Democratic Debate

Getin the ring said:
Hey I'm on board with all of the above,

but withhold judgement based on two things
the total cost, is it sustainable
and how will providers react to receiving less monies for services, considerably less I would presume

In theory it is a no-brainer, take it out of my paycheck and there is no cost to me outside of that, it would soon just get washed in with wages expectations

and who doesn't want a better chance at retiring early
Click to expand...

S.S. is unsustainable in its current form yet you want to increase benefits and lower the retirement age? I mean sure why not right? Throw in free college, free healthcare. What else would you like the government to provide you for "free"?
 
gfm7175 said:
Apparently so... Althea apparently knows more about my and my employer's tax forms than I do...
Click to expand...

Ever notice how so many on the left make statements that they could, in no way, have the knowledge to make?

Althea also made the claim that 30% of those that voted for Trump did so due to racism. Did Althea survey everyone that voted for Trump?
 
Althea said:
TTQ64 said:
Right Wing talking point? I've never heard any of the morons here reference liberal arts degrees. Psych degrees are right ahead of it w/respect to worthlessness. You don't click links, so I don't know how to have this discussion with you. This is one of hundreds of links that show which degrees will pay the worst return.
I'm against the mindset that you must have a college degree in order to exist in this economy. That's last century's thinking.

I don't believe in throwing good money away, just to give kids a 4 year vacation from life. If they want to create a program of approved fields of study that one can get for 'free', then I might be swayed.

Again...we already have debt forgiveness programs in place. We can do means testing for 'free' tuition, but an across the board program of free tuition doesn't make one bit of sense.

Trade schools? That's a different story.


Most useless degrees

https://www.thesimpledollar.com/10-worst-college-degrees-to-earn-in-2015/
Click to expand...



Then you haven't been paying attention. They tout liberal arts degree is worthless.

Education should be free.....any education.

Exclusion is what is wrong with America today.

Americans always want to exclude instead of include.

There is enough to go around.
Click to expand...
 
Getin the ring said:
Hey I'm on board with all of the above,
but withhold judgement based on two things
the total cost, is it sustainable
and how will providers react to receiving less monies for services, considerably less I would presume
Click to expand...

A couple things about this:

Right now, your doctor colludes with your insurance company to set artificially high costs for everything so that both can mutually benefit from a business perspective. The current system is modeled on volume instead of outcomes. When you don't have the payor and the provider colluding to make a profit for both, you commence an actual negotiation. The payor isn't concerned with making a profit in M4A, it is only concerned with lowering costs. That results in the payor, who has the bargaining power, negotiating with your doctor instead of colluding with them. That forces the provider to improve its outcomes in order to get patients.

If all providers are reimbursed at the same rate -so no more private insurance collusion- that levels the playing field and forces doctors to compete for your care. How do they compete for your care if they're all reimbursed at the same rate? By improving health outcomes. You can't competitively shop for health care right now...you might think your doctor is good, but you have no frame of reference for that. You should competitively shop for health care the same way you competitively shop for any other product or service. Right now, you are only competitively shopping for who reimburses your provider, not for who provides you with the best care. That's because of the private insurance business model, which is to take in as much in premiums as they can, and pay out as little in reimbursement as they can get away with. Nothing in that equation has anything to do with improving your health.

Now, for the sustainability...we already are spending $33T over the next 10 years in the current system. M4A saves us at least $1T, and probably much more as costs come down because there's no longer collusion between the insurer and provider to set artificially high costs so both can profit at your expense. So we are already spending a shitload of money on health care and we will if nothing changes. In the end, M4A is just as sustainable as the current system, so long as there's a tax that funds it in lieu of OOPE.
 
LV426 said:
A couple things about this:

Right now, your doctor colludes with your insurance company to set artificially high costs for everything so that both can mutually benefit from a business perspective. The current system is modeled on volume instead of outcomes. When you don't have the payor and the provider colluding to make a profit for both, you commence an actual negotiation. The payor isn't concerned with making a profit in M4A, it is only concerned with lowering costs. That results in the payor, who has the bargaining power, negotiating with your doctor instead of colluding with them. That forces the provider to improve its outcomes in order to get patients.

If all providers are reimbursed at the same rate -so no more private insurance collusion- that levels the playing field and forces doctors to compete for your care. How do they compete for your care if they're all reimbursed at the same rate? By improving health outcomes. You can't competitively shop for health care right now...you might think your doctor is good, but you have no frame of reference for that. You should competitively shop for health care the same way you competitively shop for any other product or service. Right now, you are only competitively shopping for who reimburses your provider, not for who provides you with the best care. That's because of the private insurance business model, which is to take in as much in premiums as they can, and pay out as little in reimbursement as they can get away with. Nothing in that equation has anything to do with improving your health.

Now, for the sustainability...we already are spending $33T over the next 10 years in the current system. M4A saves us at least $1T, and probably much more as costs come down because there's no longer collusion between the insurer and provider to set artificially high costs so both can profit at your expense. So we are already spending a shitload of money on health care and we will if nothing changes. In the end, M4A is just as sustainable as the current system, so long as there's a tax that funds it in lieu of OOPE.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the doctor finishing first in his class and the doctor finishing last in his class are of the same quality?
 
Getin the ring said:
In theory it is a no-brainer, take it out of my paycheck and there is no cost to me outside of that, it would soon just get washed in with wages expectations
and who doesn't want a better chance at retiring early
Click to expand...

Exactly! Or...who doesn't want to quit their shitty job and start their own business? M4A lets you do that because, as mentioned many times, one of the primary reasons people stay in jobs that they don't like, that underpay them, that exploit them, is because of health care.
 
Hello Micawber,

Micawber said:
True that. But a mortgage didn't cost what a mortgage does now either. My parents bought for $27,000 and sold for $800,000.

My house cost me about $800k. Don't I have a claim for a free house by the same token?

They signed the note. The note might have been too large, but it was a negotiable instrument with a simple payment due.

I had a client with a side issue. Seems granny wanted to pay for poor little rich girl's Pepperdine education. They asked me to negotiate
a debt of about 300K. I had a warchest. IOW I could pay it all off lump sum. That's what we had to do because there is no SOL
on a government loan, and this person was not even in default. She certainly wasn't much of a hardship case. They cut a check for
balance in full. No wiggle room. Should she have gotten a free Pepperdine education? I advised against a strategic default to qualify for an
interest waiver, because they had the money to simply pay and not ruin perfect credit.

At some point life is not fair. That point might just include people who knowingly overpay for a college education. Forgive the interest, pay the nut.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is the inflation of college costs. When I advocate for free college I mean State schools with reasonable limits on the costs. The rates need to be set by the DOE, similar to medicare rates being set by the govt.

No way the tax payers should be on the hook for glitzy name recognition school fees.
 
cawacko said:
S.S. is unsustainable in its current form
Click to expand...

Well, the fix is quite simple; lift the cap on taxable income.


yet you want to increase benefits and lower the retirement age?
Click to expand...

Why not do that? The primary reasons anyone stays in a job past age 55 are retirement and health care.

Half of all American workers don't even have retirement savings, and for those over age 55 who do, they only have an average of $250K, and that is skewed by the 1% which has millions in retirement savings. If you take the 1% out, I bet the average amount a 55-year old worker has in their 401K would be below $100K.

Older workers are also a drain on companies because of their higher health care costs, even in group plans. Boomers need to get out of the workforce because there are more Millennials than them.

It's not about "free" stuff, it's about responsible governance and being sensitive to the demographic shifts in the labor market.

The wealthy can certainly chip in 2-3% of their wealth to ensure everyone has the option of free public higher education. Plus, if you make public colleges free, that forces private institutions to lower their tuition to compete.
 
Althea said:
This
Click to expand...

No doubt, I wanted to be a major league closer with a handlebar mustache throwing nine pitches every fourth day at 110 mph, but alas ended up a lawyer
who looks more like the "stay thirsty my friends" guy.

I made the right choice for me, or at least a decent one, eventually.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Micawber,



Part of the problem is the inflation of college costs. When I advocate for free college I mean State schools with reasonable limits on the costs. The rates need to be set by the DOE, similar to medicare rates being set by the govt.

No way the tax payers should be on the hook for glitzy name recognition school fees.
Click to expand...

I think they should do something for your free unadorned practical budget education, like two years army or peace corps or working in blighted areas for several years after school.

Something. And it needs to be something unpleasant! LOL cuz that is the whole point. Don't teach people to expect free things in life. These are adults at 18, right? Let's not extend immaturity 4 years.
 
Althea said:
Self employed people now pay app. 16% FICA (self employment tax), and would add another 11.5% if M4A is passed. That's a bit of a flaw in the plan.
Click to expand...

Why would they pay the 4% tax on personal income and the 7.5% tax on business income? Wouldn't it be one or the other if they owned their own business?

Also, with M4A, the Medicare portion (2.9%) of the Self Employment Tax goes away, leaving just the FICA SS Payroll tax of 12.4%.
 
Last edited:
Althea said:
Bullshit. trump killed the soy bean market, and is now providing his own brand of Socialism to get votes.
Click to expand...

Let's skip all your propaganda bullshit and get to the core issue. We know you want Chinese global dominance because you think their gov't is morally pure and superior to ours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top