patrick.net

socal2 says

wog says

Yes because as we all know, Obamacare is about government hospitals.

But aren't all the liberals who are faced with the total failure of Obamacare now saying that just wanted a "single payer" system all along?

Even if that were true, single payer isn't about government hospitals either. It's about medicare for all. We would pay tax to a single health insurance company, run by the government and not for profit.

Medicare already exists for the part of life when health care gets expensive for most people, so making the transition to this would be relatively easy and not all that costly.

The only problem was the power of the insurance industry lobby.

marcus says

Even if that were true, single payer isn't about government hospitals either.
It's about medicare for all. We would pa a tax to a single health insurance
company, run by the government and not for profit.

Doesn't the UK have single payer?

Doesn't the UK government run NHS?

socal2 says

But aren't all the liberals who are faced with the total failure of Obamacare now saying that just wanted a "single payer" system all along?

Yeah... except it hasn't failed.

marcus says

The only problem was the power of the insurance industry lobby.

I wish it was that simple.

Insurance profits are about $.05 cents on the dollar. Insurance profits are large in volume, but the margins are some of the lowest of US industries.

You really believe that the bloated, corrupt, and innefficient unionzed US government bureaucracy could run ANYTHING for $.05 cents on the dollar? If so, which government agency or department?

Look at the corruption in the VA scandal where the government bureaucracy was manipulating wait lists so their reports could look good and still receieve bonuses while people died waiting.

edvard2 says

Yeah... except it hasn't failed.

Based on what metric?

Based on 2 of their biggest promises, it sure as shit has failed:

- Failed to reduce average premiums by $2,500
- If you like your doctor/plan you can keep your doctor/plan?

And since all of the cost pain was unilaterally delayed by Obama to get past the elections (employer mandate etc.) the financial pain and loss of choices is only going to get worse and worse each year.

It is just basic logic, you simply can't massively increase the safety net and require more expansive coverage for everyone without it costing alot more money.

socal2 says

Doesn't the UK have single payer?

Doesn't the UK government run NHS?

You really don't know what single payer means, do you.

socal2 says

You really believe that the bloated, corrupt, and innefficient unionzed US government bureaucracy could run ANYTHING for $.05 cents on the dollar? If so, which government agency or department?

I don't know how efficient the employees at medicare are, but the leverage of being the only one paying doctors (except for supplemental policies), and setting the rates for what they will pay for each service far far FAR outweighs the exaggerated inefficiency your dogma says exists for all government workers.

Medicare already exists and pays for a huge part of our healthcare.

marcus says

You really don't know what single payer means, do you.

Think you need to google UK's NHS and get back with me.

socal2 says

Based on what metric?

Based on 2 of their biggest promises, it sure as shit has failed:

- Failed to reduce average premiums by $2,500

- If you like your doctor/plan you can keep your doctor/plan?

Based on the fact that now versus then you can now get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition. Based on the millions of Americans who couldn't afford insurance but now can. Based on the plan having to date saved consumers over 3 billion dollars.

But anyway, like I said- the tea party and the GOP's primary goal was to stop Obamacare and protect their corporate backers. They lost. Read that again: LOST. Its over. So no matter how many sill right-wing cliche's are mentioned it won't do a damned thing. They lost. too bad, so sad...

errc aked: what does that leave democrats to talk about?
Well, in the CA open primaries (especially the Bay Area), you have "business" Dems running against "labor" Dems. The elephant in the room is public employee pensions. The CA assembly started to address the issue by throwing the millenials under the bus with a two tier system a couple of years back, but more reform is needed on the "unvested" (not year earned) portions of existing public employees pensions.

Sorry ebguy, I should have been more specific. On the national stage,,,,

EBGuy says

errc aked: what does that leave democrats to talk about?

Leaves em' to crack jokes about the "tea potty" and Republicans in general.

@ errc, As goes California, so goes the country. I thought the GOP might be able to reinvent itself in CA, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. Not sure if its good for the state, but the interesting conversations appear to be happening within the Dem party itself.

socal2 says

marcus says

You really don't know what single payer means, do you.

