Release of the Mueller report is imminent, AG Barr has in-hand, judiciary committees being briefed

gamesquest1 · Apr 25, 2019

Foxi4 said:
The NHS is insanely wasteful. Just two years ago the "consultation scandal" broke and the nation found out about doctors making deals with hospitals to work overtime as "consultants" for exorbitant fees. A "consultant" makes £89,000 a month on top of their basic salary as a doctor, that's $114,000 in freedom money. They make anywhere between £300 and £1000 per four-hour shift - the higher estimate is a little bit below what a minimum wage employee can make in a month. In four hours. On top of their normal salary. The highest-paid consultant was paid a total of £375,000 in 2015, or $438,000. For part-time consultations on the side every now and then. It's asinine.

Jhyrachy said:
I think that a lot of people who talk about healthcare never had any insight.

Healthcare in the usa is crazy expensive without a real reason, except because is a ratchet between hospital (that are "for profit") and insurance.

there are HUNDREDS of reason to have a socialized healthcare, we could spend hours without reaching the bottom of it.

Also, just few words about car insurance: if you are broken and you hit someone, who is going to pay the victim? No one.
That's why car/truck/scooter insurance MUST be mandatory.

this is the point, just because you make something "socialised" doesn't make it any less prone to plundering, if anything it makes the problem worse because now your another level disconnected from the costs, the more levels between the consumer and the provider the easier it is to overcharge and inflate prices because you never see the breakdown of "£210 for a print out" if people were put face to face with the charges these practices would soon be severely limited, because once i know what im truly paying i will be a lot more critical of the prices, its why often people just pay for their own car repairs even though they have insurance, because they know that in the long run the increased insurance rates will far surpass the £200 for a new bumper to be fitted, spreading out the cost nearly always results in over charging

SG854 · Apr 25, 2019

gamesquest1 said:
yeah what's worse is its all done with shady backroom deals, when the guy i knew decided to raise the issue that the hospital he was working at was buying in 200 boxes of reams of paper per month and they only ever used 1/4 of them and had to bin the rest when the next delivery came in he was effectively told to shut up by management i'm sure a lot of palms are greased in these contracts, its certainly not a system with much concern over what they are spending

They don't care how much they spend because it's other peoples money. If it's your own money you focus on saving as much as you can and go for the cheapest deals. That lowers costs for everyone because then businesses will have to compete to give you the best product they can. But if Gov is buying expensive products then that motivation to out compete with each other is taken out. They are putting the power of the market to a few politicians that don't know how to run business instead of giving that power to the people. The market eliminates the inefficient ones all the time, with the 90% business fail statistic Foxi4 gave. It's a tough world out there for a business person and you need to work hard to be the best, which then means better products for us and raised living standard for us, or you'll fail.

This is one of the hidden costs that's behind the curtains that people pay with their taxes. It's makes the system unnecessarily expensive. The problem is they don't see this as a problem because they compare it to the horrible U.S. system, but neither system is running as efficiently as it can. And the U.S. has hoops involved that is not an entirely free system, so it's not a good comparison for what the free market can achieve. Just look at how cheap food is here and how many people are fat.

Fugelmir · Apr 25, 2019

Foxi4 said:
Ooof, that's a can of worms I forgot about for a while. Mandatory car insurance, good grief.

I've been a city planner for some years, and I consider that to be the biggest scam I've seen in my career alongside driver's licenses themselves -- particularly from overseas countries that have no reliable authority issuing them.

Pay for your driver's license and insurance. It doesn't matter if you can speak the same language as law enforcement or read the signs. It's a real problem.

Xzi · Apr 25, 2019

SG854 said:
They don't care how much they spend because it's other peoples money.

This completely ignores the fact that Medicare is far more cost efficient than any privatized insurance available.

SG854 · Apr 25, 2019

Xzi said:
This completely ignores the fact that Medicare is far more cost efficient than any privatized insurance available.

