Hidden Common Ground: The Economy - Bridging the Gap (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    wardorican

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 14, 2019
    Messages
    3,861
    Reaction score
    4,374
    Age
    43
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Offline
    Courtesy of my hotel USA Today. I couldn't find it online, so excuse the photos.

    I think it shows some strong common ground. Even in areas of divide, there is still significant support.

    Screenshot_20200306-084630_Gallery.jpg


    Screenshot_20200306-084642_Gallery.jpg


    Screenshot_20200306-084657_Gallery.jpg


    Screenshot_20200306-084710_Gallery.jpg


    Screenshot_20200306-084720_Gallery.jpg


    The part about min wage is interesting. Some republicans want it increased, they just differ on how much. One firefighter said he supported the $15/hr. So, there are spots to negotiate. But I would start with the common ground areas.
     
    I’m of the impression that single payer is vastly less expensive than the current US system. I just looked up Canada real quick, and they pay about 1/4 what we do per capita for healthcare. The savings must be significant, because once you break it down to per capita that should be a fair comparison, correct? Maybe I‘m missing something?
     
    I’m of the impression that single payer is vastly less expensive than the current US system. I just looked up Canada real quick, and they pay about 1/4 what we do per capita for healthcare. The savings must be significant, because once you break it down to per capita that should be a fair comparison, correct? Maybe I‘m missing something?
    One of the hidden costs of our for profit model is lack of innovation
    While most try to use it as a selling point, big medicine does not put money into R&D which gets funneled to shareholders instead
     
    One of the hidden costs of our for profit model is lack of innovation
    While most try to use it as a selling point, big medicine does not put money into R&D which gets funneled to shareholders instead
    So you are saying that US is not a world leader in medical innovation because they don't spend the money on medical R&D?
     
    So you are saying that US is not a world leader in medical innovation because they don't spend the money on medical R&D?
    When I get home I will link the Harvard study that pointed this out
    But in a way yes, for profit medicine produces a few highly profitable drugs, but should not be considered broadly innovative
     
    So you are saying that US is not a world leader in medical innovation because they don't spend the money on medical R&D?
    The US spends money on R&D for new drugs -- just it is mostly Government money that funds said new drug R&D. Pharmaceutical companies spend most of their R&D on evergreening their own already-profitable drugs. That's a huge reason why the pharmaceutical industry was not very happy when Trump proposed a big cut to the NIH. Pharma spends much more on advertising and marketing than they do on R&D.
     
    More affordable healthcare does not equal Obamacare.

    It was and would be, but in the context of his post it absolutely is.

    He was quoting the fact that if you asked a room full of Republicans about the specifics of Obamacare without naming Obama, support was huge. As soon as you toss in the pejorative "obamacare" support turned into ridicule and complaints.
     
    I may have misinterpreted what you were writing. You wrote "affordable healthcare (ACA)" and I thought you were equating the two I am now taking you mean Affordable Healthcare Act - and if so, then I did misinterpret it, so I misunderstood if that was the case.
    IMO, what Obama was trying to do was very difficult (of course) and I think the problem was that the focus was too much on maximizing coverage as opposed to controlling costs. Its a similar problem I have with any sort of single payer proposal. It seems to me that you need to find a way to cut costs (apart from the supposed savings of efficiency from having one payer, which would help to some degree) before, or as, you add tens of millions of people to coverage that are mostly unable to pay for that coverage either through premiums or taxes.

    I agree to a great extent, but I wanted to point out that one of the largest costs of healthcare in this nation is the profit and overhead for insurance companies.

    The net return for insurance companies is often as high as 8%. THe overhead and ridiculous tax rules they play by allow them to expense before taxes incredible amounts of money that in no way contribute to actual healthcare.

    As much as it pains me to say it, healthcare is essentially a natural monopoly. Every single person will need it and allowing the costs to be inflated by 8 percent or 12 or 16 or whatever is criminally stupid. Medicare runs at about 4%.

    Republicans referred to a "governmental takeover of 19% of our economy" when talking about Obamacare. If that number is correct, then with a $22T GDP we're talking $4.2T in healthcare.

    Saving 4% of that 4.2T is $168B per year, but let's go further.

    Every single type of insurance in this country includes a portion of the cost as medical premium. From commercial GL to workers comp and home owners, we pay a premium for healthcare. Every single dollar of those premiums would be saved if we had a universal coverage. The savings to businesses like mine who pay astronomical rates for health insurance would be drastic and would loose the bonds of employees to companies that provide insurance.

    The Republicans have done a masterful job of convincing people to not act in their own self interest. Healthcare is a perfect example.
     
    I actually started floating that idea a bit on the old board. You'd lose some economies of scale, but it would align with what the founders were thinking with the state model - each state could try things a different way and if it was obviously successful other states would adopt, and people could move to states where things worked the way they'd want it to.

    But if you do that, you dilute your vote at the national level. Over time, you're left with crappily-run states (and the people who're okay with that) enjoying disproportionate power.
     
    It was and would be, but in the context of his post it absolutely is.
    Total cost of healthcare went up after Obamacare. And the burden on taxpeyers saw an even larger increase. Now I get the argument that over time we might see a tipping point - but that is all conjecture.

    As far as asking about certain aspects of ACA - sure, anyone could get Republicans to say certain parts of the Act were good. That applies to any piece of legislation that Democrats "oppose" as well. And it is not only due to the phrasing, its due to what aspect of the ACA are asked, and it is also due to the fact that Republicans actually do like parts of ACA/Obamacare. That is not exactly earth-shattering.
     
    Total cost of healthcare went up after Obamacare. And the burden on taxpeyers saw an even larger increase. Now I get the argument that over time we might see a tipping point - but that is all conjecture.

    As far as asking about certain aspects of ACA - sure, anyone could get Republicans to say certain parts of the Act were good. That applies to any piece of legislation that Democrats "oppose" as well. And it is not only due to the phrasing, its due to what aspect of the ACA are asked, and it is also due to the fact that Republicans actually do like parts of ACA/Obamacare. That is not exactly earth-shattering.
    It went up at a slower rate. Then Republicans started peeling pieces off and costs increased, due to changes in the risk analysis.
     
    Total cost of healthcare went up after Obamacare. And the burden on taxpeyers saw an even larger increase. Now I get the argument that over time we might see a tipping point - but that is all conjecture.

    As far as asking about certain aspects of ACA - sure, anyone could get Republicans to say certain parts of the Act were good. That applies to any piece of legislation that Democrats "oppose" as well. And it is not only due to the phrasing, its due to what aspect of the ACA are asked, and it is also due to the fact that Republicans actually do like parts of ACA/Obamacare. That is not exactly earth-shattering.

    The overall cost increased, but at a slower rate than it had been previously increasing. Further, far more people were covered so the per capita costs were lower.

    After 2 years of Republicans hammering on it the whole thing became less effective as it is today, but I don't think it's conjecture to say that if Republicans had attempted to fix it instead of fighting political games it would be better today than it was and what we currently have.

    I do like how the idea of the "burden to tax payers" is so important in terms of healthcare costs, but seemingly of no consequence when associated with tax cuts. What's your share of this year's trillion dollar deficit and what's the cost to each of us for farmers due to the Trump trade war? Greater or less than Obamacare?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom