Kneeling NFL players

mgreenspan

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2005
4,723
130
Briggs's Back Yard
Matt-
So when you read academic studies and they lay out where their limitations are that doesn't mean they don't have merit-it means they show their work.

It means it's not settled science no matter how many times you tell yourself it is. Keep picking and choosing your facts and you'll always be right.

And the UK being used as an example is perfectly acceptable when it's one of the few used in your precious research no matter how much yoou try to minimize it's importance.
 

1920SF

Well-known member
Jan 6, 2007
2,705
1
NoVA
It means it's not settled science no matter how many times you tell yourself it is. Keep picking and choosing your facts and you'll always be right.

And the UK being used as an example is perfectly acceptable when it's one of the few used in your precious research no matter how much yoou try to minimize it's importance.

Easy tiger; nobody's picking and choosing facts-just highlighting the substantive research that has been done. (Anytime you want to post your own, about anything-jump in. Far easier to critique than to actually post something substantive on your own).

Of course it isn't settled science. There is no such thing. It merely is illustrative of where the evidence points. You use the same mitigating arguments about a number of other issues where science is involved (climate change, for example)-both misrepresenting what academic caveating is (a strength, not a weakness) and never actually putting out a substantive view of your own.

When you want to counter it, roll out your evidence. Otherwise, I'll return back to the facts as they appear at the moment: we pay more for less than anywhere else, and a lot of that is due to self inflicted wounds at the hands of corporate infrastructure and lobbyists that make the NRA look tame. Is the UK a valid example of the good, and bad? Sure-but it is a mixed bag and not the only example anymore than any other public policy in the UK can be illustrative of something different than the US.
 

1920SF

Well-known member
Jan 6, 2007
2,705
1
NoVA
And there you have it folks. Willful ignorance and unwilling to educate themselves. It's pretty basic Ray. There are Corporate Group Policies that work VERY well right now. The EO tries to mimic what we're doing right. It's something to try before this situation gets even worse. To not like this for Political reasoning is simply absurd. True Colors Ray. Maybe you should go reup your NYT and WAPO subscriptions? I hear there are offering some great deals right now.

Did you even read the EO Ray?

Scott already pointed out that your perspective appears to be borne from your experience and yours alone. Myopic often?

Oh, and the EO. So if you want to discuss the EO, sure, I read it-did you read the part(s) where it continued to say "consistent with the law"?

Who makes the law, Brian?

The fact that you can write that it is trying to do something write about the same administration that is withholding payments in order to see the health care that people are using fail (and have publically stated as much) at the same time is amusing-except for those that count on their health care. Brian.

I know you aren't worried though, the EO will fix that.

Simply put the EO won't have the same effect that a substantive revision to public policy would (aka fixing the law, regardless of replace/repeal or modification) because it simply can't achieve the same scope and breadth-and that is woven into the EO itself.

That's aside from returning to the hypocrisy inherent with an EO, Brian. You remember that commentary-right, but its different? (do we need to roll out the tired commentary of 7 years of talking about something but having no plan makes the GOP a fraud? I know Matt argues they should get a pass for that b/c you should be able to use it as a platform plank but to actually be held accountable is too much).

To not see this is a mere politics is absurd, to your point about liking it or not.

So yeah, I read the EO. Still waiting to be tired of winning.
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
First, your article is from 2009. Second, nowhere does it mention the cost difference compared to group size. Keep swinging, and missing Scott.

We see our insurer on an extremely constant basis trying to save money, it's the little things I notice. The problem is systemic, and contrary to what Ray thinks, is much deeper than insurance companies being greedy. Let's examine why ambulance rides are $500 or $100 per mile, or an aspirin is $45. Hmmmmmmmm

Here. From 2018. Healthcare costs have been increasing annually between 6-9% since 2009. GDP has been 2-3%/year....2-3x

https://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/behind-the-numbers.html

And what have I been saying (you can go back and look)? Claiming everyone has insurance, or providing subsidies, or whatever, doesn't change the fact that it costs north of $10k/year for insurance per person. That is directly related to costs (see also the PWC article). The only way to SIGNIFICANTLY affect costs is to have a very large and dominant organization having the power to set prices with hospitals, Drs, etc. One current example of that is Medicare.

That, logically, leads one to the conclusion that the only want to significantly control costs is to go to single payer.

I've been saying that for well over a year.
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,499
67
High Point, NC
Scott already pointed out that your perspective appears to be borne from your experience and yours alone. Myopic often?

Oh, and the EO. So if you want to discuss the EO, sure, I read it-did you read the part(s) where it continued to say "consistent with the law"?

Who makes the law, Brian?

The fact that you can write that it is trying to do something write about the same administration that is withholding payments in order to see the health care that people are using fail (and have publically stated as much) at the same time is amusing-except for those that count on their health care. Brian.

I know you aren't worried though, the EO will fix that.

Simply put the EO won't have the same effect that a substantive revision to public policy would (aka fixing the law, regardless of replace/repeal or modification) because it simply can't achieve the same scope and breadth-and that is woven into the EO itself.

That's aside from returning to the hypocrisy inherent with an EO, Brian. You remember that commentary-right, but its different? (do we need to roll out the tired commentary of 7 years of talking about something but having no plan makes the GOP a fraud? I know Matt argues they should get a pass for that b/c you should be able to use it as a platform plank but to actually be held accountable is too much).

To not see this is a mere politics is absurd, to your point about liking it or not.

So yeah, I read the EO. Still waiting to be tired of winning.

Ray, you're in over your head here.

Fact: Major Group plans saw a 5% premium increase in 2016

Fact: ACA plans saw anywhere from a 250% - 480% increase in premiums in 2016

It's a two fold problem and large group plans drastically reduce premiums, FACT.

This debate is over on my end, we'll let it play out and I'll talk about it again once more winning happens.

Oh, if the Republicans can get Rand on board looks like Tax overhaul may happen. Good stuff for America. Doubt we'll get the lemmings on the other side to partake though.
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,499
67
High Point, NC
Here. From 2018. Healthcare costs have been increasing annually between 6-9% since 2009. GDP has been 2-3%/year....2-3x

https://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/behind-the-numbers.html

And what have I been saying (you can go back and look)? Claiming everyone has insurance, or providing subsidies, or whatever, doesn't change the fact that it costs north of $10k/year for insurance per person. That is directly related to costs (see also the PWC article). The only way to SIGNIFICANTLY affect costs is to have a very large and dominant organization having the power to set prices with hospitals, Drs, etc. One current example of that is Medicare.

That, logically, leads one to the conclusion that the only want to significantly control costs is to go to single payer.

I've been saying that for well over a year.

Read what I wrote Ray. This is all noise from the side that fucked us to begin with. If there would be a double fuck it would be called single-payer. Let's take away options to choose, very American. (Sarcasm, Scott).
 

1920SF

Well-known member
Jan 6, 2007
2,705
1
NoVA
Ray, you're in over your head here.

Fact: Major Group plans saw a 5% premium increase in 2016

Fact: ACA plans saw anywhere from a 250% - 480% increase in premiums in 2016

It's a two fold problem and large group plans drastically reduce premiums, FACT.

This debate is over on my end, we'll let it play out and I'll talk about it again once more winning happens.

Oh, if the Republicans can get Rand on board looks like Tax overhaul may happen. Good stuff for America. Doubt we'll get the lemmings on the other side to partake though.

You have declared the debate to be over till winning happens. Cool. We won't have to talk about this again, since everyone is losing-and the people in charge won't hold themselves accountable.

Fact.

Regarding taxes; don't count your chickens too soon-and not getting the other side to partake shouldn't be championed as an accomplishment...as that's not called democracy, and it's exactly what you are bitching about when it comes to the ACA right?

You got a long road on tax reform, and I'd be worried about the results except that the stunning incompetence thus far has made for little real effect and the forecast for that isn't getting any better.

Check back in when you have a win or two under the belt please.
 

ERover82

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2011
3,899
450
Darien Gap
The debate over private vs public services is tired and old as dirt. I'd prefer single-payer (single bureaucracy) over multi-private (multiple redundant bureaucracy), but would settle for the latter as it's still likely superior to the current mess. If only the pussies in office would start winning we might be in a better situation (an actual win).

Funny how those who claim "win" are incapable of identifying an actual action which results in a win for Americans. I'm sure it's all about the long game..
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
More Trumpian winning. Just so much winning I can't take anymore!

Fallen soldier’s mother: ‘Trump did disrespect my son’

Wilson had said that the Johnson family was “astonished” by Trump's remarks during the phone call, which Wilson[mother in law] said she heard via a speaker phone while riding in a car with the Johnson family.

“She was crying the whole time, and when she hung up the phone, she looked at me and said, ‘He didn’t even remember his name.’ That’s the hurting part.”Wilson told MSNBC on Wednesday that Johnson's widow was shaken by the exchange.
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
It's a two fold problem and large group plans drastically reduce premiums, FACT.

Yep, it is. That's how insurance works. Many spread the risk for the few.

So why are you so against the ACA, which mandates everyone buy insurance, thus creating the "large group plans?"

ETA:
Read what I wrote Ray. This is all noise from the side that fucked us to begin with. If there would be a double fuck it would be called single-payer. Let's take away options to choose, very American. (Sarcasm, Scott).

Your logic doesn't follow. If "large group plans" are the solution, doesn't if follow that the larger is better? That getting the largest group you can (AKA - single payer) would be best? Yet you say it wouldn't be - why not?
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,499
67
High Point, NC
Yep, it is. That's how insurance works. Many spread the risk for the few.

So why are you so against the ACA, which mandates everyone buy insurance, thus creating the "large group plans?"

ETA:


Your logic doesn't follow. If "large group plans" are the solution, doesn't if follow that the larger is better? That getting the largest group you can (AKA - single payer) would be best? Yet you say it wouldn't be - why not?

Because single payer takes away choice and most centainly lower care.

Tell you what Scott. Make every member of Congress join and utilize our new single payer system and I?m all in. Otherwise, stay the hell away from our health care. Deal?

No deal, won?t ever happen Scott. Very telling.
 

aliastel

Well-known member
Sep 27, 2009
942
0
Champaign, IL
Because single payer takes away choice and most centainly lower care.

Tell you what Scott. Make every member of Congress join and utilize our new single payer system and I?m all in. Otherwise, stay the hell away from our health care. Deal?

No deal, won?t ever happen Scott. Very telling.

It's only a matter of a generation or two before there is single payer. The writing is on the wall. Remember the wisdom of Mark Twain: "The liberals of today are the conservatives of tomorrow."
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,499
67
High Point, NC
It's only a matter of a generation or two before there is single payer. The writing is on the wall. Remember the wisdom of Mark Twain: "The liberals of today are the conservatives of tomorrow."

Given the failure of the ACA I doubt that?s true. Strong regulation and large group plans are the way forward.
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,499
67
High Point, NC
It's only a matter of a generation or two before there is single payer. The writing is on the wall. Remember the wisdom of Mark Twain: "The liberals of today are the conservatives of tomorrow."

I take that as liberals turn into conservatives as they go though life and deal with all the nonsense. The old red white and blue fist can get tiring.
 

aliastel

Well-known member
Sep 27, 2009
942
0
Champaign, IL
I take that as liberals turn into conservatives as they go though life and deal with all the nonsense. The old red white and blue fist can get tiring.


Nevertheless, the truth my friend.. . .There's nothing more pitiful than the one who will not acknowledge the truth before their own naked eyes. . .