Jimmy Kimmel's monologue

[TheConfessor]

I would not want them giving me medical care at that service level.

You're confusing medical insurance with medical care (and you know the difference since you've mentioned it more than once).

Mixing maybe, but not confusing. If we go to a single payer (insurance) system, essentially it is government health care (not insurance). The providers may not on paper be government employees, but if their pay rates are set by the government, their approved procedures are directed by the government, and the checks come from the government, they are government (contract) healthcare providers. Not everyone who delivers your mail is a USPS employee. We get a contractor delivering to us regularly.

UPS had a fatal contractor failure this morning.
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/ne ... 311439001/

[Bob Juch]

You're confusing medical insurance with medical care (and you know the difference since you've mentioned it more than once).

Mixing maybe, but not confusing. If we go to a single payer (insurance) system, essentially it is government health care (not insurance). The providers may not on paper be government employees, but if their pay rates are set by the government, their approved procedures are directed by the government, and the checks come from the government, they are government (contract) healthcare providers. Not everyone who delivers your mail is a USPS employee. We get a contractor delivering to us regularly.

That's a reasonable concern, but I think it's addressed by making Medicare available for all but not mandatory for anyone who wants private insurance instead. At a minimum it should be available on any exchange where 0 (or 1) private insurers choose to participate. --Bob

I challenge you to find a health insurer that will give anyone 65 or older insurance without them having at least Medicare Part A or a non-group policy for anyone without both Parts A & B.

[flockofseagulls104]

For extra credit, please explain how we know that the profits they earn are justified by the value they add to the system. --Bob

Comrade Bobbie, who are the "we" you refer to in your extra credit question? I ask this because I'm sure, in your mind, there is no justification for profits made from any part of the value chain related to an entitlement. Therefore, the question can not be answered to your satisfaction because your worldview is unreasonable and illogical.

Voters.

Please explain from an economic perspective how private insurance carriers add value to the system. --Bob

Bobby-Vader is at it again, playing his games. I provided him with an answer to his question, even though he has self-righteously evaded answering mine. Boobyrino only hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

Let's see if we can make it easy for him.

Private insurance is a contract entered into by two parties freely and without coercion. If the contract is not beneficial to either party, either party can choose not to enter into the contract. If there is a dispute over any terms in the contract, there is recourse for both sides. The choices for such a contract should be, but sadly, is not, market driven. If it were market driven, with a few wise regulations, the consumer would have many choices, and the providers would have to compete to provide the most attractive and inexpensive products for the consumer to choose from. This is not the case now.

If we are to turn this function over to the Federal Government and make it mandatory, it is NOT free and without coercion. If there is a dispute over the terms of the forced contract, there is no recourse for the party that is forced into the contract. The terms for the contract are dictated solely by the Federal Government, and if the forced consumer doesn't like it, there is nowhere else for them to go, legally. In addition, the providers of healthcare become virtual slaves to the system, as the compensation for their labor and most of their practice is dictated by the Federal Government and can be changed at the whim of bureaucrats who have no connection to the end result.

So what value does Private insurance add? It may not be the best way of providing access to healthcare, but it is FAR more desirable than having a single payer, Federal Government solution. Let's just say it is like capitalism, It's the worst system we have for providing access to healthcare, except for all the others.

[silverscreenselect]

So what value does Private insurance add? It may not be the best way of providing access to healthcare, but it is FAR more desirable than having a single payer, Federal Government solution. Let's just say it is like capitalism, It's the worst system we have for providing access to healthcare, except for all the others.

If that's the case, then why does virtually the entire rest of the Western world, despite not having the most technologically advanced medical knowledge, have better healthcare systems than the United States does? So much so that your beloved President chose to admit that Australia has a better system than we do.

Public access seems to work fairly well in this country when it comes to roads, courts, or police and fire departments.

"Access" to healthcare without the means to afford such healthcare is meaningless.

[silverscreenselect]

If there is a dispute over the terms of the forced contract, there is no recourse for the party that is forced into the contract. The terms for the contract are dictated solely by the Federal Government, and if the forced consumer doesn't like it, there is nowhere else for them to go, legally.

When was the last time you tried to "negotiate" the terms of an insurance contract? You usually can select the size of the contract and the number of components you buy, but you have no control over any of the clauses. The only leverage you have is the government that decides in some cases what clauses must or cannot be in insurance contracts.

[flockofseagulls104]

So what value does Private insurance add? It may not be the best way of providing access to healthcare, but it is FAR more desirable than having a single payer, Federal Government solution. Let's just say it is like capitalism, It's the worst system we have for providing access to healthcare, except for all the others.

If that's the case, then why does virtually the entire rest of the Western world, despite not having the most technologically advanced medical knowledge, have better healthcare systems than the United States does? So much so that your beloved President chose to admit that Australia has a better system than we do.

Public access seems to work fairly well in this country when it comes to roads, courts, or police and fire departments.

"Access" to healthcare without the means to afford such healthcare is meaningless.

SSS, the federal government is an extremely bad manager of other people's money. I don't think even you can dispute that. For example, you seem to consider roads a success for the federal government. Why, then, did we need a trillion dollar 'stimulus' just a few short years ago to fix our 'decaying infrastructure', only to have Trump and the democrats calling for another trillion dollars to fix our decaying infrastructure? Didn't Obama already fix it? What am I missing here?

SSS, I want you to read this multiple times. Maybe it will get through your head through repetition.

I am not, nor have I ever been, a fan of Donald Trump. I said multiple times during the campaign that Trump was my last choice among the republican candidates, and I would have voted for Sanders if it was between those two. The only candidate I put under Trump was Hillary. Go back and look. I did NOT vote for Trump for president. Neither did I vote for Clinton.

That being said, I am sure you will ignore it just like you have everything I have ever said that doesn't fit your narrative. You are a microcosm of the mainstream media. They have their narrative, their view of the world, and so do you. Anything that does not fit into that narrative is ignored or mocked.

I have said repeatedly to you that I rarely listen or watch Hannity, and that I rarely listen to Limbaugh. Yet, in your worldview, I get all my thoughts and opinions from them. You frequently mention them in your posts in reference to me, which are ALWAYS written to try and refute any points I make or ridicule me.

The mainstream media does exactly the same thing, and I see examples every day, because I watch the CBS or NBC evening news, as well as the network local news almost every night. Let me give you one egregious example from just a few weeks ago from the NBC Evening News with Lester Holt.

One Friday night, several months ago, I watched Tucker Carlson tonite, (who I do try to watch). He had a segment about the trouble that Sweden is having with the refugees it is bringing in. I am not verifying the report's accuracy, just that I watched it. The next day, Trump gave a speech, and he was going through a list relating to terrorism, and he said something like "and look at what happened in Sweden last night'. I didn't pay much attention to that statement, because I knew he was referring the the Sweden segment I watched the previous night. But the MSM went wild about it. Trump verified later that he was not referring to a terrorist attack, but to the segment on the Carlson show. But the MSM would not let it go.

Several WEEKS later, I watched a segment on Lester Holt's show, where the subject was criticizing Trump for some thing or another. The reporter then referred to that Sweden comment and said Trump was referring to a terrorist attack that didn't happen. Several weeks after he said it. You would think a reporter that gets to be on a National news show would maybe do a little research and decide that maybe some other example of Trump's ineptitude would be better to use than this one, since many people, like me, watched both the segment and his speech and connected the two. But, no, he went ahead and spread that 'fake news' because it fit his narrative and the networks narrative. BLATANT.

