The economy
- Thread starter Rastafarian
- Start date
By abandoning the republican party, I am not suggesting I drifted any closer to the democrat party. They are awful. But it's freeing to not feel like you need to support something just because that's the party's position. I disagree with the republican party on many things. I disagree with the democrat party on more.
This is a strange world view to me. I consider myself a Democrat but I don't feel like I have to specifically support everything they do. If we ever had another big realignment I'd no longer be a Democrat. Do people think that when someone has a party affiliation that they support literally every part of the party platform?
I'm a Democrat and the thing I'd like to try for health care is a public option.
If we wanted to really be radical (we can't significantly curb healthcare expenses without reducing provider salaries) we could think about paying for med school for doctors so they don't have a mountain of debt to pay down. In exchange they'd have lower salaries. But that one is a non-starter, I'm sure.
We could definitely allowed for more doctors to immigrate, especially primary care providers.
I'll go out on a limb since I have no data to back this up other than personal experience...so, I'm on Medicare, over 65, have to be.
I'm relatively healthy, only take a 5mg cholesterol drug, and really don't need it...I'm really about 165-170 without and now about 130 with...but cardiologist thinks its a good idea, so I humor him.
But, here's the thing...about 8 months ago, I fainted and hit the ground....So cardiology - everyone thinks heart for a older person...so heart passes normal test. BUT to be safe...CT scans, ekgs, echocardiogram, stress tests....everything fine. Now I have an implant that records my heart comings and goings on a 24 hour basis...still fine!
So what else can cause someone to pass out? neurology! so off to neurologist....pass all the basics...BUT just to be safe, MRI, MRA (head), MRI neck, and now electroencephalogram...
What's my point? It's not just the providers - who gets a small portion of the normal fee through Medicare....it's all the CYA tests that run up the bills...thank goodness I have Tricare for life which covers everything medicare doesn't...
And remember, I'm healthy...BP this morning 124/60, heartbeat 64. So, what the concensus on my fainting? Dehydration! who knew that as you get older you need more water?
Anyway, if we think that a single payer system will solve our problems...I think you're crazy. The cost would bankrupt the country. Old economic theorem..."if something is free, demand is unlimited"
I don't have an answer, but some form of deductable/co-pay at least makes you question how bad you need to see the doctor.
I'll note that in my brainstorm I never suggested a single payer system and have also never claimed that one would solve all of the problems. I actually don't believe "free at the point of service" is good policy. Some sort of co-pay helps ensure people are actually invested in what's going on.
My wife works at the VA where there are no co-pays, no penalties for no-shows, and more hand holding than my 3 year old gets. And the investment of her Veterans (not all, to be sure) is appalling; and a lot of them are on 100% VA disability and don't even have jobs to distract them!
So you'll find no disagreement from me that there needs to be some skin in the game. I'm also somewhat resigned to the idea that the United States is just going to have more expensive healthcare for a variety of reasons but it doesn't need to be that much more expensive.
Do you think you'd have gotten so many tests if you weren't on tri-care?
I don't know the answer to your last question. I don't know if the doctors actually know what insurance I have. I will say that if I didn't have Tricare, I would question more the need for all these tests.
Agreed. My point is that board libs blame Trump and Republicans for high Healthcare costs. They're correct about not being able to repeal and replace Obamacare but democrats don't have a solution either. Obamacare failed miserably and now all you hear is more subsidies paid for by more debt. I ask libs what they propose and they refuse to answer.
I don’t think attacking doctor salaries is going to work. If we’re serious about the issue, we need to attack it from many fronts.
— We have to get the SAD (standard American diet) under control. Nutrition education, more regulation on what’s in our food supply, only healthy foods eligible for SNAP, address food deserts, etc. We should viciously attack this issue. Along with lifestyle, its results in us having substantially higher obesity and chronic condition rates than other peer countries. That is a massive driver of healthcare costs.
— Invest in technology to scale and amplify clinician effectiveness to bring down costs. AI and advanced robotics will usher in a new age of how healthcare is delivered. Let’s accelerate that. They both have the ability to dramatically improve access to care and reduce costs.
— Force people to pay their “fair share” for health insurance. Bad drivers pay higher car insurance premiums. Higher risk homes result in higher homeowners premiums. People in poor health pay higher life insurance premiums. If you don’t take reasonable care of yourself, you should pay more for health insurance and Medicare. If it hits you in the pocketbook, perhaps you’ll think twice before ordering that triple cheeseburger and coke.
Plenty more but it’s Friday afternoon and I just sat down by the pool.
I haven’t been following this discussion much, so can you provide some posts of people blaming Trump and republicans for high HC costs?
Fair enough. I agree that the big cost driver is provider salaries and I don't see a solution for that.
One thing I would do is allow people to use insurance to buy drugs from approved pharmacies in Canada and the USA. Another thing I would do is put a cap on malpractice claims. I would also cut back on some things like GLP-1, mental, and procedures that aren't likely to materially extend life. If people want those things they can buy supplemental insurance on their own.
I feel like GLP-1s are going to be an ENORMOUS cost saver for us in a few years. When obesity is one of the biggest drivers of poor health in our country, I'd think you'd want all the help you can get. This is assuming that the market actually works and costs come down.
I doubt mental health coverage is moving the needle at all. Lots of providers don't even take insurance because of how bad the payouts are.
