my platform as presidential candidate - what's yours?
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Monday, June 3, 2024 14:50
VIEWED: 27072
PAGE 22 of 27
SIX, thanks for the tip on paywalls, I haven't tried it yet but will the next time I run into a paywalled article. If I understand it correctly, in order to view paywalled articles on most sites (probably) you need to delete the previous cookes associated with that site, and block cookies from that site before you open an article. Correct?
JSF: Hubby loaded BRAVE on the tablet, but I haven't tried THAT yet either. Some time this week I'll give it a try, just been real busy. Tom Luongo (one vlogger that I listen to semi-regularly, along wth The Duran) has been pushing the Brave browser as a better alternative to anything anything Android/Google associated, since they scrape your data wherever you go. (I have NoScript also loaded with Firefox, it's amazing how many google apps pop up with each site. googletagmanager and google-analytics are everywhere; I have them blocked but most people don't even know that they're running in the background.)
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, while I noodle on exactly WHERE to get the money for Medicare For All (in total, we spend enough on healthcare to fund healthcare for everyone) I'm going to appeal for help on how to improve Medicare and do some research.
KIKI once posted that the current system of paying for only one proximate diagnosis was wrong, since it failed to address complex causes (paying for the amputation without addressing the underling diabetes and drug addiction which caused homelessness is stupid).
But as I mentioned, as a first thought negotiating better drug prices would be a terrific first step. I'll do some research and pencil=whip the potential savings on that.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SIX, thanks for the tip on paywalls, I haven't tried it yet but will the next time I run into a paywalled article. If I understand it correctly, in order to view paywalled articles on most sites (probably) you need to delete the previous cookes associated with that site, and block cookies from that site before you open an article. Correct?
Yeah. That's right.
Second's tip for the Private Window works fine for NYT, but it won't work for WaPo. They know you're using it and their site doesn't allow you to use private windows unless you're already paying them.
If you set up your cookies for any offending sites, you don't have to worry about it at all. At least until they change that.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, I put this here as an indicator of which topic I'm addressing.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, while I noodle on exactly WHERE to get the money for Medicare For All (in total, we spend enough on healthcare to fund healthcare for everyone) I'm going to appeal for help on how to improve Medicare and do some research.
KIKI once posted that the current system of paying for only one proximate diagnosis was wrong, since it failed to address complex causes (paying for the amputation without addressing the underling diabetes and drug addiction which caused homelessness is stupid).
But as I mentioned, as a first thought negotiating better drug prices would be a terrific first step. I'll do some research and pencil=whip the potential savings on that.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
Yes, the Medicare system has these things called DRG's (diagnosis related group) introduced in the 1980's. And they, along with Medicare reimbursement rates, have been problematic ever since.
DRG's were introduced to fix the problem of 'for service' charges. Doctors would perform services and get reimbursed for whatever they did (or said they did). There was no check on what doctors might do to run up the tab and get more money. An easy case could be milked for a long, long time.
So the government created these DRGs to reimburse doctors and hospitals according to what they *should* spend for each patient with a diagnosis.
The shortcomings were immediately obvious. Patients couldn't have more than 1 DRG because no one knew how to do the calculation if one or both conditions aggravated each other. So a patient who came with with uncontrolled diabetes AND heart failure would only be reimbursed for treatment for one of them. Or, you could have a patient with a vastly more serious and complicated case, and their treatment would only be reimbursed at the average rate. This would especially discriminate against public hospitals, since they typically had more indigent, and thus untreated, unmanaged and complicated, medical cases.
The whole DRG concept has been tinkered with ever since to try and repair a faulty plan.
But on top of that DRG reimbursement rates are too low. And that leads to health care providers 'upcoding' - listing a patient in a more serious category than they actually are. And what that does, among other things, is scramble the MEDICAL record as to what the patient actually suffers from, poisoning it as a source of accurate medical information.
All this to solve a problem that has a better solution as in Canada.
Canada avoids the entire complicated cluster& in the US by paying doctors a normal, negotiated, income. (The doctors' union negotiates with the government. Also, afaik public medical school costs are on par with other graduate degrees, so doctors aren't trying to pay off huge education loans.) Hospitals are reimbursed for incurred costs. And especially important these days, the government negotiates drug prices. Medical practice in Canada and its associated businesses are unlike the US. In the US they're one giant mutual rip-off morass ... with all the accumulated mutual overcharging eventually falling on the consumer.
