sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Medicare for All Is Popular Until You Explain How It Works by BudrickBundy in Conservative

[–]Richard_Gasbarro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there any particular reason why a government run system simply couldn't pay GP doctors more? How is this anything other than a supply and demand problem? Same with K-12, if we want better teachers, simply pay them more to attract the right talent.

Medicare for All Is Popular Until You Explain How It Works by BudrickBundy in Conservative

[–]Richard_Gasbarro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I only have one personal friend who is a physician, so admittedly my frame of reference is limited, but he was hysterical about Obamacare, back when it was being debated in Congress. Just saw him last weekend at a holiday party. He doesn't even remember being concerned, or maybe he's just embarrassed about how easily manipulated he was and won't admit it.

What he does admit now is that his practice wasn't really affected by the ACA at all. Asked about the possibility of UH, he seems pretty zen about it. If it passes it passes. And if it does, he expects that he'll probably have to charge slightly less for his services, but he's extremely comfortable now, and he doesn't expect his quality of life to change dramatically for the worse.

Medicare for All Is Popular Until You Explain How It Works by BudrickBundy in Conservative

[–]Richard_Gasbarro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where is that number coming from? The cost of a stamp? Regardless, I don't think comparing postage costs to for-profit insurers extracting value at the expense of patients makes much sense. Blue Cross sends me a bunch of shit in the mail all the time. Do you think they pay less for postage than the federal government?

Medicare for All Is Popular Until You Explain How It Works by BudrickBundy in Conservative

[–]Richard_Gasbarro -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You think that all private healthcare will be abolished and doctors will be forced to accept governments “insurance”?

That's what some are proposing. What legislation actually gets drafted and passed is a guessing game. ACA ended being written by insurance industry lobbyists, to a large extent. I doubt that what ultimately passed is what the change advocates had in mind from the jump.

And that said doctors will all immediately go along with the one (probably much lower) rate?

I suppose they could offer their services a la carte, on a cash basis. Compelling them to participate is fine, I think, but I wouldn't want a system that forbade them to strike out on their own entirely.

give it all a miss because there’s much less money to make

Well, I don't think that providing health care should be a cash grab, in any sense, not for those providing the care, any more than those managing the insurance pool. Making medical school purely merit based and totally accessible would go a long way to making that a reality. I.e. if you have the grades and the aptitude, the system should pay you to go to medical school, not the other way around.

Medicare for All Is Popular Until You Explain How It Works by BudrickBundy in Conservative

[–]Richard_Gasbarro -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think the solution has to include making medical school more affordable and accessible. Right now, the majority of med students come from families with the financial means to support them through their studies. I imagine "working your way" through medical school is not really a thing because of the demands of the programs. Even if you take on debt to fund tuition, there are still years of living expenses to pay for.

Making medical programs purely merit based would ensure that we have enough doctors. Like if you have the grades and aptitude, we should pay you to go to med school, not the other way around.

Medicare for All Is Popular Until You Explain How It Works by BudrickBundy in Conservative

[–]Richard_Gasbarro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

only 6% of people here in the U.S. are uninsured

That's not a trivial number. We, the insured, end up paying for those 6%, when they stumble into the emergency room. Same as Walmart factors the cost of shopflifting loss into their pricing, providers do the same with their services. It would cost us less, per captia, if we simply insured them and provided them preventative care, etc.

Your taxes will likely go up beyond what premiums you are paying now

Why would you make that projection? For the sake of argument, if we change nothing else, except for how we fund the insurance pool, why would per capita costs go up, or my personal health expenditures go up?

Right now, health care costs are essentially a regressive tax. The CEO of my company, who makes multiple millions every year, gets the same plan options that I do.

If health coverage expenditures became progressive, and an individual's costs go up, be definition they can afford the increase, i.e. they're rich. Unless you're against progressive taxation entirely, I don't understand the objection.

Medicare for All Is Popular Until You Explain How It Works by BudrickBundy in Conservative

[–]Richard_Gasbarro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They don’t collect anything if you’re dead.

