What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

*** Official Pete Buttigieg Thread *** (1 Viewer)

Henry Ford said:
Another way of putting that is that Medicare would provide better services for a lower fee and therefore more people would enroll in coverage through Medicare. 
 

He’s also expanding subsidies so that people get a lot more options, basing price subsidies on private insurance Gold plans. 
Click to expand...
Medicare is heavily subsidized.  Of course it can provide better services for a lower fee.  That’s the point.  The government can’t compete fairly in a system it regulates.  The public option is a farce.  It doesn’t lower costs, it just shifts them to the taxpayer until it stands alone as the only option.

 
Google says many Dems have cited the Public option as a step towards Medicare for All.  

I'm officially out.

 
Henry Ford said:
Nope. In fact, individuals who qualify for free or severely reduced cost options are automatically enrolled and can opt out by enrolling in some other option through the marketplace. You pay that estimated $7000 through your taxes if you have insurance through Medicare. 
 
Click to expand...
That's not an option.  I also see he's still running the same scenario's as Obamacare where it offer makes no sense to work.  

I did note this...."The United States spends more than $10,000 per person on health care, which comes to 18 percent of our GDP—more than twice as much what other high-income countries pay.25 Despite spending more on health care per capita than any other country in the world, we don’t have better health outcomes to show for it. Today, we are dying younger and are less healthy than we used to be."

He makes the argument for M4A right in his own plan.

 
A family of three making $31,000 a year under Pete’s plan would pay $600 for a silver plan.  Per year. 

A 60-year old making $50,000 per year currently paying $12,000 a year for gold coverage will pay $4,250.

He’s not sending a $7,000 Medicare bill to people making little enough money that they don’t have options.  That argument is at best disingenuous   

 
BassNBrew said:
That's not an option.  I also see he's still running the same scenario's as Obamacare where it offer makes no sense to work.  

I did note this...."The United States spends more than $10,000 per person on health care, which comes to 18 percent of our GDP—more than twice as much what other high-income countries pay.25 Despite spending more on health care per capita than any other country in the world, we don’t have better health outcomes to show for it. Today, we are dying younger and are less healthy than we used to be."

He makes the argument for M4A right in his own plan.
Click to expand...
YES.  His own plan states that it is a transition for M4A.  Absolutely. 

 
jm192 said:
Google says many Dems have cited the Public option as a step towards Medicare for All.  

I'm officially out.
Click to expand...
Sure. Most believe that private insurance sucks and can’t compete. If they prove us wrong, all the better. But I doubt they will. 

 
BassNBrew said:
That's not an option.  I also see he's still running the same scenario's as Obamacare where it offer makes no sense to work.  

I did note this...."The United States spends more than $10,000 per person on health care, which comes to 18 percent of our GDP—more than twice as much what other high-income countries pay.25 Despite spending more on health care per capita than any other country in the world, we don’t have better health outcomes to show for it. Today, we are dying younger and are less healthy than we used to be."

He makes the argument for M4A right in his own plan.
Click to expand...
He supports Medicare for All.  He’s just proposing a longer route because the wordplay helps him politically.

 
Henry Ford said:
There’s currently a mandate to get private insurance. 
 

I’m sorry, you think we should all be paying for Medicare for All with universal enrollment, but you don’t think we should enroll people in Medicare if they’d be subsidized for free or very low cost Medicare?
Click to expand...
I'll have to think on that further and read more of the details.  Generally not a fan of programs that dis-incentivize work or promote cash jobs. 

Do you know who is paying for these subsidies?  The downfall of Obamacare is that the cost burden was shifted to a small segment of the population.

 
BassNBrew said:
I'll have to think on that further and read more of the details.  Generally not a fan of programs that dis-incentivize work or promote cash jobs. 

Do you know who is paying for these subsidies?  The downfall of Obamacare is that the cost burden was shifted to a small segment of the population.
Click to expand...
Who paid for us to fire $93 million worth of missiles at a Syrian air strip that was up and running the next day?  I am sick to death of that argument.  Taxpayers are paying for it.  There's no way around that.  But it is worth it, and it is necessary for this country.

 
Henry Ford said:
Another way of putting that is that Medicare would provide better services for a lower fee and therefore more people would enroll in coverage through Medicare. 
 

He’s also expanding subsidies so that people get a lot more options, basing price subsidies on private insurance Gold plans. 
Click to expand...
You do realize that Gold plans and Silver plans have essentially flipped under Obamacare.  And yes that's an argument to do something, I just think like roads and military, we all should be contributing.

 
jonessed said:
He supports Medicare for All.  He’s just proposing a longer route because the wordplay helps him politically.
Click to expand...
It's not wordplay, it's the actual way we get there.  You'll notice Warren has also shifted her plan to include a "transition phase" with a public option.

 
BassNBrew said:
You do realize that Gold plans and Silver plans have essentially flipped under Obamacare.  And yes that's an argument to do something, I just think like roads and military, we all should be contributing.
Click to expand...
It's paid for in large part by rolling back the Trump tax cuts.

 
Henry Ford said:
It's not wordplay, it's the actual way we get there.  You'll notice Warren has also shifted her plan to include a "transition phase" with a public option.
Click to expand...
Telling people that "we shouldn't get rid of people's private plans" and then planning a transition phase by the name "public option" is word play.  It's dishonest.  

They all want the train driving into a wall.  Pete and Warren have painted a tunnel over the wall and told us there's another side through the wall.

 
Henry Ford said:
Who paid for us to fire $93 million worth of missiles at a Syrian air strip that was up and running the next day?  I am sick to death of that argument.  Taxpayers are paying for it.  There's no way around that.  But it is worth it, and it is necessary for this country.
Click to expand...
Taxpayers aren't paying for Obamacare, but they are subsidizing private insurance via the payroll tax exclusion.  I guess that statement isn't totally true because taxpayers funded the co-ops which all went out of business.

And if you are going to use the argument above, Bernie is much less likely to be lobby bombs are Syria that Pete.

 
jm192 said:
Telling people that "we shouldn't get rid of people's private plans" and then planning a transition phase by the name "public option" is word play.  It's dishonest.  

They all want the train driving into a wall.  Pete and Warren have painted a tunnel over the wall and told us there's another side through the wall.
Click to expand...
It's not set in stone for Pete.  If the private insurance market gives better options, we keep the system, obviously.  I just don't personally believe they will.  IF private insurance can't do better, it's a glide path to M4A.

 
Henry Ford said:
It's not wordplay, it's the actual way we get there.  You'll notice Warren has also shifted her plan to include a "transition phase" with a public option.
Click to expand...
It is wordplay.  He throws in “If private insurers are not able to offer something dramatically better” knowing full well it’s impossible for them to compete with an entity that can both regulate coverage and subsidize its own cost.

 
BassNBrew said:
Taxpayers aren't paying for Obamacare, but they are subsidizing private insurance via the payroll tax exclusion.  I guess that statement isn't totally true because taxpayers funded the co-ops which all went out of business.

And if you are going to use the argument above, Bernie is much less likely to be lobby bombs are Syria that Pete.
Click to expand...
Based on what?  Pete's never authorized the use of military force against anyone nor for a budget including war expenditures.  Sanders sure as heck has.

 
jonessed said:
It is wordplay.  He throws in “If private insurers are not able to offer something dramatically better” knowing full well it’s impossible for them to compete with an entity that can both regulate coverage and subsidize its own cost.
Click to expand...
It's also subsidizing the private insurance companies' cost.

 
So mandating what must be covered, then giving $600 per month per person to private insurance companies and subsidizing the cost of the public option by $600 per person per month is an unfair advantage?  

 
Henry Ford said:
So mandating what must be covered, then giving $600 per month per person to private insurance companies and subsidizing the cost of the public option by $600 per person per month is an unfair advantage?  
Click to expand...
Once the structure is in place they can bend the rules however they like.  You can’t have a sole competitor regulating the entire game.

 
Henry Ford said:
Based on what?  Pete's never authorized the use of military force against anyone nor for a budget including war expenditures.  Sanders sure as heck has.
Click to expand...
Now that's funny.  Neither have I or the president of the student counsel down the street.

You really should run for office.  You would excel at political speak.  We'd at least be getting a decent human being out of it (not a shot at Pete).

 
jonessed said:
Once the structure is in place they can bend the rules however they like.  You can’t have a sole competitor regulating the entire game.
Click to expand...
Please unpack this.  The plan is that nobody pays more than 8.5% of income for health insurance, public plan or private.  What rules would change to make the government an unfair competitor?

 
BassNBrew said:
Now that's funny.  Neither have I or the president of the student counsel down the street.

You really should run for office.  You would excel at political speak.  We'd at least be getting a decent human being out of it (not a shot at Pete).
Click to expand...
I'm asking you why it is obvious to you that Pete is  more likely to lob missiles at Syria than Bernie is.  

 
Henry Ford said:
Please unpack this.  The plan is that nobody pays more than 8.5% of income for health insurance, public plan or private.  What rules would change to make the government an unfair competitor?
Click to expand...
The government controls the base cost with the minimal coverage allowed.  If the price is fixed the government can manipulate cost to drive private insurers out of the market.  Private insurers can’t subsidize their product.

Perhaps you have faith that the government will compete fairly so as to keep private insurers in the market.  I find that hard to believe.

 
jonessed said:
The government controls the base cost with the minimal coverage allowed.  If the price is fixed the government can manipulate cost to drive private insurers out of the market.  Private insurers can’t subsidize their product.

Perhaps you have faith that the government will compete fairly so as to keep private insurers in the market.  I find that hard to believe.
Click to expand...
But the government is subsidizing their product.  Are you saying the government will just stop subsidizing private insurance?

 
jonessed said:
It is wordplay.  He throws in “If private insurers are not able to offer something dramatically better” knowing full well it’s impossible for them to compete with an entity that can both regulate coverage and subsidize its own cost.
Click to expand...
This.

Medicare sets its own rules and changes them as they please.  

What’s the metric?  Which side pays less?  Everyone knows medicare pays less.  

If the goal is to drive reimbursement into the floor, most hospitals will close.  

Doctors won’t go to school for 8 years and do 3+ years of Residency to make 60,000$ a year—all while taking on the constant threat of being sued.

 
jm192 said:
This.

Medicare sets its own rules and changes them as they please.  

What’s the metric?  Which side pays less?  Everyone knows medicare pays less.  

If the goal is to drive reimbursement into the floor, most hospitals will close.  

Doctors won’t go to school for 8 years and do 3+ years of Residency to make 60,000$ a year—all while taking on the constant threat of being sued.
Click to expand...
Part of his plan is that hospitals and providers can't charge more than double for out of network services than they charge Medicare, regardless of what kind of insurance the patient has.

And ask doctors who take Medicare how much money they make off of Medicare.  They aren't living on $60,000 a year.

Also, just as an aside, Medicare for All would almost certainly dramatically reduce the number of lawsuits against doctors.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
Part of his plan is that hospitals and providers can't charge more for out of network services than they charge Medicare, regardless of what kind of insurance the patient has.

And ask doctors who take Medicare how much money they make off of Medicare.  They aren't living on $60,000 a year.

Also, just as an aside, Medicare for All would almost certainly dramatically reduce the number of lawsuits against doctors.  
Click to expand...
I’m a physician that works in a hospital.  I see mostly medicare patients.  

I realize that the extra pay from Private insurances allows the Hospital to operate and provide care to those without insurance.  It allows them to survive despite medicare cutting reimbursement at every chance.

If you go to the hospital for Pneumonia and you are discharged and get hit by a car and have to go back to the hospital—you’re considered a readmission.  Medicare penalizes hospitals for readmissions—regardless of the cause.

Hospital reimbursement is now affected by patient satisfaction.  It’s not enough to keep people alive.  It’s not enough to get them over the Pneumonia.  They have to like us too.  A lot of people that like us don’t fill out surveys.  Best Buy offers me the chance to be entered into a drawing and I STILL don’t fill out their survey.  Why would most people fill out the hospital one?

Usually only angry people fill out surveys.  Medicare knows that.  It’s a game to cut payments.  And when they get full control of health care, there will be limitless games.  Hospitals will close.  You won’t be able to go to the hospital in your local community.  You’ll have to drive 2-3 hours to the big hospital in-state.  They won’t have any beds, though.  As everyone else that is sick is already there.

 
jm192 said:
I’m a physician that works in a hospital.  I see mostly medicare patients.  

I realize that the extra pay from Private insurances allows the Hospital to operate and provide care to those without insurance.  It allows them to survive despite medicare cutting reimbursement at every chance.

If you go to the hospital for Pneumonia and you are discharged and get hit by a car and have to go back to the hospital—you’re considered a readmission.  Medicare penalizes hospitals for readmissions—regardless of the cause.

Hospital reimbursement is now affected by patient satisfaction.  It’s not enough to keep people alive.  It’s not enough to get them over the Pneumonia.  They have to like us too.  A lot of people that like us don’t fill out surveys.  Best Buy offers me the chance to be entered into a drawing and I STILL don’t fill out their survey.  Why would most people fill out the hospital one?

Usually only angry people fill out surveys.  Medicare knows that.  It’s a game to cut payments.  And when they get full control of health care, there will be limitless games.  Hospitals will close.  You won’t be able to go to the hospital in your local community.  You’ll have to drive 2-3 hours to the big hospital in-state.  They won’t have any beds, though.  As everyone else that is sick is already there.
Click to expand...
You'll be glad to hear his plan also ups Medicare rates as part of a rural hospital initiative.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed said:
Seems to me that Bloomberg’s entry into the election trashes Pete’s chances.  Biden was crashing, making Pete the moderate choice.  Now those votes are getting split 2 (or 3) ways.  I just don’t see how he can peel off enough votes anymore.  As crappy as Bloomberg is the sheer amount of money he can spend will buy him enough votes to compete.
Click to expand...
yep, he entered to run against Bernie and all it's doing is helping Bernie.  

 
jm192 said:
I’m a physician that works in a hospital.  I see mostly medicare patients.  

I realize that the extra pay from Private insurances allows the Hospital to operate and provide care to those without insurance.  It allows them to survive despite medicare cutting reimbursement at every chance.

If you go to the hospital for Pneumonia and you are discharged and get hit by a car and have to go back to the hospital—you’re considered a readmission.  Medicare penalizes hospitals for readmissions—regardless of the cause.

Hospital reimbursement is now affected by patient satisfaction.  It’s not enough to keep people alive.  It’s not enough to get them over the Pneumonia.  They have to like us too.  A lot of people that like us don’t fill out surveys.  Best Buy offers me the chance to be entered into a drawing and I STILL don’t fill out their survey.  Why would most people fill out the hospital one?

Usually only angry people fill out surveys.  Medicare knows that.  It’s a game to cut payments.  And when they get full control of health care, there will be limitless games.  Hospitals will close.  You won’t be able to go to the hospital in your local community.  You’ll have to drive 2-3 hours to the big hospital in-state.  They won’t have any beds, though.  As everyone else that is sick is already there.
Click to expand...
Curious why you think we spend 2x per capita on health care what other developed nations spend, for lesser outcomes?

 
BassNBrew said:
Why are you calling it an "option" when it's not optional?
Click to expand...
I'm not understanding your claim.  I work for Ford and I can continue to get my insurance through Ford under Pete's plan for the foreseeable future.  I keep my HSA and I like the system.  If M4A gets me better health insurance and more money in my pocket, I'd be interested.  Until then, I'm good with my BCBS plan and saving money in the HSA.  I'm glad Pete is offering Medicare coverage to some who may want it, but I'll pass at this point.

 
Alex P Keaton said:
Curious why you think we spend 2x per capita on health care what other developed nations spend, for lesser outcomes?
Click to expand...
I think there are three major sources.

Number one, we spend an absurd amount of money on cancer care. Patient will frequently have terminal cancer.   But we still subject them to tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of chemotherapy and radiation therapy all in the name of giving them a couple weeks or months longer to live.  In the short time span, they are likely to catch pneumonia or another infection and require hospitalization.  I don’t know the numbers for us or other countries. But it seems like a lot of futile care to get that last two weeks while you’re miserable. I’m not saying we should stop or just let people die. But it is certainly a ginormous financial burden with very little return on investment. 

Second we have one of if not the lowest rates of physicians per capita among developed countries. People feel that they can’t get in. So they go to the emergency department which is much more expensive.  Because doctors are often overworked, a lot of things primary care doctors could probably handle on their own and get referred out to eat some of their burden. More referrals equal more cost generated.

 Thirdly, physicians are constantly worried about being sued. You can come in to the emergency room thinking that you have the flu and feel short of breath. In a reasonable world, you get a flu swab and gets it home with Tamiflu. 

In a world full of physicians that are terrified of being sued you get a chest x-ray to rule out pneumonia—Which is the most reasonable test.

They’ll do an EKG to make sure you’re not having a heart attack. They’ll probably even do a blood test called troponin to really make sure you were not having a heart attack. There’s another test called a D dimer that can be used to exclude blood clots.  Can’t miss a blood clot.  And while a positive test doesn’t mean that you are any more likely to have it, if the test is not negative, you get a special CT scan to make good and certain it is not there.

All said and done, with $10,000 worth of tests and care, you may now leave and get your tamiflu.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

(HULK)
Dave Berry's Year in Review
Replies
2
Views
780
Joe Summer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top