- Joined
- Oct 30, 2016
- Messages
- 31,842
- Reaction score
- 15,818
- Location
- Seattle Area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Nah, but I'll settle for an apology and you promising to read a full 3 sentence post before making dumb replies.
Nah, but I'll settle for an apology and you promising to read a full 3 sentence post before making dumb replies.
An apology? Sure: "I'm sorry you're so grumpy!".
There - all better
It's not that I'm against any of that, but a lot of it will be very difficult to legislate, and the numbers are just way too big to do single payer without massive tax increases. But in general, what you're pointing out is the drafting of single payer will be a massive challenge, and the devil will be in the details, which are basically napkin length sketches at this point.
The problem is that at some point someone needs to move beyond the "negotiating power" euphemism and lay out the differences in the cost structure of the American health system and those of cheaper OECD systems: higher wages and abundant employment; greater capacity and access for things like hospitals, medical equipment, specialty and sub-specialty care, expensive technologies; faster access to and greater use of new medications and more expensive interventions.
It could be that people will clamor for government intervention to reverse this. Some groundswell of "There's too many unoccupied beds in my local hospital, let's close it down and re-direct!" or "The compensation of these unionized nurses is excessive, let's pool our negotiating power to take them down a peg!" or whatever. But as far as I can tell nobody is putting the question to them.
Right now folks seem happy to imply we're going to keep our high cost structure while also declining to pay for it. They'll tell you the health sector will continue to be our primary jobs engine without acknowledging that's the problem they're trying to fix! Someone at some point will need to step up and say "I think we should dismantle some of what we've gotten used to and instead move to a lower-cost system, and here's what that entails..."
I have no idea why you think negotiating for lower drug prices, professional medical equipment and durable medical supplies are a euphemism but okay.
Not everything is a zero sum game if you think hospitals have to close and healthcare professionals have to take less pay when more people get treatment for things they die early from now well I guess there is no conversation to be had.
By the way tell me why should nurses be paid more than teachers? Nowadays most teachers need advanced degrees and expensive license procedures to teach while 2 year nursing schools are churning them out by the 1000's.
I haven't taken a position on what nurses' pay should be (other than that we ought to be careful about artificially bumping it up, and health spending along with it: Should states mandate nurse staffing ratios?). But if we want to build a monopsony to "negotiate" down that pay it's worth some public discussion. And a primary would be the time do it.
I don't really agree. I have some definite opinions in the Democratic primary and unless it's over by the time I vote (our primary is pretty late), I want to express them. IMO that's more important than making Trump's margin 80-20 versus 85-15 in the GOP primary. If someone strong runs on the GOP, I'd consider changing my mind, but I have not seen ANYONE yet.
The problem is that at some point someone needs to move beyond the "negotiating power" euphemism and lay out the differences in the cost structure of the American health system and those of cheaper OECD systems: higher wages and abundant employment; greater capacity and access for things like hospitals, medical equipment, specialty and sub-specialty care, expensive technologies; faster access to and greater use of new medications and more expensive interventions.
It could be that people will clamor for government intervention to reverse this. Some groundswell of "There's too many unoccupied beds in my local hospital, let's close it down and re-direct!" or "The compensation of these unionized nurses is excessive, let's pool our negotiating power to take them down a peg!" or whatever. But as far as I can tell nobody is putting the question to them.
Right now folks seem happy to imply we're going to keep our high cost structure while also declining to pay for it. They'll tell you the health sector will continue to be our primary jobs engine without acknowledging that's the problem they're trying to fix! Someone at some point will need to step up and say "I think we should dismantle some of what we've gotten used to and instead move to a lower-cost system, and here's what that entails..."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?