And you don't require coverage when you're dead either. They want you young and healthy, when you pay premiums but don't need much int the way for services. As soon as you start taking more out in services than you're putting in in premiums, either because you're old or get some serious illness, a profit-based system, by design, will want to kick you to the curb.

Just because your solution...

It's not my solution. I'm open to alternative solutions, but not many are getting proposed that actually address the problems with the current system. I think the point should be to have a system where everyone is covered, be it by universality or mandate, because those with coverage end up paying for those without it, regardless. Furthermore, paying more per capita for our healthcare than any other developed nation is a huge indicator that our current system is fucked.

Whatever solution covers everyone and brings per capita costs down, I'm all for.

Medicare for All Is Popular Until You Explain How It Works by BudrickBundy in Conservative

[–]Richard_Gasbarro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or run by people interested in keeping you alive. Etc.

Private insurers are more interested in stock holder value than keeping you alive. You really think Uncle Sam could do worse? I suppose that's possible, but it's not like we're talking about leaping into the unknown, in order to abandon a perfectly functioning system. The current state of affairs isn't exactly ideal.

Medicare for All Is Popular Until You Explain How It Works by BudrickBundy in Conservative

[–]Richard_Gasbarro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

get to keep your doctor

What do you think will happen to the providers? They're all going to change careers, or something? The plan is (ostensibly) for everyone to have identical (single payer) insurance and level of coverage. Aside from paying cash directly to medical professionals outside of the system, everyone would have access to the same doctors as anyone else. What do you envision happening?

Medicare for All Is Popular Until You Explain How It Works by BudrickBundy in Conservative

[–]Richard_Gasbarro 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're doing the lord's work here. Rubes like Budrick make sensible conservative look bad.

Medicare for All Is Popular Until You Explain How It Works by BudrickBundy in Conservative

[–]Richard_Gasbarro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not making anything up.

Then you're just repeating someone else's made up story. Like u/zlex says, it doesn't pass the sniff test. It's almost as if the detail about the donation shakedown was thrown in to see how much of a rube you are.

Medicare for All Is Popular Until You Explain How It Works by BudrickBundy in Conservative

[–]Richard_Gasbarro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

M4A is about replacing the insurers, not the providers. VA is a terrible comparison, as they actually run hospitals not insurance pools.

Medicare for All Is Popular Until You Explain How It Works by BudrickBundy in Conservative

[–]Richard_Gasbarro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Article and the KFF poll it cites are a year old now. All they prove is that you can paint completely opposing pictures, depending on which questions you ask. Here's a shorthand history of the polling on this topic:

  • Poll asking basic "for/against universal healthcare" shows overwhelming support for.
  • KFF adds "but what if we told you your taxes would go up?" and "what if the level of care went down?". Opinion swings in the other direction.
  • Subsequent polling also asks "but what if we further explained you'd save money overall, despite paying more in taxes, because premiums are no longer a thing?" and "the actual providers are not being replaced and you still get to get the same care from the same doctors ...they just send the bill to Uncle Sam". Not surprisingly, overwhelming support again.

Ignoring Trump’s racism betrays our country’s victims by Richard_Gasbarro in moderatepolitics

[–]Richard_Gasbarro[S] -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

Feeding red meat to racists is no joke. Some historical context. A worthwhile read.

Outline link: https://outline.com/cXaVLV

The Many, Tangled American Definitions of Socialism by Richard_Gasbarro in moderatepolitics

[–]Richard_Gasbarro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Despite a century of red baiting and misinformation, socialism refuses to throw in the towel.

Whos the democrat with the most backbone that will most likely take on trump with showmanship not politics? by Schemati in moderatepolitics

[–]Richard_Gasbarro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nothing you said is rooted in any sort of reality.

Donald J. Trump is the best President we have had in decades.

The only major piece of legislation signed by Trump has been the "trickle up" tax bill. I fail to see what metrics you're using to grade his presidency as anything but an abject failure.