As a result of the rather pragmatic Canadian system, everyone is medically covered for life, including long-term nursing home care, at about half the per capita costs as the US.
I think a certain amount of good will is also important; and as well, anyone could intentionally game the system, so there's probably some back end checking.
Moving on to 'people who like their insurance should be able to keep it'.
There now are rumblings in the ordinary-insu
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61954&mid=1
079564#1079564
Quote:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/23/20699958/medicare-ex
tra-center-american-progress-single-payer-health-reform
According to an analysis CAP commissioned from the independent health care consulting firm Avalere and provided exclusively to Vox, Medicare Extra would achieve universal coverage — adding 35 million people to the insurance rolls — while cutting national health expenditures by more than $300 billion annually.
Avalere, which uses a methodology meant to mimic the Congressional Budget Office’s approach, also estimates that Medicare Extra would cost the government between $2.8 trillion and $4.5 trillion more than it’s spending now over the first 10 years, depending on how you structure the cost sharing. CAP is quick to note that at the lower range, the plan could be financed entirely through wealth taxes and other levies on richer Americans.
That said, the true costs of the plan would be somewhat higher. Because Medicare Extra takes about four years to phase in, a 10-year cost estimate underplays the actual running costs; once the program is up and running, it will spend about $400 billion to $500 billion per year. (Or, as I understand it, while the government will spend more on Medicare Extra, overall expenses will go down by reduced spending elsewhere - perhaps on private insurance and copays.)
I'm always curious about comparisons. In this case, I'm curious how the proposed "Medicare Extra" compares to the Canadian system, which I think is a proven achievable system. The Canadian system covers everyone for life, including unlimited nursing home care, with no 'cost sharing' (ie premiums, copays, and deductibles).
The Medicare Extra plan estimates that: "Medicare Extra would achieve universal coverage — adding 35 million people to the insurance rolls — while cutting national health expenditures by more than $300 billion annually. ... once the program is up and running, it will spend about $400 billion to $500 billion per year." I presume this means that while the particular "Medicare Extra" program would spend $400 - $500 billion annually, overall, other costs would go down such that, in total, it would cut overall national health expenditures by more than $300 billion annually.
If it's going to save $300B we should compare it to today's total expenditures to see if it comparatively saves a lot, a little, or in between. So, what do we pay now?
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Tr
ends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/NHE2017.zip
2017 Total National Health Expenditures 3,492,077 (million, or 3.5 trillion)
So Medicare Extra would save an estimated 300B out of the current 3.5T in medical expenses. A savings of 300B out of 3.5T is slightly less than a 9% annual savings over current expenditures. NOT AT ALL IMPRESSIVE compared to the Canadian system which would save us roughly 50%, is universal, birth-through-death, has no 'cost sharing'.
As I noted in my post above, mere insurance reform can't solve our medical system issues: from exorbitant medical school tuitions, through exorbitant prices charged by medical products vendors (MRI machines through medications through band-aids), through hospital and medical care corporations, and on down through private profit and administrative overhead. Insurance reform merely partially addresses the insurance issues, but also fails to address the private insurance 'overhead' of administrative costs and profit that get tacked onto every consumer. As long as the government is paying private businesses at every step, the 'overhead' of administrative costs and profit, as well as overcharging, will continue to drive up overall expenses in every directly and indirectly related arena, beyond the mere cost of providing the service.
And the article
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is a marker. In discussing the economic drain of US military bases around the globe (for ahem! 'national defense') I've been using old information of appx 800 US military bases around the globe. That underreports them by appx 25%. The correct figure is appx 1000 according to the most recent publication available at Amazon
Directory of U.S. Military Bases Worldwide: Third Edition (Directory of U.S. Military Bases Worldwide)
and confirmed in 2017 by a separate publication also available at Amazon
Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World Paperback – Download: Adobe Reader, October 3, 2017
And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've been focused on thermonuclear holocaust for a few years. It's been simmering away quite nicely on the back burner for, probably, decades. Hillary was all on board (being the democrat's globalist/neo-liberal official rep). With Trump, we're getting a glimpse into the hidden facts. And he seems on-board too.
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/08/23/the-irresponsibility-of-sm
all-nations/
The Irresponsibility of Small Nations
After falsely accusing Russia of violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), Washington unilaterally repudiated the treaty. Thus did the US military/security complex rid itself of the landmark agreement achieved by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev that defused the Cold War.