Think you need to google UK's NHS and get back with me.

You're right about one thing, and that is that the one of us that doesn't understand this could have learned by spending a few minutes (or longer in your case), using the internet.

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/health_care_systems_four_basic_models.php

You can read, can't you ?

edvard2 says

EBGuy says

errc aked: what does that leave democrats to talk about?

Leaves em' to crack jokes about the "tea potty" and Republicans in general.

And then you wonder why political non participants like myself have no interest in aligning ourselves with the party of worthless smug fucks. Lol

@edvard2, Are you in the 17th Congressional District? Honda, Khanna, Singh, or none of the above? Definitely one of the more interesting primaries...

marcus says

You're right about one thing, and that is that the one of us that doesn't
understand this could have learned by spending a few minutes (or longer in your
case), using the internet.

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/health_care_systems_four_basic_models.php

You can read, can't you ?

From your link:

The Beveridge Model

"Named after William Beveridge, the daring social reformer who designed Britain’s National Health Service. In this system, health care is provided and financed by the government through tax payments, just like the police force or the public library.

Many, but not all, hospitals and clinics are OWNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT; some doctors are government employees, but there are also private doctors who collect their fees from the government."

Correct. That is what they have in the UK, which is not to be confused with the national health insurance model.

Single payer would be medicare for all. Medicare doesn't own a single hospital. They may employ some doctors (to work on policy etc) but not to treat patients.

See the national health insurance model. That's what single payer refers to.

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/health_care_systems_four_basic_models.php

Surveillance state is expanding and government is growing. Remind me again please why is that good that we have big government?

The growth of what you call surveillance state was prompted by 9/11, not anyones love of big government. Our massive defense department likewise was not prompted by anyone's love of big government. In fact supposedly smaller loving govt republicans are its champions.

marcus says

The growth of what you call surveillance state was prompted by 9/11, not anyones love of big government. Our massive defense department likewise was not prompted by anyone's love of big government. In fact supposedly smaller loving govt republicans are its champions.

Why hasn't it stopped than? All it takes is one executive order.

Call it Crazy says

marcus says

Medicare already exists and pays for a huge part of our healthcare.

You really need to go do some research to see how much fraud, waste, abuse, over-billing, incompetence, etc. exists in Medicare...

So what?

Governments, currencies, and societies come and go all the time.

There are plenty of people who had freedom thousands of years ago who are dead now. The Earth is always changing.

Your government, your freedom, my freedom: none of it really matters, because things are always changing and always will.

And the planet will do fine one way or another.

Tea party originally was in boston in response to taxation without representation etc. This movement was about whining about taxes.

clambo says

The word TEA=Taxed Enough Already.

The irony is that most rank and file Tea Party supporters probably don't even pay very much in taxes, and a large number are probably in Mitt Romney's 47% stat. It's the Astro-turfing sponsors who are the ones who actually pay taxes.

I know Tea Party supporters in Section 8 housing and on food stamps, who wish the government would just "get out of the way".

Iosef V HydroCabron says

I know Tea Party supporters in Section 8 housing and on food stamps, who wish the government would just "get out of the way".

Birds of a feather...

Iosef V HydroCabron says

I know Tea Party supporters in Section 8 housing and on food stamps, who wish the government would just "get out of the way".

When pressed, the typical tea partier of a certain age would say, well of course I should get to keep MY social security. I saw that on more than one occasion.

JH says

When pressed, the typical tea partier of a certain age would say, well of course I should get to keep MY social security. I saw that on more than one occasion.

Of course they did pay 15.4% of their salary into it...

socal2 says

marcus says

You really don't know what single payer means, do you.

Think you need to google UK's NHS and get back with me.

Maybe you should google the other 41 single payer countries and get back to me. Oh wait the NHS is poorly done, that's all that counts.

indigenous says

JH says

When pressed, the typical tea partier of a certain age would say, well of course I should get to keep MY social security. I saw that on more than one occasion.

Of course they did pay 15.4% of their salary into it...

But it's my 15% that is now paying for it. Hrmm

Iosef V HydroCabron says

I know Tea Party supporters in Section 8 housing and on food stamps, who wish the government would just "get out of the way".

SF has lots of Section 8... so does Oakland... prime examples of failed

govt polices in regards to stimulating economy. There are other examples

where govt over reach has destroyed local economies...

JH says

But it's my 15% that is now paying for it. Hrmm

Therefore they are not due?

edvard2 says

Lastly, there needs to be a real emphasis on educating Americans about finance. There seems to be this totally unrealistic expectation Amongst some on the right who think that somehow we can have this gigantic military, 8-lane wide freeways, sparking-clean schools with teachers who will get their kids straight-A's and yet somehow we can do it all with zero taxes and that even when the cost of living and all the items attached to that also go up in price that we can never-ever raise taxes in conjunction with those costs. I'm not even talking about special programs either. I'm talking about the basics of running a country because like it or not it costs money to do so and with that comes.... drum roll... taxes. I fail to see how starving the government out of funds to do its job helps anyone. But hey, just ask other states as they pull CA jobs to their states with tax incentives.

its more that local govt need to prioritize spending.. and simply say no to spending that is unneeded... California/Fed Spending on high speed rail is prime example where needless spending. Yes, you can get higher tax revenues with tax cuts... its proven to stimulate hiring and thus more taxes revenues for govt.

indigenous says

JH says

But it's my 15% that is now paying for it. Hrmm

Therefore they are not due?

They have no right to whine about taxation to the extreme that they favor cutting services after they get their due, especially if I pay for their due and they don't vote in politicians who will responsibly manage their payins.

JH says

They have no right to whine about taxation to the extreme that they favor cutting services after they get their due, especially if I pay for their due and they don't vote in politicians who will responsibly manage their payins.

Too many vagaries , be specific.

thomaswong.1986 says

Shit shacks priced at $1m plus while prior to the bubble were running

well below $200K... so where is the inflation/incomes to justify so !

Prices in SF have returned to the bubble, here's the price history of a friend's old place in the Sunset:

5/25/11 $530,000
10/27/04 $627,000
04/27/00 $465,000
08/06/97 $240,000

(they had the ride from $400 to $600)

I thought it was overpriced in 2000, but boy was I wrong about that!

Well I wasn't, since the dotcom recession did hit soon after and prices took a beating for a while until the post-dotcom flimflam got going ca. 2004.

Thing is, home prices in SF are so high because rents are so high.

And why are rents so high?

Bellingham Bill says

Thing is, home prices in SF are so high because rents are so high.

And why are rents so high?

Rents were high in late 90s and then dropped by 30-35%. From
what I heard we have not yet reached 1999 rental prices..

The more they climb the worst it becomes to retain employees.

Bellingham Bill says

it's no accident that areas that create IP -- Hollywood/West LA and SCV first among them -- have tons of well-paying jobs and thus immense upward price pressures on the housing stock.

They also have pricing power. Yes your watching US made movies, certainly not from Japan, Germany or India. And costs and prices have gone up year over year, for the past several decades... that is why hollywood has greater ability to see price increases.

The opposite is true for SFBA... very little pricing power in tech industries. We learned the hard way how whole industries vanish in a few months, lost markets, lost incomes, decline in home prices.

thomaswong.1986 says

The opposite is true for SFBA... very little pricing power in tech industries. We learned the hard way how whole industries vanish in a few months, lost markets, lost incomes, decline in home prices.

The economy is always changing. Markets and industries have been lost for thousands of years. Jobs, house prices, assset values: they come and go.

To think that man could affect this is hubris of the worst kind.

Arizona was once a dense jungle. There are whale fossils on mountain peaks. Squirrels once roamed Detroit, their genitals ablaze with unbridled lust and fury. Even on Mars we are seeing few tech employment opportunities.

The only scandal is that scammers are whipping up hysteria to sell their books and make money off of natural processes which have continued for thousand of years.

socal2 says

Yes, retreat into sarcasm - but people really don't like losing their doctors, networks AND paying higher premiums at the same time. Go figure!

-------------------------------
In addition to losing their doctors, healthplans, and reasonable premiums, most people don't like being lied to.... We'll find out how much come November.....