That doesn't make sense. Because you have to pay the middle men Bureaucrats involved in addition to health care.
Are you comparing to the U.S. system? Because we keep saying that the U.S. system isn't entirely free.

brickmii82 · Apr 25, 2019

Topic is kinda being derailed here a bit. Ijs

SG854 · Apr 25, 2019

brickmii82 said:
Topic is kinda being derailed here a bit. Ijs

They are not going to get Trump on Obstruction. He said he wanted to do this and that but they did none of that. They gave Mueller thousands of documents to look at. So most likely he was letting off steam for an investigation he believed should have not happened. Should he be impeached for letting off steam and not actually following though with it? Is someone saying online saying I WISH they would die actually mean it, or are they letting off steam? He can fire Mueller because its within his right, and thats not obstruction. They should stop with the Russia Collusion thing and actually do something instead like focus on College Debt or Global Warming.

Likely the Mueller knew it was all bull crap within a month and used the other 21 months to see if they can get dirt on Trump since his team is made up of entirely democrats which failed.

Xzi · Apr 25, 2019

SG854 said:
That doesn't make sense. Because you have to pay the middle men Bureaucrats involved in addition to health care.
Are you comparing to the U.S. system? Because we keep saying that the U.S. system isn't entirely free.

Yes, I'm talking about the US system, and the idea with Medicare-for-all is that you would only have to pay a bit more in monthly taxes rather than having to pay healthcare premiums as well. Even if it was $150/month in extra taxes, that'd still be about half the price of individual healthcare coverage at the moment. I expect it would actually be closer to $20 - $40 extra in taxes on average, because the ultra-wealthy would also bear a lot of that tax burden.

brickmii82 · Apr 25, 2019

SG854 said:
They are not going to get Trump on Obstruction. He said he wanted to do this and that but they did none of that. They gave Mueller thousands of documents to look at. So most likely he was letting off steam for an investigation he believed should have not happened. Should he be impeached for letting off steam and not actually following though with it? Is someone saying online saying I WISH they would die actually mean it, or are they letting off steam? He can fire Mueller because its within his right, and thats not obstruction. They should stop with the Russia Collusion thing and actually do something instead like focus on College Debt or Global Warming.

Likely the Mueller knew it was all bull crap within a month and used the other 21 months to see if they can get dirt on Trump since his team is made up of entirely democrats which failed.

And we're back on topic.

Xzi · Apr 25, 2019

SG854 said:
They are not going to get Trump on Obstruction.

He certainly seems to be panicking about potential impeachment either way, suggesting that he'll "go to the Supreme Court" to intervene if impeachment proceedings begin. Spoilers: the Supreme Court has no say in that process, so that's not how it works.

SG854 · Apr 25, 2019

Xzi said:
Yes, I'm talking about the US system, and the idea with Medicare-for-all is that you would only have to pay a bit more in monthly taxes rather than having to pay healthcare premiums as well. Even if it was $150/month in extra taxes, that'd still be about half the price of individual healthcare coverage at the moment. I expect it would actually be closer to $20 - $40 extra in taxes on average, because the ultra-wealthy would also bear a lot of that tax burden.

The low tax payment will conceal the actual costs. It's an illusion of a cheap system. The costs are the same either system and have to be paid somehow.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Xzi said:
He certainly seems to be panicking about potential impeachment either way, suggesting that he'll "go to the Supreme Court" to intervene if impeachment proceedings begin. Spoilers: the Supreme Court has no say in that process, so that's not how it works.

That's what they always say. It's nothing new. He's panicking. The walls are closing in. Trump knows he's finish. The dirt on him is overwhelming. And yet nothing. No collusion at all. And likely Elizabeth Warren is using the impeachment chant to try to save her failing campaign.

Xzi · Apr 25, 2019

SG854 said:
The low tax payment will conceal the actual costs. It's an illusion of a cheap system.

It is a cheap system because you'd have so many more people that aren't covered now paying into it.

SG854 said:
That's what they always say. It's nothing new.

The Mueller report is still very new in the context of his entire presidency. You're severely underestimating what its impact has been and will be. Trump would not be mentioning impeachment unless he felt like he had to.

SG854 · Apr 25, 2019

Xzi said:
It is a cheap system because you'd have so many more people that aren't covered now paying into it.