The most recent criticisms have been that republicans eliminated the enhanced covid subsidies and that they failed to repeal and replace Obamacare. Of course they've also blamed Trump/Republicans for high prices of everything which is amazing considering the high inflation years occurred under the prior administrations.
21% are receiving mental health services. Back in the 80s we spent ~$30 billion. Today we're spending nearly $300 billion.
I understand that people have real mental health issues but I also believe that a large percentage claim mental health because they're simply struggling with life. I know a few people like that.
I understand that people have real mental health issues but I also believe that a large percentage claim mental health because they're simply struggling with life. I know a few people like that.
Thanks, is that from people on here or libs in the ether?
Trump did run on repealing and replacing back in ‘16, and failed at that effort, but I don’t see how pointing that out is blaming him for higher HC costs. I think everyone agrees healthcare admin costs and the insurance industry are major catalysts for higher costs, as well as the ACA in general.
I agree with this, and I wonder what making glp-1 or similar drugs free and government supported for overweight people would do for costs. I have a couple friends who have lost a lot of weight on those drugs. They eat better, they are happier, and far,far healthier.
This type of program is one area that a government program can improve overall costs. I definitely don't have the answers, but what we are doing isn't working.
@scotchtiger Id love your thoughts.
I dont accept the idea that we could materially reduce costs by eliminating insurance company profits and admin costs. Most BC/BS are non profit. United Healthcare makes a "mere" 5% profit. None of the government subsidized co-ops could compete. Single payer might save a little but unlikely more that a percent or two.
I've said that neither party has a plan to reduce Healthcare costs. The democrat plan has been more subsidies which add to the debt but don't do anything to lower cost.
I don't have magical answers either. Other countries limit what's paid to providers, limit malpractice awards, and limit late life procedures. They also tax people more. Is this country prepared to make similar changes?
I would support that, especially if we pair it with a way to charge people more for health insurance/Medicare who are obese without an underlying medical condition forcing it. That way we fund the program in the near term plus create a financial incentive for people to participate and lose weight. Long term, overall healthcare costs should come down.
GLP-1s seem to have other benefits as well. For example, I have read where they may help people avoid Alzheimer’s.
Added a little to PSIL, ATAI & HELP speculative positions
here's an interesting excerpt from todays WSL (April 21st)
The growth of the upper middle class since the 1970s helps explain why the prices of some things, such as housing, have increased far beyond inflation. A recent American Enterprise Institute report by Stephen Rose and Scott Winship finds that the upper middle class expanded from 10% to 31% of all families between 1979 and 2024, and its share of national income doubled. Although the definition of the upper middle class is contestable, a glance at standard income tables shows that their story is broadly correct. According to the Census Bureau, the share of Americans with household incomes of $150,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) rose from 5.5% in 1969 to 26.1% in 2024.
The emergence of a mass upper middle class has had negative consequences for those lower down the income ladder. Because members of this new class are less sensitive to price increases, they can outbid middle- and working-class families for key goods and services, including houses. They can go out for dinner and entertainment regularly without worrying about their household budgets. They can afford child care, which many middle-class families can’t. And they can take soaring college costs in stride, while middle-class families reach deeper into their pockets and incur more debt
I agree but I don't find it freeing. Politicians on both sides fall in line on the issues. There aren't too many independent thinkers.
I've long been a fiscal conservative but I had respect for people like Joe Lieberman and Joe Manchin. Those types are long gone.
Bought YOLO, VFF, HITI, KTOS, DPRO and INBX today.
Sold 50% of HON
INBX will be volatile with the factors driving price. It shot up to 155 at the open off of news. I bought at 108 on a bounce off of 100. It closed at 115 but still has an open gap in the 90 area.
Sold 50% of HON
INBX will be volatile with the factors driving price. It shot up to 155 at the open off of news. I bought at 108 on a bounce off of 100. It closed at 115 but still has an open gap in the 90 area.
Last edited:
I wonder why? housing unaffordable, higher prices for fertilizer which will men higher food prices down the line, higher gas prices, ......
I wonder though what the democrat plan is...they want to eliminate fossil fuels which has the effect of higher gas prices, higher fertilizer costs, higher housing costs..
Let's face it we're screwed. It just depends on which party you want to screw us...
It's been repeatedly proven that the economy does better under Democrats, in fact, 10 of the last 11 recessions began under Republican administrations while job growth and GDP growth have been notably greater under Democrats. Of course, the covid related inflation under Biden soured the opinions of many, though at the end of his term, he had maintained a historically long period of low unemployment of ~ 4%, very good GDP growth and inflation had fallen significantly and was trending down.
So if your point is that things would have also gotten worse if the Democrats had maintained power, I disagree. Trump blew it due to his tariffs, mass deportations and absurb spending for ICE and foreign wars....none of which would have happened otherwise. So don't ask what the Democrat plan would be when it was already working.
Last edited:
that doesn't mean that democrats would be worse..I just compared two elements under trump and two of Democrat party's platforms elements.
Now that might mean things would have been worse under democrats to you, but seems as if both were the same to me. You won't get me telling you, or anyone, that things in our economy are heading in the right direction.
Now that might mean things would have been worse under democrats to you, but seems as if both were the same to me. You won't get me telling you, or anyone, that things in our economy are heading in the right direction.