obviously there are serious hurdles here.
How can the health insurance companies' revenues be captured? Do you directly pull it from the companies or do you require the companies to proportionally compensate the employees with increased wages and pull it from the employees? I think the latter is the way to go since the company insurance costs and employee counts vary with time.

Anyone on Medicare now knows that all costs are not covered. So that gap would have to be accounted for. Some would come from the capture of revenue and profit from supplemental insurance companies. This issue dovetails into the quality of health care. Medicare currently pays a set price for things (not sure if there is a geographic adjustment made, but that's another issue). If your doc charges more, that's on you and your supplemental insurance company. There are going to be better doctors, equipment, etc. than other places that should be able to charge more. Not sure how that could get resolved.

The last gap is the people that are currently not covered. Many of these people go to hospitals and never pay or go to free clinics. Hospitals would have to kick in some money to the program if they want to be reimbursed (since they would no longer be on the hook for the freeloaders). Free clinics would go away since they would not be needed. Not sure if the operational costs of the free clinics could be captured. Prolly not unless you create a tax deductible contribution category for Federal healthcare. But who would make a donation to a Federal program?

I guess my point here is that I don't think the overall "cost" (the gap) of the program would be as high as the estimates. The key is to somehow capture what is already being paid on health insurance and somehow redirect it to Medicare. Sure, it would cost more for all citizens but I wonder how much more.

[89Hen]

I thought one big tenet of this whole thing is that we'd be stripping out the profits. So if they don't exist, you can't use them to pay for it.

[AZGrizFan]

The exact question Mrs89 asked me last night. She said regardless of the FACT that Bernie can't pay for his plan, does he or anyone who supports him really believe we're better off if folks who have great insurance have to give that up to get mediocre insurance for everyone? Fuck that.

I wonder how far off we really are.
If you capture all the revenue from all the health insurance companies (that includes the profits), and add that to the current Medicare program, theoretically, everything should be the same for the people currently covered. The profits can be used to help cover those that are not currently covered.

Obviously there are serious hurdles here.
How can the health insurance companies' revenues be captured? Do you directly pull it from the companies or do you require the companies to proportionally compensate the employees with increased wages and pull it from the employees? I think the latter is the way to go since the company insurance costs and employee counts vary with time.

Which "companies" are you talking about here, Myron?

[CAA Flagship]

I thought one big tenet of this whole thing is that we'd be stripping out the profits. So if they don't exist, you can't use them to pay for it.

The profits are part of the revenue. If you pay $1000, and the insurance company profits $100 from that, to make things "the same" you would capture the cost of the insured which would be $1000.

[CAA Flagship]

I wonder how far off we really are.
If you capture all the revenue from all the health insurance companies (that includes the profits), and add that to the current Medicare program, theoretically, everything should be the same for the people currently covered. The profits can be used to help cover those that are not currently covered.

Obviously there are serious hurdles here.
How can the health insurance companies' revenues be captured? Do you directly pull it from the companies or do you require the companies to proportionally compensate the employees with increased wages and pull it from the employees? I think the latter is the way to go since the company insurance costs and employee counts vary with time.

Which "companies" are you talking about here, Myron?

I'm talking about all companies that provide healthcare insurance premiums to their employees. Let's say a company has 1000 employees and pays $5,000,000 per year towards the cost of healthcare insurance for employees. The company would distribute that $5 million to employees and be able to wash their hands of the insurance benefit. That would actually be a great deal for companies to wipe that headache from their compensation package. With the money now in the hands of the employees, the govt can tax the employees for the cost of Medicare.

Meh, I'm spitballin' here. I'm just amazed at how poorly the moonbats are selling this idea.

[kalm]

The exact question Mrs89 asked me last night. She said regardless of the FACT that Bernie can't pay for his plan, does he or anyone who supports him really believe we're better off if folks who have great insurance have to give that up to get mediocre insurance for everyone? Fuck that.

I wonder how far off we really are.
If you capture all the revenue from all the health insurance companies (that includes the profits), and add that to the current Medicare program, theoretically, everything should be the same for the people currently covered. The profits can be used to help cover those that are not currently covered.

Obviously there are serious hurdles here.
How can the health insurance companies' revenues be captured? Do you directly pull it from the companies or do you require the companies to proportionally compensate the employees with increased wages and pull it from the employees? I think the latter is the way to go since the company insurance costs and employee counts vary with time.

Anyone on Medicare now knows that all costs are not covered. So that gap would have to be accounted for. Some would come from the capture of revenue and profit from supplemental insurance companies. This issue dovetails into the quality of health care. Medicare currently pays a set price for things (not sure if there is a geographic adjustment made, but that's another issue). If your doc charges more, that's on you and your supplemental insurance company. There are going to be better doctors, equipment, etc. than other places that should be able to charge more. Not sure how that could get resolved.

The last gap is the people that are currently not covered. Many of these people go to hospitals and never pay or go to free clinics. Hospitals would have to kick in some money to the program if they want to be reimbursed (since they would no longer be on the hook for the freeloaders). Free clinics would go away since they would not be needed. Not sure if the operational costs of the free clinics could be captured. Prolly not unless you create a tax deductible contribution category for Federal healthcare. But who would make a donation to a Federal program?

I guess my point here is that I don't think the overall "cost" (the gap) of the program would be as high as the estimates. The key is to somehow capture what is already being paid on health insurance and somehow redirect it to Medicare. Sure, it would cost more for all citizens but I wonder how much more.

Good post, Flaggy.

[kalm]

I will when I get some time. Last time I looked, we were spending just shy of twice of what France was spending.

And yes, per person annual expenditures.

I don't doubt that we're spending close to double per person compared to other countries. What are we spending more on is an important element to understanding and managing those costs. I wonder about costs related to:
- Liability insurance.
- Less than necessary treatments that are ordered so that doctor's can reduce liability.
- Unnecessary doctor/ER visits because people run to doctor at the drop of a hat.
- ER visits because I believe hospitals are more limited than doctors in turning away the uninsured.
- Advertising/promotion of drugs and other healthcare services.
- R&D - are we subsidizing drug and other research that benefit other countries?

Bernie, Fauxahontas and others need to address the issues/concerns with Medicare For All:
- Where will the money really come from?
- What about the long wait times for treatments in countries with universal care?
- How will existing coverage be handled? What about union plans? Will there be a double standard where Congress and union plans are exempted but other employer plans aren't?

I'm sure I've numerous costs and issues/concerns.

All very valid questions.

[AZGrizFan]

Which "companies" are you talking about here, Myron?

I'm talking about all companies that provide healthcare insurance premiums to their employees. Let's say a company has 1000 employees and pays $5,000,000 per year towards the cost of healthcare insurance for employees. The company would distribute that $5 million to employees and be able to wash their hands of the insurance benefit. That would actually be a great deal for companies to wipe that headache from their compensation package. With the money now in the hands of the employees, the govt can tax the employees for the cost of Medicare.

Meh, I'm spitballin' here. I'm just amazed at how poorly the moonbats are selling this idea.

So We’d “distribute” that $5,000,000 to employees every year?

[BDKJMU]

Down-ballot Democrats move to distance themselves from Sanders
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... m-sanders/

Swing district dems are fucked..

[mainejeff]

The Democratic Party needs to be purged.

[UNI88]

I don't doubt that we're spending close to double per person compared to other countries. What are we spending more on is an important element to understanding and managing those costs. I wonder about costs related to:
- Liability insurance.
- Less than necessary treatments that are ordered so that doctor's can reduce liability.
- Unnecessary doctor/ER visits because people run to doctor at the drop of a hat.
- ER visits because I believe hospitals are more limited than doctors in turning away the uninsured.
- Advertising/promotion of drugs and other healthcare services.
- R&D - are we subsidizing drug and other research that benefit other countries?

Bernie, Fauxahontas and others need to address the issues/concerns with Medicare For All:
- Where will the money really come from?
- What about the long wait times for treatments in countries with universal care?
- How will existing coverage be handled? What about union plans? Will there be a double standard where Congress and union plans are exempted but other employer plans aren't?

I'm sure I've numerous costs and issues/concerns.

All very valid questions.

Can we answer those questions first rather than going down the "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" path?

[kalm]

Down-ballot Democrats move to distance themselves from Sanders
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... m-sanders/

Swing district dems are fucked..

Were swing district R’s fucked under Trump?

[CID1990]

Yeah those “fiscal responsibility” concerns generally subside for the party in power


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

All very valid questions.

Can we answer those questions first rather than going down the "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" path?

Another example of conservative distortion. And, again: I am a conservative. But I am extremely distressed by how dishonest people in the conservative movement have become. Below are Pelosi's remarks in full context. I think you will agree that what conservatives have done with them is dishonest.

Imagine an economy where people could follow their aspirations, where they could be entrepreneurial, where they could take risks professionally because personally their families [sic] health care needs are being met. Where they could be self-employed or start a business, not be job-locked in a job because they have health care there, and if they went out on their own it would be unaffordable to them, but especially true, if someone has a child with a pre-existing condition. So when we pass our bill, never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition.

We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring [you] up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals.

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

[BDKJMU]

Can we answer those questions first rather than going down the "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" path?

Another example of conservative distortion. And, again: I am a conservative. But I am extremely distressed by how dishonest people in the conservative movement have become. Below are Pelosi's remarks in full context. I think you will agree that what conservatives have done with them is dishonest.

Imagine an economy where people could follow their aspirations, where they could be entrepreneurial, where they could take risks professionally because personally their families [sic] health care needs are being met. Where they could be self-employed or start a business, not be job-locked in a job because they have health care there, and if they went out on their own it would be unaffordable to them, but especially true, if someone has a child with a pre-existing condition. So when we pass our bill, never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition.

We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring [you] up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals.

