Here Comes The Left

[Loren Pechtel]

Same as now except that there is only a single payer.

And herein lies the other problem: In the US, Medicaid and increasingly Medicare reimbursements don’t cover the cost of service provided. Private insurers follow Medicare for their reimbursement fee schedule

Which is why the Medicare for All approach doesn't work--it's based on fantasy numbers that are forced on the providers.

Same as we can't just adopt the drug prices from the UHC countries--once again, fantasy numbers being forced on the providers (drug companies.)

I would love a good universal system--but I have major doubts about whether it actually can be done. The reality is that we are to a large part measuring how well the problems can be hidden rather than how well the systems actually work.

The ‘fantasy numbers’ are the prices charged by drug companies.

That's more a don't-leave-money-on-the-table price.

The fantasy numbers I am talking about are they price drugs at something above the marginal cost, leaving the US market to fund the R&D.

You can't set US prices to their prices without causing R&D to come to a screeching halt. But that does not mean you can't find a fair price for everyone.

Medical providers can and do come up with cost savings. Those are most effective when not dictated by higher management but are directed by the work experiences of those performing whatever tasks.

The problem in the US is that politicians like to play games with people’s lives by insisting that there is waste and fraud and cutting funding to fit their political narrative.

And this is supposed to be a rebuttal?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Freedom and opportunities are such vague terms. I certainly value the freedom and opportunity to be shot by an ICE Agent who will never face any consequences.

The chances of that happening are infinitesimal. You are much more likely to get shot during a mugging or carjacking, and even that is improbable.

As for the economy, I have no complaints, especially since I'm not one of the 4 out of a 1000 infants who died before my first birthday. Having made it past that hurdle, I've managed to avoid medical expense related bankruptcy.

I think the relatively high infant mortality here is mostly due to different definitions of "live births". If a country does not count infants who die within hours of birth among "live births", then their infant mortality rate will be lower. That is in general a problem with international comparisons for any variable where there may be different definitions or reporting differences.

Another reason why US infant mortality may be unusually high is abortion. If almost all "incompatible with life" pregnancies are aborted, that reduces infant mortality. If many parents decide to deliver the baby, who then dies within hours and days, that increases infant mortality statistics.

Freedom and opportunities are such vague terms. I certainly value the freedom and opportunity to be shot by an ICE Agent who will never face any consequences.

The chances of that happening are infinitesimal. You are much more likely to get shot during a mugging or carjacking, and even that is improbable.

As for the economy, I have no complaints, especially since I'm not one of the 4 out of a 1000 infants who died before my first birthday. Having made it past that hurdle, I've managed to avoid medical expense related bankruptcy.

I think the discrepancy is mostly due to different definitions of "live births". If a country does not count infants who die within hours of birth among "live births", then their infant mortality rate will be lower. That is in general a problem with international comparisons for any variable where there may be different definitions or reporting differences.

An infant who died within a few hours or days or weeks or months is still one of the infants who would be counted in any infant mortality statistic.

You're both going too far, just in opposite directions.

In developed countries it comes down to whether there are signs of life. But that is something that we can at best imperfectly measure. There is no magical instant of death to record whether it happened inside or outside. But in some places they do not count it as a live birth if survival is unquestionably impossible. And I suspect the punishment crowd drives up the rate. I'm thinking of a local case, way too premature to have a chance. The doctor did the humane thing and put it in a room and closed the door. A nurse went ape over that. You have to try to save it! The way the country is going the doctors are going to try on cases that would properly be classified as stillbirths.

Sigh. Have you ever been present when death was declared? I have. There are clear medical tests that are performed to declare someone has died. Time of death and confirming methods are duly recorded.

I think you are mixing up live births v still births with fetal deaths. In some places, any fetal heartbeat is taken as a sign the fetus is alive and presumably viable. Unfortunately having a heart beat does not guarantee viability.

Tests take time.

We have a time at which death is pronounced. That is not the time of death, though!

