Democratic Nominee in 2020

Quote: AZDuffman

Know what would cost less than that? If people put in effort to learn skills that let them earn more money instead of waiting for the government to do something for them.

Again, the origial purpose of the minimum wage was for a person to be able to support themselves on full time employment.

I have previously linked to the text of the fair labor standards act showing that this is true.

If that isn't possible then the original purpose of the act is not being achieved.

Quote: Dalex64

Again, the origial purpose of the minimum wage was for a person to be able to support themselves on full time employment.

I have previously linked to the text of the fair labor standards act showing that this is true.

If that isn't possible then the original purpose of the act is not being achieved.

After 80 or whatever years, things change. Minimum wage will let you keep from starving. But see, back when it was put it "support yourself" meant living in a rooming house, not alone in an apartment. Also lots of other lower standards than today. So you can support yourself, but that means just keeping off the streets. If you want more then it is up to you.

Quote: AZDuffman

After 80 or whatever years, things change. Minimum wage will let you keep from starving. But see, back when it was put it "support yourself" meant living in a rooming house, not alone in an apartment. Also lots of other lower standards than today. So you can support yourself, but that means just keeping off the streets. If you want more then it is up to you.

So "living wage" means you don't die for lack of dough. That makes good sense.

Quote: Dalex64

Uhm, yeah. It's called taxation and income redistribution, exactly what happens today, but instead of funding some "program" which is spending the money, it is an individual is spending the money.

I don't know what kind of gotcha game you are trying to play. I freely agree that any flat percentage tax or progressive tax is income redistribution from the wealthy to the poor. The only question is who is spending the money.

This is a quote from your original post "take money away from people who are not going to spend it". Taxation takes a portion of your income whether you are going to save it or spend it.

Can't argue with this post about taxation but you have re-defined your OP.

Quote: Dalex64

You aren't familiar with the concept of people saving money?

Unless you keep the money in cash it will stimulate the economy. Put it in a bank and they will lend it to someone that will spend it.

Quote: kenarman

This is a quote from your original post "take money away from people who are not going to spend it". Taxation takes a portion of your income whether you are going to save it or spend it.

Can't argue with this post about taxation but you have re-defined your OP.

That is arguing semantics.

Quote: DRich

Unless you keep the money in cash it will stimulate the economy. Put it in a bank and they will lend it to someone that will spend it.

A moderately aggressive investment portfolio recommends 5 to 10% cash.

This is an article I was reading for a completely unrelated reason.

However, what I ended up finding most interesting is a segment where when discussing the VA merger, the author mentions the upside of a Nationalized Health Service and how a single customer (the Government) could have the power to dictate prices of goods and services (of course this was not the primary focus of the article, but a speculation on how the policy is being driven across the government).

I believe that it points to an overriding view that Nationalized Healthcare is in the future, even if not for several decades. When people say that it will be too expensive, they do not factor in the ability of the government to encourage price compliance by limiting what can be charged for goods (medications including those under patent protection, medical devices), and services.

I believe that Joe Biden will start America on the right path by providing a public option, which is a realistic short term goal.



https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2019/Jackson-Military-Health/


"The DOD has a monopsony in the purchase of certain goods and services. In the healthcare space, the MHS, which is an insurance plan and a direct care system, does not. But an MHS moving beyond the DOD as an MHS/VA, and in combination with strategic partners and alliances, could conceivably achieve what Pauly describes as a “partial monopsony.”32 In this scenario, a single buyer could exert enough influence over the market to drive standards and pricing. A recent Kaiser Health News article asked, “What if huge health insurance companies could push down prices charged by hospitals and doctors in the same way [as Wal-Mart]?” It then noted, “Accepting Wal-Mart logic for healthcare might bolster arguments for an even bigger, more powerful buyer of medical services: the government. A single-payer, government health system … would be the ultimate monopsony: one buyer, negotiating or dictating prices for everybody.”33

This monopsony could also drive industry standards. The president of government services at Cerner (the EHR vendor for the DOD and VA), testifying before Congress, indicated as much when he noted, “The power of the DOD and VA to make that choice [choose a common standard] to move forward will influence the commercial marketplaces.”34 A combined MHS/VA, in combination with strategic partners and alliances like HHS, could, potentially, act as a partial monopsony in dictating input prices. This hybridized system would represent more than 56,000 beds out of a total U.S. capacity of over 931,000 beds (all types) and a combined beneficiary population of over 19 million people.35 From a partial monopsony position, a combined MHS/VA/HHS health system could drive toward a national healthcare system.

Of course, the construction of a national health system is a multiyear policy objective. Within the context of that policy objective, we can see NDAA-17 as a recognizable waypoint. This fits in with the road map laid out in the AMEDD Futures 2039 report. We have seen the establishment of the DHA, the consolidation of shared services and the National Capital Region, and now the consolidation of the MHS under a single authority. The next waypoint would be the consolidation of the MHS, VA, HHS, and other strategic partners and alliances. These final steps would place the MHS on a path toward “a Consolidated Federal Healthcare System, a system that would function as a National Healthcare System.”36 "

Quote: Gandler

When people say that it will be too expensive, they do not factor in the ability of the government to encourage price compliance by limiting what can be charged for goods (medications including those under patent protection, medical devices), and services.

And what socialized medicine fans do not take into account is if you tell someone they cannot charge enough to make a profit then you get to buy NOTHING.

You get to wait months for an MRI while your dog can get one the next day. Ask a Canadian!

Quote: AZDuffman

And what socialized medicine fans do not take into account is if you tell someone they cannot charge enough to make a profit then you get to buy NOTHING.

You get to wait months for an MRI while your dog can get one the next day. Ask a Canadian!

There is a formulated profit.

The Army already does this when contracting civilian clinics, there is a prescribed profit level that is based on the amount of fair profit after factoring in the cost of the service (the cost of goods, staff salaries, etc...) (I forget the codes and formula off of the top of my head).

Single Payer would be essentially the same thing, but there would only be 1 customer in the country, so it would allow total price control with prices and profits set by a fair formula based on the procedure or care rendered.

As for getting an MRI, it can already take months, the average wait time is several weeks, in some areas it is much longer....

The wait times in the Private Sector are already long.
In fact in America the VA has a significantly shorter wait time for most procedures than the private sector. (I am bringing this up, because I know the next line of attack will be how long wait times are in government hospitals).

" In 2017, the average VA wait time was 17.7 days, while the private-sector average was 29.8 days. That translates to a shorter average wait time of 12 days in VA, compared with the private sector.
Primary care, dermatology and cardiology wait times were all shorter than in the private sector in 2017. While orthopedic wait times were longer for VA in both 2014 and 2017, they did decrease during the study period. According to the study, the number of patients seen yearly in VA increased slightly between 2014 and 2017, to around 5.1 million. VA patient satisfaction has also risen, according to patient surveys cited in the study. "
https://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/55759/va-wait-times-equal-better-private-sector/

The reality is, government healthcare is more efficient, cheaper (price controls, and the ability to set what drug companies can charge, and it would be even more so with a total monopsony), and generally better care. You can argue that it would inhibit innovation in pharmaceuticals, but this could be overcome with government research (which already happens).