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

You’re about as conservative as Pocahontas is Indian..

[JohnStOnge]

Another example of conservative distortion. And, again: I am a conservative. But I am extremely distressed by how dishonest people in the conservative movement have become. Below are Pelosi's remarks in full context. I think you will agree that what conservatives have done with them is dishonest.

You’re about as conservative as Pocahontas is Indian..

I am probably more conservative as you are. If you were a true conservative, you would not want the conservative movement to be associated with Trump. You would be doing whatever you could to see to it that he is not elected again and you would want to make it clear that conservatives do NOT support somebody like that.

When you do otherwise you seriously compromise the credibility of the conservative movement.

[AZGrizFan]

You’re about as conservative as Pocahontas is Indian..

I am probably more conservative as you are. If you were a true conservative, you would not want the conservative movement to be associated with Trump. You would be doing whatever you could to see to it that he is not elected again and you would want to make it clear that conservatives do NOT support somebody like that.

When you do otherwise you seriously compromise the credibility of the conservative movement.

No “true conservative” would ever hope for Bernie Sanders to be elected president. I don’t give a shit WHO was running for the Republican Party.

[kalm]

I am probably more conservative as you are. If you were a true conservative, you would not want the conservative movement to be associated with Trump. You would be doing whatever you could to see to it that he is not elected again and you would want to make it clear that conservatives do NOT support somebody like that.

When you do otherwise you seriously compromise the credibility of the conservative movement.

No “true conservative” would ever hope for Bernie Sanders to be elected president. I don’t give a shit WHO was running for the Republican Party.

No true conservative would vote for Trump this cycle given his fiscal record. Either vote libertarian, or turn in your conservative badge.

[Ibanez]

No “true conservative” would ever hope for Bernie Sanders to be elected president. I don’t give a shit WHO was running for the Republican Party.

No true conservative would vote for Trump this cycle given his fiscal record. Either vote libertarian, or turn in your conservative badge.

All that matters is that the libtards lose! #Winning #LibtardTearsWaterTheGardenofLiberty

[kalm]

No true conservative would vote for Trump this cycle given his fiscal record. Either vote libertarian, or turn in your conservative badge.

All that matters is that the libtards lose! #Winning #LibtardTearsWaterTheGardenofLiberty

Indeed!

[SDHornet]

So Bernie mud stomps everyone in NV, and Biden has a reason to stay in it. Loving the msm meltdown over the huge Bernie win. They are really sweating bullets now.

[AZGrizFan]

No “true conservative” would ever hope for Bernie Sanders to be elected president. I don’t give a shit WHO was running for the Republican Party.

No true conservative would vote for Trump this cycle given his fiscal record. Either vote libertarian, or turn in your conservative badge.

He’s a fuck of a lot closer to a conservative than Bernie is to a democrat.

[CAA Flagship]

I'm talking about all companies that provide healthcare insurance premiums to their employees. Let's say a company has 1000 employees and pays $5,000,000 per year towards the cost of healthcare insurance for employees. The company would distribute that $5 million to employees and be able to wash their hands of the insurance benefit. That would actually be a great deal for companies to wipe that headache from their compensation package. With the money now in the hands of the employees, the govt can tax the employees for the cost of Medicare.

Meh, I'm spitballin' here. I'm just amazed at how poorly the moonbats are selling this idea.

So We’d “distribute” that $5,000,000 to employees every year?

Yes. It is what a company pays into the health insurance benefit each year. Instead, it would go directly to the employee (to maintain the level of the compensation package) and would then be paid to the govt in taxes by the employee.

The point is that the cost for national health insurance for everyone should only be the difference between what is being paid by everyone today and the amount needed to cover the underinsured and uninsured (the delta). Now I have no idea what that cost would be, but I doubt it would be as much as the estimates. And if this is true, the Dems are doing a really bad job at selling this.

[kalm]

So We’d “distribute” that $5,000,000 to employees every year?

Yes. It is what a company pays into the health insurance benefit each year. Instead, it would go directly to the employee (to maintain the level of the compensation package) and would then be paid to the govt in taxes by the employee.

The point is that the cost for national health insurance for everyone should only be the difference between what is being paid by everyone today and the amount needed to cover the underinsured and uninsured (the delta). Now I have no idea what that cost would be, but I doubt it would be as much as the estimates. And if this is true, the Dems are doing a really bad job at selling this.

[AZGrizFan]

Yes. It is what a company pays into the health insurance benefit each year. Instead, it would go directly to the employee (to maintain the level of the compensation package) and would then be paid to the govt in taxes by the employee.

The point is that the cost for national health insurance for everyone should only be the difference between what is being paid by everyone today and the amount needed to cover the underinsured and uninsured (the delta). Now I have no idea what that cost would be, but I doubt it would be as much as the estimates. And if this is true, the Dems are doing a really bad job at selling this.

If it locks in the business expense forever then I’m all for it as a businessman. Still not a fan as a consumer, putting that faith in the government.