The costs are the same. Having gov pay for a TV because one day we decide its a basic human right doesn't make the productions of TV's cheaper. It actually can make it more expensive because its an inefficient system which then more of peoples tax dollars has to go to cover the higher costs. We get less efficient made Tv's and stunt our standard of living.

How come we don't provide free food to everyone? Shouldn't food be a right to people? It's actually more important then Health Care. It's something we need on the daily and consume more often. Wouldn't it be cheaper to have everyone pitch in through taxes. And have gov decide how much of what you can eat every day and what you can eat.

Jhyrachy · Apr 25, 2019

have anyone here even learned how the different system works?

USA has the MOST EXPENSIVE healthcare in the world because when you have any kind of needs, your insurance COULD (the conditional is really important) cover it with a maximal that is not known to the hospital, so the hospital will always try to max it
practical example:
John need an RX, his insurance cover up to 600$
Need an RX too, but his insurance cover up to 800$
The hospital is going to charge 1000$ so it's sure to max the premium of both of them and even of someone who it's not known.
You know how much cost an RX in Europe? UP TO 150€, usually less.

that's because there is a lot less clutter and management to pay because the hospital IS NOT MADE FOR PROFIT
Also, since it's managed by the gov, they have a much higher contractual power.
When we buy medicine, we do not buy in the hundreds, but in the hundreds of thousands, this allow much better prices on pretty much everything. Some meds that costs HUNDREDS in the usa costs less then 10€, made by the same manufacturer, because they know that they cannot made the same trick they do in the usa.

All of this translate in an healthier population, that's happier and more productive, because they are not living in fear of going bankrupt if they have any kind of disease

EDIT: Do not make me even start about all the logistic advantages a socialized healthcare has, for example we can have more specialized centres were all the difficult cases are sent, where we can have much lower costs per patient, since there already all the needed equipments and trained staff to manage them.
An hospital with 10 patients does not cost 1/10th of an hospital with 100, you are lucky if it costs half, cost per patient tend to decrease really fast once you have all the infrastructure in place.

Xzi · Apr 25, 2019

SG854 said:
The costs are the same.

Private insurance rates have gone up nearly twice as fast as Medicare rates.

SG854 said:
How come we don't provide free food to everyone?

In the US, we do. In the form of publicly-run soup kitchens, as well as religious and charity efforts.

SG854 · Apr 25, 2019

Xzi said:
In the US, we do. In the form of publicly-run soup kitchens, as well as religious and charity efforts.

They are not providing food to the entire country. And some are charity from donations.

Xzi said:
Private insurance rates have gone up nearly twice as fast as Medicare rates.

Krugman cites all the familiar figures from the rest of the developed world, where some mix of public insurance with some private elements manages to cover almost everyone and at a much lower cost than in the United States.

Their system not entirely socialized. And somehow their mixed privatized and socialized system led them to cheaper costs, but our mixed system experiment didn't. Something tells me there was many unneeded hoops involved.

But that less-private system of health care been taken off the table in this country by the private corporate interests who profit from the expensive mess of a health care system we have now.

Our System is less privatized.

I clicked on the link that says "Medicare is better on all counts" but it says page not found.

What the article said

So yes, Medicare needs better cost controls

Just as artificially low housing prices have led many people to seek their own separate housing units who would not ordinarily do so, if they had to pay the full costs in a free market, so artificially less expensive — in some countries, free — medical care has led many people with minor medical problems to absorb far more of doctors' time and expensive medicines and treatments than they would if they had to pay the costs themselves.

France is an example:

In every healthy Frenchman hides a sick one dying to be diagnosed, goes a wry French saying. The trouble is that doctors are encouraged to give patients what they want — scans, blood tests, antibiotics, sick leave — for fear of losing their custom and thus earning less.

If they don't overload prescriptions to counter every conceivable germ and depressive tendency, patients may shop around until they find a doctor who does.

This is not peculiar to the French people or to medical care. More of anything tends to be demanded at a lower price — and especially when it is free. In Canada as well, a news story pointed out: "Since the system sets no limits on demand, patients seek as much care as they can get, driving up costs."

http://leeconomics.com/02-Sowell-MedicalCarePriceControl.html

Your article also said the Socialized Health Care Rose the costs. So it made my point that, that system isn't entirely efficient.

Xzi · Apr 25, 2019

SG854 said:
Your article also said the Socialized Health Care Rose the costs. So it made my point that, that system isn't entirely efficient.

My only point was that Medicare is a little over half the cost of private insurance. I don't know what "entirely efficient" would mean in this context, but it's almost twice as efficient as everything else available in the US. I can find you plenty more sources that show the same thing.

Hanafuda · Apr 25, 2019

Xzi said:
Even if it was $150/month in extra taxes, that'd still be about half the price of individual healthcare coverage at the moment.

But I don't pay anything like that for my healthcare now. To cover me, wife, and kids. Same goes for millions of working American households. My employer foots most of the expense. Yes, technically it's part of my compensation package, but ... if and when they ever pass "Medicare for all" and my employer doesn't have to pay for the bulk of my health insurance premium anymore, there ain't no way in hell they're just going to tack that money onto my paycheck out of the goodness of their heart. It is to laugh. I'd be paying more taxes, with the same income, with shitty government-managed single payer healthcare. (I've lived in such circumstances before in Japan, have in-laws living there now ... no thank you.)

Taleweaver · Apr 25, 2019

...I'm going to ignore quite some posts here (I don't know how it ended up with healthcare to begin with

), so I might repeat some people.

I haven't fully read the report yet*, but I've read enough to know that the public knowledge is pretty much true: there are plenty of indications of collusion. The whole "indications isn't the same as proof" mantra...I'm sorry to say something personal, but honestly: those are really pathetic excuses.

The thing is: Mueller (and his team) knew from the start that they couldn't indict a sitting president. That's why it's framed rather careful. My opinion is colored by youtube commenters, but I agree with them with the impression that Mueller really messaged to the senate "either you'll impeach him now, or you'll have to wait until he's no longer a sitting president before it comes to a trial". He gathered and collected the evidence, but it's not up to him to chose what to do with it.

...and THAT is what should have been in the not-a-summary from Barr. Instead, Barr said something vague in the trend of "it doesn't say Trump is guilty, but...", which was immediately interpreted and broadcasted wrong. If this was just after Trump's inauguration, I wouldn't have blamed Barr for this mistake, but by now we all know Trump's spiel: he doesn't care about the truth, only in what he can make people believe. So of course Barr should've anticipated an "THIS REPORT TOTALLY EXONERATES ME!!!!" lie from Donald, and should have refrained from anything but the clear truth on what was in the report.

Then again: if Barr had done that and Trump kept his dumb mouth shut, it's likely that the report would never have been publicly released to begin with.**

In either case: Trump's guilty of a whole lot of illegal stuff, and the proof is in the report. The only question remaining is how long the US citizens are going to tolerate having an untrialed*** criminal for president.

*apparently, neither did Donald Trump. I get he's a busy man, but really...shouldn't this be the sort of documents you really want to read YOURSELF rather than delegating it to someone else?

** I'm not too familiar with the watergate scandal, but I'm fairly sure that if Nixon boasted to everyone that his precious tapes contained nothing important rather than quitting his job, then those tapes would've been forced into the public rather than remain in his personal possession instead.
***again: the reason for not having a trial is because a sitting president is above it.

Xzi · Apr 25, 2019

Hanafuda said:
But I don't pay anything like that for my healthcare now. To cover me, wife, and kids. Same goes for millions of working American households.

I only used that number as an exaggeration. Like I said, actual coverage would probably be closer to $20 - $40 per month, per working member of the household. It's unlikely that any employer would be able to match that rate. Employers are constantly bitching about being the ones who have to provide coverage anyway.

Release of the Mueller report is imminent, AG Barr has in-hand, judiciary committees being briefed

Nabnut

Hail Mary

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Hail Mary

Well-Known Member

Hail Mary

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Hail Mary

Time to fly, 621

Hail Mary

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Hail Mary

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Storywriter

Time to fly, 621

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum