2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"the Sanders campaign is simply pulling numbers out of the air."
At Vox, Matthews has probed both Thorpe and the Sanders campaign on some of the specific areas where their numbers diverge. Heres one stunning detail: When the Sanders campaign released its plan, it estimated $324 billion in annual savings on prescription drugsuntil Thorpe noted that the United States spent only $305 billion for that purpose in 2014. (If Trump can expect Mexico to pay for a wall on the border, I suppose Sanders can expect drug companies to pay consumers instead of the other way around.) When Matthews pointed out that it was impossible to save $324 billion out of $305 billion, the Sanders camp cut their savings estimate to $241 billion, while conveniently increasing other projected savings to make up the difference. But $241 billion in drug savings are still implausible, and as the entire episode indicates, the Sanders campaign is simply pulling numbers out of the air.
http://prospect.org/article/false-lure-sanders-single-payer-plan
There is a tendency to treat simplistic statements as a sign of honesty and nuance as a sign of dishonesty. Politicians and demagogues count on this.
When Wall Street firms lie about their finances, the legal term that applies is 'fraud.' So they're not the only ones who get away with it.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,282 posts)That's the answer.
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)Robert Reich say that the numbers add up and endorsed Sanders economic plans.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)You can make up numbers out of think air in order to sell something, particularly if your supporters believe that anyone doing basic math is part of a corporatist conspiracy. But when it's time to implement it, the numbers need to add up. In Vermont, once they saw the size of the tax increases that would actually be required, even the pro-single-payer governor balked.
And it's notable that Bernie used zero of his considerable influence in his home state to try to push it through.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)He is not willing to be honest about the costs of his campaign promises. Government needs to acknowledge reality and get the math right.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)You're a Sanders supporter!!!
.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm pretty heavily disappointed by both remaining choices this year, but I think the electorate is showing they'd prefer to be lied to, and he's better at that than Clinton is.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Utterly false.
"Exxon Mobil paid zero in taxes in 2009"
"Americans work longer hours than any other country in the world"
"The US Poverty rate is at an all-time high" (It was 5 points higher in the magical 1950s so much of the board wants to return to)
"We have the highest rate of child poverty of any industrialized nation"
These are all just false (though the last one might be based on a very misleading definition of "industrialized", I suppose), but they're what people want to hear, and he's good at saying them.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)per capita on health care than other first world countries. Our child poverty rates are higher than those in the rest of the industrialized world.
Hours worked isn't quite as straightforward, but Americans do work longer hours than some 21 other countries, including all of Western European ones.
I can't begin to guess where you're getting your information from.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The Netherlands and all of Scandinavia are closer to our spending level than to the OECD average.
but Americans do work longer hours than some 21 other countries
So he should say that
I can't begin to guess where you're getting your information from.
BLS in most cases.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)All you do is to claim you support Bernie as a prelude to an attack. You are not a Bernie supporter; and you certainly do not share his values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column
A cardinal technique of the fifth column is the infiltration of sympathizers into the entire fabric of the nation under attack and, particularly, into positions of policy decision and national defense. From such key posts, fifth-column activists exploit the fears of a people by spreading rumours and misinformation, as well as by employing the more standard techniques of espionage and sabotage.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/fifth-column
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm absolutely not going to stop my complaints about him just because it annoys people.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)He wants to do what is right.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)Generous grants from insurance companies?
Or are you just suggesting that people should be left to die to keep costs down?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Like Dick and Dubya's Totally Excellent Iraq Misadventure which one candidate voted for and one voted against.
Nobel Prize winning economist Joe Stiglitz calls it "The Three Trillion Dollar War" but now he says he underestimated the costs..
http://threetrilliondollarwar.org/2015/10/30/joe-stiglitz-tells-democracy-now-that-war-cost-will-reach-5-to-7-trillion/
October 27, 2015: In a wide-ranging interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, Joe Stiglitz was asked about the costs of the wars. He notes that our estimate of the number of veterans who would be disabled in some way was far too low its now 50% of those who served qualifying for lifetime disability benefits. This adds another $1 trillion to our estimates leading to a minimum of $4 trillion for war costs, but probably much higher.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)So the Wealthy can amass more and more cash? Love them rich people don't you? 6 babies die before they reach 1 year of age out of every 1,000 live births in this country. That's worse than all other modern nations. And why? Because some of us put more stock in seeing the big corporations amassing billions and billions, and seeing the Clintons amassing hundreds of thousands.
People are dying in this class war and yet some calling themselves Democrats side with the Clintons and the Big Money, turning their backs on those that are literally dying.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)It's gone slightly higher tech but foodstamps and the rest of the safety net is holding steady at least in Cali.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)think
(11,641 posts)David Himmelstein
Professor of Public Health at CUNY and Lecturer in Medicine at Harvard Medical School; Co-founder, Physicians for a National Health Program
Steffie Woolhandler
Professor in the CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College; Lecturer in Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Co-founder, Physicians for a National Health Program
01/29/2016 01:23 pm ET | Updated Jan 29, 2016
Professor Kenneth Thorpe recently issued an analysis of Senator Bernie Sanders single-payer national health insurance proposal. Thorpe, an Emory University professor who served in the Clinton administration, claims the single-payer plan would break the bank.
Thorpes analysis rests on several incorrect, and occasionally outlandish, assumptions. Moreover, it is at odds with analyses of the costs of single-payer programs that he produced in the past, which projected large savings from such reform (see this study, for example, or this one).
We outline below the incorrect assumptions behind Thorpes current analysis:
~Snip~
In the past, Thorpe estimated that single-payer reform would lower health spending while covering all of the uninsured and upgrading coverage for the tens of millions who are currently underinsured. The facts on which those conclusions were based have not changed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-himmelstein/kenneth-thorpe-bernie-sanders-single-payer_b_9113192.html
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)why any numbers the Sanders campaign produces should be trusted.
think
(11,641 posts)two articles.
The one you post and the one that your article takes the numbers from on Vox.com
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-thorpe-single-payer
No where do I find any documents for the pharmaceutical numbers claimed to be in Sanders plan that Matthews is discussing.
The numbers you claim Bernie Sanders just made up came from economist Gerald Friedman and he is standing by his numbers as are other.
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/friedman-memo-1.pdf
http://dollarsandsense.org/blog/2016/02/friedman-responds-to-thorpe.html
David Himmelstein
Professor of Public Health at CUNY and Lecturer in Medicine at Harvard Medical School; Co-founder, Physicians for a National Health Program
Steffie Woolhandler
Professor in the CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College; Lecturer in Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Co-founder, Physicians for a National Health Program
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-himmelstein/kenneth-thorpe-bernie-sanders-single-payer_b_9113192.html
About Gerald Friedman:
https://www.umass.edu/economics/friedman
Maybe there was an error as Dylan Matthew claims but he, nor Paul starr, nor Ken Thorpe provide any documentation that shows where the figure came from. If this figure was one quoted from a verbal phone conversation with Bernie campaign policy director Warren Gunnels this is a very weak case to dismiss all of Gerald Friedman's work on.
And if you look at the major claim by Dylan Matthews that the entire program costs twice as much than what economist Gerald Friedman estimates it's based all on Ken Thorpes work. Work which was done directly in support of Hillary Clinton. And work that's numbers were refuted by the two experts I gave in the article above.
When it comes down to this I will take Gerald Friedman's research & the findings of the 2 experts in the previous article over that of Ken Thorpe especially since Thorpe has deeps ties to the Clintons and is refuting his previous claims that single payer would save money and work.
That fact that Canada has already successfully implemented single payer should give you some pause in making ludicrous claims but apparently you'd prefer to believe that single payer is not achievable in the US. What a sad commentary on the ability of the US people and it's government...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Christina Romer revealed Friedman to be a quack. Will find the link tomorrow.
think
(11,641 posts)Single payer exists in Canada and many other countries. Are they all practicing quackery?
About Gerald Friedman:
Education:
Ph.D., Economics, Harvard University, 1986. Dissertation: Politics and Unions: Government, Ideology, and the Labor Movement in the United States and France, 1880-1914.
B.A., Economics and History, Columbia University, 1977
Professional Experience:
University of Massachusetts at Amherst: Department of Economics, September 1984-present
Tufts University: Department of Economics, Lecturer, September 1983-June 1984
Clark University: Department of Economics, Part-time Instructor, Spring 1983
International Ladies Garment Workers' Union: Research Assistant, June 1977-July 1978
Research Interests:
Economic History: 19th and 20th century United States
New World Slavery: 19th and 20th century France
Labor History: Europe and North America
Labor Economics
Political Economy
The Economics of Health Care
Honors and Awards:
German Marshall Fund of the United States Fellowship, 1989-90
Certificate of Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching, Harvard-Danforth Center for Teaching, Harvard University, 1981
Phi Beta Kappa and Magna Cum Laude from Columbia University
Professional Activities:
Drafted financing plans for single-payer health care systems for Maryland, Massachusetts and the United States.
Associate Editor of Labor History 2003-present.
Member of the Editorial Board, The Journal of Economic History (September 1994 - 1998).
Member of the Editorial Board, The American Journal of Sociology (September 1995 - 1997).
Affiliations:
American Economic Association
Economic History Association
Labor and Working Class History Association
Social Science History Association
Society for French Historical Studies
Selected Publications:
Reigniting the Labor Movement: Restoring means to ends in a democratic Labor Movement (London and New York, Routledge, 2007).
State-Making and Labor Movements. The United States and France, 1876-1914 (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1998).
"Success and Failure in Third Party Politics: The Knights of Labor and the Union Labor Coalition in Massachusetts, 1884-88" International Labor and Working Class History 62 (Fall 2002), 164-88.
"What is Wrong with Economics? And What will Make it Right?" Working USA (Fall 2000), 133-47.
"The Political Economy of Early Southern Unionism: Race, Politics, and Labor in the South, 1880-1953," Journal of Economic History 60 (June 2000), 384-413.
"New Estimates of United States Union Membership, 1880-1914," Historical Methods 32 (Spring 1999), 75-86.
"Revolutionary Syndicalism and French Labor: The Rebels Behind the Cause" French Historical Studies (Spring 1997).
"Worker Militancy and its Consequences: Political Responses to Labor Unrest in the United States, 1877-1914," International Labor and Working Class History (Fall 1991), 5-17.
"Capitalism, Socialism, Republicanism and the State: France 1877-1914" Social Science History 14:1 (Spring 1990), 151-74.
"The State and the Making of the Working Class, France and the United States 1880-1914," in Theory and Society (May 1988), 403-30.
"Strike Success and Union Ideology, the United States and France, 1880-1914," Journal of Economic History (March 1988), 1-25.
"The Heights of Slaves in Trinidad," Social Science History (November 1982), 482-515.
https://www.umass.edu/economics/friedman
eridani
(51,907 posts)--continue to be much higher than their proposed health care tax? Anyone who would rather pay a $900/month premium instead of a $200/month tax shouldn't be running around outside without adult supervision. (Those numbers are from the Washington Health Security Trust for a 60 year old.)
Why the fuck are you even a Democrat if you think public goods are bad?
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Issues mean a lot to some of us. Others, unfortunately, are more concerned with personalities.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)They said that single payer failed in VT because the price tag was considered too high.
eridani
(51,907 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Sanders's math is not trustworthy--why would people believe such claims about cost effectiveness if he's been busted blatantly lying above cost savings?
kaleckim
(651 posts)that this single payer thing is just a pipe dream. No other developed country has done it and it hasn't proven to be more efficient, to have better outcomes, to be more of a humane system, and to have far more support from people within those systems. I take it that Canadians are revolting at how horrible their system is, how overpriced it is, and are demanding a system like ours, correct? The Brits are fighting tooth and nail to privatize the NHS, that would be overwhelmingly popular, right? I guess we truly are special, what has worked in basically every other developed country has no chance in hell of working in the US. What exactly does your party stand for?
Just so you know, single payer in Canada started in a single province. It worked and spread over time, eventually becoming Medicare. Your argument is why I want nothing to do with your party. It is a party that actively fights against having a true, alternative, vision. Given the actual record of our health care system, that is pretty amazing.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It's not good enough to have the right principles and values. The math has to add up--it all has to be paid for.
So, yes, it would be great if Vermont figured it out.
But they haven't figured it out yet.
kaleckim
(651 posts)First off, this is a critique from ONE person and his critique has been critiqued. Secondly, single payer systems work far better in every other developed country. Even if his numbers were off, and it is debatable that they are (don't just post one person's study then declare the matter settled), Sanders' plan could be modified. He is for single payer, Clinton isn't. That is the fundamental issue. If we got to the point of putting a system like that in place, we'd have plenty of systems elsewhere to study and to get it right. Your posts make it sound as if this is impossible, when it clearly isn't. It works elsewhere, it would work here, it would save money (taking into account not just public expenditures but reductions in private spending on health care as well), and Sanders would be serious about pushing for the system at the national level, where economies of scale are radically different.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-himmelstein/kenneth-thorpe-bernie-sanders-single-payer_b_9113192.html
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to single payer?
kaleckim
(651 posts)Who is saying it would happen overnight? What a disingenuous argument. Research how Canada got single payer. They had a system like ours about a century ago, have a huge land mass, lots of people. Research how they got their system (didn't happen overnight), read up on Tommy Douglas. He's considered the most popular Canadian of all time. Why do you think that is?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Bernie Sanders is running on an overnight change.
kaleckim
(651 posts)He has said, clear as day, that it won't happen overnight and that people would have to get involved. He has said that people would have to get elected that support this. He is creating a vision, which I pointed out is par for the course for any type of historic change. A single payer system would be a historic change. You can't move towards that unless you talk about it and get the idea out there. Kind of an obvious truism, we wouldn't be talking about this like we are if it weren't for him. Essentially, you are strongly arguing against fundamentally changing our inefficient and immoral system. I take it you are relatively well off. I seriously doubt someone making minimum wage would be making that argument.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)kaleckim
(651 posts)How do you think change has happened historically? Social movements. Not a big secret. Ever read Howard Zinn?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)They govern. They are the establishment.
eridani
(51,907 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)48% of the population tunes Obama out no matter what he's saying
kaleckim
(651 posts)There is a large gap between the policies people support and actual government policy, and there is overwhelming consistency on how the gap plays out. The public, on a wide range of issues, takes positions to the left of government policy. The fact is that a large percentage of the public doesn't vote because policies they support are largely not being offered (you'll notice that Sanders does better than Clinton versus top Republicans, is far more trusted and has much higher net favorabilities). It is people like yourself that are hell bent on continuing to support corrupt politicians that want to maintain this system. The country isn't polarized on the actual issues though, take a look at polling on the issues. Then, look at what your corrupt party and the even more corrupt alternative are offering. The polarization is between those in power and everyone else.
kaleckim
(651 posts)You have a horrible view of democracy, and how democracies should function. I will say though, Stalin would greatly appreciate your view on what people in power do. No need for the opinions of the peasants. In a democratic system, those in power should be directly responsible to the people they govern. That requires active participation by citizens and the ability to challenge those in power when need to. Countries as diverse as Switzerland, Venezuela and Uruguay have public referendums, for example, which allow the citizens to overturn government policy and to directly recall officials. I am not saying we'll have that here, but actual democracy, not the corrupt system we have and you seem to love, requires active participation by the populace. When you lack that entirely, you tend to see a corrupt system cement itself around corrupt politicians, and the system becomes increasingly inequitable.
Sanders wouldn't be a damn "protest leader" and you don't seem to have any idea at all about historical, fundamental change has happened. I think you are the perfect embodiment of what your party has become, an elitist, out of touch, corrupt mess, and I don't want anything to do with it. Neither does an increasing percentage of the public.
As I said, you are probably relatively well off and could give a damn about the poor and working people. You got yours, tell hell with everyone else. 40 years ago you'd be a Republican.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)kaleckim
(651 posts)how cut off you are from the struggles of people less fortunate than yourself and I don't like that people like yourself are so powerful within your party. Your mindset, and let them eat cake worldview, have been a disaster for the country and your party. Bye.
eridani
(51,907 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)That would be because age rating would be totally eliminated.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)I want them gone. We can hire their former employees to do the necessary paperwork.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... high premium to the private HIC I'm paying high premiums to the government.
Sanders never stated how he was going to get those groups of people to accept half of what they get paid now...
I don't do bird maths
eridani
(51,907 posts)Single payer could take down big pharma with negotiated drug prices. Hospitals would be reined in by global budgeting.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)The article says it would cost the tax payer an ADDITIONAL 20%.
20% MORE than originally quoted.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 29, 2016, 11:02 AM - Edit history (1)
do you have a link?
A family with $4000 month paycheck would notice an ADDITIONAL $800 increase over and above that pittance originally quoted by Bernie
eridani
(51,907 posts)PM me with your email address.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I value my privacy, so if you can't provide a link, I'll just take your word that the $200 difference is in stark contrast to the 20% increase per the article in the OP.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Those who dont pay (38% of the population)
Kids1.604 million
People below 150% of poverty level0.757 million
Excluded categories
Native Americans0.085 million
Federal employees0.142 million
Workers under the Taft-Hartley Act0.106 million
Remaining payers4.057 million (62% of the population)
Total6.751 million
Where does the money come from?
Business payroll taxes
Tax on payroll over $500K/year from 10% to 12%
Tax on payroll under $500K/year from 1% to 1.2%
Taxes on individuals
$100/month to $150/month for ages 18-64
$75/month to $100/month for 65 and over (to supplement regular Medicare)
Other state revenue sources
State Health Services Account
Health Care Authority
Tobacco Settlement funds
Community Health Center Funding
Doing the mathlow end
10%/1% payroll; $100/$75 individual
Payroll tax revenue = $10.58 billion
Individual tax revenue = $4.69 billion
Other state revenue = $4.80 billion
Total = $19.89 billion
Estimated Fox report expenses by Method 1 = $19.3 billion
Doing the mathhigh end12%/1.2% payroll; $150/$100 individual
Payroll tax revenue = $12.69 billion
Individual tax revenue = $6.95 billion
Other state revenue = $4.80 billion
Total = $24.64 billion
Estimated Fox report expenses by Method 2 = $24.0 billion
Estimated Fox report expenses by Method 3 = $26.3 billion
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Vermont is a small state with very little economic diversity and not a lot of people. On the national level, where the whole country shares the economic investment in such a system then the situation is very very different. Vermont would not be able to sustain its own social security system or its own Medicare. You were being incredibly dishonest regarding the viability of single-payer on a national scale verses that of Vermont.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The smaller size and lack of economic diversity, if anything, would make it easier to implement Single Payer. The administrative overhead is lessened, and also, you don't have to design a single system that works both in Chicago, Wyoming, and Alabama.
Part of the idea was that Vermont was supposed to be a proof-of-concept. You know, laboratory of democracy and all. And the experiment failed.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)And the fact that you don't see how a larger population and more economic diversity makes it easier to put together a universal social program is evidence that you don't really understand how things work. I'm sick of so-called Democrats this election who have chosen to have a complete lack of vision in order to justify supporting a particular candidate. We are supposed to be the party of vision. But no you would rather maintain a very shitty status quo because to do otherwise would contradict your candidate voting preference. It's really fucking pathetic.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And they also didn't start from the system we have now.
And, no, more diversity definitely does not make it easier to put together social programs. It makes it more difficult, because the same program has to deal with a more varied set of conditions: the same thing has to work both in inner cities and in the country, in places with young populations, and older ones, in rich and in poor areas, in areas where wages are higher, and where wages are lower. This is obvious.
And small size doesn't make things more difficult, as long as the size is big enough to consolidate the risks, for which Vermont is plenty large. Sure, if you had 100 people, that could be a problem, because one person getting seriously ill can bankrupt the whole thing. But Vermont is plenty of people for things to average out.
On the other hand, a larger system is more complex, and the US would be the largest single payer system in the world.
Being realistic about policy and about math isn't anti-Democratic. Peddling nonsense is.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)And don't lecture me about realism. Our healthcare system is utter shit. That is what is REAL.
I've been taking it easy on Hillary Clinton during this primary. But this kind of crap is exactly why she doesn't inspire anyone.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Clinton would have all the money in her account if she had half the chance and you would deny people single payer. I don't think some here can sink lower. Turn your backs on the 50,000,000 living in poverty and support raising the defense budget and cutting safety nets. Denying people health care while worshiping at the gods of wealth and power and dare calling themselves Democrats. Disparaging those that are working to save our democracy and economy from the wealthy and super Wealthy that you seem to revere.
Your rationalizations for a wealth dominated government actually lead to deaths of those that can't afford food and health care. But that's nothing compared to having a Clinton Aristocracy.
JI7
(89,172 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)...I miss anything?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... him on Reddit that HRC is going to be indicted.
Every time I see Devine I see Cornell West making stupid faces somewhere close to him and Tad Devine cosigning on it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Pretty soon Devine will be talking about a "whitey tape."
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... tape".
Tad is a little slimy if not angry all the time
kaleckim
(651 posts)First off, Sanders and his supporters don't expect any of these changes overnight. You need a long term vision in mind to organize towards. No movement of historic importance was without one, not a single one. The labor movement had a vision for society, and it worked towards that. Along the way it got us the 40 hour work week, overtime pay, the weekend, child labor laws, etc. You think we couldn't use your silly logic with the labor leaders in the mid 19th century. How about the Civil Rights movement? Did they not have a long term vision that had no chance to be immediately realized? Think they thought they could end the system in the South overnight? I guess they too had "unicorns, ponies" and the other stuff losers with no vision say.
The fact is that the Democratic Party is so utterly pathetic these days that it calls what most other countries have, and many things we used to have (like in some states, near universal college education) "unicorns, ponies", etc. It is the thing a person with no vision would say and it is basically what the Democratic Party is all but announcing now. The current corrupt, inequitable and environmentally destructive system will not fundamentally change and anyone that wants to do so is a dreamer. It is almost as if it wants to destroy itself. Given how sharply to the left the entire country has turned in the last decade, keep this crap up and what Sanders is calling for will be peanuts compared to what you'll face in a decade.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... relative, Sanders camp want it over 2 terms I'm thinking these changes happen generationaly and might be even longer depending on how the revolution gets us a workable representative congress.
kaleckim
(651 posts)and they may get it (you don't know what the outcome will be any more than I do), but they'll fight for it regardless, and set us on that path. It doesn't happen, ever, if we don't talk about, analyze and debate it. I also think you think that people in this country have far more time to wait on this (and meaningful action on global warming). That slow, gradual "pragmatism" will result in how many more deaths from this health care system, how much more waste, how many more bankruptcies? I don't see how waiting a generation makes sense, it certainly doesn't have to take that long, and waiting that long comes with a gigantic social cost. If you think that is the best solution, you should address that social cost.
It happened in Canada in about decade, I'd say that is about the right timeline. Clinton has no path towards that what so ever, has no interest in single payer and never has. Her managed care debacle wasn't anything close to single payer, and she seems to have moved to the right on the issue since as far as policy.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)More important is the greed and wealth of the top 1%. Do you think they love you? Or will reward you for you total devotion?
I am guessing you ain't Christian or you wouldn't be worshiping before the golden calf called Goldman-Sachs.
RandySF
(57,581 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)You will disparage everyone that is working to help those among us that need help because wealth is the most important thing.
We are fighting against those that put wealth above human lives. We have the highest infant mortality rate, as if you care, than all other modern nations because of the greed that is running rampant and that you support. Clinton is amassing as much money and power and that's her priority. The hell with those living in poverty.
RandySF
(57,581 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)She had a nice warchest and guess where it went? And now she's got to raise a whole bunch more. Thanks Bernie!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)admire those that amass large amounts of wealth.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Or the research technique described in the OP?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I think I know so don't bother answering.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The billionaires and Wall Street know that simply owning the Republicons isn't enough so they also own some Democrats. Easy to tell which ones, Clinton for one has amassed a huge fortune she received directly from the Wealthy. If you think she isn't beholden you are fooling yourself. The Conservative Democrats have been feeding us to the Wealthy for 30 years.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)that's what Bernie says. How did that turn into a yearly amount?
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)...probably never learned how to multiply, soooo sad.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)those struggling. Greed uber alles.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)See the part in bold.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)The initial figure was based on future expenditures, using historic spending increases to calculate future spending figures. Were he not blinded by his allegiance to the Clinton clan, he might have remembered this from a business or economics class. But whatever. "Pulling numbers out of the air" is far better than the dank places most Hillary shills pull their horse shit from.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)on drugs that cost $305 billion per year, got busted, and quickly reshuffled their numbers in response.
If a Wall Street bank did that in their SEC filings, they'd get nailed by shareholders for fraud.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--how the pricing negotiations go.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I, too, wish we had better candidates to choose between.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Can't escape math-even Reagan couldn't. Had to raise taxes.
Our choices are subpar, but we are blessed by the weakness of the enemy.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)That is financially sound, right? I think it nearly went up for a vote in 2009.
Single payer might not work, but the public option would solve a lot of problems.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And if the public option paid providers enough to make sure they'd accept it, it would cost as much as private insurance which would defeat the purpose.
We've spent almost a decade dancing around the fact that doctors make twice as much in the US as they do elsewhere, and that hospitals are being run at a profit, which is unheard of elsewhere.
If we want health care costs comparable to Europe, we have to end those two things, and financing reform itself doesn't do that.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Long term we're completely screwed if we don't figure these two problems out. I doubt we will in the next 10-15 years, and yet, our population is aging..
Reminds me Japan, no? How can our economy be dynamic when we have healthcare costs leeching so much?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Mandated private insurance (in Germany it's generally through regional or industry-wide co-operatives, which is something I'm in favor of looking at; this was actually proposed by Baucus, of all people, and I wish it had gotten more attention) paying for most health care.
The big missing piece is we need prices from providers to come down; we spend twice as much per capita on physicians and two and a half times as much per capita on hospitals as the OECD average.
And as much as I hate to say this, Medicare is actually in the way here. Hear me out.
Private insurers mostly start with the Medicare rates as their basis for negotiations. But the Medicare rates have been subject to regulatory capture, because physicians and hospitals lobby Congress to keep their reimbursements high (google "Medicare Doctor Fix" with the threat of accusing anyone against those rates of "cutting Medicare". Private insurers mark up those prices slightly to insure acceptance. But they're far too high (much higher than in Canada or Europe) to begin with.
For all of the problems with private insurance, its one big advantage is that unlike Congress, it can't be lobbied. That's why Germany and the Netherlands and Switzerland keep private insurance around. Canada, meanwhile, does this by a pricing board that is politically independent -- that's also a great idea.
But, at any rate, that is the magical step the US is missing: some board somewhere that sits around and says "A leg MRI can cost $500, period, no matter who's paying for it". (Or, alternately, we can pay providers by capitation, though that also has its own problems.)
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)What a disastrous idea that is. Didn't any legislator think that physicians would act in their personal best interests at the expense of the specialty?
And I agree in broad strokes, yes, even the medicare part. Unfortunately there is likely not going to be such an independent board because that actually could be cast as a government "death panel". Sometimes I think our country is reaping the just rewards of a poor education system, that we actually do elect the government we deserve.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Because a synonym for "independent" is "unaccountable", and I can guarantee that the first person who is denied a treatment because that board deems it too expensive will be trotted out by the GOP as a martyr of single payer.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Just like it did in 2008.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Note: individual state decisions are not the same.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)She is advocating two things:
1) a longer term public option for everyone ;
2) a shorter term public option for states willing to enact one-
The reality being that a national public option will take some time to get enacted by congress.
This was in her 2008 plan.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)and that is a separate part of her platform.
If she wants the public option she has to have a plan to actually flip the House/Senate (note: I don't believe Sanders meets this either). Otherwise the public option is delayed until 2022 at which point she has a lame duck presidency and can't pass it anyway.
My point? If she is serious about the public option, the time to campaign on it and push for its approval is now.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)President can hope to flip Congress but that is very much out of his/her hands.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)It isn't as if sanders would repeal the ACA in the likely event he doesn't get the house/senate he wants. That's what Chelsea may be selling, but I don't believe it.
The reality is nothing is likely to happen on the healthcare front for a decade no matter who our candidate is, which is quite sad. I don't base my vote on Sanders' medicare pipe dream.
eridani
(51,907 posts)has not mentioned it even once at a forum or debate.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Compare that with the "cost out" in other countries that have single payer.