 

[southernhybrid]

My dream version of UHC would be to have premiums based on income and copays based on income. There would be different levels of coverage, but everyone would be entitled to a low cost choice. Poor people would pay almost nothing for premiums and copays would be something like 1 dollar. Wealthy people could get coverage that included more things, but the premiums and copays would be very high, but still affordable. Premiums would be graduated, like maybe 5 or 6 different levels. And, if a doctor wanted to keep their license they would have to take all levels of coverage. Okay. That may be a fantasy, but I think it's more reasonable that Medicare for All with no premiums. That isn't doable imo. My plan would make sure that everyone had basic coverage, including necessary surgeries and drugs with very affordable prices.

In case some don't know it, Medicare B premiums are already based on income, but I think there are only 2 different prices.

We need more progressives, but they also need to be smart and realistic. People think Advantage Plans are terrible but mine has never given me any problems and luckily I have enough money to pay for any surgical copays. Plus all of my primary care is free and my drugs are very affordable. For example, my hydrocodone is about 13 bucks a month. My seizure drug is about 12 per month. I only take af few Rx. meds, but I don't want any aggressive care at this point in my life, so this works for me, so far. Best of all my premium is less than 200 per month and it includes the drugs, vision care, some help with hearing aides and a few other things that I never even use. If I had Part A (the free part ) Part B, Part and a supplement, it would cost me at least 4 or 500 per month. Plus the cost of supplements increases with age. That is why I like having choices instead of single payor for all. Just my little fantasy about UHC.

 

[thebeave]

People think Advantage Plans are terrible but mine has never given me any problems and luckily I have enough money to pay for any surgical copays.

I'm now on a Medicare Advantage Plan, as of July 1. Woo hoo! I've only heard good things about it. Seems like a lot of good, extra benefits for very minimal extra cost. What are the terrible aspects of it that you are hearing?

 

[southernhybrid]

People think Advantage Plans are terrible but mine has never given me any problems and luckily I have enough money to pay for any surgical copays.

I'm now on a Medicare Advantage Plan, as of July 1. Woo hoo! I've only heard good things about it. Seems like a lot of good, extra benefits for very minimal extra cost. What are the terrible aspects of it that you are hearing?

Nothing specific. People just say that it doesn't cover everything and if you have a supplement, there are no copays for specialists, but the copays on an Advantage Plan vary. Some can be fairly high. I just figure that I'm saving so much by not paying high premiums, that money I'm not spending helps me afford copays.

I have already had cataract surgery and two partial knee replacements. It will be a cold day in hell as the saying goes, before I have another surgery, although the cataract surgery was easy and my distance vision is now great. M'care only pays for one types of lens, regardless if you have a supplement or not. The Advantage Plan I currently use is the only one that pays for most of my most expensive drug. it's an HRT patch, so it's more for my comfort than anything. Plus hormone replacements help decrease osteoporosis and I have that. I've never broken a bone and I do aerobics about 120 or so minutes per week, so my plan has worked for me. Hope yours works well for you too.

I also have gone home against medical advice almost every time I've been in a hell hole, aka a hospital. I've been misdiagnosed and mistreated in them, so I trust my own diagnosis more than most doctors. I haven't been in a hospital in over 15 years and I did sign myself out. Then again, I worked as an RN for over 40 years, so I did learn a lot. I will only use an NP for primary care. I trust them far more than MDs or PAs. Sure, there are exceptions, but........

 

[Toni]

Same as now except that there is only a single payer.

And herein lies the other problem: In the US, Medicaid and increasingly Medicare reimbursements don’t cover the cost of service provided. Private insurers follow Medicare for their reimbursement fee schedule

Which is why the Medicare for All approach doesn't work--it's based on fantasy numbers that are forced on the providers.

Same as we can't just adopt the drug prices from the UHC countries--once again, fantasy numbers being forced on the providers (drug companies.)

I would love a good universal system--but I have major doubts about whether it actually can be done. The reality is that we are to a large part measuring how well the problems can be hidden rather than how well the systems actually work.

The ‘fantasy numbers’ are the prices charged by drug companies.

That's more a don't-leave-money-on-the-table price.

The fantasy numbers I am talking about are they price drugs at something above the marginal cost, leaving the US market to fund the R&D.

You can't set US prices to their prices without causing R&D to come to a screeching halt. But that does not mean you can't find a fair price for everyone.

Medical providers can and do come up with cost savings. Those are most effective when not dictated by higher management but are directed by the work experiences of those performing whatever tasks.

The problem in the US is that politicians like to play games with people’s lives by insisting that there is waste and fraud and cutting funding to fit their political narrative.

And this is supposed to be a rebuttal?

Your sentence structure sucks worse than my typing.

Pharmaceutical companies charge vastly different t prices for the same drug sold here compared with overseas. There are coupons you can use to reduce the cost of a prescription. Why is a coupon needed? Why can some insurers pay a small percentage rate of the stated price and those without insurance pay full freight.

 

[Derec]

[stupid meme]

Except that it isn't like that at all. Certainly not in this thread.
You have a mayor espouse explicitly Marxist language about "seizing the means of production" and his party (DSA) also has explicitly Marxist language in their constitution, so it's definitely not about "everything I don't like" but it's based on evidence. And you have people twist themselves into logical pretzels in order to pretend that Rafiq Zohran did not really mean what he said, or that the DSA did not really mean what they wrote.

 

[Derec]

You equated ONE tweet from ONE person in the context of the 4th of July that everyone in the DSA feels the same way.

It's not just someone, but a congressional candidate endorsed by the DSA in general and the DSA mayor of NYC in particular. And they did not criticize any of her statements.
Besides, DSA as a whole has their share of idiotic and toxic statements.

This is what they wrote right after 10/7. But of course, you and your Ilk will try to claim that this is not really supporting the 10/7 attacks, right?

I was pointing out a more problematic organisation doing far worse for the same holiday you were describing.

Irrelevant to this thread, since this thread is about the left wing. And how are a bunch of random citizens peacefully marching "doing far worse" than a future lawmaker and other politicians saying stupid and toxic things?

I'm engaging in whataboutism.

You are. No window cleaner necessary.

 

[Derec]

But with regards to the topic of the thread, people like Mamdani and Hasan Piker are exactly what the Democrats need if they ever want to govern again.

Bullshit. Toxic extremists are exactly what the Democrats do not need. Even if it would help them to govern again (like MAGA helped the GOP), such takeover by extremists would only hurt the country and also the Party in the long run (like how MAGA is damaging the US and also the GOP).
But I do not think DSA will lead to electoral success anyway. While DSA candidates may find success in D+double digits districts in NY or NJ, most of the country is definitely not like that.

Every time the party shows that they have a clear list of values and a plan to achieve them, they win in a landslide.

George McDoesn'tGovern had a "clear list of values and a plan to achieve them" and he lost every state except for Massachusetts (+DC).
Moderate Bill Clinton running on "the third way" won two terms comfortably. Obama ran on there "not being red states and blue states, just the United States" and won two terms comfortably. Even Biden was moderate-coded in 2020 even if he took a sharp left turn in office (and which contributed to his Veep losing in 2024).

And every time they act MAGA-lite (which was exactly their campaign strategy in 2016 and 2024), they mange to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

How exactly were Hillary "the future is female" Clinton and Kamala "I will ban fracking and offshore drilling" Harris "MAGA-lite"? I would say they were far more left-coded than any of the successful Dem presidential candidates in recent history.

 

[Derec]

You seen to be tap dancing around too many logical fallacies to catalog and may have discovered new ones. What difference does it make who said it, unless you want to make some kind of ad hominem attack.

I don't think so. I think the identity of the author is important to establish his or her bona fides and any biases.

I've heard of "appeal to authority" but demanding someone else appeal to it is a little strange.

On the other hand, what does a presumably fictitious name being attached to a piece of writing be if not a little strange?

Why would you think someone needs to live in some perfect place in order for their criticism of the US to be valid? Address the issues or quit wasting my time.

Nobody said anything about "some perfect place". But if your anti-American screed contains a reference to us having a lot of homeless, and his own (supposedly, who knows who actually wrote it) country has >2x the homelessness rate as the US, then that diminishes his claim that we have oh so many homeless, doesn't it?

If Dave the Aussie hurt your feelings, that is covered by the old adage, the truth hurts.

He did not hurt my feelings. But note that none of his claims are in any way sourced. So why should I address these claims?

 

[Derec]

I'm also not certain Derec even bothered to look it up. It took me about a minute to discover it was an internet meme that's doing the rounds:

I tried to look up the alleged author, with no success.
So, I guess this is a piece of anonymous/pseudonymous internet copypasta with a bunch of unsourced claims. Why should we take it seriously?

 

[Derec]

No surprise in the continuation of close minded righteous declarations of absolute truth. Very much like a church lady

Wrong. You are like the church lady in that you refuse to accept reality and try to twist things to pretend that for example Mamdani did not really mean what he clearly said.

 

[laughing dog]

No surprise in the continuation of close minded righteous declarations of absolute truth. Very much like a church lady

Wrong. You are like the church lady in that you refuse to accept reality and try to twist things to pretend that for example Mamdani did not really mean what he clearly said.

Don't get those skirts up in a tizzy with yet another of your misinterpretations. I don't know if Mamdani literally meant what he said. Certainly you don't. Politicians engage in rhetorical hyperbole all the time. I presented a link with arguments that suggest it might be mistake to take what he said literally. Only time will tell.

BTW, church ladies are indignantly righteous, just like your responses. Admitting one doesn't have certainty is very unchurch ladylike. You should try it some time unless it would make your head explode.

 

[Derec]

Don't get those skirts up in a tizzy with yet another of your misinterpretations. I don't know if Mamdani literally meant what he said.

Why should we think he didn't?
If a Republican used Nazi language, I do not think you would rush to defend him and say that he didn't really mean it.

Certainly you don't. Politicians engage in rhetorical hyperbole all the time. I presented a link with arguments that suggest it might be mistake to take what he said literally. Only time will tell.

That article is not very persuasive, and I gave some reasons. It's a piece of propaganda, and they want to defend him because they like Mamdani and his policies.

 

[Bronzeage]

Freedom and opportunities are such vague terms. I certainly value the freedom and opportunity to be shot by an ICE Agent who will never face any consequences.

The chances of that happening are infinitesimal. You are much more likely to get shot during a mugging or carjacking, and even that is improbable.

As for the economy, I have no complaints, especially since I'm not one of the 4 out of a 1000 infants who died before my first birthday. Having made it past that hurdle, I've managed to avoid medical expense related bankruptcy.

I think the relatively high infant mortality here is mostly due to different definitions of "live births". If a country does not count infants who die within hours of birth among "live births", then their infant mortality rate will be lower. That is in general a problem with international comparisons for any variable where there may be different definitions or reporting differences.

Another reason why US infant mortality may be unusually high is abortion. If almost all "incompatible with life" pregnancies are aborted, that reduces infant mortality. If many parents decide to deliver the baby, who then dies within hours and days, that increases infant mortality statistics.

Freedom and opportunities are such vague terms. I certainly value the freedom and opportunity to be shot by an ICE Agent who will never face any consequences.

The chances of that happening are infinitesimal. You are much more likely to get shot during a mugging or carjacking, and even that is improbable.

As for the economy, I have no complaints, especially since I'm not one of the 4 out of a 1000 infants who died before my first birthday. Having made it past that hurdle, I've managed to avoid medical expense related bankruptcy.

I think the discrepancy is mostly due to different definitions of "live births". If a country does not count infants who die within hours of birth among "live births", then their infant mortality rate will be lower. That is in general a problem with international comparisons for any variable where there may be different definitions or reporting differences.

An infant who died within a few hours or days or weeks or months is still one of the infants who would be counted in any infant mortality statistic.

You're both going too far, just in opposite directions.

In developed countries it comes down to whether there are signs of life. But that is something that we can at best imperfectly measure. There is no magical instant of death to record whether it happened inside or outside. But in some places they do not count it as a live birth if survival is unquestionably impossible. And I suspect the punishment crowd drives up the rate. I'm thinking of a local case, way too premature to have a chance. The doctor did the humane thing and put it in a room and closed the door. A nurse went ape over that. You have to try to save it! The way the country is going the doctors are going to try on cases that would properly be classified as stillbirths.

I think that was an episode of Call the Midwife.

Infant mortality is directly related to prenatal care, or rather the lack of it. This is something socialist countries sort of take for granted. They look at the US and see people and politicians who claim life is sacred, but don't seem to want to do the simple things that preserve it.

 

[laughing dog]

Don't get those skirts up in a tizzy with yet another of your misinterpretations. I don't know if Mamdani literally meant what he said.

Why should we think he didn't?
If a Republican used Nazi language, I do not think you would rush to defend him and say that he didn't really mean it.

Depends on the language, the context and the Republican,

Certainly you don't. Politicians engage in rhetorical hyperbole all the time. I presented a link with arguments that suggest it might be mistake to take what he said literally. Only time will tell.

That article is not very persuasive, and I gave some reasons. It's a piece of propaganda, and they want to defend him because they like Mamdani and his policies.

You have no idea whether they like him or his policies. Disagreeing with an argument does not make it propaganda.

 

[Bronzeage]

You seen to be tap dancing around too many logical fallacies to catalog and may have discovered new ones. What difference does it make who said it, unless you want to make some kind of ad hominem attack.

I don't think so. I think the identity of the author is important to establish his or her bona fides and any biases.

I've heard of "appeal to authority" but demanding someone else appeal to it is a little strange.

On the other hand, what does a presumably fictitious name being attached to a piece of writing be if not a little strange?

Why would you think someone needs to live in some perfect place in order for their criticism of the US to be valid? Address the issues or quit wasting my time.

Nobody said anything about "some perfect place". But if your anti-American screed contains a reference to us having a lot of homeless, and his own (supposedly, who knows who actually wrote it) country has >2x the homelessness rate as the US, then that diminishes his claim that we have oh so many homeless, doesn't it?

If Dave the Aussie hurt your feelings, that is covered by the old adage, the truth hurts.

He did not hurt my feelings. But note that none of his claims are in any way sourced. So why should I address these claims?

You are under no obligation to do anything.

In the same manner, you are free to dispute anything he said, if you think something is false. Since you have spent your time and effort demanding his credentials, It's my judgement that you know it's all true and your only recourse is to discredit the author.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don’t think the tea party/libertarians are fascist exactly. I do think that they mistakenly embraced Trumpism, which is an amalgam of kleptocracy and fascism, thinking that it would lead to their adolescent fantasy of no rules for me but plenty for thee if I don’t like you.

This is projection—we see how easily so called conservatives have embraced authoritarianism. At the same time, there is genuine risk of democratic socialism morphing into the same sort of authoritarianism, only called (Maoist) communism.

Authoritarianism is destructive and morally reprehensible regardless of the root ideology.

I think the Tea party was actually a false flag operation by the Republicans from the start.

So was QAnon.

 

[ZiprHead]

People think Advantage Plans are terrible but mine has never given me any problems and luckily I have enough money to pay for any surgical copays.

I'm now on a Medicare Advantage Plan, as of July 1. Woo hoo! I've only heard good things about it. Seems like a lot of good, extra benefits for very minimal extra cost. What are the terrible aspects of it that you are hearing?

You're putting yourself in the hands of a commercial insurance company that can deny paying for your care for any reason it sees fit.

 

[Tigers!]

That is why I like having choices instead of single payor for all. Just my little fantasy about UHC.

That is a much better fantasy than most I hear or read.