Page 77 of 79

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 10 Dec 2019, 15:29
by JasonL
I’m fine if people saying let’s try those systems also want to show how they are funded like really.

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 11 Dec 2019, 15:51
by Jennifer
Welcome to Coffeyville, Kansas, where the judge has no law degree, debt collectors get a cut of the bail, and Americans are watching their lives — and liberty — disappear in the pursuit of medical debt collection: When Medical Debt Collectors Decide Who Gets Arrested
https://features.propublica.org/medical ... le-kansas/

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 23 Dec 2019, 10:56
by Mo
If we stop these behaviors, then how will doctors pay med school loans off.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... -up-25-865

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 23 Dec 2019, 11:05
by JasonL
That BCBS wrote the check blows my mind. I wonder if there were coding shenanigans to make it not raise a flag in their system - like some indicator that it was not standard swab but credibly could have been one of the exotics.

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 23 Dec 2019, 11:42
by Warren
JasonL wrote:
23 Dec 2019, 11:05
That BCBS wrote the check blows my mind. I wonder if there were coding shenanigans to make it not raise a flag in their system - like some indicator that it was not standard swab but credibly could have been one of the exotics.
Must have been something like that. The bureaucracy runs on it's own inertia, but it's set up to impede the outflow of moneys until all flags are green.

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 23 Dec 2019, 13:04
by Mo
They probably have done this hundreds of times before and gotten away with it. Probably started small and just kept layering stuff on to see how much they could get away with. You don’t just start at a $25K throat swab.

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 17 Jan 2020, 12:46
by Hugh Akston
Vox's fair and balanced look at Australia's hybrid healthcare system
Australia’s Medicare is funded by a levy — 2 percent of personal taxable income; low-income workers making less than AU$22,398 (about $15,000) are exempted — and other tax revenues. Public hospitals, where people with Medicare go to get care, are funded primarily by the states, territories, and government. Those facilities provide every kind of care, but they take on the bulk of the emergency work; out of their 6.7 million total episodes in 2017-18, 2.8 million of them were emergency cases that were subsequently admitted to the hospital.

Grafted on top of this public program is a private health system. About half of Australians, predominantly people in higher income brackets like Eloise Shepherd and Madeleine Campbell, purchase private insurance that gives them access to private hospitals and other services, like dental and vision care, that are not covered by Medicare. (Lower-income people can get private coverage if they want, and receive a tax rebate, but compared to other Australians, few of them do.) Private health facilities focus primarily on elective procedures: Of 4.4 million episodes in 2016 and 2017, just 230,000 were emergencies.
The hybrid system is partly the result of a long-running political tug-of-war. Conservatives argue the public system should function as a safety net, and warn it would be overwhelmed without the private sector there to relieve some of the pressure. The left-leaning Labor Party believes funding the public system sufficiently should be the priority and seems more content to let private insurance coexist with Medicare. Even at the system’s lowest point, in the mid-1990s, 30 percent of Australians were buying private insurance. The current share is well above that.
For individuals under 65 making up to AU$90,000 a year or families with a household income below AU$180,000, the government will subsidize almost one-fourth of their private insurance premium. Older people get a more generous subsidy. The tax rebate starts to taper off above that threshold, cutting out completely for individuals making more than AU$140,000 a year and families making more than AU$240,000.
The whole thing is worth a read with a grain of salt.

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 17 Jan 2020, 12:47
by Hugh Akston
Also a little something something for nicole
At Epworth Richmond, the hallways are quiet and bright. It’s a little like walking into an Apple store. The boutique eatery near the main entrance serves tandoori chicken wraps, eggplant focaccia, and Brussel sprout salads.

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 29 Jan 2020, 15:56
by Mo
The Vox series on Everyone Covered is quite good and is a nice primer on the complexities of how every industrialized country got to “universal coverage“ in different ways.

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 15:01
by Ellie
muh
roads.jpg
roads.jpg (139.07 KiB) Viewed 653 times

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 15:03
by Hugh Akston
Uh so does that mean we can opt out of national defense if we don't want it?

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 16:04
by Aresen
Hugh Akston wrote:
14 Feb 2020, 15:03
Uh so does that mean we can opt out of national defense if we don't want it?
I'd settle for being able to opt out of the wars I don't want.

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 18:13
by Warren
OMG Muh Roads

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 18:43
by Eric the .5b
There is a dipshit segment of the left right now that thinks the Overton window is a lot further in their direction than it really is.

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 18:58
by Mo
It’s amazing, though unsurprising, how little people know about other universal heath plans. Most have the equivalent of a public option a very small percentage ban private insurance, an even smaller percentage cover dental, home care etc and an ever smaller proportion have no copays or deductibles. And zero have even three of those aspects.

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 19:00
by thoreau
Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2020, 18:43
There is a dipshit segment of the left right now that thinks the Overton window is a lot further in their direction than it really is.
I'm far more sympathetic to the lefties who argue that the right has "worked the refs" with the media to push the Overton window rightward than those who think the window has shifted left in the general public.

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 20:09
by Eric the .5b
thoreau wrote:
14 Feb 2020, 19:00
Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2020, 18:43
There is a dipshit segment of the left right now that thinks the Overton window is a lot further in their direction than it really is.
I'm far more sympathetic to the lefties who argue that the right has "worked the refs" with the media to push the Overton window rightward than those who think the window has shifted left in the general public.
Sure, in the "at least they're not fucking delusional" sense. But in my experience, those often happen to be the lefties who think free speech and the like are right-wing scams, too.

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 22:09
by Painboy
The right aren't the only ones who are skeptical of Medicare for all.
A powerful hospitality workers union in Nevada accused supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday of “viciously” attacking the group, after it circulated a flier criticizing Sanders’ “Medicare for All” proposal.

The clash between Sanders, who heads into the state’s caucuses next week as the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Culinary Union 226, which represents hospitality workers in Nevada, began earlier this week when the group circulated a flier that compared presidential candidates’ stances on health care, jobs and immigration.

The flier, obtained by The Nevada Independent, conveys approval for the health care plans of four candidates — former Vice President Joe Biden, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and the billionaire businessman Tom Steyer — who it says would “protect Culinary Healthcare.”

But Sanders, it says, would “end Culinary Healthcare” and “require Medicare for All” if elected president.
The future of union-negotiated health care plans has been a major point of contention surrounding single-payer plans like the one Sanders and Warren have backed, and has split union leaders. Opponents of Medicare for All have argued that such a system would boot union workers off their hard-won insurance plans, with no guarantee that a single-payer system would be as good.

Sanders has specified that under his plan, businesses whose workers have union-negotiated coverage would have to renegotiate their contracts if single-payer became the law of the land — and direct any windfall to the employees.

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 15 Feb 2020, 14:11
by JasonL
Oh yeah this is totally a thing. Unions overall tell the story to their membership that THE THING they got done is healthcare that doesn't look like HDHP+HSA - they've protected "quality insurance" in the face of everyone bailing on it. Many of them HATE MfA because it obviates their value and they think they will lose membership. One can infer similar resistance to any plan that separates healthcare from labor participation. They are invested in the fight.

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 15 Feb 2020, 14:32
by Hugh Akston
Are Blues/Unions talking about offsetting healthcare based losses by instituting federal closed shop laws or anything of the like?

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 15 Feb 2020, 15:20
by Warren
Hugh Akston wrote:
15 Feb 2020, 14:32
Are Blues/Unions talking about offsetting healthcare based losses by instituting federal closed shop laws or anything of the like?
What? Whose losses? What shops would they close?

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 15 Feb 2020, 15:30
by Hugh Akston
Warren wrote:
15 Feb 2020, 15:20
Hugh Akston wrote:
15 Feb 2020, 14:32
Are Blues/Unions talking about offsetting healthcare based losses by instituting federal closed shop laws or anything of the like?
What?
I SAID
Whose losses?
JasonL wrote:
15 Feb 2020, 14:11
Many of them HATE MfA because it obviates their value and they think they will lose membership.
What shops would they close?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 15 Feb 2020, 16:36
by Warren
Hugh Akston wrote:
15 Feb 2020, 15:30
Warren wrote:
15 Feb 2020, 15:20
Hugh Akston wrote:
15 Feb 2020, 14:32
Are Blues/Unions talking about offsetting healthcare based losses by instituting federal closed shop laws or anything of the like?
What?
I SAID
Whose losses?
JasonL wrote:
15 Feb 2020, 14:11
Many of them HATE MfA because it obviates their value and they think they will lose membership.
What shops would they close?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop
I already understood that. Your comment is still unintelligible. Are you saying unions would lobby to require all jobs to be union jobs so everybody gets union negotiated healthcare?

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 15 Feb 2020, 20:15
by Hugh Akston
Warren wrote:
15 Feb 2020, 16:36
Hugh Akston wrote:
15 Feb 2020, 15:30
Warren wrote:
15 Feb 2020, 15:20
Hugh Akston wrote:
15 Feb 2020, 14:32
Are Blues/Unions talking about offsetting healthcare based losses by instituting federal closed shop laws or anything of the like?
What?
I SAID
Whose losses?
JasonL wrote:
15 Feb 2020, 14:11
Many of them HATE MfA because it obviates their value and they think they will lose membership.
What shops would they close?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop
I already understood that. Your comment is still unintelligible. Are you saying unions would lobby to require all jobs to be union jobs so everybody gets union negotiated healthcare?
I'm saying that if unions oppose MfA because they are afraid of their value being obviated, are the Blues going to toss them a bone (such as closed shop legislation) that would keep or increase membership in order to secure union support?

Or are the Blues going to take union support for granted because they know that the unions will never cross the aisle?

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Posted: 15 Feb 2020, 20:24
by Warren
Hugh Akston wrote:
15 Feb 2020, 20:15
I'm saying that if unions oppose MfA because they are afraid of their value being obviated, are the Blues going to toss them a bone (such as closed shop legislation) that would keep or increase membership in order to secure union support?

Or are the Blues going to take union support for granted because they know that the unions will never cross the aisle?
Ah, gotcha.