Then, if they were worth their salt as americans known for their ingenuity, have come up with a half dozen ways to make those plans even better.
But no.
This is 2016, and in the US decadence.
Alas.
eridani
(51,907 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)It's sacred.
No way the Republicans would accept otherwise, so no way that a single payer government controlled plan can exist.
Then, they blame the Republicans. Of course.
Stepford Dems.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Why should this country worry so much how much a health system costs?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Even some Republicans.
And even the Pentagon is on a budget.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)But building false hopes seems to be a hallmark. Gotta get the constituency riled up over pie in the sky shit, gotta keep those contributions constantly coming in. Lots of family on the payroll to support, $27 at a time.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)snip*Latest to step up is Paul Starr, co-founder of the American Prospect. Normally the dull embodiment of tepid liberalism, Starr has unleashed a redbaiting philippic a frothing one, even, by his standards aimed at Bernie Sanders.
Sanders is no liberal, Starr reveals hes a socialist. He may call himself a democratic socialist to assure us that hes no Bolshevik Starr actually says this but that doesnt stop Starr from stoking fears of state ownership and central planning. Thankfully the word gulag doesnt appear, but that was probably an oversight.
Starr does have one substantial point Sanderss tax proposals wouldnt be up to financing a Scandinavian-style welfare state. Taxing the rich more could raise substantial revenue, but nowhere near enough.
And part of the point of steepening the progressivity of the tax system is hindering great fortunes from developing and being passed on. A good part of the reason that CEO incomes have gone up so much since the early 1980s is that taxes on them have gone down; stiffen the tax on them, and theres far less incentive to pay überbosses so much in the first place. Its like taxing tobacco or carbon you can raise revenue by doing it, but youre also trying to make the toxic things go away.
But, really, you dont need a Swedish or Danish tax structure to pay for free college tuition and single-payer health care, which are highly achievable first steps of a Sanderista political revolution. As I wrote back in 2010:
It would not be hard at all to make higher education completely free in the USA. It accounts for not quite 2 percent of GDP. The personal share, about 1 percent of GDP, is a third of the income of the richest ten thousand households in the US, or three months of Pentagon spending. Its less than four months of what we waste on administrative costs by not having a single-payer health care finance system. But introduce such a proposal into an election campaign and you would be regarded as suicidally insane.
That last sentence turned out to be not a bad prophecy.
Starr really loses contact with earth when he writes about single-payer. In one sense, this is surprising, since he wrote a fat book on the history of medicine in America, and, although it was thirty-four years ago, is presumably still familiar with the territory. But the pressures of a political campaign often dislodge an apologists higher cerebral functions. Thats the only plausible explanation for why he wrote this:
Sanders single-payer health plan shows the same indifference to real-world consequences. The plan calls for eliminating all patient cost sharing and promises to cover the full range of services, including long-term care. With health care running at 17.5 percent of gross domestic product, Sanders plan would sweep a huge share of economic activity into the federal government and invite that share to grow. Another way of looking at single payer is that it would make Washington the sole checkpoint, removing the incentive for anyone elsepatients, providers, employers or state governmentseven to monitor, much less hold back, excessive costs. It would leave no alternative except federal management of the health sector.
Where to start with this? Why, as a matter of principle, should patients share costs? Theyre already paying for the services with their tax dollars. According to Hillarys skin-in-the-game theory, forcing patients to pay up will reduce demand, thereby keeping spending down, but this is a brutal form of cost control. Co-pays often force people to forego needed care, resulting in higher costs down the road, and more importantly, needless suffering.
A far more effective form of cost control is having the government use its buying power to demand lower prices from hospitals and drug companies. Thats the way it works in civilized countries, though that fact looks to have passed Starr by, probably because he was too busy trying to make precisely the opposite argument: single-payer would invite that share to grow by removing the incentive for anyone else . . . even to monitor, much less hold back, excessive costs. Just what is wrong with federal management of the health sector? Medicare does it for the over-sixty-five portion of the population; it works very well and is enormously popular.
Starr cites the 17.5 percent of GDP we devote to health care without putting that figure into any reasonable context the sort of move that is supposed to provoke a gee-whiz moment of surrender. Heres an interesting graph based on data from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a Paris-based quasi-official think tank for the worlds rich countries. It shows the share of GDP devoted to health care for a subset of the OECDs thirty-four members, divided into public and private. (Put them together and you get the total.)
?w=500
There are several striking features in this graph:
Most striking of all is how far ahead of the pack the US is: we spend 16.4 percent of GDP on health care, compared to a 10.1 percent average for all the other countries shown. (Thats the dotted vertical line on the right.) And recall that all those other countries cover almost their entire populations, unlike the US, where a tenth of the population is uninsured (and many of the insured have terrible coverage), with little change since the drop when Obamacare first took effect. (Gallup has 12 percent of the population uninsured, slightly higher than the Census Bureau, though with a similar trajectory of initial decline followed by flatlining.)
Another striking, though less obvious, thing is that US public spending alone, 7.9 percent of GDP, is just 0.1 point below the average of 8 percent. In other words, the government already spends as much as many other countries do while accomplishing far less. That 7.9 percent is also not much less than the entire health bill for Italy, Australia, and Britain, public and private combined.
Yet another striking thing is the outlandishly large share of private spending on health care: 8.5 percent of GDP, more than four times the average of the other countries and almost three times Canadas private share.
Does all that spending produce better outcomes? Seems not: our life expectancy, 78.8 years, is three years shorter than the average of all the other countries.
So just about everything in Starrs quoted mini-lecture about the real world is at odds with the real world.
Theres a perverse form of American exceptionalism circulating around the Clinton camp: just because things work in other countries doesnt mean they can work here. As Hillary herself put it, We are not Denmark. I love Denmark, but we are the United States of America. True enough, but that has no bearing on why single-payer couldnt work here. The only obstacles are political elites, which include Hillary and Starr, dont want it.
The rest of Starrs piece is a highly unsubtle rant about socialism and how bad it is, even though Sanders isnt really a socialist. That sort of thing may resonate with people who grew up during the Cold War though not with all of us! but it seems not to move the younger portion of the population, many of whom seem charmed by the concept. Its not like capitalism has been doing all that well for them, really. But Starr doesnt want to hear about that.
Starr also finds the style of Sanderss politics in bad taste:
Sanders is also doing what populists on both sides of the political spectrum do so well: the mobilization of resentment. The attacks on billionaires and Wall Street are a way of eliciting a roar of approval from angry audiences without necessarily having good solutions for the problems that caused that anger in the first place.
But people have a lot to resent why shouldnt it be mobilized politically? And free tuition and single-payer are pretty good solutions for some of those problems. Starr just doesnt like them. Best leave the tuition issue to some vague, incomprehensible scheme (that apparently involves lots of work study and online learning) and health care to a lightly regulated and generously subsidized insurance industry.
Establishment Democrats havent merely gone post-hope theyve declared war on it.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-single-payer-starr-american-prospect-redbaiting-socialism/
Single payer in the Democratic debate
snip*Comment:
By Don McCanne, M.D.
Although todays message does not seem appropriate for this forum since it is political and our agenda is on policy, actually it is apropos since it represents a disagreement over single payer policy, even though framed as a political debate.
Of the three candidates for the presidential nomination who have mentioned single payer, Donald Trump has recently clarified his stance by releasing a health reform proposal that made no mention of single payer. So the debate over single payer is really between the two remaining Democratic candidates - Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
In this election season, single payer is a political issue. Bernie Sanders is the first leading presidential candidate to support a bona fide single payer Medicare for all. Hillary Clinton continues to support private health plans in a multi-payer system, originally as her managed competition model 25 years ago, and now as incremental expansion of the Affordable Care Act. She opposes single payer since it would eliminate the private insurers.
The politics have been somewhat bizarre. The Republicans have not had to take a high profile position against single payer since many in the progressive community have done their work for them. Although often presented as policy arguments, the substance of the opposing arguments by these progressives has been political. We can only speculate that their reasons have more to do with their support of a particular political candidate than they do with their position on single payer. In fact, the leading analysis being used to oppose single payer was written by an academic who has authored other single payer proposals. Fortunately, many others in the progressive community have stood up to insist that single payer be accurately portrayed.
Instead of trying to wade through the proxy arguments of these outside experts, it would be better to listen to the words of the two candidates themselves. What did they have to say in last nights debate?
Sanders reiterated his views on a truly universal Medicare for all, whereas Clinton reiterated her views on rejecting single payer and building on the Affordable Care Act which she mentions has us at 90 percent coverage. These are policy issues.
When you look at their respective plans (links above), you can see that, from a policy perspective, Sanders proposal automatically covers everyone, whereas Clintons proposals barely nudge us in that direction but cannot come close to universal coverage. In addition, Sanders points out that the current private insurance products frequently do not meet the needs of those insured because of the exposure to high out-of-pocket costs. Again, regardless of the politics, these are fundamental policy issues that often determine whether or not people will receive the health care that they need.
Well continue to speak out on policy and leave it to others to get the politics right.
Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) is a nonpartisan educational organization. It neither supports nor opposes any candidates for public office.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/march/single-payer-in-the-democratic-debate
Policy experts debate viability of Sen. Bernie Sanders health care plan
Southern California Public Radio, KPCC, Jan. 28, 2016
PNHP note: The following are excerpts from an unofficial transcript of a debate between Dr. Steffie Woolhandler of Physicians for a National Health Program, a practicing primary care physician and professor in the City University of New York School of Public Health at Hunter College, and Avik Roy, senior fellow at the Manhattan Policy Institute and current health care adviser to Marco Rubio. Only the remarks of Dr. Woolhandler, PNHPs co-founder, have been transcribed here. A link to the full audio of the debate is provided at the end.
Host Larry Mantle (LM): So Bernie Sanders claim is that if you take the profit out of American health care on the insurance side that there are huge savings there. If the government can negotiate with a position of great leverage drug manufacturers, you can drive down prescription drug rates. And without Americans having to pay health premiums, that the taxes would essentially even out with the savings that would be provided. Were going to examine that claim and talk about what impact overall Sanders proposal would have on the American health care system.
With us is Dr. Steffie Woolhandler with Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization that advocates universal, comprehensive, single-payer national health care. Dr. Woolhandler, thank you for being with us. We appreciate it.
Steffie Woolhandler (SW): My pleasure.
LM: So first of all, lets talk about, just real briefly, how a system like this would work. It sounds like hes saying this would work for everybody the way Medicare works for seniors.
SW: Yes, and actually it would work a little bit better than Medicare works. Canada does have a single-payer program. It covers 100 percent of health care costs, first dollar to last dollar, for doctors care, for hospital care. Some provinces have pharma care, some dont. When you have pharma care then drugs are folded in as well. The reason Canada can do this affordably is because they get such huge administrative cost savings by eliminating private health insurance. Total administrative costs in health care are only about 16 percent of spending in Canada. You have to compare that to 31 percent of total U.S. health spending that goes for overhead and paperwork and administration. So the difference between those percentages is about 14 percent of total health spending that you can save through administrative simplification with a single payer is a huge amount of money, about $400 billion annually that would be freed up to improve care.
LM: Lets talk about what the federal government, in expense, would have to do ramp up though, because already Medicare fraud is a huge expense to taxpayers. So presumably youd have to bulk up the federal governments capacity to investigate fraud considerably, youd have to build a much larger federal infrastructure for health care. How would that cost compare to what the costs are for the private insurers.
SW: Youre absolutely wrong on that. In fact, if you have a single-payer system its potentially easier to identify fraud. So there was, for instance, a doctor in Canada who was billing for $125,000 worth of urinalysis tests, which is a ridiculous number of tests. Thats fraud. It was very easy to detect because all of the bills were sent to the single payer, and you could see whats going on. So actually youre in a much better position to identify and eliminate fraud if you have a single payer that sees all of the bills that the doctors and the hospitals send. The other thing I want to say is that we know how much a public bureaucracy costs. We can look at Canada, where the overhead on insurance is about 1 percent. We can look at our Medicare program, our traditional fee-for-service Medicare program. That overhead is about 2 percent. And you have to compare that to the overhead in private insurance firms which averages about 14 percent, but sometimes rises as high as 20 percent. So you get huge insurance overhead savings due to single payer, thats not theoretical we know its true from the data from our own Medicare program and the Canadian single payer.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/february/policy-experts-debate-viability-of-sen-bernie-sanders%E2%80%99-health-care-plan
Policy experts give Hillarys plan a passing grade?
Posted by Don McCanne MD on Thursday, Mar 17, 2016
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/ElectionCoverage/56734
snip*review: Not a very exciting article. And thats the point. When you read Hillary Clintons proposals, they all fall under the category of mere tweaks to our current dysfunctional system.
Tens of millions will remain uninsured; underinsurance will not be eliminated; Medicaid would be expanded without addressing its deficiencies in access; administrative excesses, including waste in marketing would increase; the undocumented would be allowed in without a way to pay for it; an ineffectual public option would continue to be offered through Section 1332 waivers; and so forth. Lower co-pays and deductibles along with a higher tax credit would be helpful, but to be effective, it would require significantly higher taxes when we have a Congress that continues to resist, on a bipartisan basis, any tax increases.
Although the title of this article indicates that the health policy experts cited give her efforts a passing grade, they basically do not see much more than fine tuning of the status quo. There is no suggestion that we could achieve reform goals of universality, affordability, increased provider choice, greater access, greater administrative efficiency, and optimal equity in the financing of health care.
Many of the Clinton measures proposed would further increase health care spending while falling short on goals. That would be a shame when instead we could place effective controls on spending through a single payer national health program an improved Medicare for all while achieving all of the listed goals of reform.
Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) is a nonpartisan educational organization. It neither supports nor opposes any candidates for public office.
The ACA vs Single Payer - Accessibility, Affordability, Cost Control
Despite the ACAs modest benefits, the law (1) will not achieve universal coverage, as it leaves at least 30 million uninsured (and 26,000 deaths/year), (2) will not make health care affordable to Americans with insurance, because of high co-pays and gaps that leave patients vulnerable to financial ruin in the event of serious illness, and (3) it will not control costs.
Why is this so? Because the ACA perpetuates a dominant role for the private insurance industry.
That industry siphons off hundreds of billions of health care dollars annually for overhead, profit and the paperwork it demands from doctors and hospitals;
It denies care to increase insurers bottom line; and
It obstructs any serious effort to control costs.
In contrast, a single-payer, improved-Medicare-for-all system would achieve all three goals truly universal, comprehensive coverage; health security for our patients and their families; and cost control.
It would do so by replacing private insurers with a single, nonprofit agency like Medicare that pays all medical bills, streamlines administration, and reins in costs for medications and other supplies through its bargaining clout.
Research shows the savings in administrative costs alone would amount to $400 billion annually, enough to provide quality coverage to everyone with no overall increase in U.S. health spending.
Contrary to the claims of those who say we are unrealistic, a single-payer system is within practical reach.
The most rapid way to achieve universal coverage would be to improve upon the existing Medicare program by excluding private insurance participation (through so-called Medicare Advantage plans) and expand it to cover people of all ages.
There is legislation before Congress, notably HR 676, the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, and HR 1200, the American Health Security Act, which would do precisely that.
Polls show such an approach is supported by about two-thirds of the public and a solid majority of physicians.
What is truly unrealistic is believing that we can provide universal and affordable health care in a system dominated by private insurers and Big PHARMA.
Healthcare under the Accountable Care Act
Yes, there are some good things about the ACA insurance will be available to half of
those who do not have it now, there will be some limits on insurance company abuses,
preventive medicine will get a boost, there is money for new community clinics, and more.
But overall, the ACA facilitates the corporate takeover of medicine.
Corporate takeover of our medical system and the ACA
Private insurance is strengthened by millions of new patients with govt subsidies increasing money for political influence and the power to obstruct serious efforts to control costs.
Increasing horizontal consolidation of health care payers insurance companies buying each other, increasing their influence and bargaining power.
Increasing vertical consolidation of healthcare hospitals now employ 70% of physicians. Insurance corporations buying hospitals, doctors groups and ACOs equals physicians as assets working for corporations.
Pressure on providers to increase the corporation bottom line pitting investor interest vs. their patients interest increased workload, decreased staff help, deteriorating doctor/patient relationship, career satisfaction and quality of life.
ACA - more people will have insurance, but the new standard is underinsurance
Increased deductibles, co-pays, and coinsurance remain barriers to using insurance and seeking health care. US has highest rate of unnecessary deaths and decreased life expectancy due to healthcare barriers.
ACA will not the affect the rate of personal bankruptcies (Massachusetts experience), foreclosures, and family financial disaster for those who develop a significant illness.
ACA - exchanges are not equitable
Four plan options (Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze (Lead)) with different coverage, premiums and out of pocket expenses. Families with lower income levels will choose the cheaper plans (actuarial values covering only 60-70% of expenses) with less coverage and more exposure to financial disaster.
ACA - wishful thinking on cost control measures
EMR studies show increased cost from upcoding and more studies ordered in hospital systems. More provider time required.
Health IT/Evidence-based medicine may be good for patients but hasnt been shown to decrease costs.
Chronic care management may be good for patients but hasnt been shown to decrease costs.
Pay for Performance no studies show no decreased costs or increased quality. Sets up competition between doctors. Easily gamed by upcoding and avoiding caring for high-risk patients.
.
ACOs (Accountable Care Organizations) no track record that can be generalized to ACAs future costs. Wishful thinking that it will control costs and improve quality, given past negative experience with the similar HMOs and with the increased corporatization the ACA supports.
ACA - a setback for safety-net hospitals
ACAs reduced Medicare payments earmarked for hospitals that support unfunded care and for residents education will not be counteracted by expected increased payments from increased numbers of Medicaid patients and the newly insured, especially in the safety-net hospitals like Harborview. Community clinics will be flooded with the remaining uninsured.
ACA - an incremental step toward health care justice?
Overall, it may be a step backward as it empowers the corporate takeover of medicine.
People will wait to see what happens with more suffering in the interim.
Where do we go from here?
Is Single Payer realistic?
Most polls over last decade show 2/3rds of public would support a publically financed government program guaranteeing medical care to all.
60% of physicians would support a single payer national health program.
Unrealistic to think that a universal, affordable health care can be achieved in a system dominated by the insurance industry and big PHARMA.
What once seemed politically impossible has come to pass because of grassroots movements womens suffrage, civil rights in the South, Medicare, and recently in our state, marriage equality and legalization of marijuana.
How do we get to improved Medicare for All?
We need a grassroots movement based on Health Care is a Human Right and traditional American values of freedom (from disease and financial disaster), equal opportunity (that requires good health) and justice for all (that requires government guarantees).
Medical students and residents need to take a leadership role as their future and that of their families and patients depends upon it.
Current Single Payer Efforts
National
1. HR676 Improved and Expanded Medicare for All (Conyers)
2. HR1200 American Health Security Act (McDermott)
States
1. Vermont on the road to achieve single payer Green Mountain Health Care in 2017
2. More than 20 other states with single payer bills in their legislatures.
3. Washington Health Security Trust HB1850 (WHST) introduced in WA House of Reps (Senate bill shortly). Designed to be substituted for the ACA in WA State in 2017, after a waiver granted by the federal Dept of Health & Human Services.
Local Organizations working for Improved Medicare for All and the WHST:
PNHP-Western Washington Chapter www.pnhpwesternwashington.org
Health Care for All Washington www.healthcareforallwa.org
United for Single Payer - www.unitedforsinglepayer.org
Single-Payer System: Why It Would Save US Healthcare
Why America Should Have a Single-Payer System
By Leigh Page
Medscape, Sept. 29, 2015
Donald Berwick, MD, helped launch the Affordable Care Act (ACA)considered at the time to be the only health reform this country would needwhen he was administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2010 to 2011.
But 5 years later, Dr Berwick and millions of other Americans are calling for a new round of reform that would involve much deeper changes: a single-payer system. Dr Berwick says he still supports the ACA"It's been a step forward for the country," he saysbut adds, "The ACA does not deal with problem of waste and complexity in the system."
Other single-payer advocates are less forgiving. They think that the ACA has pampered the commercial insurance industry, providing it with millions more customers and allowing it to jack up charges to levels that fewer Americans can afford.
The single payer would be the US government.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2015/september/single-payer-system-why-it-would-save-us-healthcare
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)single payer would save $325 Billion on drugs that cost $305 Billion.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)...... in 2014. Adding 20 billion might be a stretch, but then again.....
They're all trying to predict the future.
They will all be wrong.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is a horrible liar. Denial is a potent drug.
https://evaluationoffriedman.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/romer-and-romer-evaluation-of-friedman1.pdf
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Physicians for a National Health Plan is damn good source.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,477 posts)Not something I would look forward to as retiree.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)is shaping up to be absolutely fascinating.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)So he can get the 15% cut on ad buys plus a high 6 figure salary
dchill
(38,315 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)healthcare insurance.
dchill
(38,315 posts)Or is it the "profit motive" of the private insurance market, which has bought itself a place in the "industry" that has become the healthcare behemoth we now labor to provide for in order to survive any illness.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Specifically, they adopted global budgeting. We absolutely need to do that, much more than futz around with financing.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Global budgeting is an essential part of any single payer system, but copays are not. In fact, copays were added well after the system was established, because some of the lonelier old folks went to their doctors just to talk.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)and so is not "single payer", sure.
At any rate, I'm not picking a fight here: I like Taiwan's healthcare system, and you do too, and we both think we would do well to emulate it. I'm focusing on getting global budgeting adopted; you're focusing on getting financing centralized. Here's a case where we're on the same side, if nibbling at different angles of the elephant.
eridani
(51,907 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It's very fair to point out that those costs add up and would need to be paid.
This is the kind of debate that should happen-what items can we afford--rather than laundry lists of pandering.
treestar
(82,383 posts)it has to be paid for somehow.
Gothmog
(143,998 posts)I trust Prof. Krugman on this http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0
On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders plan isnt just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.
To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich and single-payer really does save money, whereas theres no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, its not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.
Again, as noted by Prof. Krugman this plan does not add up.
thesquanderer
(11,953 posts)The article is two months old, and there numerous counters to Thorpe's analysis that have been made since then. This one is particularly notable in context of the OP, because it is written by the person who accidentally supplied the wrong prescription drug figure to the campaign.
http://www.populareconomics.org/how-kenneth-thorpe-led-paul-starr-astray-thorpes-seemingly-clever-analysis-does-not-add-up/
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Posted on February 21, 2016
William K. Black
February 21, 2016 Bloomington, MN
If you depend for your news on the New York Times you have been subjected to a drumbeat of article attacking Bernie Sanders and the conclusion of everyone serious that his economics are daft. In particular, you would know that four prior Chairs of the Presidents Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) (the Gang of 4) have signed an open letter to Bernie that delivered a death blow to his proposals. Further, you would know that anyone who dared to disagree with these four illustrious economists was so deranged that he or she was acting like a Republican in denial of global climate change. The open letter set its sights on a far less famous economist, Gerald Friedman, of U. Mass at Amherst. It unleashed a personalized dismissal of his competence and integrity. Four of the Nations top economists against one non-famous economists at a school that studies heterodox economics. That sounds like a fight that the referee should stop in the first round before Friedman is pummeled to death. But why did Paul Krugman need to tag in to try to save the Gang of 4 from being routed?
Krugman proclaimed that the Gang of 4 had crushed Friedman in a TKO. Tellingly, Krugman claimed that anyone who disagreed with the Gang of 4 must be beyond the pale (like Friedman and Bernie). Indeed, Krugman was so eager to fend off any analysis of the Group of 4s attacks that he competed with himself rhetorically as to what inner circle of Hell any supporter of Friedman should be consigned. In the 10:44 a.m. variant, Krugman dismissed Bernie as not ready for prime time and decreed that it was illegitimate to critique the Gang of 4s critique.
In Sanderss case, I dont think its ideology as much as being not ready for prime time and also of not being willing to face up to the reality that the kind of drastic changes hes proposing, no matter how desirable, would produce a lot of losers as well as winners.
And if your response to these concerns is that theyre all corrupt, all looking for jobs with Hillary, you are very much part of the problem.
The implicit message is that four famous economists had to be correct, therefore anyone who disagreed with them must be a conspiracy theorist who is very much part of the problem. Paul doesnt explain what the problem is, but he sure makes it sound awful. Logically, the problem has to be progressives supporting Bernie.
Two hours later, Paul decided that his poisoned pen had not been toxic enough, he now denounced Sanders as a traitor to the progressives who was on his way to making Donald Trump president. To point out the problems in the Gang of 4s attack on Friedman was to treat them as right-wing enemies. Why was Krugman so fervid in its efforts to smear Friedman and prevent any critique of the Gang of 4s smear that he revised his article within two hours and amped up his rhetoric to a shrill cry of pain? Well, the second piece admits that Gang of 4s smear of Friedman didnt get into specifics and that progressives were already rising in disgust at Pauls arrogance and eagerness to sign onto a smear that claimed rigor but actually didnt get into specifics while denouncing a scholar. Paul, falsely, portrayed Friedman as a Bernie supporter. Like Krugman, Friedman is actually a Hillary supporter.
Sanders needs to disassociate himself from this kind of fantasy economics right now. If his campaign responds instead by lashing out well, a campaign that treats Alan Krueger, Christy Romer, and Laura Tyson as right-wing enemies is well on its way to making Donald Trump president.
If we combine both of Pauls screeds we see that the only way to disagree with a prominent economist is to demonize them as either corrupt or enemies. They are apparently inerrant. Paul was eager to use authority raised to the second power (the Gang of 4 plus both barrels two hours apart The Full Krugman) to prevent anyone actually looking at the Gang of 4s letter and Friedmans study. Indeed, as I was finishing this first article in a series on their smear I found that Krugman has tripled down on his smear of Friedman with a Sunday column.
Jamie Galbraith Scores a One-Two Punch KO on the Gang of 4 and Krugman
Alas, Krugman ran into Jamie Galbraith, who is not susceptible to Pauls edicts of intimidation. Jamies piece is wonderfully concise and should be savored in its entirety. But here are the two key takeaways. Jamie destroyed the Gang of 4 and Krugman. Jamie made two simple points. First, Friedman is a supporter of Hillary Clinton, not Bernie. That means there is every reason to believe he did not engage in voodoo economics as Krugman charged in order to help Bernie. It also means that Pauls demand: Sanders needs to disassociate himself from this kind of fantasy economics right now is bizarre. Why would Sanders need to disassociate himself from a Hillary supporter?
Second, Friedmans study is utterly conventional in terms of the macro models that Krugman has been praising for years in his column. The results he calculates, that Krugman dismisses as fantasy and voodoo are in fact the normal product of the normal models Krugman and the Gang of 4 rely on. Friedman, Jamie, and I all have many doubts about those models, but not Krugman and the Gang of 4. Why does the standard model generate such powerful results for employment and growth? It does so because Bernies plan to spur the economy is far larger than current policies or anything program to spur the economy supported by Hillary. As Jamie phrases it:
What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders proposals stems from their scale and ambition. When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result. That, by the way, is the lesson of the Reagan era like it or not. It is a lesson that, among todays political leaders, only Senator Sanders has learned.
Give the conventionality of Friedmans study, using a methodology that the Gang of 4 and Paul all embrace, what accounts for the mocking, dismissive tone of the Gang of 4s letter and Krugmans rhetorical race to the bottom with himself to demonize Friedman and Bernie? One might assume that Friedman had made a glaring error and that the Gang of 4 had discovered the error in the course of their rigorous review of his modelling of Bernies proposals.
We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanderss economic planclaims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence. Friedman asserts that your plan will have huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.
Thats how the Gang of 4 leads, and those two sentences are an enormous tell in the sense that word is used in poker. They are not attacking him for the model he used, they are not attacking him for his inputs, and they are not attacking him for a computation error. They are attacking him because their own models predict that Bernies plan would produce huge beneficial impacts. To state what should be obvious to any economist, much less the Gang of 4 and Krugman, that is not a logical criticism of Friedman or Bernie. The Gang of 4 and Pauls criticisms are historical. When modest economic measures are taken to spur growth we observe only modest impacts on growth. That is not a logical argument against Friedman modelling Bernies proposals.
Again, Im perfectly open to a critique that says the standard models are so badly flawed that such a projection should not be relied upon, but that is not what the Gang of 4 and Krugman do. They love the flawed models.
The Myths Economists Tell That Friedmans Modeling of Bernies Plan Exposes
Orthodox economists just hate the results of Friedmans model, for the results support Bernie, rather than Hillary. Worse, they show that orthodox economists claims that the government can do little good is a myth. They set out to kill the messenger, Friedman, even though Friedman shares their support for Hillary. The Gang of 4 and Krugmans reaction to Friedmans use of their own models has an odd, disturbing parallel made famous by my colleague Randy Wray.
[In] an interview Nobel winner Paul Samuelson gave to Mark Blaug (in his film on Keynes, John Maynard Keynes: Life/Ideas/Legacy 1995). Samuelson said:
I think there is an element of truth in the view that the superstition that the budget must be balanced at all times [is necessary]. Once it is debunked [that] takes away one of the bulwarks that every society must have against expenditure out of control. There must be discipline in the allocation of resources or you will have anarchistic chaos and inefficiency. And one of the functions of old fashioned religion was to scare people by sometimes what might be regarded as myths into behaving in a way that the long-run civilized life requires. We have taken away a belief in the intrinsic necessity of balancing the budget if not in every year, [then] in every short period of time. If Prime Minister Gladstone came back to life he would say uh, oh what you have done and James Buchanan argues in those terms. I have to say that I see merit in that view.
Orthodox economists are appalled by federal government deficits and stand in terror at the possibility that the public might ever understand how much the government could accomplish for the benefit of the American people if it got over the myths that a government with a sovereign currency is really just like a regular household and cannot run persistent deficits. Friedmans modeling of Bernies plan is so terrifying to the Gang of 4 and Krugman because it shows under the orthodox economic models that the government can be a powerful engine of producing huge beneficial impacts. What is required is that our President has the nerve to junk the orthodox economic myths. As Jamie Galbraith wrote, When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected.
The Gang of 4 then evince another tell. They decry the fact that the standard models predict huge beneficial impacts from Bernies plan because the use of standard models undermines our reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic. The concept of responsible arithmetic is wondrous. Notice that they do not claim that Friedmans arithmetic is inaccurate in the sense of making a computational or data input error. Nor do they attack his use of the conventional models they embrace. No, their criticism is that they hate the results of Friedmans accurate arithmetic. They point out no errors in Friedmans arithmetic. There is no indication that they ever checked out the accuracy of how he modeled the impacts of Bernies plans.
This means, as Jamie Galbraith observes, that the Gang of 4 and Krugman have smeared Friedman and Bernie. Here is the Gang of 4s claim:
We have applied the same rigor to proposals by Democrats, and worked to ensure that forecasts of the effects of proposed economic policies, from investment in infrastructure, to education and training, to health care reforms, are grounded in economic evidence.
I certainly hope that statement is a knowing lie, for otherwise they owe an enormous apology to the Republicans. The Gang of 4 claims that they apply the same rigor to modeling policy proposals by Democrats as they do in their modeling of proposals by Republicans. Their claim is that that rigor has exposed Friedman to be someone who is gaming the arithmetic in a shockingly dishonest manner to help Bernie. Ive already noted the embarrassing failure to reveal to their readers that Friedman supports Hillary, not Bernie. But what grievous errors of arithmetic did Friedman commit that were disclosed by the Gang of 4s rigor[ous] review of his modeling? The Gang of 4, and Krugman, present no errors, and no analysis of Friedmans study. They present no evidence that they conducted any review, much less a rigor[ous] review of Friedmans modeling that disclosed any arithmetic errors. They literally simply hate the results of their own standard models because they show that Bernies plan produces huge beneficial impacts.
The Gang of 4 and Krugman Should Retract and Apologize to Friedman
Jamie Galbraith called the Gang of 4 and Paul out on their smear and their disgusting effort to substitute authority for logic, integrity, and intellectual honesty. The effort to use authority to destroy Friedmans reputation, with no identification of a single arithmetic mistake in using their own models is reprehensible. The Gang of 4 and Krugman should retract their letter and blogs and personally apologize to Friedman. It is despicable to abuse authority and status.
Krugmans Smear of Laura Tyson and Ode to the (All Male) Economics Pecking Order
Paul is famous for his arrogance and his dismissal of the work of economists he considers to be lesser in status. This makes his imperious demand that no one critique the Gang of 4s smear of Friedman all the more ironic, because Laura DAndrea Tyson is a member of the gang. Perhaps Paul has forgotten his smear of Ms. Tyson when, in 1993, she was the first woman appointed to chair the Presidents Council of Economic Advisers.
The chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers has generally overshadowed the two other members, working directly with the President while the others have stayed in the background, their names almost unknown to the public. But as a macro-economist, Mr. Blinder is likely to play a prominent role on the council, since he is considered more suited than Ms. Tyson to performing a crucial task of the council: assessing the impact of proposed policies.
I will be vastly reassured if Alan Blinder is named to the Council of Economic Advisers, said Paul R. Krugman, a macroeconomist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who had himself been a candidate for the chairmanship. He would provide the necessary analytical skills that Laura Tyson lacks.
Mr. Krugman and many other macroeconomists, particularly those in academia, have come to consider the three-member Council of Economic Advisers as their embassy in Washington. Because they view the council as their chief means of influencing Administration policy, they urged Mr. Clinton to appoint a top macroeconomist who would properly practice their skills and represent their views.
Her appointment also raised the issue of rankings within the profession. Mr. Krugman and other economists argued that after 12 years of Republican Administrations, the chairmanship of the council should go to one of the Democrats among the ranks of the top macroeconomists.
Despite what people say about economists always disagreeing with each other, there is agreement on rankings within the profession, Mr. Krugman said.
There is a pecking order, he continued, citing Nobel laureates in economics like Paul Samuelson, Robert M. Solow and James Tobin as those at the pinnacle in the over-65 generation. All are Democrats. Mr. Blinder, Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Krugman, also Democrats, are ranked among the top 20 or so in the younger generation.
There is in fact a pecking order that has closed off Krugman to many important advances for decades because the advances were not made by people he considers to be sufficiently exalted in his pecking order. I am sure, however, that Ms. Tyson feels the irony that Krugman has now elevated her so high in his pecking order that no one is permitted to critique the Gang of 4s smear of Friedman. Note that Krugmans dismissal of Tyson was based on the fact that she had no expertise in macroeconomic modelling precisely the skill necessary to critique Friedmans modelling of Bernies economic proposals. Paul cant even maintain logical consistency in his smears.
Ms. Tyson may wish to reflect on Krugmans earlier sexist smear of her, based on status. I hope doing so will prompt introspection about her own role in smearing Friedman.
But you will learn none of these things in the New York Times, where the Upshot column, without any analysis, treats the smears of Friedman as revealed truth. Upshot does not mention Jamie Galbraiths destruction of the Gang of 4 and Krugman. The stories inaccurately portray Friedman as a Bernie rather than a Hillary supporter. The column inaccurately claims that Friedman has made extreme assumptions. The results do not flow from idiosyncratic assumptions by Friedman. The huge beneficial impacts flow from the standard models and the far larger magnitude of Bernies plans to revive the economy. Yes, the Davos Democrats that Krugman once routinely reviled in Washington, D.C. do often roll their eyes at Bernie. The Davos Democrats, as Krugman once aptly pointed out, have been wrong about a vast range of economic issues. They are not rigorous, they are arrogant, errant, and represent the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party. A considerable number of Americans have figured that out. Read Tom Franks new book (Listen, Liberal) if you want the revolting details.
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/02/krugman-gang-4-need-apologize-smearing-gerald-friedman.html
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)They read it and obliterated it.
https://evaluationoffriedman.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/romer-and-romer-evaluation-of-friedman1.pdf
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Posted on February 27, 2016 by Yves Smith
Yves here. Now the big artillery is coming out. The Gang of Four, as Bill Black called them, that attacked Gerald Friedman for publishing a model that showed that Bernie Sanders economic plan could work, delivered what they though was a roundhouse punch on Thursday, in the form of a short paper by Christine Romer and David Romer. Their conclusions, which were taken up quickly by the mainstream media, such as the New York Times, would seem to be fatal:
The demand impacts forecasted are too large
The Friedman model assumes the output gap is larger than it is
The plan is likely to do little to increase productive capacity
The latter claim is bizarre since quite a few economists around the world are now pushing for infrastructure spending, precisely because it has spillover effects on productivity. For instance, Larry Summers pointed out in the Wasshington Post in 2014 that the IMF estimated that every dollar of infrastructure spending increased GDP by nearly $3 and the Sanders plan calls for significant infrastructure expenditures. By contrast, Friedman used very conventional fiscal multiplies of 1.2 in the early years falling to .8
So why do the Romers say so confidently that Friedman is off base? They are using a different model. And as Galbraith explains long-form, its one with a pretty crappy track record in post-crisis America. And Galbraith gives an important warning:
In the real world, forecasts are a very weak guide to policy; when attempting to make major changes the right strategy is to proceed and to take up the challenge of obstacles or changing circumstances as they arise. That is, after all, what Roosevelt did in the New Deal and what Lyndon Johnson did in the 1960s. Neither one could have proceeded if todays economists had been around at that time.
By James Galbraith, professor of Government/Business Relations at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, the University of Texas at Austin. His most recent book, Inequality and Instability was published in March, 2012 by Oxford University Press. The next will be The End of Normal, from Free Press in 2014. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website
The Romer/Romer letter to Professor Gerald Friedman marks a turning point. It concedes that there are indeed important issues at stake when evaluating the proposed economic policies of Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders. These issues go beyond the political debate and should be discussed seriously between and among professional economists.
All forecasting models embody theoretical views. All involve making assumptions about the shape of the world, and about those features, which can, and cannot, safely be neglected. This is true of the models the Romers favor, as well as of Professor Friedmans, as it would be true of mine. So each model deserves to be scrutinized.
In the case of the models favored by the Romers, we have the experience of forecasting from the outset of the Great Financial Crisis, which was marked by a famous exercise in early 2009 known as the Romer-Bernstein forecast. According to this forecast (a) the economy would have recovered on its own, in full and with no assistance from government, by 2014, (b) the only effect of the entire stimulus package would be to accelerate the date of full recovery by about six months, and (c) by 2016, the economy would actually be performing worse than if there had been no stimulus at all, since the greater burden of the government debt would push up interest rates and depress business investment relative to the full employment level.
Its fair to say that this forecast was not borne out: the economy did not fully recover even with the ARRA, and there is no sign of crowding out, even now. The idea that the economy is now worse off than it would have been without any Obama program is, to most people, I imagine, quite strange. These facts should prompt a careful look at the modeling strategy that the Romers espouse.
I attach here the manuscript version of Chapter 10 from my 2014 book, The End of Normal, Broken Baselines and Failed Forecasts, which discusses these issues in (I hope) accessible detail.
It should be noted that these issues, while important, do not bear on whether economists should try to discourage American voters from supporting the Sanders program. In the real world, forecasts are a very weak guide to policy; when attempting to make major changes the right strategy is to proceed and to take up the challenge of obstacles or changing circumstances as they arise. That is, after all, what Roosevelt did in the New Deal and what Lyndon Johnson did in the 1960s. Neither one could have proceeded if todays economists had been around at that time.
in full: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/james-galbraith-describes-major-forecast-failure-in-model-used-by-romers-to-attack-friedman-on-sanders-plan.html
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Romer-Bernstein did predict there'd by 5% unemployment by now with the ARRA, which is exactly what happens.
The more basic issue is that Gerald Friedman is unaware how an economic stimulus works.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)You prefer to forget those not looking for work are not counted as
unemployed?
Look, you bought into a centrist guy's shtick, Paul Starr, and a red baiting
one at that. He has literally used the word Bolshevik to describe Sanders.
The critics you're relying on are Clinton and Obama advisors and Sanders is
a progressive. If you want to claim he is wrong you haven't presented
a serious case to do so. They also were rightly taken to task with their
initial political hit job, as your link identifies the time line..they HAD to go back
and finally do the work and even then, one can honestly approach an
economic plan and disagree without referring to Bernie as a liar.
Gerald Friedman is NOT Bernie's economic advisor as one has not been
named but we do know that the economic stimulus package at the time
was not nearly large enough...as even Stiglitz spoke out about. Or is he too
a gibberish maker in your eyes?
ACA has cost problems that are real, not imagined and Clinton is offering
to do no more than tweak it. It will take an honest voice to speak to
the reasons a for profit health insurance industry and a law that does not allow
the government to negotiate drug prices must end. I provided you analysis from
PNHP, they're not a shabby group of political partisans. The way forward
is to confront the problem, lobby money in politics, that is what prevents
advancement and I am voting for the only candidate who is not cluttered
with special interest money. It will take time and he has never said otherwise,
your opinion of him is shocking. You're calling a president fighting for
single payer a protestor and not a president? They're not able to lead the
US and fight? How the fuck do you think Obama got ACA?
*Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a professor in public health at City University of New York at Hunter College and co-founder of the advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program, said Friday that the "numbers on single-payer do, in fact, add up."
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/12/fact-argue-experts-sanders-medicare-all-numbers-do-add
Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will-never-ever-happen/
She is using the same bullshit they used on her in '93.
The Numbers Don't Add Up In Clinton's Health-care Package
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-09-16/news/9309160080_1_clintons-plan-caps-and-subsidies-health-care
You are certainly free to stick with a candidate with WS money up to her
eyeballs and a hawk on foreign policy..I am sure some believe that will
work out great. Hillary, a true champion of neoliberalism.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and basically said "forecasts schmorecasts."
Paul Starr:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Starr
At Princeton University, Starr holds the Stuart Chair in Communications and Public Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School. The Social Transformation of American Medicine won the 1984 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction[1] as well as the Bancroft Prize. His recent book The Creation of the Media received the 2005 Goldsmith Book Prize.
Please take careful note:
The numbers for Single Payer do add up.
Bernie Sanders's numbers do not add up.
Separate the issue from the politician. Politicians will downplay and hide the ball when it comes to the costs of their promises. It's what they do.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)using Bolshevik describing Bernie should not be considered a reliable source.
Thorpe was debunked as well..there will be no change of significance to the
rising costs of ACA without a serious challenge and the only one prepared to do that
is Sanders.
I believe we have taken this disagreement as far as we can while remaining reasonable
about it. Have a good day.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)I know this is the result of the never ending attacks of Hillary, but it is still wrong.
Not questioning your liberalness, but your judgment here.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)There is a very, very good argument for single payer and that we should move in that direction.
But, fudging the numbers will only make that more difficult as the math always wins.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)is complicated, so he may or may not (your source could be wrong, you know) have done the numbers correctly.
What we both know is the end result is so important that we must be together on it.
Think about why Obama did ACA before he did anything else.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to get it through Congress.
And--this is really important--if the math is wrong and the money needed is greater than anticipated--that leaves the program at the mercy of future Congresses.
This is especially the case because single payer--realistically--will have to work at the state level before it can be broached as a national solution. So, nuts and bolts have to all line up, otherwise it implodes and people assume single payer simply can't work.
Bernie Sanders himself has said this, ironically enough.
It comes down to being serious about governance. This really matters for a President.
Demnorth
(68 posts)I can't wrap my mind around all of it.
Sanders lists an example: "a family of four earning $50,000 will pay just $466 per year to the single payer program." I'm an individual earning less, and paying twice that much per year in Canada.
His plan also includes vision care, dental, and prescription medications. For me, vision care and dental, not covered. Prescription meds, yes and no - based on my income, I pay the first thousand, Pharmacare then pays 70% until my maximum's reached, after which Pharmacare pays 100%. I sometimes use physiotherapy or chiropractic services - they're not covered. These things are covered if you're lower income, though it's basic care, with restrictions.
His plan is more comprehensive than the Canadian plan, and while I believe it should happen yesterday, I do wonder how he'll get from where you're at now to what he's promising.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)especially when drug prices increased 10% in 2015.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Aren't you guys tired of pushing nonsense and carrying water?
Get real.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)William K. Black helped put the S&L crooks behind bars in the 1990s as a regulator and forensic economist for the SEC. Black helped Iceland put its banksters behind bars, but for some reason, the Federal government failed to call on him for help in the great Bankster Bailout of 2008. He knows a bit about Inspector Generals and Control Fraud.
The Clintons Have Not Changed: The Clintonian War on the IGs
By William K. Black
February 23, 2016 Bloomington, MN
Secretary Hillary Clinton is asking Democratic voters to believe that she has experienced a Road to Damascus conversion from her roots as a leader of the New Democrats the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party. When exactly this conversion occurred is never stated, but an interesting fact has emerged that demonstrates it did not occur during her service as the Secretary of State. A Wall Street Journal story provides the key facts, but none of the analysis.
Newly released emails indicate that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top staff were involved in the selection process for the State Departments internal watchdog, a position that ultimately went unfilled throughout her four-year tenure.
The WSJs angle is that such involvement in the selection of the Inspector General (IG) is a threat to the IGs vital independence. True, and also true as the story notes that Hillary was far from rare as an agency or department head in seeking to select behind the scenes the supposedly independent IGs.
The function of the IG is to speak truth to power. Naturally, power hates IGs with a purple passion. Government leaders are most likely to hate having its abuses made public by IG when the government leader is secretly acting in concert with immensely powerful private leaders for their mutual benefit at the expense of the public.
What the WSJ missed is that the Clintons, for decades, have sought to destroy the independence and effectiveness of the IGs precisely because of the threat that they pose of blowing the whistle on these abuses. The Obama administration, of course, is famous for its prosecutions of those who blow the whistle on such abuses. The real story is not that Hillary attempted to select a lap dog as IG the real story is that for her entire tenure as Secretary, four years, she left unfilled the leadership position of the only institution in the State Department dedicated to maintaining integrity and preventing the abuse of public power to aid cronies. That aid, of course, comes with the clear expectation that the cronies will make the head of the State Department wealthy as soon as she or he steps down. There is no possible defense for that, and it does not happen accidentally. The primary blame goes to President Obama, who made no nomination for the position for the entire four years. It wasnt Republican intransigence that explains this scandal.
CONTINUED...
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/03/clintons-not-changed-clintonian-war-igs.html#more-10101
Bill Black coined the phrase "Control Fraud" to describe crooked CEOs. Dr. Black is one of "those" economists who won't play ball with the money crowd. Why? He. Has. Integrity.
andym
(5,441 posts)Because with so many GOP gerrymandered congressional districts, it's impossible for Democrats to take back the House until at least 2022 when the results of a new Census will allow redistricting. If the GOP retains House control, not one of these economic plans will be implemented immediately, or really during Bernie's first term. So Bernie's job as President will be to lay the groundwork for single-payer in 6 years using the Bully Pulpit. He will be able to block new free trade agreements and appoint supreme court justices, so he'll have plenty useful things to do besides talk. He needs to be the "Reagan of the Left" and re-establish the trust in the federal government that was lost in the 80's and re-establish the idea that tax increases can be beneficial when they end up cutting overall costs. The idea of individual sacrifice for the common good, could use some polishing too. Basically he needs to undo all of the damage that Reagan did.