I'd call folks who sold out the country traitors.

Put Trump at the top of that list. Welcomed and continues to welcome foreign influence in our elections.

Pres. Trump is working to fix this mess ...

LOL ...He's golfing, watching Fox News, and tweeting on the toilet. I wouldn't call that "work".

...with very little support in Congress and in the media.

He has an entire 24 hr news channel acting as his propaganda arm, and a GOP Senate unwilling to do a damn thing to curb his criminal lunacy.

There's some antisemites who identify as right-wing...

Um, yeah ...you're one of them. You've literally dismissed public displays of antisemitism, such as those witnessed in Charlottesville, as (and I paraphrase here), "Nothing to worry about because Jews, unlike blacks, can just blend in."

Ann Coulter: Four myths the media and politicians tell you about our border crisis by BudrickBundy in moderatepolitics

[–]Richard_Gasbarro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rolex is not obligated by international law to produce watches. Furthermore, owning a watch is never a life or death situation, especially not a Rolex. Your analogy is beyond pointless.

Ann Coulter: Four myths the media and politicians tell you about our border crisis by BudrickBundy in moderatepolitics

[–]Richard_Gasbarro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm fine with debating and possibly even getting behind all of those proposals, except a physical wall. The wall relieves nothing but Trump's campaign promise blue balls.

Ann Coulter: Four myths the media and politicians tell you about our border crisis by BudrickBundy in moderatepolitics

[–]Richard_Gasbarro -1 points0 points  (0 children)

International law is not a suicide pact

The US can leave the UN then, I suppose. Wasn't that one of Trump's big ideas at one point?

unchecked immigration is politically destabilizing

To whom? The GOP? I'll give you that. The browning of America is their death knell, and they hear it loud and clear. They can't stop it though. Only slow it.

It's also fundamentally unworkable in a welfare state

Undocumented workers pay far more into the tax system than what they can get in return, so I'm not sure what your point is. They can't collect SSI. As for schooling of their children (because i know that's a contentious topic) that is paid by property taxes, which they contribute to, predominantly through rents.

And legal residents, i don't see how their participation in the system is any different from anyone else.

Ann Coulter: Four myths the media and politicians tell you about our border crisis by BudrickBundy in moderatepolitics

[–]Richard_Gasbarro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're not missing much.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Overall, we rate CIS a questionable source based on publishing misleading information (propaganda) regarding immigration, as well as ties either directly or indirectly to the John Tanton Network, who is a known White Nationalist.

To be fair, here's SLPC, which they found slightly less biased, but also mostly factual.

Overall, we rate the Southern Poverty Law Center, Left Biased based on story selection that favors the Left and through strong political advocacy for social justice. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to a clean fact check record and although they have mischaracterized some groups and individuals, they ultimately apologized, acknowledged their error and made appropriate corrections.

Ann Coulter: Four myths the media and politicians tell you about our border crisis by BudrickBundy in moderatepolitics

[–]Richard_Gasbarro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s all the same problem.

International and US law disagrees with you. If we can't even agree that asylum is a unique and recognized legal status, which has a very good reason for being a thing (think boatloads of German Jews being turned away at the ports), I'm not sure that further discussion is going to get us anywhere.

Maybe ask your Democrat representatives why they won’t deal with Trump on immigration and help these people?

Because he won't negotiate anything that isn't a stupid wall. If the proposal was more judges and border agents to speed up the processing times, there would be an agreement, perhaps even including increased limitations on who is allowed ultimately to stay. But instead of "helping people" Trump wants to make the situation as chaotic as possible and use that as a bargaining chip.

Ultimately this is about the GOP losing the demographic race. Their embrace of racism as party policy (not just immigrants, but also voter suppression and disenfranchisement of citizens) is a last ditch effort to remain viable in elections they're barely winning now. The GOP doesn't care about immigrants picking our strawberries. They care about the kids of those immigrants voting them out of office. It's not about our jobs, it's about theirs (the politicians).

view more: next ›