2017 American Political Scene

[InfiniteDreams]

[astralis]

z,

0-5 since the inauguration.

that the GOP even needs to be concerned about the states in question, well...this is akin to Democrats celebrating a hard-fought win in Hawaii.

[astralis]

z,

Mutipayer, not single payer...

and the UK has a hybrid single-payer system. in fact the vast majority of single-payer systems also include the option of buying additional private insurance/healthcare.

Look at the difference in health outcomes for private vs medicaid...

look at the people -on- medicaid. the choice for them isn't "private vs medicaid", it's "medicaid vs nothing at all".

Life expectancy has very little to do with healthcare

lol wut. the whole -point- of healthcare is to increase life expectancy. :-)

access to healthcare would be able to mitigate at least some of the aspects of obesity, and -certainly- take care of the diabetes and high blood pressure issues that you mention.

[GVChamp]

GVChamp,



that's what i mean by if AHCA passes, then single payer will follow.

not just because of the insanely high unfavorables for the AHCA itself, but also because 1.) the current process shows the limits of the healthcare/insurance industry lobbying power, and 2.) it discredits the middle-ground approach of the ACA altogether.

if ACA goes crashing down, do you think any Dem will, in the future, stick their necks out to re-create the ACA?

on the other hand, say the AHCA effort fails and ACA remains "the law of the land", as Paul Ryan puts it. with a small Congressional majority, Dems would probably seek to fix the ACA up and maybe do some minor expansion at the edges-- but nothing like single-payer, because the focus would be other Dem interests like universal pre-K.

with a large but not overwhelming Congressional majority, the Dems would probably throw in a public option.

it would only be a truly impressive political turnaround and dominance that Dems would seek single-payer.

but if the AHCA passes-- with its anticipated effects-- then there would be nothing less than an enormous Dem outcry to throw caution to the winds the next time they win power, do what Mitch McConnell is doing right now, and pass through single-payer on a party-line vote. i -really- don't think the GOP fully understands the enormity of what the AHCA will do to them politically-- it's the one thing that will simultaneously turn off moderates -and- bring the entire Dem party (not just the base!) to a screaming froth, like the immigration EO on steroids.

An alternative question is asking whether any Dems will seriously vote to end employer-sponsored healthcare and Medicare, and roll everything up under one payer, after the last experience they had passing health-care reform. We'd probably pass an Amendment banning the Democratic Party if they tried that, and I don't see enough Dems being on board for that anyways. Public option, yeah, I could see that.

I also don't think there'll be another blow-out like 2006, that'll produce big majorities for the Dems to work with, even if AHCA passes. 2008 was a big outlier.

Now, after a decade out, the whole story changes, but over the next 10 years, I don't see single payer getting implemented.

[kato]

the German universal multipayer healthcare system as well as their very extensive pharmaceutical industry should be a pretty good demonstration that no, the drug industry and medical innovation will not suddenly tank.

Whether Germany has a multipayer healthcare system is actually a rather iffy thing. There's a rather stark diversification between what the public component pays for (research, education, infrastructure) and what the private component pays for (individual treatment, prevention). Within that diversification there's little overlap, the only thing i can actually think of is health prevention campaigns, in which health insurance companies work together with a federal agency.

Sole exception, where the German system is really multipayer, is a federal subsidy - directly to health insurance companies, not to individuals - that pays for free coverage of dependents and for some payouts and coverage during pregnancy; this subsidy is reasoned with based on constitutionally mandated support for families. In return there's no medicare/medicaid in Germany.

Technically German health insurance companies do work for-profit only. That used to be even more the case - as in those companies actually turning a pretty decent profit - up until a few years ago when the companies were still allowed to compete on pricing; since having their contributions fixed to a certain percentage of their employed members' salaries they have become a lot more dependent on the state of the economy. Which, since the economy's tanking, means that they're turning a couple billions profit right now - although there's some health insurance companies that like any business intentionally lower their profit margin to avoid e.g. taxes (my own health insurance took a €25 million loss in 2016 that way - on a operating budget of €24.6 billion, and with an average loss of €4 per member - having to pay their losses out of their €15 billion liquid asset reserves...).

[astralis]

GVChamp,

An alternative question is asking whether any Dems will seriously vote to end employer-sponsored healthcare and Medicare, and roll everything up under one payer, after the last experience they had passing health-care reform. We'd probably pass an Amendment banning the Democratic Party if they tried that, and I don't see enough Dems being on board for that anyways. Public option, yeah, I could see that.

I also don't think there'll be another blow-out like 2006, that'll produce big majorities for the Dems to work with, even if AHCA passes. 2008 was a big outlier.

OTOH, Republicans don't have, or need a big majority to pass the AHCA...and i highly doubt a single-payer system will be -less- popular than the AHCA, especially if it's promising healthcare to millions of people whom just lost it.

re: the outlier of 2008, i agree it's an outlier...for now. but if I were a Republican I'd be very nervous about how things are playing out. even without the AHCA's political effects-- economy is doing as well as it's ever been and the GOP is having trouble holding onto ruby red seats? just imagine what even a slight downturn in the economy will do.

currently, we're in the third-longest period of economic expansion in US history (96 months). the longest expansion on record is 120 months...so to match it, exactly 2 more years from now.

there's a LOT of factors floating around right now that may produce another outlier situation.

[tbm3fan]

so, leftists lost again, yawn. So much for the "referendum on Trump"

I don't see the big deal? What I see is a long time Republican district staying Republican yet the gap in votes between the two narrowing over the four decades. If I were Republican I would have liked a slam dunk rather than a squeaker.

[drhuy]

z,



that the GOP even needs to be concerned about the states in question, well...this is akin to Democrats celebrating a hard-fought win in Hawaii.

then why your people even bother calling it "referendum on Trump" and why hollywood wacko suddenly cared so much about it?

[drhuy]

I don't see the big deal? What I see is a long time Republican district staying Republican yet the gap in votes between the two narrowing over the four decades. If I were Republican I would have liked a slam dunk rather than a squeaker.

you should ask your leftist media. i also dont understand how they swayed it into "referendum on Trump".

[drhuy]

awww why so sad, its not big deal, or so they said

[astralis]

drhuy,

then why your people even bother calling it "referendum on Trump" and why hollywood wacko suddenly cared so much about it?

because it was clear from the data that Ossoff suddenly had a decent shot at taking the seat. no one expected this just a few months ago.

Kansas, GA, SC, Montana are NOT swing states-- these are deep-red states. and if Dems are suddenly competitive in these states despite the US economy doing quite well, then the GOP should be nervous about their status in the swing states.

[drhuy]

drhuy,



because it was clear from the data that Ossoff suddenly had a decent shot at taking the seat. no one expected this just a few months ago.

Kansas, GA, SC, Montana are NOT swing states-- these are deep-red states. and if Dems are suddenly competitive in these states despite the US economy doing quite well, then the GOP should be nervous about their status in the swing states.

LOL there's nothing "sudden" in politics, get real!

how did it become the costliest race if "no one expected this"?

besides, what happened a few months ago is irrelevant now, as shown very clearly in the faces of cnn's anchors.

[astralis]

drhuy,

LOL there's nothing "sudden" in politics, get real!

i think the President would disagree with this statement. :-)

how did it become the costliest race if "no one expected this"?

ramping up spending in a short period of time is not that hard...

besides, what happened a few months ago is irrelevant now

the trend-line IS relevant. if the GOP was winning the district by double digits earlier and it's down to single-digits now, what might the situation be like the next go-around? what might the situation be like in a swing seat?

of course this is not to say the Dems are winning, they obviously lost.

but gloating because the GOP pulled off a victory in a deep-red state should indicate to you that all is not well for the GOP. this should have been a foregone conclusion from the start.

[drhuy]

drhuy,



i think the President would disagree with this statement. :-)

and you know that because...?

ramping up spending in a short period of time is not that hard...

its not about how, its about why, unless you think dems are too stupid to pour money into a campaign that they didnt expect to win.

the trend-line IS relevant. if the GOP was winning the district by double digits earlier and it's down to single-digits now, what might the situation be like the next go-around? what might the situation be like in a swing seat?

if the trend-line is that relevant, hillary would have won thanks to the "purple" states. Really, how many times have dems talk about flipping red states, instead they kept losing over the last 8 years or more.

of course this is not to say the Dems are winning, they obviously lost.

but gloating because the GOP pulled off a victory in a deep-red state should indicate to you that all is not well for the GOP. this should have been a foregone conclusion from the start.

"foregone conclusion" bwahhahah then why dems called it "referendum on trump" if they were sure they would lose?

the gloating does not come from the fact that GOP won, its from the fact the dems were too sure that they would win.

[DOR]

The cost of moving a new drug from concept to actual prescription is huge. Companies spending that kind of money need a return on their investment. Only major corporations and governments have the money. Given that companies gave us $900 epipens prices for a drug that cost .05 cents per dose... There are a few charities, but not near a big enough of a factor. Government, despite so often helping big pharma is the source of seed money to get actual life saving drugs developed.

Ah.
The penny drops.
You actually didn't know that, say, Switzerland, has world class pharma companies, and a tiny state-sponsored R&D budget.

Ignorance, however, is no excuse.

The only way your argument could stand up to the real world fact of Swiss pharma is if every pharma company on earth survived solely because of American healthcare financing structures.