SalinasSpartan

I don’t think anybody really stood out as having a night that will lead to any meaningful movement in the polls.

Yes, they are playing things perfectly; they are backing candidates that don’t support M4A. Which is, you know, all of them except Bernie and Warren. And even Warren now has backed off it somewhat and has only committed to doing single payer first and then promising to start pushing for M4A in 2022.

So they are spending tons of money fighting against legislature that would make them more money? ok

If this would all be more profitable then the current system for insurance companies then M4A would already be in place. If you want to say there is a silver lining for insurance companies that they will still be able to make money, ok. But they don’t “win” with M4A, they win with Warren or Sanders losing to Trump. That means status quo for four more years which ensures the dems trotting out a corporate dem in 2024 that won’t run on M4A.

Unless the insurance companies are going to make more money writing rules and regulations and processing claims/Prior auths then they do right now I fail to see how they are “winners” under M4A.

Why would the insurance companies win under M4A? They don’t manage Parts A and B, and I haven’t heard of anything in Sanders’ plan mentioning Parts C or D, other then that M4A will cover prescriptions. To me this sounds like Part D will be somehow folded in to the rest of Medicare, so PBMs would just no longer exist. It’s not clear what would happen to part C because there hasn’t really been much talk about it, so I suppose insurance companies would still be involved if Part C is still a thing. But the vast majority of people under 50 that don’t go to the doctor a lot would just take the standard Medicare plan anyway, so I’d hardly call the insurance companies a “winner” here. Or are you just assuming M4A would be altered so that insurance companies still have a large role? If Warren were to win, I think that’s a safe assumption, but with Sanders? Who the hell knows.

First episode was pretty good, although it hasn’t really hooked me yet. I’ll watch episode 2 after I finish the last season of Man in the High Castle.

No thoughts?

People die from lack of health insurance.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28078579/sources-mlb-contacts-astros-red-sox-sign-stealing-investigation-expands MLB investigating the Astros AND RED SOX for stealing signs. @crixus @jdgaucho I honestly don’t know if I’ve ever been this mad as a sports fan.... We got effing robbed.

Yea as a Dodger fan I was happy they didn’t go with him.

Aren’t those “look what happens in other countries with socialized medicine” arguments dismissed by people against M4A because “well that wouldn’t happen in the U.S. because of reasons! And stuff!”? Or is this kind of argument acceptable only when arguing against single payer?

The Friedman-Zaidi Dodgers front office was high on Kapler, so this isn’t too surprising with Zaidi running the show in SF.

There’s a book about the approach you’re describing called “The Price We Pay” by Marty Makary. I’m about half way through it, but essentially his argument seems to be that there are things we could pass much more easily then M4A that would significantly cut down the costs of our healthcare system. Pricing transparency for doctors and hospitals, for example, is one of the things he is advocating for. Good book so far.

Well if we are going to be honest in this thought exercise, if M4A is passed in the near future it likely means a Bernie Sanders presidency. That means students would be graduating from med school at public universities would have far less debt, maybe none.