Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

[Bubble181]

While I do agree she had her chance and lost it, I fail to see what she says there as racist.
The center-left is all but gone all throughout Europe because left, green, extreme-left, neoliberal and extreme-right voices have a more convincing story to tell, even if their solutions are bogus. The center-left has ignored identity issues for far too long.

 

[Hailey Knight]

While I do agree she had her chance and lost it, I fail to see what she says there as racist.
The center-left is all but gone all throughout Europe because left, green, extreme-left, neoliberal and extreme-right voices have a more convincing story to tell, even if their solutions are bogus. The center-left has ignored identity issues for far too long.

The anti-immigration situation in America is bedded entirely in racism. I was just taking her stance on Europe and translating it to how that would apply in America if she were to run the same position here. There are definitely racists in Europe on this, but I don't know enough to say that's the foundation over there.

But in the U.S., racism is the bottom line. Lip service is paid about "stole our jobs" or taxes or blah blah blah, said by people who know little about the employment situations or how immigration law works. When they see or interact with someone they can tell is an immigrant, legality doesn't factor in over how they talk about that immigrant or treat that immigrant. What it comes down to is "they talk funny and look different" and somehow all of the bad in this American's life can be pinned on that obvious foreigner.

 

[Bubble181]

Oh, plenty of it is unfortunately rooted in racism here too...but it's not because the extreme right is a bunch of fascists that therefore the left is perfect and right.

 

[@Li3n]

Appeals to the Right are worthless; their claims that moving closer to their positions would make them vote Left have been proven to be disingenuous time and time again.

Why would they vote for someone who's close to what they want when they can vote for someone who is what they want, even if they hate him as a person (Hi, Ted Cruz!!!)?

While I do agree she had her chance and lost it, I fail to see what she says there as racist.
The center-left is all but gone all throughout Europe because left, green, extreme-left, neoliberal and extreme-right voices have a more convincing story to tell, even if their solutions are bogus. The center-left has ignored identity issues for far too long.

Aren't most governments historically center right? Merkel is a conservative after all, just not an "american style" one where helping anyone that isn't contributing millions to your re-election is considered communism.

Post automatically merged: Nov 23, 2018

Oh, plenty of it is unfortunately rooted in racism here too...

Americans have a hard time getting it because it's not as "one drop"-ish and stuff as there.

 

[Krisken]

I think she should run as a Republican.

 

[Dave]

I think she should run as a Republican.

That would be AMAZING!

But it would split a lot of the (D) vote so I say no. But watch the heads of the (R)s explode everywhere.

 

[Gruebeard]

I think she should run as a Republican.

That's optimistic. I expect there's not gonna be an election for her to run in.

 

[Tress]

That's optimistic. I expect there's not gonna be an election for her to run in.

Don’t even joke about that.

 

[@Li3n]

That's optimistic. I expect there's not gonna be an election for her to run in.

Nah, it's going to take a few more times slowly eroding american institutions for that to be allowed by the public without a big fuss... maybe during Barron's term...

 

[Bubble181]

Nah, it's going to take a few more times slowly eroding american institutions for that to be allowed by the public without a big fuss... maybe during Barron's term...

Barron vs Chelsea, proof your elections really are free and everyone can run.

 

[evilmike]

I think she should run as a Republican.

Well, she did campaign for Goldwater.

 

[@Li3n]

'Member teh death panels?

 

[PatrThom]

Oh hey I saw that mentioned on reddit, but didn't realize it was actually local.

--Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

It sucks and all, but are you suggesting the hospital should have gone through with the surgery all the same even though the patient couldn't afford the immunosuppressive drugs they'd need for years afterwards to not reject the heart?

The "Death Panels" rhetoric wasn't about heart transplants, it was about cost savings (IE give grandma drugs instead of a hip replacement because she'll be dead in a couple years anyway). Heart transplants aren't like hip replacements. There's only so many hearts to go around, and they have to put them in people who have the best chance of living afterwards, or both the patient AND the heart (and therefor another patient) go to waste.