You are like that, SSS. I don't watch Hannity, I don't listen to Rush. at least not regularly. I can't remember the last time I even heard a sentence that Glenn Beck has spoken. I do watch Fox News, mainly for Tucker Carlson, and I do listen to the Mark Levin Show as often as I can, which is maybe once a week. I do watch the CBS news with Scott Pelley or the NBC News with Lester Holt almost every night I am home at that time, because the wife likes them. I read newspapers occasionally as well. But what I do is take EVERYTHING I hear from every news source (even Fox news) with a big grain of salt, because I know and I've seen what they do with events I witness with my own eyes. And if a subject they talk about interests me enough, I try to do some research on it and get other points of view. But even that is difficult, because you can't believe everything you see on the web, either.

So know this, SSS. Don't include your stereotypes when posting to me. It shows how closed minded you are and how propagandized you are. Don't say things like 'your beloved President' unless you have a quote of me saying I love the President. It just makes you look very bigotted.

[Bob78164]

Comrade Bobbie, who are the "we" you refer to in your extra credit question? I ask this because I'm sure, in your mind, there is no justification for profits made from any part of the value chain related to an entitlement. Therefore, the question can not be answered to your satisfaction because your worldview is unreasonable and illogical.

Voters.

Please explain from an economic perspective how private insurance carriers add value to the system. --Bob

Private insurance is a contract entered into by two parties freely and without coercion. If the contract is not beneficial to either party, either party can choose not to enter into the contract. If there is a dispute over any terms in the contract, there is recourse for both sides. The choices for such a contract should be, but sadly, is not, market driven. If it were market driven, with a few wise regulations, the consumer would have many choices, and the providers would have to compete to provide the most attractive and inexpensive products for the consumer to choose from. This is not the case now.

For most people, recourse is a joke. Do you have any idea how much it costs to sue an insurance company for "recourse"? And I say this as someone who makes part of his living suing insurance companies for their bad acts.

My insurance company owes me $3000 right now, and has for months. Fortunately (for me), I'm a lawyer and I can credibly threaten to sue them, and even follow through on my threat if I need to. I also know that (because it's an insurance-based plan) it's governed by ERISA so I need to sue in federal court, not state court, and I know the allegations necessary to state a claim.

But God help anyone else in my position who isn't a lawyer.

There's also a gross imbalance in access to information. Carriers are repeat players in these markets. Most policy-holders aren't, and don't want to be.

And none of this answers the question -- from an economic (not ideological) perspective, where do carriers add value? Do they make access to health care cheaper for the customer than does Medicare? No. Do they enable medical innovation? No. What economic value do they add to the system that justifies the obvious economic inefficiencies, the rampant opportunity for abuse (frequently used by carriers), and the exorbitant salaries paid to insurance executives? None. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Voters.

Please explain from an economic perspective how private insurance carriers add value to the system. --Bob

Private insurance is a contract entered into by two parties freely and without coercion. If the contract is not beneficial to either party, either party can choose not to enter into the contract. If there is a dispute over any terms in the contract, there is recourse for both sides. The choices for such a contract should be, but sadly, is not, market driven. If it were market driven, with a few wise regulations, the consumer would have many choices, and the providers would have to compete to provide the most attractive and inexpensive products for the consumer to choose from. This is not the case now.

For most people, recourse is a joke. Do you have any idea how much it costs to sue an insurance company for "recourse"? And I say this as someone who makes part of his living suing insurance companies for their bad acts.

My insurance company owes me $3000 right now, and has for months. Fortunately (for me), I'm a lawyer and I can credibly threaten to sue them, and even follow through on my threat if I need to. I also know that (because it's an insurance-based plan) it's governed by ERISA so I need to sue in federal court, not state court, and I know the allegations necessary to state a claim.

But God help anyone else in my position who isn't a lawyer.

There's also a gross imbalance in access to information. Carriers are repeat players in these markets. Most policy-holders aren't, and don't want to be.

And none of this answers the question -- from an economic (not ideological) perspective, where do carriers add value? Do they make access to health care cheaper for the customer than does Medicare? No. Do they enable medical innovation? No. What economic value do they add to the system that justifies the obvious economic inefficiencies, the rampant opportunity for abuse (frequently used by carriers), and the exorbitant salaries paid to insurance executives? None. --Bob

Bob, it is obvious the only answer you will accept is the one that you have. If there was no value to private insurance, no one except for some stupid people would have ever bought a policy. Why is there any kind of insurance at all, Bob? I have answered your question multiple times. Now, if you wouldn't mind, answer mine. Go back and look it up.

[silverscreenselect]

You are a microcosm of the mainstream media. They have their narrative, their view of the world, and so do you. Anything that does not fit into that narrative is ignored or mocked.

***

The mainstream media does exactly the same thing, and I see examples every day, because I watch the CBS or NBC evening news, as well as the network local news almost every night.

***

I don't watch Hannity, I don't listen to Rush. at least not regularly. I can't remember the last time I even heard a sentence that Glenn Beck has spoken.

You're right Flock, I don't know what you listen to. I do know that on those rare occasions I wind up listening to people like Rush or Hannity (usually because I'm listening for traffic or weather reports on the station that carries them in Atlanta), you often wind up parroting what they say a day or two later. Now, you might have gotten that line of attack from them or filtered through one of the numerous other right wing sources that soon parrot what they say. But the end result is the same; you wind up parroting the meme of the day.

Yours and other right wingers' anger at the mainstream media is a dislike for what they report on, namely the facts. If anything, their failings work to the advantage of the right because of their constant efforts to provide "equivalency" in the name of fairness, something that winds up equivocating misstatements and flaws of wildly differing levels of magnitude. But at least they make an effort to be fair and, all things considered, especially the enormously increasing time pressures on the media in an Internet/social media world, do a reasonably good job.

I don't doubt that you didn't vote for Trump. I didn't vote for Obama either time. Your criticism is the stimulus is one that I had; namely that too little of it went to actual infrastructure relief and too much to other nonsense in an effort to placate the handful of Republicans whose support they were trying to get. And I have no doubts that Trump's claims about infrastructure will wind up being just like his other claims about what he will do, hot air while the Republican law makers try to twist it to whatever they want.

Now that the election is over, you use your anti-Trump vote as a shield to try to deflect criticism while you wind up parroting the party line (as with your incessant "fake news" mentions in large, colorful type) over and over.

[flockofseagulls104]

But the end result is the same; you wind up parroting the meme of the day.

And I suppose you, BJ and Boobyboy all think independently. (I don't believe the word 'think' would apply to BJ).

Yours and other right wingers' anger at the mainstream media is a dislike for what they report on, namely the facts.

I gave you a blatant example of media bias and their dissemination of fake news. Of course, you ignored it. I could give you many more. Of course, you would ignore them as well.

Now that the election is over, you use your anti-Trump vote as a shield to try to deflect criticism while you wind up parroting the party line (as with your incessant "fake news" mentions in large, colorful type) over and over.

There you go again. I have stated MANY times that I am not a member of the republican party. Deflect criticism? That's your purpose in life. If I said the sky is blue, you would argue with me and tell me I got that idea from some right wing source. Stick it up your butt, SSS.

[silverscreenselect]

If there was no value to private insurance, no one except for some stupid people would have ever bought a policy. Why is there any kind of insurance at all, Bob?

This isn't a question of private insurance vs. self-insurance, which is what happens when you don't have insurance of an alternative. It's a question of private health insurance vs. a government system, which has been adopted successfully in country after country in the Western world. In other words, in almost every country in which the infrastructure and the talent are in place to deliver adequate health care to the populace, a government system has done so.

Except in the United States.

The one good thing about Trumpcare is that if it becomes law, Doctors without Borders won't have to travel nearly as far to accomplish their mission-- West Virginia instead of West Africa.

[silverscreenselect]

Yours and other right wingers' anger at the mainstream media is a dislike for what they report on, namely the facts.

***
I gave you a blatant example of media bias and their dissemination of fake news. Of course, you ignored it. I could give you many more. Of course, you would ignore them as well.

You love bringing up that Swedish incident. That incident started when Donald Trump mistakenly believed a Fox News report about older events was current (it's a good thing he wasn't watching Dr. Strangelove). That's a pretty serious problem for a President to have. Or, at best, it shows a remarkably casual method of speech by the President in regard to terrorism. That's another serious problem for a President to have. But you love hopping to the President's defense on that issue and hunting for examples of it as "media bias."

***

Now that the election is over, you use your anti-Trump vote as a shield to try to deflect criticism while you wind up parroting the party line (as with your incessant "fake news" mentions in large, colorful type) over and over.[/quote]

There you go again. I have stated MANY times that I am not a member of the republican party. Deflect criticism? That's your purpose in life. If I said the sky is blue, you would argue with me and tell me I got that idea from some right wing source. Stick it up your butt, SSS.[/quote]

Flock, you don't just say the sky is blue. You check with your sources first to be sure it's part of the message of the day before you say it. And being a member of the Republican Party is not a prerequisite for towing the party line.

[Estonut]

Now that the election is over, you use your anti-Trump vote as a shield to try to deflect criticism while you wind up parroting the party line (as with your incessant "fake news" mentions in large, colorful type) over and over.

Colorful type? I've only seen it in black, which is used in 99% of the posts on the bored, and most certainly EVERY one of yours.

[Estonut]

In other words, in almost every country in which the infrastructure and the talent are in place to deliver adequate health care to the populace, a government system has done so.

I always hear Canada mentioned as an example of such wonderful health care.

That is the only other country whose healthcare I have heard about.

1) Their wait times have killed 2 of my relatives (link at bottom).

2) Any rich or famous Canadian requiring any substantial treatment gets it done here, in the U.S.A.


Canadian Wait Times (2016)

[Estonut]

And being a member of the Republican Party is not a prerequisite for towing the party line.

A party line is toed, not towed.

[silverscreenselect]

In other words, in almost every country in which the infrastructure and the talent are in place to deliver adequate health care to the populace, a government system has done so.

I always hear Canada mentioned as an example of such wonderful health care.

That is the only other country whose healthcare I have heard about.

1) Their wait times have killed 2 of my relatives (link at bottom).

2) Any rich or famous Canadian requiring any substantial treatment gets it done here, in the U.S.A.


Canadian Wait Times (2016)

Waiting times are a problem in Canada, but Canadians as a whole seem happy with the level of health care they get.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/wait-time ... -1.3984920

As far as the rich and famous getting better care, that's a fact of life. They live in better houses, they dress better, they eat better, and they can afford to go to boutique doctors who cater to them. Here in the United States, rich people have their own security forces and an arbitration system for settling disputes. That doesn't mean we should abolish the police or the courts.

[flockofseagulls104]

Flock, you don't just say the sky is blue. You check with your sources first to be sure it's part of the message of the day before you say it. And being a member of the Republican Party is not a prerequisite for towing the party line.

Is that what I do? Really? Do you surveillance me? Where do you get the nerve to spout crap like this?
Oh, I forgot. You are a liberal. You know everything. Again, stick it up your butt, SSS.

[Bob78164]

In other words, in almost every country in which the infrastructure and the talent are in place to deliver adequate health care to the populace, a government system has done so.

I always hear Canada mentioned as an example of such wonderful health care.

That is the only other country whose healthcare I have heard about.

1) Their wait times have killed 2 of my relatives (link at bottom).

2) Any rich or famous Canadian requiring any substantial treatment gets it done here, in the U.S.A.


Canadian Wait Times (2016)

According to the article, Canada is nearly unique in that its equivalent of Medicare is mandatory (rather than merely available) for all with private insurance not allowed to compete with respect to medically necessary procedures. So that's a data point supporting the conclusion that precluding private insurance from competing with a public option doesn't work well. --Bob

[Bob78164]

Bob, it is obvious the only answer you will accept is the one that you have. If there was no value to private insurance, no one except for some stupid people would have ever bought a policy. Why is there any kind of insurance at all, Bob? I have answered your question multiple times. Now, if you wouldn't mind, answer mine. Go back and look it up.

Insurance exists to spread risk. What evidence do you have to support the contention that private medical insurance can spread risk more efficiently than a public option can? --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Bob, it is obvious the only answer you will accept is the one that you have. If there was no value to private insurance, no one except for some stupid people would have ever bought a policy. Why is there any kind of insurance at all, Bob? I have answered your question multiple times. Now, if you wouldn't mind, answer mine. Go back and look it up.

Insurance exists to spread risk. What evidence do you have to support the contention that private medical insurance can spread risk more efficiently than a public option can? --Bob

Think about all that I already told you. The answer is there if you care to hear it. Now stop evading and answer my question.

[silverscreenselect]

Flock, you don't just say the sky is blue. You check with your sources first to be sure it's part of the message of the day before you say it. And being a member of the Republican Party is not a prerequisite for towing the party line.

Is that what I do? Really? Do you surveillance me? Where do you get the nerve to spout crap like this?
Oh, I forgot. You are a liberal. You know everything. Again, stick it up your butt, SSS.

You're right; they all get their information from you and then backpost it to take credit for being first.

[silverscreenselect]

Bob, it is obvious the only answer you will accept is the one that you have. If there was no value to private insurance, no one except for some stupid people would have ever bought a policy. Why is there any kind of insurance at all, Bob? I have answered your question multiple times. Now, if you wouldn't mind, answer mine. Go back and look it up.

Insurance exists to spread risk. What evidence do you have to support the contention that private medical insurance can spread risk more efficiently than a public option can? --Bob

Think about all that I already told you. The answer is there if you care to hear it. Now stop evading and answer my question.

Translation of Flockspeak: My sources don't know the answer to that so I'll cover my ears and make a lot of noise (like #FAKE NEWS) and hope the problem (or Bob) goes away.

Bob is right. Any private system of health insurance runs into the problem of adverse selection. Those who think they need it are more likely to want it, leading to higher overall costs. Insurance companies combat this by underwriting, exclusions (like pre-existing conditions) and more targeted rating. The net effect of all of this is to make private insurance less available (and in many cases unavailable, since unaffordable insurance is for all practical purposes unavailable) to those who need it the most.

In a public system, we spread the cost over the entire populace who pays premiums through tax dollars. That's what we do with all our public services, and what virtually every other Westernized country does.

[silverscreenselect]

Insurance exists to spread risk. What evidence do you have to support the contention that private medical insurance can spread risk more efficiently than a public option can? --Bob

Think about all that I already told you. The answer is there if you care to hear it. Now stop evading and answer my question.

Translation of Flockspeak: My sources don't know the answer to that so I'll cover my ears and make a lot of noise (like #FAKE NEWS) and hope the problem (or Bob) goes away.

Bob is right. Any private system of health insurance runs into the problem of adverse selection. Those who think they need it are more likely to want it, leading to higher overall costs. Insurance companies combat this by underwriting, exclusions (like pre-existing conditions) and more targeted rating. The net effect of all of this is to make private insurance less available (and in many cases unavailable, since unaffordable insurance is for all practical purposes unavailable) to those who need it the most.

In a public system, we spread the cost over the entire populace who pays "premiums" through tax dollars. That's what we do with all our public services, and what virtually every other Westernized country does.

[BackInTex]

No one is saying they want government-provided healthcare as the VA does. (Well not many, anyway.)

What do you think single payer will bring us? No private company is going to provide the nation's healthcare with the government being the single customer, unless they can be profitable, and to be profitable healthcare costs will skyrocket, and we'll go broke faster.

[BackInTex]

If that's the case, then why does virtually the entire rest of the Western world, despite not having the most technologically advanced medical knowledge, have better healthcare systems than the United States does?

One, you pointed out something important. Medical advances will virtually stop under the your plan.
Two, "better" is relative, and situational. If you need some technologically advanced medical care you're out of luck elsewhere. But if you have a cold, O.K., Australia may be a good place.