Bernie Sanders Plans to Raise Taxes by A Lot!

If you wonder what purchasing insurance across state lines entails, consider the fact that your credit card statements all come from South Dakota. Why would a major financial institution set up shop in South Dakota? It doesn't have anything to do with the price of commercial real estate. 

You can count on that same level of customer "service" if state insurance regulations are overridden.

tom said:

If you wonder what purchasing insurance across state lines entails, consider the fact that your credit card statements all come from South Dakota. Why would a major financial institution set up shop in South Dakota? It doesn't have anything to do with the price of commercial real estate. 

You can count on that same level of customer "service" if state insurance regulations are overridden.

This.  A regulatory race to the bottom.  No thanks.

lisat said:
In the past, my health insurance brokers always said the plans in New Jersey were more expensive because NJ had better protections for the consumer. If state lines are removed, how would that work? Or has Obamacare leveled the playing field in terms of all consumer protections.

That's why I don't favor it. The point of having a state is that you can have laws that the people want that (ostensibly) serve the people best. If NJ likes its laws and MS likes its laws, then let them be different.

If health insurance companies could operate in different States wouldn't they still have to comply with State regulations in whatever State they wanted to operate?

Isn't that true of Auto Insurance Companies?

Here is an article on the problem of selling Health Insurance across State lines:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/upshot/the-problem-with-gop-plans-to-sell-health-insurance-across-state-lines.html?_r=1

Eliminating the state lines would mean forbidding the states from regulating insurance. Then insurance regulation would be up to the federal government. That would result in increasing the size of the federal government. Isn't that what Republicans oppose strongly, sometimes with good reason?

LOST said:

If health insurance companies could operate in different States wouldn't they still have to comply with State regulations in whatever State they wanted to operate?

Isn't that true of Auto Insurance Companies?

I think the difference is that wherever you buy your policy you have to have a certain amount of coverage in order to register your car.

But it would not stop the States from regulating it. Read the article.

dave said:

terp said:

Wow.  So paperwork is going to be eliminated?  You just show up at the doctor and he patches you up?  Whatever you need, no questions asked?  It'll be just like getting a mortgage was a few years ago!

It'll be simple, like paying your taxes!  Sanders FTW!

This is how it works in Hong Kong.   You have an ID card, you have the nominal $5 fee.   See doc, get meds, out the door. 

5 Bucks?  I did a bit of research.   I found an article to help people who are moving to HK to decide between Public & Private.  The article does mention that the public option does offer services for people who qualify relatively cheaply(not 5 bucks).  However, it also mentions some rather long wait times, and highlights the difference in care between its public and private systems.  It also mentions the mounting(and I'd say predictable) problems with the Public plan(longer wait times, higher costs for the taxpayer, etc)

It also mentioned that part of a recent Healthcare Reform in HK was to try to convince more people to use the Private Option.  That is pretty interesting for a society who is orders of magnitude smaller, and has much fewer government burdens than this country.  

springgreen2 said:

Public schools. Not perfect, but could be if resources were centered there.

Our public schools are failing.  Most American Students are not proficient in reading and math.  Most students require remedial education upon entering college.  Is this the kind of quality you'd like to force Americans to accept in their healthcare?

springgreen2 said:

Roads, bridges, highways. Not perfect, but would be if resources were centered there.

Our infrastructure is crumbling.  We have bridges crumbling.  When we try to fix things they are exorbitantly expensive. Is this the kind of quality you'd like to force Americans to accept in their healthcare?

tom said:

social security

Social Security is actually a great example of how these Socialist schemes look great early on, but over time they fall under their own weight.  The government makes a promise and people accept it.  However, there is no way this promise can be kept in the long term as they are overcompensating early entries in the system.  Early on, this was definitely a money maker for recipients.  People were able to pull much more $$ out of the system than they ever paid in.  Obviously, that cannot continue.  and what you've had over time is people paying more into the system and pulling less $$ out.  It's beginning to look like generational theft. 

Is this really the kind of financial position you'd like to put our healthcare system into?

Tom_Reingold said:

terp said:

Wow.  So paperwork is going to be eliminated?  You just show up at the doctor and he patches you up?  Whatever you need, no questions asked?  It'll be just like getting a mortgage was a few years ago!

It'll be simple, like paying your taxes!  Sanders FTW!

Have you seen the movie Sicko? I recommend it.

terp said:

Would you provide other examples where the government services provided more value at cheaper prices than private options?  I'm sure there must be tons of examples.  I must be suffering a terrible brain fart. 

1. Medicare.

2. State owned utilities.

I did see sicko. I don't tend to take shameless propaganda too seriously though.  

Medicare & Medicaid have contributed to the healthcare crisis.  The increased demand coupled with government policy to restrict supply have caused prices to rise at a much more rapid pace than consumer prices.  See graph.  

You'll have to be more specific regarding state owned utilities.  I will say this:  private business have incentives to provide better goods/services at lower prices.  This is an incentive that government simply does not have. Government's incentives are to stay in power.  In our system, politicians get power by convincing voters they will act in their best interests either by protecting them or offering them something for free.  The bureaucrats gain power by getting bigger budgets. You get bigger budgets by spending your budget. 

Again, I'm not sure why we would want to force people into a system like this.  

lisat said:

It isn't being talked about that much, but I think for single payer to work (and I am for single payer), malpractice insurance and claims will need to be capped. That's a major change.

Also people will wait. If you have breast cancer, the cancer is removed immediately but reconstruction may wait. Another major change.

Med school will not cost as much, and students will not have to be brilliant, just very smart. (This is a guess.) Another change.

I think you are on the right track here.  However, I don't think the number of doctors is limited because of how we acquire healthcare.  It is the lack of opportunity to become a doctor.  This is limited by the availability of Medical schools.   Licensed medical schools are controlled by the states.  I believe that the average rejected Medical School applicant in 1975 had higher MCAT scores than the average accepted applicant in 1975.  

The problems you cite with government services (not about doctor shortages) come from deliberate underfunding. Government can do a good job. I'm sure you've noticed that the Republican party wants to prove how incompetent government by making it incompetent.

You definitely have to take Michael Moore movies with a grain of salt, but there is useful information in there. I can't expect you to buy everything he says, but you shouldn't dismiss all of it, either. Basically, he shows that single payer systems are preferable to our system in every way. Even if you see the movie and disagree with that premise, you will agree that they are better in some ways you hadn't considered.

I've asserted that government run utilities run well and efficiently, and your response is the theory of why private enterprise works better. I'm telling you that the data show you to be wrong, and you say why you should be right, even though you're not. Please don't be stupid. You're better than that. I'm telling you public utilities work. If you didn't know that, you do now, so it's now your job to understand why your theory doesn't play out in practice, not to tell me you should still be right.

Nebraska Power Association

Tom_Reingold said:

The problems you cite with government services (not about doctor shortages) come from deliberate underfunding. Government can do a good job. I'm sure you've noticed that the Republican party wants to prove how incompetent government by making it incompetent.

You definitely have to take Michael Moore movies with a grain of salt, but there is useful information in there. I can't expect you to buy everything he says, but you shouldn't dismiss all of it, either. Basically, he shows that single payer systems are preferable to our system in every way. Even if you see the movie and disagree with that premise, you will agree that they are better in some ways you hadn't considered.

I've asserted that government run utilities run well and efficiently, and your response is the theory of why private enterprise works better. I'm telling you that the data show you to be wrong, and you say why you should be right, even though you're not. Please don't be stupid. You're better than that. I'm telling you public utilities work. If you didn't know that, you do now, so it's now your job to understand why your theory doesn't play out in practice, not to tell me you should still be right.

Please explain how govenment services are being "deliberately underfunded".  Please see the graph of government spending vs GDP.  Where is all the money going if programs are being underfunded?

Michael Moore's films are not about discovering truth.  They are about moving forward an agenda by evoking an emotional response.  They are text book propoganda.  

What data shows that government utilities run efficiently?  Look,even though you are calling me stupid, you seem like a nice guy, but even my 13 year old knows you can't persuade people by making empty assertions.  You simply telling me that public utilities are efficient means nothing to me.  

"Is this really the kind of financial position you'd like to put our healthcare system into?"

My 401(k) accounts lost 10% of their value over the last two months. I prefer the way Social Security has performed better.

But it's cute the way conservatives have starved infrastructure and education since 1980, and now they say "look! Government can't do anything! "

I haven't starved anything.  Govenment spending continues to rise at a well established pace spanning decades.  How is the government being starved of funds?  That argument makes no sense.

BTW:  I'm glad you are happy with social security, but I'd like the option of saving my own money.  Too bad its your side that has all the guns and the purported high moral ground

No, you are not stupid overall. I asked you to stop being stupid in this particular case.

Yes, Moore is propaganda, but that is not a good way of saying the points in his movie are invalid. Many are valid. Even the Cuban system has a lot to like, and no one here would actually want to move to Cuba.

I looked for the report I heard on public radio about utilities. I'm sorry I didn't find it. The gyst of it is that reliability and cost efficiency are better than company run utilities.

Actually, you can look at Madison, NJ. That borough runs its own power utility. It was back up after Hurricane Sandy before anyone else.

I find it hard to argue with you when you just refuse to believe things that are just true. Single payer healthcare works. People are happy with it. It appears that you don't believe it mostly because you don't want to, not because of evidence.

terp said:

I haven't starved anything.  Govenment spending continues to rise at a well established pace spanning decades.  How is the government being starved of funds?  That argument makes no sense.

BTW:  I'm glad you are happy with social security, but I'd like the option of saving my own money.  Too bad its your side that has all the guns and the purported high moral ground ">

Surely it depends what the money is being spent on? I'm not sure how useful it is to point to "government spending," when a huge part of the argument is disagreement over what government ought to be spending on.  What do the trends on infrastructure spending look like, for instance?

Even there, it's worth breaking things down. Are we building new roads instead of maintaining or upgrading existing ones? Are we spending on roads in dense urban areas when it would make more sense to spend that money on things like bus rapid transit? etc.

I don't know that pointing to overall government spending is all that illuminating. I'll gladly agree we spend too much, but I suspect we disagree sharply on what we should cut, and where we should actually be increasing spending.

BTW - for the record, I can't stand Moore.

Tom_Reingold said:

No, you are not stupid overall. I asked you to stop being stupid in this particular case.

Yes, Moore is propaganda, but that is not a good way of saying the points in his movie are invalid. Many are valid. Even the Cuban system has a lot to like, and no one here would actually want to move to Cuba.

I looked for the report I heard on public radio about utilities. I'm sorry I didn't find it. The gyst of it is that reliability and cost efficiency are better than company run utilities.

Actually, you can look at Madison, NJ. That borough runs its own power utility. It was back up after Hurricane Sandy before anyone else.

I find it hard to argue with you when you just refuse to believe things that are just true. Single payer healthcare works. People are happy with it. It appears that you don't believe it mostly because you don't want to, not because of evidence.

Its not clear what you are saying.  I have never said that anything can't be done.  You could have an efficiently run government program, utility, or what have you.  However, since they don't have incentives to be efficient, they will tend not to be efficient.  

I'm not sure what "single payer works means".  That statement is too vague to be meaningful.  We have had single payer for our veterans in this country, and I have seen some horrifying results.  Did that work?   

It sounds to me that you want single payer.  You are upset because I disagree.  Lucky for you, the government will make us all adhere to this system.  They have e a monopoly on violence after all.  Without that monopoly, they would never be able to implement this utopian system that will undoubtedly provide first rate MRIs in 6-12 months.

PVW said:

terp said:

I haven't starved anything.  Govenment spending continues to rise at a well established pace spanning decades.  How is the government being starved of funds?  That argument makes no sense.

BTW:  I'm glad you are happy with social security, but I'd like the option of saving my own money.  Too bad its your side that has all the guns and the purported high moral ground ">

Surely it depends what the money is being spent on? I'm not sure how useful it is to point to "government spending," when a huge part of the argument is disagreement over what government ought to be spending on.  What do the trends on infrastructure spending look like, for instance?

Even there, it's worth breaking things down. Are we building new roads instead of maintaining or upgrading existing ones? Are we spending on roads in dense urban areas when it would make more sense to spend that money on things like bus rapid transit? etc.

I don't know that pointing to overall government spending is all that illuminating. I'll gladly agree we spend too much, but I suspect we disagree sharply on what we should cut, and where we should actually be increasing spending.

Sure, it depends on what the $$ should be spent on.  It also depends on how efficiently the $$ is being spent.  Government does not tend toward efficiency.   They have different incentives.  The government does things for political reasons, not economic reasons.

Let me ask you a question.  Do you know of any company that has allowed a critical aspect of its success to just erode through neglect?  I can't think of any.  If you can think of one, I bet a competitor came in and took advantage.  Yet here we are with big government budgets and crumbling infrastructure. 

terp said:

dave said:

terp said:

Wow.  So paperwork is going to be eliminated?  You just show up at the doctor and he patches you up?  Whatever you need, no questions asked?  It'll be just like getting a mortgage was a few years ago!

It'll be simple, like paying your taxes!  Sanders FTW!

This is how it works in Hong Kong.   You have an ID card, you have the nominal $5 fee.   See doc, get meds, out the door. 

5 Bucks?  I did a bit of research.   I found an article to help people who are moving to HK to decide between Public & Private.  The article does mention that the public option does offer services for people who qualify relatively cheaply(not 5 bucks).  However, it also mentions some rather long wait times, and highlights the difference in care between its public and private systems.  It also mentions the mounting(and I'd say predictable) problems with the Public plan(longer wait times, higher costs for the taxpayer, etc)

It also mentioned that part of a recent Healthcare Reform in HK was to try to convince more people to use the Private Option.  That is pretty interesting for a society who is orders of magnitude smaller, and has much fewer government burdens than this country.  

Those prices are in HKD.  The HKD$45 for general outpatient = about USD$5.   There is no qualifying test other than being a HK resident. 

There are waits for non-emergency procedures, which the private option is good for.  Even the private option is much cheaper than the exhorbitant fees charged in the US.

terp said:

 This is limited by the availability of Medical schools.   Licensed medical schools are controlled by the states.  

I knew this didn't seem correct. States license doctors. They do not license Medical Schools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medical_schools_in_the_United_States

terp said:

springgreen2 said:

Public schools. Not perfect, but could be if resources were centered there.

Our public schools are failing.  Most American Students are not proficient in reading and math.  Most students require remedial education upon entering college.  Is this the kind of quality you'd like to force Americans to accept in their healthcare?

This was not true 50 years ago. What changed?

LOST said:

terp said:

 This is limited by the availability of Medical schools.   Licensed medical schools are controlled by the states.  

I knew this didn't seem correct. States license doctors. They do not license Medical Schools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medical_schools_in_the_United_States

You are right.  The AMA has an incentive to limit the supply of doctors.  They have been advocating this for over a century. 

LOST said:

terp said:

springgreen2 said:

Public schools. Not perfect, but could be if resources were centered there.

Our public schools are failing.  Most American Students are not proficient in reading and math.  Most students require remedial education upon entering college.  Is this the kind of quality you'd like to force Americans to accept in their healthcare?

This was not true 50 years ago. What changed?

I'm no expert but I'd guess legacy costs coupled with top down control and societal problems  caused in large part by destructive policies.  The war on poverty and drugs has caused serious issues.  Once the problems festered there have been a series of band-aids that have exasperated the issues.  Essentially, we have a system focused on moving the needle on a couple of data points rather than effectively teaching children.  Its a classic beauracracy  problem.

terp said:

Let me ask you a question.  Do you know of any company that has allowed a critical aspect of its success to just erode through neglect?  I can't think of any.  If you can think of one, I bet a competitor came in and took advantage.  Yet here we are with big government budgets and crumbling infrastructure. 

That's easy. General Motors.

Imports ate GMs lunch. I'd go with Microsoft. 

"New and improved Excel, now with more columns!"

terp, where do people wish their country adopted the American health system? I can't think of anywhere, even though people complain about their systems in many countries.

RobB said:

Imports ate GMs lunch. I'd go with Microsoft. 

"New and improved Excel, now with more columns!"

I'd question both.  I think both got too big and had entrenched costs and interests within the company.   Basically, they became too big to react to the changing business conditions.  In both cases, there were ample competitors ready to step in.   In GMs case I think you are right, competition from imports came in and better served the needs of american car drivers who wanted more economical and reliable cars.   In Microsoft's case, Apple/Google/Open Source came in and took market share.  

I must say that I do think Microsoft is making a comeback.  Their cloud products are really quite good.  Office 365 is really kind of awesome. 

Tom_Reingold said:

terp, where do people wish their country adopted the American health system? I can't think of anywhere, even though people complain about their systems in many countries.

I don't care if anyone wishes to adopt the "American Health System".  It's a false choice.  You are conflating the American system with a truly private system. But they're 2 different things.  The American system is a system that has developed over decades with patchwork legislation that increased government intervention.  The intervention has resulted in higher costs and worse service.  When I was a kid you actually saw your doctor for more than 3 minutes, and it was cheaper.  

Anyhoo, I would advocate removing government interventions rather than just going all in and having government provided healthcare. 

Actually we should go with Haliburton, they needed a huge bailout and legal immunity from republicans in order to remain a viable company.

RobB said:

Imports ate GMs lunch. I'd go with Microsoft. 

"New and improved Excel, now with more columns!"