Home | About | Donate

'Everybody In, Nobody Out': What We Know So Far About the Medicare for All Act of 2019


#45

i hope your reading is correct. i wish they were clearer in their framing of this.


#46

Interesting, that sounds like it could be quite a bit worse than the janitorial company in terms of the amount of profit extracted from the system. There should not only be a very well constructed fee schedule but I would think we need to demand open financial books from all providers.


#47

Hm. Ok. I’ve been skeptical…but I have to say, this sounds promising. I’ll reserve judgment and await the revealing of this bill. Sounds like Jayapal is working hard for a new healthcare system in this country. Good on her.


#48

It’s why physicians groups absolutely opposed price disclosure reforms as part of the ACA, then here in California when they were proposed. Physicians have long held sway in healthcare policy debate, for obvious reasons, but my hope is that dynamic is not what it used to be, particularly when it comes to positive changes to the system.


#49

The article to which you are replying indicates the exact opposite. So, where are you getting your info?


#50

laugh - economagic is like some superhero named after his special power - better economics head than mine - makes me feel less a dummy that someone had similar q’s


#51

Not banning investor owned hospitals, nursing homes etc,etc… w t f . this is 1/2 the problem. Going to regulate them? I cannot believe what i am reading from these apologists. my roommate had to go to the emergency room because of severe intestinal pains. diagnosis gas… bill $16,000.00… of course the for profit hospital did every single test including cat scans they could possibly do to this uninsured person. These for profit hospitals are the worse problem with our system and the most predatory. I could write a book on this subject alone. so jayapala caving in to special interests decides on a multi payer system. oh with more regulations. these are part of the more lengthy bill these apologist are referring to. my worst fears had no expectations of allowing the private hospitals erc to continue. the worse fears of everyone previously i have been in contact with in pnhp and nnu did not even imagine this aspect which make all others minuscule in comparison. These two gentleman should be at the front lines protesting retaining investor owned hospitals, nursing homes etc etc. for all the unspeakable calamities they cause and willl continue to cause in our healthcare system. . we leave in the private owned pharm/hospital cartel which means leave in their lobbyist and their unlimited donations to their pay to play congresspersons so that they can immediately begin to reshape and undo all the legislation that affects their profits over patients. Just as every nation that has reformed their system in such ways are experiencing. and the excuse why hr 676 was done away with is all b.s. and theb logistical calamity that has and will cause. but i will not waste any more time on that.


#52

No question that we won’t know for sure what’s in the bill until it is published, and at 120 pages it couldn’t possibly cover all of the details. That is especially the case with regard to the transition, which will likely be one of the most controversial aspects since it will have such profound effects on so many people. When the bill is filed, the amendments will begin like a blizzard in Buffalo. The authors know that, and they may be avoiding too much detail for that very reason.

For now I’m taking the article at face value, which is considerably different from the un-sourced rumors we have been seeing. Its authors have excellent credentials and a better grasp of the complexity of what will be a monumental shift in how the US economy and society function if it does eventually pass with its major reforms intact.


#53

Jayapal is based here in Seattle, had a great track record as a non-profit founder and director for immigrants and immigration reform and against hate and fearmongering before she ran for congress.

i’ve been very cautious about the limited information regarding the new draft bill, but i’m also reserving judgement. These reports are encouraging.


#54

Hah! No such thing. I AM an economist (retired), but please don’t shoot me. Don’t trust anything any economist tells you, including me, and most of them won’t even tell you that! They didn’t get me until I was in my 50s, so I never drank the Kool Aid. The handle is actually a slam (not original with me) on econometrics, the statistical branch of economics, which many who have drunk the Kool Aid consider its most reliable and scientific branch. I beg to differ. Before age 50 I was all “STEM,” and I consider the “discipline” of economics to be pseudo-science of the same order as “Creation Science,” nor am I alone in that belief.

A few of my crowd are at last beginning to regain exposure and influence. Stephanie Kelton had an article titled “The Wealthy Are Victims of Their Own Propaganda” on CD a week ago (https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/02/02/wealthy-are-victims-their-own-propaganda), and Yanis Varoufakis is the erstwhile finance minister of Greece who walked when his party caved to the German and EU Central Banks. Both are leading lights in an eclectic school of economic thought that has been around in some form for a century and a half, but has been relentlessly suppressed by the media and the American Economic Association since World War II. I had barely heard of it by the time I earned my union card, by which time they had been practicing it professionally for 20 years.

Spreading the knowledge that such people are among us and on our side is the reason I post in these forums. I believe there are a couple of others here as well. :slight_smile:


#55

Yes…I agree. I have hope in her, although one never knows who could have gotten to her. Still…I will wait and see as well. I live near Seattle–Graham.


#56

Funny and enlightening. I’ll check out the Kelton piece, which (now that you mention it) I noticed but didn’t read.

I certainly don’t have it in for economics - but a while ago was researching a unit on gun violence for my public school students, and read some about pro-gun-ideologue John Lott’s econometric models coming under fire as junk science. In solidarity…
http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm


#57

Part of the emerging Greater Seattle-Tacoma Megalopolis. Good luck with the big snow coming.


#58

You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know that a large portion of Medicare is currently contracted out to the large medical insurance companies?

If you bother to dig you will find that this medicare for all gets changed into the name single payer again - in what is submitted to congress, and does a few interesting things, it no only will pick a few insurance companies it go out of its way to kill competition so all other not chosen companies aren’t allowed to compete. I posted links yesterday.

I’m not going through the trouble to go get them again. It’s your Medicare. Do your homework. After all you bothered to sound of WRONGLY. Go correct yourself. It doesn’t take much work. The issue is you and most other people here are going off of politician’s words - from the most corrupt duopoly in history, instead of checking on them.


#59

OMG! I had written a paragraph on my experiences with Lott (I keep making odd typos with his name) and econometrics before I noticed your link. That says it all, and is in fact what my own econometrics professor consistently preached when he wasn’t doing mind-bogglingly arcane math, previously my long suit.

I heard about How To Lie With Statistics (published in 1954) from a tenth-grade math teacher in about 1960. It’s not that statistics is “fuzzy math,” at least not all of it. But it requires knowledge, experience, and finesse, to draw and understand valid conclusions, and the more variables the more fuzzy. I saw exactly these issues during the campaign to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Its advocates had used one mind-bogglingly complex model, but another model just slightly different made it look like the scam it obviously was. I cannot do that math and I do not wish to learn it, because as the article says, statistical results that are counter to known reality ARE bogus, and as my prof also frequently stressed, “The future is unknown and unknowable.” I often cite him in forums like these. I have saved the article for reference–thank you!


#60

No you take it elsewere. Bernie has sold us down the road several times now. There is NO reason to believe that war monger won’t again. Infact, that is exactly what that guy is hired to do. Do you think Russia hacked our election and we need to do something about them? Your guy Bernie has spent 3 years telling us that. And in the meantime he’s voted for Trumps swamp creatures and done one heck of a job talking out of both sides of his mouth on what he wants to do to Medicare. At this point, GO READ THE BILL SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS.

It’s going to be too late when you finally look at actions and realize that old man must be a sociopath just like Obama - who said all the right things and did the opposite.


#61

You seem to be saying that Medicare uses tax dollars to hire private insurance companies to pay actual providers of health care, taking on the risk that is an integral aspect of insurance. I can’t prove that to be false, but as you have stated it, it makes no sense whatsoever.

What WOULD make sense and may well be the case would be for Medicare to pay subcontractors to do the paperwork at a rate set by Medicare, which typically underpays. Most small businesses today and some large ones outsource their payroll functions (calculating money owed, cutting the checks and sending them out or transferring funds as specified by the firm). In this case the firm avoids both the capital costs and operating expenses of doing the payroll function in house, and the conventional wisdom is that the firm to which it is outsourced can do it cheaper–which it probably can, by specializing, cutting corners, and paying lower wages. The firm is still the sole payer of the wages, and they pay not for an insurance function but for clerical functions.

The greater part of the work of insurance companies is this very sort of clerical work, making them specialists, and they might well offer those services to other entities at relatively low cost. If Medicare outsources in this way it too is still the sole payer of the wages, and they pay not for an insurance function but for clerical functions. If you have evidence that Medicare is doing something other than this (which would likely be unlawful), cite your source. It is not my job to disprove an unsupported claim that is on its face extremely unlikely.


#62

Click on my nic and go find my links from yesterday or the day before showing what I’m saying. It shouldnt’ be that far back. As stands I have to travel. Vet. It’s better than pulling your opinion out your arse. Goodbye.


#63
  1. I am not stating opinions, but the facts as I understand them. Honest men may disagree w/r/t what the facts are, and often do, and I certainly make my share of mistakes. I have, however, been studying the US health care system (non-health, non-care, non-system) casually for more than 30 years, and closely since its flaws and possible remedies began to be discussed seriously a decade or so ago. Before I became an economist (pseudo-science), my studies were in actual science (physics) and STEM in general, my native language and the way I made my living for 25 years.

  2. From your initial comment in this thread (no. 8 +/-1 due to the way CD numbers the comments):

“. . . we are about to lose Medicare all together and get an insurance scheme.”

You seem not to understand that Medicare IS an insurance scheme, and nothing but an insurance scheme.

  1. It is hard to take seriously a person who makes statements wildly at odds with what intelligent and reputable people who have been seeking specific changes in the system for years are saying, and demands that anyone who disagrees find a comment made in an unidentified forum on an unidentified day.

#64

You have a point, which is that simply expanding eligibility to the current Medicare is easy to accomplish, and so can get the quick, positive results needed to shut the detractors up. It also avoids the danger of another Hillary type putting everyone to sleep, fail in secrecy but win through stealth. We can always tweak the current Medicare system and bureaucracy little bit by little bit later.

On an unrelated subject, please take another listen to Bernie’s reply to the SOTU. He is a good guy.