 

[Dave]

You should not be consigned to death because you don't have as much money as someone else.

 

[GasBandit]

You should not be consigned to death because you don't have as much money as someone else.

Getting a heart transplant surgery when you can't afford the followup immunosuppressives IS a death sentence.

 

[Dave]

Getting a heart transplant surgery when you can't afford the followup immunosuppressives IS a death sentence.

Yeah. That's my point. It should not be!

 

[@Li3n]

it was about cost savings

you can't afford the follow-up immunosuppressives

I'll let you figure it out.

 

[AshburnerX]

Yeah. That's my point. It should not be!

No, it shouldn't. Immunosuppressant drugs aren't exactly made out of difficult to produce materials, their cost is simply kept artifically high because it's not something people can go without... once you're own the drugs, it's probably for the rest of your life. Now, there IS some research being done to bring the cost down, but it's slow going because no drug company wants to undercut a proven moneymaker, especially when they can make generics of current drugs and sell them.

To be frank, there are reasons why drug factories in India violate drug patents routinely and why many people illegally import medication from India. This is one of them.

 

[@Li3n]

Remember teh guy that died because his go-fund me was short like a few dozen dollars for his insulin?

...

Oh, and Gas, where is that charity that will just take care of this sort of stuff in a true libertarian society?

 

[GasBandit]

I'll let you figure it out.

I'll let YOU figure out the difference between someone not being able to afford something, and someone else deciding they can't have it even if they can afford it.

Now, there IS some research being done to bring the cost down, but it's slow going because no drug company wants to undercut a proven moneymaker, especially when they can make generics of current drugs and sell them.

To be frank, there are reasons why drug factories in India violate drug patents routinely and why many people illegally import medication from India. This is one of them.

Oh, and Gas, where is that charity that will just take care of this sort of stuff in a true libertarian society?

It doesn't even enter into that, the problem's a lot more basic.

The big problem in our system is that despite the eagerness to blame the supposed callousness of a free market system, we don't actually have a free market system. A lot of countries have a "single payer" system, but we actually have something like a "four payer system" - in that there's really only four or so entities (the big insurance megacorps) doing the paying, and they hate competition and are happy to collude - which is about as anticapitalist as you can get.

Health care costs in the US are bloated beyond believe-ability because people are completely disassociated from the cost of their health care. "I pay my premiums, so the insurance company should just pick up the whole tab, so what do I care what it costs?" Hospital administrators use that disregard to jack up the prices. What's needed here is some good old trust-busting, which as I've said before, is the truly vital role of government even (or perhaps especially) in a libertarian environment. Make it so health care providers have to compete with each other for each and every of the hundreds of millions of patients out there, instead of just colluding with four unsympathetic profit-driven megacorps. Right now, patients aren't the customers, the four insurance companies are - and that's what makes immunosuppressants $10,000 instead of affordable. That needs to change. This was the essence behind this year's Libertarian Party candidate's "million payer plan." We've seen how it can happen time and again, including with me - because I was able to shop around and pay out of pocket for my gastric sleeve surgery, I paid about 50% what an insurance company would pay (which is part of why my insurance refused to pay for it).

You break the quadropoly and reintroduce competition to the system, and you can watch an actual free market work as health care prices start racing to undercut each other.

 

[PatrThom]

we don't actually have a free market system. A lot of countries have a "single payer" system, but we actually have something like a "four payer system" - in that there's really only four or so entities (the big insurance megacorps) doing the paying, and they hate competition and are happy to collude - which is about as anticapitalist as you can get.

Oligopoly.
The word you're looking for is "Oligopoly."

--Patrick

 

[@Li3n]

I'll let YOU figure out the difference between someone not being able to afford something, and someone else deciding they can't have it even if they can afford it.

Do... do you not understand how a healthcare system works?

If grandma could afford a new hip she wouldn't need to get one under Commibamacare and it's evil death panels.

And it wouldn't make doctors all of a sudden not want to take extra money from patients who wanted to pay out of pocket.

But lets not get distracted, the death panel thing was about them putting costs above patients lives, that's why they where saying death panels, and not walking cane for grandma panels.

The big problem in our system is that despite the eagerness to blame the supposed callousness of a free market system, we don't actually have a free market system. A lot of countries have a "single payer" system, but we actually have something like a "four payer system" - in that there's really only four or so entities (the big insurance megacorps) doing the paying, and they hate competition and are happy to collude - which is about as anticapitalist as you can get.

Really, it's anti-capitalistic for the winners in a market to attempt to keep they position at all costs? And isn't forcing them to compete when they don't want to the big bad government not letting the market be free?

(which is part of why my insurance refused to pay for it).

See, this is why i don't get how you think the only issue that makes prices so high is the insurance companies, since, as you said, they just refuse to pay...

Now why would the surgeries cost so much if the "customers" (aka the insurace companies) aren't paying for them?

Post automatically merged: Nov 25, 2018

Oligopoly.
The word you're looking for is "Oligopoly."

--Patrick

aka what most free markets end up as once it's determined who the best "players" are.

 

[GasBandit]

Do... do you not understand how a healthcare system works?

I don't think *you* do.

If grandma could afford a new hip she wouldn't need to get one under Commibamacare and it's evil death panels.

If its cost wasn't inflated, she could afford it.

And it wouldn't make doctors all of a sudden not want to take extra money from patients who wanted to pay out of pocket.

It's the other way around. Doctors are *glad* to give *discounts* to patients who pay out of pocket instead of going through insurance, even as things stand, now. That was the point of my whole story. Reading comprehension ftw.

But lets not get distracted, the death panel thing was about them putting costs above patients lives, that's why they where saying death panels, and not walking cane for grandma panels.

Which is why it doesn't apply as an example to heart transplant committees, whose primary concern is about using the valuable living resource (transplant heart) where it is most likely to save life, instead of squandering it and two lives where it will go to waste.

Really, it's anti-capitalistic for the winners in a market to attempt to keep they position at all costs? And isn't forcing them to compete when they don't want to the big bad government not letting the market be free?

Competition is what makes free market capitalism work. Without it, as soon as a few entities dominate (or even worse, a single one), it stops being capitalism and just starts being a nation-wide company store. The government has to trust-bust to keep a free market free and make sure it keeps working. If it just lets anti-competitive interests take control and lock down the market, it by definition is no longer free.

See, this is why i don't get how you think the only issue that makes prices so high is the insurance companies, since, as you said, they just refuse to pay...

This one refused to pay this time, but that isn't always the case. However, you can bet the insurance companies and plans that would cover it would pass the gouging on. The problem is that insurance isn't insurance anymore, it's a "medical payment plan," which can't work in such a collusive, anticompetitive market. It's to their benefit not to compete, but to collude. And that's how we get where we are.

 

[@Li3n]

I don't think *you* do.

If its cost wasn't inflated, she could afford it.

Yes, there's no way to make a hc system that doesn't over-inflate prices... no place on earth has ever done that EVER!!!!

It's the other way around. Doctors are *glad* to give *discounts* to patients who pay out of pocket instead of going through insurance, even as things stand, now. That was the point of my whole story. Reading comprehension ftw.

He said, completely ignoring that i quoted a different part of his post then the one he's referring to (ur story) when i said this.

Which is why it doesn't apply as an example to heart transplant committees, whose primary concern is about using the valuable living resource (transplant heart) where it is most likely to save life, instead of squandering it and two lives where it will go to waste.

So tell me again why is it going to go to waste if they use it on this person?

And do it in 1 word...

You know the one.

Competition is what makes free market capitalism work. Without it, as soon as a few entities dominate (or even worse, a single one), it stops being capitalism and just starts being a nation-wide company store. The government has to trust-bust to keep a free market free and make sure it keeps working. If it just lets anti-competitive interests take control and lock down the market, it by definition is no longer free.

Well that's convenient: "it's only real capitalism up until it reaches it's inevitable conclusion of someone winning!".

And my point was that it's obviously not free if you need intervention to keep it "free". But then again that was more me trying to get you to admit to yourself you don't believe in the concept of the free market that the more deluded libertarians do.

This one refused to pay this time, but that isn't always the case. However, you can bet the insurance companies and plans that would cover it would pass the gouging on. The problem is that insurance isn't insurance anymore, it's a "medical payment plan," which can't work in such a collusive, anticompetitive market. It's to their benefit not to compete, but to collude. And that's how we get where we are.

Yeah, no, dude, the reason they refused to pay was because their whole incentive is to never pay. They don't actually win anything by letting the hospitals cover their expenses from other areas (like emergency care for poor people who can't pay), they just don't care about it since the higher prices allow them to refuse you claim at higher rates.

Leaving your health in the hands of insurance companies who motive is profit is just a bad idea, since they always make more money from not paying up.

...

Also, colluding is always a better idea then competing unless you can push the competition out of the market, or at least dominate them.

 

[GasBandit]

Yes, there's no way to make a hc system that doesn't over-inflate prices... no place on earth has ever done that EVER!!!!

Actually, I just went over how to do that, without the talent drain inherent to a single payer system. Again, reading comprehension ftw.

He said, completely ignoring that i quoted a different part of his post then the one he's referring to (ur story) when i said this.

Oh please, you're the king of selective hearing, only talking about the parts you want to twist to your rhetorical advantage. Address the crux of the matter, don't get bogged down in the minutiae.

So tell me again why is it going to go to waste if they use it on this person?

And do it in 1 word...

You know the one.

Scarcity?

How about the fact that you're trying to limit me to one word answers is a dead giveaway that you can't win this argument without railroading through the oversimplification?

Well that's convenient: "it's only real capitalism up until it reaches it's inevitable conclusion of someone winning!".

Hey, you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, but we still have freedom of speech. This is not difficult to understand. You're trying to force a false dichotomy here.

And my point was that it's obviously not free if you need intervention to keep it "free". But then again that was more me trying to get you to admit to yourself you don't believe in the concept of the free market that the more deluded libertarians do.

Oh, I know I depart a little from the standard libertarian screed on a few points, this one included. But yes, a "free" market does need to be maintained as such, and yes, it's still "free" (as opposed to a centralized, government-controlled market).

Yeah, no, dude, the reason they refused to pay was because their whole incentive is to never pay. They don't actually win anything by letting the hospitals cover their expenses from other areas (like emergency care for poor people who can't pay), they just don't care about it since the higher prices allow them to refuse you claim at higher rates.

Leaving your health in the hands of insurance companies who motive is profit is just a bad idea, since they always make more money from not paying up.

Well, this part I agree with, which is why I am advocating divorcing insurance from the process. Make insurance INSURANCE again, not a faux medical payment plan. A good first step would be moving the paradigm form high premium, low deductible plans to low premium, high deductible plans that work hand in hand with an HSA. Make the patient the customer again, so that there's competition for their dollar, and the doctors work for the patients instead of the insurer.

Also, colluding is always a better idea then competing unless you can push the competition out of the market, or at least dominate them.

Sort of like in baseball, if there were no rules, it'd be a better idea not to drop the bat as you start running bases, so that you could bludgeon anybody who tried to tag you out, and every single would become a home run. That's why competition has to be enforced, because it's what makes the free market work for the consumer, instead of against them.

 

[Krisken]

Sort of like in baseball, if there were no rules, it'd be a better idea not to drop the bat as you start running bases, so that you could bludgeon anybody who tried to tag you out, and every single would become a home run. That's why competition has to be enforced, because it's what makes the free market work for the consumer, instead of against them.

Yup, there need to be rules and they need to be enforced. However, there shouldn't be a 'free market' when it comes to lives, otherwise you get pharma-bro.

 

[AshburnerX]

Well, this part I agree with, which is why I am advocating divorcing insurance from the process. Make insurance INSURANCE again, not a faux medical payment plan. A good first step would be moving the paradigm form high premium, low deductible plans to low premium, high deductible plans that work hand in hand with an HSA. Make the patient the customer again, so that there's competition for their dollar, and the doctors work for the patients instead of the insurer.

What is your solution for folks who may or may not be able to easily/readily leave their communities in order to "shop around"? A good example of this would be anywhere in flyover country; you could be 50-100 miles away from the closest place that could perform the operation you need. At what point is it too much to ask for these people to travel for "the best deals"?

Medical service isn't a normal "commodity". It's not like food or goods that could be transported to where it's needed. You need to go to it... and it might be too far away to take advantage of, especially if you have to do serious travel.

 

[GasBandit]

Yup, there need to be rules and they need to be enforced. However, there shouldn't be a 'free market' when it comes to lives, otherwise you get pharma-bro.

And on the flip side, the stifling effect of overcentralization/socialization gets you not enough MRE machines, not enough specialists... the medical equivalent of bread lines.

What is your solution for folks who may or may not be able to easily/readily leave their communities in order to "shop around"? A good example of this would be anywhere in flyover country; you could be 50-100 miles away from the closest place that could perform the operation you need. At what point is it too much to ask for these people to travel for "the best deals"?

Man, I am deepinaharta flyover country. There are LOTS of hospitals, and many would consider 50 miles to be a morning commute. It takes me less time to travel 50 miles out here than it takes to go from one side of DFW or Houston or Austin to the other. Going 100 miles for a heart transplant would be the least difficult part of the process.

Medical service isn't a normal "commodity". It's not like food or goods that could be transported to where it's needed. You need to go to it... and it might be too far away to take advantage of, especially if you have to do serious travel.

It's also not a geographic monopoly like cable or phone service. If it's not emergency service, it's not hard to go a town or four over out here. If it IS an emergency room situation, well, I've described one possible approach to fixing that, too (the lowest bidder pre-auction), and even on top of that, we've got so many freestanding non-hospital ERs that have popped up around here in the last couple years it's stupid - largely thanks to how overbloated medical costs are. There's a balance to be struck, and historically speaking, the fastest way to find it is through market forces - so long as nobody's gaming the system. That's where government comes in.

 

[figmentPez]

NPR asks Why Are So Many Election Ballots Confusing?

I assume the question is rhetorical, and that the answer is obvious: it's fucking intentional, the harder it is to vote, the easier it is to control who votes.

This came up over my Thanksgiving trip when trying to explain ranked / preferential / instant-runoff voting to my parents and grandmother. One of their objections was "it's too confusing, too many people can't figure out how to vote as is". If people can be taught how to use iPhones, they can be taught how to vote. All we need to do is come up with better user interfaces for voting. Ballots are made difficult to use by politicians who are attempting to game the system.

(On a tangent, another objection to ranked voting, "it could lead to groups like the KKK gaining power". Excuse me, WHAT? 1. The KKK is already in power, since the President is a white nationalist. 2. No, ranked voting would not promote such a thing in any way that traditional voting hasn't already.)

 

[PatrThom]

Ballots are made difficult to use by politicians who are attempting to game the system.

Florida is the Florida of ballot-design mistakes

—Patrick

 

[Dubyamn]

And on the flip side, the stifling effect of overcentralization/socialization gets you not enough MRE machines, not enough specialists... the medical equivalent of bread lines.

As shown by every other country having better healthcare results while spending less money.

Man, I am deepinaharta flyover country. There are LOTS of hospitals, and many would consider 50 miles to be a morning commute. It takes me less time to travel 50 miles out here than it takes to go from one side of DFW or Houston or Austin to the other. Going 100 miles for a heart transplant would be the least difficult part of the process.

I actually agree the complicated part would be contacting every hospital in the 100 mile radius pick out the best price based on the drugs, cost of the procedure and then the cost of recovering in the hospital and then schedule your doctors based on their physician association so you don't get a nasty surprise. Then just pray that the hospital doesn't bring in another doctor to the surgery or that something doesn't go wrong as they crack open your chest and then hopefully the person you talked with had the authority to honor the deal.

Compared to that I believe the moon landing would be simpler.

It's also not a geographic monopoly like cable or phone service. If it's not emergency service, it's not hard to go a town or four over out here. If it IS an emergency room situation, well, I've described one possible approach to fixing that, too (the lowest bidder pre-auction), and even on top of that, we've got so many freestanding non-hospital ERs that have popped up around here in the last couple years it's stupid - largely thanks to how overbloated medical costs are. There's a balance to be struck, and historically speaking, the fastest way to find it is through market forces - so long as nobody's gaming the system. That's where government comes in.

So your argument is that market forces are the best way to return sanity to the healthcare market if there is nobody gaming the system while also arguing that the system is completely fucked because everybody is gaming the system. And your proof that the system you propose will work nationwide is that a doctor cut you a deal on a completely elective surgery.

I remain unconvinced.

 

[GasBandit]

As shown by every other country having better healthcare results while spending less money.

"Better." (TM)

Also, as I often point out, it's easier to spend all your budget on social safety nets when your national defense expenses are basically completely covered by that horrible backwards capitalist superpower every socialist paradise seems to think they're so much better than. Or, in the case of scandinavia, when they have a half dozen citizens total, floating on an ocean of crude oil.

I actually agree the complicated part would be contacting every hospital in the 100 mile radius pick out the best price based on the drugs, cost of the procedure and then the cost of recovering in the hospital and then schedule your doctors based on their physician association so you don't get a nasty surprise. Then just pray that the hospital doesn't bring in another doctor to the surgery or that something doesn't go wrong as they crack open your chest and then hopefully the person you talked with had the authority to honor the deal.

Compared to that I believe the moon landing would be simpler.

Have you ever bought anything ever, in a capitalist system? Businesses that are forced to compete climb over each other to make themselves more convenient and inexpensive.

So your argument is that market forces are the best way to return sanity to the healthcare market if there is nobody gaming the system while also arguing that the system is completely fucked because everybody is gaming the system.

I know you tried your hardest to make it sound complicated and backwards. Nice effort, I'll give you a D-. I said the role of the government IS to prevent the gaming of the system, not to become the system. Right now it is fucked because government is at fault for making the system eminently game-able. Remember, health insurance provided by your employer wasn't a thing until the federal government tried to enforce wage controls. Before that, there largely wasn't a problem with affording health care.

I remain unconvinced.

Let's be honest, you'll never be convinced because you, like so many others on this forum, in this nation, on this Earth, are scrambling to abdicate as much control of your life as possible in the desperate hope that your overlords will just let you be warm, safe, and fed in exchange for your complete and utter dependence upon them.

 

[figmentPez]

Have you ever bought anything ever, in a capitalist system? Businesses that are forced to compete climb over each other to make themselves more convenient and inexpensive.

Yeah, that's why there's no such thing as a passengers "bill of rights" regulating air travel. Businesses forced to compete bent over backwards to give customers better treatment!

 

[GasBandit]

Yeah, that's why there's no such thing as a passengers "bill of rights" regulating air travel. Businesses forced to compete bent over backwards to give customers better treatment!

I sure as heck can't wait until the government controls it then, so that everything goes the way of the VA hospitals, and they make competition with the government-fucked version illegal, like the Post Office.

Fly Government Airlines, maybe you'll get there alive, maybe you'll get there within a year!