The INF Treaty was perhaps the most important of all of the arms control agreements achieved by American 20th century presidents and now abandoned in the 21st century by US neoconservative governments. The treaty removed the threat of Russian missiles against Europe and the threat of European-based US missiles to Russia. The importance of the treaty is due to its reduction of the chance of accidental nuclear war. Warning systems have a history of false alarms. The problem of US missiles on Russia’s border is that they leave no time for reflection or contact with Washington when Moscow receives a false alarm. Considering the extreme irresponsibility of US governments since the Clinton regime in elevating tensions with Russia, missiles on Russia’s border leaves Russia’s leadership with little choice but to push the button when an alarm sounds.
That Washington intends to put missiles on Russia’s border and pulled out of the INF Treaty for this sole purpose is now obvious. Only two weeks after Washington pulled out of the treaty, Washington tested a missile whose research and development, not merely deployment, were banned under the treaty. If you think Washington designed and produced a new missile in two weeks you are not intelligent enough to be reading this column. While Washington was accusing Russia, it was Washington who was violating the treaty. Perhaps this additional act of betrayal will teach the Russian leadership that it is stupid and self-destructive to trust Washington about anything. Every country must know by now that agreements with Washington are meaningless.
Surely the Russian government understands that there are only two reasons for Washington to put missiles on Russia’s border: (1) to enable Washington to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike that leaves Russia no response time, or (2) to enable Washington to threaten such a strike, thus coercing Russia to Washington’s will. Clearly, one or the other of these reasons is of sufficient importance to Washington for Washington to risk a false alarm setting off a nuclear war.
Military analysts can talk all they want about “rational players,” but if a demonized and threatened country with hostile missiles on its border receives a warning with near zero response time, counting on it to be a false alarm is no longer rational.
The 1988 treaty achieved by Reagan and Gorbachev eliminated this threat. What purpose is served by resurrecting such a threat? Why is Congress silent? Why is Europe silent? Why is the US and European media silent? Why do Romania and Poland enable this threat by permitting US missiles to be stationed on their territory?
Little doubt the Romanian and Polish governments have been given bagfulls of money by the US military/security complex, which wants the multi-billion dollar contracts to produce the new missiles. Here we see the extreme irresponsibility of small countries. Without the corrupt and idiotic governments of Romania and Poland, Washington could not resurrect a threat that was buried 31 years ago by Reagan and Gorbachev.
Even the American puppet state of occupied Germany has refused to host the missi
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki: Washington unilaterally repudiated the treaty.
You mean Trump did.
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2018-11/news/trump-withdraw-us-inf-tre
aty
You know, this guy:
So the move iz clearly to make it look like America iz the bad guy wile freeing Putin from the pesky treaty.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki: Washington unilaterally repudiated the treaty.
You mean Trump did.
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2018-11/news/trump-withdraw-us-inf-tre
aty
So the move iz clearly to make it look like America iz the bad guy wile freeing Putin from the pesky treaty.
I noticed that too, Jo. Not once did the author say “Trump” instead he said “Washington.” Although he did use Reagan and Clinton... almost like was trying to absolve Russia’s favorite puppy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by REAVERFAN:
If you lived in the US, I'd suggest you vote for Bernie in the primary.
Since you don't, fuck off.
The thing is reaver, that what rue (kiki) says is her presidential platform, is the opposite of what Trump is doing.
military
severely reduce military overseas
abandon our policy by which we allow ourselves the 'first strike' nuclear option
maintain reduced nuclear capability that's still sufficient to assure destruction of nuclear opponent
Trump tore up the treaty and is creating new, more controversial nukes.
environment
commit to significant greenhouse gas reductions; stump the country for it to create popular pressure in Congress so Congress will pass the Paris Accord
Not only is Trump a climate change denier, he is removing all our environmental protections so polluters can pollute with impunity.
economy
stump for a 'fair deal' economy where everyone has the opportunity to earn a living wage
Right, tax cuts for the rich and fuck the little guy is what Trumps about. You know, exploit the average guy.
And sig in the next post says that's the dream when it comes to kiki's post. Yet, they are two of Trumps staunchest supporters. Bullshit, Russian trolls. No substance, just bullshit.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME